dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to JonyBelGeul

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by JonyBelGeul:

said by The Mongoose:

No, it doesn't. This is not a criminal matter. If a judge thinks it's 51% likely that the defendant committed the act alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff wins. Civil litigation is not "Law And Order SVU".

For the judge to "think" this, there must be sufficient evidence, and we're back to burden of proof, which lies with the plaintiff.

Plaintiff - I accuse this man of downloading my movie without my authorization.
Judge - Do you have evidence to support your allegations?
P. - I have an IP associated with the act, and I have a name associated with the IP, therefore I submit that the name associated with the IP committed the infraction.
J. - Do you have direct evidence that the name did the deed?
P. No.
J. The defendant says he did not do it.
P. I still believe he did.
J. Belief is not sufficient evidence. Charges dropped. Case dismissed.

But according to what you say, this is what happens instead:

J. Well, in spite of the defendant claiming his innocence, in spite of lack of direct evidence, if you believe he's guilty, then he's guilty.

But what you are being told and ignoring is that we aren't dealing with "burden of proof", but rather with "preponderance of evidence". In other words, it's not about "Did you do it, or didn't you do it?", it's about, IS IT PROBABLE that you did it.

Say a plaintiff asks for $10,000 for you distributing movies ...

The plaintiff questions you ...

Do you like Movies? Yes
Do you like this particular genre of Movie? Yes
Do you watch them on your computer? Yes
Do you download files by BitTorrent? Yes
Is it true that BitTorrent generally requires you make files available for download by others (ie distribute them) if you are to download some for yourself? Generally, yes.
Did you download this movie? No
Do you make movies available? Yes
Did you make this movie available? No

Judge says the preponderance of evidence is that you probably did, but I'm not totally sure, so I find that you probably did make it available therefore I find for the Plaintiff, but only award $2000

If you answer yes, then your goose is cooked anyway. Judgement for the plaintiff and award $10,000 plus costs.

If you are truthful to skilful questions, you're going to be found against.
They don't have to prove guilt. They have to demonstrate PROBABLE guilt. ANd that is MUCH harder to defend against.

Bhruic

join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

said by sbrook:

Do you like Movies? Yes
Do you like this particular genre of Movie? Yes
Do you watch them on your computer? Yes
Do you download files by BitTorrent? Yes
Is it true that BitTorrent generally requires you make files available for download by others (ie distribute them) if you are to download some for yourself? Generally, yes.
Did you download this movie? No
Do you make movies available? Yes
Did you make this movie available? No

Sure, if you're stupid enough to answer the questions in that fashion.

How about:

Do you like Movies? Yes
Do you like this particular genre of Movie? Yes
Do you watch them on your computer? Yes
Do you download files by BitTorrent? Legally available files, yes
Is it true that BitTorrent generally requires you make files available for download by others (ie distribute them) if you are to download some for yourself? I don't have technical knowledge on how bittorrent works
Did you download this movie? No
Do you make movies available? No
Did you make this movie available? No

Going in brain dead isn't going to help your case any.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

1 edit

Even if these studios did pass tests with respect to evidence of intent on non-commercial downloads, there is still very much the economic impact test to pass before any judgement would be awarded.

The conservatives put a condition on the stat damages, meaning in order to qualify for the $100 - $5000 in damages they basically have to prove a loss from that download. That has never been done successfully before in court, here or worldwide. There's a reason for that.

There's an economic term called "creative destruction":

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

What this term basically means if that while one part of the industry has suffered as a result of technological change (meaning P2P downloading) other parts of the industry are benefiting from it (including studio's like Voltage). There's evidence of this in industry's own economic numbers they release, along with evidence of this in independent economic studies as well. It's now for the most part an economic fact this is happening. The government knew this when drawing up the new legislation, and one of the reasons why they have put forth a legal test to prove actual losses have occurred before the stat damages can even be considered. They have to prove losses before stat damages are awarded. That again was supposed to be a "deterrent" for lawsuits.

I come from the media industry, and this whole assault on downloading is hugely hypocritical. In the past I've seen labels and production studios bitch about the downloading, and yet at the same time intentionally leak release product online to try and hype up that product up. While I can't definitive prove that, from someone with inside knowledge in the industry I know it happens quite often.

