handdator

Visa fullständig version : Against Piracy. Against Piratpartiet.


CinemaScope
2006-08-31, 23:12
Ok... first things first.



I"m brazilian. I live in Portugal. I produce feature length films. I write screenplays. I do script doctoring and advice for several production companies. I teach Film Production at Lisbon"s film school.



I am not Swedish. I don"t vote in Sweeden. I couldn"t care less about political agendas. I"m here as a civilian who works and earns his living from an Industry whose laws and regulations you are trying to change. Dramatically. Also I"m writing as someone who believes your ideas about my Industry are wrong, preconceived, not adjusted to today"s issues and oblivious about all the great thing it has (even if it"s not perfect - and it is not!!)



Another thing is... on this debate, I"m in disadvantage because I don"t have access to your whole platform. I just read (carefully) the smaller versions you have in English (do you translate everything to English? If so, please send it to me).



So I"ll start like this.



According to you... and I quote:

"The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance between the interests of publishers and consumers, in order to promote culture being created and spread." End of quote.



This affirmation is a blatant and naive over-simplification of what copyright laws are all about. According to you, there are two parties involved: publishers and consumers. Actually they are three: Publishers, Consumers and the (Art)works themselves as another natural object of protection (and I feel you forget that). It is important to notice that the actual laws may well vary from country to country (and I am not familiar with the Swedish case)... but since we are all western countries, I feel that it is reasonable to assume that... the aim is common although the tools may differ.



Now back to your affirmation, none of the three corners of this triangle is more important than the other. That"s what keeps the balance. You take any of its corners and you get nothing. The balance itself is never measured in terms of equalty - that"s another misconception. The balance of these relationships is based on who has the power to render the best service to (an agreed) common good (being this common good a relative/possible thing). Who has such power? Is it the publisher? Is it the consumer? Is it the work itself? What is that is needed to have such power? Money? A smile? A good intention? A gun? A strong will to do good? Greed? Brains? Any combination of those?



It cannot be the work itself, obviously, who has the power. Can it be the consumer? Maybe. Can it be the publisher? Maybe. What about the promotion and spreading of culture? Is that an objective per se? That"s another misconception from you. The "in order to promote culture being created and spread." ALWAYS was a by product. The copyright laws were not meant for that. Those laws were made to... since there are "cultural commodities" that can be created and spread to a willing audience... let"s set up a REGULATED network that makes this reality EFFICIENT and PROFITTABLE (good for one, good for the other).



So, it is within this triangle that remain the three most important elements: (1) Authorship, (2) financial exploration and (3) the right of existence of the work.



Several other elements spawn from what I said above. I"ll try to sum them up later into a few questions.



But before, let me quote you again:

"Today that balance has been completely lost, to a point where the copyright laws severely restrict the very thing they are supposed to promote. The Pirate Party wants to restore the balance in the copyright legislation." End of quotation.



Has the balance been lost? What balance? An equalitarian balance? Do you think YOU ever had that? Such, I"m afraid, (as I said) is a myth... (another misconception) and never existed. And it cannot exist within the laws of free market considering all its intervenients (who, in fact, are a lot more than those within the triangle) and their necessities.



What are they supposed to promote? The balance? Plus: do you think the same balance exists in every artistic/comercial relationship within our cultural/comercial world? I"m afraid not. And I"ll give you an example. The film industry is composed of many parties with varying interests and responsabilities: creatives, producers, distributors, exibitors, retailers, advertisers, providers and... the consumer.



Do your radical change proposals actually think about all those involved? Have it ever occured to you that the changes you barelly outlined (on the English paper I read) will bring crisis to several parties involved? I assume that you are aware that the copyright laws you want to change currently (directly or indirectly) affect a rather large chain of people with BIG responsabilities on the thing we call "a film". And since we are on the fly... how can you tell that the changes that you propose will not interfere with the films all these parties do? How do you get over this?



All we have today (in terms of film copyrights) is the product of 100 years of hard work. I"m not saying it is 100% good. But do you think you can RADICALLY IMPROVE it with a few signatures? Can that be done by decreet?



Now... define "balance". Are you sure you hold the key to any balance to such a complex organism? As I see it, it is quite easy to open a statement asking for balance. Sure it sounds great. But to me it seems devoided of any real idea. You call for radical change on this building and you want me to believe that you can replace the base without touching all the 50 floors above?



This lack of balance you put your finger on gave me John Ford"s THE SEARCHERS in a gorgeous 2-disc restored edition with paper replicas of the comic book (among other things)... for 12 Dollars!!! That lack of balance gives you music for 99 cents. It gave me George Harrison"s ALL THINGS MUST PASS (remastered - no less!) on my shelf for 10 dollars (I bought it like new on Ebay). Oh, you don"t care for golden letters engraved in wood imported from the vienese woods? Fine: just get the song in Itunes for .99... or an used older copy for $4 or less.



According to your vision of balance, who"s going to pay for PERSONA"s restoration? Ok... bad example! PERSONA is a masterpiece... even I would pay for that one if I could :-) . What about Sjostrom"s not so popular THE WIND?



...And according to you, who will garanty that the ultra-erotic Donna Summer"s orgasmic rendition of LOVE TO LOVE YOU BABY was not edited by a mormon at the P2P total freedom scenario you advocate? OMG, the song is 16 minutes long... any amish can censore those 5 minutes os screams... and I won"t even know it (unless I know about it previously - which I didn"t untill I bought the CD). According to you? Who defends the work? If I find 20 versions of THE BIRTH OF A NATION available for free download, which one will give me the best bang for the time I spent downloading it?



The copyright laws protect my screenplays. 20 years from now if Paramount decides to make an american remake with (an older) Judd Law, shouldn"t I get paid for the screenplay they"re using it? Don"t you still pay to see Mona Lisa"s smile although it was painted 500 years ago? But you don"t have to!!!!! Ask your theater for a The DaVinci Code poster (or they will destroy those) and there you have her... and bigger.



Mr.X"s book on film theory written in 1957 is forgotten and no longer available. Duh!

It is not selling untill Steven Spielberg admits it was that book who inspired him to make E.T. - Why can"t the publisher who owns the rights issue a new edition to all those millions who NOW care to read it. Isn"t the same with food? Nobody cares about the X mushroom (rare, expensive and only to be found in the Azores) untill scientists say it cures impotence! Suddenly, they"re growing X mushrooms in China!



What about porn? There you have an industry whose crux depends on copyright laws more than anything! Have you got any idea how much DEEP THROAT"s rights are worth today? Should everybody have free porn? Where"s your position on that one? You try to tell them porn is not artistic and culturaly relevant (if that"s what you think).



Can you be more specific about that lack of balance?



I ask this because where you see "lack of balance", I see an aggressive marketing practice (sometimes too aggressive and highly quastionable - but free) - and that can be criticized. Where you see "lack of balance", I see uneducated consumers who behave like spoiled kids. Where you see "lack of balance", I see people eager to consume no matter what... not knowing that any consumption means a fair retribution.



But for now, all I"m asking is that you elaborate on your definition of "balance". All I wrote above comes just from your idea of it. :D



-----------------



I expect your answer.

Best Regards.

Thanks.

2006-09-01, 00:04
The most important balance is that our rights as individuals are not voilated to serve the interests of producers of content.



In today's world, any private digital communication can include copyrighted information. I can send, in an instance, a song to a friend, or in a few hours or so, a copy of a DVD quality film. This can be sent over the same channels as any other private communication that should be illegal to intercept.



In order to enforce copyrights the way they've traditionally been enforced, we would need to monitor all private communication, and it is this balance we do not want to upset. I'm sorry, our right to private communication is more important than your right to wield complete and supreme control over the non-commercial distribution of your work.



To be clear, we only support non-commercial copying, not commercial copying. We do not support shady market dealers who deal in burnt CD:s, they are neither a benifit to the consumer or the producer, they are purely parasitical in this ecology. We believe you should still have right to be the sole commercial benefactor of your work for five years after the creation of your work, you should be the only person able to *sell* it, and that is an important distinction.



You can't compete with an equivalent product for a cheaper price (for example, an illegal copy sold in a market), but you *can* compete with free, simply because you can't get something for nothing. The hassle of obtaining a free copy of the work can simply outweigh the convenience of a legal download, for example. The trick is selling added value with your product, not just the video itself. There has to be a reason to buy a disc -- and that means it has to be convenient to use without any stupid copy protection schemes etc. I'm sure people would pay for downloads if speeds were guaranteed and they were not forced to reprocicate in any way, and quality was monitored rather than the free-for-all on peer to peer. That is the value you need to provide.



Information today is very easy to copy, and resisting this is ultimately counterproductive. The revolution has already begun, and is bound to take its course, and laws need to follow. In Sweden, a country of 9 million people, there are 1.2 million active file sharers already today, despite the laws prohibiting it.



Finally, as a side note about the porn industry -- the porn industry has rarely cracked down on file sharing, because they realize most people who download porn wouldn't have bought it if it weren't available on peer to peer, for one reason or another. They even release complete clips onto peer to peer themselves, often containing advertising for their commercial site where the user can pay to get more. They seem to have obtained a symbiosis with file sharing, and while their industry is much more profitable and can produce content at much lower costs, the economics are basically the same for films and music as for porn.



I hope this helps you understand our position. To re-iterate, the most important balance is that our rights as individuals to have private communication must outweigh interests of copyright holders. Any economic side-effects are secondary, and even if they are secondary, they've shown to be positive rather then negative. Your profits will probably remain unchanged, but more people will see your film. Does that mean you're being paid less per copy? Yes. Does that mean you're losing money? Not really. Does that mean society is gaining by enriching their culture with more media available to them? Definitely.

mobboffer
2006-09-01, 00:08
CinemaScope (2006-Aug-31)
According to you... and I quote:
"The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance between the interests of publishers and consumers, in order to promote culture being created and spread." End of quote.

This affirmation is a blatant and naive over-simplification of what copyright laws are all about.

Do you know what the official aim of the copyright system is in Sweden?

According to you, there are two parties involved: publishers and consumers. Actually they are three: Publishers, Consumers and the (Art)works themselves as another natural object of protection

Why should we consider non-living objects as parties? I don't believe a script has feelings.

Do your radical change proposals actually think about all those involved?

Proposalscan't think.

Have it ever occured to you that the changes you barelly outlined (on the English paper I read) will bring crisis to several parties involved? I assume that you are aware that the copyright laws you want to change currently (directly or indirectly) affect a rather large chain of people with BIG responsabilities on the thing we call "a film". And since we are on the fly... how can you tell that the changes that you propose will not interfere with the films all these parties do? How do you get over this?
I'm sure they will affect the movie industri. What it will look like after ourchanges is difficult to predict.

...And according to you, who will garanty that the ultra-erotic Donna Summer's orgasmic rendition of LOVE TO LOVE YOU BABY was not edited by a mormon at the P2P total freedom scenario you advocate?

I have no idea.

If I find 20 versions of THE BIRTH OF A NATION available for free download, which one will give me the best bang for the time I spent downloading it?

You haven't given us much data to guess which one will be the best.

The copyright laws protect my screenplays. 20 years from now if Paramount decides to make an american remake with (an older) Judd Law, shouldn't I get paid for the screenplay they're using it?

Only if Paramount (or someone else) wants to pay you.

Don't you still pay to see Mona Lisa's smile although it was painted 500 years ago?

I have paid to see the smile once. Have seen it several times without paying.

What about porn?

Porn is nice.

Have you got any idea how much DEEP THROAT's rights are worth today?

No.

Should everybody have free porn?

Couldyou clarify the question?

pv2b
2006-09-01, 00:12
I'm sorry, I forgot to log in before I wrote that long message as an Anonymous user. I just would like to take credit for it, so that you don't feel my post was written anonymously out of cowardice, I was simply not logged in.

voter
2006-09-01, 01:15
I must confess that I was a bit disappointed - I thought you were going to shoot some heavy artillery here.







CinemaScope (2006-Aug-31)

If I find 20 versions of THE BIRTH OF A NATION available for free download, which one will give me the best bang for the time I spent downloading it?





Probably the one you download directly from some official distributor for DW Griffith films.

Paying a small fee maybe? Everybody happy. :)



I found the other argumentation too long and woolly. You need to be more concise.

Perty
2006-09-01, 01:46
For some of the questions you have I also think you have the answare ie:



If I find 20 versions of THE BIRTH OF A NATION available for free download, which one will give me the best bang for the time I spent downloading it?



You have a choice, either get the one original you know is the original, from the author/supplier maybe paying on demand. Or maybe you have some free versions with comments or other features.



Do your radical change proposals actually think about all those involved? Have it ever occured to you that the changes you barelly outlined (on the English paper I read) will bring crisis to several parties involved?



Time changes, look at the explosion of the digital photos, a lot of stuff was uneeded but yet, there was new markets opened up. Or by all means the insdustrialisation, a lot of farmers in all Europa was not needed any more, but new factories was built and people changed their way of life. This is how it going to be in the future too.



/Perty

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 02:08
Anonymous (2006-Sep-01)The most important balance is that our rights as individuals are not voilated to serve the interests of producers of content.



I understand that position. But that does not make balance. As I explained you have a triangle of producers, consumers and objects who today work with (always arguable) minor flaws. But think of all the great things this system already have given you. I believe there is a market for everything and you cannot put all copyright-protected products in the same basket. In fact, I believe that in most cases (with a few exceptions) you cannot analize the copyright law in terms of a tension between consumers and producers.



That would be the same if I was to tell you that the price of the forthcoming PlayStation3 in the next 12 months after its release was based solely by laws os supply and demand. Things are more complex than this.



I would say without a doubt that there is no tension as long as you are satisfied with the price and quality of the products you are getting. But the satisfaction itself cannot be an objective mesurable item. I have no problem paying $12 euros for a DVD (and that is based on my own personal sense and knowledge about the true price and value of things).



...Meaning that I think that you make a highly mistaken reading of the relationship between producers and consumers (with a few exception that i"d gladly tell you about later). YET, for me, the only possible way of attaining any balance (mine or yours) is through EDUCATION.



Not radical reform. I have nothing about reforms... except that I don"t think they are needed here.



EDUCATION is the KEY. Don"t buy it! Complain! Tell them what you think! Buy it only if you think it is worth it.





In today"s world, any private digital communication can include copyrighted information. I can send, in an instance, a song to a friend, or in a few hours or so, a copy of a DVD quality film. This can be sent over the same channels as any other private communication that should be illegal to intercept.



Well... you are right.

BUT the possibility does not make it legal. Many things that are possible, are not legal - if that"s your point.

You can do whatever you want if that"s possible... but your right ends when mine starts. Technology is a great thing. But we decide what to do with it. Call me stupid, but I"m 32yo and... even after the birth of Mp3 I haven"t stopped buying CDs and DVDs. And probably I make less money than a Swedish person who does what I do. But I check prices. I don"t go over impulse buying. I buy 2nd hand discs if I can"t afford a new one. You can"t keep the cake and eat it at the same time.



In order to enforce copyrights the way they"ve traditionally been enforced, we would need to monitor all private communication, and it is this balance we do not want to upset. I"m sorry, our right to private communication is more important than your right to wield complete and supreme control over the non-commercial distribution of your work.



Again, I understand your point and I"m sympathetic with it.

But this has nothing to do with the copyright protection laws... these are more complex issues. I said that technological possibilities do not automatically washes away your sins (the word is harsh... but it"s just a metaphor). But copyright theft (as it happens everyday) hurts me directly. Hurts musicians. Several smaller music labels in Portugal simply closed because of that. They kept their offices in Spain (a bigger market)... but Portugal simply did not make sense enymore. That does have a serious impact in some people"s lives.



Unfortunatelly, technology allows people to do all sorts of things... you can send a film or you can send child pornography. That has nothing to do with copyright laws. That is a matter os national security - and I won"t go that way.



But on the other hand, you"d be surprised about the number of illegal and dangerous business who turns to the (much more socially accepted) piracy in order to get pocket money for their real not socially accepted business objectives.



You can argue that copyright infringement is nothing compared... let"s say... illegal trafficking of imigrants for prostituition... and in a way it is true. But keep in mind that people lose their jobs because of piracy. Crimes are crimes for some reason. It is not a matter of freudian obsession for control. No. It"s about money that I use to pay my employees.



