Brazil Considering Legalizing File Sharing 233
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Brazil may be the country to watch if you're interested in much more consumer-friendly copyright laws (assuming US diplomatic pressure doesn't interfere). As that country goes through a copyright reform process, among the proposals is one that would create fines not just for infringing, but also for hindering fair use and the public domain. Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support — even from some artists groups — to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection. Of course, one reason why Brazil may be doing it this way is because of the massive success the Brazilian musical genre technobrega has had by embracing file sharing as a way to promote new works, and making money (often lots of it) through other avenues, like live shows."
Re: Levy (Score:2)
Re: Katrina (Score:2)
Sometimes a levy breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 funny
another funny thing is, the original version of When The Levee Breaks (Kansas Joe McCoy) is the only Free song I have in my music collection (maybe the 1971 Zeppelin rework should be public domain by now, but a 1929 blues song definitely should be.)
* I have some songs from artists that speak favorably of torrents (as well as those who speak unfavorably; the music is alright still), but this is the only track that's PD or CC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?
Nobody? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because it is sooooooo easy to game that system. We'd finally have a good economic incentive for botnets.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?
Yes, that's the problem with that solution. It can be shown by the mathematical economists that for goods with certain attributes, a free market is an optimal way to determine how those goods should be produced and distributed. Unfortunately, goods like music lack the necessary attributes, leading to what economists call a "market failure" when you try to use a free market to handle music.
There are two known viable solutions to this kind of market failure. One is to artificially, by force of law, imbue thin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paying companies who may or may not represent the artists I listen to, and may or may not have a oppressive contract with the artists I listen to, seems like a perfect example of rent seeking. IMO, it is extortion. Especially since you are paying it to avoid legal hassle. Maybe we should all incorporate as Music Labels and get a slice of the pie.
Really though, it comes down to ease of use and lack of DRM -- aka provi
Re: (Score:2)
Fair compromise? Why in the hell should I be taxed $21/year because you are too cheap to buy music? What if I don't buy/share music on the internet? Why do I have to subsidize you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hi... you notice a theme here... the items you listed are provided by the government for the common good. Royalties to an artist don't meet those criteria.
Thanks for playing.
Brazil (Gilliam) (Score:5, Funny)
This is information retrieval not information dispersal
Gee, what a concept (Score:5, Interesting)
Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
I don't download music at all. I also don't buy it. I barely ever listen to it outside of occasionally turning on a rock station in the car. I don't miss it much either.
Honestly, since there is no way they are ever going to stop filesharing, its not a bad idea to legalize it IMHO. Its like legalizing marijuana. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they did that in my opinion, but it would let the government tax the sales. Perhaps thats a solution? Let the government tax your time on a P2P network? Nah
Well the problem (Score:2)
Is that not everything works like music. Video games would be a good example. Once you have the game, well that's what you wanted. There isn't a "live show" to go see or anything. The whole point is having a game to play. If you declare it legal to just copy games, that'll really hurt sales. Any way I can think of to deal with that just leads to decreased game quality:
1) Make it legal to share single player but require payment for multi-player. Ok well that'll just kill off single player games, which is wha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Create the first few missions and release them. Tell people that if they like what they see, they should pay/donate to you to create more.
Isn't that much better? We pay artists to create, not to make copies
Re: (Score:2)
There are some problems that definitely need to be worked out but it might be a viable option for some groups. Though I must say that it might make starting up even more difficult.
Won't work (Score:2)
A large part of the problem is that for a lot of cool games, it takes a large team working on it. It isn't a guy, it is 20 or 50 or 100 people working together. This means it costs a good deal to do. Also the costs of getting everything together and making part of a game can be a very large part of the cost. So unless you want all games to go down to mid to low end indy quality, that isn't happening. Not saying there's anything wrong with those too, but I like bigger, more polished games as well.
Then there'
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my suggestion was:
1) They create a few missions, release them.
