E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. government is cracking down on Internet piracy. This week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had seized the domain names of five websites that it says were being used to sell counterfeit goods and illegally distribute copyrighted media content. NBC News' Rich Gardella reports.
By Rich Gardella and Jamie Forzato, NBC News
Amid growing calls for more government regulation of the Internet, the United States is conducting what it calls "a sustained law enforcement initiative aimed at counterfeiting and piracy" – an effort that already has resulted in arrests and the seizure of 125 websites.
Ask anybody who uses a computer if they've ever downloaded or streamed media content for free on the Internet, and the answer most likely will be yes. The U.S. government and the American media industry say as much as a quarter of this kind of media traffic violates U.S. copyright law, and both are getting serious in their attempts to turn off the spigot.
But detractors of the crackdown say that the government shouldn’t side with industry and attempt to restrict what flows across the Internet.
(A similar debate unfolded this week at the G8 summit in Paris, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy arguing that governments need to impose more rules of the road on the Internet, and tech leaders like Google’s Eric Schmidt and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg warning that could stymie innovation and squelch free expression.)
The most recent skirmish in the escalating conflict occurred this week, when the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) announced that its Homeland Security Investigations unit had seized the domain names of five websites that it said were being used to sell counterfeit goods or illegally distribute copyrighted materials, including media content.
"American business is threatened by those who produce counterfeit trademarked goods and pirate copyrighted materials," ICE Director John Morton said Wednesday in a press release announcing the seizures. "From counterfeit pharmaceuticals and electronics to pirated movies, music, and software, IP thieves undermine the U.S. economy and jeopardize public safety. Our efforts through this operation successfully disrupt the ability of criminals to purvey counterfeit goods and copyrighted materials illegally over the Internet."
The crackdown – dubbed “Operation In Our Sites" – is being spearheaded by ICE’s National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, working in coordination with U.S. attorneys' offices across the country. The initiative has so far seized the domain names of 125 websites since it began last year, ICE says, effectively shutting them down.
Of the seized website domains, approximately 25 – including two of the five announced this week – were hosting or linking to copyrighted media content illegally, the government says. (The rest have been selling counterfeit goods, everything from shoes and clothing and accessories to DVDs of movies and TV shows to pharmaceutical products.)
Free downloading or "streaming" media content from Internet websites – including movies, TV shows, sports events and music – is a big and rapidly growing business. While an exact number is difficult to pin down, available data and estimates show that millions of streamings and downloads occur daily.
A lot of that traffic is legal – downloading or streaming a full episode of a current television program from an authorized and sponsored service, such as a network's website, for example.
But the U.S. government and the American media industry claim a significant amount of it is illegal. A lot of the media content streamed and downloaded is copyrighted – owned by the person or entity that created it – and a lot of the services providing access to the material don't have permission from the copyright holder to do so.
The government and the media industry say U.S. copyright law (specifically, 18 USC 2319), states that distributing such content without permission from the copyright holder is a crime – copyright infringement. They generally use a simpler name: theft – of intellectual property, or "IP theft" for short.
It’s been more than a decade since the online music-sharing service Napster made headlines for distributing copyrighted content without permission. At the service's peak, millions of Napster users traded and downloaded millions of data files containing copyrighted music, free of charge. The music industry, through some of its largest companies, sued over copyright infringements and lost revenue. After losing in federal court, Napster shut itself down in 2001. (Its name and now-legal music service lives on as a part of the electronics retailer Best Buy.) Despite Napster’s legal troubles, online services providing unauthorized access to copyrighted media content have continued to ply the Internet, though not on such a large scale.
Study: Nearly a quarter of streams, downloads illegal
The media industry seeks to quantify IP theft as a problem.
It commissioned a study that found that almost one-quarter of all that streaming and downloading is illegal. In a January report, the Internet intelligence and research company Envisional of Cambridge, England, found that "across all areas of the global internet, 23.76 percent of traffic was estimated to be infringing" on copyrighted material.
(The report, "An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet," was commissioned by NBCUniversal Media LLC, part owner of msnbc.com. The media industry's powerful lobby, the Motion Picture Association of America, supports its conclusions. Microsoft, another parent company of msnbc.com, also is a leading advocate of stricter enforcement of digital copyright protections.)
The industry claims that all that copyright-infringing media traffic translates not only to lost revenue, but also to lost jobs and wages for media industry workers.
The Motion Picture Association of America claims illegal streaming and downloading cost American workers 375,000 jobs and $16 billion in earnings every year.
A public service announcement, originally produced for the City of New York to help protect its film and television business, with support from NBCUniversal, makes that point bluntly.
Comedian Tom Papa appears on a New York City sidewalk as a vendor hawking illegally downloaded "free movies." As passers-by express interest, Papa gestures to a woman standing beside him carrying audio equipment, who looks a bit forlorn.
"These are illegally downloaded movies," Papa says, "and because of that people like her are losing their jobs."
"Whether you get it off the streets or off the Internet,” Papa concludes, now facing the camera, "digital piracy and product counterfeiting are not victimless crimes."
The federal government has adopted that message, releasing the public service announcement to the public through its own media office, and linking it to some of now-shuttered websites whose domains it has seized.
A warning to surfers
Visitors to these websites are redirected first to a government warning banner bearing the seals of the Department of Justice, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center and Homeland Security Investigations. The banner states that the government has seized the domain name, that it is illegal to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material without authorization and that willful offenders risk prosecution for criminal felony violation copyright law. If convicted, the banner warns, even first-time offenders "will face up to five years in federal prison," plus "restitution, forfeiture and fine."
William Ross, the unit chief for investigations at the National Intellectual Property Rights Center, said Operation In Our Sites is about enforcing copyright law and protecting the U.S. economy from intellectual property theft, which the government considers a national threat.
"We try to protect the economic interests of U.S. industries and manufacturers," Ross said. "We're protecting them from other people taking their ideas and selling them."
In some cases, the government has arrested and charged website operators. In February, it arrested and charged a Texas man who had streamed copyrighted sports events on one seized site, channelsurfing.net, claiming he'd collected $90,000 in online advertising revenue.
Most of the seized websites appear to be strictly online operations, and their operators were difficult to contact. But NBC News found one willing to talk: Waleed Gadelkareem, an Egyptian businessman.
The U.S. government seized his domain – torrent-finder.com, which was based in the U.S. – in November. He says his site was getting 100,000 hits a day and generating revenue from online advertising.
But Gadelkareem claims he wasn't doing anything wrong. He said his site was a just a search engine that linked to other sites with such content, just like other big search engines do.
"It's a dirty game they are playing. and it's totally unfair," said Gadelkareem, interviewed via Skype from his home office in Alexandria, Egypt. "I don't try to sell anything. I'm a search engine. I don't have any database of any copyrighted materials."
Ross said he could not discuss Gadelkareem's case, an ongoing investigation. But he said every website the government acted against was violating American copyright law.
After the government seized his U.S.-based domain, which was run from a server in Texas, Gadelkareem changed its name slightly, to torrent-finder.info, and moved it to a server based in Sweden. He continues to operate it from Egypt.
Ross said the U.S. is working with foreign governments to shut down sites if they move out of the U.S. "We keep going after them,” Ross said, “no matter how many times they come back up."
Proposed legislation in Congress would give the U.S. government the power to shut down copyright-infringing websites in other countries – even if they mainly link to copyright-protected material without permission.
Businessman says he was wrongly shut down
Waleed Gadelkareem sees big business behind the government’s efforts.
"The USA government is trying to shut it down," Gadelkareem said, "for the sake of a group of rich businessmen. That's what I think. That's (what) everybody thinks."
His American lawyer, David Snead, who represents and advises online service providers who distribute content on copyright issues, agrees.
"The government is doing industry's bidding here," Snead said. "I think that it is wrong for prosecutorial resources to be used on behalf of any one industry."
There is vigorous debate in the various precincts of the Internet about whether the government's crackdown and seizures are appropriate.
The media and entertainment industry – including NBCUniversal – has long advocated more government enforcement of intellectual property violations.
Ross said the motivation for the government's efforts to crack down on unauthorized distribution of media content is simply to enforce copyright law and to protect the U.S. economy and jobs.
He says the media industry itself takes down far more websites hosting illegal copyrighted content than the government does, using its own mechanisms.
"They have a lot more resources, a lot more manpower to do those type things than we have within the government,” Ross said. “So what we're doing is a very small percentage."
As the government and industry crack down on supply, what will happen to demand – the computer users who aren't distributing unauthorized media content but are consuming it, who initiate all those unauthorized downloads and streams?
NBC News recently discussed these issues with six college students at the University of Maryland.
"I think it's common, especially among college students,” said one, “because it seems anonymous and it seems like something you can get away with."
All six students we talked to at the University of Maryland/College Park agreed that hosting or providing access to copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder was illegal.
They made a distinction between illegal and wrong, however, with only one saying it was wrong.
"If it violates the law," the student said, "then, yeah, I think it should be enforced."
But while five of the six thought that consuming copyrighted media content without the permission of the copyright holder was illegal, none thought that was wrong.