And about your right to privacy... another moral dilemma. What would you say if the police couldn"t stop a crazy bunch of people from blowing up the plane your son was in... just because chose to respect those crazy people"s rights to privacy over some p2p exchanges? I don"t have the perfect answer to that one. But I"d gladly give up some rights in order to make police work easier. I don"t do in my private life anything I"m ashamed of. Do dress as a woman and imitate Madonna? LOL Well... don"t you? :D



To be clear, we only support non-commercial copying, not commercial copying. We do not support shady market dealers who deal in burnt CD:s, they are neither a benifit to the consumer or the producer, they are purely parasitical in this ecology.



I"m 100% with you in that... but I"m afraid then that you chose the wrong name to your party. Piracy is a crime where some people do what you just wrote above. They exploit my work for profit margins of 99%. But I"m afraid lot"s of "uneducated consumers" (that"s how I call them) do not agree with us and use your flag to other uses.



So... you name your party "pirate" and you tell me DVD piracy is wrong?



If you say so...



We believe you should still have right to be the sole commercial benefactor of your work for five years after the creation of your work, you should be the only person able to *sell* it, and that is an important distinction.



I don"t know about this proposition in detail... but by the way it sounds I"m inclined NOT to agree with it.



I already AM the sole benefactor of my work as long as I can handle everything that sits between me and my consumers. Do you need a law to tell you that?



The problem ONLY comes when you decide to aim higher. A film, for example, is an expensive and risky business. You need partners and they only come abord if you grant them some rights. there are good and bad things about it. It"s up to you to give the jump or not.



You don"t need to look for a publisher if you know good xml and php. Put it online. You can already sell it downloadable directly through Amazon.com. That"s perfectly legal.



Still I don"t quite get the 5-year thing. Please explain.



You can"t compete with an equivalent product for a cheaper price (for example, an illegal copy sold in a market), but you *can* compete with free, simply because you can"t get something for nothing. The hassle of obtaining a free copy of the work can simply outweigh the convenience of a legal download, for example. The trick is selling added value with your product, not just the video itself. There has to be a reason to buy a disc -- and that means it has to be convenient to use without any stupid copy protection schemes etc. I"m sure people would pay for downloads if speeds were guaranteed and they were not forced to reprocicate in any way, and quality was monitored rather than the free-for-all on peer to peer. That is the value you need to provide.



I"m not sure I understand your point...

I would agree with you on that one IF we lived in a perfect world.

But we don"t.

The copy protection devices exist because of pirates. I am a ferocious defender of "fair use". I"ve got over 1500 CDs in my collection. I do burn compilations to use in my car. But unfortunately, you cannot charge .99 for a song and expect everybody to pay for it. Lots of people simply won"t pay a dime if can just get it for free... and many don"t really care about quality. That"s what makes piracy the problem it is.



About the added value... you simply cannot compare the added value the DVD brought over VHS, can you? Extras, Dolby 5.1, image quality... and for less than the VHS used to cost 25 years ago. And you don"t even have to buy the DVD nowadays... there are so many legal ways to get a film...



Information today is very easy to copy, and resisting this is ultimately counterproductive. The revolution has already begun, and is bound to take its course, and laws need to follow. In Sweden, a country of 9 million people, there are 1.2 million active file sharers already today, despite the laws prohibiting it.



Well... as I said before... just because you do it, doesn"t make it legal or right. The "everybody does it" justification can be used (and has been) used for horrible things.



Laws do not need to follow.



Finally, as a side note about the porn industry -- the porn industry has rarely cracked down on file sharing, because they realize most people who download porn wouldn"t have bought it if it weren"t available on peer to peer, for one reason or another. They even release complete clips onto peer to peer themselves, often containing advertising for their commercial site where the user can pay to get more. They seem to have obtained a symbiosis with file sharing, and while their industry is much more profitable and can produce content at much lower costs, the economics are basically the same for films and music as for porn.



Again, I believe you"re mistaken.

There is no difference whatsoever between the porn industry and the mainstream film industry. Does porn put clips over the internet for you to download? So do we... it"s called trailers, clips, etc. Some films even let you see the first 10 minutes. The only difference is that being a socially less accepted thing, porn found on the internet a great platform for advertising - something we don"t need because we have TV, magazines, billboards, Happy-meal toys, etc etc etc.



So, porn does go a little farther then we have to in order to lure our customers.



But in the end... if you want the whole film... no way you can get it for free!!!

And believe me... the porn industry are AS concearned about piracy and copyright theft AS we are. Check the price of a newly release porn title. They are way more expensive than what you pay for SpiderMan when it"s released in DVD.



I hope this helps you understand our position. To re-iterate, the most important balance is that our rights as individuals to have private communication must outweigh interests of copyright holders. Any economic side-effects are secondary, and even if they are secondary, they"ve shown to be positive rather then negative. Your profits will probably remain unchanged, but more people will see your film. Does that mean you"re being paid less per copy? Yes. Does that mean you"re losing money? Not really. Does that mean society is gaining by enriching their culture with more media available to them? Definitely.



Again... I"d love to agree with you.

But I think we don"t live in a self regulatory world where the loonies can have the key to the azylum.



People are quite intelligent. And that can be used for lots of things. Not all of them are good. Don"t you lock your doors every year when you go on vacation? I don"t believe furniture would be cheaper just because I"d have to buy it every year after my house gets robbed.



None of your rights to culture and beauty can hurt my rights to make sure that I get paid.

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 02:23
Voter (2006-Sep-01)



I must confess that I was a bit disappointed - I thought you were going to shoot some heavy artillery here.



Probably the one you download directly from some official distributor for DW Griffith films.



Paying a small fee maybe? Everybody happy. :)



I found the other argumentation too long and woolly. You need to be more concise.



LOLOLOL

Heavy artillery? All I whote was based one paragraph from your political project. I just comented six lines and got all those responses.

That's pretty heavy.



I took my time to argue with you. I explain point by point why I think your project is deeply flawed and all you are able to say is that you're disappointed? :P



That's pseudo-superiority. We are all better than that, don't you think? :cool:



Tell me who you are and what you do. Explain to me why I am wrong.



Be a man. Fight back. Playing super-cool, is easy.



I'm not talking about Astrophysics. I'm keeping myself on the area I feel confortable. If you feel as confortable, argue back. Show me exactly how do I disappont you. but if you have nothing to say... save some scroll space for someone who actually does.



I'm here to dabate.

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 02:35
Voter (2006-Sep-01)



I must confess that I was a bit disappointed - I thought you were going to shoot some heavy artillery here.



(...)



I found the other argumentation too long and woolly. You need to be more concise.



Oh... one more thing... is my argumentation too long? That's why it is called "argumentation" and not "chat". I'm not here to play. You give me plenty of field. I have to explain my point of view, since I'm the pilgrim in your profane terrain. :P (it's a joke)



But you don't have to read it. Just make sure you get the first and last sentences and wait a year for the movie :cool:



Again: sorry to disappoint. We aim to please (another joke). :hehe:

pv2b
2006-09-01, 02:50
You conveniently ignored my main point for most of your post. To re-iterate, there are three alternatives:<br>
<br>
1. Do not enforce copyright laws, or enforce them selectively.<br>
2. Monitor all private communications to enforce copyright laws.<br>
3. Change copyright laws.<br>
<br>
And I would definitely say that I would not exchange the right of private communication for some extra safety for my family or myself for that matter. What is life without the basic human right for privacy? Either way, terrorists and file sharers alike will learn to use encrypted communications, so this invasion of privacy will be all for nothing.<br>
<br>
We have nothing against monitoring of suspects, but there has to be a legitimate reason to start surveillance to begin with. You can"t treat your entire population like suspects.<br>
<br>
As for copy protection, I"m going to get that out of the way to start with. Copy protection isn"t good for anybody. Most of the content you get online via peer to peer file sharing sites is copied from one single copy, which was made by a person able to break copy protection. As long as you can view the content, it"s possible to copy. So all you"re doing with copy protection is inconveniencing normal people who want to make a copy for their friends, or for themselves for legitimate and under even current law fair purposes. So, copy protection is not an option. I have a few DRM-protected files on my hard drive I got through iTunes, and after consideration, I"m not going to buy more because I know I won"t be able to use them if I get anything else than an iPod music player unless I jump through some hoops, that I wouldn"t have to have jumed through had I just downloaded if off peer to peer instead.<br>
<br>
You also seem hooked up on the alternative that file sharing will kill the market for original copies of the media in question. The fact is, people will buy a product if it"s more convenient than getting it for free, and if they would have concidered paying for it in the first place. You can get water for free using a water faucet, but you can still pay to get bottled water of dubiously better quality, because of the percieved value of the packaging. The same way, it can be perfectly rational to want to buy a movie, if it"s more convenient. Today, it"s less convenient to buy a movie or a music album in the store than to download it. And you get a worse product, that"s protected by copy protection that infringes on my right to fair use of the product. So, I get to either have some hassle with downloading and not pay for it, or I get to have hassle with copy protection when I want to move it to a portable player for example, AND pay for it?<br>
<br>
The fact is, that a for-pay download service would definitely be able to make money if prices were reasonable, and more importantly, you get non-encumbered files to work with.<br>
<br>
But really, all this is spurious reasoning. You say that the issue is more complex than privacy or no privacy. I say the issue *is* as simple as just privacy or no privacy. Maybe I have nothing to be ashamed of, maybe I do. Either way, would you be comfortable to have cameras in every single room of your house for yourself to be watched every hour of your day? Because the people behind those cameras aren"t faceless government robots, they are people, curious people who love to watch all the stuff they"re not supposed to. I may not be ashamed of the web sites I visit, but I definitely don"t want a record of all file transfers I"ve made available to the government. Maybe I trust the incumbent government not to misuse this information, but how can I trust a government that has not yet been assembled?<br>
<br>
The issue is complex, yes, and the implications can be difficult. The choice is simple between privacy and no privacy, for my part, it definitely outweighs your rights as a producer. Sorry, unless you can make a compelling point as to why copyright enforcement is more important than the basic human right to privacy, I"m not changing my position. I"d rather live in a world without commercially produced film or music than in a world of constant surveillance. I"m prepared to deal with the consequences of my choice. Are you prepared to deal with pervasive electronic surveillance of the world to preserve your commercial interests?<br>
<br>
The implications may be complex, but that doesn"t mean the choice is hard or even seriously debatable. I firmly believe commercial distribution of film and media can thrive side by side with peer to peer file sharing. Maybe you won"t get paid for every copy, but you should be able to make some money. There is no guarantee you"ll make as much money back as you spent producing the movie, but there is no such guarantee with copyright either. And, at risk of sounding callous -- if you make a product nobody wants to buy, that really is your problem.<br>
<br>
Edit: By the way, our entire party program (our declaration of principles) is available in English: http://www.piratpartiet.se/documents/Principles%203.0.pdf. This will also explain why we make a distinction between private and commercial copying.

AndersD
2006-09-01, 02:58
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)To be clear, we only support non-commercial copying, not commercial copying. We do not support shady market dealers who deal in burnt CD:s, they are neither a benifit to the consumer or the producer, they are purely parasitical in this ecology.

I'm 100% with you in that... but I'm afraid then that you chose the wrong name to your party. Piracy is a crime where some people do what you just wrote above. They exploit my work for profit margins of 99%. But I'm afraid lot's of "uneducated consumers" (that's how I call them) do not agree with us and use your flag to other uses.



So... you name your party "pirate" and you tell me DVD piracy is wrong?



If you say so...





Well, the name is actually choosen because of the media cartels, among others, sloppy use of the words piracy and theft to describe what is actually copyright infrigement (in the cases Piratpartiet care about anyway).



So, the "piracy" part of the name is only used to stir attention (and it provides a great opportunity for great t-shirts, flags et cetera :D ). Actually, put in another way, what the party stands for is the complete opposite of "piracy", the party wants to *increase* the protection for creative persons - by ensuring that no prosecution of "non-commercial" distribution of creative works is used to hinder the police from taking care of the, in my opinion, much worse case of illegal commercial black market! ;)

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 03:51
Perty (2006-Sep-01)For some of the questions you have I also think you have the answare ie:

(...)

You have a choice, either get the one original you know is the original, from the author/supplier maybe paying on demand. Or maybe you have some free versions with comments or other features.



Ok...



Let me see if I can explain this briefly. :) You cannot deny me the right to artistic creation. You cannot deny me the right to put my name on the works I create. You cannot deny me the right to have my work shown as I intended it to be shown. You cannot deny me the right to have my work protected from any other intervention than mine. As an author, I have the right to allow (or not) other to alter my work (in films, this is all written down in a contract).



As a producer of films, I fight for my screenwriter"s and director"s rights over the above. As a screenwriter, I demand my rights to be respected (starting with the producer).



Copyright laws and copyright protection devices do not serve only to make you give money to the multi-milionaire capitalist mogul. That"s preconceived idea.



It also tries to make sure that the film/book/music you are consuming is exactly as it was intended to be. Without missing pages or errors. Without color changes or scenes missing because they couldn"t fit on the DVD-R. Without jumps or vaguelly noticeable audio downgrading.



The total freedom of circulation of any media means a possible (probable) end of dependable content.



I never read RICHARD III by Shakespeare. But if I were to base any work on that text, the only way I could make sure I"m getting the real thing is either checking the book (buying it or going to the library) or (online) somewhere where that "work" is controled.



You can"t be serious on what you said about THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Yes, I can buy the DVD. Yes, I can buy it legally online. What about free and uncontrolled P2P? Can you guarantee me that I will not be hurting the author"s moral right to the integrity of his work? Do you play any instrument? Did you ever had to hear your performance recorded and feel the need to say "damn... I wish I had this in 48Khz... my playing would sound a lot better"?



AND I"m NOT even talking about intentional demage. Uncontrolled circulation of media can multiply faulty media. Some people may not even know how different the product they have is from the original - as it was intended to be enjoyed.



And back to Griffith... what extras could you put on the film that I couldn"t get better if I bought it from a legal distributor? Your own commentary? :P

Wow... that"s a major improvement.





Time changes, look at the explosion of the digital photos, a lot of stuff was uneeded but yet, there was new markets opened up. Or by all means the insdustrialisation, a lot of farmers in all Europa was not needed any more, but new factories was built and people changed their way of life. This is how it going to be in the future too.



/Perty



On that, you are absolutely right. I agree 100%...

Except for one thing... time...



It took many years for digital photography to kick off. The average consumer (like the farmers) only noticed the last tip of the iceberg. And the film did not die. It will die someday - it is possible - but it will be a slow death and it will take many years. And the film stock companies already say that coming. I"ll give you an example: Eastman Kodak recently introduced a new digital film stock that gets the best of both formats. Very expensive... and with beautiful results...



But everything is gradual. It is taking it own quiet time. That"s not the same thing with you. You plan to reform my industry with the signing of a few laws and the revocation of many others. You lock a group of people inside a small room, turn off the lights, throw a granade in, lock the door... and let them on their own to sort it all out?



If (like somone here said) there are 1,7 million Swedes already doing P2P... it"s fine with me providing they don"t do illegal sharing.



Nobody banned film stock by decree. Nobody suddenly told you "now you"ll have to use digital - or else". The impact of technological changes through time hurts lots of people, it"s true... but through time (lots of it) it falls back in places and new forms of commerce and activity arise.



That"s not what you are proposing. You want a radical and imediate change AND give NO vision of how can the industry reconvert itself (and maintain its profitability). In order to do your "new model" you must achieve a rate of detail that you still haven"t showed me.



I"m waiting.



But your photography example has TWO sides:



1 - The human obsolence. Yes, it was awful. But that"s what happens when technology evolves, right? I cannot say anything about that... except that every industry fight to reconversion... like "film labs" who are now "post production houses"... meaning you are right... some reconversion is possible... some isn"t.



2 - The passing from film to digital (like the changes in farming and agriculture) did not pose any threat to the author"s rights to have his work"s integrity untouched, respected, preserved, valid, credible.