Another augment is the use of value chains. There are several "proven" value chains that industry is not using right now around file sharing (especially with anything video). I brought a specific value chain up to a TV producer friend of mine during the copyright debates, the only objection I got was it was unfeasible because they can't track downloads off of P2P. I countered by stating then why are downloads being tracked to bring people to court? He responded with "that's different."

After the new year I will be writing up a research paper on the economic impact of file sharing. I think people need to come to grips with the fact (including ISPs) that the future of copyright law, will most likely not include uses for non-commercial infringement.

In my perception after doing some very hard soul searching as part of the media industry, the personal use of P2P is taking advantage of a new unexploited medium. As with many independent economic researchers would agree that this should be legalized and fostered, and look forward to the day that the economics of P2P downloading is tested in court.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

The plaintiff questions you ...

Do you like Movies? Yes
Do you like this particular genre of Movie? Yes
Do you watch them on your computer? Yes
Do you download files by BitTorrent? Yes
Is it true that BitTorrent generally requires you make files available for download by others (ie distribute them) if you are to download some for yourself? Generally, yes.
Did you download this movie? No
Do you make movies available? Yes
Did you make this movie available? No

Judge says the preponderance of evidence is that you probably did, but I'm not totally sure, so I find that you probably did make it available therefore I find for the Plaintiff, but only award $2000

If you answer yes, then your goose is cooked anyway. Judgement for the plaintiff and award $10,000 plus costs.

If you are truthful to skilful questions, you're going to be found against.
They don't have to prove guilt. They have to demonstrate PROBABLE guilt. ANd that is MUCH harder to defend against.

The bold line does not come from the plaintiff, but from the defendant. According to burden of proof, the onus to prove whether the defendant made movies available falls to the plaintiff. As Bhruic said, only a stupid defendant would willingly admit to anything when faced with the absence of incriminating evidence. So your entire argument here is not based on whether burden of proof applies in this case, but whether a defendant is stupid enough to provide evidence to the plaintiff freely and without being compelled to do so.

I'd like to think that Canadians are pretty smart in this respect. What with our entire youth governed by a singular purpose - the desire to avoid parental punishment, yet still do whatever we want anyway. In other words, we learn early in life that trying to defend ourselves against our own stupidity is a futile endeavor. The stupidity I refer to of course, is the free admission of guilt, in spite of lack of evidence of same.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

2 edits
reply to jkoblovsky

I think proving "the loss" is open to a few interpretations.

We all see the much used analogy, that it's not "stealing", because it does not remove the original.

However, if by downloading I am avoiding the "price/charge" the rightsholder has set to watch the movie/play the song - then OK, it may not be called "theft" - what in your opinion is it called?

I wouldn't walk into a corner store, loiter at the newspapers, and after reading my newspaper of choice, return it to the stand and say "Here's your paper back, I'm not buying it". It has no value to me now I've availed myself of all it's content. The entire value of the item to me as a consumer has now reduced to zero.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

However, if by downloading I am avoiding the "price/charge" the rightsholder has set to watch the movie/play the song - then OK, it may not be called "theft" - what in your opinion is it called?


Short answer: That's where the economic argument of creative destruction comes into play around the use of "copyright" as a means for compensation from consumers. I'm talking specifically on non-commercial infringement.

For the short answer on the long answer you have to think out of the box. As with anything now on the internet, it's about exploiting views/users and wrapping that around a viable advertising market to properly compensate. The ad market for online media is there, but purposely being held back from its full potential by industry. That takes a bit more in depth research, which from me is forthcoming.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON

1 edit
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

I think proving "the loss" is open to a few interpretations.

We all see the much used analogy, that it's not "stealing", because it does not remove the original.

However, if by downloading I am avoiding the "price/charge" the rightsholder has set to watch the movie/play the song - then OK, it may not be called "theft" - what in your opinion is it called?

I wouldn't walk into a corner store, loiter at the newspapers, and after reading my newspaper of choice, return it to the stand and say "Here's your paper back, I'm not buying it". It has no value to me now I've availed myself of all it's content. The entire value of the item to me as a consumer has now reduced to zero.

