dxw00d:
I convert them to MP3 (right click in iTunes) and play them on my Android phone with out any problems. Having moved from iPhone to Android, I have purchased quite a lot of music through iTunes. All of it has converted fine.
Yep, converting the original downloaded song is easy with iTunes; however, it does remove the DRM included with the original formatted file. That was my point, songs purchased and downloaded with iTunes do contain DRM protections--at least I encounter them routinely.
wanderson:
Yep, converting the original downloaded song is easy with iTunes; however, it does remove the DRM included with the original formatted file. That was my point, songs purchased and downloaded with iTunes do contain DRM protections--at least I encounter them routinely.
My understanding is that you can buy DRM-less music on iTunes. However, I expect availability will be a function of content providers allowing such distribution. A typically sure-fire way around this limitation is to burn the song to CD (where it sits without DRM by definition) and then to re-rip it. I find it easier to just buy the CD used on Amazon, to rip, and then to file it as a backup.
No innocent people are ever harmed by draconian anti-piracy measures.
http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/
wizdum:
No innocent people are ever harmed by draconian anti-piracy measures.http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/tech/web/hugo-awards-gaiman-ustream/index.html
Sorry, but not only are those (they represent the same event) examples of no one being harmed--the broadcast was just aborted. It isn't even an example of 'draconian anti-piracy measures', but simply a poorly written piece of software...
Can you provide an actual example of an innocent who was wrongfully convicted (in the US), so far you talked about Tannenbaum (who admitted guilt) and this software glitch?
wanderson:
wizdum:
No innocent people are ever harmed by draconian anti-piracy measures.http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2012/09/03/hugo-awards-an-apology-and-explanation/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/tech/web/hugo-awards-gaiman-ustream/index.html
Sorry, but not only are those (they represent the same event) examples of no one being harmed--the broadcast was just aborted. It isn't even an example of 'draconian anti-piracy measures', but simply a poorly written piece of software...
Can you provide an actual example of an innocent who was wrongfully convicted (in the US), so far you talked about Tannenbaum (who admitted guilt) and this software glitch?
I'd say the people hosting the event (and their advertisers) that lost all their online viewers, were harmed. It was not a software glitch, the software was working as intended. It "saw" copyrighted video (that was fair use), and took it down. The same thing happened to NASA when the mainstream media started showing clips from the NASA feed.
I can't find any examples of people being wrongly convicted, because none of them were convicted. Thats my issue with the infringement notices. These people simply paid up rather than potentially lose millions in a court battle.
This discussion is never going to go anywhere useful. Pirates will pirate, period. Just look at the 25% piracy rate on Humble Bundles (no DRM, so they can't use that as an excuse). You can purchase a bundle of games for a penny, but that's still too much for someone that believes they are entitled to take anyone's work.
wizdum:
I'd say the people hosting the event (and their advertisers) that lost all their online viewers, were harmed. It was not a software glitch, the software was working as intended. It "saw" copyrighted video (that was fair use), and took it down. The same thing happened to NASA when the mainstream media started showing clips from the NASA feed.
They weren't harmed by either the law's or the copyright holder. If there was harm, which I don't believe there was, it was caused by a software programming error--at least if they had the right to publish the copyrighted video under fair use... Which is why they said in the articles you quoted that they were going to stop using the software that caused the problem...
And yes, NASA incorrectly received a notice, sent out either by a piece of software or some idiot law clerk... What you seem to overlook, is that NASA didn't pay... They didn't have to. Do you pay, when you receive a Nigerian scam in your email? I should hope not, and neither will anyone who didn't violate the copyright laws... Those that do pay, know they stole something, got caught, and simply don't think the fine they are being given is 'fair'...
wizdum:
I can't find any examples of people being wrongly convicted, because none of them were convicted. Thats my issue with the infringement notices. These people simply paid up rather than potentially lose millions in a court battle.
Again you are confusing the issue. No one would pay when receiving an infringement notice for fair use... If they pay it is because they were clearly violating the law and they know it. That was the case with Tennenbaum, by his own admission, which you also used as an example of the 'problem' with the law...
FWIW, I do believe there is a economic harm that is imposed when legal transmissions get canceled or delayed. The amount of harm is perhaps hard to quantify, but imagine if your network was hosting the Hugos and you had several ad buys that did not get transmitted because the show was canceled by a copyright-bot. Besides the embarrassment of it all, you'd have to give the ad money back since you never transmitted the ad...
