Copyright Alert System - Page 7

**edwest2** · #91 Jun 7, '12, 2:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlycool89

Why is it that I, the person who lives in what's affectionately called Soviet Canuckistan, always have to point these things out?

It's called capitalism. Sometimes industries die. It's called voting with your dollars. If your music sucks, then I won't buy it; a name is no longer enough to sell stuff, it actually has to be good. Artists don't deserve money just because they're an artist, they have to do work too.

Nobody gets angry that we don't have horse-drawn taxi's anymore (although I'm sure the industry cried foul when automobiles became ubiquitous) because cars are better.

Again, it's called capitalism. Seriously, I'm not the only capitalist on this forum, right?

It just means they have to work harder and that money is not guaranteed anymore. I fail to see why that's a bad thing.

Been there, done that. New DVDs stopped playing on an older DVD player so we had to get a new one. That is actually unjust and unfair, and I could make a good RICO case if I really tried.

That is complete nonsense and simple chest thumping. If companies that make quality work die off because they can't afford to pay anyone - you will get what you're wishing for.

No - we don't have to work harder. Never. It takes years to become a professional in your craft. I know this from years of being a professional. But if I can't pay my staff - we close our doors.

Just yesterday, I was given the task of assistant art director on our newest book cover. If I was incompetent, then I wouldn't know what to do or say. Instead, working under a strict deadline, I worked with the head art director and artist and made significant contributions toward producing a professional book cover. When done, the artist got a check.

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #92 Jun 7, '12, 2:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

There a lots of sites (and ways) people can listen to music, watch TV shows online,... without doing anything illegal. It's all thanks to internet technology.

Uh huh. That's why, a few years back, all Hollywood writers staged a strike. They shut down the production of some movies and caused some TV shows to go to reruns. Why? They wanted to get paid if their movie or TV show was shown again on the internet or any mobile device. It's in their contracts now.

Legal does not always mean doing the right thing.

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #93 Jun 7, '12, 2:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

Nopes. Again, I wonder whether people still buy software in form of discs.

I think you would usually get a link where you can download the stuff (legally).

At least software folks are smarter enough and try to use technology to ensure the kind of restrictions they want. E.g limiting the number of computers the SW could be installed on. However, technology is for everyone and there are always work arounds without doing anything illegal. A company could pay for a single copy, install it on a central computer where all the workers remotely have access to....Or maybe there are laws that disallow this.

But that would still be fighting against tech.

Oh, with the birth of cloud computing, the dynamics completely change. Again, you guys can only blame technology.

Nope. We can only blame people who think stealing is a good thing.

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #94 Jun 7, '12, 2:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

But they are still pay-for-products. What difference does it make if I watch a TV show on TV or if I watch it online or if I download it? Same thing: consumption without pay; which seems to be some people's problem.

You're looking at it wrong. TV shows are paid for how? With advertising. The people who pay for the commercials pay for that episode. And if more people start watching that TV show. Guess what? The people who make the show charge them more money for the commercials because more eyeballs are watching.

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #95 Jun 7, '12, 2:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

How is it moral or fair to watch TV shows on Hulu (even outside N. America) while folks pay for the stuff on Netflix?

Man, I am tired of this discussion. We simply differ in opinion and nothing would change.

We have been seeing how strong the pirate parties have been emerging in Europe especially in Germany--they have been gaining seats in all local elections and are now also in the parliament. This is simply to show that people are fed up with how far some people can go as concerns copyrights and patent rights. The rights and freedom of citizens are worth more than intellectual property rights. No new IP right that violates or restricts the rights of man would ever be passed in this information era. Period. We have all been witnessing this new trend.

What new trend?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/te...th-piracy.html

http://www.fbi.gov/buffalo/press-rel...t-infringement

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #96 Jun 7, '12, 2:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25

Agree with you here. Illegal downloading of coprighted works is immoral. You won't get an arguement from me.

There are several issues at play here:

Technology has made it easier to access, deliver and transport. I now have my boxes of CD's on my iPod, which I can put into my pocket. I have a bookshelf of books now on a 7" tablet. I can also watch movies on said tablet and pick up where I left off on my TV.

Because of this, there are market pressure for content creators to move into digital distrbution.

There are also issues of first sale doctorine and fair use at play. What happens if I want to get rid of my digital copies? Transfer to a different format? What about stores who had a model of second hand sales?