"I just don't think that it's wrong enough for me to stop doing something that's so easy and so available to me," said another, expressing the view of the majority. "I just don't feel it's wrong."
Leave a Comment:
Not that this isn't an issue, but maybe they should worry first about digital privacy/safety. I'm less worried about the guy downloading South Park than the guy downloading addresses/CC numbers.
Yes, it may an issue, but I do not want the government involved. We already have far too much "government control" in our lives.
If you don't want poeple downloading it, do not put it on the Internet.
What if someone else puts your work on the internet. Are you going to police it yourself? How?
Oh yeah---because we need more overcrowded prisons :/
There is an easy way to stop this: encode HD of "the product" to be sold so that the better quality one is more desirable than the lower quality stuff being pirated. THEN make the product easy to find and cheap. Netflix is awesome and has surpassed even my initial expectations ( yes, their library needs vast improvement) Technology, ART and cultural norms evolve fast if you don't embrace change and stay up to date you will get left far behind. "Open source for most things---cheap mass production of others"
So now they just take away more jobs because the guy with torrent-finder switches to a server in Egypt instead of the US. So the site is still operational, it's costed the US taxpayers money to seize the sights and to pay the guys seizing the sites...
Sounds like this move is costing the US money and jobs and the original problem is still going to exist. These guys will just take their money and buy servers elsewhere.
@Kallie
"open source for most things" Easy for you to say. I am assuming you haven't run a software business? Not every business model works with open source. Its like staying I wouldn't have stolen from a jewelry store if they had made the jewelry cheaper or given it away for free. Ridiculous!
Don't worry Jesus is on his way back!
And BOY is he pissed!
There is not now, nor has there ever been a "free lunch" - someone, somewhere always pays. Stealing copyrighted material by downloading; enjoying it and not giving any recompense to those who went through the pain of creating it is theft - pure and simple. The fact that people can do it on-line, in the privacy of their homes without anybody supposedly "watching" makes it seem like they are getting away with something.
Just because a shoplifter gets out of the store without getting arrested doesn't make them any less of a thief, nor does it mean they have by not being caught not lost their integrity.
Well, I say good, fine, it's about time; arrest them and make examples out of a few thousand of them.
I work in the field of fine art publishing. To produce a print - be it of a painting or photograph - at the highest conceivable levels is an incredibly painstaking and difficult undertaking - starting first with the creative efforts of the artist devoting his or her life blood to the process of creating the original work followed by almost countless steps involving complex scanners (if it is a painting being reproduced), printers, the expertise of a master printer, control of literally hundreds of variables, etc., etc. To say the process is complicated and expensive is a gross understatement.
Yet, those who are for "free" content would argue that they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of others labors for nothing. Well, I beg to differ, and hope that this time the government truly is serious about making it clear that it is not "ok" to steal intellectual property just because it is there and you want it, but are too cheap and too much of a low life to care about the people who sacrificed to bring it into being.
The above is a silly statement. The problem is not people and organizations intentionally putting their copyrighted materials on the internet so they may be stolen; it is third parties who have a digitalized copy and post it for either fun or profit.
Nobody likes to have extra and unecessary laws, and most are suspicious of any new government regulation. But this sounds like something which needs to be done, and should have been done before now.
There is to be no such thing as digital safety. That was an illusion that had to die and this is it's great big burn out period. You all have had it quite easy for a long time compared to some other people- which makes me have to shout with all my patriotic passion:
America! F*ck yeah!!!!
I support this effort. But i want a level playing field and more consumer protections as well. If the govt is going to spend millions to protect companies products/profits then i should be protected from corporate shady practices.
Stoops2Conquer, I couldn't agree more, theft is theft and should be stopped. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to steal other people's ideas and hard work. It's a sad commentary on our society when people think it's ok to steal from other's hard work.
People are complete whores when it comes to taking intellectual property for free. Having said that, the internet is impossible to police. Just give up on ever getting paid for your good idea and accept if you have an idea it will be stolen by someone else. And if that kills incentive for creativity, you have yourself, me and everyone else to thank. :)
Kallie, I'm not sure that HD is a acceptable alternative in itself either. I do this with some photo materials, however I also make sure even lower grade materials aren't usable. It often surprises me what many will find acceptable.
An example would be all the junk we buy from China. If you know that a better product exists, you may be willing to pay more, but look at the millions of persons that everyday decide that the cheap version is fine, shopping at Walmarts of America for example. Costs do play an important part in what we find acceptable. I do take stuff back to stores regularly to complain and explain I would pay more for a better version especially one made in America. I'm often told not that many do this or have had problems.
I heard something scary yesterday by a caller on an NJ radio station. The woman caller said she used her ATM card in a local NJ ATM machine and somehow her pin number and her identity were filched by someone in California. It wasn't until she discovered almost $900 had been spent at a children's toy store that she realized her ATM debit/credit card information was stolen.
This stuff has to stop. When people in one state can bilk people in another state with nothing more than some digital widgit and then destroy someone's credit and identity, that's as criminal an act as it need to get. The punishments for this kind of stuff need to be most severe to stop others from thinking it's acceptable to just steal whatever you want. Enough already with babying these thieves.
I don't know. The issue, I think, is a bit more complicated than this article makes it seem. Copyright law is rather complex, and there is a clause in the copyright law called the "fair use clause", I believe, which allows for the downloading of even copyrighted material if it is for ones own personal use, and not for resale. So copyright laws are rather vague, and, unfortunately, your average Joe six-pack is not an expert at copyright law and is likely to make mistakes. I think Kallie's remark about overcrowded prisons above is a good one.
While yes, I would download a car if that were possible, the presence of something on the internet does not make it yours. Where would we be if in the early 70s the internet was where it was today. What if because of it, there were no Led Zeppelin, No Black Sabbath, no Grateful Dead or Eric Clapton, because the record companies couldn't profit from them. You guys who steal music today get what you deserve - Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black. Talentless teenage girls who deserve no respect nor the time to listen.
Media companies like Comcast can't have it both ways. They are against media piracy, but they are against bandwidth hogs like Hulu and Netflix.
Why the INTERNET? What it is ok for the United States steal another country Copy rights. Example Dyson Vacuums. Have you seen an American vacuum latley. Then use the lost of job scam which was used in this story. Everybody who sells this fake are working. It looks to me like it is creating jobs not the loss of jobs like this story wants you to believe or the government. If you go to a movie you pay to watch it. If you buy the same movie you bought it. You should be able to do what want with it. Years ago you would record a song that played on the radio some may still do. So if the government didn't close the radio stations then why should they close web sites that are doing the same thing?
WTH!!!!
I thought we made the Department of Homeland Security to protect us from the scary terrorist!!
Now we are using them to stop movies downloads and MP3 theft????
Is this what the patriot act is REALLY for?
More Big government protecting BIG industry. It is DISGUSTING.
Theft is theft. We already have plenty of laws on the books for theft. There are ways to catch and prosecute thieves, even those on the net. If government gets involved, it's not to prosecute thieves, it's to increase their domain or control the population. The powers that be always have a good excuse to expand their realm of money, power and influence. They just seem to tend to lining their pockets and building their bureaucracies more then they tend the "reason" they started with.
Heck, the cops in Wichita Kansas won't even prosecute a guy who stole my power auger and semi precious metal (value aprox $450.00) even though I have witness who saw him loading the stuff into his truck. They won't even return my calls to tell me why. I bet they'd get him if it was THEIR stuff. Hmmm, maybe I should visit the mayors yard and sue them for violating my civil rights when they prosecute me but not the guy who stole from me.......
I would gladly pay for a service such as NetFlix if it was available for my country. I would even put up with tons of US commercials. You know? we consume CocaCola and buy Chevi's down here in Guatemala, but not as much as we buy Toyotas. It seems that US business and government are more interested in sending US jobs aboard instead of selling their goods and services. Don't you people think that's extremelly stupid? Sending money out and not allowing it to flow in? How is your economy ever going to recover that way? People down here dowload and even sell illegaly because there is no other legal option. US-businesses loose money because they are absolute idiots. I would pay for the service if they made it available, and I don't even need subtitles.
As an author with 8 books in print, I say it's about time. My books have been copied and pirated over and over. If you had created something and people were stealing your royalties, how would you react? For me, it's like playing that game where you hammer down a gopher and another one appears a second later. What bothers me is that BOOKS were not mentioned in this article at all. All intellectual property is not created equal. Think how you would feel if someone came into your house and stole something very valuable to you? Would you call the police? That's what I'm talking about.
Stoops2Conquer,
You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
You're assuming people who download content illegally would pay for it if they couldn't, which is seldom the case. The amount of revenue lost to illegal downloads is grossly overinflated. Now I'm not saying its 'right' to use torrents, but the guy who watches a low-quality, bootlegged version of Pirates of the Caribbean online probably isn't too keen on seeing it in a movie theater.
