Oct

5

Is it really stealing?

Category: MAFIAA, Movies, Politics, RMS, tv | Leave a Comment

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.

If you don’t believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “prohibited copying” or “unauthorized copying” are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.” - rms on Piracy in Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding


Photo by redjar on flickr, used under a Creative Commons License

rms

Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.

So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the US—rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority … and misrepresenting what authority says.

The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down. - rms on Theft in Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding

Recently I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about copy protection and unauthorized downloading of video content. I saw unauthorized instead of illegal because I believe that, using common sense principals, it is easy to see that this should not be an illegal process in some circumstances. My arguments in this post hinge on ethical and logical assessments of the situation, not legal arguments in any way shape or form. IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so don’t use the opinions of this post to legally justify your actions. I do encourage you, however, to use them to try and persuade our leaders that the rules need to change.

Quickly, to comment on why I chose the above quotes by rms. I think, as he does, (and all politicians) that the words we use to describe things end up framing the debate. When downloading of videos is called “stealing” it’s easy to get behind Hollywood’s side. After all, who is for stealing? No one. I say that stealing requires the taking of some object and denying its use to others. This is a good definition, right? If I steal your bike, you can no longer use your bike for riding. If I steal your car, you cannot get around any more. If I steal your money, you may be unable to buy the things you need to sustain yourself. However, if I download video content, who is being denied the ability to watch it? In fact, with digital media, copying is the opposite of stealing. As objects are copied, they are seen by more and more people.

So, when should you be ethically in the clear when it comes to sharing video content? I feel that anything being shown on network Tv should be legal for me to download; it’s certainly ethical to do so. Why? Because any show I can watch on network Tv is available 100% free. If I have a Tv and an antenna I can get those channels. If I don’t have to pay for them in the first place, then how can it be stealing if I download it? That would be like saying that if I used a free public wireless access point with a PDA instead of a computer that I’m stealing the network. I find it impossible and an utter failure of logic to say that anything that’s FREE can be stolen. There should be no limitations on the way I obtain free things.

Now you might bring up one of the favorite arguments of the copyright owners, “Network television isn’t free! It’s paid for by commercials! And the Tv programs you download do not have commercials.” That would be a fine argument, if there were any way to actually force me to watch commercials. It could be an infringement upon my rights as an American to force me to watch commercials. Who says I can’t use commercial time to use the restroom or flip channels? Do they expect us to watch the commercials and then go to the bathroom during the content we are actually tuning in to watch? I have to admit that I rarely ever watch commercials, thanks to my wife. She hates commercials so much that she gets antsy if I don’t let her flip through the channels. It’s the same with newspapers, magazines and anything else subsidized by advertisements - I don’t look at them. (And no one can make me!) And if I could be forced to view them, no one can force me to pay attention. Because, if they can do that, then I’m getting the hell out of this country.

One more thing on the issue of commercials. I can always get a VHS tape or computer and do what I used to do as a kid - hit pause during commercials and start recording after the commercials. I never recorded commercials as a kid. And, since I can record Tv without commercials, what does it matter if someone else has done the recording for me?

So, while the companies might have a legal case against me in court, if we look at this like intelligent, rational engineers, we see that there should be no case against me when it comes to downloading network television. They were never making any money off of me in the first place, so they lose nothing if I don’t watch. The commercial sponsors have already paid for the content and GAMBLED that some portion of the viewing public would watch the commercials. There were absolutely no guarantees, just statistics. (Which we all know are BS numbers made up during sweeps week)

So now we move to cable television. When it comes to cable Tv, I argue that I have an even stronger case to be allowed to download the content - I’m actually paying for it. Not only am I paying for the programs I watch, but I’m also paying for thousands that I don’t. In fact, since I pretty much only watch Scrubs, The Office, and The Daily Show, I’m already paying for tons of shows I don’t even watch. Plus, all of these except for the premium channels are also paid for by advertising. They are already paid (sunk cost) and, as I said before, there’s no way to force me to watch commercials.

When it comes the the premium channels, I’m paying a premium to watch it, so I think I should have premium rights to download this content. The ethical parts comes in that I should only ethically download shows that play on channels which I am subscribed to. I would not see the content on the ones I’m not paying for, so I don’t have the right to watch them. This brings me to my next topic, what should I not ethically download.

I should not ethically download any movies still showing in the theaters and not yet showing on Tv. There is no way for me to watch this content other than going to a theater, so therefore, there is no logical or ethical reason that I should be allowed to download those movies. Once they show on Tv, I should be able to download them.

As I mentioned above, we’ve always had the right to use VCRs to time shift programs. What logical difference does it make if I’m using a VCR, TiVo, or downloaded content to the the time shifting? Think about it - there’s NO difference!