I repeat... If you were a doctor, would you trust a paper on stem cells that did not come from a protected source? If you were (like I was once) a film student, would you discuss CITIZAN KANE"s contrasted cinematography based on the first film download handled to you?

pv2b
2006-09-01, 04:32
CinemaScope,<br>
<br>
You cannot deny me the right to artistic creation.True.<br>
<br>
You cannot deny me the right to put my name on the works I create.Also true.<br>
<br>
You cannot deny me the right to have my work shown as I intended it to be shown.You may present your work whatever way you want, but you may not prevent others from presenting your work in a fashion you may not like. There is a fundamental right to parody and to critique, even with today"s copyright law.<br>
<br>
You cannot deny me the right to have my work protected from any other intervention than mine.Yes, I can, because the alternative is absurd. Would you make it illegal for me to watch the end of the movie first and the beginning of the movie later? Would you make it illegal for me to fast-forward through the boring parts? Would you make it illegal for me to watch the film with sound turned off? What about for a deaf person to watch it? Would you make it illegal for him to watch it? What about a blind person? Or a person who is mentally retarded who might not understand your film as you intended it?<br>
<br>
Life is a question of perception. You can never control the other person"s perception of your work. Watching a work from any angle we may choose is also a fundamental right we have, and I argue that prohibiting people from sharing that view with someone else is a violation of free speech rights.<br>
<br>
As such, the role of copyrights to maintain dependable versions of the original media is a moot point. It should be permissible to modify works in such a way, as long as it"s done non-commercially.<br>
<br>
And if you want to have a dependable version out there, there exists a tool known as a checksum. A checksum is a mathematical formula applied to a file, which gives you a specific number that allows you to verify that the contents of the file are in fact intact. If you"re resigned to the fact that your work is going to end up on peer-to-peer, you can publish, on your own web site, a checksum of the unmodified version of your film, if you"re concerned with undependable copies.<br>
<br>
So the technical means exist to ensure dependable copies on peer-to-peer, if content producers co-operate. And there"s no reason for them not to.<br>
<br>
Either way, you still have not addressed the central point of the right of privacy vs. enforcement of copyright law. We can continue the discussion in two directions from here. Either you continue arguing this point, and convince me that my privacy is less important than your priviledge to a monopoly on distribution of your work - or you resign yourself to the fact that file sharing will happen and that legalizing it is the correct way to go. Then we can discuss the technical aspects of making sure your work is dependable and verifyable and available in an unaltered form, the right to parody or critique or to fair use nonwithstanding.<br>
<br>
That, or we end this discussion, because I don"t see the discussion becoming productive while we"ve still not resolved the issue of my right to privacy versus your priviledge of controlling how your work is distributed.<br>
<br>
Finally, don"t confuse our long-term goals set out in our declaration of principles with our immediate plan of action. Our electoral manifesto for the closest four years (which, unfortunately, is available in Swedish only), if we do get elected into the Swedish parliament, contains a much more modest plan of action, mostly damage control at this point, to prevent any new laws about increased police powers to be adopted, and to reverse these unjust laws. The process will take many years -- and won"t happen overnight, whether we want it to or not. However, the phenomenon of file sharing *is* here already, and there"s nothing reasonable anybody can do about it.<br>
<br>
(By the way, I"m going to go to sleep now, so don"t expect a response for some time.)

Jan Lindgren
2006-09-01, 08:18
I don't have time to read and write an answer to all that, but I saw this and couldn't keep myself from writing a post.



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

And about your right to privacy... another moral dilemma. What would you say if the police couldn't stop a crazy bunch of people from blowing up the plane your son was in... just because chose to respect those crazy people's rights to privacy over some p2p exchanges? I don't have the perfect answer to that one. But I'd gladly give up some rights in order to make police work easier. I don't do in my private life anything I'm ashamed of. Do dress as a woman and imitate Madonna? LOL Well... don't you? :D



First of all who doesn't dress up to imitate Madonna? ;)



But it's not about my right to privacy or the crazy peoples, but our (all of us) right to privacy. It's not about the p2p-networks but rather every persons right to their own life. The new laws being pushed by the media industry won't monitor the p2p-networks, but every single person in the EU.



You probably don't know this but about 20-30 years ago some people here in Sweden couldn't get a job or sometimes even a place to live just because they held the "wrong" opinion. This was done by registering what they did and what opinion was "wrong" was decided by the goverment. And now the same registration (actually quite worse) will happen all over the EU.



The goverment has no right to monitor it's citizens because that leads to all kinds of abuse both from the goverment itself and from individuals within.



You say you would be willing to give up some privacy to stop the terrorists, but how far are you willing to go? I'm sure we could really stop the terrorism if we installed cameras in every single room in every single house/apartment within the EU. How about that? They we'd be rid of all those nasty terrorists and how cares about that pesky thing called "privacy" As long as we're alive. Right?



I'm gonna end this part with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up freedom for some short term saftey deserve neither freedom nor safety."



As for being able to sell things while you can get it for free... well... In sweden we have a huge market for bottled water and it's still growing. It's actually gaining on the soda market. But at the same time everyone here can get clean, great tasting water for free from their taps at home (or at work/school and so on). So either you can sell things that are free or... eh... I dunno... we're all hallucinating?



I'll actually give you one more example: Allofmp3. They sell music that you can find on p2p sites and networks and they're making a big profit. How? Why? Well.. first of all it's easy to find the music there and you know that you get good quality with good labeling. Secondly it's cheap and thirdly... you can chose any file format you want and you don't get bothered with DRM. And this is only one example.



In the end it comes down to this:



The internet and other new technology has changed how we listen to music or watch a film and has made the old ways of earning money and reaching out to your audience obsolete. As I see it there are two options. You can either A) see filesharing as something bad that is destroying for you and try to stop it and the new technology or B) you can see it as a new opportunity. A new way to reach out to your customers and a new way to make money.



The choice is yours.

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 09:02
pv2b (2006-Sep-01)You conveniently ignored my main point for most of your post. To re-iterate, there are three alternatives:



I"m sorry. It was not conveniently... It was unintentionally (if I did not understant it).





1. Do not enforce copyright laws, or enforce them selectively.





I understand you position, but I don"t think that"s doable. Not to do it would be suicidal to us. To try to do it selectively wouldn"t be effective. You are not the first one to think about that. Others before you already tried it. Did not work. 99% of the CDs available today have none of the protection devices you hate so much.



Then why don"t you respect the fair use right that was given to you? Nirvana"s NEVERMIND has no copy protection devices on its wav files. It is one of the most illegally shared albums ever. If you don"t respect that, I cannot expect you to respect anything.





2. Monitor all private communications to enforce copyright laws.





Not needed. You cannot pass a film over the telephone. You are exaggerating. We don"t have to live in a distopian regime where you can"t even sing in the shower without complaints from Yoko Ono"s lawyer. The problem is that the fact that you have bought a DVD does not grant you the right to give copies to all the people you know. Is a P2P that law infringement is blatant and it got up to a scale where enough is enough. All things cost. We may not like it... but that"s that.



All i"m saying is that (as far as I read from you) your proposals hurt more than cure.





3. Change copyright laws.





They were not written in stone. Of course they can be changed (and they have, many times). But to what? To something radically difference... to the convenience of some and loss of others? It is a way to do it, why not?





And I would definitely say that I would not exchange the right of private communication for some extra safety for my family or myself for that matter. What is life without the basic human right for privacy? Either way, terrorists and file sharers alike will learn to use encrypted communications, so this invasion of privacy will be all for nothing.





Two things:

1 - It is your option and right not to give a little more in order to get a little more. But never forget that by acting so, your decision can have an impact in others. On that we strongly disagree.

2 - It will be all for nothing? Again, you have the right to be nihilistic, pessimistic, realistic (call it anyway). There we strongly disagree again. I advocate that we be ahead of them. Obviously... as someone once told me... as a terrorist, you only need to get lucky once. True. But I prefer to think of all the times where I can make a difference and help the security of my country to make them unlucky... and if I"m lucky, for every lucky criminal, there will be ten unlucky ones.

I was in London (coming back to Lisbon) when those 20 just turned out to be unlucky. If I knew that I"d have helped, I"d be proud. But that"s me. Obviously you disagree.





We have nothing against monitoring of suspects, but there has to be a legitimate reason to start surveillance to begin with. You can"t treat your entire population like suspects.





I think that is an exaggeration. I don"t think anybody really treats us all like that. But then again... aren"t we all equal? how do you decide who"s a suspect or not? Where do you base such decision? If my name is Garcia instead of Al-Jadeem does that rulle me out? ...I don"t know what to tell you on that. And even if they listen to you cheating on your wife... What would they do? :D

I really don"t think they (the listeners) pose any harm to our little lives.





As for copy protection, I"m going to get that out of the way to start with. Copy protection isn"t good for anybody. Most of the content you get online via peer to peer file sharing sites is copied from one single copy, which was made by a person able to break copy protection.



I disagree. Copy protection is necessary for us to be able to sell you a DVD for 7 Euros. Unless you prefer to pay a fixed amount (like... let"s say... 70) to be able to make 10 copies of that same DVD - and from then on... we couldn"t care less if you gave it to your beloved friends (who wouldn"t have to buy it anymore) or to the monkeys at the Zoo (who wouldn"t know what to do with it).





As long as you can view the content, it"s possible to copy.





Time will tell. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are there to contradict you. I support HD-DVD for quality reasons. But I must say Blu-ray has a copy protection system that left me in awe. And if I"m right (allow me the "if") P2P will end up finding its funcion: the exchange of copyright-free material. And film piracy will slowly become a thing of the past.





So all you"re doing with copy protection is inconveniencing normal people who want to make a copy for their friends, or for themselves for legitimate and under even current law fair purposes. So, copy protection is not an option. I have a few DRM-protected files on my hard drive I got through iTunes, and after consideration, I"m not going to buy more because I know I won"t be able to use them if I get anything else than an iPod music player unless I jump through some hoops, that I wouldn"t have to have jumed through had I just downloaded if off peer to peer instead.





Give me a solution. How do you want SpiderMan, Titanic and Harry Potter if the producers cannot get their money back? Titanic took 300M to make (so much that Paramount and Fox had to come together to finance it). The film also took 200M more for marketing. That is 500M. In a year, it brought back 1.3B. Do you think those 800M are profits? Do you know what percentage of that went back for the producers? (remember they already put 300M). What percentage went to the distributor? What percentage went to the exhibitors? In order to raise 300M Paramount and Fox go to banks. do you know the rate of interest banks charge when the money is for films? How about a CD... do you know much it costs to record it? Do you know the price of an orchestra?



Obviously you don"t have to know those things... I do.

We don"t bore you with those details... we just want you to enjoy it.



But you can ask me if you"d like. I"d gladly tell you.



We loose a lot of money because you simply decided to make copies of your DVDs to your friends. Why don"t you just invite them to your place? Let them buy one if they really like it. Give the talented people who designed the disc artwork and package some credit. Those colors don"t have the same effect on cheap domestic paper, you know? - and someone paid a designer to do that.



If you insist on doing with the media you buy things you"re not allowed to... then you"ll always bump into these inconvenient objects you hate so much. Bear on your mind that I"m a person just like your friend is. Who gives you the right to exchange my rights for his? Technology? My rights are hurt by a machine??





You also seem hooked up on the alternative that file sharing will kill the market for original copies of the media in question. The fact is, people will buy a product if it"s more convenient than getting it for free, and if they would have concidered paying for it in the first place.



Can you send me the actual study who demonstrates that? If Andersen Consulting demonstrates to me "hey, Paulo, there is no way sharing can hurt your business" I"ll join you.



But I never saw that. On the contrary, every year, every film distributor reports losses over (among other things) piracy. And you can see that by yourselves. Every big company (not my case, unfortunatelly) has to make sales predictions (and other studies) in order to finance a film - maybe not in Sweden or Portugal. And all those documents are researchable.



Can you explain to me, PLEASE, what makes you think that you are not hurting my business the moment you give 10 DVD copies away?



Yes, I am hooked on that idea because (like all companies) I have to pay bills and employees... and everytime I see someone put the DVD back on the shelf, i know that someone, somewhere, did NOT make that money. That"s ok. You don"t have to buy it if you don"t want to. But if you want it... you have to buy it.





You can get water for free using a water faucet, but you can still pay to get bottled water of dubiously better quality, because of the percieved value of the packaging. The same way, it can be perfectly rational to want to buy a movie, if it"s more convenient.





Another misconceived idea.



Water is essential to life. DVDs are not.

Meaning that we don"t look upon those two realities the same way. You kill bugs. You don"t kill people. You don"t give to your sick child a funny looking pill you happened to find laying on the street. I don"t know about the water quality in Sweden... but in Portugal nobody ever recomended drinking from the tap. Why would I put my body in danger in order to save a few bucks? That"s the same important practical decision you have to make before you practice unsafe sex. Hey... she said she was clean. Condoms can tear, so... what"s the point?

Now...

Does the decision of downloading an illegal film versus buying it affects your life the same way? OF COURSE NOT. I decide to drink bottled water because I believe that water is better than the one from the tap. I practice Safe sex because I believe it will prevent me from catching STDs. Condoms and bottled water go through something called quality control. Does that give me some security? I think so. Will that water, in comparision with the tap water make live untill 200? Of course not. ...and to be honest. Do you really believe the bottled water you buy in Sweden is of questionable quality? Do you have doubts? Go to the production plant and ask for something quality report. I"m not sure if in Sweden that"s made public. But the institute in charged of those things must have it.



The production plants who makes DVDs also have quality control, do you know? The same with CD-Rs.



Do you still think DVDs and water belong in the same sphere of worries? Do you think 100 years of recorded media never thought about that? You cannot compare.





The same way, it can be perfectly rational to want to buy a movie, if it"s more convenient.



Do we always do the rational thing?



Later you will say





Maybe I have nothing to be ashamed of, maybe I do.



...Proving my point that we don"t always do the most rational or explainable. (and we"ll come to that later)



And we, producers, actually give you lots of choice. Do you just want one song? Buy just that song. Oh... you are like me? Do you prefer to have DAWN OF THE DEAD in the 4-disc edition? Great! We have that for you too. You want it fullscreen? You got it! You want french subtitles? We can do that. You just want to see the movie once? Video on-demand anyone? We give you all the choices so you"ll never be able to say that we don"t have what you want.



And who will pay for it if it"s toll-free?



Look at yourself. It is NOT free and you don"t pay for it. Do you want me to believe you if you tell me you"ll start to pay for it if it"s free?



Sorry, it does not make sense.



Will your friends start to buy it if it"s free? Hardly. Do you buy anything that is already good and free? It"s a bad example, but... you go to MacDonald"s and THAT PARTICULAR DAY you get the best chicken nuggets you ever tasted. Was it really THAT good or was it you who were REALLY hungry? But somehow THAT DAY those nuggets tasted like if you were in Paris, dining at the Tour d"Argent. Will you go back to the counter and offer yourself to pay Tour d"Argent prices?



No, you wouldn"t. And I don"t blame you. And it only cost 1 euro. Will you dress and go out to spend 1 insignificant euro for something that can be delivered for free on your computer? - you don"t even have to put your shoes...



WHY BOTHER? It"s free, right?





Today, it"s less convenient to buy a movie or a music album in the store than to download it.





So, I"m right. Right?





And you get a worse product, that"s protected by copy protection that infringes on my right to fair use of the product.





I totally agree. 100% I"m there with you.





So, I get to either have some hassle with downloading and not pay for it, or I get to have hassle with copy protection when I want to move it to a portable player for example, AND pay for it?



If 1.something million Swedes cannot function within the fair use right... we"ll have to think of something even more inconvenient.



What is fair use to you? Ten copies of a DVD is fair use to you? fot me that"s an abuse of fair use.

Plain and simple.



The industry I work at is PERFECTLY prepared to lose some money on fair use. It"s ok. You don"t have to buy another copy if you"ve just invited your girlfriend to watch a film at your place (or if you are going to hers). Oh, you did not like the film? Give it to someone. It"s ok.



But some of you abuse your fair use right... and those people on P2P make us lose millions.



And what about those who buy it? Won"t they feel like jerks buying something that"s already free????



Prove they won"t.





The fact is, that a for-pay download service would definitely be able to make money if prices were reasonable, and more importantly, you get non-encumbered files to work with.





I agree. SOME prices (not all) are unreasonable.



Give me examples.



I would say those prices are quite high for two reasons:

1 - We haven"t been able to come up with a copy protection system on DVDs that worked...

2 - ...meaning those who don"t care about physical media (who are the prime target for legal download services) are still opting for pirate discs or illegal files.



I"d honestly say there"s no answer for that. I trully believe that IF we (the industry) could stop illegal disc piracy... and IF those who get illegal copies had to go to legal downloading, the prices would drop. In 1997, the cheapest DVDs would cost 24.99 euros. Today they come as cheap as 3 euros.