Ewent. The issue of stealing someones card info has been around for a while. Having spent time in South America I can tell you it was a big problem there in the past. Now not sure. It is all performed right at the ATM. There is a scanner placed on the front of the ATM that looks very similar to the front of many ATMs. Make sure there isn't something attached to the front of any ATM you use. The scanner reads the card number where the person enters it into the machine slot, because in reality the card is going through the scanner before it enters the ATM. There will be a web cam attached somewhere looking down on the keypad. Often placed above/behind you. This is used to read the pin number someone enters. The thief will be near by waiting. Once that person leaves it is just a matter of getting the scanner and making a copy of the card. This stuff used to only cost 100 USD or so, not sure now. I ALWAYS cover the number pad when entering my code. Get into this habit, whatever you do.
I believe some of you are missing the point. People that counterfeit digital media and sell it are making money but not paying taxes on the income. Same with illegal drugs, money changing hands that's not being taxed. If people bought these items legally the government would recover billions of dollars in tax revenue. As it stands now the US and foreign countries get no tax revenue from counterfeiting.
Studies have proven that piracy has no impact on sales--the free marketing and the fact that pirates usually wouldn't buy the product makes up for it.
I don't participate in piracy at all these days, but I can understand why media does get pirated.
The same greedy media companies who claim that piracy takes away jobs are the same soulless bastards that want to charge $30 for a BluRay movie. Hmm, go figger - if they had realistic pricing they could easily sell more product, and have far less worries of piracy and a higher gross revenue to boot. However their current outrageous pricing schemes guarantees that piracy will happen.
They could easily solve their own problem, if only they had a clue.
Software companies finally learned for the most part - for years they never offered cheap student editions, so students who would have been willing to pay for a low priced student edition were forced to pirate the software.
Who does still need to get a clue, however, are companies like EA. They try and release essentially the same exact sports games year after year with minor team roster and uniform updates, and expect to charge full price??? LMAO - never! If they allowed you to patch any version from within the last 3 or 4 years up to the current version for a small fee they would sell an awful lot more product than they do now, as people like me will never again buy Madden or similar games knowing that the software company has zero clue how to keep a customer happy over the LONG TERM.
Wish they were really interested in cleaning up the internet, but there's more $$$$ involved in this than securing our border with Mexico.
Simply preliminary work before adding internet taxes and surcharges for yet MORE governement $$,,,
This is one more example of the hypocrisy of the government officials. They say they want smaller government and less intrusion in our lives and then do something like this... When will we wake up to the fact that the government works for Big Business... this is not a left or right issue it is an overall government issue. The entire US government dances to the tune of the big corporations that pay for their campaigns. Get used to it... demolition man here we come....
The issue here is that some people feel that taking copyrighted work without paying for it is okay if you don't get caught. On the internet it is extremely difficult to identify the thieves.
Another point is that many of these sites provide the content free, but charge for advertising on their sites. Who is advertising on a site which is conducting an illegal enterprise? Are they not just as culpable? Why not go after them? Since they clearly identify themselves that should be easy.
It seems that American businesses are willing to make money off an illegal enterprise as long as they are not being held liable themselves. That's wrong.
Finally, why go to the expense of finding the perpetrators and arresting them? Needlessly adding to the prison population as one person suggests. Use a tactic that is common to many hackers in this digital world, just attach a virus like some sort of trojan to the site that destroys the user's software when they download. Make it dangerous for users to download from these sites. This may seem like employing an illegal tactic to punish the users instead of catching the real culprit, but if you are going to take advantage of someone's criminality to acquire an asset without paying for it there should be a risk involved. Go after the advertisers, and the make it risky for the users. That would soon stop the pirates from making any profit.
So instead of ICE focusing all of it's man power on stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, it instead feels the need to do big businesses bidding. Since when does government have the right to just take a domain and THEN do an investigation. And now they are talking about passing legislation that will allow them to go into other countries and take their domains as well. When are we going to realize that there are more serious things in this country to worry about?
The question that needs to be answered is Ownership. When I buy a product is it mine?
Do I need your permission to smash it with a hammer?
Although I agree that "sharing" without a profit motive is still illegal, I think they should focus on people who are doing it for profit. If someone has a website and is knowingly making money from illegal use of the work of others, they should be hammered. What I'm not so sure about is harsh penalty for people who share a few songs or movies with their friends, and have no profit motive.
No, that's not it in all cases. A few yrs back there was a thriving above-board community of digital artists AKA "taggers", mostly located on the now-defunct MSN Groups, who were at one time *freely* able to incorporate bits & pieces of various pin-up artists' work into their own designs. These were not for-profit designs, but merely along the lines of a post-closing virtual "signature" that nearly always had the tagger's name on it, or they'd make tags for others who didn't have or know how to use PaintShopPro (the original "PSP"). The original works that were used came from the websites of the original artists, who were at 1st thrilled to have such a lg following & then, as always, thought hmmm I should be making money off this, banded together, & began peddling digicopies of their work. What they didn't understand was these were women who did this as a hobby, a time-consuming hobby, & the reason they could spend the time on it was b/c they were, in the main, home all day. Those who were home all day b/c they had a good-earning spouse could afford to spend $5 on a single virtual artwork; those who were home not by choice but b/c of disability or retirement could not continue to keep investing in this hobby, esp not after the initial hit of $100 or more paying Corel for PSP. Ppl could spend hundreds a mo just on "limited licensing fees"; most taggers couldn't afford to buy something new to play w/ every day. The artists' greed destroyed the tagging community & guess what, they didn't make their expected profits anyway. MSN Groups closed down to due decreasing traffic & Corel's not selling PSP in such volume as it was once. The artists, not a 3rd party, were the ones who put their work out there to create a following, encouraged ppl to use their work, & then killed their own visibility & popularity by demanding fees once they thought ppl were hooked enough to spend that kind of money in exchange for....nothing, really, it was virtual goods.
The problem w/ that argument is the same what I cited above. You're not paying for material goods. You're paying for virtual goods, yes, even though you can hold a box in your hand; is it any good w/o a computer or DVD player or CD player? You're not really buying a movie or an album. You're paying a licensing fee for limited personal use of the movie or album. Same goes for every bit of software on your pc. You "own" none of it. All you own is a license to use it. The govt is going after web sites & not radio stations b/c they've already long ago figured out how to make a lot of money in licensing fees off radio & TV stations. They just haven't figured out how to control & make a lot of money for the govt off the internet....yet.
That's exactly right & it's why the tagging community dwindled to pretty much a screeching halt. Generally ppl who have sufficient leisure time to enjoy such activities fall into 2 categories....they or their SO have a well-paying job w/ reasonable hrs, great benefits, & a lot of vacation time, personal days, sick days; or they're dirt-poor trying to eke out a living on retirement or disability fixed income. The former catetgory will pay b/c they can afford to pay. The latter category cannot afford to pay, so they are limited in purchasing power. *Free* is *free*, whether legally or illegally. It's illegal to throw a tape in your old VCR & then pass than tape along to someone else to watch & it always has been, but that has never stopped ppl from doing it b/c of the anonymity factor; illegal activity OK b/c no risk of getting caught whatsoever. The internet is far from anonymous. Big Brother is always watching you.
The problem is the same old problem....economics. The 1st movie I ever went to as a kid w/o my parents, that I pd for out of my pocket money, cost me .50 for a ticket, & I am hardly talking when movies were new but in the 1970s. 40 yrs later that same ticket, depending on where you go, has increased in price anywhere from 10-20x or more. And at the concession counter, that .25 Pepsi is now $3, while the .25 popcorn is now $5. Have wages kept pace w/ these price increases? No. You can't buy an afternoon's entertainment for $1 anymore; going to a movie has leapt from that to $10-20. $5 was enough to go out on a date in the 70s; you can't even get a gallon of gas (which was also around .50 then) for $5 today. A new release movie's licensing fee will run you $25-30 if you go "buy the movie". That price is now out of reach for the 43 mil+ Americans who now have to shop w/ food stamps just to eat b/c of the stagnancy of wages & the galloping inflation rate. Prices are no longer realistic when compared to the pittance of income a lg majority of our citizens earn. $50K/yr is now considered "getting by"!
Ppl will commit "IP theft" not just b/c they're poor, but b/c they're so poor they cannot see that light at the end of the tunnel anymore & cannot imagine what it would be like to even have a "discretionary income" to enjoy. When the price of a movie or an album or a book is so high in comparison to income that ppl have to save up for what should be a small, unthinking purchase as if it were a plasma TV, they're going to steal it if they can. We keep throwing the bums out of Congress b/c they're not getting the basic economic facts of live of the avg American or doing anything to rectify them. Instead they're pissing around atm about abortion riders & birth certificates. What Clinton said still rings true over 20 yrs later....It's the economy, stupid.
then on the other side, you have digital rights scams like "twitpics" that claim all rights to any picture you take and send through their "service"
funny how the government seems to be throwing more effort into "digital piracy" than they are into stopping the real criminals that are writing viruses and hacking computers.
To say that some guy downloading a movie/music/tv is costing the studio money is just not true. Most people that download movies/music/tv would never purchase the product in the first place. So the studio is not out any money, because if they did not download it, they would not have purchased it.
