Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I would like to now how many of the people who download those shows do so from places where those shows don't air.
I have never had a problem with people downloading broadcast TV shows. I kind of feel that if they are giving it away over the air then anyone with a TV and antenna can access them and if someone were to record them on a VCR or DVR they would just fast forward past the commercials so having some people download them is to be expected.
As far as going after individuals, the RIAA and groups like that have been. To me going after sites like the Pirate Bay is a form of that. If I had a gun store and people came in to buy a gun and were going to use it to hunt or target practice and I sell it to them no problem. Nothing illegal has happened. Even if they never said why they were going to use it I could then admit that I had no reasonable idea that they were going to do something bad with it. But if I have that same gun store and a guy comes in to buy a gun and tells me that he is going to use it to rob a store and I still sell it to him, maybe someone needs to look at me.
|
So in your gun analogy you want the gun store owner to be left alone UNTIL there is PROOF that they were aware it was being used Illegally. But there is no communication before the torrent is downloaded, there is no possible way for the pirate bay to know if you are using it legitimately or not. They can tell the difference between me downloading only shows i bought and someone downloading shows they didn't buy. By your example they should be left alone.
Quote:
|
If someone tells me they want to commit a crime with the gun I am selling them and I help the file the serial number off the gun, I am an accessory to the crime. You can argue that bit torrent sites like Pirate bay are providing a legit service to some people and some people are not using it to illegally download anything, but many of the people that are using the site are doing so to illegally download stuff. If you think otherwise you are just fooling yourself. people want it for free and the torrent sites are helping them to get it. These sites are aiding people in committing a crime and if they do that they should be held accountable.
|
nope i am argueing that a MAJORITY of people are using it as a legit service.
Fact 10 shows are broadcast shows not cable shows
fact highspeed internet access is need so poorer people who can't afford cable are not ging to be on the torrent anyway
fact tv shows represent 49%+ of all torrent traffic.
you are trying to argue that pirate bay should be held responsible for the MINORITY of people who use the system for illegal activity instead of going after those people directly.
That like saying that walmart should be sued because they sell vcrs that can be used to make bootleg copies of Video Tapes.
Quote:
|
If they want to run a legit torrent site that only offers things that they either have permission to link to (like bands and artists that want to give away their stuff) or they have stuff they themselves created or that holds no current copyright. Nothing is wrong with that. But the minute they link to the torrent file for the leaked Wolverine movie that hasn't even hit theaters yet, they are aiding everyone who downloads it in committing a crime.
|
so basically fuck your part of the contract with the government for the exclusive rights they have given you.
if that was the way the law works, we would not have a VCR because universal said they didn't want their content distributed that way
we would not have mp3 either because the record industry wanted us to keep buying cds.
There is something completely wrong with trying to turn a conditional monopoly granted explictly to maximize distribution of the content, into an absolute monopoly that can be use to WHOLESALE prevent the distribution of content on new technology.
Quote:
|
I feel that if I create a movie, or music CD (or to some extent a TV show - depending on how it airs) or a book, or any form of art/entertainment I should have the right to control where and how it is distributed. It has nothing to do with money. If I don't want the people of Spain to see my work, I should have that right. Hell, for that matter if I want to allow access to my work to everyone but people living in Alabama I should have that right. Just because a person wants to see/consume my work should not just give them a blanket right to do so.
|
The only reason you have a right control your content is because the government has given you a monopoly on ECONOMIC distribution of your content, they gave you that limited monopoly with the intent of maximizing distribution of that content.
Lucky for the public whenever a copyright holder tries this bullshit the court ultimately rule that they don't have such a right, and it becomes fair use, a free market competition for the distribution of the content where you have no rights to stop it.
Basicallly if you refuse to hold up your end of the bargin then the courts will take away the monopoly benefits from you.
Quote:
If I make a movie and then release it on DVD and I only make DVDs for sale in the US and I choose not to sell them to anyone else (or even make DVDs that will work in NON US region coded machines) that should be up to me. If I am leaving money on the table, so be it. It is my work, I should be allowed to control it. If the people of France want to see my work and it is not available to them, tough shit. As Mick Jagger famously said, "You can't always get what you want."
I hold the same idea when it comes to distribution as I see in many stores where they have a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If I make a DVD available in the US only and someone buys it and burns it to create a backup, no problem. If that someone loans his DVD to a friend, no problem. If that person puts it in a torrent and seeds it, big problem. Now people I don't want having it can access it. I know their download of it doesn't hurt me financially because I am not selling it to them and I don't ever plan to sell it to them, but if I don't want them to have it, they shouldn't be allowed to get it. Part of the problem with the world, and the Internet as a whole, is a sense of entitlement. People want it so they take it. They want it free, so they don't pay for it. If I create something I should be allowed to control who has it and how they use it and I should be able to defend that right.
It may not be how the letter of the law is written out, it is just how I feel.
|
it has noting to do with entiltement it has eveything to do with expecting copyright holders to live up to responsiblity of the contract they have with the goverment, they did not give you a monopoly so that you could dictatorially control people lives (tell them what they can and can not see) they did so so that the monetary insentive to create the work was there so that the public could consume the content.
Quote:
I won't argue that most of the big downloaders are people that have fast internet connections and if your list of the top shows is accurate than chances are a lot of them have access to those shows to begin with.
But, again I just wonder how many of the downloaders are from outside the US where these shows don't air. This study http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-m...-in-australia/ is from 2 years ago, but then the US didn't even rank in the top 10 as far as biggest downloaders. I'm sure some of those countries get US TV broadcasts, but I would imagine many of them don't. If that is the case then those people are downloading something they never had access to in the first place right?
According to this http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009...pirate-bay.ars the pirate bay themselves say around 8%-9% of connections come from the US. Obviously this is only one site, but still that is not that many which means there are many people in other countries accessing these shows that never would have access to them to begin with right?
|
regional and temporally restricted content is going to be the next fair use battle
I have said that such a declaration of right is exactly the same "we licience it to consumers on a limited bases, at a specific day on a specific time" which was struck down in the beta max case.
What different betwen your statement "i don't want that country to have access, for no monetary reason whatsoever"