dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2220

mazhurg
Premium Member
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON

mazhurg to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS

Re: latest leak transpacific copyright garbage

said by DKS:

I produce weekly content for the media. I believe I have the right (and the law gives me that right) to sell it or give it away and to see it used and distributed in a manner I, as the creator, see fit. I control my content, thanks. You don't.

If you produce goods and price it outside what the market will bear, you'll go broke.

The only way for such a model to work is to force the consumer's hand and force all products outside the range. No different than the Oil barons of old and akin to stealing.

Sure, you can do what you want with your product, but don't expect to force the consumers to use it at your whim as it's very much a two ways street.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

neochu

Member

said by mazhurg:

said by DKS:

I produce weekly content for the media. I believe I have the right (and the law gives me that right) to sell it or give it away and to see it used and distributed in a manner I, as the creator, see fit. I control my content, thanks. You don't.

If you produce goods and price it outside what the market will bear, you'll go broke.

The only way for such a model to work is to force the consumer's hand and force all products outside the range. No different than the Oil barons of old and akin to stealing.

Sure, you can do what you want with your product, but don't expect to force the consumers to use it at your whim as it's very much a two ways street.

The consumer does have a right not to consume You cannot force someone to watch something.

Its difficult to cut yourself off from everything of course but it can be done. And not enough sheeple can live without their movies, video games, soaps, and sitcoms to make this a possibility.

Its just easier to go through unauthorized means rather then paying the huge price. It is a form of ignoring the market and using the law to control it like the Oil Barons and Rail people (from the 1800s -- until roads came into being)

As it gets harder to do so outside of the specified model, you'll create martyrs or you will kill yourself off.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

4 edits

DigitalXeron to DKS

Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by sbrook:

That's the kind of scenario faced today. As a writer, songwriter, artist etc. you have essentially given control and benefits of your work for a small percentage of your work.

I firmly believe in copyright for the creator ... but the creator doeesn't really hold the copyright ... it's agents who want to soak every penny from everyone including the creator.

Actually, I do hold 100% control. And fortunately, it's not my day job. It's not how I make a living.

While under the letter of the law, you do... Unless you have a dedicated legal team, you don't have the amount of control you think you do.

Copyright, patent and trademark law is about who has the most powerful lawyer teams with the most invasive tactics (ergo the most money). If a large corporation was to buy out one of your contracted parties, they could then interpret the contract in their own way, potentially finding loopholes that permit them to make money off of it without giving you any additional royalties whatsoever. If you demand to be paid more, they'd point at the original contract saying "We're only paying you what was agreed". Attempt to pull out from the contract or stop producing content as per your contract? You'd be sued for breaching the agreement.

If you attempted to sue them, they'd use their lawyer teams to keep stonewalling you and make your legal expenses so expensive that eventually you'd have to fold and retract your case.

The moment you sign a contract, have any sort of agreement with anyone whatsoever to distribute your content, you've signed away your control as just like the information security principle, every system has holes in it and your contract does as well. A single contract can have dozens of different interpretations depending on who you ask, even lawyer to lawyer, judge to judge, jury to jury the interpretation can be very different (Thus why many contracts even go as far as defining simple words).

It's about who can make the loudest interpretation and typically it will be the one with the most powerful lawyers and the most access to sway industry opinion. If you're a creator who says "No" to too much in defending your rights toward publishers/producers, that word will spread across the industry and no other organization will take you on. Want to sue for libel/slander? Oops, again stonewalled by corporate lawyers.
said by neochu:

[snip]
Its difficult to cut yourself off from everything of course but it can be done. And not enough sheeple can live without their movies, video games, soaps, and sitcoms to make this a possibility.
[snip]

The issue is that everything is corporate these days. If you need healthcare for instance, you can't avoid corporations as you need that medical solution. If you need university/college education to keep a job, you need to pay for textbooks backed by corporations. If you need certification for a job you need to be approved by corporations and pay them for that certificate. If you have any job whatsoever you likely are using/needing tools created by corporations who are defending creation of these "IPR" laws. It's not just music/movies/etc.