I like classic rock. A few days ago, I bought Pink Floyd"s DARK SIDE OF THE MOON for 9 euros plus 1.3 euros shipping. I also bought a Moody Blues hits collection for 6. Do you think that"s unreasonable?



I don"t.





But really, all this is spurious reasoning. You say that the issue is more complex than privacy or no privacy. I say the issue *is* as simple as just privacy or no privacy. Maybe I have nothing to be ashamed of, maybe I do. Either way, would you be comfortable to have cameras in every single room of your house for yourself to be watched every hour of your day? Because the people behind those cameras aren"t faceless government robots, they are people, curious people who love to watch all the stuff they"re not supposed to. I may not be ashamed of the web sites I visit, but I definitely don"t want a record of all file transfers I"ve made available to the government. Maybe I trust the incumbent government not to misuse this information, but how can I trust a government that has not yet been assembled?





I"m sorry... I shouldn"t have gone that way.

I just think you are overreacting on that. I doubt that any government could afford all the people it would take to make those listenings any useful. :P



Technology plays a big part on the game, I"m sure. Technology doesn"t care if you have sex-phone in a hot line... or if you ask your accountant to cheat on your taxes (do you discuss that over the phone???). I just guess... and that"s just a guess... that the listening of citizens is just a way of making sure that on certain crucial moments they can search an entire building for someone who was labeled as a suspect a long long time ago using conventional methods.



Haven"t you ever found yourself in a situation where you said "I wish I had a screwdriver number 5"?

I have.

I"m sure we disagree... but I"m sure there are moments when the police must be able to find the screwdriver number 5 in seconds if it makes a difference.



I"m sure you disagree... ok.





The issue is complex, yes, and the implications can be difficult. The choice is simple between privacy and no privacy, for my part, it definitely outweighs your rights as a producer. Sorry, unless you can make a compelling point as to why copyright enforcement is more important than the basic human right to privacy, I"m not changing my position.





I don"t have a compelling point.

But privacy is no shelter for any crime. If you ask me, I"d like this problem not to exist. I"d love to have no reason to feel that my rights as a producer are not being hurt because lots of people like you do not understand why the fair use was created and what it does not cover.



If I can live without illegal media, why can"t you?

I"ll tell you a secret: I don"t have an Ipod. I find it ridiculous to give 300 euros for a stupid walkman who does things I"ll never use. So I buy the CD. I actually had all the Beatles songs converted from CD to mp3 on my computer so SIMCITY4 can play it while I play the game. I"ve got a collection of limited edition Jazz CDs I recently put on CD-R so I won"t have to go over the frail papel package they came in everytime I want to listen to one of them.



That"s fair use.



Once I sent over msn WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS to my teenage sister in Brazil... just hoping that she would love it too. LOLOLOLOL

She hated it. LOLOL



That"s fair use too.



I"d have gladly bought her THE WHITE ALBUM if she had said to me "wow, that"s great... who are the Beatles??"



There are so many ways to (using or not the fair use in a bigger or lesser extent) promote culture and knowledge without hurting my rights as a producer. But the moment you put it available on P2P you are comitting a crime against me. You are not being fair. And your solution is to make it free???



We could live and let live. I wouldn"t touch your fair use right... nor put the annoying protection files If you"d comply with fair use.





I"d rather live in a world without commercially produced film or music than in a world of constant surveillance. I"m prepared to deal with the consequences of my choice. Are you prepared to deal with pervasive electronic surveillance of the world to preserve your commercial interests?





Yes.

Unlike you, I have to eat. And I like what I do. My business gets hurt because you think you"re too good to pay 15 euros for a film (on DVD) that took 2 years of my life to put together. I wouldn"t dream of messing with your privacy if I was to go to any P2P and not find movies and CDs illegally available.



And since you reduce things to YOUR right to privacy "no matter what"... so can I.

I"m a small film company. And at my size, I could never join a big production (as a partner) because the risk is too high and piracy makes my proffit margin minimal. But just like you have your right to privacy, my right to persue my happiness does not fall behind. And since proffits are not my only concearn (making good movies is the other), I do take the risk now and then. And I"m afraid your privacy MUST mean little if I feel it is costing my business and the jobs of lots of people whose families also depend on my legitimate persuit for happness (making films).



I wouldn"t dream of calling you a criminal.

I just think you are unbelievably selfish on thinking that the world revolves around rights I don"t believe anybody really have.





The implications may be complex, but that doesn"t mean the choice is hard or even seriously debatable. I firmly believe commercial distribution of film and media can thrive side by side with peer to peer file sharing.



You may believe whatever you want. But you cannot prove.

I can prove my point. The study made this year (2006) by LEK Consulting is here.



http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_05_03lek.pdf#search=%22lek%20consulting%20piracy%22



This is a summary, but they"d probably let you read the whole thing if you asked to. It is quite long and covers lots of things. Im sorry I cannot sent you this document myself but I don"t have it anymore. Perhaps the Svensk Film Instituted has it.



You think that"s all lies?



To show you how reasonable I am about piracy, I"ll even give you this (older) document claiming that the value of software piracy is too inflated.



http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040719-4008.html



Actually, I agree that in some very specific places, times and contexts, piracy does have an important role.

But not in 2006 Sweden.



But the thing I urge you to consider... is that things may keep going smoothly for Warner Bros, MGM, Disney or Sony. Those companies are so big and they have their fingers in so many cakes that you STILL could argue "what"s 1 billion to Sony?" - Believe me, that argument would not surprise me.

Still I don"t agree it is a lesser crime.



And I am not Sony. I am a small company (like hundreds) who suffer even more than Sony because of Piracy. 1 million Swedes may represent peanuts according to Sony"s box-office expectation for SpiderMan3.



But for me, believe me... 1000 people who don"t buy me a DVD can do some demage.

And I"m sorry you"ll never understand that.





Maybe you won"t get paid for every copy, but you should be able to make some money. There is no guarantee you"ll make as much money back as you spent producing the movie, but there is no such guarantee with copyright either. And, at risk of sounding callous -- if you make a product nobody wants to buy, that really is your problem.





As I said... maybe Sony can. I cannot. That"s all I can say.

True... ther no guarantee for anything. But copyright AT LEAST tries to protect me from you. To some extent it succeeds. I"m still on business. But I know companies who are not anymore.



And about the quality or desire of my films... that"s not really an issue because the titles who MOST end up being illegaly shared are the ones everybody wants (and that has little to do with the artistic quality of the film). Do you know the films of a director called Victor Erice? Ever found pirate copies of those? I haven"t. And they are really good!

I wish we wouldn"t discuss taste.





Edit: By the way, our entire party program (our declaration of principles) is available in English: http://www.piratpartiet.se/documents/Principles%203.0.pdf. This will also explain why we make a distinction between private and commercial copying.



I read that. Still I don"t think it helps any of us.

I"m sorry.

Slugast
2006-09-01, 10:10
Not needed. You cannot pass a film over the telephone. You are exaggerating. We don't have to live in a distopian regime where you can't even sing in the shower without complaints from Yoko Ono's lawyer. The problem is that the fact that you have bought a DVD does not grant you the right to give copies to all the people you know. Is a P2P that law infringement is blatant and it got up to a scale where enough is enough. All things cost. We may not like it... but that's that.

All I'm saying is that (as far as I read from you) your proposals hurt more than cure.

Piratpartiet stands for a bit more then just internet surveilance, such as the law of the Swedish goverment decided it is a good idea to record and save all our telephoneconversations for 2 years. Each and everyone living in the country.

Anyway, we are talking about monitoring the internet here, which plays a major part in our todays life, and thats where file sharing takes place. You can not say that you rather censor the most important toolwe have for communicationbecause companies can not change their way of making money?
It will be used more and more over a telephone - which is not a modern tool for communication and will sooner or later become obsolete. But thats not the point either. WhatI do not want is just because the big film companies refuse to change their ways of making money - we should have to suffer with alot less privacy due to us being monitored daily of our activities. I am simply tired of howbig companies and thegovermenttrying to dictate how I should live my life.

I do not belive the laws in the working is made to protect us against "terrorists". They will not email eachother with specific details on how to spread terror - it is most likely already encryptet or spread around in othermeans then simple unencryptet email. So why does the goverment want to monitor everyones actions on the internet?Millions of people that does not even file sharewill be affected too, why should they be affected?. On a side note I can tell you that I do not file share either.

The big companies putting down alot of money to change our laws - by using preassure through the US goverment and trying to tell us what to do and how to live. Instead they should use that money to adapt to the situation, not trying to hold into old ways of working.

I do not mind at all to pay 10 dollars to buy a movie of good quality, but howcome a DVD nowadays costs more then bying a VHS of the same film? How can the DVD be more expensive then the VHS when the argument for a DVD was that it would infact become cheaper?


- Howcome a music cd costs the same money as a dvd? They do not costs the same amount of money to produce - yet we should pay the same for it. Yes the audience is probably bigger when it comes to a film, but it is not always true.
- How can a movie suddenly cost 30 dollars to buy when it was previously bought for 15 dollars before the dvd came out?

You might say that it is because of all the piracy, I'd say it is because they want to make even more money and they intend to keep it that way no matter what.

I am all for give credit when credit is due. That is, people or companies should be rewarded for the work they put into it - but not the cost of privacy. I understand you point of view, but I do not think you should be afraid of the changes where the consumers want to be in charge.

You should also keep in mind that the replies you get to this posts are individuals all sharing the same point of view when it comes to privacy, but we might not have the same answers when it comes to the solution. I leave that up to more competent persons in Piratpartiet.

Perty
2006-09-01, 10:37
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)Perty (2006-Sep-01)For some of the questions you have I also think you have the answare ie:<br>
(...)<br>
You have a choice, either get the one original you know is the original, from the author/supplier maybe paying on demand. Or maybe you have some free versions with comments or other features.<br>
<br>
Ok...<br>
<br>
Let me see if I can explain this briefly. :) You cannot deny me the right to artistic creation. You cannot deny me the right to put my name on the works I create. You cannot deny me the right to have my work shown as I intended it to be shown. You cannot deny me the right to have my work protected from any other intervention than mine. As an author, I have the right to allow (or not) other to alter my work (in films, this is all written down in a contract).<br>
<br>
<br>
No I can"t but on the other hand if you really want to protect your work you should keep it in a safe place and not publish it. There is several good examples in the software world of licences which keeps the authors rights, the GPL for example. And it works very good. Not only the author get a lot of credit, contributors get credits to.<br>
<br>
Yes you have all that right, but if you really want people to respect your rights I think you have to be more flexible. And I don"t get this fear of other poeple stealing your work, everyone who want respect for their work would respect others, and so would you release a copied or modyfied film if you could without giving the right credits.<br>
<br>
<br>
As a producer of films, I fight for my screenwriter"s and director"s rights over the above. As a screenwriter, I demand my rights to be respected (starting with the producer).<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes but I can"t se why you can"t be respected without copyright.<br>
<br>
<br>
Copyright laws and copyright protection devices do not serve only to make you give money to the multi-milionaire capitalist mogul. That"s preconceived idea.<br>
<br>
It also tries to make sure that the film/book/music you are consuming is exactly as it was intended to be. Without missing pages or errors. Without color changes or scenes missing because they couldn"t fit on the DVD-R. Without jumps or vaguelly noticeable audio downgrading.<br>
<br>
The total freedom of circulation of any media means a possible (probable) end of dependable content.<br>
<br>
<br>
Why is it important if a product is consumed exactly as intended? If you want that you will go to the author, right? And the author get the credit, respect and the money. But if you don"t want that? Is it a bad thing when cultur is developed by other culture, borrowing, copying? It creates more culture and the consumer get a more rich cultural life and a choice to choose. If i really love Kraftwerk for example I buy the originals from them, but maybe I really love the melodies and there are other people making covers which Krawterk never would do. That isn"t a bad thing in my opinion. <br>
<br>
I have taken the example before. Take a look at the old computer games musik, which have a lot of remixes done today from 20 year old tunes with 3 channels. http://remix.kwed.org/. If that kind of experiments with ordinary music could be done there should be a much wider range of music.<br>
<br>
I never read RICHARD III by Shakespeare. But if I were to base any work on that text, the only way I could make sure I"m getting the real thing is either checking the book (buying it or going to the library) or (online) somewhere where that "work" is controled.<br>
<br>
Excatly, you get what you pay for. No doubt about that. <br>
<br>
<br>
You can"t be serious on what you said about THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Yes, I can buy the DVD. Yes, I can buy it legally online. What about free and uncontrolled P2P? Can you guarantee me that I will not be hurting the author"s moral right to the integrity of his work? Do you play any instrument? Did you ever had to hear your performance recorded and feel the need to say "damn... I wish I had this in 48Khz... my playing would sound a lot better"?<br>
<br>
<br>
Here you go again with that right of their own work. If you don"t want people to break that integrety you have to lock your work in. What says a bought DVD can"t be abused? If you burn a DVD or a book isn"t that a moral hurting for example? No I have never played an instrument but I am a contributor to open source for example, and I can asure you there is a great satisfaction when you have contributed something and people use it. And I don"t get upset when people complaining if I have done a bad job. Either they can correct it them self or ask me to do a better suloution. And as a contributor to open source I have never, never ever thought about my moral right to my work. I"m glad if poeple use my work and can inspire me to do better and greater stuff.<br>
<br>
<br>
AND I"m NOT even talking about intentional demage. Uncontrolled circulation of media can multiply faulty media. Some people may not even know how different the product they have is from the original - as it was intended to be enjoyed.<br>
<br>
Again, why is it so important for you that the work has to be consumed in the intended way? My 1 1/2 year old son has torn apart lots of books, and destoyed several dvd"s and cd"s. Was that intended? Am I insulting the authors? I don"t think so.<br>
<br>
<br>
And back to Griffith... what extras could you put on the film that I couldn"t get better if I bought it from a legal distributor? Your own commentary? :P <br>
<br>
Wow... that"s a major improvement. <br>
<br>
:-) I really don"t know, it was the first example I thought of. But with music you could do a lot of stuff or books. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Time changes, look at the explosion of the digital photos, a lot of stuff was uneeded but yet, there was new markets opened up. Or by all means the insdustrialisation, a lot of farmers in all Europa was not needed any more, but new factories was built and people changed their way of life. This is how it going to be in the future too.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
/Perty<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On that, you are absolutely right. I agree 100%...<br>
<br>
Except for one thing... time...<br>
<br>
<br>
It took many years for digital photography to kick off. The average consumer (like the farmers) only noticed the last tip of the iceberg. And the film did not die. It will die someday - it is possible - but it will be a slow death and it will take many years. And the film stock companies already say that coming. I"ll give you an example: Eastman Kodak recently introduced a new digital film stock that gets the best of both formats. Very expensive... and with beautiful results... <br>
<br>
<br>
But everything is gradual. It is taking it own quiet time. That"s not the same thing with you. You plan to reform my industry with the signing of a few laws and the revocation of many others. You lock a group of people inside a small room, turn off the lights, throw a granade in, lock the door... and let them on their own to sort it all out?<br>
<br>
<br>
I think time is irrelevant in this issue. We can"t reform the copyrightslaw in one year it will take time.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If (like somone here said) there are 1,7 million Swedes already doing P2P... it"s fine with me providing they don"t do illegal sharing.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don"t know about that number but I think it"s about illegal sharing.<br>
<br>
<br>
Nobody banned film stock by decree. Nobody suddenly told you "now you"ll have to use digital - or else". The impact of technological changes through time hurts lots of people, it"s true... but through time (lots of it) it falls back in places and new forms of commerce and activity arise.<br>
<br>
<br>
That"s not what you are proposing. You want a radical and imediate change AND give NO vision of how can the industry reconvert itself (and maintain its profitability). In order to do your "new model" you must achieve a rate of detail that you still haven"t showed me.<br>
<br>
I"m waiting.<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes we want change but we are more realistic than thinking we can do it overnight. There are a lot of conventions like Bern, and EU regulations which make Sweden captured in the laws of copyright. So it will take time. But someone like Piratpartiet has to start the movement.<br>
<br>
<br>
But your photography example has TWO sides:<br>
<br>
1 - The human obsolence. Yes, it was awful. But that"s what happens when technology evolves, right? I cannot say anything about that... except that every industry fight to reconversion... like "film labs" who are now "post production houses"... meaning you are right... some reconversion is possible... some isn"t.<br>
<br>
<br>
2 - The passing from film to digital (like the changes in farming and agriculture) did not pose any threat to the author"s rights to have his work"s integrity untouched, respected, preserved, valid, credible.<br>
<br>
<br>
I repeat... If you were a doctor, would you trust a paper on stem cells that did not come from a protected source? If you were (like I was once) a film student, would you discuss CITIZAN KANE"s contrasted cinematography based on the first film download handled to you? <br>
<br>
[/quote]<br>
<br>
No I would"nt trust the unoffical paper on the stemcells but I would read it and if there where some point in it worth exploring I would do so. These explorings would never maybe come to me if I havn"t read that unoffical paper. So again, as a consumer of culture, sience and education you have to critise everything you read. And even if the product is comming form an official producer you should critizse it. <br>
<br>
<br>
/Perty<br>
<br>
(I"m sorry if my quotes are totaly messed up, I started trying to do it easy readble but may have made a mess of it )<br>
<br>

pv2b
2006-09-01, 11:02
There are all kinds of arguments for and against piracy, but in the end, they are, as I said, spurious.