If they are going to go after these people then they should go after people that make mixed cds. Or people that burn a copy of a cd for a friend. If you taped that episode of CSI, and gave it to your mother, you both are guilty of IP theft and should go to jail!
Check the terms of service for twitpics. I would not be surprised that they have something in there about by using their service, you are giving them rights to the pictures.
jim in auburn, indeed there is such a term in the EULA, but few people actually read the entire thing. in most cases the EULA is about the software itself and intended to protect the company from people copying/stealing the software. but others sneak terms such as twitpics does, giving them all rights to your work.
people that have taken pictures and sent them over twitpics, then later tried to sell the pics have been threatened with lawsuits.
u guys worry about 16 billion when the people who will earn it if the people who pirated ACTUALLY HAD 16 billion to spend on the pirating already have 100billion all i hear is some babys whining about greed that want to be babied even more than they already have for the entirety of their lives. who complain that their ACTING and SINGING jobs are so hard. give me a break go work at fast food . and qq when u dont get 1 bill per burger get over your selves u are just as big of terrorists as anyone with a gun
Mickey, I think you may have misunderstood "Fair Use" as applies to the general public. "Fair Use" is quotation of small portions for the purposes of reportage, critique, parody, scholarship as long as the Use does not affect the copyright owner's ability to sell the product.
It's not really Fair Use to download an illegal copy for your own enjoyment.
If you have purchased a legal copy, you are allowed to make up to six back-up copies, as long as you always keep the original and the back ups, and do not distribute (share, sell) either the original or some of your copies.
Hey homeland security, Start enforcing the law, enforcing the border, and deporting illegals and you will gain much more than the 350,000 jobs thatyou say are lost to internet piracy.....Last time I checked the US govt didn't own the internet so what are they doing policing it....Oh yeah, the RIAA and MPAA have money, deep pockets, and lobbyist that line your pockets with money so now it's an issue....Maybe if the companies involved put out a good product, like they used to do, there wouldn't be a piracy issue....I have over 5,000 LP's and 2,000 CD's and I would not purchase anything from a record company today....Remember when they said the price of CD's would come down to $3 after CD's became the standard source of music distibution, hahahahaa, GREED always loses and now you have nothing....Even the bands figured out they were being ripped off and prefer to distribute music on the net or through their own websites.....You made your bed now enjoy laying in it....Leave it to a bunch of KOOKS to totally fu*k up a good thing like the internet and make criminals out of normal, tax paying citizens....Do your job and secure the borders, deport illegals, and secure our country!!
It's more important to search American citizens when they board planes. By the way, our tax dollars bail out Greece and foreign banks. It's all ridiculous.
Rowena Cherry,
Thanks for the information. I wasn't sure about exactly what "fair use" meant. But do you see what I meant by copyright laws being complex? I had come across the term "fair use", but wasn't sure exactly what it meant. I'm just Joe six-pack. I can understand authors wanting to protect their intellectual property rights. After all, it's how they make a living. But I don't think the law should go after the little guy who may not even realize that what he is doing is illegal. They should be targeting web sites that knowingly offer copyrighted material for others to download.
You can't own an idea. It's really that simple. Intellectual Property Rights are a sham and so are copyrights and patents.
Well there goes YouTube.......
Powers that be always have ulterior motives. It's called smoke and mirrors.
This is exactly correct. It is not against the law for you to download something for your own use (example would be a movie) It is against the law to distribute this movie. So, by downloading from a torrent site, you are not breaking the law. But the torrent site is breaking the law by distributing that movie. The one stipulation is that if you do not already own this movie, then you must delete after 24hrs.
I no longer have a working NES or SNES. So I use Roms to play on the PC. It is completely legal for me to download those roms for my pc if I already own the actual game. If I download a game I dont have, then I have to delete after 24hrs.
Protecting patents and copyright material is not an "intrusion" unless you are a lawless lying cheat.
I wonder how many of you would be ok with people stealing 25% of your company's product or service, forcing your company to lay you off.
This is not intrusion, this is law enforcement. Just because some idiot doesn't think it's stealing is of no concern - it is stealing, just like walking into a store and stealing the product off the shelf.
The outcome of all of you thieves is that less quality product will be available, less professionals will earn a living, and the income will drop across the entire media sector just like we've seen through music.
Certainly record companies deserved some blame for their greed, but honestly, the cure is worse than the condition. Give stockholders more control over the companies they own. Change the top end of how profit is distributed by shaming these companies. But destroying entire sectors of our economy because you don't want to pay $30 for a DVD? Wait for a sale, or don't buy it.
It's like our nation is being overrun by dimwits who learned at College that whatever you want to do is ok, because profit is evil. Profit pays your salaries and taxes ding dongs.
Endocrine2. You are missing, missing, missing the point.
I don't care if they wouldn't pay for it. I want to see their asses prosecuted and have them thrown in jail as examples to all the other free loaders out there who have no regard for the fact there actually are intelligent people in the world who actually create things, rather than steal things that don't belong to them.
It would appear from your statement, that you are not one who has ever created any intellectual property that was worthy of being stolen - whether it be an image or a book or whatever or, you are one of those free love, "let's all sing kumbaya and light candles" guys who thinks everything should be free and its not nice to charge for things.
Creating things and making a living from them is hard enough. Perhaps most of the thieves out there wouldn't buy, but perhaps at least some of them might, but even if they don't at least they aren't getting the use of the item.
I say we arrest them; prosecute them, ruin them financially with defense lawyers fees (this could turn out to be a banner year for defense lawyers) and let the word get around that "there, but for the grace of God goes you lowlife", and perhaps people will think twice before they steal.
Whew...... for a second there, I thought they were talking about China. Thank god they are cracking down on Americans instead.
China's 80% of their economy is based off making Counterfeits products.
Paul F. You hit the nail on the head when you said:
"It's like our nation is being overrun by dimwits who learned at College that whatever you want to do is OK, because profit is evil. Profit pays your salaries and taxes ding dongs."
That is what they are learning in college. They are being taught by left wing radical professors who themselves had been taught by left wing radical professors who hate capitalism and feel that corporate profits are evil. These students and their self-important professors sit around waxing poetic happily engaging in their Ivory Tower delusional, self-righteous discourses about the evils of the world - not having of course, ever actually having gone out into the world to actually experience it.
Is it any wonder such as these think they are entitled to take without giving; after all, they have been taking from mommy and daddy all their lives first as children then as adults having their college subsidized so they can party for four more years on mommy and daddy's dime, and their professors? Few segments of society are more out of touch with reality than professors who have been hiding behind the hallowed walls of academia all their lives - divorced from reality and proud of it!
Mean Green Becky.
You are correct when you say "You can't own an idea."
But you are not accurate when you state, "It's really that simple. Intellectual Property Rights are a sham and so are copyrights and patents."
An author cannot copyright a title or an idea. But, the expression of the idea can be copyrighted.
Boy meets girl.... And they lived happily ever after! is an idea. Anyone can write a story based on that idea. However, once someone has written their own 300 page version of how that idea plays out, it is their own Intellectual Property, and no one else is entitled to copy it or distribute it.
Becca,
Where did you get this information?
I think you may have been misinformed, because in the act of downloading, you are creating a copy that did not exist before, and that is copyright infringement if the author has not given permission for you to create extra copies.
Mickey,
I agree, and with the greatest respect to you, I am under the impression that this is exactly what the good Senators have in mind. I've never yet met an author who wishes to "go after" an enthusiastic reader who has no idea that downloading is illegal.
I agree with you that the laws and terms of service are confusing. No one reads the front matter of novels (for a while, one very popular e-readers' default setting entirely skipped the copyright pages, and started the e-book at Chapter One!) or thinks about the meaning of "All rights reserved" or that "copyright" in essence means "the right to make copies"... and only the author has that right.
Education is key. Fortunately, a lot of really nice people do "get it", when it is discussed. However, it is an overwhelming problem, partly because those who make a great deal of money from copyright infringement (by running subscription "libraries", or by offering "freebie" newsletters and clubs, and running websites covered in corporate advertising) insist on telling the public that the illegal uploads are "complimentary" and "freely available", and telling innocent people that they can make money by sharing links.
I expect they are generously "sharing" some of the games that come complete with a warning in the front matter that there is a virus that will attack anyone using an illegal copy... such as the one where Batman's cape doesn't work... or the one that posts to the internet a screen capture of the most embarrassing file you have open.
The vendors on eBay are a huge problem, because they falsely claim that pirated books (modern best sellers!) are "in the public domain" or that they, the vendors, have taken out a GNU license on the CD/DVD of the collection, or that they have ReSell Rights... even to Harry Potter ebooks.
stoops 2 conquer, and how do you apply that logic to things like twitpics, who take the rights of those that actually create the pictures?
the recent picture of the shuttle launh from an airplane is an example of a picture that was taken and sold by twitpics, who did nothing to create the picture.
This is very Orwellian... Big Brother is here and it's called "Homeland Security." You thought Bush set this up to fight terrorism but no, he set it up to protect the profits of the MPAA and big business political donors.
And so the battle for the internet begins. This is sad, sad news.
