Korean Brothers Arrested For File-Sharing Site 350
HarlanC writes: "This story discusses the arrest of two Korean brothers who run a website [warning, page requires Korean language support] that allows peer-to-peer file sharing. Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999."
would they really buy the cd? (Score:2)
Since most people copying mp3s don't care that much about the sound quality, they wouldn't be buying the $15 CD. $9 cassette tapes for them! Or can they play a game where just because REM's Reveal album comes in a hyper-expensive limited edition book version mp3ing it counts as $40 business lost, not $15?
Come to think of it, if I were to post some of my vinyl rarities up could my local collectors shop claim $100 per track in lost business?
South Korea arrives, the crowd goes wild! (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember back during the Cold War, when Soviet Russia was the Great Enemy of Democracy and Freedom? Its government closely monitored all copying equipment, and you could go to prison (or worse) for owning an unlicensed photocopier - let alone actually using the thing.
I'm dumbfounded by the number of people posting to slashdot about how "they pirated/stole music so they should go to jai" - bloody hell, read the damn article, they're NOT being arrested for stealing books, they're being arrested for the equivalent of building a photocopier and letting anyone use it!
*That* is what you tell Joe American Sixpack. That the US government arrested a guy for making photocopier software, just like the Soviet Union used to do during the Cold War, because the corporations don't want anyone using anything without paying a corporation for the privilege.
(yeah, so not all corporations are like that - but the corporate profit mentality is one of the biggest field demonstrations of abuse-of-power::power that I've ever seen)
And now South Korea is following suit. Oh, and by the way - Happy Korean Liberation Day! *choke*
blah (Score:5, Funny)
Stealing or marketing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Learn to use a calculator <rant> (Score:2, Informative)
Someone remind me how the RIAA can charge $15 per CD, get $14 of that, and say that they aren't getting enough money? What about the artists, man?! I'd hope that they deserve something. I mean, god forbid that the RIAA would ever have to lose any of their precious, precious money. What are they even managing to spend it on that they need it so badly? That'd be an interesting story: Where The Money Goes: A VH1 Exclusive Look At The Lives Of Record Company Executives.
The most pathetic thing is they don't realize that by trying to squeeze every last dime out of the market they're pissing more and more people off and, in effect, endorsing the P2P transferring.
While I think the RIAA should crash'n'burn, at the same time, some things I agree with them on. Downloading entire albums should not happen (support artists!), but unfortunately human instincts are to Cheat, to Lie, and to Steal (and the artists don't get much, anyway). I mean, can anyone honestly say that they haven't ever been tempted to cheat on a test, or that they haven't ever lied to get out of something, or ever wanted to steal something so they wouldn't have to pay outrageous prices (see: Adobe [adobe.com], heh). No, I didn't think so.
I seem to have gotten a bit off track. I think that someone (or some people) should start a new music union. Fuck if I know how it'd manage to grow, but I think that if there was something like that that would give more money to the artists, charge less for CDs, and, most importantly, not combat P2P sharing but support it, the world would be a better place.
"Don't you hate pants?
I hope he tells us to burn our pants."
Wrong link (Score:3, Informative)
Try http://www.soribada.com [soribada.com] if you want to see the site mentioned int he article.
Question about $154 million loss (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone know the laws behind this kind of thing? (either US or Korea)
Slashdot, the best source of legal information on the net!
My views: (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Placing music on media that cannot played (like on a CD-ROM drive) without warning the purchasers is bad.
3. Point-to-point transfer of commercial music to combat otherwise inability to play above media currently owned is good and well within the moral rights of the f**ked consumer (even better in lossless format).
4. Regardless of imaginary losses to piracy (not necessarily to real ones, which are not always avoidable), the ability to sample music in lossy formats to enable the consumer to effectively direct their dollars towards satisfactory music is good, often even to the evil beings trying to destroy the sharing networks.
5. The warped notion that purchasers should be forced to pay full price for polluted (watermarked) audio is bad.
6. The next time I see (insert overexposed crap-'musician'), I want to see (said musician) on one of those flaming crosses in the background of a Madonna video.
There is a reason for piracy in asia (Score:2)
The GDP for South Korea is $13,300 (according to the CIA World Factbook [odci.gov]) compared to $33,900 in the US.
So is it any wonder then that such countries have more piracy? Relative to their wages, Koreans are paying 2 or 3 times as much for their music, videos and software. How many people in the US would pay $50 for a music CD or $100 for a DVD?
