MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to jkoblovsky
Re: If Voltage Take Customers To Court File Sharing Is Legal!said by jkoblovsky:So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.
Actually I think I'll send them a direct link to JF's or other people's posts, ones that actually raise the issues - rather than sending them a link to a post which principally regurgitates other people's contributions to the process. BTW, if you are going to continue to self-promote, please learn to spell the names correctly : Mezei |
|
 Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
Tx
Premium Member
2013-Jan-15 11:17 am
said by MaynardKrebs:said by jkoblovsky:So the next time you hear of someone accusing anyone of online piracy due to non-commercial infringement, you tell them they are being politically incorrect and send them to this post.
Actually I think I'll send them a direct link to JF's or other people's posts, ones that actually raise the issues - rather than sending them a link to a post which principally regurgitates other people's contributions to the process. BTW, if you are going to continue to self-promote, please learn to spell the names correctly : Mezei About those cheers from the cheap seats...... You really need to nitpick everything people say? This isn't a school essay. Mistakes happen. Getting on someone over IE instead of EI. Whatever makes you feel better inside. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
said by Tx: Mistakes happen.
Yes they do. Some innocent people get caught up in copyright troll actions. No doubt some guilty people do too. But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand. A technical victory is just dodging a bullet, whereas a just victory is probably a win-win for both sides of the argument. |
|
| |
DanteX
Member
2013-Jan-15 11:33 am
And Copyright trolls need to remember that one download does not equal one lost sale either.
If I download something and I like it I buy it.
Holly feels entitled they keep recording record profits but feel the need to sue old ladies , mothers or people with no money.
What right does Hollywood have to destroy the life of someone over a measly 30 bucks? Sure Hollywood has a legit case if someone is making a profit from their works.
These pay up or else schemes are just extortion plain and simple and if the average joe tried it they would be hauled before a judge and charged with extortion. |
|
m3chen
join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON |
to MaynardKrebs
@MaynardKrebs:
I do respect your position on the rights of Copyright Holders but I would like to hold the copyright "trolls" accountable to the Blackstone ratio as it most certainly applies in this case;
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer." - Sir William Blackstone (1765) |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
1 edit |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by Tx: Mistakes happen.
Yes they do. Some innocent people get caught up in copyright troll actions. No doubt some guilty people do too. But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand. A technical victory is just dodging a bullet, whereas a just victory is probably a win-win for both sides of the argument. I do agree to an extent. It ends when Voltage successfully sues an American for an excess of $200,000+. When regular folk sue anyone we must prove damages caused and lost wages etc. We're lucky in Canada to get a maximum of (correct me if i'm wrong) $4000? in Canadian small claims. These copyright trolls even if they where to send extortion letters, how can one justify $5000 in damages for a $15-20 movie? I am by no means saying pirating is ok, but the legal justification of $5000-$200k is insane. Music for example. One case had something around $136,000 PER MP3 (12 mp3s) and they won. Single mother working 2 jobs. End of they day, they should be forced to pay a decent fine, buy the content they pirated and call it a day. 5 people go to a theater to watch "crappy voltage movie" that's $14 x 5. $70 in revenue from those customers. How they justify if the next 5 pirate the same movie they are entitled to a maximum of $5000 each to a total of $25,000. Just in Canada. It's no wonder they prefer suing people over the revenue a movie makes anymore. Actually stealing someone's car is a lesser fine/punishment then pirating these days. |
|
| |
DanteX
Member
2013-Jan-15 11:57 am
Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well . |
|
| |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:But to scream at the top of one's lungs that trolls have no rights is also disingenuous. Content creators do have rights too, and it's important to remember this at all times in the action at hand. I have been giving this much more thought, and I can see where Jason is going with this... Content creators also had the rights to stop people from using their VHS (or Beta) machines to record movies from the TV. And to record songs off the radio. And to create their own mix tapes. And to format shift their songs onto tape or CD. And to share media with friends. But that happened, and it happened a lot. Just like the modern-day equivalent does -- Canipre said they were tracking 1 million households out of the ~9 million that CRTC say had broadband last year, so at least 10% of us have been flagged by these guys as pirates. The big difference I can see here is that it is potentially much easier for the content creators to track down the casual pirates who are still using BitTorrent (let's be honest, the serious pirates aren't going to be caught in this dragnet unless they're included ironically due to an error by Canipre or the ISP.. they've moved on just like they jumped ship from Napster, Kazaa, etc when they became risky) and sue them. Is that morally right? My initial objection to this whole mess was one of fairness: that whether you were guilty or innocent, as soon as you were identified you had to pay big $$, either the extortion demand or court costs. All they needed was a name and a mailing address and you were screwed. Now I'm thinking that in our society personal copyright infringement has always been acceptable and part of fair use, and that it is wrong for us to allow technology to automatically bestow rights on the content creators that they didn't have before. It makes you think... Well, it makes me think. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
Tx to DanteX
Premium Member
2013-Jan-15 2:46 pm
to DanteX
said by DanteX:Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .
Sad isn't it? Being honest too. |
|
| |
Stepping Down From Copyright Debate » jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· -debate/I will no longer be commenting or playing an adversarial role in this debate around Teksavvy’s legal tactics. The academics currently at the table really need to look at my most recent post. Most of them should have a clear understanding already of the economics of the situation, and it is now bestowed on them to do the right thing in this current circumstance. This can not be allowed to go any further than it has, I won’t let it. The research is there, and turn your attention to the indie economic data, to fully support my claims. As a result of the last post, I can no longer comment on Teksavvy, and this blog will no longer be following the current legal situation. Instead I’ll be focusing my efforts with respect to commenting on the current state of digital policy we’re in due to the current copyright legislation. |
|
| |
Why do you think you are in any way influential, or meaningful, or have a voice louder than anyone else?
I've never heard of you, and I don't think i'm the only one in that situation...
Mr. Geist, yes... CIPPIC yes... |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:Stepping Down From Copyright Debate
»jkoblovsky.wordpress.com ··· -debate/
I will no longer be commenting or playing an adversarial role in this debate around Teksavvy’s legal tactics. The academics currently at the table really need to look at my most recent post. Most of them should have a clear understanding already of the economics of the situation, and it is now bestowed on them to do the right thing in this current circumstance. This can not be allowed to go any further than it has, I won’t let it. The research is there, and turn your attention to the indie economic data, to fully support my claims.
As a result of the last post, I can no longer comment on Teksavvy, and this blog will no longer be following the current legal situation. Instead I’ll be focusing my efforts with respect to commenting on the current state of digital policy we’re in due to the current copyright legislation.
To be honest, i do enjoy reading your views but your views aren't any more important then 300 others that post on here. Continue with your views and your debate but just because it's not getting the attention you want, don't think your views are any less important. I value your views as much as i do the next. Not one specific is more important than the other. |
|
| |
It's not my views that are important in this post, it's the economic information that's embedded in it which adds a very important piece to the puzzle going forward. As people dig into the research of this, it will become more clear. |
|
| |
to DanteX
said by DanteX:Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .
no it isnt you can do federal time for harming physically a person and there are degrees like "aggravated" and "bodily harm" Assault also includes rape...Are you saying rape of any kind is a lesser crime... |
|
|
| |
DanteX
Member
2013-Jan-15 5:44 pm
I think What I said was mis interpreted.
What I meant was punishments for so called copyright crimes are usually more severe then a crime where actually harm is caused to a person. |
|
Txbronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON |
Tx to funny0
Premium Member
2013-Jan-15 5:49 pm
to funny0
said by funny0:said by DanteX:Correction Assualting someone is a lesser crime as well .
no it isnt you can do federal time for harming physically a person and there are degrees like "aggravated" and "bodily harm" Assault also includes rape...Are you saying rape of any kind is a lesser crime... Read the whole thread and that of which he replied to. On that note, yes murder, rape and so on is sometimes punished far less then those who pirate copyrighted material. No one is dissecting which one is worse. It's what the punishments handed out that are a joke. You know you can edit your post instead of putting in something you forgot and re-quoting the OP? You can also multi quote fairly easily by copy and pasting. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
to m3chen
said by m3chen:@MaynardKrebs:
I do respect your position on the rights of Copyright Holders but I would like to hold the copyright "trolls" accountable to the Blackstone ratio as it most certainly applies in this case;
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer." - Sir William Blackstone (1765)
Yes, I know - I posted exactly that several weeks ago. |
|
|
 A Lurkerthat's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N |
to tired
said by tired:Now I'm thinking that in our society personal copyright infringement has always been acceptable and part of fair use, and that it is wrong for us to allow technology to automatically bestow rights on the content creators that they didn't have before. The thing is that so much has changed, so quickly in the grand scheme of thing. 20 years ago we were recording albums onto cassette tapes, and television shows on to VHS tapes. Okay, mid-90s you might have been using CDs. So copying was awkward, resulted in loss of quality, and involved cost to the person copying. The running joke when I was in high school was that you needed to date someone long enough to copy their albums (then tapes). Today you can take that music or video, copy it with almost no loss of quality and share it with thousands almost simultaneously. The copy costs the person doing the copy next to nothing. ie. maybe overage charges, maybe another hard drive - but only if doing high volumes. That's what has changed. You can buy a copy of a book and after you've read it you pass the single copy to someone else. If you want to retain the copy you need to physically copy it. Now, switch it to electronic and again, fast multiple copies. Add the internet to it and how many copies can be distributed from a single purchase? I've said in a couple of different instances that the distribution models need to change. Providers such as Hula, Netflix, and Pandora are starting to make some changes (and that's where we need to head). Of course Canadian licensing likely means people will still want to break the law and sign in using VPNs. To complicate things more our major service providers are in conflict as they want us to buy TV from them. With better (and more reasonable licensing) wouldn't it be great to subscribe to Cogeco online TV? Favourite shows available on their conventional air dates, everyone would know exactly how many times each and every show was viewed. Hell, embed ads and you can collect even more revenue. I might actually 'turn on' the TV more. I've watched more since I subscribed to Netflix. |
|