2) You play them, like them. Donate to create more.
3) They create a few more missions.
4) Goto 2
So, you do get to play before you buy. Also, I don't see why more polished games shouldn't be possible with this system -- the best products will draw more attention and will get more donations.
Note that what I am suggesting is not "pay what you want". That's an entirely different business model, which is a crap shoot imho. When I say "donate"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not, which is why 90% of commercial movies, bands, software, etc in the mainstream suck so bad.
To your video game example. How about interlaced advertising as a model? Works for TV.
My argument against copyright laws is this: if they disappeared overnight, movies would still be shot; musicians would still make music; software would still be written by programmers; and yes, video games would still be created. Because all of these t
Re: (Score:2)
You know I hear that, but I don't see it. Seems like there aren't a whole lot of game companies willing to work for free. The free games out there are few and far between, and by and large quite pathetic. Everyone seems to assume that people will just create for free forgetting that people also have to eat, pay rent, those kind of things. Plus it is not feasible except extremely rarely to complete a large work by themselves. Takes too much time, too many skill sets. Well when there's no money, no company, t
Re: (Score:2)
#3 is already what we have. Buy any game for PS3 or 360, toss in it and see how many patches they need. This is for consoles that normally have less patches than the PC versions.
Re:Gee, what a concept (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gee, what a concept (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet, that music would still be played. I make beer, cider, wine, paint and produce lots of other stuff that no one pays me to make. I give most of it away as I could never use it all. I still even have a day job. We would be far better off with more people creating art/music/culture and them making less money at it. You might still have a few big stars, but not everything is done for love of money.
Re:Gee, what a concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
Yep. Sounds like he's saying that if your music isn't that popular and the musicians can't make a living at it, maybe they should just play anyway because they love it. Music, for many of us, is a hobby - a passion.
i would like you to stop watching tv (Score:2)
because as soon as tv came along, all of my favorite radio dramas went off the air
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_drama [wikipedia.org]
so television obviously means the death of creativity. plus, i want to hold all of technological change hostage because my favorite media is not working the way it worked before new media came along
you are forcing my favorite form of artistic expression to die, just because you want to watch tv. that is so unfair of you, why should i be out of luck just because your new media came along
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
You're twisting the OP's words. He/she didn't say musicians (of this or that kind) shouldn't make a living, or that fans of this or that music shouldn't be able to access it: in fact, the gist of what the OP is saying is that one should be able to listen to any music, for free, as long as it's a recording. Hence nobody is "out of luck".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My music money is to go to artists that I like. Plain and simple. That are the artists that I want to continue playing.
Yes that's egoistic. But I couldn't care less if Britney Spears ran out of money and stopped producing music.
However my taste is not everyone else's taste. Other people may want to support other artists, which is also fine with me. There are a lot of other people who do like Britney and are happy to support them with their money.
Nothing wrong with that either.
And in the end we have a hu
Re: (Score:2)
While I do hold your point of view, one could also argue that for thousands of years there was no way *to* enjoy someone's works *except* Live. You had to go to a live performance to hear someone's work. While now, you can enjoy their work at home, in the car, wherever...and in fact, a very small portion actually go to watch it live.
I am in agreement though. I think they should view recordings as advertisement for gigs really. Make money off commercial licensing royalties and performances.
Not even because o
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
It was also an artistically very liberating concept. It allowed musicians to create music that is not meant to be reproduced in front of and by live audiences., or which cannot be. It freed music of some of its functional restraints. In this way, it increased the range of the arts and contributed to an extension of our view of the world and the way we experience it. Much of the "serious" music of the 20th century belongs into this category, but also large parts of contemporary electronica.
At the same time,
File sharing is already legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't confuse file sharing with illegal distribution of copyrighted material on peer-to-peer networks.
Re:File sharing is already legal (Score:5, Informative)
The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.