"What is it called" - Infringment of copyright and you are correct it does not remove the original, not even temporarily.

"...after reading my newspaper of choice, return it to the stand..."
This is called theft, Sec. 322(1)(a) CCC - "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it,..."

Yes, this is would be an extreme finding of theft, almost impossible to prove and doubtful it would be prosecuted, yet if that was the last newspaper and other customers left the store because there was no visible paper to purchase, etc. then you have deprived the owner of that sale. At the very least the person would have "morally" committed the theft.

edit - Section of CCC from 322(a) to 322(1)(a)

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

Indeed.

If I don't leave the store, it's not theft.

Irrespective of "other customers", have I not robbed the creator of the paper of MY sale?

Creative destruction is a good phrase. However renaming the act doesn't particularly solve the problem - and I'll look forward to further thoughts when you post.

Cheers,
Dave

So - everyone got their popcorn ready for later?


Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON

Yes, you have robbed the creator, I thought it best to show "other customers".

However, by definition it is still theft, theft is complete as per Sec. 322 (2) CCC - A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.

Of course the key word here is "intent", extremely hard to prove, if not impossible, in this example.



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

However, if by downloading I am avoiding the "price/charge" the rightsholder has set to watch the movie/play the song - then OK, it may not be called "theft" - what in your opinion is it called?

It can be more complicated than that.

Example 1:
I pay for cable and I have a DVD recorder hooked up to the TV. I also have another converter box hooked up into the TV card on the computer. I can record any time. If I don't set something up to record and download it instead am I still stealing?

ie. I've paid for the content in one format, and take it in another.

Example 2:
Recently I've been watching Stargate SG-1 on my WDTV player. I do actually own all seasons on DVD, they sit within site of my television. They are however, ripped and on my WDTV player hard drive at the moment. This is also grey area as I had to use DVD Decrypter to get a copy off the discs. I prefer watching this way, especially late at night.

Example 3:
I use Netflix Canada, but would prefer to access Netflix US. Legally I can't do this. If I could legally do this I would drop my cable and wait a year to watch things. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people would (outside Canada as US shows can be years behind in other countries). The $8 of Netflix could probably double and people would still pay.

Honestly, this is where the law needs to change. Making access easier and open to all would result in more people paying for content. The problem is that our two main providers (cable and telco) also sell television. They don't want to make it easier for people to not use their services.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

Lurker:

Yes, there are a lot of really complicated/convoluted exceptions/opportunities that technology has brought.

I'm just trying to understand/establish the basic, core, first principals from the perspective of the "pirate". An attempt to see if there is a limited list of common, shared, ideals from which various branches of deviation then occur and become a multitude of specifics.

The ultimate expression of dissatisfaction with movie makers, might be to simply decide not to watch and pay for their product. I made that decision personally when I cancelled my cable, satellite. There really was nothing of interest to me to justify the cost.

When I watch the Leafs (the chance to would be a fine thing this year!), I go to a friends house with 4 others and a case of beer.

I'm pretty sure I'm setting myself up here, because isn't there issues around public performance? But anyhow, you see where I'm going. I'm not going to watch it on a dodgy internet feed, just because I can't choose to ONLY get a hockey channel from Bell/Whomever.


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

There's an economic term called "creative destruction":

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

What this term basically means if that while one part of the industry has suffered as a result of technological change (meaning P2P downloading) other parts of the industry are benefiting from it (including studio's like Voltage). There's evidence of this in industry's own economic numbers they release, along with evidence of this in independent economic studies as well. It's now for the most part an economic fact this is happening. The government knew this when drawing up the new legislation, and one of the reasons why they have put forth a legal test to prove actual losses have occurred before the stat damages can even be considered. They have to prove losses before stat damages are awarded. That again was supposed to be a "deterrent" for lawsuits.

That's an interesting point. We can't escape progress which has shifted distribution from the physical media to the virtual media. Rather, we don't want to escape this progress, as we can now acquire the same content for cheaper, if not outright for free. Using the Creative Destruction premise, the physical media lost its financial feasibility, as the virtual media gained it. Also using the same premise, this argument on its own is not enough to demonstrate loss. For this, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that his loss and somebody else's gain are directly linked by a third party's action. This third party is the person downloading the material instead of purchasing it in a street store.