And South Korea is a relatively rich country. The GDP in places like Thailand, Indonesia or Vietnam is less than a tenth of the US. Imagine paying $400 for a computer game or $2500 for Windows XP.
No one in the right mind would, which is why piracy is so rife. If the music, video and software companies had any brains they would lower the cost of their products so that people could actually afford them.
Re:There is a reason for piracy in asia (Score:2)
I have not seen many concessions to the local market. VCDs are fairly cheap but that's about it.
total sales are what again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:total sales are what again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say they sell 2 million CDs, at $15 a piece.
Now let's say there's 10 million copies of the CDs floating around in Korean cyberspace.
Ergo, to the marketdroids, those 10 million copies at $15 each equal $150 million in CDs they should've sold.
Not that they would ever sell that quantity of CDs in the first place, but then marketing and logic don't always go hand in hand these days.
Re:total sales are what again? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called PROGRESS.
Re:total sales are what again? (Score:2)
30% would have bought if they didn't have pirate copies?
45%?
It's not easy to say (I'd venture impossible), and since it's in their interest to hype up their claims, the RIAK & co haven't bothered to establish a rational sounding amount.
Re:total sales are what again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:total sales are what again? (Score:2)
Furthermore, even if their figures were remotely accurate, the willingness of people to ignore the middleman should tell the IAA's something about the flaw in their business model. High prices, total unwillingness to provide decent online service, legal wars raged against those who do, etc...
Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999.
So they're claiming that they were expecting $185.5 million in sales in 2000? A 535% increase over the previous year? And I thought the RIAA was stupid...
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:2, Interesting)
My 2 cents plus 2 more
Avast , ye swabbies! (Score:3, Funny)
Is this because of the pirates?
:)
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:3, Insightful)
I still have a problem when people try to cite facts like these as being evidence that pirated music improves sales. Now, throw out of your mmind all of teh number fudging and erroneously reported numerical values. The fact is that their sales increased from 1999-2000. But did this happen despite the piracy, or in spite of? In other words, who here can say how much their sals should have changed without the piracy? Would the lack of piracy have meant more sales jthus increasing their improvement? Or would the lack of piracy have meant less exposure so people would buy less new music thus having a neagtive impact on their potential sales growth.
You can't simply look at one tiny piece of data and say "uh yup, folks, lookie thar... that thar proves I should steal music."
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of sharing music (especially from the standpoint that current copyright terms are unconstitutional and harming the public domain). But if you're going to complain about it, don't use fuzzy math. Leave that to the politicians.
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you think about it, they have only biased reasons to lie about these types of things and not a single reason to say anything counter to their position. Thusly, anyone that's breathing should take EVERYTHING they say with a very large grain of salt.
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:2)
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:2, Funny)
So, the bartender does just that and hands the man a bill for $37.00.
The drunk says, "I haven't got it."
The bartender slaps the guy around a few times then threw him out into the street.
The very next day the same drunk walks into the bar and once again says (with a drunken slur), "Bartender, buy everyone in the house a drink, pour yourself one, and give me the bill."
The bartender looks at the guy and figures to himself that he can't possibly be stupid enough to pull the same trick twice, so he gives him the benefit of the doubt, pours a round of drinks for the house, has a drink himself and hands the drunk a bill for $37.00.
The drunk says, "I haven't got it." The bartender can't believe it, so he picks the guy up, beats the living day lights out of him, then thows him out into the street.
The next day the same drunk walks back into the same bar and says (with a drunken slur), "bartender, buy every one in the house a drink, give me the bill." In disgust the bartender says, "what, no drink for me this time?"
The drunk replies, "No, you get violent when you drink."
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:3, Informative)
Alleged lost sales: 200 billion won ($152 M)
2000 sales: 410 billion won ($312 M)
1999 sales: 380 billion won ($289 M)
Presumably you can find this information on their official website, but it seems to be in Korean. In any case, it seems that in the article a decimal point has been slipped in by mistake, makeing a ridiculous claim into an apparently outrageous one.
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:4, Funny)
Good thing it's the Free Korea, as opposed to that evil stalinist state up to the north where they trump up charges and haul people off to the gulag.
Re:Those are some pretty impressive figures... (Score:2, Funny)
Corrected, but STILL pretty impressive figures (Score:2)
Yes, they should (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't like it? Tough. I can live without your music WAY longer than you can live without my money.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:2, Troll)
Guess what. That last attitude isn't ideological. It's cheap. When enough people believe in the cause of free music enough to actually do the former, then maybe somebody will pay attention.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, it's currently not difficult to "steal" the music I want to evaluate. The real problem is the threatened demise of private Internet streaming; that's where I usually become aware of new stuff.