Boycotting doesn't work, there needs to be a more surreptitious approach such as consumer rights coalitions being formed to directly battle these laws, to combine resources, to find who to sue to bring these laws in front of a court and finally have them invalidated or prevented.

Though of course, at the endgame of this all, everybody passes the buck, one corporate trade organization would pass the blame to another body, and another, and another... Government too would disclaim responsibility, saying it's needed for "economic reasons".

That's the problem with current law/structures, you can't simply bring the issue before a court of law to have decided, you need to sue somebody and be damaged, otherwise you're told to go talk to an ineffectual democratic representative.

Who do you sue when effectively, not a single person, organization, or government is the problem, but an entire process or social issue is the problem?

humanfilth
join:2013-02-14
river styx

4 edits

humanfilth

Member

said by DigitalXeron:

The issue is that everything is corporate these days.

Heres an article on how corrupt governments have gotten in the Capitalism department.
The same governments who are busy making the secret Trans Pacific trade agreement for Rich people's profits.
The same government who cut corporate taxes(or subsidize) and raise taxes on the regular folk to pay for the tax cuts.
The same governments who allow a patent on rounded corners or a patent on a product from a squiggly drawing on a napkin(no actual working/made product).
The same governments who make sure that the executives of corporations only pay a small fine instead of a prison sentence that anyone else would of gotten in the same instance(discrimination in law). A former Quest CEO went to prison, but that was due to him not handing over all users information to the NSA. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo ··· _Nacchio Insider trading is not a crime to the Rich/Politicians.

England PM David Cameron says we need to embrace rich people and adore them. Its one thing to be strong willed to work hard and earn money, but not if it hurts people in that gold rush to the Billionaires club.
He is also wanting to reign-in(censor) his country's media because he hates all the beans that have been spilled in the name of government accountability.

»www.telegraph.co.uk/fina ··· ess.html

David Cameron has said that Britain needs "a fundamental culture change" to get behind business and enterprise.
In his annual speech to the Lord Mayor's Banquet in the City, the Prime Minister said that he wants Britain to show an "entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit" where people who take risks to make money are celebrated and admired.

Regular peoples definition of Buccaneering: The buccaneers were pirates who attacked Spanish shipping in the Caribbean Sea during the 17th century. The term buccaneer is now used generally as a synonym for pirate.
Rich peoples term: daring and adventurous (often used in a business context).

Never forget who is the original Copyright extending monster. Which the TPP feeds off of.
Mickey Mouse.
»www.theatlantic.com/educ ··· /280922/

Switzerland's proposal to make executive pay only 12 times that of their workers pay. Income inequality.
»gawker.com/switzerlands- ··· 65143296

In America, the average CEO is paid more than 230 times an average worker's salary. In Switzerland, CEOs are paid 43 times more than the average worker. That figure is so shocking to the Swiss that they want to radically rein it in.

edit: hey mod: most of this post is about the TPP as its for the rich to get richer and the rest of us to be slaves via restricting our freedoms by allowing rampant censorship and corporations ill-gotten gain to achieve it.
Look forward and look back and realize the shit hit the fan ages ago.
have a nice day.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

I remember operating a university radio station where we were entirely not for profit. By playing music, we actually benefitted the copyright agencies and artists, but they still insisted that we had to pay copyright fees ... performance rights and mechanical copyright to record shows for later broadcast!

That;s what's killed the Music video on TV, you wonder why stations like MuchMusic and MTV don't play music videos anymore, what was once a promotional tool,has now become monetized .

I worked for TV station that had a "entertainment" show on it, and in the course of the show, the content would feature a music video or a clip of a song. It all had to be logged and the "rights owners" expected payment FOR A SHOW THAT IS PROMOTING YOUR PRODUCT.
DanteX
join:2010-09-09

DanteX

Member

This is happening a lot companies demand payment because someone is freely promoting that parties product.