But that's still not enough. The plaintiff must also demonstrate who gained from the third party's actions, and how much they gained from it, and demonstrate direct evidence that it is indeed the actions of the third party that caused both the loss for the plaintiff, and the gain for the competitor. Simply proving loss is absurd. Everybody and every enterprise loses at some point or other. This is normal.

Hypothetical scenario where a person downloaded content without authorization.

There's an IP associated with this action, it's visible by simply using the same software this person used. In this case, let's say it's BitTorrent. As far as we know, nobody who's currently downloading the content gains from it nor from the simultaneous uploading which must occur due to protocol requirements, except for the simple acquisition of the content itself, presumably for personal use. But where does the content come from originally? It could come from a person, who gains little from it either, if only to brag to his friends that he did it. It could also come from a for-profit enterprise. Private torrent servers are presumably such enterprises. Either way, the original copy came from somewhere. Take DVDRips for example, these are ripped from an actual physical DVD, most likely purchased with real money. So the plaintiff did receive money for this copy. Telesync also comes from one copy which was purchased, this time from the sale of the ticket.

But what matters here is if the plaintiff's loss is due to the third party's actions, and a competitor's gain. So, let's take a private torrent server, and assume that it makes a profit. Plaintiff must prove third party downloaded content through the private site, and must prove private torrent site gained from that, and how much gain was made. That's a whole lot of if's before any statutory damages can be claimed, let alone awarded, let alone paid.

Here's my problem with all this. Virtual distribution is cheap, real cheap. It costs very little for the distributor since most of the cost is incurred by the downloader, as he pays for his connection, moneys which then subsidize all connections for the ISP that provides it. And with BitTorrent, it's even cheaper since most of the cost of distribution is also transferred to the downloader, as he now must upload thereby alleviating connection costs for the distributor.

So why is Voltage not in the business of doing online business, instead of fighting online business? Let's not fool ourselves. Even a private torrent server, which presumably does most of its profits out of distributing content without authorization, is still a business.

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't Voltage and all the other content makers approach private torrent sites, and boldly offer them partnership? It makes sense to me. All the infrastructure is already there. The customer pool is already there. The money/content model is already there. The entire industry is already firmly established, and most likely will only grow bigger, if not eventually completely replace the old ways of doing the same business. Creative Destruction, you see. The bulk, if not all, of the work is already done, at no cost to Voltage to boot. OK, maybe some of the cost was incurred by Voltage as they did finance the movies that are distributed through those sites. But other than that, Voltage paid nothing for a fully functional content distribution industry. To me, the solution is real simple.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to UK_Dave

Dave:

A very good lecture on a possible value chain for shared video was done in 2007 to TV execs and is posted on Youtube:

With emphasis:

Part 1:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q


Part 2:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w


Part 3:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4


Same can and should be done for Movies. I do have extensive research on this, just withholding right now until I can compile all of it into a paper.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

Sure thing, JK.

I think I'm coming across as pedantic now -and I'm trying not to be.

But those are about "Here's a new business model you might want to use, and why you might want to."

The rights owner might say "I don't want a new business model, thank you. I'll use it if it makes me more money, but right now I don't see that."

Could we possibly say that pirating is an attempt to "force" change via *market dynamics? We force them to adopt by making any other business model unprofitable?

Thanks for indulging me.

Dave

EDIT. *Removed the word "illegal".



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

1 edit
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

Yes, there are a lot of really complicated/convoluted exceptions/opportunities that technology has brought.

Agreed. Actually in the examples I used I could still be considered to be breaking the law. Example 2 is more complicated as making a back-up copy is legal, but the software used to do so is likely not.

Example 3 (if bypassing the country of origin) is definitely not legal. Sadly, in all examples I've paid for the content, something they seem to think we're unwilling to do. What we want is a better delivery method. It's unlikely that Bell and the cable providers will ever let someone do this.

said by UK_Dave:

I'm pretty sure I'm setting myself up here, because isn't there issues around public performance? But anyhow, you see where I'm going. I'm not going to watch it on a dodgy internet feed, just because I can't choose to ONLY get a hockey channel from Bell/Whomever.