You can make the argument that piracy is too harsh a word for individual copyright infringment, but you could also make the argument that "file sharing" in the context of infringement is basically a way of legitimizing something illegal... a kind of PR. Calling it file sharing is a bit like calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers". It's a kind of spin.
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.
What are you talking about? The OP is 100% correct. The protocols (as you label them) are not used for copyright infringement. They are used to share files! I cannot believe that your message is modded informative. Your post is not informative, it's myopic. Next you'll be telling me that the primary purpose of hammers is to knock people's brains out. Which I am tempted to use my hammer on you for this purpose, but that's another story...
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. I left out a "usually" in my post. As in, what the protocols are usually used for. Cut back on the flamebait a bit.
Mmm, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
levy (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuck that. I don't infringe copyright. Don't steal my money. No new, undiscovered band is going to see this money. It's no different than taking money from the subscribers and giving it to Microsoft, because someone might download MS Office.
waitaminute (Score:2)
This is the country my brother just moved to... and he had to ditch all his LEGAL DVDs because they were the wrong country code, and would be illegal there.
"US Diplomatic Pressure" (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth about copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it?
If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
Would creativity dry up without copyright?
If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...
Inform yourself on http://questioncopyright.org/faq [questioncopyright.org], as a bonus you can download a free movie Sita Sings the Blues [questioncopyright.org]
US diplomatic pressure (Score:2)
US Diplomatic Pressure - otherwise known as an M1 Abrams Tank.
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Informative)
Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.
They might not had made hundreds of millions of dollars if not for insane copyright law.
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.
They might not had made hundreds of millions of dollars if not for insane copyright law.
Sure they would have. Because copyright law was largely irrelevant as far as pirating music back then. Tape recorders were crude, and there was no way to make quality reproductions of songs for the average listener. If you wanted the record, you had to buy it from the store. Even into the 80's and early 90's, your best option was recording an album from cassette to cassette, and even with some higher end tape decks, you still didn't get sound quality as good as the original. Computer technology is what changed things, not copyright law. Now, suddenly any schmuck can make a perfect copy of a CD and distribute it to millions of his closest friends on the Internet.
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, suddenly any schmuck can make a perfect copy of a CD and distribute it to millions of his closest friends on the Internet.
Long story short you could make many really good analog copies of the first generations, but it didn't last and one person with bad equipment destroyed the chain. What changed with perfect copies as opposed to near-perfect copies is that you can have infinite generations. You don't need to give it to a million friends, only a few as long as they in total pass it on to more people. It's a little bit like a nuke going of, if you have a ratio >1 there's a chain reaction until you run out of reactive material.
Fractional people sound silly so let's just start with 10 people having it and each giving it to 1.2 people on average. So those 10 give it to 10*1.2 = 12. Those 12 give it to 12*1.2 = ~14. Those 14 give it to 14*1.2 = ~17. Those 17 give it to 17*1.2 = ~20 and so it keeps going growing exponentially with 1.2^n until you run out of people who'd want it. And nobody did more than share a little over one copy. There is no big bad wolf, only many equal peers.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be honest, digital is already an imperfect copy. Music is intrinsically analogue and lots of data has to be stripped away to generate a digital copy. Which is why the live performance is always the best and recorded dead music only function is to recapture the emotion of the shared live event.
In music copyrights only function nowadays seems to be greed, selling destructive ideas to impressionable children, creating lame drugged up drunken one hit wonders and of course to flood the courts with B$ leg
Re: (Score:2)
Studio recorded music often sounds much better than the live recording - in live concerts the emotions rule, but the sound is often just so-so even if you are standing in the best spot - and most of the listeners aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
It partially depends on the band. Many musicians these days rely way too much on studio equipment to make their music sound good. Also, most of the people operating the equipment at a live concert have no idea what they're doing.