Let's take the superbowl as another example. If the broadcast was interrupted by an IP bot, do you think that even a later re-transmission (once the scores are already known, etc.) is nearly as valuable as the live stream? My guess is no. Which explains perhaps why the folk who transmit the superbowl control their own video streams, etc. as well, preventing third-party IP-bots from crashing the party.
Bottom line, there is a economic harm being imposed by these auto-IP-bots. That a automated solution became necessary is thanks to the sheer number of folk uploading content to Youtube, etc. But, I'll bet you an ice-cream sundae that if the DCMA allocated automatic $1,000 minimum fines for false claims (with maximums determined by the courts) that these IP-bots would be designed a lot more carefully to avoid false positives.
Constantin:
FWIW, I do believe there is a economic harm that is imposed when legal transmissions get canceled or delayed. The amount of harm is perhaps hard to quantify, but imagine if your network was hosting the Hugos and you had several ad buys that did not get transmitted because the show was canceled by a copyright-bot. Besides the embarrassment of it all, you'd have to give the ad money back since you never transmitted the ad...Let's take the superbowl as another example. If the broadcast was interrupted by an IP bot, do you think that even a later re-transmission (once the scores are already known, etc.) is nearly as valuable as the live stream? My guess is no. Which explains perhaps why the folk who transmit the superbowl control their own video streams, etc. as well, preventing third-party IP-bots from crashing the party.
Bottom line, there is a economic harm being imposed by these auto-IP-bots. That a automated solution became necessary is thanks to the sheer number of folk uploading content to Youtube, etc. But, I'll bet you an ice-cream sundae that if the DCMA allocated automatic $1,000 minimum fines for false claims (with maximums determined by the courts) that these IP-bots would be designed a lot more carefully to avoid false positives.
If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder. As illustrated by the provider's statement that they would cease to use the software and control their own video streams... If a company feels an automated solution (with all of the constraints of such) is more cost effective then they weren't harmed by that software performing as specified, rather they were 'harmed' by their own business choices. None of which is the fault of the law or the copyright holders...
I suspect that those IP-bots are designed to fail on the side of caution in passing and are sold as such... They also are likely to be re-configurable by the user (as most software is) and it is the users responsibility for any liability they would then incur...
As far as laws go, in Brazil piracy isn't against the law, as long as it isn't made for profit.
That means that you can download and share whatever you want from/to the internet and use it for your own entertainement, and that is ok. As long as you're not profiting from it, that is ok.
However, if you're selling pirated content, etc, then things might get rough.
Why I underlined might: I once photographed a couple policemen buying pirated DVDs from a street seller (that they were supposed to be busting right at the spot, because THAT is a crime). One of them saw me and demanded I erased the photos from my phone, which I did right in front of them. When I got home, I undeleted the pics from my SD card and send to a few newspapers + facebook pages. The newspapers never published them. On facebook, most people simply didn't care, and just a few felt outraged like I did.
wanderson:
If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder.
And who started requiring the use of copyright bots against fair use? The copyright holders. Mostly because of this: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. - Wikipedia.
You can lock down the content and pour the entire world's resources into stopping copyright infringement, and you still wont stop pirates. You are trying to control the distribution of something that is infinitely copy-able for zero cost. Its not going to happen. All you do is hurt innocents and drive more people to piracy.
It is sad that so many people pirated the Humble Bundle, but you have to look past the percentages. That is a movement that is mostly only known to computer savvy people. Pirates are generally computer savvy. When compared to a game like Battlefield 3, the Humble Bundle sold next to nothing. You also have no way of knowing how many of those pirates were the "try-before-you-buy" variety, or even how those numbers were created.
wizdum:
wanderson:
If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder.And who started requiring the use of copyright bots against fair use? The copyright holders. Mostly because of this: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. - Wikipedia.
No one requires the use of such software, as evidenced by your own cite stating they would stop using such software. Oh and the software is not designed to prevent fair use, but rather prevent illegal uses--the mistakes are related to the lack of intellegence in the software, not intent. The software is simply an easier way for such corporations to make sure they comply with the law--they are not the only way.
wizdum:
You can lock down the content and pour the entire world's resources into stopping copyright infringement, and you still wont stop pirates. You are trying to control the distribution of something that is infinitely copy-able for zero cost. Its not going to happen. All you do is hurt innocents and drive more people to piracy.
It is happening. That is why so many of your complaints and arguments against it are people who got caught stealing and they don't think the punishment is fair...
wizdum:
It is sad that so many people pirated the Humble Bundle, but you have to look past the percentages. That is a movement that is mostly only known to computer savvy people. Pirates are generally computer savvy. When compared to a game like Battlefield 3, the Humble Bundle sold next to nothing (which is not the same as wasn't much used). You also have no way of knowing how many of those pirates were the "try-before-you-buy" variety, or even how those numbers were created.