Agreed. Probably more of an issue with a Pay-per-view where a group of friends may choose to split the cost and watch at one home. They're definitely depriving someone of income.

ETA: Oh, and Stargate SG-1 is available on Netflix Canada, which means if I watch my owned/ripped copy I may be on shaky legal ground, but if I watch it on the service I paid for I'm not. Morally I believe I'm in the clear - hell, I've paid for it in two different ways. However, it's just extremely complicated.

(I don't fileshare/upload, but with all that I've mentioned above - what if I didn't want to be bothered ripping the episodes, but wanted to download them? Still okay, not okay?)

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to Grappler

said by Grappler:

"What is it called" - Infringment of copyright and you are correct it does not remove the original, not even temporarily.

"...after reading my newspaper of choice, return it to the stand..."
This is called theft, Sec. 322(1)(a) CCC - "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it,..."

Yes, this is would be an extreme finding of theft, almost impossible to prove and doubtful it would be prosecuted, yet if that was the last newspaper and other customers left the store because there was no visible paper to purchase, etc. then you have deprived the owner of that sale. At the very least the person would have "morally" committed the theft.

edit - Section of CCC from 322(a) to 322(1)(a)

I was arguing something like that with a friend just the other day.

Walking in a store, picking up something, then walking around in that store, then putting it back on the shelf, is not theft, even if that's the only item left in that store, even if doing that prevents another potential customer from buying it.

This is due to the try-before-you-buy principle. This is a fundamental aspect of doing business. You let potential customers try it, if they like, they'll be more likely to buy it. However, if this particular customer does the above all the time and never buys anything, then he's proven that he is not in fact a potential customer. But there's tons of potential customers who also do this in this particular store, but then buy something else in another store. So how do you deal with this without throwing out all potential customers who just try without buying now? You can't just accuse everybody of stealing, if that's how you see it. You can't just throw out everybody who doesn't buy even after they tried it. So you deal with it as best and as simply as you can, throw out only those who have proven they'll never buy anything no matter how many times they try it. After all, the purpose of a business is to do business, not to tend to loiterers.

I used to visit all kinds of computer stores and motorcycle dealers, just to look at the new stuff, or even to look at stuff I was interested in, but did not want to or could not buy it at the time of my visit. Nobody threw me out. That's the way business is done. Come to think of it, that's the way it's done online too. Potential customers are allowed to try before they buy. From a simple screenshot preview to a full-out whole game complete with everything. And you can return to visit again as many times as you want, nobody will ban you from visiting or sampling the product. Heck, some even give the whole complete product away for free, but then add premium content which you can get by paying money. World Of Tanks is one such example, and there's tons of those things.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

Some good stuff coming out.

But so far, I see lots of free consultancy for rights holders about why and how and what a new business model should, or could, look like.

.Advertising.
.Try before buy.
.Better distribution.

Putting that aside for a little later - if the rights holder rejects that model for whatever reasons they may choose to do so (and I'm guessing its financial, else they'd be doing it) - what is the "moral" pirates response?

We'll force you?

Or am I giving too much credit? If movies were available for $3, with some advertising thrown in - do you think some people would still crack it and post a commercial-free, cost-free, download somewhere online?


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

1 recommendation

"Pirate" is also a misnomer. Allow me to illustrate.

Pirates are criminals who, first shoot you with a big cannon to disable your ship, then board your ship with sabers and pistols, then shoot and cut you with those weapons, rape your women, abduct your children to be raised as slaves, kill you in the end, but before they go back to their ship, rummage through your cargo, steal your CDs and DVDs, make copies, which they then sell for profits.

But seriously.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.



A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

Or am I giving too much credit? If movies were available for $3, with some advertising thrown in - do you think some people would still crack it and post a commercial-free, cost-free, download somewhere online?

Some would, just because they could.

fasteddy is right though, we've dragged this way off topic. Just pointing out that those using torrents may not feel it is as black and white. I know (and appreciate) the difference between upload and download, but not all do.