I think it's sad that the priority wasn't child pornography. All the financial resources spent on internet piracy...do we spend that much to fight for our children's safety?
I understand the need for some regulation for piracy laws. There is no such thing as a free ride. And I would be angry if one of my photos was used endlessly with no compensation.
The record and music businesses are using the government for this. Big government has no clue about the Internet and is usually many years behind the rest of the world when it comes to technology. If be more worried about outside cyber attacks on government networks or internal personal before I go start chasing digital down loaders!
"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) announced that its Homeland Security Investigations unit had seized the domain names of five websites"
Oooooo, guess those domains sites will now be sitting in prison............tell us real news when the owners of those domains are identified and tried.
A tax on emails will pay for a lot of Obama's worthless social programs! Don't be surprised when that happens!
miked, how can a tax on emails "happen?" There's no reason to become paranoid, because something like that would never ever work.
Well Miked, I guess your independently wealthy unlike MILLIONS of other Americans that need these social programs. Glad to see your not worried about your future security.
Maybe your primary schooling was paid for by your parents? Course you never drove on one of those socialist's roads in this country as they were paid for with taxes. I don't suppose you have ever used a park or perhaps a PUBLIC library either as they are paid for by tax monies and would explain your foolish uneducated statement.
Mike...First of all, I pay for my Social programs as you call them. I pay for my Social Security and have for nearly 4 decades. I wouldn't have to do that if the first bunch of Robber Barons in the 1920's hadn't played fast and loose with everyone's money but theirs. That's why the US instituted Social Security. So Robber Barons wouldn't have a constant flush of money to become the investment addicts we have yet again. Back then, you blew it. You ate it. Now? Taxpayers who need the security of government to protect their money from the Robber Barons Redoux bail you guys out.
There are only 1 million Americans on welfare. Some are widows whose husbands were self-employed and have two kids. Some are people who lost jobs in the Bush era thanks to Robber Barons Redoux. How about we start by maxing out the salaries of anyone who earns over $250,000 a year for 5 years. Anyone who earns more than that? 10 years. Why should the richest 1% be entitled to annual salary increases when they deny their employees who are earning 500 times less salary increases for 5 or more years?
Time to put the brakes on obscene wealth. Can't live on $250,000 a year for 5 years? Who cares? If we have to suffer and sacrifice through hard times, so do the rich. Unless you are suggesting those social programs are nothing more than corporate welfare taxpayers who can't afford another dime from their paychecks pay for to support those who need to stop their greed?
Stop the greed. Don't buy from the big boxes anymore until their CEOs agree to the same salary stagantion they are imposing on the rest of us. What's good for the goose is sauce for the gander. You want more money to support programs Americans pay for? Stop taking out more than you put in.
most parks, roads and libaries are funded by local or state funds, very rarly does the main base come from federal tax. Hes pointing to things like oboma-care and whatnot. Not trying to be an ass, but it really annoys me when someone tries to correct a person on here with incorrect infomation to make their arguement look better, even worse when its on party lines (I personaly think both parties need to get their head from their fourth point of contact)
fixed: Actually I was thinking of the BILLIONS just spent on the federal stimulus program that did major construction on roads in my area. All interstate is federal as well. Living in the Northwest there are thousands more acres of federal lands and operated by federal employees, though I shouldn't have said parks in general. We have a big state parks program. Libraries yeah, you got me there, thanks for correction. My broader point I should have said is social programs are tax monies paid to government whether state or federal and I guess I just get tired of the idea people spout off about social agenda when it is for the benefit of everyone.
As far as the Healthcare debate. There were plenty of persons voting in the (new?) Republican party last election as they were gonna attack this program and even defund it. LOL. The ones who benefit for years from this program are the very insurance companies and pharmacuetical companies who benefit from millions of new members. Republicans never had any intention of getting rid of this program. It makes lots more money for the well heeled. They certainly would like to eliminate your rights under some of this plan. But, this was nothing but usual smoke and mirrors to get elected and it was wildly bought hook line and sinker.
Republicans wanted to do the same healthcare overhaul years ago. Now that a democrat got it passed, the republicans are using scare tactics to make it seem like its a horrible idea (even though it was theirs) They are afraid that if it goes well, democrats will be praised for passing it. Massachusetts has basically the same thing, that was endorsed and passed by a republican governor.
As for social programs, I am completely ok with people needing to collect food stamps because they lost their job (especially in this economy) I am by no means rich, and am barely getting by. There are plenty of people who make much less, and they obviously need some help. My parents got food stamps on and off throughout my childhood. @!$%# happens. Without it, we would have been starving. We didnt live on it all the time, just when we really needed it. I dont think people should live their whole lives on programs like that (unless they are disabled or something like that) but its a good thing to have when people just need a little help.
BTW, before I am accused of being a democrat, liberal, or socialist, I would like to point out that I am not any of those things. I have been accused of being a republican, or conservative, plenty of times on the vine, and I am neither of those also. I think for myself. I dont agree with everything democrat, just because its considered democratic. Just like I dont agree with everything republican, just because it is republican. That is what is wrong with this country. Everyone should do their own thinking.
The war on piracy is like the war on drugs, they'll never win. they can shut down all the website they want. it'll still be going on, they have been trying for years to shut down piracy, it'll never happened.
why dont they go arrest crooked lawmakers and judges, people who create frivilous lawsuits, why dont they go after these people!
"why don't they go arrest crooked lawmakers and judges"
Because that would entail actual work and real justice. Our federal government these days is all about "Looking" like their doing something when they're really just finding new and inventive ways of draining the people of every dollar they can.
Sloppyjoes...I have another take on this one. When I worked in two international companies here in the US, I saw just how valuable your American private information is. On the streets of Bangkok, as an example, the price for an American Social Security number is in the tens of thousands. I'm sure you know why. The network of thieves here in the US is a direct result of allowing all of our credit and collections to be handled by foreigners in cheap labor countries. All it takes is one disgruntled foreigner in a foreign company that's contracted to American businesses through customer service. They get fired. You get savaged in terms of your privacy. There's no loss for them. The loss for you is huge.
That's why banking information and all other information is no longer controllable when it's stolen. It's in foreign countries being handled bunch foreigners hired by American corporations who refuse to pay Americans living wages. Now, it comes down to which of these American businesses can be sued when someone's identity ends up in Thailand, Mexico, India or China.
It's exactly what we need right now:
More arrests of bored teens and twenty-somethings and facing charges with time attached in an already overcrowded prison system.
Let me guess: They'll let the murderers, rapists, and 'real' conmen out in droves to allow more room? No. They'll "settle" 9 out of 10 times so these companies who already turn massive profits can eek out that much more. And, it never occurs to these morons that they're just hurting themselves by hurting fans of the work being downloaded. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "I just saw X on (some streaming site)... you gotta see it," and because of that recommendation 3 or 4 people who never would otherwise go see or rent the movie.
I'm in digital publishing, and we don't even bother with going after the rampant illegal downloads. Why? Because our business grows via word-of-mouth, and a lot of it is from kids who can't afford the books otherwise. They even become buyers in many cases (of course not all) of other works.
What an absurd thing to be worried about when we're dealing with multiple wars, the Islamization of most of Europe (and yeah, that's an infinitely larger problem for the U.S.), and an absolutely bankrupt economic model; literally and metaphorically.
But by ALL MEANS: Put Skippy in jail for downloading "The Hangover II"... by ALL means. There's your real thug; not the street gangs in L.A., not the...
Glad to see some people here actually have common sense! The only reason this is even an issue at all is because "big business" is pissed they -think- they're losing money. So, they've bought themselves some politicians to try and pass some laws for them. Think I'm crazy? I remember seeing the "donations" made to the supporters of the original COICA bill; there were stupid amounts of money going in from places like the Motion Picture Association.
Nevermind that they're not really losing any money in the first place... On the rare occasions I pirate a movie, it's because I only want to see it -once-, and either didn't get around to, or didn't want to, see it in the theater, and have no intention of buying it on DVD. No, granted, you could argue "But Dan, why don't you just rent it then?" Simple - I don't feel like paying for it. And as such, if that were my only option, I'd just wait until the movie eventually made it's way to TV, at which point the movie companies wouldn't get any money from me anyway - the cable company would.
Further, any effort to restrict or limit access to websites will only hurt the "average Joe" - shutting down and blocking sites will make it harder for the casual browser to do anything illegal, sure, but it would likely start to complicate even legal endeavors, and further, more tech-savvy users will just find ways around the blocks - it will make life more complicated for them, yes, but it won't really do anything to actually stop them. A great example of this, actually - Anonymous. I personally am not a fan of them, and would rather watch them burn in a fire or something than have to deal with them, but look how much trouble they've caused, and how "well" efforts to stop them have gone. If they wanted to regulate the internet, they should've done so from the beginning. It's far too late to try to stop the signal now. Though, they still seem determined to try...
I've gone on longer than intended already, so, to wrap things up, I'd like to call attention to the PROTECT-IP Act that the Motion Picture Association of America is trying to get pushed through the Senate (and which has apparently somehow made it past the Judiciary Committee already). If you don't agree with me already, I won't ask you to sign the following petition, but I would at least like to ask you to take a look at it; and if you think their view is biased, go right ahead and research it elsewhere as well. If, however, you do agree that the US govt shouldn't be able to potentially censor the internet at will, by all means, please sign the petition, if you haven't already.