File sharing *is* here, and will not stop just because it's made "more illegal". I'm not sure what you want the government to do, really, chase every single teenager and a growing share of the adult population in Sweden?



Because the two alternatives are either to create a police state in Sweden to serve your interests, or to accept file sharing (whether you legalize it formally or not). I'm sorry you feel so strongly about your privileges as a film maker that you would put us all under 24/7 surveillance to stop it, but I'm not going to let it happen. As I said before, the government isn't a faceless entity, it's made up of individual people, who will abuse their power and access to information. Your neighbours could we working for the government. And there's a high probability they will be -- a massive surveillance system will create a lot of jobs. And if you don't care about this, I'll never convince you about this.



As for the quality of bottled water over tap water -- here in Stockholm, our municipal water is one of the best quality tap waters in the world. In fact, the water quality is probably better than some bottled waters. Yet people still buy bottled water. So my analogy is valid.

Jan Lindgren
2006-09-01, 11:15
Actually some newspaper recently did a test and found out that the tapwater in Sweden is far better then some of the bottled water that you buy.

TheBaldingOne
2006-09-01, 11:24
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)



I understand you position, but I don"t think that"s doable. Not to do it would be suicidal to us. To try to do it selectively wouldn"t be effective. You are not the first one to think about that. Others before you already tried it. Did not work. 99% of the CDs available today have none of the protection devices you hate so much.



Then why don"t you respect the fair use right that was given to you? Nirvana"s NEVERMIND has no copy protection devices on its wav files. It is one of the most illegally shared albums ever. If you don"t respect that, I cannot expect you to respect anything.



What is illegal about me giving a copy to a friend? There is nothing illegal in my doing that. The CD belongs to me, surely I have the right to do whatever I like with something that belongs to me?



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

We don"t have to live in a distopian regime where you can"t even sing in the shower without complaints from Yoko Ono"s lawyer.

But thats the way that the "authorities" would have it, if they could.

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

The problem is that the fact that you have bought a DVD does not grant you the right to give copies to all the people you know.



Why not? Vauxhall dont stop me giving lifts in my car to my friends, no money changes hands when I give a friend a copy of something, similarly no money changes hands when I give him a lift. Same analogy... You may be mixing up commercial piracy with filesharing.. they are not the same thing.

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Is a P2P that law infringement is blatant and it got up to a scale where enough is enough. All things cost. We may not like it... but that"s that.



I think you"re wrong on that score, I agree that commercial piracy is on a large scale, and there are people making a lot of money out of selling "pirated" products. Again, not the same as p2p. I listen to a very specific genre of music, and until p2p I didn"t realise that it was a thriving genre. I have been introduced (through p2p) to so many bands who are now reapingthe benefits of me knowing about them through gigs, merch, etc...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

They were not written in stone. Of course they can be changed (and they have, many times). But to what? To something radically difference... to the convenience of some and loss of others? It is a way to do it, why not?



Of course, but at the moment, as far as we can see, the balance is firmly in the favour of those that (alledgedly) represent the creators. Lets not forget that the "industry" has a long history of objecting to new innovations... "In 1906, songwriters objected to the release of the player piano." and "When the Betamax VCR was introduced by Sony, the motion picture industry cried foul." and also "The recording industry objected to the release of the Digital Audio Tape (DAT) in 1990." as well as "In yet another stunning example of short-sightedness, the recording industry sued Napster for copyright infringement in 1999." *1



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

2 - It will be all for nothing? Again, you have the right to be nihilistic, pessimistic, realistic (call it anyway). There we strongly disagree again. I advocate that we be ahead of them. Obviously... as someone once told me... as a terrorist, you only need to get lucky once. True. But I prefer to think of all the times where I can make a difference and help the security of my country to make them unlucky... and if I"m lucky, for every lucky criminal, there will be ten unlucky ones.



Yes, that quote about being lucky was said to the Thatcher Government after the bombing of the Grand Hotel by the IRA in 1984... We all need to be vigilant to stop those who would seek to destroy us for whatever reason, but not at the expense of basic human rights...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

I think that is an exaggeration. I don"t think anybody really treats us all like that. But then again... aren"t we all equal?



No, some are definitely more equal than others. There is an underclass of people that are disenfranchised, but we"re moving away from the debate with that, so I"ll leave it...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

how do you decide who"s a suspect or not? Where do you base such decision? If my name is Garcia instead of Al-Jadeem does that rulle me out? ...I don"t know what to tell you on that. And even if they listen to you cheating on your wife... What would they do? :D



I really don"t think they (the listeners) pose any harm to our little lives.



Well, for one thing they could inform your wife... As for them posing harm in our little lives, of course they could. If I give dissenting remarks about my Government, what is stopping them arresting me as being subversive? You only have to look at places like Burma where freedom of thought is not allowed...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

I disagree. Copy protection is necessary for us to be able to sell you a DVD for 7 Euros. Unless you prefer to pay a fixed amount (like... let"s say... 70) to be able to make 10 copies of that same DVD - and from then on... we couldn"t care less if you gave it to your beloved friends (who wouldn"t have to buy it anymore) or to the monkeys at the Zoo (who wouldn"t know what to do with it).



This is where we are all going to disagree, I too, dont believe that copy protection is necessary, going back to my Vauxhall analogy, what use to me is a car if I can only drive 30 miles a day because Vauxhall decided to limit what I can do with something that belongs to me? Same with a DVD , what use is it if I cant do with it what I want to do with it?

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Time will tell. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are there to contradict you. I support HD-DVD for quality reasons. But I must say Blu-ray has a copy protection system that left me in awe. And if I"m right (allow me the "if") P2P will end up finding its funcion: the exchange of copyright-free material. And film piracy will slowly become a thing of the past.



Do you really believe that? You really think that those engaged in "commercial piracy" will allow it to become a thing of the past? With the amount of money they are making? Wake up and smell the coffee, they dont think like that...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

How about a CD... do you know much it costs to record it?



Yes, there"s a breakdown here*2 on what goes where with te cost of a $15.99 CD... and here*3 is a breakdown to making an album by the producer of Nirnava"s In Utero...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Obviously you don"t have to know those things... I do.



We don"t bore you with those details... we just want you to enjoy it.



So do we, the information is out there now... and please.. bore us...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

We loose a lot of money because you simply decided to make copies of your DVDs to your friends.



No you dont... You have fallen into the mis-information that is propagated by the mass media, just because I give a copy to a friend it does not mean that you have lost a sale. Perhaps he watched the film and didn"t like it and is glad he didn"t spend money on something he didn"t like. Or, on the other hand, he liked the film so much that he went out and bought the DVD that contains the extras. It"s hard to tell... one thing is for sure though, I I sold it to him, then you"ve lost a sale... There is a difference...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Why don"t you just invite them to your place? Let them buy one if they really like it. Give the talented people who designed the disc artwork and package some credit. Those colors don"t have the same effect on cheap domestic paper, you know? - and someone paid a designer to do that.



Yes, we are aware of that, again I think you"re mixing p2p with "commercial piracy", they are vastly different...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Can you send me the actual study who demonstrates that? If Andersen Consulting demonstrates to me "hey, Paulo, there is no way sharing can hurt your business" I"ll join you.



Yes, there"s information available here (http://www.netimperative.com/2005/07/27/File_sharers_biggest_spenders) as well as here (http://www.p2punite.org/?q=node/159) and also here (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1903) and also here (http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/11/the_effect_of_p.html)...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

Can you explain to me, PLEASE, what makes you think that you are not hurting my business the moment you give 10 DVD copies away?



Because no money changes hands ergo, no lost sale. Can you explain to me how you think I"m hurting your business by passing on 10 DVD copies of your film to people who have never seen your work? Surely I"m introducing you to them?

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

What is fair use to you? Ten copies of a DVD is fair use to you? fot me that"s an abuse of fair use.



Plain and simple.



I"m going back over old ground here, but I purchased the product it is mine to do with as I please. Just because you created it does not give you the right to dictate to me what I do with it. Does the builder who built my house dictate to me where I can put a new door or a new window? Of course not.

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

The industry I work at is PERFECTLY prepared to lose some money on fair use. It"s ok. You don"t have to buy another copy if you"ve just invited your girlfriend to watch a film at your place (or if you are going to hers). Oh, you did not like the film? Give it to someone. It"s ok.



But some of you abuse your fair use right... and those people on P2P make us lose millions.



Again you are mixing "commercial piracy" with p2p... again, they are not the same...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

If I can live without illegal media, why can"t you?



I can, there is no media that is illegal...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

I"ll tell you a secret: I don"t have an Ipod. I find it ridiculous to give 300 euros for a stupid walkman who does things I"ll never use. So I buy the CD. I actually had all the Beatles songs converted from CD to mp3 on my computer so SIMCITY4 can play it while I play the game. I"ve got a collection of limited edition Jazz CDs I recently put on CD-R so I won"t have to go over the frail papel package they came in everytime I want to listen to one of them.



That"s fair use.



Indeed, but the "industry" wold rather you purchased it in mp3 format rather than rip your own copy...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

I can prove my point. The study made this year (2006) by LEK Consulting is here.

http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_05_03lek.pdf#search=%22lek%20consulting%20piracy%22



Who paid for the study? Much better to see an independent study rather than one from an organisation that has vested interests in the result...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

You think that"s all lies?



Not all of it, but remember that "he who pays the piper, calls the tune"... There are other studies around that contradict it, I have mentioned some of them earlier...

CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

But for me, believe me... 1000 people who don"t buy me a DVD can do some demage.



And I"m sorry you"ll never understand that.



And I am sorry that you dont understand the distinction between p2p and "commercial piracy", as I keep re-iterating, they are not the same... Maybe those 1000 people have never heard of you, or didn"t even intend to purchase your DVD or saw a copy and thought it was rubbish, who"s to say? But because someone decides not to purchase your product does not mean you"ve lost a sale, you only lose a sale when money chages hands...



SOURCES:

*1 Embracing File-Sharing Is Essential For Industry Survival (http://jarkolicious.com/probes/2006/07/24/embracing-file-sharing-is-essential-for-industry-survival/)

*2 The Real Cost of a CD (http://news.com.com/5208-1027-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=9823&messageID=70813&start=-1)

*3The Problem With Music (http://negativland.com/albini.html)

2006-09-01, 11:34
On the topic of making money despite having to compete with "free" sources I feel I have to contribute a bit.







A few years ago a good friend of mine started up a company. He develops audio-software like synth-emulators etc. Before launching his first product he feared the impact piracy would have on sales. Having - as myself - gained most of our knowledge in programming and IT in general from in the past having been active members of the subculture called "the scene" we both knew that everything is crackable. He realised that it was not a matter of whether his protection would be cracked but more about when it would be. As a consequence he made sure to not waste too much time on a protection that despite his efforts would get cracked in no-time and instead made sure that the protection would not become a hassle to the paying users.







After launching his product sales commenced on the web-shop of the company's website. His product got cracked within a week as expected. The interesting thing about this though is that his product continued selling pretty well. Later on, after launching a few more products he was able to identify a few really interesting points:







1) Sales was directly related to the number of visitors to the company website. If visits increased so did sales and vice versa.



2) Ads and reviews in magazines increased visits to his website and consequently increased sales. What was a bit surprising though was that when his products got cracked and released on the wares-scene...it affected website-visits and - again - sales as well. The old adage "even bad publicity is good publicity" seems to be correct.



3) The wares-scene had a protective effect on his products. People in general want the best and most commonly used product and they are not likely to care about alternative solutions regardless if they are inexpensive.



4) Pricing is essential. A product should not be overpriced nor underpriced. Overpricing directs potential buyers to "alternative sources of distrbution". Underpricing



obviously makes profit less than they could be. In some cases it might direct potential buyers to a product that they mistakenly believe is of a higher quality.







Lessons learned that could well be generally applied in this "new" digital-era:



1) Make sure to put focus on the customers needs and never let protection diminish the potential of the customers experience of using the product.



2) Realise that the potential to directly communicating with the customers has a huge market-potential. Think in terms of communities. A satisfied customer is most of the time eager to get a feeling of "knowing" or even bonding to the authors/producers.



3) "Piracy" can be a company's best friend providing a different form of protectionism originating from the customers instead of the producers.



/1ll3xc

Jan Lindgren
2006-09-01, 11:39
Thanks you Anonymous for this perfect example of what I was trying to put forth earlier.

2006-09-01, 11:42
Jan Lindgren (2006-Sep-01)Thanks you Anonymous for this perfect example of what I was trying to put forth earlier.



I don't know why it turned out to be posted anonymously... However, I added my username to the end of the post now. :)

John Nilsson
2006-09-01, 12:52
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)But copyright theft (as it happens everyday) hurts me directly. Hurts musicians. Several smaller music labels in Portugal simply closed because of that. They kept their offices in Spain (a bigger market)... but Portugal simply did not make sense enymore. That does have a serious impact in some people"s lives.<br>
<br>
Don"t you think that this is a little ungrateful from your part? Here we have given away our rights to modify and share the information that comes in our possesion, and even created institutions to punsish us if we do, for the sole benefit of your ability to make a profit. When we now say that, "OK, we don"t think that it"s a good trade-off, and besides why did you need all that profit in the first place?" and refuse too take part in this deal anymore, you have the stomach to call us THEIVES and claim that we are hurting you?<br>
<br>
<br>
Piracy is a crime where some people do what you just wrote above. They exploit my work for profit margins of 99%. But I"m afraid lot"s of "uneducated consumers" (that"s how I call them) do not agree with us and use your flag to other uses.<br>
<br>
The mere fact that your competition can have 99% profit margins should be a hint that the free market isn"t doing what it"s supposed to do... In my eyes that makes you the culprit. For some reason you have managed to get the market to accept a monoplists prices, where the supply and competition is supposed to be nearly infinite, this is the evil in my eyes.<br>
<br>
So... you name your party "pirate" and you tell me DVD piracy is wrong? First of all, not all our members think DVD piracy is wrong, that is a lattter addition to the praty. Second, the "pirate" is what the industry calls us. Why not use that name?<br>
<br>
<br>
The problem ONLY comes when you decide to aim higher. A film, for example, is an expensive and risky business. You need partners and they only come abord if you grant them some rights. there are good and bad things about it. It"s up to you to give the jump or not.<br>
This is how the industry have arranged it self in the current scheme of things, yes. But copyright laws was in place long before this industry formed, so it"s only natural that they have had a large impact on its formation.<br>
<br>
Are you saying that in a completley free market the demand for "not-yet-created" films would be so low that it would be impossible fo finance their creation?<br>
<br>
<br>
Still I don"t quite get the 5-year thing. Please explain.<br>
I"m sorry I don"t get it either, but the argument is that 5 years should be enough to please any investors calculations.<br>
<br>
<br>
The copy protection devices exist because of pirates.<br>
Not at all. That"s what they want you to belive. More important is their use in keeping monopolies in varios areas of the market, or in other ways controll the market.<br>
<br>
The profit in DRM doesn"t come from reduced piracy. The profit in DRM comes from licensing fees and reduced competition.<br>
<br>
<br>
But unfortunately, you cannot charge .99 for a song and expect everybody to pay for it. Lots of people simply won"t pay a dime if can just get it for free... and many don"t really care about quality. That"s what makes piracy the problem it is.<br>
Once again you portray this as the problem. Look at it again. Forcing people to buy back their natural rights has never been a business model. Providing good enough service at competitive prices is the way to goo.<br>
<br>
<br>
Well... as I said before... just because you do it, doesn"t make it legal or right. The "everybody does it" justification can be used (and has been) used for horrible things.<br>
<br>
In the same vein... just because you or MP/RIAA want us not to doesn"t make it wrong.