What it all comes down to is control. The video companies don’t like the idea of not being in control. They don’t like the fact that Europeans can download American shows while they’re still showing in America. Why that artificial system is still in place, I have no idea. They simply have not joined the technology era. People of my age group do not want to be inconvenienced by bull crap. If there’s a real, logical reason why something can’t be done, then we accept it. But, given today’s digital world, there’s no reason why I can’t watch all the stuff they produce in Britain, Spain, or any other country whose language I can understand.

If they truly need the advertising money, then just move to a James Bond model for all video content. Have companies subsidize the cost of the show by paying to have the characters wear/use their products. Then, it won’t matter if they view it on Tv or off of the internet, they’ll have to see the products being advertised. AND, here’s why I don’t logically understand why they don’t do this. Right now video producers have absolutely no idea how many people watch a Tv show. All they know is what Nielsen Families watch. And they are occasionally wrong. For example, shows like Family Guy that apparently tested negatively or they wouldn’t have canceled it. Then they suddenly realized that a ton of college students and other people loved it. If their products were watched on computers, it would be a trivial task for them to count up how many people were watching the show. So they’d be able to accurately charge advertisers based on how many people were seeing the products advertised.

Of course, there is one other issue. That is the fact that, at any time, a friend of mine could come over with a DVD or VHS tape of some Tv show and I can watch it with him. This cost me nothing and it may convert me to a fan. Thanks to my brother bringing over The Office for me to watch, I’m now watching it on NBC. Would it not, ethically and rationally, have been the same thing if I had downloaded the first few seasons and then liked it so much that I now watch it on NBC? I think if you answer honestly, you’ll see that I’m right. Yet, the Tv and movie producers are trying to make it more and more so that stuff you buy only plays in your house. I can tell you for a fact that if I would have had to go to my brother’s place to watch The Office I would not be a fan today. There was just too much inertia working against me going to his place.

I would like to address one final issue which I also feel exactly the same way about when it comes to music. For those who cry of the apocalypse whenever someone talks of downloadable content (meaning that if everyone downloaded then the Tv and movie studios would go out of business), I have this to say to you. First of all, that’s false for the reason I outlined above - just adapt and build the commercial into the video content. But even if it did implode, I could not care less. Look at the FOSS software movement. While it is true that today a small to medium portion of developers are paid by companies to do the work, a lot of the key work for the first 20 years of the movement was done by volunteers. And look at the amazing things they created - the Apache web server which runs approximately half of the internet, the Linux kernel, countless programs which run on Linux and other platforms, Firefox - the list goes on and on. Similarly, I’ve seen a lot of amazing videos and Tv shows on the internet. Sure, there’s a lot of crap out there - monumental amounts. But I also believe there’s a lot of crap on Tv (otherwise I’d watch more than 4-5 shows). There are a fair degree of people out there with talent who simply do video work in their spare time. For some great examples, check out this work by ReMyyyx. It might not be your cup of tea, but there’s more out there like this, this, and this.

I hope I’ve helped you see past the MAFIAA rhetoric and helped you see things through the logical and ethical point of view.

Please share this with as many people as possible and even send it to your elected representatives to see if we can knock some sense into them. Leave comments, I’d love to hear what others think. They are moderated, so it may take a while to appear.

  

Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
  • De.lirio.us
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Feb

15

How the RIAA is always wrong

Category: Computers, DRM, Music, RIAA, Technology | Leave a Comment

I’m pretty sure that in previous posts I’ve mentioned that the RIAA has always been wrong about what technological disruptions do to their business. They wanted to kill LPs because they thought no one would go see live performances. They wanted to quash AM radio for fear no one would by LPs. They wanted to kill the cassette tape because it would allow piracy of LPs. Currently they want to prevent the existence of a Tivo-like device for digital radio.

Each time they have been wrong and the new technologies have provided new ways for them to make money. Not only that, but each new technology has enabled a plethora of new industries to spring up. Without the invention of LPs in the early 1900s, there wold never have been the turntablist musical movement and rap would have sounded very different. Without cassette tapes, many bands would never have created that first cheap demo tape to send to the record companies to get signed. Without the ability to copy CDs to the computer, the iPod and all other similar devices would not exist.