Also with digital creation and distribution, the barrier to entry has become lower. Creators are now, more than ever, feeling pressures to create better content.

Another problem - Brick and Mortar stores have always had shrink. It is the cost of doing business. That doesn't mean we have to submit to cavity searches every time we enter and exit the local Wal-Mart.

Nope. You have it the wrong way around. The barrier of entry has left, for example, the digital book market flooded with the exact same manuscripts my company routinely rejects.

We never felt any pressure now or in the past, to create "better" content. We know what our customers want today which is why we have been in business for so long. Digital delivery doesn't change anything.

Finally, brick and mortar? The owners get a choice too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/bu...g-kindles.html

Peace,
Ed

kelvinf · #97 Jun 7, '12, 3:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristiano

It seems to me that the poster, that you are arguing with, agrees with you. The case that he made was in reference to a legal site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

Perhaps, I could not quite tell.

Yes, the example I made is supposedly a legal site. But how do you know whether a site is legal or not?

But you guys still don't get my point. What difference does it make if a person, who has 3 options of watching a tv show, simply chooses one of them?

kelvinf · #98 Jun 7, '12, 3:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Legal does not always mean doing the right thing.

Peace,
Ed

You just hit the nail on the head. Go tell that to the industries involved. Also tell them the opposite: that illegal does not mean doing the wrong thing. As I said before, I am partially anti-copyrights and anti-patent rights (Apple vs. Samsung, LG vs. Apple.... just crazy). Meaning, I don't fully recognise the legality of such rights. Of course, it means I stand ready to challenge such laws whenever possible.

Cristiano · #99 Jun 7, '12, 3:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

Yes, the example I made is supposedly a legal site. But how do you know whether a site is legal or not?

But you guys still don't get my point. What difference does it make if a person, who has 3 options of watching a tv show, simply chooses one of them?

Are you presenting a scenario that has the moral equivalent between choosing among married sex, extramarital sex, and rape? What difference does it make if the individual simply chooses one of them?

irishpatrick · #**100** Jun 7, '12, 3:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

Yes, the example I made is supposedly a legal site. But how do you know whether a site is legal or not?

But you guys still don't get my point. What difference does it make if a person, who has 3 options of watching a tv show, simply chooses one of them?

How would you feel if you owned a home, and you cut your own grass using a lawnmower you bought for the task, and then your neighbors and even strangers came by on a regular basis and took the mower to cut their lawns--without paying any fees, without paying for gas or oil? They just came by and took your property and used it as they saw fit without paying you a dime, and without even giving you the courtesy of asking--how would you feel?

Cristiano · #**101** Jun 7, '12, 3:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelvinf

You just hit the nail on the head. Go tell that to the industries involved. Also tell them the opposite: that illegal does not mean doing the wrong thing. As I said before, I am partially anti-copyrights and anti-patent rights (Apple vs. Samsung, LG vs. Apple.... just crazy). Meaning, I don't fully recognise the legality of such rights. Of course, it means I stand ready to challenge such laws whenever possible.

Just remember that there are moral and immoral ways to challenge a law. We must always choose the moral one. Violation of copyrights is not the moral way in the present society.

kelvinf · #**102** Jun 7, '12, 3:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

What new trend?

The defeat of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and the rise of groups that support freedom of information and free exchange of knowledge. That's the new trend I am talking about.

kelvinf · #**103** Jun 7, '12, 3:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristiano

Just remember that there are moral and immoral ways to challenge a law. We must always choose the moral one. Violation of copyrights is not the moral way in the present society.

Yeah.

kelvinf · #**104** Jun 7, '12, 3:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristiano

Are you presenting a scenario that has the moral equivalent between choosing among married sex, extramarital sex, and rape? What difference does it make if the individual simply chooses one of them?

Not the same kind of comparison. What I am refering to is basically a matter of time and convenience.

kelvinf · #**105** Jun 7, '12, 3:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cristiano

Are you presenting a scenario that has the moral equivalent between choosing among married sex, extramarital sex, and rape? What difference does it make if the individual simply chooses one of them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

How would you feel if you owned a home, and you cut your own grass using a lawnmower you bought for the task, and then your neighbors and even strangers came by on a regular basis and took the mower to cut their lawns--without paying any fees, without paying for gas or oil? They just came by and took your property and used it as they saw fit without paying you a dime, and without even giving you the courtesy of asking--how would you feel?

I would have loved if you guys could address this: how do you know whether a site is legal or not?