Its a backwards way of thinking that I do not know how ever came to fruition

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to hmm

to hmm
said by hmm :

said by DKS:

Actually, I do hold 100% control. And fortunately, it's not my day job. It's not how I make a living.

Anyhow we can conclude that whatever it is you have copyright of, it's of little significance and leading this TPP topic off kilter.

Sun Media doesn't think it's insignificant.
DKS

DKS to neochu

to neochu
said by neochu:

He wants the government to maximize his profits in whatever way they can at the expense of the free market even if it destroys all the freedoms and openess we have.

That is simply silly. By having content control, as the author, it is the epitome of free market economics.

Once you sell copyright you Sell your control.

No, that's not true. It depends on the contract wording. I have published material in one medium and republished in another. I have control over that.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

neochu

Member

said by DKS:

said by neochu:

He wants the government to maximize his profits in whatever way they can at the expense of the free market even if it destroys all the freedoms and openess we have.

That is simply silly. By having content control, as the author, it is the epitome of free market economics.

Free market as determined by whomever you deal with control in.

Customers determine the market not producers you want it in reverse and are abusing the legal system to avoid what everyone else has to deal with.

Stopping and controlling innovation Through extreme measures in the the legal system is anti-market. Grandma does not need to be sued 12 million dollars for 12 songs and thrown in jail for longer then someone making a small robbery under 1000 of an actual item.

Sadly much like price fixing and regulation of food packaging is but that is another political debate.
DanteX
join:2010-09-09

DanteX to DKS

Member

to DKS
OK DKS this is for you

Say you make a movie 1000 people decided to download it instead of going to the store to pay for it.

do these 1000 copies mean money is missing from your pocket? how do you know those 1000 downloads could have been legit purchases if they never were downloaded?

If 1000 copies are downloaded and a few hundred of those people who would have never seen your movie in the store or theatre discovered your movie after downloading and thought " hey this movie is awesome this director has talent I am going to go out and buy his other works" is that not free publicity and profit for doing nothing on your part just sitting on your butt expecting money to be handed to you?

You cant claim a loss of profit if there was no intention to buy to begin with

Also what If i download your movie because I am in a country where there are no channels of distribution and my only way of seeing the movie is by downloading it?

By your way of thinking I should demand more money from my boss because I am under paid for what I do .

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to neochu

to neochu
said by neochu:

said by DKS:

said by neochu:

He wants the government to maximize his profits in whatever way they can at the expense of the free market even if it destroys all the freedoms and openess we have.

That is simply silly. By having content control, as the author, it is the epitome of free market economics.

Free market as determined by whomever you deal with control in.

Customers determine the market not producers you want it in reverse and are abusing the legal system to avoid what everyone else has to deal with.

Stopping and controlling innovation Through extreme measures in the the legal system is anti-market. Grandma does not need to be sued 12 million dollars for 12 songs and thrown in jail for longer then someone making a small robbery under 1000 of an actual item.

Sadly much like price fixing and regulation of food packaging is but that is another political debate.

No, I don't want to reverse anything. I just want leeches to pay for what is not rightly and legally theirs, or at the very least, ask for permission to distribute what I produce. You don't like what I produce? Don't buy it. But stop ripping me and other content producers off under the guise of a "new economic system".
DKS

DKS to DanteX

to DanteX
said by DanteX:

OK DKS this is for you

Say you make a movie 1000 people decided to download it instead of going to the store to pay for it.

do these 1000 copies mean money is missing from your pocket?

If I was charging something for it, then yes. I might not have much after production costs, but whatever I made would be mine.

Your argument is based on some mythic "future sales", which is an absolute crock.

While there is nothing wrong with "free publicity", I reserve the right, as content creator, to show you what I choose to show you. You can buy the rest, or not.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy

Member

said by DKS:

Your argument is based on some mythic "future sales", which is an absolute crock.

No it's not, if you were to sue for damages, you would be using that argument to prove damages.

The simple fact of it is that you can't argue his logic or answer his questions so you try to deflect away from them.