My usual pattern has been:
1) Hear one song on MPEGRadio that sounds cool. Portishead's "Glory Box," to cite a real-life instance. That song was six years old when I heard it for the first time; I'm damned sure not going to stumble across it on eMpTyV or what passes for Top-40 radio ("All Britney, All The Time") these days.
2) Go to Napster/BearShare/whatever. Download every track by (again, e.g.) Portishead I can find. Say to myself, "Self, this r0x0rs."
3) Go to Amazon and start whaling on their Patented One-Click(tm) Button.
4) Go back to Napster and search the drives of people who had the good Portishead stuff, looking for similar music to "steal."
5) Discover Morcheeba, Lamb, Hooverphonic, Massive Attack, et al. Go back to step 3 above.
The problem I have is, if the RIAA actually does manage to shut down the streaming servers and the many heirs to Napster's throne, I will have no way to find new cool stuff to buy. I don't hang out in smoke-filled clubs, and at any rate, the examples I mentioned above probably haven't been played in clubs for years. The RIAA will have inconvenienced me, but what will really have happened is they'll have shot themselves in their collective feet, along with the artists they represent. No "stealing," no revenue. It really is that simple.
I can't speak for the "cheap" losers you refer to who make it a point of (dis)honor to use MP3 servers to avoid paying for music they enjoy. I'm not one of them; I don't know any of them; and frankly, I'm not sure they even exist in numbers large enough to warrant the RIAA's concern.
Re:Yes, they should (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point is though, it isn't your decision what business model the said copyright holders should be striving for, whether it is to their ultimate benefit or not. You are still breaking the rules and going against the will of a lot of people, without whom that music wouldn't exist. It's really about rights. Overriding them because it's convenient and seems reasonable to do so isn't exactly a defensible act.
It is a fux0red up system, but the creators and distributors involved agreed to it all, so the best remedy is a) selective boycotting and b) lobbying the companies and performers who could forge a positive change.
I agree it's best to sample before you buy, almost your right as a consumer, but one ought to try and do it legally whenever possible. Even if it's an inconvenience.
/preach
Even USENET may not be sustainable in the long run (Score:3, Informative)
(Besides, I hate the thought of using Usenet to distribute large binary files. Physically copying huge blocks of data all over the planet is just not the right way to do it. Sure, it works, but it's still a ridiculous waste of bandwidth and storage.)
Re:Yes, they should (Score:2)
Stop this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stop this (Score:4, Funny)
No, there's definitely more... (Score:3, Funny)
And the occasional app or game.
And sometimes people's cookies.txt. (I found one with Amazon one-click shopping once!
Hey, I think we might be able to make a case for the legality of downloading someone else's cookies.txt! Score one for p2p!
Re:No, there's definitely more... (Score:4, Funny)
His webpage portrayed him as a nice, churchgoing young man. But some of those URLs would suggest otherwise...
"But I was sure www.girlongirl was a scripture quote site!"
Re:No, there's definitely more... (Score:2)
Re:No, there's definitely more... (Score:2)
College age guys managing to not look at porn, despite the strength of any religous conviction, would be an impressive thing.
Quick! Someone go d a study on the level of pr0n traffic fromr religious schools compared to non-affiliated schools. There's a thesis in there somewhere...
...j
Logical fallacy (Score:2, Redundant)
Woohoo! did I get first post??
Re:Logical fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
You're absolutely right, but just because 300 CDs worth of songs were downloaded doesn't mean that sales would have gone up by the total sales price of that 300 CDs.
The record industry's absurd claims about how much money is being lost to piracy is just as ridiculous as
Re:Logical fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing that there's a chance this program hurt record sales to some degree. However, I see no reason to believe that sales would have been quintupled without the presence of this program. At the very least, this would likely have been accompanied with a corresponding increase in CD player sales, for instance...
Re:yeah well... (Score:5, Funny)
But if our IQs were higher, would Slashdot exist?
no concrete evidence (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I DIDN'T KNOW (Score:2)
Big Brotherism Is a Worldwide Phenomenon (Score:2)
Who's going to protect the people when their liberties are being trampled by the very governments that are entrusted to protect them? Governments have turned into police states that continually spy on their own people. They are armed to the teeth and they won't give up their power easily. First they lie to you and tell you that you are living in the land of the free, then they disarm you, and then they enslave you without you even noticing that you're a slave. Anybody who thought that the internet would stay free and anonymous for long was just dreaming.