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 13:02
pv2b (2006-Sep-01)CinemaScope,





You cannot deny me the right to have my work shown as I intended it to be shown.You may present your work whatever way you want, but you may not prevent others from presenting your work in a fashion you may not like. There is a fundamental right to parody and to critique, even with today"s copyright law.



You misread me or I wasn"t clear enough.

I never said you couldn"t take my film, paint it red and hang it at the MOMA.

I never said your right to parody was at stake. I still do not get why you scandinavians did not put a stronger fight when those muslims put your freedom os speech at stake. I still don"t understand why didn"t the Danish demand the head of MY minister of foreign affairs when he said the muslim (violent) anger was "understandable".



But as long as I"m alive I will fight to ensure that those who wish to see my films do see them the as it should: with optimal conditions. Take the control over copyrights and those optimal conditions become optional. I"d find extremely difficult to read Joyce in grey letters (instead of black). For some reason the books you buy are printed in black and not gray. My difficult of reading Joyce in grey would certainly hurt my appreciation of the work - something Joyce never thought of - had he anticipated the advent of the old Xerox machine with a fading toner! :hehe:



You cannot deny me the right to have my work protected from any other intervention than mine.Yes, I can, because the alternative is absurd. Would you make it illegal for me to watch the end of the movie first and the beginning of the movie later? Would you make it illegal for me to fast-forward through the boring parts? Would you make it illegal for me to watch the film with sound turned off? What about for a deaf person to watch it? Would you make it illegal for him to watch it? What about a blind person? Or a person who is mentally retarded who might not understand your film as you intended it?[/quote]



You are wrong because I said "intervention" NOT "viewing".



It is up to you how you decide to actually view the film: standing on one feet, with no sound, with no color and surrounded by killer bees... If you don"t care for the beginning... that"s your problem. As a matter of fact... :hehe: you don"t even have to see the film at all!!! :P



BUT



The legal DVD that you bought arrived at your hands containing all the pristine elements needed in order for you to enjoy the film in the best conditions possible/available without compromising its comprehension. There was no other intervention whatsoever (besides those by the copyright holder) that will pre-condition your viewing. Fro then on, you only have options.



That"s my right (as creator) or my duty (as producer). Take those right/duties away and you"ll never know for sure.

You"ll be surprised to know that once I had a big fight with one exhibitor who wanted to show my film with the projector lamp running at 50% (the result? it was too dark). What would the audience think and say about my film? Would they question the lamp? Is there a lamp?:cool:



Now you"ll say: OMG, do those things happen?

Yes. Lots of things happen that you do not know of. Copyright laws give someone ample grounds to fight for your right to see a film. Or just skip it if you prefer.







Life is a question of perception. You can never control the other person"s perception of your work. Watching a work from any angle we may choose is also a fundamental right we have, and I argue that prohibiting people from sharing that view with someone else is a violation of free speech rights.







Again, I don"t care about what options you follow. Just remember it was I who gave them to you. Now watch the film backwards if you want. You"ll probably won"t like it. On the other hand, your brother will watch it correctly (even if his TV is black and white)... and he may well love the film. Or not.



I"m sorry but you are misreading free speach.



And not everything in life is a matter os perception. Right now, copyright laws tell you your perception of what you can do with a DVD is wrong. Nuremberg did nothing but tell some of the defendents that their perception of things were dead wrong. Strangelly, saying "I was following order is not good enough" - so much for their (legitimate?) perception of duty.



You are entitled to perceave things as you wish. But others will always tell you when you are "just wrong" or "too wrong". And it is written if you care to read it.

If you don"t get this once, you"ll never get it.





As such, the role of copyrights to maintain dependable versions of the original media is a moot point. It should be permissible to modify works in such a way, as long as it"s done non-commercially.





Danger Mouse would agree with you. EMI wouldn"t.

EMI obviously won.



You could be right to a certain extent. But if you exaggerate, copyright laws are quite clear.

And then, my right to be the true and sole interventor wins.





And if you want to have a dependable version out there, there exists a tool known as a checksum. A checksum is a mathematical formula applied to a file, which gives you a specific number that allows you to verify that the contents of the file are in fact intact. If you"re resigned to the fact that your work is going to end up on peer-to-peer, you can publish, on your own web site, a checksum of the unmodified version of your film, if you"re concerned with undependable copies.



You assume that everybody is well informed.

You assume technology is fully dominated by those who use it.

I never used checksum in my whole life - mea culpa if I"m not informed about it

But a certain work may fail such test and still be dependable. But in the absence of one who succeed... which one of those who failed will you choose?

What if the author is dead? Would you trust Gilles Deleuze"s long and horribly complex theories according to my checksum? I wouldn"t. I"d gladly cut 100 pages from any of his boring cinema books. You wouldn"t even notice it.:hehe:



Call me old-fashioned. But I think that"s utopia.





So the technical means exist to ensure dependable copies on peer-to-peer, if content producers co-operate. And there"s no reason for them not to.



Why would I cooperate? As things stand now I earn very little money. Resigning my copyrights would let me in a very uncertain situation - to say the least!



And you still haven"t offered me evidence otherwise. None of you have shown me that those who buy my work now at 15 euros will decide to keep on paying after it is declared free.





Either way, you still have not addressed the central point of the right of privacy vs. enforcement of copyright law. We can continue the discussion in two directions from here. Either you continue arguing this point, and convince me that my privacy is less important than your priviledge to a monopoly on distribution of your work - or you resign yourself to the fact that file sharing will happen and that legalizing it is the correct way to go. Then we can discuss the technical aspects of making sure your work is dependable and verifyable and available in an unaltered form, the right to parody or critique or to fair use nonwithstanding.



I was clear on my last post. Your right to privacy is right now debatable if your failure to comply with copyright laws will leave me starving. And your right is so debatable and frail that many countries already patrol the P2P spaces looking for "non-complyants".



I don"t feel I have to convince you because because, as things stand, my copyrights are not at stake. But your right to so-called privacy actually is.

On the contrary, the future enforcement of my copyrights will be harsh just as the DVDs we all love has its days numbered. Slowly in the next few years, You"ll see HD formats who"ll be quite smarter.



Read about it here:

www.avsforum.com



P2P legalization will not happen because you say it will. Or because it is convenient to you. Or because you live in wonderland. No creative brain on Earth who makes money from its creations will ever go with it. Actually you"ll have to show me that my profit margin will increase... otherwise, why would I jump into your boat? No Country will abolish or change copyright laws that will diminish the tax revenues it generates.



It will not happen simply because such a lack of rights is alien to us. At least 3000 years of culture are based on that. The issue does not start with Guttemberg. As far as I know the greek tragedies were protected long before printed media.



And the fact that you are Swedish astounds me even more, if you take notice that you have an extremely copyright-laws abiding history. Look at ABBA. As I recall they were the second biggest brand name after Volvo, right? Bergman even had to flee the country because of taxes.



I, by no means want to offend you, but the changes you so clearly forsee as a given fact are very unlikelly to happen. It"s like that big revolution that will never break.



Give me an example of any profitable human endeavor where copyrights are unecessary. There may be some... but I can"t see any. Ok, forget the profits. Just give me an endeavor who put so much power on consumers and so little defense on the producers.



The only one I can think of is too basic: Democracy. Voting. But is it really that devoided of copyrights and patents? I don"t think so.



But you can have faith things will change towards your way. It is up to you. Legalization of P2P will never happen as you expect... as an obvious, natural, easy, positive and peaceful thing.





That, or we end this discussion, because I don"t see the discussion becoming productive while we"ve still not resolved the issue of my right to privacy versus your priviledge of controlling how your work is distributed.



As far as I"m concearned, the problem lies with you. We producers gave you fair use rights (which I admit, in the beguinning was a tough thing to swallow). You abuse from the moment you decide to extend that power to the whole world.



You put things in an unacceptable black or white terms. You say I want monopoly when I never Used that word. You confuse monopoly with authorship rights. There are hundreds of things that you can do WITH my films while hundreds of things you cannot do TO my films. But to you, it only takes one for you to start accusing me of repressing your righ to privacy and free speech.



And more: you comit a crime (copyright violation is a crime and it comes written in every DVD so you cannot say you did not know it) and refuse to admit it.



For you, that warning on your TV screen is a matter of perception????



Well, it"s not. It is a crime.



And it is not a private matter anymore if you break the law. What does make you most angry? the fact that the police can be on the other side feeding you with the wrong file... or the observation that the P2P can be used for things you don"t expect will ever come to you?



Show me the law who says or even suggests Privacy was made to give you a fair chance (a head start) of commiting fellonies and fraud without getting arrested - like if it was a game. The right to privacy was not made for that. And just because the Law does not clearly state otherwise, that does not give you the right to live in such assumption.



So, contrary to what you say, this is not a matter of Privacy X enforcement of copyright law. It is rather a matter of your impossibility to understand that there are limits of what you can do with the things you buy (buying a knife does not grant you the right to stab your mother with it - no matter how private you keep it), your impossibility of finding satisfaction with the fair use right that was granted to you and works fine with lots of people... and (finally) to where you run for cover when someone (or the DVD itself) tells you what you do is illegal.



You can dress up as Madonna and dance alone all night. Or you can memorize Shakespeare"s soliloquies and show them off to your friends by the fireplace...



but the moment you sit at your computer in order to download child pornography violating laws of child pornography, to commit bank fraud violating bank and identity information, or send drug money from Bolivia to the Cayman Islands violaing money laundering laws, or to simply share a file violating copyrights law... then you simply don"t hide under noble things as freedom of speech.



Note that right now we are fully covered by freedom of speech.

But such freedom (in this case, mine) stops the moment I accuse you or your party of contracting the death of Fidel Castro. I know what you"ll say: "prove it of face some consequences". Freedom of speech comes also with a responsability: mine, now, is to prove the you really did contract the killing of Castro. In the same token, if copyright laws clearly states that you cannot redistribute such media... it is you who must prove that this is NOT a case of copyrights... but only a trivial matter of freedom os speech.



And for that you"ll have to explain to me to what extent is a DVD like a pamphlet.



You can write yourself a pamphlet defending that Queen Sylvia should never break the magic and say what her favorite ABBA song is.

Free speech allows you to do that.

You can buy Main Kampf and publicly defend that Hitler was right: german paintings should never be done with gouache.

Free speech is there for you.

You can buy one or 20 porn films and give it to your own grandmother.

Free speech is there for you.

But free speech leaves you all alone if you give the film for a 6yo boy or girl.

You can buy buy one or 20 DVDs containing a film you hate give them toy your friends as an example of a bad film.

Frees speech is still there.

But it will leave you again in the dark if you give them illegal copies of the DVD you have.

That"s an gross extrapolation of what free speech can do.



You hide under the wide wings of "right to privacy" and "free speech" because it"s easy. Because it is an easy way to create controversy around two principles who are very dear to us all.



Well thought, many crimes could hide under those too.



You may not agree with me, but stop saying I avoyd the issue.





Either way, you still have not addressed the central point of the right of privacy vs. enforcement of copyright law.





If you thought so, I hope now you don"t.







Finally, don"t confuse our long-term goals set out in our declaration of principles with our immediate plan of action. Our electoral manifesto for the closest four years (which, unfortunately, is available in Swedish only), if we do get elected into the Swedish parliament, contains a much more modest plan of action, mostly damage control at this point, to prevent any new laws about increased police powers to be adopted, and to reverse these unjust laws. The process will take many years -- and won"t happen overnight, whether we want it to or not. However, the phenomenon of file sharing *is* here already, and there"s nothing reasonable anybody can do about it.



My appologies if I missunderstood you.

I"ll read it again.





(By the way, I"m going to go to sleep now, so don"t expect a response for some time.)



Me too. Goodnight.

Staffan Lindberg
2006-09-01, 14:38
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

As far as I'm concearned, the problem lies with you. We producers gave you fair use rights (which I admit, in the beguinning was a tough thing to swallow). You abuse from the moment you decide to extend that power to the whole world.



I'm just curious about this statement... When have we consumers ever been given these rights ? Never voluntary atleast!

The way I see things, this has never been the case, examples:



AudioCD (CDDA) arrived. All was well until PC CDRoms/CDRecorders arrived, then (after a long while) we started getting the silly copy restrictions that only ANNOYs consumers.



DVD arrived with some serious restrictions (Region + CSS + Macrovision). Was video DVD's released with Fair Use in mind here ? I do not think so... Ofcourse it got "cracked" (yes I know the story of how it happened (Xing))



I bet you have something to say about Region coding don't you? (I certainly do)

One reason why movielovers P2P movies is because the industry don't (or EXTREMELY rarely) premiere a feature-film globally. Either in Cinema nor on DVD.

Why should we Swedes wait 6 months+ after the USA premiere? Most of us aren't too happy about that. Granted this has become less of an issue the past few years, but it's still a major issue. It's still fairly common that the DVD of a movie is launched in USA before movie has even had cinema premiere here!

And I know many people who import movies from USA for this very reason, but even this is ILLEGAL in your world! (requires altering the dvdplayer, hello DMCA)

Ofcourse the industry has put Region coding also on bluray/hddvd, proven once again they never learn.



Edit: Oh just let me add the following regarding fair use:



How am I even supposed to practise Fair Use when I'm not allowed to make a single copy ? (dvd, protected audiocd)

pv2b
2006-09-01, 14:48
All right, you're no longer avoiding the issue completely, but you're confusing the right to free speech with the right to privacy.



Of course you can't use the argument of free speech to argue for child pornography et cetera. And I haven't done that either. You're the first person to mention freedom of speech in this thread as far as I'm aware.



I would however argue for the basic right of privacy for a normal person for investigation into child pornography allegations, unless there were legitimate suspiscions. The important right is the right to privacy if you are not suspected of anything. This doesn't mean I want the police to stop monitoring what *suspects* do, I just don't want every single person in the world being treated as a suspect based on the fact that they have a computer and could conceivably copy files, especially since Swedish law permits "excess information" gathered from electronic surveillance to be used to prosecute crimes the surveillee was never suspected for to start with.



Either way, there are two choices. Do not enforce copyright law for private copying (which is de facto the situation here in Sweden anyway, there are simply not enough resources allocated to the Police to prioritize this), or introduce a state where privacy from government does not exist in order to prosecute file sharing. It's not a question of whether you want file sharing illegal or not -- unless you introduce draconian measures, file sharing will continue to happen, whether you like it or not.



Now, as I said, you can complain until you're blue in the face about whether it's going to hurt your business or not, you can see the previous post by TheBaldingOne for an excellent discussion on the effects on your business. I'm not really willing to go into that discussion, mainly because I still feel the main discussion is whether protection of your priviledges merits a restriction of my right to privacy.



My personal goal, and our main practical goal, is to stop our government from setting up a police state, where anybody can be monitored for any reason. It just so happens that this goal means we also cannot prosecute file sharers effectively, for privacy reasons. So, maybe your copyrights aren't at stake, as you say. But it doesn't matter, really, especially not to you, especially if people are going to violate them anyway, and there'll be no way to enforce them.



However, my rights to privacy (real privacy, not just so-called privacy) *are* at stake, and I can fight to maintain them. That's what I'm doing.



As for the argument about making sure your work is accurately represented -- I'm offering a constructive solution to the problem, on the assumption that file sharing _will_ happen. As for checksums, if you've ever used Bittorrent (whether it was for getting the file legally or not) you've already used checksums. Bittorrent uses checksums to verify that the file is the same as the publisher says it is. And if the publisher himself provides the .torrent file, you can always be certain that the file is legitimate. As for archival of checksums and films in a digital library, it is a very interesting question in fact, which I might consider discussing in a different thread. But I don't consider the point to be relevant to this discussion, really. The technology is mostly there, it just needs refining.