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs/?source=front
While it's expected that the focus of such articles is on the larger media companies, little guys like myself with less than $300K annual revenue are also being hurt and hurt big time by copyright thieves. Moreover, the crooks are abetted by some very big outfits.
You mean like how the makers of the hangover stole that artists tattoo? How come ICE hasn't shut them down and confiscated all copies of the film?
@nutgrape
There is a big difference. ICE I am assuming does not have to make payroll every month to mantain and release new versions of his tattoo? I am assuming people's livelihood doesn't depend on ICE's tattoo?
Piracy hurts real people and costs real jobs.
I never said it didn't. I was just noticing that there seems to be a different attitude when it is big business doing the stealing.
You might wish to work on your reading comprehension skills before commenting. ICE is the Police.
I think its you who needs to work on your reading comprehension skills since you are the one who gave a ridiculous analogy. I don't see how software that takes years to develop and thousands of man hours is in the same league as a face tattoo. Don't trivialize the issue.
Pueo...Big Corporations only care about you selling your small business. What you sell is as little important as you as the owner or your employees. Corporate America is a voracious venture capital feeder at the trough of small business. Do you doubt for a single moment that if they can use these deceptive tactics to close down your business, they won't be at the ready to swallow up your business assets? This is the new Wall Street investment addiction we're talking about. And you know that addicts can never ever be sated. For them, enough is never enough.
Do yourself a favor. Set up close relationships in your own community with the smallest and most reliable and experienced bank. Go back to the old ways of local businessman to local businessman. You can control what some snaky businessman does in your own town. You can't internationally.
sartre-2342883
Wow, that is weak. What do my reading comprehension skills have to do with your dislike for my analogy? Unlike you I can understand what I read.
I am trivializing nothing. You are trivializing an artists claim upon his work, while in the same breath crying about the very behavior you are exhibiting. How does that hypocrisy taste?
I had to comment here, and I never comment anywhere.
I think nutgrape is hitting the nail on the head. That example is the exact reason copyright and trademark laws were put in to place. It's so NOONE (not the guy next door or the largest corporation) could take and use someone else's idea, production, or creation without their permission.
I would think you would understand/identify with the tattoo artist who may only have $300k in the bank being robbed of the probably millions he would have made in licensing fees and after being publicly credited for the tattoo if big business hadn't STOLEN his copyrighted material.
Generally speaking. I know this is illegal, I don't do it. Do I think my tax dollars should be paying to "crack down on it? Nope. Especially when people are swapping things a helluva lot worse on the internet then pirated movies and TV shows. Let NBC and the others sue just like everyone else, they can afford it. God knows our government can barely afford to keep running much less do the entertainment worlds bidding. But, if their worried about revenue, here's an idea, stop paying your actors $1million an episode for a 1/2hr TV show.
hmmm, didn't hackers just break into some weapon manufacturer's database??
Can't really say that until there is a trial or at the very least due process. I agree that the Fed is once again pandering to Big Entertainments interest. Why aren't they putting the same effort into internet identity theft.
txmom32...Did you read the 2010 proposed Consumer Protection reforms of President Obama? Did you also read which Republicans are violently against any Consumer Protection reforms and even went so far as to stand toe to toe to oppose any new reforms that would protect American consumers from banking and credit card fraud?
Sorry, but I cannot in my wildest imagination understand why Republicans would oppose putting teeth into ANY consumer protection reforms. Unless, of course, they are making big bucks from the corruption.
Because there's no money in identity theft - but Big Entertainment will pay them millions or more in campaign funds ;)
ICE has lost the war on illegal immigration and is now trying to win this one.
Hi, Texmom32,
In fact, if the Feds shut down some of the for-subscription "free e-book" sites, they would be cutting down on identity theft. Amazingly, there are apparently people who will see "free downloads" or "free pdfs" and click through to subscription sites that promise a lifetime of free e-book reading for a trial subscription of $30.
Even though it should be obvious that the bestsellers cannot possibly be on that "new sort of library" legally, freebie-grabbing e-book readers provide their credit card information to persons they have every reason to suspect are copyright infringers.
Judging by some of the online "complaint" sites, a lot of copyright infringers have a healthy sideline in identity theft.
while i realize that downloading copyrighted material is illegal, this is clearly about big business losing money. funny how the government always goes after the "small potatoes" in society, while turning a blind eye to the "big fish", i.e., the wall street bankers who immorally & illegally crippled our economy several years ago. after all, it's much easier to prosecute a college student with thousands of dollars in student debt for illegal downloads than it is some multi-millionaire, with political connections. wtg boys...
It is NOT about big business losing money. There are thousands of small software shops which are losing revenue and even closing shop because their years of hard work is being given away.
Like the article said-- Piracy affects real people. This is no different than shoplifting or robbing a store.
Look i'm not going to justify piracy because it's wrong and can't be justified but what types of content is being pirated, and secondly how many companies do you know steal pictures that authors never gave the rights even to reproduce on their websites? Look at for example the picture recently taken by an avid photographer on board an airline of the Space Shuttle's Launch? Their photo was being taken and reproduced without her consent.
Also Netflix has proven that their model of business has reduced piracy in terms of movies and such. Now what you're going to see happen is large scale companies such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T come into the market and say, Hold up, your company is using too much bandwidth and we need to limit your bandwidth, thus once again pushing people away from business models that worked back where? Back into piracy.
How does this all tie in together? Big business all wants a share of each other's businesses. They claim that many jobs are lost due to piracy however, I also see jobs being created. Netflix is the iconic example of job creation that has deterred many people from piracy and soon we'll see similar modeling probably done with cloud computing.
At the end of the day it's arguable that even piracy has created jobs at the ICE, and various other organizations to combat the growing piracy issue. If we removed piracy from the market today, would we magically have 400,000 jobs? No.
This is not the way to go to combat piracy. There are much better ways of doing that.
What they don't quite get is the power and control is out of Governments hands. They lost it a long time ago and they will never get it back.
KingofZed...That's what the Robber Barons thought before that Teapot Dome Scandal. If government cannot control crime and do as the Bill of Rights and Constitution assign as their duty, what does that tell you? It tells me that a full house cleaning is needed and a determination of who and what our government is and has become. They had to do that before. There's always a load of laundry to be washed in the fresh air and sunshine. The problem is that your privacy is open season. You think Goldman Sach, Morgan Stanley, Halliburton or any of the other Corporate America Barons divulge their back room agenda on the net? Those shredders are in every office and are going night and day.
Sorry I call BS here... They are going to protect Big Studios and Big money... The piracy crime comes from CHINA.. you know the place we send all of our money? The US can't arrest people there...
In every workplace that has numerous employees, there are several employees selling music, dvds all copyrighted , Don't blame another country for the problem, ...Yes they have been stealing billions from big corporations and I don't think it's fair for little guy who invests hard earn money into these companies to loose there share gains over the years by criminals,(pirates) who don't pay taxes on this money..If you don't like the laws , get the heck out of the country....I hate freeloaders, thiefs, and just plain unright people...
The movie industry makes record profits and still they claim piracy hurts them ..its all lies they want to own the internet and make the ISPs their personal police force this is wrong on so many counts...the DEMs and GOP wants to create a new police state in the USA god help us all.
THat last sentence is melodramatic, but it does irk me that the Department of Homeland Security is involved in this. Bad enough it is that they frisk 4 year old children and blue-haired old ladies at the airport, but at least that is in line with their one and only reason to exist, namely, pursuant to the "War on Terror" in the wake of the 9-11-01 attack.DHS, ICE and other agencies dealing with border security and preventing tangible assault on America should keep their nose to that grindstone, and leave IP enforcement to the FBI and local authorities. This "mission creep" of Department of Homeland Security is disgusting. When the borders are sealed, and the threat of terrorist attack is gone, then and only then should the DHS consider "deiversification". Better yet, when the DHS's reason to exist no longer exists, then neither should the DHS. (Don't hold your breath)
akita...You get an idea. Your coworker steals and makes big bucks from it. You're not going to take offense? Sorry but filmmakers have to pay script writers, authors etc to use the material they then use for movies, TV docudramas, documentaries etc. They have bills too. But that isn't the issue. The issue is if you create it, YOU own it. No one else has the right to make big bucks from what you created. That's stealing anyway you try to reshape it.
@akita96th....sounds like a comment from a typical right-wing radical to me....
Must be nice to have control over government, make laws to protect your cash-flow. All in the name of free-enterprise. Or if you want to call it what it truly is Crony Capitolism.
Ah yes, the U.S. Government protecting Big Business again. Throw all the money their way, they don't seem to have enough. The hell with the people who are dying because they don't have money for adequate health care or have no home because of the bail outs and the big business screw job of 2007.
