dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed


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

1 edit
reply to UK_Dave

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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
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.

jkoblovsky

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

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/