CinemaScope
2006-09-01, 15:38
Jan Lindgren (2006-Sep-01)I don"t have time to read and write an answer to all that, but I saw this and couldn"t keep myself from writing a post.



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

And about your right to privacy... another moral dilemma. What would you say if the police couldn"t stop a crazy bunch of people from blowing up the plane your son was in... just because chose to respect those crazy people"s rights to privacy over some p2p exchanges? I don"t have the perfect answer to that one. But I"d gladly give up some rights in order to make police work easier. I don"t do in my private life anything I"m ashamed of. Do dress as a woman and imitate Madonna? LOL Well... don"t you? :D



First of all who doesn"t dress up to imitate Madonna? ;)



So sorry I forgot the "I" It should read "Do I dress as a woman and imitate Madonna? LOL Well... don"t you?"

It was a joke. I love Madona. But blonde is not my color. :hehe::hehe::hehe:



Back to your answer... GREAT ANSWER THANK YOU A LOT!!!!





But it"s not about my right to privacy or the crazy peoples, but our (all of us) right to privacy. It"s not about the p2p-networks but rather every persons right to their own life. The new laws being pushed by the media industry won"t monitor the p2p-networks, but every single person in the EU.



I really liked what you wrote and I"ll try to be as honest as I can, Jan...

Here it goes.

I don"t think neither of us is quite equipped to deal with today"s problems IF we keep confronting them with our 1968 preformated answers.



When Connan Doyle wrote about crime like if it was an Art he was wrong then. But today it is true. Weren"t you amazed about blowing 10 airplanes using household items? So simple... is brilliant. And all you have to do is to give it a shot. You don"t have to be Muslim. Just plain crazy. And technology multiplied the ways you can do horrible things. Child porn is an example. If you want it, I"m sure you will find it. The internet is a great tool but it is so powerful and it helped crime in ways it will take years for us to know.



I don"t particularly like many of the problems we face today... but I have to admit: that"s the world I live in and if is forcing me to reevaluate some of my priorities and concearns.



To me it is a quest for absolutes: does it make sense for me to be so absolutely adamant about my right to privacy? Maybe yes. Maybe no. If you ask me... no, it does not make sense. That right is easily convertible into a weapon against me and my family. Someone here keeps throwing at my face that his right to privacy is bigger than my copyrights (I don"t agree about the way he got to this conclusion - but theoretically speaking, he could be right).



Therefore... isn"t life (or the protection of human life) at least slightly more important than my right to privacy? That is not the same to say that we"ll have cameras inside our bathtubs. I"m just talking about a small amount of privacy. Of course it is a dangerous breach of principles... but isn"t life worth it?



I think it does.



Or I may keep adamant on that. But then... where do I turn to when the going gets rough?



Unfortunatelly... as we speak you are already being watched by your bank (where your credit card balance lists all the places you"ve been every day of the last ten years). Do you have a car? I do. My insurance company is the first one able to say if I"m a good driver or not before I apply for a loan to buy a new car. Right now a company in Sweden will store the precise moment you log off. And you come to tell me you are worried about being watched? Sweden is not that far from Portugal as far as those things go. Even your mobile phone knows where you are.



And yet... nobody is blackmailing you. You got your loan. You don"t remember asking your bank to destroy your past credit card transactions... the information is there. 1 year from now, If the court wants to know where you were today it is possible to know with a decent measure of fidelity.



If all these things are possible to be known (may I like it or not) why don"t I give it some good use? - specially if there are people who would love to kill me. Or miraculously steal my money from the bank account. Or exploiting children.



STILL

I think the monitoring the of our lives (by the media companies) will never get to such a serious point of causing a real threat to us.





You probably don"t know this but about 20-30 years ago some people here in Sweden couldn"t get a job or sometimes even a place to live just because they held the "wrong" opinion. This was done by registering what they did and what opinion was "wrong" was decided by the goverment. And now the same registration (actually quite worse) will happen all over the EU.



The goverment has no right to monitor it"s citizens because that leads to all kinds of abuse both from the goverment itself and from individuals within.



I"m very sorry for Sweden 30 years ago. Brazil and Portugal actually got even more violent than that 40 years ago.

I don"t believe this particular story will repeat itself.

Why?

Because people like you are paying attention. Crime today is not what it used to be 30 years ago. We can learn from the past. If today"s problems ask for some highly specific change in my rights... can"t we all pay atention to make sure things won"t go awry?



There is the Big Brother risk. But the risk of not doing anything is that freedom and privacy alone don"t catch crazy people.





You say you would be willing to give up some privacy to stop the terrorists, but how far are you willing to go? I"m sure we could really stop the terrorism if we installed cameras in every single room in every single house/apartment within the EU. How about that? They we"d be rid of all those nasty terrorists and how cares about that pesky thing called "privacy" As long as we"re alive. Right?





That"s an exaggeration.

How far am I willing to go? I don"t quite know - I"m willing to debate. But I"ll tell you something: a brief going through all the data daily saved about me would tell anybody I"m not what they"re looking for (and that information is more or less public - despite the fact that it only concearns you). And I"m fine. Those with mortgages to pay know exactly what I"m talking about. Right now at least 3 people on your bank can tell you in what restaurant you ate last week. Your credit card payment must have passed through their hands. And even if it didn"t you are OK otherwise a computer would have told them there"s something going on in your private world.



Still I"m here.



15 years ago, we all marveled with the information age. Can we go back? Hell, no! Do you want to go back?



You say:





The goverment has no right to monitor it"s citizens because that leads to all kinds of abuse both from the goverment itself and from individuals within.



That may be true. But I conterpose that... there"s nothing new about doing things we don"t really have the right to. Don"t you do things you don"t have the right to? Right now, I feel that you don"t have the right to illegaly distribute the media I make. That hurts my very small company and threat the jobs of those who work for me.





I"m gonna end this part with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up freedom for some short term saftey deserve neither freedom nor safety."



Well... Benjamin Franklin never met the president of Iran. Or the leader of Hezbollah. Or Charles Manson. Or Jim Jones. Or that pollygamist :hehe: that was arrested this week in Vegas.





As for being able to sell things while you can get it for free... well... In sweden we have a huge market for bottled water and it"s still growing. It"s actually gaining on the soda market. But at the same time everyone here can get clean, great tasting water for free from their taps at home (or at work/school and so on). So either you can sell things that are free or... eh... I dunno... we"re all hallucinating?



No you"re not hallucinating. That shows that you want the best water possible.

And why wouldn"t you? Afterall you"re gonna dring it, right?

But I"d be trully surprised if you would tell me that you actually use bottled water for bathing.



Why don"t you? Explain to me why is tap water good to bathe and NOT THAT great to drink. Or the contrary.

Explain to me why is bottled water great to dring and TOO good to bathe.



Because as I said before, we don"t put all things in the same sphere os value. The fact that you buy bottled water to dring even if tap water is considered good does not mean that you will pay for media if don"t really have to. And then, I"m dead.



And PLUS: tap water is not free. It may be cheaper. But not free. Someone gets paid for that.





I"ll actually give you one more example:





PLEASE DO!!!!





Allofmp3. They sell music that you can find on p2p sites and networks and they"re making a big profit. How? Why? Well.. first of all it"s easy to find the music there and you know that you get good quality with good labeling. Secondly it"s cheap and thirdly... you can chose any file format you want and you don"t get bothered with DRM. And this is only one example.



Well... I"m not a client nor content provider of that service.

I just think that you must know that web site only exists due to law breaches both in Russia (where it belongs) and several other countries.



But in Danmark, for example...



FROM WIKIPEDIA

There has been much discussion about whether or not it is legal for a Danish resident to buy copyrighted material from AllOfMp3.com. The music industry associated Antipiratgruppen (anti piracy group) claims that it is illegal on the grounds that Danish artists are not getting paid when their songs are bought from the service, but have not pointed to specific legislation demonstrating that it is illegal. (.....) It asked all Danish Internet Service Providers to shut down access to AllOfMp3.com and threatened to sue the ISPs that didn"t comply with this request. All ISPs refused to comply and on July 13 Antipiratgruppen announced that it would file suit against Tele2, one of the major providers of internet access in Denmark, to get an injuction forcing the company to block access to AllOfMp3.com. The case is currently underway in the Danish legal system with both parties submitting legal memoranda to the court.



This is just one example of musicians who are not getting paid in your P2P heaven. You say they are making big proffits. But I pay my artists. They don"t.



Is this your notion of promoting culture? Allowing your danish cousins to be stripped from their rights??? Do a quick research and count the number of lawsuits (in several countries) curently running againd that website. Is this Piratpartiet"s vision of the right way? Should I accept this as inevitable just because a bunch swedish kids can have fun? Can"t you really pay for music?



Are the swedish musicians actually getting anything from this?



Please, Jan, don"t be naive. Allofmp3 has big proffits and cheap prices because innocent musicians are paying for that. Is this fair? Will you stop buying from them now that you know about the Danish?



Yes or no?



If your answer is "yes". Well done.

If your answer is "no", then don"t talk to me about bottled water and free downloads. It is obvios deep inside you don"t give a damn about anybody"s rights except your own.



You people have no idea about the very things that you buy. About the places you buy from. About their policy towards musicians. etc etc etc.



[/quote]

In the end it comes down to this:



The internet and other new technology has changed how we listen to music or watch a film and has made the old ways of earning money and reaching out to your audience obsolete. As I see it there are two options. You can either A) see filesharing as something bad that is destroying for you and try to stop it and the new technology or B) you can see it as a new opportunity. A new way to reach out to your customers and a new way to make money.



The choice is yours.

[/quote]



No. It is you who have to chose. You walk through here oblivious to the demage you cause when you steal our music (or when you help others to do that). I"m well informed. I made my choice.



You still haven"t shown me anything that will help me conclude that P2P is actually good for me - If you don"t even care to ask yourself if allofmp3 is acting right with you who believe everything is fine.

TheBaldingOne
2006-09-01, 16:47
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

You still haven't shown me anything that will help me conclude that P2P is actually good for me -



My post here (http://forum.piratpartiet.se/FindPost52301.aspx) goes some way to addressing your concerns...



CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)

If you don't even care to ask yourself if allofmp3 is acting right with you who believe everything is fine.



allofmp3 is acting within the remit of current Russian Law... The problem with these big US corporations is that they see everywhere as being under US Law, when in reality it ends 12 miles from their seaward border...