For someone like myself who doesn't make a lot of money...I really depend on some of these websites to provide me with some of the tv shows that I can't afford. I wish the government would concentrate its efforts in apprehending illegals entering our country (thus taking our jobs) instead of websites offering handy-cam copies of movies and tv shows. Honestly, its flat-out stupid and a waste of my hard-earned tax money to devote to this cause. ICE should just go away.
If you were the copyright holder, you wouldn't be feeling the same way. I think a more logical approach would be to have more sites like Netflix, Hulu, and Pandora to legally provide you the same content through an inexpensive or advertiser supported platform.
@lubranodrive
So illegals are bad because they are poor and cross the border to try and make more money. But you are somehow good because you don't have a lot of money so you illegally download tv shows? wow!
I've downloaded things in the past, probably will in the future too. Like Lubrano I can't afford these things, so I wouldn't have paid to watch anyway. So what exactly have they lost because of me?
I do agree that there are WAY more important things the government could be trying to fix. I suppose it's because of filesharing that the country is in the crapper and we are trillions of dollars in debt?
@jerry
sure you may be one example where its a zero sum game. But in a lot of cases and countries piracy is the norm even if they can afford it.
Jack you nailed it right on the head. We've seen how Hulu, Netflix, and Pandora have provided amazing ways to prevent pirating as well as even video game markets launching such as Gamefly which provides video games similar to Netflix. We're seeing more and more of these things happen as somebody who has watched things on youtube, and videos on youtube that I'm not sure that they had the consent of the copyright holder, I'll say that I don't anymore. I'm more on Netflix and have watched and rented over 200 movies from them.
For 8 Dollars a month, unlimited streaming, and 2 dvd's out at one time, I can't complain one bit about the pricing model. I'm so pleased with Netflix that I wish many more companies would see the success that they're having and build models like that.
We've seen how Pandora and the iTunes store have been successful as well by offering music and song downloads at less than a dollar a song. Pandora which can be ad supported (I paid for the yearly subscription for like 36 bucks) provides music and creates music playlists for you to enjoy.
Business models need to change and so far the media industry has yet to see change come to the internet. They're looking for ways to increase their Advertising dollars, and the best way is to target these websites in hopes that they can draw more viewers to actually watch the television rather than download the show without the adds a few days later or at their own convenience.
With companies limiting bandwidth and this becoming a common practice which will more than likely soon hit the USA, (it has with some providers) it's important to note that this will be a challenge for these providers, especially Hulu and Netflix to combat.
Safety...another problem is that the lobbyist's are chasing our government and convincing them that this necessary...yet the legit companies have already taken their own steps to keep hackers out of the way... just another way that our government operates... "monies from the minorities"...
>
I'm not arguing their right to protect copyrights, but I find the substantial claim of lost jobs to be a little hard to believe. Most of the movies and artists that people download are both mainstream and very profitable.
If anything Jack, pirating from these companies has created jobs, due to the fact that their lobbying body and also the jobs at the ICE and other private firms that hunt down the "Pirating" websites.
People fail to understand that the guys at the ICE have a job because of Piracy, what about the web developers for the piracy websites? What about the advertising companies that sell their goods via adds on these piracy websites? It's not so much cut and dry as MSNBC wants people to believe it is.
I'm all for protecting IP rights. These companies spend money to make something they should get paid for it.
I for one though perfer not to have to go out to a store and buy a whole box set of DVDs to see 1 episode of a TV show(or a particular favorite I watch more than once). I subscribe to both Netflix and Hulu+ and I(reluctantly)use my cable companies On Demand Service quite a bit when they have a shows I wanna watch(they are WAY overpriced). I buy 100s if not 1000s of songs/episodes from iTunes/Pandora.
But when I go to find a show/song/performance and can NOT find it anywhere legal,I will stream it from whatever source has it available.I never download/save these to to my computer to watch again.Cause that just seems wrong to me.The host site gets paid mostly from advertising so I will support them by streaming it again from their site(and see their advertising again..and again..) So if these stuidos/record companies..ect would start increasing the availablitiy of their older libararies I would be paying for alot more,and not minding it one bit,as long as the price is reasonable.
As it stands right now what these studios are doing is wrong.They are wasting government resources at tax-payer expense to enforce something that should be enforced in civil court. The only way they are getting away with this is because they have the money to throw away on lobbyists to badger our elected officials and make back-room political deals(you enforce this I'll donate to your re-election).
But like everything I say on NV.
Feel free to use this...it not copyrighted(lol)
It just my .02 cents
If the recording industry was so "worried about jobs" they wouldn't forcefeed the same limited amount of songs down conglomerate owned distribution channels (CBS Radio, Clearchannel, etc). Cut playing Lady Gaga's new album down from 10 required times an hour to only 6 and plug in a new up and coming artist.
The next thing you know, they will be claiming a kitten gets murdered everytime you pirate a song.
"I just don't think that it's wrong enough for me to stop doing something that's so easy and so available to me," said another, expressing the view of the majority. "I just don't feel it's wrong."
This is probably the most illogical and ignorant argument I've heard to date. It's a symptom of the "me-now" generation who can justify their illegal actions without any thought of those it hurts. It's truly a sociopathic viewpoint.
Now, before anyone goes to town on me, let me state that I fully despise the MPAA and RIAA. If they used only a portion of the money they spend fighting digital piracy they would be able to provide consumers the downloadable digital content the customers clearly want. Everyone with half a brain knows that those industries are far behind the times and hurt consumers with their lack of innovation in the digital movie and music scene. They're a bunch of blood-sucking monopolistic leaches who make it more annoying than pleasurable to own any music or movie.
That being said, we have no right to steal (and make no mistake about it...it is stealing) someone else's property. I'm no angel, I've done it myself in my college days, and so have countless other people; but that doesn't make it right and no reasonably intelligent person can justify it as such. I fully support government agencies protecting IP owners, as long as they are focusing on the people distributing and profiting from the piracy. Honesty, it wouldn't really bother me if they went after the sociopaths like the person who I quoted, but in general they should leave end users alone and focus on the distributors.
I can justify it just fine. You can't own an idea. Intellectual Property Rights and copyrights and patents are all shams. Let's say you make a mouse trap, and get a patent on it. A year later, I make a better one, but you "own" the idea for the mouse trap, so I can't do anything. The whole point of all these is to stiffle creativity and halt the spread of ideas.
This is just retarded the rich will stay rich whether there shows are only or not they are making millions in profit. This makes no difference they people that torrent and watch movies online wouldn't have bought the product either way so they are losing the same amount of money. Seems like they are making it a crime not to buy products. The only thing i have a problem with is resale of pirated contents which is just stealing profits from the people who should be getting that money.
The apologists for this piracy seem to be hanging their pirate hats on the notion that this is about "big business" and it's not. It's about people and their jobs. Stay for the end credits of a movie sometime, and read the names of the hundreds of people who worked on that movie. Those aren't big businessmen or CEO's, those are real people doing real work so that they can put real bread on their real kitchen tables.
There's no excuse for downloading illegally. If you can afford a computer, and afford a high-speed internet connection then you can by golly afford to pay the piper as well. Stiffing the entertainment is worse than wrong, it's low.
MeanGene...I don't disagree with your statement but, as stated in the article the industry has options of their own. Where resources for the individual, who has had their ID stolen, do not. Let the industry do their own due diligence and focus the resources of the US government to benefit the masses not just one self ingratiating overinflated industry.
Lubranodrive...believe it or not you have no entitlement to be entertained. You are certainly a part of the problem...have enough dignity to pay for your entertainment or watch commercially.
@TxMom32, there's a fine line between the industry having options of their own and what could be termed vigilantism. There was a case back in 2007 involving a single mother of two who lost to a lawsuit by RIAA for about a quarter-million dollars in Minnesota. RIAA sued Jammie Thomas for $3.6 Million in damages for downloading songs by Green Day, Journey and Aerosmith. The jury awarded RIAA $9,250 in damages per song for 24 songs, a total of $222,000.
To be sure, what Ms. Thomas did was wrong but she's probably wishing the Feds had slapped her wrist rather than face that multi-million dollar lawsuit and RIAA legal beagles. If you wish for the industry to go after these pirates instead of the government enforcing the law the right way, then you may want to be careful about what you wish for. The IP owners going after these pirates will make the government look like hugs and bunnies in comparison to how hard they'll take on the downloaders.
Irony would be defined by Johnny Depp's new movie pirated round and round the globe, would it not?
Copyright Pirates of the Caribbean? Hey, I thought of it first, lol!
Just to point out...
Those guys at the end credits... Depending on the show you just watched, are likely getting paid several orders of magnitude more than you make a year to produce that show/movie. This brings an iconic argument of, if someones sole purpose in life is to bring entertainment, is it fair that they are paid more than someone who actually contributes to the overall benefit of our species? How much does a teacher get paid verses an actor? Food for thought...
Further to deflate your argument, there has been significant study pertaining to the craze known as pirating, most that large businesses don't want you to read. At the current status quo, most pirated merchandise is purchased by those who would not otherwise purchase legitimately, or by those in which the merchandise is not available. Should there be a harsh penalty to someone who downloaded a game in say, Chile` where the game was never released? Is it really piracy then if a legitimate means of purchase was not provided? What about that college student who lives on top roman and though it would be an outstanding idea if they bought a counterfeit rollex or couch purse? There is no lost sale here...