Re:Who would have thought (Score:5, Insightful)
And demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars per "infringed" song isn't insane?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly does that apply to the discussion of whether or not the beetles made millions of dollars SELLING their music and not giving it away free? The discussion wasn't about the merits of current law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
Really? Why?
Copyright is an artificial scheme, and a utilitarian one. It isn't mandatory that it exist, and if it does exist, it isn't up to the author to make that decision, or decide what the specific details are; that's up to the public (via a legitimate government accountable to the public, working in the public interest).
If it is in the public intere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well, that's fine then. I apologize if I came across as too harsh or anything.
Myself, I'd rather see strict registration, renewal, and deposit formalities, and then have numerous, short terms. The number of renewals might vary depending on the type of work. The maximum length for the most protected works might easily wind up being in the 15-20 year range, however.
Re: (Score:2)
No system that tries to implement any sort of monopoly can address the fundamental problem with copyright that the internet has amplified - that it is human nature to copy stuff we like, on both a wholesale and a piecemeal (derivative) basis. It seems like common sense that we would settle on a system that channels human nature to incent creators instead of fights it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory licensing can solve that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, could we try distinguishing between non-commercial infringement by natural persons, and everything else? My suspicion is that most people would accept being able to copy things so long as it was just between real people, and no money was involved (nor other things of value, such as advertisements, or even ratios), but that if the copying is in some way commercial, or involves businesses or other artificial entities, then the author ought to have rights over that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a question of what some group of people think is fair. It's human nature to copy in all aspects of our lives. For example, software piracy is rampant in business for the same reason entertainment piracy is rampant among individuals - it is easy to do and the chances of getting caught are minuscule. And that's just one type of widespread violation, I'm sure you are aware of all kinds of other classes of corporate copyright violations, like those along the lines of American Geophysical U
Re: (Score:2)
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
How is being paid multiple times for a single piece of work fair ? Should a janitor get paid every day, even though he only cleans on Mondays ?
How are your children being paid for your work fair ? Should a janitor's children be paid his salary for 20 years after he dies, even though they're not mopping any floors ?
How is being paid because someone e
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead -as the intent of copyright law as it was granted- the law serving to help artists against publishers,
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.
Or they were just more mainstream and thus had a bigger audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a significant period of time American radio stations would not play any Beatles songs, and this was in spite of the fact that in England they had many #1 hits. 4-piece guitar bands were "on the way out."
When American radio stations DID decide to start playing The Beatles, they introduced many of those #1 hits to the American audience at the same time. And thus, Beatle Mania was born. There was a period where half of the
Re: (Score:2)
holding back the product to build up demand can work as an intentional strategy, I suppose it can also work as an unintentional strategy
high quality product = good
high quality marketing = good
combine the two = really good
Re:Who would have thought (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a terrible system, because there's less music being made that way, and people are spoon-fed only what the labels want them to listen to.
Today things are changing, because the labels' promotional machine is being overridden by more open distribution systems. So--- today it's not about making millions, it's about making a fair living (fairer distribution of wealth, and a level playing field) and having a chance to fame based on the quality of your work rather than dumb luck of getting picked up by a bunch of professional marketeers.
I think Brazil has the right idea, and I'll really really hate it when the big WIPO/ACTA/TRIPPS bullies shit their usual brick.
As one of my favorite indies put it... (Score:2)
"I can’t buy a mansion in Hollywood, but that was never the goal. I get by comfortably and will keep making music until I die. High five! What more could I ask for?"
from the http://mclars.com/site/blog/guest-blog-on-dave-kuseks-site/ [mclars.com] blog post of his, which expands upon these concepts
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?
This is a silly argument on its face, and doesn't square with history. The Grateful Dead made a lot of money off of their model, but they were the exception to the rule, and their major contemporaries made vastly more sums of money than they did. The key to truly big time success is mass media exposure, not word of mouth. Word of mouth can help break an artist out of anonymity, but it's no substitute for being played on radio, TV, and for selling CD's and iTunes downloads. Lots of other artists... some of t
Re: (Score:2)
Also, their model required a dedicated group of followers who would attend as many shows as possible. This is not a very scalable model, when most bands would be lucky to have a (un-obsessed) fan attend one or two of their shows over their lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the obsession as following the band around and seeing several shows in one tour.