Yes argue about the degree of pirating... We are talking about a piece of software that costs as little as something can possibly can, and yet people steal it... Which I believe is adequate evidence against the earlier arguments in this thread that pirating was just being caused by the greed of the sellers...
@dxwOOd
'You can purchase a bundle of games for a penny, but that's still too much for someone that believes they are entitled to take anyone's work.'
true but we live in a world where art/music/software are seen as fair game once they are out and become a 'product' as this article shows.
adverts/tv use stuff all the time that the person who created it might not agree with, that in my mind is worse that steeling it.
wanderson:
wizdum:
wanderson:
If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder.And who started requiring the use of copyright bots against fair use? The copyright holders. Mostly because of this: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. - Wikipedia.
No one requires the use of such software, as evidenced by your own cite stating they would stop using such software. Oh and the software is not designed to prevent fair use, but rather prevent illegal uses--the mistakes are related to the lack of intellegence in the software, not intent. The software is simply an easier way for such corporations to make sure they comply with the law--they are not the only way.
wizdum:
You can lock down the content and pour the entire world's resources into stopping copyright infringement, and you still wont stop pirates. You are trying to control the distribution of something that is infinitely copy-able for zero cost. Its not going to happen. All you do is hurt innocents and drive more people to piracy.It is happening. That is why so many of your complaints and arguments against it are people who got caught stealing and they don't think the punishment is fair...
wizdum:
It is sad that so many people pirated the Humble Bundle, but you have to look past the percentages. That is a movement that is mostly only known to computer savvy people. Pirates are generally computer savvy. When compared to a game like Battlefield 3, the Humble Bundle sold next to nothing (which is not the same as wasn't much used). You also have no way of knowing how many of those pirates were the "try-before-you-buy" variety, or even how those numbers were created.Yes argue about the degree of pirating... We are talking about a piece of software that costs as little as something can possibly can, and yet people steal it... Which I believe is adequate evidence against the earlier arguments in this thread that pirating was just being caused by the greed of the sellers...
The software is required if you want to avoid being sued into oblivion. Find me one company that doesn't use it. They are not stopping use of all bot software, they are stopping the use of that particular software, and finding a different solution (and only because someone "famous" was hurt). One that honors fair use would be nice. Speaking of overzealous anti-piracy measures : YouTube Flags Democrats' Convention Video on Copyright Grounds | WIRED It happened again today.
The RIAA and MPAA have both the FBI and ICE working for them. There are entire departments at Time Warner Cable and Google that are dedicated to finding pirates, and yet... it continues. Meanwhile, I can't even play a singleplayer game that I purchased, without an internet connection anymore, due to the DRM.
I am not arguing the degree of pirating, I am arguing that the comparison is unfair and the metrics used are smoke and mirrors. You are comparing two different pools of users. The Humble Bundle is going to have a higher percentage of pirates because it is only known in the pool of users that know how to pirate things. If I were to go to Times Square and randomly ask people how many of them knew what an Atmega 168 was, i'd see a very low percentage of correct answers. If I asked here however, the percentage would be much higher. The percentage here isn't higher because of a sudden interest in ICs, it was because I changed the pool. With the Humble Bundle example you successfully argued that some people are dicks.
I have a feeling this thread has kind of run it's course, no one is going to change their position on the issue, and little real useful information is being shared. It seems to just be an decrease in the signal to noise ratio as time passes on. Ever see the movie 'They shoot horses don't they'?
Lefty
wizdum:
The software is required if you want to avoid being sued into oblivion. Find me one company that doesn't use it. They are not stopping use of all bot software, they are stopping the use of that particular software, and finding a different solution (and only because someone "famous" was hurt). One that honors fair use would be nice. Speaking of overzealous anti-piracy measures : YouTube Flags Democrats' Convention Video on Copyright Grounds | WIRED It happened again today.
No, the software is not required. It is simply more cost effective than having a human being screen content. It is impossible for software to determine 'fair use', since it requires human judhement. Relying on software, and loosing the Expert System AI's rules will simply result in actual violations. Again, no one was harmed by the convention link you included. You tube, doesn't wish to have to pay for human judgement, instead relying on an AI expert system with very tight rules. Therefore, as a corporation, they are making a choice for the most cost effective approach. Just as no one, other than possibly the corporation who chose that approach, was harmed by your previous link.
wizdum:
The RIAA and MPAA have both the FBI and ICE working for them. There are entire departments at Time Warner Cable and Google that are dedicated to finding pirates, and yet... it continues. Meanwhile, I can't even play a singleplayer game that I purchased, without an internet connection anymore, due to the DRM.