Who are we gonna call? Ghostbusters? I am afraid we're all shit out of luck.
Where does it end? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where does it end? (Score:2)
Re:Where does it end? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Where does it end? (Score:2)
Re:Where does it end? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a matter of opinion; it is a simple fact that the injustices the parent comment is referring to is not
"making copied cd's illegal"
it's "arresting people for writing software".
The fact is that these guys were not arrested for copying cd's illegally. They were arrested for writing a program that people CAN use to pirate music. I can use FTP, IRC, or even Apache and a web browser to do this.
The exploding point for the issue is when people who write web servers and ftp servers are legally responsible for what people use them for - and the authors of Apache are arrested for "sharing illegal content".
Re:Where does it end? (Score:2)
We'll have Microsoft's high paid lawyers defending Apache, in a way..
From the article (Score:2)
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Re:From the article (Score:2)
What bothers me is that people like Mr. Yong-suk don't seem to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Often it's justified by talking about the evils of Big Business. The record companies suck, if you ask me. They screw over the little guy in an attempt to make a buck (times 10^6) off of consumers. It's exploitative. But so are other corporations (and individuals, for that matter). But that doesn't give us free reign to break the law.
Piracy is going to happen. If you want to take what's not yours, go for it. Use whatever excuse you want. But don't call someone a fool for doing the right thing.
Note: this is addressed more at the individual quoted in the article than at the poster
Re:From the article (Score:2)
The reason there is no moral wrong associated with copying intellectual property is because you never take something away from someone else. They have not lost anything - so how could you have "stolen" something from them?
I'd argue that you have taken something from somebody else (the artist, in the case of MP3 piracy): rightful compensation. How many people consider sneaking into a (not sold-out) movie to not be morally wrong? What about the grocery store that doesn't sell all of its meat before the expiration date. Is taking that steak without paying OK because they would have just thrown it out anyway?
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Point taken. If we assume that my use of the theater doesn't cost the owner anything in depreciation and that nobody would have bought a ticket for that seat anyway, does that change anything? You're (not) paying for the use of the theater to watch the movie, and with MP3 copyright infringement you're (not) paying to listen to the music.
The second example, taking meat from a grocery store, is a clear moral wrong. The fact that it would have gone to waste is irrelevant. It was still theirs, and you did not have a right to take it from them.
Obviously I agree that it's wrong, but I don't see how it differs from not paying for a CD while you still get to listento the music. I don't think the fact that you're physically taking the steak is relevant since it would be thrown away anyway. You're still getting the benefit of the product without paying for it.
Note that this does not apply for "pop sensations" like Britney Spears, but really only applies for true artists. The ones who are not doing it for the money, but can still appreciate it. The ones to whom ten bucks now and then will actually make a difference.
The band of whom I speak certainly doesn't need my money. If I stopped going to concerts and buying their products nobody would notice. Likewise if I pirated all of their music and snuck into all of their concerts nobody would notice. But I flat-out think that such behavior would make me a bad person, which is why I don't behave like that.
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Maybe if you wear a sealed suit (so you don't drop hair and dead skin anywhere) and have "anti-grav" boots (so your feet don't touch the floor) and you don't sit in the seats. Then maybe the condition would be satisfied...
Re:From the article (Score:2)
I think we've reached our fundamental difference. While I do make a distinction between physical property and intellectual property, I do not think that distinction justifies taking something without compensating the owner.
I do not believe "intellectual property" is property at all. There is nothing physically there. A song can be converted into a series of mathematical equations and back again. It has no substance.
Am I correct in assuming that you feel the same about movies, books, etc.?
A movie theater has substance. (Still grey though, because you're watching a movie).
But in my admittedly oversimplified example, you're just (not) paying for the right to use that good/service. This is of course assuming that you aren't costing the owner anything by watching the movie (be it theater depreciation or a seat that he would have sold to somebody else had you not been there). Just like with the MP3 you're getting a good/service without paying, and although you aren't costing the owner anything, you're depriving them of what you would have paid. Ok, so there's the point about what if you wouldn't have paid. That's a very grey area to me. Do you still have the right to receive the good/service even if you wouldn't have paid? I don't think so. From our discussions I think that you might feel differently.
Meat has substance. Period. You take it... then it's GONE. It isn't there anymore.
I still think you're adding complications to my simplified examples, like with the movie theater above. You aren't costing the grocery store anything because the food would be wasted. What you're doing is depriving them of potential income. You're getting the benefit without paying a dime.
Manufactured money-machine pop music is only there for the purpose of taking your money, and I have no problem ethically with not paying for that.
In practice neither do I. In theory I do have a problem with it. It's borderline hypocrisy (maybe not so borderline), but stealing from the devil is still stealing. Although that doesn't mean I'll never do it.
Bands that do not need my money, but still deserve it are: (snip)
We have more in common in musical taste than we do in IP opinion.
...and these are people I have no ethical problem trading mp3's of occasionally.
So where does one draw the line? If we expect consumers to police themselves, I fear the market for music, movies, books, and other types of IP would collapse. Reminds of of when Lisa drags Homer to the museum with the whole "suggested donation" fiasco. "Good luck lady, you're gonna need it!"
Re:From the article (Score:1)
Many people view these times as the end of the world. However, I believe all the events happening are just to make people more free. That is ironic, but necessary. Just like a depressed person, society needs to reach its low in order to find strength and courage to break completely free. It doesn't have to be that way though.
Some may argue that some people can't be helped, they're just plain evil/stupid/lazy. However, if you really get to know them, you'll change those prejudiced opinions real fast. There'll always be differences, that is part of the charm. To learn to appreciate helping others though, we'll need to learn to differentiate comfortableness and happiness.
I don't expect anyone to take these ideas at face value. They're just ideas to make you think wider (hopefully).
- Steeltoe
irony (Score:5, Funny)
cognitivedissonance = on
Story with more reasonable numbers (Score:5, Informative)
the industry says album sales in South Korea totaled $315 million in 2000, up from $292 million the previous year. .
warez (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sad... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
Is RJ Reynolds guilty because I decided to kill myself using a product manufactured by them? Apparently so, if all these billions being paid out in the US are true.
Yeah, a bit trollish, so sue me :) Just never forget, legal systems don't have to make sense, they just have to garner headlines.
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
Don't make up straw-men slippery-slope arguments about what might be illegal. People who excuse this or Napster because someone, somewhere may occasionaly have a non-infringing use are out of touch with reality. Lots of things are banned even though they have legitimate uses. Lock picks are illegal in most states, yet that doesn't stop you from going to the hardware store and buying things that have mostly legitimate uses.
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
Gun -- Yes, because guns are a tool for murder and should be outlawed.
Re:Sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
We are on that long, scary road of analogies and straw-men arguing... ;-)
If Smith and Wesson sold weapons that were intentionally engineered to be convertable to full-autos, then yes they should up against in the wall. If Smith and Wesson set up shop on the corner of Gangsta & Hoodville and started selling guns called "The Killaz Choice" and "The Smoke 'em 10000" to drug dealers, and they marketed them to hold-up crews, and they knew that >98% of them were used in murders, then yes they should be held against the wall.
It is offensive when corporations hide behind laws and rights, and it is equally offensive when people hide behind rights to allow them to pursue anti-social activites: Saying "Gosh darnit, I'm just letting people share files!" doesn't wash when the overwhelming majority of users are using your site to trade copyright infringed material. See Napster as a great case in point.
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
Not yet, but give it a few years [yahoo.com].
Pathetic.
Perjury is still illegal, even against criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
Even so, the Recording Industry Association of Korea has no right to publish patently false damage claims. I don't think any person in their right mind can possibly believe that national record sales would have been 535% higher without this web site.
Media and software companies have been publishing ridiculously implausible damage figures for years, and it's time they put a stop to it. The reality of copyright infringement is bad enough; there is no need to falsely inflate the damage.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
More Absolute Bullshit... (Score:2)
Let's do a little editing and see what happens...
Justifying imprisonment on trumped up charges by saying "Well, the RIAA is still making $500 million dollars less than they could have because of peer to peer file sharing!" is more absolute bullshit.
I can't speak for everyone else but In the last year I have purchased exactly the same number of CD's that I would have had P2P filesharing not been available. The RIAA or RIAK or whoever claiming that they've lost revenue because of filesharing is bullshit. I'll say it again: Based of my spending habits, there is no more revenue for them...no more! Do I have to whack them (and all the other "sharing is stealing" whiners) in the head with a stick to make them understand that? The best that they could possibly hope for is that their potential for increased revenue is unquantifiable! Quit trying to sell me this BS line that "we lost x millions because of Napster etc..."! That can't possibly be known. I say the number should be zero (the same as their IQ's).
Re:More Absolute Bullshit... (Score:2)
Wait a minute. You preface your comments with "I can't speak for everyone else", and then go on to assume that everyone else is exactly the same as you. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think that's a bullshit way to prove a point. QED...
You must consider a wide variety of users (everyone from teens to stereotypical cash-starved college students to working adults to...), a wide variety of listening habits (some people listen to music while at the computer, some listen in the car, some listen to the radio instead), and a wide variety of "accessories" (modem vs. DSL, in-car mp3 player vs. CD player, whether the person owns a CD burner).
Furthermore, at the end of the article, they even have a quote from one of the users talking about how he finds it stupid to buy the CD when you can download the tracks for free. I don't know how typical it is, but there's obviously at least one person who feels differently from you, making your absolute decree about lost revenue dubious.
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
Not that that would ever happen, Bowie... No, I suspect it's just slipped your mind (despite the fact that I dropped by IRC to bug you about it... twice).
Re: Criminials, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Can you imagine if the DMCA was around or the RIAA was around a decade ago?
News FLASH
AP Wire
Today, the RIAA and MPAA sued the Defense Department for violating the DMCA, charging that this new "Internet" constitutes an illegal circumvention device. Said a head lawyer for the RIAA "This internet will be a haven for criminals and piracy, causing the US economy to plumit. It must be stopped now."
How many future possibilities do we kill with every shutdown of a new information sharing system?
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
So let's deal. OK?
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
So basically the difference that I see between the two is that stealing deprives the victim of the object while copyright infringement deprives the victim of the object's monetary value. I think you're splitting hairs a bit too thin here.
While a difference exists, I don't see how you can argue that one is less morally offensive than the other.
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:1)
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
If I had an infinite number of Ferraris for which I was asking a sales price of $x and some were stolen, yes, I would complain.
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
Good luck trying to lock up an infinite number of Ferrari's. You'd have to pruchase and infinite number of locks.
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
Yes. We're assuming that people can only get Ferraris from me. I think it's a fair assumption in this analogy. They're free to buy other sports cars from other people or to not buy from me at all. Why does the fact that I have an infinite supply matter when I have a monopoly on the product?
Good luck trying to lock up an infinite number of Ferrari's. You'd have to pruchase and infinite number of locks
Does not keeping them locked give people the right to take them without paying?
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
The MORALITY of the situation is therefore that some law gets broken. Which law? The law that says content producers get to profit from works for a limiet time.
So - has any of these works passed into the public domain? Does anyone producing content have a fair shot at the market? Once you remove the immorality equating the crime to theft, the immorality of the entire situation surfaces.
So, while this is not a defense of the copyright infringement, you can see what exactly the inequities the system preserves. That should give anyone perspective, I think.
No. Not my definition. (Score:5, Insightful)
And people HAVE been arguing that one is less morally offensive than the other for as long as copyright laws have existed in this country. You clearly read
Information has the unique property that you *can* copy it without "destroying" the original. Why not harness this property, rather than make it look like a limited good?
The purpose of an economy is to distribute a limited good fairly and equitably as possible. Information is NOT a limited material resource. At worst, it is a common good (in the economic infrastructure sense), and at best it is a completely unlimited resource. In both cases, it has zero mariginal cost.
In short, the following is a valid *opinion*: "Copying information is not as morally offensive than stealing my physical property, or depriving me of my freedoms."
You may argue that this opinion is false, but you certainly can't tell me it is NOT a topic for debate.
Are you unaware that our founding fathers debated this topic as well?
Re:No. Not my definition. (Score:2, Redundant)
Right. That's where I think the difference is between theft and copyright infringement.
People have already pointed out that "losses" due to *potential* sales not happening are completely bogus. You know this, I know this.
Also correct. In fact, I made that same argment here [slashdot.org].
Just because somebody got something for less than *you* sell it for does not mean they would have paid for it had they not had the opportunity to get if for less. And it doesn't mean they "STOLE" the price difference from your pocket.
Agreed. If I, for some reason, download the new Backstreet Boys CD, I wouldn't classify that as stealing in a strict definition of the word because, without a gun to my head, I wouldn't have paid for it. But it's still morally wrong in my book. For whatever reason, I apparently want that CD. But I'm not willing to pay $15 for it. Am I willing to pay less? Maybe, but that's not an option at this point in time unless I want to take to XYZ file-sharing protocol and download it.
In summary, I agree that there are differences between physically stealing something (depriving someone of that object) and infringing on somebody's copyright. My question is, how do you propose we handle this intellectual property? How do we deal with the repercussions of lifting these copyrights? Who is going to produce music and movies and books if they aren't compensated in some way?
Re:No. Not my definition. (Score:2)
Re:No. Not my definition. (Score:2)
But "estimations" of these are often completly bogus, this has been going on for a long time. However these bugus claims of loss are part of the method of lobbying for more draconian laws, especially when the legislators don't bother to check anything they are told.
Re:No. Not my definition. (Score:2)
Let's say you're a software developer who sells his own software package for $20. Let's say packaging (including a proportional share of the overhead required to get new boxes and everything) is $5, leaving a $15 profit.
Now let's say that I, as your neighbor, want your software product quite badly, but I've only got $5 in my wallet. Which is worse:
1) I steal $15 from your wallet when you are looking, then give you $20 for the product.
2) I copy the software off of the Internet.
In both cases, the net result is the same -- you're out $15. (In case 1, you've got an extra $5, but have one less box of software, which we're making equivilant for the sake of argument.)
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
Maybe you should leave the thinking to the horse; they got much bigger heads than you do. Instead of 'I really don't think', why don't you enlighten me and try to explain why they did write those copyright by-laws.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
Except using these original copyright laws the vast majority of these songs would be public domain in the first place.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2)
That's a funny statement. You imply, probably without meaning to, that the people who wrote the laws are in the industry. But it's true. Copyright is not a natural property right. It has to be artificially created and enforced.
Tape-trading went on for years without people being arrested and thrown in prison for manufacturing cassette tapes. Almost certainly because first of all the cassete tape was a "product," and there was a way for the industry to extract their supposedly "lost" profits from blank media. And almost certainly because there was no way to track how many times a .60c cassette tape was used to copy the latest Duran Duran hit (or whatever).
So now we have a publicly visible excrescence of this phenomenon, and now people are seeing how much their product is worth. How many people are willing to actually pay for what they can easily copy from a friend.
The fact that everybody does it doesn't magically make it legal, proper, or morally justifyable in any context.
The value of what you put in the market is what people are willing to pay for it. If that's $0, you don't have a business model. Clearly people are willing to pay for a physical copy of a CD to put in their car, for the lyrics sheet to read and bip along to, for the pictures of the artists (if any). But the actual music is easily obtained, and it's worth $0. It only looks like theft because laws have been written to ensure this business model. But a law which is trivially violated and impossible to trace or enforce makes no sense.
The record industry is suing the Yang brothers because they're available to sue. They provide a tangible target for their so-called "loss." Why doesn't the record industry try to sue the millions of "pirates" out in the marketplace? They're the ones who actually violated the law, by taking that which they did not "own." Right?
Of course, then the recording industry would probably end up facing a massive consumer revolt, a class action lawsuit from their millions of defendants, and of course the impossibility of getting all those people in the courtroom at one time to hear the charges against them.
It may be that there is simply no market value for a stream of bits, whether that stream is music, video, text, or the recorded sounds of me farting in the shower. It may be that after all this, the record companies are still making money, and ought to be happy that they can. I still buy CD's. Plenty of other people do.
You don't see big acts going out of business because they can't sell enough CD's. N'Sync played in my town just a few weeks ago. I don't recall seeing them out on the corner panhandling before the gig. You don't see record company executives selling their children for scientific experiments. Obviously, they are still selling their product. They just think they're supposed to be selling more.
Re: Fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
What I really don't understand about all this is that the persons arrested were running a peer-to-peer filesharing service. Now, the peer-to-peer paradigm of filesharing really shouldn't be considered intrinsically illegal (the sorry case of napster comes to mind, but then so does that of gnutella). Should the maintainer of the service be punished, or the individuals using the service for illegal activity?
If someone runs someone down in a car, do we sue the person who built the road in the first place?
Who would be left to build new roads? Who would be foolish enough to build one? More importantly, who would walk down the street at all, knowing that there are no repercussions for vehicular manslaughter?
Peer to peer filesharing -can- be legal and -can- coincide with fair use provisions. When it dosent, the lazy governments just attack the target that's easiest to find, even if it's the -wrong one-, just so the recording industry can feel like all their bribe money is being put to good use.