To add yet another sticking point, what about copyrighted material that is already available for free? Hulu allows streaming of TV shows free of charge. From the provider standpoint, Hulu is paying the corporation who owns the rights for the right to stream it. But what about network sites? Go to comedy central or adultswim.com and see how many of their shows you can download for free. But from the end-user stand point, free is free correct? Is there going to be punishments for those who download material already available for free?
To complicate the issue even more, there is always a workaround. Eventually someone is going to host sites in countries that will not budge to US intrest, or will develop a new method/legal loop, that allows them to provide content free of charge. There already exists numerous means. One of them is the P2P software method, in which the hosting site prohibits the sharing of copyrighted material in their EULA (End User License Agreement), but they never attempt to detect copyrighted material, allowing people free exchange of potentially copyrighted material.
In short, times are changing, and companies need to just adjust their business models to another means. Unfortunately for them, most of the gravy train is starting to come to an end. People are getting used to having free downloadable content provided to them, either through illegal or legal means. If the industry cannot adapt to the meeting demand, they deserve to fail.
And just to add a final pin prick to your argument, most of the money that you pay for that media goes to share holders, not the guys who actually created the software/media. Think about that for a second. This is *mostly* a means for the government to protect the dividends of the wealthy investor by protecting a companies profitability, not protecting the jobs of someone who likely has a turn over rate of about 4-5 years.
You can't assume everyone who has computer access bought a computer. Ppl use libraries' hardware, mooch off friends & rellies, receive a computer they could never afford as a gift from someone who can afford it, qualify for one of the many *giveaway* programs where old pcs are rehabbed & distributed to households in need, or just maybe, when times were better for them, they were able to afford a state of the art setup & have taken good care of it. Repo Men don't come & take your stuff away when you fall on hard times. And it's not like computers run into the thousands in pricing; you can get a basic setup for just a few hundred & if you're conscientious about maintenance, it can last longer than a car. Some apt bldgs come w/ cable or Wii internet access incl in rent. DSL can be had for as little as $15/mo, which beats the old AOHell dialup pricing by a mile. That's cheaper than standard landline phone service or adding a long distance rider to that. So arguing that b/c someone has budgeted in $15/mo for internet service after saving up to buy a computer or having one handed to them means they can afford to buy anything else, sorry, *does not compute*.
Sounds like film industry talking points. There are X number of movies being made each year with or without piracy. I don't condone it but I don't think tax payer money should wasted on it. As the old saying goes, there are a lot bigger fish to fry.
When we can't afford to go after dangerous criminals, terrorists and all the other problems facing this country, we certainly don't need worry about Hollywood executives and celebrities getting a few million dollars extra each year.
The fact is more films are being made and more people are working on those films and their budgets keeping getting bigger. The story that grips, electricians, continuity assistants are being put out of work because of pirating is just a load of bs to convince us commoners that keeping rich people happy is in our best interest.
Pirating intellectual property is illegal and it is wrong. I'm just saying that our tax dollars could be put to much better use.
So much fake numbers used to show costs. Now they say it causes unemployment what next it causes cancer.
The assumption that when someone steals something it is a loss of a purchase is flawed. It mostly shows the product is not priced correctly. It only shows that there is a lot of interest in products that are free ie stolen. The company makes exactly the same money if they sell 1 copy at $1 million and 999,999 are stolen or they sell 1 millions copies at $1. Same as actual physical product, the loss to a business that insurance pays for is usually the cost to repurchase the product from their supplier not the value they had it marked for... like anything ever sells for full retail.
The one area of actually loss is the sale of counterfeit merchandise. Here the person buying thinks they are paying for real product. This of course is only valid if the price is close to the retail, if there is a large difference then you really can't say if this person would have paid more.
I am not condoning the theft it is just the value of the loss they are claiming I have a big issue with. They scream big numbers to get attention. When they can show that the 10 year old kid who downloaded 100 movies COULD have purchased them I will agree with their numbers.
While we can argue all day long if someone who pirates software would ever actually buy it, that doesn't matter. What matters isthey are still stealing it, and using the product without paying for it. If you walk into Wal Mart and steal a movie and get caught.... your going to jail. It does not matter that you probably wouldn't have bought the movie otherwise. Now is the number of lost sales probably high? Sure, but you have to assume every pirated item is a lost sale since someone is using the product without buying it.
By having the government doing their dirty work, the film and music industries are stealing from taxpayers. It is a crime but we can't keep redirecting resources just to help enrich the wealthy few. I'd much rather the government go after murderers, rapists, burglars, terrorists (I could go on).
The irony of your statement John S is that what you are asking for is government protection of assets. In reality, the ability to defeat a DRM and produce a game independently, undercutting the original developer, or defeating DRM on a CD and creating your own distribution system is simply business. Someone used their own intellectual property to undercut your own product (in fact its done countless times, just on the other side of the "gray zone" that is being debated).
It wouldn't take much for someone to go through American (and International) history and find troves of cases of unethical/illegal behavior that the federal government turned a blind eye to. Enron? Bernie Madoff? The recent economic downturn? How about we start enforcing laws on organizations that don't cause ripples in the economic pond, but tidal waves, first.
Just like the war on drugs 50 years of flushing money down the toilet with no results. Just to make us think they are doing something.
Except there is no digital trail to track drug dealers. Bad analogy.
Just a trail of bodies. Is that better?
Also because they spend a majority of that money going after the few random end users and not the distributors. They are going to throw any random person in jail for 5 years for being on these sites? Really? Same thing as taking out college students for having an 8th on them, you just ruined someones life for a few bucks that in the grand scheme mean NOTHING.
Hell the only time I had problems with pirating was when the online legal streams wouldn't work no matter what browser I was using or my bandwidth was cut down. I'm perfectly willing to do things legally but if you make it impossible you don't leave much choice. It wouldn't surprise me if they purposefully make it impossible to do legally so they can arrest people and get money from them, lines their pocket. Why sell something for $15 or just ad-revenue when you can get them arrested or threaten their very lives for $1,000.
So we will be going to war with CHINA now!
How are they going to put people in prison when states are letting criminals out because of overcrowding? Media reports say over 30,000 prisiners in 10 years in California alone.
Good, we need to get rid of more people who try to hurt the US
What content? Is any of the garbage Hollywood and the networks currently churn out worth even watching, let alone downloading or wasting storage on? This article is another attempt by lame-stream media to portray itself as still relevant.
Typical B.S. from our F**ked up Government. Try tracking down and getting rid of all the real criminals trying to steal everyones information and bank accounts before coddling some whiney industry and tossing Americans in prison for watching a movie or song some company has already made millions on. We need to get rid of the crooks in Washington, stop the stupid and illegal wars and prosecute the bankers and politicians responsible for ripping off the American economy. (Government)Na, let's go after everybody BUT them huh? We can get some great donations from those industries if we do. Just like the banking debacle. What happens when we need protection from our own sick and twisted government? I think it's called Civil War....
Talk about a bad movie....
This will be a HUGE economic boon.
Just think of all the new prisons that will have to be built.
Idiots.
Oh yeah---because we need more overcrowded prisons.
There is an easy way to stop this: encode HD of "the product" to be sold so that the better quality one is more desirable than the lower quality stuff being pirated. THEN make the product easy to find and cheap. Netflix is awesome and has surpassed even my initial expectations ( yes, their library needs vast improvement) Technology, ART and cultural norms evolve fast if you don't embrace change and stay up to date you will get left far behind. "Open source for most things---cheap mass production of others"
I had someone charge $3000 on my debit card and the local police said we had to file a case with the FBI. They took the information, the charges were written off but I never heard a word back from the FBI. What a joke. They don't even have the resources to crack down on identity theft. Napster was 10 years ago. Piracy using torrents is way bigger today than Napster ever was. How can you blame someone for downloading music and movies when it is one click away. That's like leaving money on the road and expecting someone not to pick it up.
How can I blame them? It's easy: "you're a thief." See? Simple...
Terrible analogy, btw. Putting your digital product on the market is nothing like "leaving money on the road." It's participating in the marketplace. When someone uploads that product for file sharing, they're the ones putting "money on the road," and it's "money" that doesn't belong to them.
Nothing brings a smile to my face like some thief whining like a b*tch when they get a nasty trojan in their illegal torrent.
His analogy isn't quite correct. Its more like a store owner who leaves the cash register unlocked and the door ajar and puts a sign on the door that says "come on in".
Simple fact of the matter, most of the piracy is actually caused by a poor business model that is failing, and these businesses are coming to the government to hire police officers to post guard on their building with the door ajar and unlocked cash register.
Venues like Hulu and Netflix, providing the immediate DL fix for content that people have become accustomed to show that a successful business model can be implemented without charging everyone $20 to go watch a movie once.
But sure, lets continue to hire the government to be the thugs of big business. Its cool. Maybe next time they will take a "5 years minimum" sentence for bankers who conduct themselves in unethical means...