1. If X number of people downloaded, that does not equate to X amount of lost revenue because you have no reasonable expectation that any of those X number of people intended to purchase your product. IE Just because someone has a means to get something for free does not mean they would have any interest in paying 1 penny for it.

2. Then you have to take into account the "free publicity" as you put it, that the X number of people provide which actually generates sales, thereby actually benefitting you and putting money in your pocket that would have never been there in the first place.

2 very real and relevant arguments that could not only show that piracy

a) does not actually harm in any way

and

b) could actually improve sales.

The only myth being spread is by people like you, claiming that piracy is bankrupting the entertainment industry, when really is the fiscal irresponsibility of those running said industry.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

said by rednekcowboy:

1. If X number of people downloaded, that does not equate to X amount of lost revenue because you have no reasonable expectation that any of those X number of people intended to purchase your product.

That's a non sequiter. I'm not going to allow downloading without compensation. if someone steals a copy and distributes it without my permission, then tries to justify their criminal act of theft by trying to place it in an alternative economic reality known only to them, then they can expect to have consequences.

2. Then you have to take into account the "free publicity" as you put it, that the X number of people provide which actually generates sales, thereby actually benefitting you and putting money in your pocket that would have never been there in the first place.

That is a risk I prefer not to take. you may see a sample of the work, but not the whole thing. You want it? You pay for it.

The only myth being spread is by people like you, claiming that piracy is bankrupting the entertainment industry, when really is the fiscal irresponsibility of those running said industry.

I have never said any such thing. Theft, however, does have a negative economic impact.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj

Member

said by DKS:

I have never said any such thing. Theft, however, does have a negative economic impact.

Much more so than piracy too.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

rednekcowboy to DKS

Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by rednekcowboy:

1. If X number of people downloaded, that does not equate to X amount of lost revenue because you have no reasonable expectation that any of those X number of people intended to purchase your product.

That's a non sequiter. I'm not going to allow downloading without compensation. if someone steals a copy and distributes it without my permission, then tries to justify their criminal act of theft by trying to place it in an alternative economic reality known only to them, then they can expect to have consequences.

2. Then you have to take into account the "free publicity" as you put it, that the X number of people provide which actually generates sales, thereby actually benefitting you and putting money in your pocket that would have never been there in the first place.

That is a risk I prefer not to take. you may see a sample of the work, but not the whole thing. You want it? You pay for it.

The only myth being spread is by people like you, claiming that piracy is bankrupting the entertainment industry, when really is the fiscal irresponsibility of those running said industry.

I have never said any such thing. Theft, however, does have a negative economic impact.

I didn't mean to make it sound like Piracy has no negative connotations, it does. There are those who would pirate who would normally purchase if they had no other alternatives, however that percentage, I believe, is a small one.

All I am saying is that it is nowhere near as bad as the entertainment industry makes it out to be.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to DKS

Mod

to DKS
Here is the problem ...

You state "if someone steals a copy" ...

Someone may "make a copy" which may in turn be stolen. (as in I stole a cd with a copied work on it) But one cannot "steal a copy". Someone may make an unauthorized copy, which is, I believe what you are referring to. But that is not theft. Even selling an unauthorized copy is not strictly "theft", but rather "profiting from an unauthorized activity".

Nothing is "stolen" ... you have still got and lay claim to the IP rights of the work.

Rights may be violated or revoked, but not stolen.

So this is not "theft".

Use of the terms "theft" and "stolen" are not an accurate legal description of what has happened here.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to rednekcowboy

to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

All I am saying is that it is nowhere near as bad as the entertainment industry makes it out to be.

I never said it was. But the principle is the same.
DKS

DKS to sbrook

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Use of the terms "theft" and "stolen" are not an accurate legal description of what has happened here.

Intellectual property is still property. Stealing intellectual property is theft. The methodology is irrelevant.

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

1 edit

rednekcowboy

Member

said by DKS:

said by sbrook:

Use of the terms "theft" and "stolen" are not an accurate legal description of what has happened here.

