Re: Will piracy sink the DVD? - BBC news article

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by luminos, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. luminos

    luminos Guest

    ">
    > It doesn't matter what they would've done. They stole the material and
    > the company lost a sale. Pretty simple.



    Go to school and take a class called 'logic.' Your responses are
    embarassingly banal.
     
    luminos, Jun 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. luminos

    Bobcancel Guest

    << Go to school and take a class called 'logic.' Your responses are
    embarassingly banal. >><BR><BR>


    Insulting a person is the first sign that you, sir, lack manners and you are
    apparently scared of losing the argument. Perhaps a well thought opinion to
    replace your sprays of internet insecurity.
     
    Bobcancel, Jun 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. luminos

    John Savard Guest

    On 17 Jun 2004 07:29:21 GMT, (Bobcancel) wrote, in
    part:

    >Insulting a person is the first sign that you, sir, lack manners and you are
    >apparently scared of losing the argument. Perhaps a well thought opinion to
    >replace your sprays of internet insecurity.


    Well, I'll try to explain this more simply.

    Yes, DVD pirates obtained the material illegally and the company could
    have lost a sale - if, for example, they copied a rented DVD.

    But this might not have been a DVD they would have bought and paid for
    if they couldn't copy it. So maybe they just have more movies than
    they otherwise would have - and the studio didn't lose one sale for
    every illegal copy of their movies made.

    After all, calling it "stealing" does seem to imply one thing that
    isn't the case - if something has been stolen, where is it *missing*
    from?

    This doesn't mean that breaking copyright laws is _not wrong_. Like
    paying taxes, respecting copyright law is a social obligation; in
    return for people producing more creative works, our society has
    passed a law that ensures they will profit from doing so. Clearly,
    illegal copying will lose them *some* number of sales.

    It's just that people are not all *that* excited if someone cheats on
    his taxes - or produces moonshine liquor without paying excise taxes -
    or smuggles in goods without paying duty - and the same applies to
    copyright infringement. But everybody automatically knows that
    *stealing* is wrong. So, copyright owners, in campaigns to change the
    public attitude to copyright infringement, try to equate it with
    stealing.

    But that isn't accurate.

    And since everyone also knows that *lying* is wrong, it's even
    counterproductive.

    They also know that the DMCA, for example, didn't get passed into law
    because of a groundswell of demand from the majority of ordinary
    voters. Instead, it became law because of pressures on Congressmen
    from a small interest group.

    This is why copyright is so controversial, despite the fact that
    copyright laws - as they existed for over a hundred years - have been
    recognized as legitimate, and have been uncontroversial. Nobody is
    arguing for the right of someone to go and tape, say, Star Wars off of
    their TV and then make a hundred copies and sell them. That was always
    illegal under the copyright law; only the copyright owner can
    authorize the production of copies of his work for any kind of resale
    or distribution.

    It's only lately that the copyright law is trying to reach into the
    privacy of the home, as opposed to public distribution of copyrighted
    works. It's only lately that the copyright law is used as a reason for
    arguing for fitting our camcorders and computers with "watermark
    detectors" which have a non-zero manufacturing cost, and which will
    cause them to stop working when they *think* they detect the playback
    of copyrighted material. With a non-zero probability of false
    positives.

    Protecting the legitimate interests of artistic creators is the proper
    purpose of copyright law. When an industry attempts, however, to
    protect its own interests with a reckless disregard of the effects of
    legislation protecting itself on other social interests - such as in
    the flexibility and power of personal computers - then it can be
    expected to be questioned.

    John Savard
    http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
     
    John Savard, Jun 22, 2004
    #3
  4. luminos

    Mike Kohary Guest

    John Savard wrote:
    > On 17 Jun 2004 07:29:21 GMT, (Bobcancel) wrote, in
    > part:
    >
    >> Insulting a person is the first sign that you, sir, lack manners
    >> and you are apparently scared of losing the argument. Perhaps a
    >> well thought opinion to replace your sprays of internet insecurity.

    >
    > Well, I'll try to explain this more simply.
    >
    > Yes, DVD pirates obtained the material illegally and the company could
    > have lost a sale - if, for example, they copied a rented DVD.
    >
    > But this might not have been a DVD they would have bought and paid for
    > if they couldn't copy it. So maybe they just have more movies than
    > they otherwise would have - and the studio didn't lose one sale for
    > every illegal copy of their movies made.
    >
    > After all, calling it "stealing" does seem to imply one thing that
    > isn't the case - if something has been stolen, where is it *missing*
    > from?
    >
    > This doesn't mean that breaking copyright laws is _not wrong_. Like
    > paying taxes, respecting copyright law is a social obligation; in
    > return for people producing more creative works, our society has
    > passed a law that ensures they will profit from doing so. Clearly,
    > illegal copying will lose them *some* number of sales.
    >
    > It's just that people are not all *that* excited if someone cheats on
    > his taxes - or produces moonshine liquor without paying excise taxes -
    > or smuggles in goods without paying duty - and the same applies to
    > copyright infringement. But everybody automatically knows that
    > *stealing* is wrong. So, copyright owners, in campaigns to change the
    > public attitude to copyright infringement, try to equate it with
    > stealing.
    >
    > But that isn't accurate.
    >
    > And since everyone also knows that *lying* is wrong, it's even
    > counterproductive.
    >
    > They also know that the DMCA, for example, didn't get passed into law
    > because of a groundswell of demand from the majority of ordinary
    > voters. Instead, it became law because of pressures on Congressmen
    > from a small interest group.
    >
    > This is why copyright is so controversial, despite the fact that
    > copyright laws - as they existed for over a hundred years - have been
    > recognized as legitimate, and have been uncontroversial. Nobody is
    > arguing for the right of someone to go and tape, say, Star Wars off of
    > their TV and then make a hundred copies and sell them. That was always
    > illegal under the copyright law; only the copyright owner can
    > authorize the production of copies of his work for any kind of resale
    > or distribution.
    >
    > It's only lately that the copyright law is trying to reach into the
    > privacy of the home, as opposed to public distribution of copyrighted
    > works. It's only lately that the copyright law is used as a reason for
    > arguing for fitting our camcorders and computers with "watermark
    > detectors" which have a non-zero manufacturing cost, and which will
    > cause them to stop working when they *think* they detect the playback
    > of copyrighted material. With a non-zero probability of false
    > positives.
    >
    > Protecting the legitimate interests of artistic creators is the proper
    > purpose of copyright law. When an industry attempts, however, to
    > protect its own interests with a reckless disregard of the effects of
    > legislation protecting itself on other social interests - such as in
    > the flexibility and power of personal computers - then it can be
    > expected to be questioned.
    >
    > John Savard
    > http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html


    Quote left in its entirety due to its excellence. That's about the best
    I've ever seen it put. Thanks for an articulate and unassailable argument
    about the true purpose of copyright law.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jun 24, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Terry Lynton

    time sink??

    Terry Lynton, Apr 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    795
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Apr 7, 2004
  2. Edward Kelley

    Heat sink and chipset fans not spinning.

    Edward Kelley, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,539
    Toolman Tim
    Jan 30, 2005
  3. Imhotep

    The correct way to handle piracy: The BBC

    Imhotep, Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    698
    Jim Watt
    Sep 6, 2005
  4. -------> Ian

    Heat Sink & Fan For K6-2 500

    -------> Ian, Feb 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    571
    Michael-NC
    Feb 21, 2004
  5. Neil Pugh

    Photo tool could fix bad images - BBC article

    Neil Pugh, Aug 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    286
Loading...

Share This Page