Jan Lindgren
2006-09-01, 18:24
CinemaScope (2006-Sep-01)Back to your answer... GREAT ANSWER THANK YOU A LOT!!!!<br>
<br>
Thank you. Lets see if we can do a repeat of it. :)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I don"t think neither of us is quite equipped to deal with today"s problems IF we keep confronting them with our 1968 preformated answers.<br>
<br>
When Connan Doyle wrote about crime like if it was an Art he was wrong then. But today it is true. Weren"t you amazed about blowing 10 airplanes using household items? So simple... is brilliant. And all you have to do is to give it a shot. You don"t have to be Muslim. Just plain crazy. And technology multiplied the ways you can do horrible things. Child porn is an example. If you want it, I"m sure you will find it. The internet is a great tool but it is so powerful and it helped crime in ways it will take years for us to know.<br>
<br>
Ah, but just because I quote Ben Franklin doesn"t mean that my answers are takin from 1968. Hell I wasn"t even alive back then. ;) :)<br>
<br>
The ingenuity of the 9/11 attacks was truly astounding, I"ll agree on that.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don"t particularly like many of the problems we face today... but I have to admit: that"s the world I live in and if is forcing me to reevaluate some of my priorities and concearns.<br>
<br>
My personal opinion is that you should always evaluate your own priority, concerns and viewpoints. Becuase otherwise you stop learning and turn into what is essantially a fundamentalist (but hey! that where the FUN comes from :D).<br>
<br>
<br>
To me it is a quest for absolutes: does it make sense for me to be so absolutely adamant about my right to privacy? Maybe yes. Maybe no. If you ask me... no, it does not make sense. That right is easily convertible into a weapon against me and my family. Someone here keeps throwing at my face that his right to privacy is bigger than my copyrights (I don"t agree about the way he got to this conclusion - but theoretically speaking, he could be right).<br>
<br>
Therefore... isn"t life (or the protection of human life) at least slightly more important than my right to privacy? That is not the same to say that we"ll have cameras inside our bathtubs. I"m just talking about a small amount of privacy. Of course it is a dangerous breach of principles... but isn"t life worth it?<br>
<br>
Oh I agree that in todays society some measure of surveilance is necessary, but the question is where do you draw the line? And for me it"s quite simple: The government does not monitor it"s citizens if they aren"t suspected of a crime. But unfortunately all through Europe where going far beyond that point at an astounding rate.<br>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunatelly... as we speak you are already being watched by your bank (where your credit card balance lists all the places you"ve been every day of the last ten years). Do you have a car? I do. My insurance company is the first one able to say if I"m a good driver or not before I apply for a loan to buy a new car. Right now a company in Sweden will store the precise moment you log off. And you come to tell me you are worried about being watched? Sweden is not that far from Portugal as far as those things go. Even your mobile phone knows where you are.<br>
<br>
And yet... nobody is blackmailing you. You got your loan. You don"t remember asking your bank to destroy your past credit card transactions... the information is there. 1 year from now, If the court wants to know where you were today it is possible to know with a decent measure of fidelity.<br>
<br>
If all these things are possible to be known (may I like it or not) why don"t I give it some good use? - specially if there are people who would love to kill me. Or miraculously steal my money from the bank account. Or exploiting children.<br>
<br>
STILL<br>
<br>
I think the monitoring the of our lives (by the media companies) will never get to such a serious point of causing a real threat to us.<br>
<br>
Ah, but there"s a difference there (but to add, no I don"t like it that I"m being watched as much as I am today) and that is that we"re talking about different companies and not the goverment. And I know that my cellphone knows where I am and see that"s part of the problem. <br>
<br>
In Sweden today the phonecompanies keep a log on your calls and SMS for billing purposes and then they throw that data away. Something similar is done by the ISP:s (where they monitor your internet trafic), again for billing purposes (which means that they thrwo it away when they"re done). But last fall the EU voted on data retention and passed it. And now they"re going even further. <br>
<br>
What they want to monitor (and keep between 6-24 month, which is far longer that what is being done in Sweden today) is:<br>
your movements on the internet<br>
when you send/recieve email (and to whom)<br>
when you send/recieve SMS (again to whom as well, and also where you are physically)<br>
when you talk on your mobile (and once again to whom you"re talking to and also where you are)<br>
<br>
Personally I see this as a threat when it"s being done to regular people who aren"t suspected of crimes. And this EU-directive was mainly pushed on by the media companies. Who are now pushing for a lawchange that would place filesharing on about the same level of crime as flying a plane into a tall building.<br>
<br>
<br>
I"m very sorry for Sweden 30 years ago. Brazil and Portugal actually got even more violent than that 40 years ago.<br>
<br>
I don"t believe this particular story will repeat itself.<br>
<br>
Why?<br>
<br>
Because people like you are paying attention. Crime today is not what it used to be 30 years ago. We can learn from the past. If today"s problems ask for some highly specific change in my rights... can"t we all pay atention to make sure things won"t go awry?<br>
<br>
There is the Big Brother risk. But the risk of not doing anything is that freedom and privacy alone don"t catch crazy people. <br>
<br>
Don"t worry. I wasn"t alive then. ;) :D<br>
<br>
In a way it already has repeated itself. When Anna Lindh was murdered hundreds (of not more) of cops who had no right read her medical journal. And the same with the investigation notes. The thing is that if you store data in todays world you CANNOT keep it secret for too long. Specielly not when we"re talking about this much data. <br>
<br>
The thing is that we (Piratpartiet) aren"t talking about having no survaillance at all. But we just don"t want the goverment to monitor people who arent suspected of anything.<br>
<br>
And there is a HUGE Big Brother risk when you monitor what people do on the internet. All of a sudden the police will know everyone that visit our homepage. Or for that matter maybe the communist party:s website. And someone will use that. <br>
<br>
In the last couple of years from time to time there"s been cropping up stories here in Sweden about how extreme right poeple have found out locations of people who are in protective custody and killing them. There"s a big risk right away. <br>
<br>
It"s not a question of IF it will repeat itself but a question of WHEN, like it already has since the 70:ies.<br>
<br>
<br>
You say you would be willing to give up some privacy to stop the terrorists, but how far are you willing to go? I"m sure we could really stop the terrorism if we installed cameras in every single room in every single house/apartment within the EU. How about that? They we"d be rid of all those nasty terrorists and how cares about that pesky thing called "privacy" As long as we"re alive. Right?<br>
<br>
<br>
That"s an exaggeration.<br>
<br>
How far am I willing to go? I don"t quite know - I"m willing to debate. But I"ll tell you something: a brief going through all the data daily saved about me would tell anybody I"m not what they"re looking for (and that information is more or less public - despite the fact that it only concearns you). And I"m fine. Those with mortgages to pay know exactly what I"m talking about. Right now at least 3 people on your bank can tell you in what restaurant you ate last week. Your credit card payment must have passed through their hands. And even if it didn"t you are OK otherwise a computer would have told them there"s something going on in your private world.<br>
<br>
Of course it"s an exaggeration. That"s the point. ;) :)<br>
<br>
But your argument seems to be that... it"s fine because you"re not worth bothering about? But it shouldn"t have to be like that. But again, what I"m fighting against here is the goverment monitoring it"s citizens and I give you a quote from Ilka Schröder (translated): "The western democracies are going far further in survailance than Stasi did in East Germany."<br>
<br>
<br>
That may be true. But I conterpose that... there"s nothing new about doing things we don"t really have the right to. Don"t you do things you don"t have the right to? Right now, I feel that you don"t have the right to illegaly distribute the media I make. That hurts my very small company and threat the jobs of those who work for me.<br>
<br>
But there are two things here:<br>
1) You cannot know that the file I"m sending as an attachment to my friend is an illegal version of your song or a letter to my lawer unless you open it. And by then my privacy is completely gone.<br>
2) There are several independant studies that show that filesharing does not hurt the companies. We have a professor at KTH and a composer that himself says that it"s a myth that downloading of a song equals a not sold copy of that song. That"s the whole thing.<br>
<br>
To further my second point above. Almost everyone I know buys the same things that they download. If they like it. Or otherwise show support for the creator (be s/he a musician, author or something else) in some other way. <br>
<br>
<br>
Well... Benjamin Franklin never met the president of Iran. Or the leader of Hezbollah. Or Charles Manson. Or Jim Jones. Or that pollygamist :hehe: that was arrested this week in Vegas.<br>
<br>
:D<br>
<br>
I think Ben would have a thing or two to say about some people in the world today.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As for being able to sell things while you can get it for free... well... In sweden we have a huge market for bottled water and it"s still growing. It"s actually gaining on the soda market. But at the same time everyone here can get clean, great tasting water for free from their taps at home (or at work/school and so on). So either you can sell things that are free or... eh... I dunno... we"re all hallucinating? <br>
<br>
No you"re not hallucinating. That shows that you want the best water possible.<br>
<br>
Then people would be drinking the tapwater. They did a recent expo about the bottled water and found that our tapwater is far better than the bottled water. Like that mattered to the sales of the bottled water...<br>
<br>
I use both bottled water and tapwater (but no, I don"t bathe in bottled water... the hassle of getting the water heated and then into the tub... sheesh! I tried it once and never agin I tell you! :D), just as I buy good DRM-free music online whenever I can. I won"t buy DRM-damaged junk and since the story on Sony"s Rootkit-CD:s I"ve stopped buying CD:s. <br>
<br>
Oh, there"s a great example on how the music industry isn"t to be trusted and if they had their way we"d all be monitored. They sold CD:s that secretly installed rootkits on computers, spied on the user, made it easier for virus to infect your computer and if you tried to remove it you risked damageing the computer. So please, don"t tell me that the music companies won"t go too far in their with to monotor their customer. They already have. <br>
<br>
Want to know the best part? The code to the rootkits was pirated. :D<br>
<br>
<br>
Because as I said before, we don"t put all things in the same sphere os value. The fact that you buy bottled water to dring even if tap water is considered good does not mean that you will pay for media if don"t really have to. And then, I"m dead.<br>
<br>
And PLUS: tap water is not free. It may be cheaper. But not free. Someone gets paid for that.<br>
<br>
Acutally I do. I heard this song by Timbuktu on the radio and thought it was pretty good. Found the CD on The Pirate Bay and really liked it. Then I was looking through what they had on CDON.com and realiezed to my big surprise (really!) that they actually sold Timbuktu in MP3-format (otherwise all the music I like that they sell is in wma and copy protected to shit so I can"t use it) and so I bought one (or was it two) albums from the store. And that was because it was cheap and DRM-free. <br>
<br>
See... that"s the thing. You seem to think that people either A) Buy the stuff or B) Download it and we"re trying to make you understand that there"s a third option C) Download AND buy. <br>
<br>
There"s a scientific independant study that says that filesharers are the ones that most visit the cinema and are the ones that buy more CD:s and DVD:s than anyone else. <br>
<br>
<br>
Well... I"m not a client nor content provider of that service.<br>
<br>
I just think that you must know that web site only exists due to law breaches both in Russia (where it belongs) and several other countries.<br>
<br>
This is just one example of musicians who are not getting paid in your P2P heaven. You say they are making big proffits. But I pay my artists. They don"t.<br>
<br>
Is this your notion of promoting culture? Allowing your danish cousins to be stripped from their rights??? Do a quick research and count the number of lawsuits (in several countries) curently running againd that website. Is this Piratpartiet"s vision of the right way? Should I accept this as inevitable just because a bunch swedish kids can have fun? Can"t you really pay for music? <br>
<br>
Are the swedish musicians actually getting anything from this?<br>
<br>
Please, Jan, don"t be naive. Allofmp3 has big proffits and cheap prices because innocent musicians are paying for that. Is this fair? Will you stop buying from them now that you know about the Danish?<br>
<br>
Yes or no?<br>
<br>
If your answer is "yes". Well done.<br>
If your answer is "no", then don"t talk to me about bottled water and free downloads. It is obvios deep inside you don"t give a damn about anybody"s rights except your own.<br>
<br>
:hehe::w00t:<br>
I can tell you that: NO, I won"t stop buying from them. But that"s because I"ve never bought anythhing from them to start with and have no intention of ever doing it (well, unless they clean up their act). <br>
<br>
See... I"ve never trusted those buggers and when I first heard of them I didn"t want to give them my credit card. And then I heard that here where legal issues and... well... if I pay for my music then I want to be sure of two things: A) That it actually is legit and B) That the artist gets paid. <br>
<br>
No, Allofmp3 isn"t my version of paradise. Far from it. Why? Because I know that (most likely) the artist arent paid and the profit is most likely (but of course I"m not sure about this) going to the russian mob. <br>
<br>
But you where missing my point with that example. The point is that they"re selling music by the shitload. And it"s becuase it"s cheap (though I think most people would still pay if they raised their prices) but mailny because the buyers can chose any format they want.<br>
<br>
I have two MP3-players. One iPod and a small one of a small brand. If I buy from iTunes I can"t use that music in the small player and if I buy wma-format (which is practically the only other format out there) I can"t use that music in any of the two players. So why should I buy music online to start with? Can you tell me that? <br>
<br>
<br>
You people have no idea about the very things that you buy. About the places you buy from. About their policy towards musicians. etc etc etc.<br>
<br>
Please, you"re generalizing and putting us in stereotypes. I know a lot of the places I buy from before I make a buy. Do you know how the big companies treat their artist? Like how Apple (http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/06/14/weird-al-yankovic-says-digital-is-a-raw-deal-for-some-artists/) treats their artist. Or how about what Courtney Love has to say about the music companies (http://www2.piratpartiet.se/referenser/courtney_love_does_the_math). I"ll even throw in a quote from her: <br>
<br>
Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist"s work without any intention of paying for it.<br>
<br>
I"m not talking about Napster-type software.<br>
<br>
I"m talking about major label recording contracts.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To get back to one point. If I buy music, then it"s vital to me that the artist actually get money and I"d prefer if it was a majority of the money. And that"s part of the problem with the situation today. There was a Swedish paper about it recently that came to the conclusion that when you buy a record in the store then the artist on avarge gets between 5-10 percent of that price. The record company gets 2-3 times as much. That"s not fair in my opinion. It should be the other way round. But it isn"t and the record companies are not interested in changing that. Except in a few cases.<br>
<br>
There"s a new Swedish record company called Hybris (http://www.hybrism.com/). They sell CD:s, but you can also download the songs in mp3-format from their site and you can donate money if you want to. And the owners of the company have said that they don"t earn money from the CD:s until they"ve been shared on the internet. Then the money starts coming in. And they give more of the money to the artists than a normal record company does. <br>
<br>
More examples?<br>
<br>
How about Star Wreck - In the Pirkinning (http://www.starwreck.com/) which is one of the funniest movies I"ve ever seen. It free for download from their website and still they"re making money from it... Wonder how? ;) And the team behind it is actually making a new movie named Iron Sky (http://www.energiaproductions.fi/ironsky/gallery/) which is in part funded by donations. Man... when I get a job I"m gonna go wild in their store. :D<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The internet and other new technology has changed how we listen to music or watch a film and has made the old ways of earning money and reaching out to your audience obsolete. As I see it there are two options. You can either A) see filesharing as something bad that is destroying for you and try to stop it and the new technology or B) you can see it as a new opportunity. A new way to reach out to your customers and a new way to make money.<br>
<br>
The choice is yours.<br>
<br>
No. It is you who have to chose. You walk through here oblivious to the demage you cause when you steal our music (or when you help others to do that). I"m well informed. I made my choice. <br>
<br>
You still haven"t shown me anything that will help me conclude that P2P is actually good for me - If you don"t even care to ask yourself if allofmp3 is acting right with you who believe everything is fine.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately you"re wrong. First of all I"m not uninformed, secondly I haven"t stolen any music from anyone (filesharing is still not stealing) and thirdly I have never used Allofmp3.

Jan Lindgren
2006-09-01, 21:16
I'd like to clarify one thinig and add two more.



First of all: Allofmp3 is legal in Russia. That it's illegal in the US I don't really care about since (contrary to what some people might think) US law is not international law.



When we talked about what happened in Sweden some 20-30 years ago you said it wouldn't happen again. Unfortunately it's already happening in the UK with their ASBO (http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/). There a man was arrested (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece) for holding a sign that said: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." and that it was wrong of him to be carrying some issues of the paper Vanity Fair.



Or how about when three kids (12 year old) where arrested, DNA-tested and put in jail for two hours for playing in a tree (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397240).



These laws (and other like them) do not belong in a democracy, but are quite common in countries with dictators. What Piratpartiet wants is to stop these laws from coming to Sweden and if possible help our friends in UK and the rest of the EU so they don't have to deal with this kind of shit.



And then I started thinking about my version of p2p-paradise and... well... It's sort of like Hybris actually. It's a world where music companies aren't NEEDED but still exist to serve the musicians. A place where they write contracts for one record (or maybe just a number of songs... I think records as they are will dissapear), where you can download the songs for free (in any format of your choosing without DRM) while still being able to buy (either the CD or individual songs) with the option of donating any amount of money that you chose (if you think the price is too high/low for you) and the majority of the profit goeas to the musician and not the distributor. Yeah... that would be kind of neat... :)

Audubon
2006-09-11, 04:48
A few things I saw in the discussion I"d like to go into.



Give me a solution. How do you want SpiderMan, Titanic and Harry Potter if the producers cannot get their money back? Titanic took 300M to make (so much that Paramount and Fox had to come together to finance it). The film also took 200M more for marketing. That is 500M. In a year, it brought back 1.3B. Do you think those 800M are profits? Do you know what percentage of that went back for the producers? (remember they already put 300M). What percentage went to the distributor? What percentage went to the exhibitors? In order to raise 300M Paramount and Fox go to banks. do you know the rate of interest banks charge when the money is for films? How about a CD... do you know much it costs to record it? Do you know the price of an orchestra?



Obviously you don"t have to know those things... I do.

We don"t bore you with those details... we just want you to enjoy it.



But you can ask me if you"d like. I"d gladly tell you.



Please do



Can you send me the actual study who demonstrates that? If Andersen Consulting demonstrates to me "hey, Paulo, there is no way sharing can hurt your business" I"ll join you.



these are the same people that helped cause the Enron colapse remember? I wouldn"t trust them to give me advice on how to tie my shoes.





Oh, you did not like the film? Give it to someone. It"s ok.



Actually, this is illegal in the Uk where redistribution covers the resale of purchased items. If you buy it, it"s yours. You can show it to your girlfriend but that"s it... You can"t show it at your school, on a coach trip, or even (this is the one that gets me ) on an oil rig 150 miles from anywhere in the middle of the sea. This is a poitn I"ll discuss at the end of this post.



I still do not get why you scandinavians did not put a stronger fight when those muslims put your freedom os speech at stake



because they probably realised that a clamp down on the Muslim"s right to speak freely about an end to Swedish free speech would end up as a restriction of free speech for everybody.



No creative brain on Earth who makes money from its creations will ever go with it.



Exactly, but the people who are pushing for this are the real profiteers. How much of the lost revenue in the MPAA report came from sensibly legitimate uses of copyrighted material (such as a public viewing at a school or oil rig) was taken into account?





As far as I know the greek tragedies were protected long before printed media.



Actually, as they were religious events, they were only ever intended for a single viewing to begin with. Any subsequent viewing was contrary to the ethos of the time. Yes manuscripts have been passed down to us, but in no way were they "copyrighted". The copies themselves were probably recorded for reference purposes only, for future generations of writers where no subsequent money was ever given to the original artists. They were written as a single event to win a prize as part of a religious festival. After the festival was ended, the pieces themselves would have no further use. The actual "profit" for a greek tradgedian was from the prize for the single viewing, the patronage of wealthy citizens and the money from teaching the next generation of tradegians.







To actually get to my point. The US works under a rather tortuously masochistic legal framework, where the directors of any public corporation are bound legally to extract the maximum profit from any given product. This psychotic way of doing things is being exported around the world as the US is the main producer of many of the products available.



If we look at the situation as it is, US corporations are legally bound to prosecute any body that that diminishes the potential maximum profit of any product. Hence the draconian copyright laws most of the world has right now. These draconian laws actually prohibit the viewing of any (lets call them films, but this goes for any consumable artifact such as music or even pharmaceuticals) films in public places because those viewers could of viewed the same film in a cinema or purchased the film for private consumption at home. They do not take into account the fact that the film itself would not have been viewed at all in that circumstance if the proper legal prohibitions had been followed.



The problem as I see it is not that p2p is impacting in any real sense the revenue of the distributor, only that people are viewing the film in a situation where they would not have viewed it otherwise. Yes, the maximum potential profit has decreased, but there is a marked difference between maximum potential profit, and real potential profit are two different things.



The distributors are legally obliged by current laws to attack p2p as a threat to current maximum potential profit only because the curent copyright laws are written in such a way that any public distribution outside current channels is considered illegal. Change the copyright laws to reflect the current world situation and the same distributors would find new and better ways to distribute their products.



It comes down to who actually profits in the current situation. The producers of films get the same revenue at the moment as they always have done, but are advised by their lawyers that p2p and public viewings are reducing their maximum potential profits. Ergo the lawyers force the producers into legal battles to restrict the new modes of consumption. The lawyers take a nice large fee for actually forcing the producers into legal battles under threat of legal action by other lawyers acting on behalf of the shreholders.



I think Sweden is going in exactly the right direction. Change the legal status of copyright, this will give the producers more freedom (who were never under any real threat to begin with) and the consuming public more freedom to view things.



As a consumer, I am more than happy to pay the x ammount of money it takes to purchase a "legal" copy of a film. What I"m not prepared to do is to pay lawyers to threaten the same producers of material because I wish to pre view a film via p2p download.



I consider a great film to be well worth paying for, and I value even more highly the added value that a legitimate copy gives me. I want the audio comentaries, the different language subtitles, the nice shiny DVD case, the great way they look on my DVD shelf next to my TV. Most p2p copies don"t give me this kind of content, for a start, they certainly never give me the nice case that goes on my shelf, but further, they almost never give me the best quality picture or the added content of commentaries or notes.



I like p2p becuase it gives me the choice to pre view future purchases and the ability to simply delete the large amount of crap that is produced as eye candy that"s only ever worth watching for the first 10 minutes. It will not only force producers to increase the qulaity of the future films, but give me the (what should be a legal right) choice of never paying for substandard work ever again



We are currently living in a world where people are branded criminals because they are not paying to view films