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

So how do you deal with this without throwing out all potential customers who just try without buying now? You can't just accuse everybody of stealing, if that's how you see it. You can't just throw out everybody who doesn't buy even after they tried it. So you deal with it as best and as simply as you can, throw out only those who have proven they'll never buy anything no matter how many times they try it. After all, the purpose of a business is to do business, not to tend to loiterers.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, this is the business model for many. The example given is that of a newspaper and I was just trying to show that technically, if not morally, it is a theft.

As for the simple movement of an item constituting theft, this has been prosecuted and convictions obtained. Albeit I am talking about seasoned professional shoplifters being outdone by a seasoned professional member of law enforcement (tag switching, wearing apparel under clothing, etc) all without leaving the premises and being arrested once the act of concealment or the switch has been completed. By law enforcement I do not mean the private security/investigators.

As someone just recently posted this is getting way off topic , a good discussion but let's get back to the initial topic.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

I think it's not so far off-topic. It was prompted by the argument that Voltage needs to prove loss before they can be awarded statutory damage, and this is also a requirement to convince the court to order disclosure. Otherwise, a suit won't result in statutory damages, wasting the court's time then. Thus, we're back with Voltage's true intent, which is not to sue, but to intimidate TSI's customers for the purpose of extortion. Simple logic. If not A, therefore B.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to UK_Dave

said by UK_Dave:

Sure thing, JK.

Could we possibly say that pirating is an attempt to "force" change via *market dynamics? We force them to adopt by making any other business model unprofitable?

Thanks for indulging me.

Dave

EDIT. *Removed the word "illegal".

It's not an attempt to force change, it is forcing change. The market dynamics of this are pretty much inevitable and that's showing up in a large portion of the actual numbers and economics of this. I've come to a conclusion that a lot of the reasons why there is such a push back from the inevitable is due to the loss of market share from incompetents to competitors. That's pretty much what this is all boils down too.

What's hurting creators pocket books is not piracy, but the protectionist behaviors of a few incumbents that pretty much are unsuccessfully trying to push back a more profitable scheme because they will lose control they once had. Creators, consumers and politicians often only get a very small piece of the pie from incumbents for a reason. But increasingly those looking upon the economics of the situation are looking at the much broader picture and the whole pie, rather than a slice, and there's significant economic evidence in the numbers to prove what I've just mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt in court. There's a ton of evidence now. This has been going on for over a decade.

This is also a reason why we are seeing "copyright trolling" They have already lost the economic evidence part of this. There's absolutely no evidence to prove that non-commercial infringement is causing any economic harm. What is, is the protectionist behaviors of the copyright lobby due to it's own agendas. That's pretty much widely accepted, and from the wording of the new legislation our Government pretty much agrees with that.

For political reasons we can't completely legalize it, but we can make it pretty much impossible for the copyright lobby to do anything but troll consumers. This is one of the main reasons why I left Geist's Fair Copyright For Canada group. I was the head of a local chapter, and strongly opposed a notice to notice approach due to specifically what TSI customers are dealing with now. We should have just legalized non-commercial infringement, since any argument against legalization wouldn't stand up to even the basic economic evidentiary thresh hold in court.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

I think it's not so far off-topic. It was prompted by the argument that Voltage needs to prove loss before they can be awarded statutory damage.....

Now the Chapters-Indigo defense....

a) I buy a book at the store, take it home, read it, commit it to memory, and return it for a refund within 7 days. No problem. It's commonly done with no questions asked.

b) I buy a video at the store, take it home, watch it, commit it to memory, and return it for a refund. No go.

In both instances I have acquired knowledge/entertainment.
In both instances I have deprived the copyright owner of their 'fair' revenue.
Yet in case a) I'm well within my rights to do as I have done but in case b) I am not -- I'm treated like a criminal because of the difference in the medium and, more importantly, who lobbied the government for different treatment of the media/content.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico

That's a really thought provoking point, MK. At least for me anyhow.

Are the two cases (book and video) dealt that way differently in law, or just because of historic practice?

Are bookstores legally obliged to give a refund?

Are videostores legally obliged (by rights holders) not to?

Cheers
Dave