Seems logical to me that if you'd like the act, you'd see them when they came close to your town if the schedule allows.
However, if the band tours a lot, they might swing by your neck of the woods only once or twice each time.
I suppose obsession can also be marked by the distance one is willing to travel if the band doesn't come locally.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?
The Grateful Dead in its most recognizable form was active from 1967 to 1995.
The "tapers" were just that - fans recording live performances to reel-to-reel or cassette tapes.
Fans who had paid for their tickets exchanging copies 1 for 1 with fans who had also paid for their concert tickets.
The Deadhead played by Deadhead rules.
Garcia performed in over 2000 concerts - around 70 a y
Re: (Score:2)
I think that had more to do with the drugs than anything else. Playing 70 Gigs a year is less work than most folks do.
Here are the current stats for the rest of them:
Vince Welnick: sucicide 2006, so unrelated
Brent Mydland: 1990 dug overdose, so unrelated
Donna Jean Godchaux: Alive, 63
Keith Godchauz: Car crash 1980 unrelated
Tom Constanten: Alive, 67
Mickey Hart: Alive 66
Ron "Pigpen" McKernan: Congenital medical issue and alcoholism 1973, so unrelated
Bill Kreutzmann: Alive, 64
Phil Lesh: Alive, 70
Bob Weir: Aliv
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. Hollywood's going to close down because people can freely share their movies in another country.
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've spent a fair amount of time in Brazil in the past decade. If you wanted to position yourself to live in a country that's going to be in really good shape over the next few decades, with good quality of life and vibrant economies, you could do a lot worse than learning Portuguese and moving to Sao Paolo or Campinas or any of several smaller cities in Brazil.
There really seems to be a progressive spirit and socially responsible direction to the way Brazil is heading. There are still plenty of problems, as you would expect in a country so large and so relatively young. But they seem to be proving that you can be a developing country that will compete in the world economy without selling out entirely to corporate interests. It's not entirely paradise, but there are places in Brazil where you'd think you died and gone to heaven. There are opportunities there. And even in Rio de Janeiro, where there are horribly poor slums and rampant corruption, there are indications that things might turn around. They're smart enough to be taking the bits of European Socialism that work best, and the bits of capitalism that seem to work, and not worrying about what America and Morgan Chase think.
Brazil is destined to be a success story, I think. And a good example for other South American countries. At least it'll be a success as long as the US can keep from sending assassins to take out any political leader who dares speak to Hugo Chavez, and putting in some military dictator so the corporations can rape Brazil too.
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:5, Informative)
Unless they fix their wealth distribution don't expect too much. I would love to see them do well, but when a couple people ride around in helicoptors and children starve in favelas, it leads to crime, corruption and many of the other problems that plague latin America.
The USA will do anything it can to make sure Brazil is safe for US corporations, knocking off a legally elected politician is only the tip of that iceberg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Spoken like someone who seriously has no clue whatsoever about anything related to life outside of the states. Bravo.
I'm an American citizen who has been living in Brazil for nearly 14 years now. I've been lucky enough to witness the country rise economically from the ashes of a dictatorship and prosper during a time of world recession. Brazil isn't without its share of problems just like any other country on the planet, but over the last decade has proved itself a world power and economically stable env
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ok Mr PopeRatzo.I'm a brazilian, and I live in Brazil. This contry is a complete mess and a huge pile of crap. I've spent a fair amount of time in the US in the past decade. So, I was wondering: Since you think that this stupid hellhole of a country is so great and filled with so many opportunities, let's make a deal. I will trade my brazilian citizenship for your american citizenship. You move here, I move there. You can even have my job, wich is a very good one for brazilian standards. Deal?