What's next? Is someone going to be monitoring my AIM file transfers to make sure i'm not sending copyrighted material to my friends? After all, to be consistant, you would have to sue AOL for making such copyright infringement possible, right? Of course, not all companies (napster) have enough money to alter legal reality (AOL/TW)
Re:Translation: Criminals got busted. (Score:2)
Re:Stolen Goods and Linux (Score:2)
Some bands (Dave Matthews Band and Metallica come to mind immediately) do not discourage the taping of concerts (that said, some venues, most of which are owned in one way or another by some form of government discourage it.)
I think there are two factors underlying the ripping-off that one gets at a concert. The artist/entertainers are forced into overcharging at the concerts because they get screwed over by the record industry. The other reason is pure economics. When you go to a concert, you're not really obtaining the use of IP. Each concert is different than others, especially if you're going to a concert by a great live-entertainer (changes to songs, jam sessions, etc.), but even if you're not, then there is the atmosphere, the collective experience of being with n other people who have an interest in the same music. There is a scarcity of tickets to such events (with the exception of fire code issues, this is not granted by law). There is a scarcity of parking spaces around a given location.
Re:Stolen Goods and Linux (Score:2)
I myself wasn't expecting a reply, and I'm replying late due to a trip, but here goes
Metallica's stance on taping is not as strong as DMB's or the Dead's: they generally tend not to fight arenas that restrict taping. That said, they do, wherever possible, try to make it possible to tape. As far as I know, their objections to Napster did not cover live trading (though it could be argued that Napster themselves were trying to profit from the trades, which is something they (and DMB) take a dim view of).
As to governments propping up anti-taping laws, they are at least complicit in it, by which I mean that most arenas in this country are A) owned by a state university (thus gov't) or B) owned by either an actual governmental unit or by quasi-governmental authorities which pay their surpluses/profits to the governmental units at a rate of 100%. In the latter case (and occasionally the former), ClearChannel/SFX essentially purchase management rights to the arena, in return for a percentage of the gross revenues (similar deals are made wrt concessions). While the managers may actually make the rule, the authority will either provide explicit approval, or provides implicit approval (in the form of not vetoing them). And of course, they could conceivably explicitly bar taping-bans in the management agreements.
Gandhi? (Score:3, Insightful)
One was willing to fight, suffer, starve, and die for his beliefs. The others are just opportunists.
Find a better metaphor, eh?
-Kasreyn
Re:Hmm.... (Score:2)
You'd think that the whole pesky "burden of proof" thing would stymie the IAA's in court, but they seem to think statistics to be as good as a smoking gun. If the odds of my winning a lottery are a million to one and I buy a million tickets (over a period of several drawings) without ever winning, do I get to sue since statistically I should have won by now?
Re:Piggybacking (Score:2)
Re:which korea? (Score:2, Funny)
Fuzzy Math and Confirmed Kills (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoting from reply:
i had 183 confirmed kills in korea and i'm proud of every one of themOh, you're running the script which shuts down Code Red / IIS-infected machines, huh? Sounds like fun. Judging from my log files, the Koreans don't seem to be really keen on patching their servers.
Quoting from article:
Note that the Recording Industry Association of Korea reports local companies lost $154 million in sales in 2000 due to use of the program, even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999.To paraphrase the ever-illustrious American National Drinkin' Buddy, George Dubya Bush, that sounds like some fuzzy math.
Ever have someone give you a CD that you'd have never bought, and you threw out or gave away because you didn't want it occupying the real estate on your CD rack?
Then, there's music that you keep for the sole purpose of mockery. Emimem. Madonna singing American Pie. Name your boy-band or rap "artist" du jour.
Why can't the RIAA, etc. understand that the MP3 simply liberates music that they'd have *never* sold anyway? Of course, they'll count every file transferred as another dollar/yen/peso/lira/mark/franc/whatever lost, even when it probably falls into either one of the above categories or is a duplicate download to find a specific version of a song.
I've boycotted all forms of purchased music until the recording industries start to recognize that this isn't the end, it's the beginning. And that Napster was only the first.
Re:Sales figures (Score:2)
I assume that they are calculating based on some sort of assumption that every d/l'ed song would have been purchased at full price, and while that's an obvious over-simplification it's difficult to come up with any other measurement. What the hell -- it seems reasonable to me that scale plays a part here, and scale implies measurement.
Certainly if physical assets had been swiped we'd be pretty comfortable saying that "$145M worth of goat-scented dildoes were stolen", even though the total market for such a product might be just that one guy (you know the one), and he doesn't have $145M to spend.