Originally there was going to be something akin to CSS on audio CDs, but it was dropped and computers were allowed to read them and rip them. I think this was one of the greatest abilities of all time. Until the invention of MP3 players (and later digital music players), the ability for me to be able to remaster a CD with a full 74 minutes allowed me to be able to have a lot of music in my car without a ton of CDs. It’s a well known fact that more CDs barely push 15-20 minutes, so being able to combine 2-4 CDs onto one was quite a boon! Back in those days I used to create my own CDs with every song an artist ever sang (instead of buying a compilation from the store which had all the songs I already had). Sure, I was keeping them from selling me that compilation CD, but that was a silly thing anyway. If I already owned the license to listen to those songs, why should I have to buy another license to listen to all of them in one CD?

What about file sharing? A study has recently been done by a series of researchers who have proven that MP3 file-sharing of copyrighted music has had a statistically 0% affect on the sales of CDs. So CD sales have simply declined because people don’t like the music being made. So next time they whine about stuff - tell them, “hey you’ve been wrong for 100 years, why should we believe you NOW?”

  

Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
  • De.lirio.us
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Feb

11

Movies pirated by the Movie Industry itself!

Category: DRM, MPAA, Movies | Leave a Comment

Despite what the MPAA claims, it’s not us consumers who need to be restrained by DRM, but their own people. This website demonstrates how movies are pirated by the movie companies and members of the Oscar committee.

Here are some key quotes:

For the last few years, the movie industry’s battles with Internet pirates offered an entertaining diversion during Oscar season. Their problem: they need to “leak” their films to Academy members for consideration, but don’t want those official leaks to fall into the hands of pirates. In 2003, the MPAA banned all screeners, causing a massive uproar from directors, actors, critics and indie studios. The plan was eventually scrapped in December 2003

,…

In 2004, a company named Cinea spent $5 million distributing custom DVD players to Academy and BAFTA members with very mixed results. Lately, it seems the new strategy is to stop trying. Maybe the industry is finally realizing that the best way to get recognized is for people to see your movie, despite the risk of piracy. For example, Munich was very likely snubbed for a British Oscar nomination in 2005 because the screeners were late and defective. The best case study is Lionsgate’s promotion of Crash vs Disney’s Cinea-encrypted screeners:

In a way, Lionsgate’s strategy was the opposite of Disney’s. While the indie sent its film to as many voters as possible, upping the odds copies could be pirated, the Mouse House focused on minimizing piracy, with the result that at least 26% of Oscar voters didn’t watch its screeners.

The outcome: Crash shocked the world by winning Best Picture over the favored Brokeback Mountain, while Disney only got Best Makeup for The Chronicles of Narnia.

….

After the MPAA decided to ban all screeners in 2003, I started tracking the distribution of Oscar screeners online to see how effective their ban was. I found that screeners for all but one of the 22 nominated films were leaked. I followed up the following year, but took a break last year. So, how did they fare this year?

Check out the link above to see how they did for the 2007 Oscar season

  

Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
  • De.lirio.us
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Feb

4

Fight the Machine!

Category: Computers, Music, RIAA, Technology | Leave a Comment

The Inquirer.net reports a boy who is counter-suing the RIAA! Why?

for defamation, violating anti-trust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats.

Awesome! It’s about time someone fought back!

They have demanded a jury trial and filing a counterclaim against the companies for allegedly damaging the boy’s reputation, distracting him from school and costing him legal fees. The record companies have engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States, the court documents say. Competitors in the recording industry are a cartel acting together in violation of the antitrust laws by bringing the piracy cases jointly and using the same agency “to make extortionate threats … to force defendants to pay”, our precocious teen wrote.

That’s right! Ostensibly, cartels are illegal in the US. So let’s move against them as if they didn’t have enough money to buy all of Congress and the Supreme Court! I hope he wins!

  

Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
  • De.lirio.us
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Oct

25

BitTorrent’s Legality begins to be recognized!

Category: Internet, Linux, MPAA, Technology | Leave a Comment

BitTorrent - up until now, mentioning legal uses of the program was likely to garner snickers from your audience. Afterall, it’s just for downloading music and software illegally, isn’t it? Actually, for the past few years, it’s been the way that most people download their completely legal copies of Linux operating systems. In fact, for Linux distribution companies it has been a HUGE load off of their ISO servers to allow people to be able to use BitTorrent to download their software.

However, companies like the MPAA obviously via Linux with disdain at best. (Otherwise they’d release legitimate copies of DVD-playback software, among other things) So they failed to appreciate the above arguement for BitTorrent’s legality. However, as this article points out, they are finally starting to see the light! Hollywood studios are beginning to get the clue that if they want to do online videos, they should embrace the technology that the “kids” are using. (Witness Fox buying myspace.com) It also will give them huge bandwidth help. I’m glad to see them seeing the light before they pushed ISPs or, even worse, the government to put out some stupid legislation that would kill the medium for people like me who use it legally for Linux.

  

Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
  • De.lirio.us
  • Netscape
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati