On copyright and the internet

I’m posting this here and on this thread: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=681895

As someone who both uses the internet heavily and who is also an aspiring musician, I have a huge stake in this discussion and I feel that the issue isn’t being fully or adequately addressed.

I will start this by saying that piracy is indeed bad and immoral. I will not dispute that point. But at the same time I admit that it cannot be stopped.

Why? Two reasons: First, anything digital is now abundant. Digital media can be copied and shared so easily and widely that it’s no longer, to use the economic term, a “scarcity”, but instead has become abundant. All barriers to distribution—scarcity—have been removed and it’s been stripped of most, if not all, of it’s real economic value (although it still retains great social, artistic, political, religious, etc. value).

Secondly, the internet and digital technology have made piracy impossible to stop. The internet is so vast and interconnected that there are a million ways around a block of any kind. Look at Megaupload: Lots of people applauded when the site was taken down and when it’s owner and his companions were arrested. “Online piracy took a huge hit!” they cried. “We’re helping stop online piracy!” they said. Guess what? Within hours all the traffic that used to go to Megaupload went to other sites, and online piracy went back to the same levels they were at prior to the takedown. No effect.

Now that takedown doesn’t sound so impressive anymore. And piracy continues, only that it’s now even more widely distributed than before, making enforcement that much more impossible (much like Mickey Mouse and the brooms in Fantasia).

Now people will complain that this means that content creators such as musicians, authors, and filmmakers will go bankrupt because they won’t be able to make money. This is far from the truth for several reasons. To quote Chris Anderson, author of the book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price”, you have to move away from what’s abundant to what’s scarce.

As an aspiring musician, my music will be so easily copied that it makes no sense for me to monetize it (in fact, I plan to either offer it for free or on a “pay-what-you-want” basis). I will instead monetize what’s truly scarce: myself and my merchandise, namely by touring for pay and selling merchandise to willing fans. In fact, most musicians under both the old and new systems made/make their money this way, since this is where the money’s at.

What about authors you ask? Book tours, seminars, and giving talks for pay are an option. If you have something good to say and you’re an expert in a field, people will pay a premium to get to see you talk about your subject in person. Into fiction? Do readings, book signings, and the like.

And filmmakers? Theaters are still viable, especially the smaller venues.

In the end this all boils down to one thing: The once-scarce-but-now-abundant item you used to monetize (your media) has instead become the marketing for the thing you can monetize (whatever the scarcity is). I don’t know what all those scarcities are, but if you truly want to make it work, find that scarcity and exploit it. Don’t believe me? The TED seminars, for example, cost $6,000 to attend, but videos of the different speeches are put on YouTube for free. A suicidal recipe? To traditionalists, perhaps, until you consider that actually attending the talks gives you unfettered access to the best minds in technology, business, the arts, politics, etc. while the videos only give you the talks themselves, not the chit chat in the lobby after the seminar. TED seminars regularly sell-out and the prices to attend keep rising.

Oh and one other thing: USE PIRACY TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!!! Since it can’t be stopped, EMBRACE IT. Every time somebody pirates something of yours, you are getting free exposure and marketing, the very lifeblood of any artist’s career. This doesn’t make it moral, but since it can’t be stopped, you might as well move with the flow. I know some will say that you’re earning less money as an artist, that you’re condoning evil, etc. But these things fail to recognize the sheer “unstoppability” of piracy, and the fact that fighting it is a losing battle (and constantly proven to be). Don’t believe me? Look at all the rappers and hip hop artists that pirate their own music to raise their profile, get new fans, create buzz about a new album, etc. I’m just trying to be realistic about the situation.

Digressing, I want to address how some here have said that the music, film, and video game markets are collapsing. Wrong. The old guard are dying because they failed to adapt, but not ordinary musicians, filmmakers, and other creative types. I point to a recent study titled “The Sky is Rising” that looked into the effects that abundant digital media had on artists. I quote:

For years now, the legacy entertainment industry has been predicting its own demise, claiming that the rise of technology, by enabling easy duplication and sharing – and thus copyright infringement – is destroying their bottom line. If left unchecked, they say, it is not only they that will suffer, but also the content creators, who will be deprived of a means to make a living. And, with artists lacking an incentive to create, no more art will be produced, starving our culture. While it seems obvious to many that this could not possibly be true, since creators and performers of artistic content existed long before the gatekeepers ever did, we’ve looked into the numbers to get an honest picture of the state of things. What we found is that not only is the sky not falling, as some would have us believe, but it appears that we’re living through an incredible period of abundance and opportunity, with more people producing more content and more money being made than ever before. As it turns out… The Sky Is Rising!

techdirt.com/skyisrising/

For the visual types, here’s an infographic: cdn.techdirt.com/images/theskyisrising.png

Contrary to some points raised here, the removal of barriers isn’t a bad thing and in fact leads to even greater levels of cultural production. We have more art today than ever before, especially from artists that otherwise would have never been able to get published because the old gatekeepers would have decried their work as “unsellable”, “not popular enough”, “garbage”, etc. And how is that a bad thing? What this means is that us creative types must produce better quality work to get noticed. As it’s always been (even more so now) cream rises. Everything else doesn’t.

Yet others said they had a right to distribute their work their way, by their means. While I support this, you also have to remember that there are more options for consumers today than ever before. Because of this, consumers will readily abandon any service that doesn’t meet their needs. So while you may only want to distribute one way, this is basically shooting yourself in the foot as you are limiting your reach and sales potential. Embrace all options and be open to trying things that may violate your sense of what is the best way to distribute.

Some final points: Some stated that the internet is going to become subject to greater levels of control. I respond thusly: Did you see what happened to SOPA and PIPA? What’s happening to ACTA and TPP? SOPA and PIPA were killed when massive numbers of internet users rose up and flooded Congress with calls and emails demanding the bills be stopped. What happened? Both bills are dead. ACTA and TPP sparked massive protests in the countries that considered signing them (or did) and now many of those countries either changed their minds and refuse to sign them, or are now questioning their necessity. The internet is open, and has been moving in that general direction. More control doesn’t seem to be happening, nor is it realistically possible.

This was definitely a long post, but I hope I hit all the points equally. If you wanna know more, I again recommend the book “Free” by Chris Anderson. As the editor of Wired magazine, he understands this stuff in great detail and really thoroughly describes these issues in his book.

There’s a thread in the news forum about this with all the controversy involved. It isn’t as simple a discussion as some would make it out (I’m not referring to your post).

marketwatch.com/story/facebook-leads-shrinking-social-valuations-2012-06-08

Nothing is ever truly free and neither can it be “free and always will be”. Control over most of the internet has always been leveraged through the stockmarkets and like other Media/communication outlets, it will only remain sucessful and “free” so long as Businesses see it as profitable.

The cultural sucess of Social Networks has had little to no bearing to how internet stocks have traditionally performed and sometime in the future there is going to be another smashing “Dot Com Crash”, perhaps it has already begun occuring to the current glut of Social Networking sites out there.

Anyone still remember Myspace?

Very interesting post, Lotus. I’m betting that you’re young; someone in my (geezer-ish) generation probably wouldn’t be so open to change :stuck_out_tongue: You, on the other hand, seem to have your head around this issue pretty well. I think you’re right about “piracy” being the new norm, and I think pretty soon it will no longer be known as piracy. Unfortunately, as with other issues, the legal system is lagging and will continue to lag decades behind reality.

I was a music major in college, and I have always held a minor interest in the history of music. We are so surrounded by music today that we don’t realize that in the olden (pre-Edison) days, the only way to hear a particular piece of music was either to be a proficient musician, so you could play it any time you wanted, or listen to someone else play it live. We have now swung to the opposite end of the spectrum, where the average person is expecting to be able to listen to anything [s]he wants to listen to, whenever [s]he wants. Right now that means either having or being able to download a digital copy of the piece only a device, but in the near future I expect that it will mean simply accessing the piece on the “cloud” is the same way that we used to listen to songs on the radio.

Turning specifically to Christian music, in my pre-Catholic days I was well acquainted with Russian Baptists, and then later Arab Baptists. In both communities poets and musicians did not market their material like American Christian musicians do; they put it out for free, without copyright, as something to bless and inspire their readers/listeners. Would that American Christian musicians felt the same way.

Most statements made here are incorrect and illogical. I work for a media company. I am in charge of market research, and I have access to information that the average person does not see, is not made aware of or dismissed without analysis. The date on the calendar and new technology do not mean any fundamental changes have occurred.

  1. More control is happening. The FBI tells us billions of dollars are being lost.

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr

The U.S. Department of Justice is aware of this as well, and is acting on a global scale.

justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/

There are companies actively involved in anti-piracy work.

discfarm.com/cdsa.htm

The Entertainment Software Association has a global anti-piracy effort in place.

theesa.com/policy/antipiracy.asp

The Copyright Alert System will go into effect soon.

copyrightinformation.org/alerts

So, in summary, no matter what creative business you’re in - billions of dollars are being lost.

  1. Organized crime. You put one bunch behind bars and another pops up. Should we end all law enforcement efforts because it will continue to happen?

  2. I specialize in the book trade. Problem number one is a certain internet company that is pricing digital books so low that no one can make any money off them. They are acting to restrain competition. A few of the big six publishers have refused to sign their new contract. Also, a major brick and mortar retail chain is refusing to sell one of their e-readers.

nytimes.com/2012/05/03/business/after-warning-amazon-about-sales-tactics-target-will-stop-selling-kindles.html

  1. The e-book market and POD market are being flooded with books that my company rejects on a regular basis. More, does not mean better.

  2. Even if any book or piece of music is available at 99 cents each. Do people have more time to read them or listen to them? The answer is no. I predict a collapse of the e-book market by a significant percentage.

  3. I am offering a simple solution. You select the product, you select the device and it goes to that device only. Any attempt to crack copy protection, or port it to another device, will be detected and the content will automatically erase itself.

To everyone. This is stealing - a new form of stealing. It is unjust, illegal and immoral. Companies are being denied revenues that are rightfully theirs, it is illegal, and it is a denial of their right to distribute their work - which cost a lot of time and effort and money to produce - their way.

Peace,
Ed

My point exactly. These are the same bricks and mortar companies that are really the lifeblood of internet trading and prop up stores such as Amazon and also Ebay. If their profit margins are significantly damaged, the “freedom” enjoyed by internet users will be significantly reformed. The internet remains “free” so long as these companies can make big bucks out of it.

It’s worse than stealing, it’s Piracy.

Except the idea of stealing an idea is something of a man-made invention. It wasn’t even regarded as theft until the modern age. Stealing corn or someone’s horse was obviously theft. Using someone else’s ideas and inventions were not necessarily considered theft. Today, that has changed and the internet has made us revisit the this theoretical issue. It gets complicated and ugly because we do want to encourage invention, but it isn’t as cut and dry as “it’s stealing”. While it is wrong for someone to take another’s work without payment it is equally wrong for people to restrict the usage of their product (DRM) after money has been paid.

“wrong”? Can you explain that? In a court of law, you have to show damages. If you got the product you paid for then why are you complaining? The owner/producer of the product has rights as to how it will be distributed. Period. If the company paid a lot of money to produce the product and adds copy protection, how are you harmed?

There’s nothing modern about the modern age. Using someone else’s and ideas and inventions is theft:

"At that same time, in England, Guglielmo Marconi was working on a device for wireless telegraphy that he patented in 1896. Marconi set up a demonstration a little later, using a Tesla oscillator to transmit his signals across the English Channel.

"Tesla finally filed his radio patent applications in 1897, but they weren’t granted until 1900. Marconi’s first American patent was filed in November of 1900 and turned down. For three years Marconi continued to try again and again, but in 1903, the patent office, turning it down commented:

“Many of the claims are not patentable over Tesla patent numbers 645,576 and 649,621, of record, the amendment to overcome said references as well as Marconi’s pretended ignorance of the nature of a “Tesla oscillator” being little short of absurd… the term “Tesla oscillator” has become a household word on both continents [Europe and North America].”

"Both Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie, invested in Marconi and Edison became a consulting engineer of “American Marconi” and in December of 1901, Marconi successfully transmitted and received radio signals across the Atlantic Ocean.

"An engineer working for Tesla commented: “Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you.” Tesla replied: “Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.”

"Reversing its decision in 1904, the patent office did finally give Marconi a patent for the invention of the radio without an explanation. It’s speculated that the powerful financial backing that Marconi received in the US was a catalyst for this reversal.

"Marconi was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1911; Tesla was livid, but he had been dealing with too many distracting problems up to that point. He did sue the Marconi company in 1915 for infringement, but wasn’t in the financial position to continue litigation

“Throughout his lifetime, he was granted more than 100 patents and still had many unpatented inventions upon his death on January 7, 1943. A few months after his death, the U.S. Supreme Court did uphold Tesla’s radio patent number 645,576. Supposedly the US Patent Office was being sued by the Marconi Company, at that time, for the use of its patents during World War I. Restoring the patent rights back to Tesla allowed the Supreme Court to avoid the Marconi lawsuit.”

Peace,
Ed

I think you raise some interesting points in the OP.

I am not one to condone piracy (why should other people get for free what I pay for? :p), but part of me thinks that your onto something about needing to overhaul the system. It seems like we’re trying to force-fit the current situation into an antiquated way of doing things.

Anecdotally, I would say I don’t quite buy into the idea that the entertainment industry is “losing” billions of dollars. Growing up, we rented the occassional VHS tape and bought the occassional cassette, but generally we were restricted to watching what was on TV or listening to what was on the radio. If we wanted to listen to a specific song, we had to call the radio station and request it. Now, I can go to Amazon or iTunes and download it for $.99.

Certainly, there are more people nowadays that are getting these materials for free because of piracy. But I would be very surprised if there were not also more people paying for these things because electronic digital media makes it that much easier to impulse buy such items.

Again, I don’t condone piracy, but I’m always interested to hear other perspectives on the issue of copyright. It is interesting to me.

All of your examples are modern inventions 20th century on. I was referring to the time before patents began to take shape. Ironically, your little story there about Tesla just goes to demonstrate how absurdly complex and legalesed the whole patent situation is. According to that story, only Tesla’s good will allowed this Marconi fellow to transmit radio waves across the ocean. Had Tesla been able to rigidly control his own inventions, Marconi might never have done that, and society would not have benefited. Then your story implies that financial bribery and influence controls our copyright situation. I agree. The whole system is just not defensible or even remotely sane.

As to your questions, I am harmed because the copyright protection prevents me from backing up the information I paid for in case the disc or file gets fried. If I buy a movie online, I should be able to make a spare copy someplace in case the file gets corrupted or deleted. I shouldn’t be able to sell it or anything. No theft involved. I paid for the file; it’s mine for my personal use.

I am also harmed by having to click okay on EULA’s that are as long as they are incomprehensible to regular educated folks. Written in legalese and laced with malice and CYA, these agreements are really just a form of deception not unlike the laws passed in Congress with all their hidden goodies. The normal remedy for that would be to try a product that does not have them or is clear; that remedy does not exist because nearly all these products employ these tactics.

Perhaps this is not inline with the type of reflection the OP was looking for (and if that’s the case, then just ignore my post), but one of the things that concerns me about copyright is the commodification of intellectual property more or less in perpetuity.

I know Mickey Mouse gets picked on a lot, in these debates but he’s a useful example. You’re talking about a character created by a guy who died almost 50 years ago. And who controls the character? A multi-billion dollar international corporation. And if they had their way, this exclusive control would remain in their hands indefinitely.

I’m just trying to imagine if copyright laws were always as they are now. The Shakespeare Corporation would be earning a $1,000 licensing fee every time a high school wants to perform “Romeo and Juliet” (which would have to come out of their meager ticket sales). And for what? Because they had the good fortune to purchase the exclusive rights from Shapespeare’s descendants in a billion dollar transaction.

Obviously, the rights of the artist need to be respected. There’s little motivation to create if the fruit of years of labor gets uploaded to the internet overnight and disseminated for free while you don’t see any reward. I don’t have the solution to be sure. But I think there is room for some out-of-the-box thinking in this area.

Then take appropriate legal action. Why complain here? You are not harmed since the the creator/producer retains the right to distribute his creation, made with his money, the way he chooses.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Joe,

There is zero room for any out of the box thinking. It boils down to a few self-serving arguments.

Mickey Mouse - a billion dollars. Obviously, that’s too much money. So, Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain now so somebody else can make some money off it.

Here are the things we do and pay for to get one book done.

Cover artist submits sketches, one gets approved.
Cover artist submits at least three color roughs, one gets approved.
We get the final art and cover artist gets paid.
The Art Director assembles the text for the front and back cover, right down to picking the color and font for the logo. He gets paid too.
The interior art gets assigned.
The interior artists submit their work for approval. And they get paid.
We have three editors - who get paid. And a proofreader. Who gets paid.
And the author gets paid.
The printer gets paid.
Or the person who produces a digital version gets paid.

Believe it or not, the Book Trade has only one message for pirates - it will get worse.

Don’t like copyright law as written? Complaining here won’t solve anything. Do something.

And copy protection? It will always be there, because most companies are not the size of Disney. And some people don’t get that. A few believe we want to cheat them out of something. We don’t do PDFs so they can be pirated to any device you own. People need to get that right now.

For a lot of companies, surviving means we sell 10,000 digital copies, not 3,000. Why? Because then we can’t pay people. We don’t make our book available for download to any other device because of that and that’s true of most publishers out there today. That’s not anecdotal. I get this straight from the Book Trade.

Let’s look at it another way. You - anybody reading this - create the next Star Wars and make a billion dollars, are you (A) going to stop and tell the world: “I made my billion, so now my Star Wars is available to everybody! Make your own books, toys, whatever, I don’t care.”?

That’s what’s going on. If I create the next Star Wars and die at age 60, you better believe I’m going to leave the rights to my work to my heirs or assigns (a fancy word that means I can will the rights to another company or a total stranger.)

But the only argument I’m hearing is: It’s Insane, TOTALLY INSANE. Yeah, so? Do something if you don’t like it.

And if your device fries your digital book, how is that my fault? Somebody stole my Nook or I left it in a hot car and it zapped my files.

And Joe, you tell me how anybody is harmed if I owned Mickey Mouse in perpetuity.

Peace,
Ed

Coke-Cola was invented by Dr. John Pemberton, and he died in 1888…

and who controls the product’s recipe? “A multi-billion dollar international corporation. And if they had their way, this exclusive control would remain in their hands indefinitely.”

And they don’t even make it to the original recipe anymore…(partly because it would be illegal to do so, because it contained cocaine, that’s not an Urban Legend, it’s FACT).

I do think there is a morality issue there, but sooner or later SOME recipies and works should indeed become public domain in order to fight against corporate monopolies. At the same time corporations DO have a right to guard their intellectual property and fight to keep it under their control so long as it remains profitable. I just think some companies take that to extremes, but still that doesn’t make it right to breach copyright laws that allow the person to believe they own the materials, because theft is stealing from someone who believes they have a just right to consider that they own the goods that you are coverting.

Personally I’m supporting online actions against Disney, because as custodians of the copyright they are supressing one of my favourite Disney films, Song of The South. The only way that film can currently be viewed widely is illegally on the internet and Disney have refused to rerelease it(believing people will mistake the time in which it is set, it’s set AFTER the civil war, not before it). However from what I’ve heard they are now keeping it on ice until the 20th anniversary of the opening of Splash Mountain, which is also the 80th anniversary of the release of the film, at which time they will probably finally release it again on video, potentially with a disclaimer saying it’s set after the end of Slavery and “was made in a diffrent time period with diffrent sentiments”. It’s one thing to make cash out of a copyright, it’s another thing use that control to censure elements of the original work that you didn’t like.

But as I said, the news is there has been “more than talk” over a release, as after all eventually they have to wake up to the fact one of their most popular rides is based on the film they refuse to release!

Good to see you’re open-minded, Ed. :wink:

I don’t see how it hurts to at least talk about other options. Copyright law is not divinely inspired writ. Therefore, there is room for improvement. If we cannot even enter into a conversation about it without being slapped down as some sort of self-serving pirate vigilantes, what hope is there for coming up with just solutions that honor the artists and serve the common good?

Obviously, you have spent more time thinking of these things than I have and are quite a bit more passionate about it. I think you misunderstand my intent in posting. I fully realize that a discussion of CAF is not the proper venue for effecting change in this area. If that was my goal, I would pursue those avenues. That is not my goal. If I came across as griping, I apologize. That was not my intent. This is just something I like to think about from time to time. I am not pretending to have all the answers. I know I don’t have all the answers and I know that I don’t see all sides, nor am I competent enough in this area to articulate meaningful solutions. That’s the whole reason I like participating in these threads: so that I can learn.

Yes, there is always room for new ideas, and I am always free to come up with the next Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, or Harry Potter. But to see the value of creative works entering the public domain, one need look no further than Disney itself. Disney has itself profited handsomely from works that are in the public domain. Iconic films like Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc., etc. are all based on stories and characters that are in the public domain. And yet Disney made those stories their own, so much so that most people associate those stories exclusively with Disney. And, I for one am glad that they had the opportunity to create these works.

I’m certainly not advocating that everything become public domain upon the moment it is published, or even necessarily within the lifetime of the author. Perhaps the law as it is now is the best way to go about it. For all I know, it is. But it’s difficult to take your arguments seriously when you seem to have no appreciation whatsoever for the value of works entering the public domain. There are countless classic works that are derivative of some prior characters or story. To act as though the only purpose of works entering the public domain would be so that unoriginal hacks can freely publish and make money off of their subpar fan fiction is insulting to those many creative works. If your best argument in defense of copyright laws is to effectively say “Come up with your own story”, then it makes me question current copyright law that much more.

And again, I’m not articulating solutions as though I’ve already reached the end of my thought journey on this topic. I’m not chomping at the bit to pirate a bunch of media (and I’m a firm proponent of following the law as it stands in that regard). But I think we can at least entertain alternate viewpoints on the topic. There is no need to assume that the only reasons a person could possibly have for questioning the status quo is to either get a bunch of free stuff or to make money off of someone else’s labor. I know there are people out there that are motivated by such things, but I am not one of them.

(I don’t really feel personally invested in whether or not Mickey Mouse is in the public domain. It’s not like I’m biding my time to release my very own Mickey Mouse cartoon. I just use him as a useful example because there are not many characters/stories older than him that are not public domain.)

It is interesting to see that 10 years and 1 day ago the US congress recognized that Alex Graham Bell was not the inventor of the telephone as people like to think, and an empire was built out of it. In January 1887, Bell’s patent came into question in court and a move to annul the patent was issued on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The case was discontinued as moot when Meucci died in October 1889 and the Bell patent was set to expire in January 1893. Nothing financial as been done to fix this historical fraud. Today there are several big technological companies that are patent trolls and their behaviors show that IP is not real property and that the whole copyright/patent system is flawed.

Copyright/patent violation is not theft, it is illegal and thus it is also immoral. I think that people like to use the term theft as appeal to emotion only to push their own agenda.

If we are honest about intellectual property then we should ask why the authors are in need to sue the RIAA partners to get money from the licenses [e.g. Dr. Dre (VS Death Row Records), Peter Frampton (VS A&M Records), Kenny Rogers (VS EMI), Eminem (VS Universal Music Group), Courtney Love (VS Universal Music Group)]. We should also ask why the RIAA does not share the money collected from the “pirating” lawsuits with the authors of the pirated material (e.g. Limewire case)?

What about very underground music from dj’s/producers who can care less about you downloading for free?

The majority of the time Copyright violation is REALLY theft. It has, in the case of new release films, usually initially involved the physical stealing/theft of the physical product(usually of advanced Screener “courtsey” copies sent to the Studio/distributor’s agents or press or critics or heads of cinema chains) against the distributers strict rules, digitization(if the person sent the screener is the same one intending to leak it, this is the stage where the “unauthorized illegal duplication”, or Theft, occurs) and subsiquent leaking of materials(usually on the internet these days or though the black markets for illegal profit).

Illegal filming in the cinema is also still an avenue by which films are illegally copied(stolen), but in the age of the internet, leaked/stolen Screener copies with perfect picture quality has argubally become the standard.

And I have the right to use that product as I see fit as long as I don’t make money off it, give a copy away, or take credit.

Take appropriate legal action? Good luck with that. As any commoner knows, that process is as morally bankrupting as it bankrupts your wallet, and no politician is willing to touch it. We live in increasingly corrupt society; I want the internet to remain as free as possible for as long as possible. Eventually, it will be choked, and it will be done based on these kinds of arguments about theft and so forth. No thanks.

These types of laws and movements serve to stifle creativity and the free flow of information. No thanks. I’m all for rewarding inventors but not at the cost of consumer liberty. For years, that balance was tilted heavily in favor of companies and we consumers had few choices. The internet broke the spines of those powerbrokers and rightly so. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their controls (i.e. forcing you to buy a whole album for one good song).

Until corporations and the government decide to have a serious conversation about drastically reforming, standardizing, and making our copyright laws simple and fair, I have no intention of supporting any of these anti-consumer moves. Fix the system first. Don’t stick it to the little guy first.

Then don’t download it or post it up for download, because you are breeching the second part of that statement! Simple as that!

Other internet pirates WILL make money off it(by downloading, and then burning to disk for sale on the Black Market)) AND take credit(some will even go to great lengths to present it as “the real thing” by copying the menu, the case and even the printing on the disk, in fairly high quality), so naturally internet piracy in all forms must be fought by the companies looking to protect their copyright and ALSO to stop leaks of screener copies.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.