No private organization has any law enforcement agency working for them, and the assertion is ridiculous. Those agencies are simply enforcing the law, which is what they are tasked to do. The corporations involvement is simply providing evidence of crimes, something any citizen could do...
As to your game issue, did you not know that such a limitation was included when you purchased the game? If not, was it because you didn't read the fine print? Your recourse when you purchased the game was to return it for a full refund.
wizdum:
I am not arguing the degree of pirating, I am arguing that the comparison is unfair and the metrics used are smoke and mirrors. You are comparing two different pools of users. The Humble Bundle is going to have a higher percentage of pirates because it is only known in the pool of users that know how to pirate things. If I were to go to Times Square and randomly ask people how many of them knew what an Atmega 168 was, i'd see a very low percentage of correct answers. If I asked here however, the percentage would be much higher. The percentage here isn't higher because of a sudden interest in ICs, it was because I changed the pool. With the Humble Bundle example you successfully argued that some people are dicks.
The metrics are hardly smoke and mirrors, and the specific Humble Bundle example is just one of many. There have been other examples with other media, such as music--another media where the cost for purchase is also quite low, yet many still prefer to steal. And the point is that all pirates are thieves, and their rationalizations for their theft are just that--rationalizations. There is no justification for such theft.
So lets review the various points:
I'm out, theres no point in arguing with someone that thinks saying "no" to my statement is proof of its falsehood. You are either ignoring the law on purpose to suit your argument, or you don't understand it.
wizdum:
I'm out, theres no point in arguing with someone that thinks saying "no" to my statement is proof of its falsehood. You are either ignoring the law on purpose to suit your argument, or you don't understand it.
One of us doesn't understand the law. Would you care to show where the law requires the use of expert system software? I certainly can't find such a mention. Any more than I could find any references to law enforcement 'working' for RIAA or MPAA...
Even the Viacom court case you mentioned was lost, not because they were unintentionally distributing copyprotected material, but rather the opposite. Internal YouTube emails were introduced as evidence that they were knowingly allowing their users to violate copyright.
As a side question, do you only object to the greed of the companys that produce and distribute the original material, since you do not seem to include the greed of the corporations that are facilitating theft from those copyright holders?
@ wizdum & wanderson
you do realize that you are arguing different things, right?
wizdum (and I and others) are saying:
there is a problem, and ultimately the creative industry will need to come up with better ways of dealing with it than it is now.
(ok, yes, extremely simplified)
wanderson (and retrolefty and others) are saying:
nothing justifies pirating.
(ok, yes, extremely simplified)
its only a minority here and not even a very prolific one which claims that there is nothing wrong with pirating. (ok, we can - and have - argued about that as well.)
I guess my point is that I see these two standpoints being exchanged and neither is really a good reaction to the other. Nor do they actually contradict each other.
Another thing which is constantly being mixed up is "what is right" with "what is legal"... wizdum was not saying, that the 60.000.000$ sum that guy has been fined (or whatever it was) is illegal. He is saying it is not right (ok. whats the standard. no idea.)
I am sure wanderson would respond to AlexDroidDev: "well, it may be legal, but that does not make it right. (again. whats the standard)"
Just my thoughts when skimming over the last couple of posts...
wanderson:
- No one has been, and no one will be charged with violations of those laws for 'fair use' because all parties understand they would loose, so despite the stupid law they are not criminals
you hope. we have no guarantee of that.
wanderson:
- Those fines are fair by definition. After all we don't let murderers, rapists, etc.. define what would be their fair punishment.
This I find questionable. I mean any fine is arbitrarily established. In Texas, I believe you have the death penalty. In most of Europe this is considered barbaric. I am not implying judgement here - I just mean to point out that even the way murderers and rapists are treated is open for debate. Saying a fine is fair by definition assumes that there is some higher moral authority who has the right to decide on what a fine is. I believe that is wrong.
Concerning fines for data-sharing, you can imagine that there are very strong political lobbies putting pressure on politicians. I do not believe that lobbyists who are trying to have stricter convictions for rapists have even a fraction of the power that lobbyists going after file sharers have. (before you ask... I dont know that as a fact. This is simply my assumption, as there is no group with an economic interest in prosecuting rapists.)