Put your money
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW - Here's an article on recent improvements in brasilian agriculture from The Economist. [economist.com] I thought it was a pretty good article, as far as it went, fortunately some of the comments flesh out some of the parts that the article glossed over. Not that many people here are likely to become corporate farmers in Brazil, but it gives you a sense of things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the US loses the Brazilian presidential elections this year, we(Brazilians) will be in world of shit. I have already seen a few minor US news articles in which Brazil is is honored with the hip tag "enemy state", and grouped with Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya. It should be interesting observing a "crisis of democracy" first hand, notice how government had to contest to audit the Brazilian voting machines a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that makes them quite American; that's the same way the US used to behave towards the UK.
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:4, Informative)
The US exports and produces very little, almost everything is manufactured in Asia or some developing country with cheap labour. The only thing they have is lots and lots of money, and IP lots of it. That's why they will intervene, not because of moral or legal reasons.
really? The data does not support that conclusion:
http://www.importexportbook.com/what-does-the-usa-import-and-export/ [importexportbook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What astonishes me is how this country can export such crap as their cars....
Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting numbers but aren't they a bit useless if you don't either compare them to imports or to the exports of another country?
I mean, 7 cubic foot per litre is all nice and well but without context it's pretty damn unhelpful/useless.
I wouldn't call the 3rd largest exporter 'very little'. Plus it's only 200M behind the leader.
1 People's Republic of China $1,204,000,000,000 2009 est.
2 Germany $1,159,000,000,000 2009 est.
3 United States $1,046,000,000,000 2009 est.
4 Japan $542,300,000,000 2009 est.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, Germany has a population only of only 81 million, compared to the USA at 330million, the Chinese at over a Billion and the Japanese at 127 million. What ever it is they are doing, we need to start copying them. Perhaps it is all those worker friendly laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What ever it is they are doing, we need to start copying them.
That's pretty simple: they keep the value of their currency low. Drop the value of the US dollar to half what it's now and US products will sell around the world like hotcakes. And at the same time, we'll import much less from China and the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
We did the same thing to the British. That nice picture of Sam Addams everyone knows is only famous because his shirt was made on a "pirated" loom.
Cue economy sanction in 3..2.. (Score:2)
You can expect all companies of the "knowledge based economy" to immediately demand their governments to impose economy sanction while their expensive landsharks in Brazil files suits in parallel to halt implementation of the said law. The bought and paid for politicians of respective governments would very faithfully demand Brazil to scrap the whole idea or risk their combined wrath.
In summary - Best of Luck guys, it's never going to fly, as the douche bags in the "knowledge base economy" cartel will make
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't tease me and promise something you can't deliver. I just don't know what I'd do if there were no more Eat, Pray, Loves.
Re: (Score:2)
filesharing is not stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's one other point worth mentioning with respect to "tecno brega". From WP article on it:
Music of the genre is created primarily through remixing and reworking songs from popular music and music from the eighties ... Often producing their music with little concern for copyright, the music is "born free."
So, yeah. If you do little but remix existing works, and without paying for the use of that source material, I can see how you can make a living even with the meager profits you'd get. But I don't see h
Re: (Score:2)
Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger - Daft Punk
Cola Bottle Baby - Edwin Birdsong
I'm sure someone can think of a longer chain but that is the most famous one I think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly can the government be expected to "fight music piracy" any better?
I would expect that in any reasonable society protecting a government granted monopoly from noncommercial infringement would rank pretty low on the scale of stuff to worry about. I would expect in a society with as bad a wealth distribution, and all that entails, as Brazil would make that even lower on the scale of stuff to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another poster asserting that everything that has happened in the War on Piracy is the fault of p2p users, and by implication, that the big media corporations and various governments are blameless. They don't exactly have a gun held to their heads in the matter- all the crap they pull is their choice, and therefore their fault.