Intellectual property is still property. Stealing intellectual property is theft. The methodology is irrelevant.

Not by the legal definition it is not. In order for something to be considered theft, legally you would no longer have the item in your possession.

If someone has an unauthorized copy of something you created, it is not a theft, as you still hold the original and the rights to it. Now if they took your original and passed it off as their own, that could be considered theft, but unauthorized distribution of the product while you still hold the original is not. It is simply unauthorized distribution of said product.

Still a punishable offense, but not the same thing as theft.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Exactly. For it to have been theft, say a book, they would have had to steal your original manuscript so it was not in your posession.

For example, consider a book in a library. To steal the book, someone would have to take the book from the library without the library's authorization. To photocopy the book and take the photocopy from the library is not theft, whether the book was copyright or not. It may well be unauthorized copying.

KDS
@ccc.de

KDS to DKS

Anon

to DKS
In my personal opinion people in general are less interested in so called "works" because these "works" are at best a copy of some other "works" or "ideas". Great "works" don't need extortion to be successful. Content creators that produce crap should try and produce something of value or face free market rules - if you produce carp that no one wants go and produce something that people want or stop kidding yourself about your talent altogether and change the career (i.e. start a barista career at Starbucks). Producing crap does not entitle anyone for profits since so called "art", "works" etc. in 99.99% of cases is not an essential product or service like Hydro or garbage collection. Deal with it.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

3 edits

neochu

Member

said by KDS :

In my personal opinion people in general are less interested in so called "works" because these "works" are at best a copy of some other "works" or "ideas". Great "works" don't need extortion to be successful. Content creators that produce crap should try and produce something of value or face free market rules - if you produce carp that no one wants go and produce something that people want or stop kidding yourself about your talent altogether and change the career (i.e. start a barista career at Starbucks). Producing crap does not entitle anyone for profits since so called "art", "works" etc. in 99.99% of cases is not an essential product or service like Hydro or garbage collection. Deal with it.

I think he answered this already

You don't like what I produce? Don't buy it. But stop ripping me and other content producers off under the guise of a "new economic system".

No, I don't want to reverse anything. I just want leeches to pay for what is not rightly and legally theirs, or at the very least, ask for permission to distribute what I produce. You don't like what I produce? Don't buy it. But stop ripping me and other content producers off under the guise of a "new economic system".

Basically its his creation therefore he has the right to get the government to charge you $25,000+ for every misuse he specifies without appeal, reason, or negotiation. if you use content in a way he doesn't want it used or viewed in you are stealing it from him like steal money from a bank.

(I call visual artists who do show nothing on art sites but ads for paid websites, spammers. Ill reserve comments for Motion picture creators as people with those kinds of attitudes usually quit creating. They claim their being persecuted because of similar attitudes yet come back to creating once money is no longer involved)

He doesn't want to change or adapt and the government gives him the right (new economic system is 'ripping him off') to charge 25 cents every time you hum a tune. He has a right to control the economy.

No wonder why they keep these talks in secret. No other industry would exist if this was the way things were. Like someone said its physically impossible to quit 'consuming' so I think this would classify as a zero-liability offense... Its an old guard that needs to die off.




Not even drug manufacturers are this bad, because if it was bad enough the government would force drug makers to do things under the guise of public safety.

Though we wont even own our own bodies or be able to grow our own food without paying someone else (like how it was punishable--by death--to hunt on public land in the 1400s; to feed yourself) with places like Monsanto claiming patents on nature itself.

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

A Lurker to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

Actually, I do hold 100% control. And fortunately, it's not my day job. It's not how I make a living.

Depending on what you write, it couldn't be your day job. Someone I used to know (lost touch with) is a published author. She sees ~$1 per paperback copy. I just checked... kindle version $10, paperback $14.

I would suspect that a lot of authors got screwed coming into the digital age. I see a number of older Kindle books very cheap, so they likely took advantage of not specifically spelled out digital rights and I'm betting the authors saw nothing.