• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Good news for you copyright hounds!

Flint said:
................I don't disagree, but I know that most of the "big fish," as you call them, are extremely tech savvy and know how to hide themselves very well while still putting out pirated content..............
Click to expand...


Yet, the above article showed how Slysoft and DVDFab are pretty much hanging it up. If those guys (also tech savvy) could be forced to throw in the towel, then I would think going after the big fish that makes it harder for honest people their fair use rights shouldn't be anymore difficult for the media providers.
 
Haywood said:
No. I'm saying that sufficient punitive damages applied across enough culprits would raise the risk to an unacceptable level and dry up supply.
Click to expand...


I agree. Look how well that's worked for illegal drug use and speeding!
 
I am not a believer in the idea that it is okay to violate the rights of law abiding citizens in order to make it easier to catch criminals. The DMCA destroyed Fair Use and consumer rights along with it.
 
I don't recall anything in the constitution about being able to do whatever we want with content being a right. I think you are really stretching on that point.
 
Haywood said:
And I don't think anyone would agree going in to get paid retroactively. Basically what you suggest is media producers forfeit their profits initially (due to piracy) and try to recoup those profits through punitive judgments against those that are caught.
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that sufficient punitive damages applied across enough culprits would raise the risk to an unacceptable level and dry up supply.
Click to expand...

Now Haywood, this is a very simplistic and naïve assumption. You know good and well those that are enterprising enough to pirate media on an 'industrial scale' are not going to stop their lucrative enterprise. They would just adjust their tactics/methods to beat the system in place to stop them.

That's like saying people will stop trafficking drugs if you increase the penalty. We increased the penalties and they just started using children or kidnapping to use as 'mules'.

Criminal activity like this does not go away, it just changes to stay ahead of enforcement. No matter what kind of rule you make there are never any shortage of jackasses out there that will find a way to break it and benefit from that.
 
The general argument here is that preventing piracy is a perfectly good reason to end Fair Use, which I strongly disagree with.
 
Haywood said:
The general argument here is that preventing piracy is a perfectly good reason to end Fair Use, which I strongly disagree with.
Click to expand...

Actually my point is what is a better alternative. And since you keep bringing it up, what is 'Fair Use' and who defines it?
 
Fair use says that what you do with the content in your own home is perfectly fine and the government cannot mess with it. Fair use does not state that content owners cannot make it very hard or impossible by adding DRM to the media you buy. If you can find a way to get to the content on the media, you can do whatever you want with it in your home.
 
Flint said:
.........If you can find a way to get to the content on the media, you can do whatever you want with it in your home.
Click to expand...


That's what I don't understand. If you do find a way, isn't that when the content owners start crying foul?
 
No... They could care less what you do at home. What they cry foul about are people creating apps and tools and giving them to other people which then opens the door for the dumb people to share the content they cracked, or worse, create a pirating subculture of sharing. They really, really, really don't give a crap what you do at home as long as it stays at home.
 
Flint said:
I don't recall anything in the constitution about being able to do whatever we want with content being a right. I think you are really stretching on that point.
Click to expand...

I am talking about historical Fair Use. We have moved from copyright being designed to ensure that authors and such had exclusive rights for a limited period of time to ensure that they could profit from their work to a system of nearly perpetual protection under which consumers have almost no rights at all. Intellectual property rights have completely jumped the shark in this country.
 
I agree in principle, but I also know most of the extensions in copyrights to estates and family members came about NOT to ensure they get paid but more because they want to protect the character of the content. Do we want to have Buddy Holly's voice selling commercial paternity tests or Donald Trump using Beatles songs on the campaign trail?

This is a challenging situation - on the one hand I do think we need to protect the art of the past, but on the other there are too many using those protections to earn money they don't deserve (such as the Happy Birthday song fiasco).
 
Flint said:
I agree in principle, but I also know most of the extensions in copyrights to estates and family members came about NOT to ensure they get paid but more because they want to protect the character of the content. Do we want to have Buddy Holly's voice selling commercial paternity tests or Donald Trump using Beatles songs on the campaign trail?

This is a challenging situation - on the one hand I do think we need to protect the art of the past, but on the other there are too many using those protections to earn money they don't deserve (such as the Happy Birthday song fiasco).
Click to expand...
Given that THE best example is Disney and the extension of copyright protection being kept in step with old Walt's death, and given how essentially ALL of the classic Disney stories were simply remakes of existing classic literature / characters, I find the statement that I've bolded above very tough to swallow!

Disney was able to achieve what they achieved by using stories and characters that had passed into public domain, yet they are the biggest proponent of copyright law extension on the planet now that they've made billions off those same stories and characters.

I believe that the "old" (and still existing in many countries) 50 year protection from date of death was much more than fair to the original "artist" and to expect that society should foot the bill, in perpetuity, through its maintenance of its legal systems, for the enduring benefit of the inheritors of such copyright material, is simply wrong (and a great example of corporate welfare!)

Jeff
 
JeffMackwood said:
Flint said:
I agree in principle, but I also know most of the extensions in copyrights to estates and family members came about NOT to ensure they get paid but more because they want to protect the character of the content. Do we want to have Buddy Holly's voice selling commercial paternity tests or Donald Trump using Beatles songs on the campaign trail?

This is a challenging situation - on the one hand I do think we need to protect the art of the past, but on the other there are too many using those protections to earn money they don't deserve (such as the Happy Birthday song fiasco).
Click to expand...
Given that THE best example is Disney and the extension of copyright protection being kept in step with old Walt's death, and given how essentially ALL of the classic Disney stories were simply remakes of existing classic literature / characters, I find the statement that I've bolded above very tough to swallow!

Disney was able to achieve what they achieved by using stories and characters that had passed into public domain, yet they are the biggest proponent of copyright law extension on the planet now that they've made billions off those same stories and characters.

I believe that the "old" (and still existing in many countries) 50 year protection from date of death was much more than fair to the original "artist" and to expect that society should foot the bill, in perpetuity, through its maintenance of its legal systems, for the enduring benefit of the inheritors of such copyright material, is simply wrong (and a great example of corporate welfare!)

Jeff
Click to expand...

This is one of the biggest problems. Copyright is not longer protecting creativity. It is actively stifling it. Just look at the recent nonsense of suing musicians who release songs that have some resemblance to some other song in the past. Art builds on other art. We are destroying that mainly for the sake of corporate greed.
 
Flint said:
Fair use says that what you do with the content in your own home is perfectly fine and the government cannot mess with it. Fair use does not state that content owners cannot make it very hard or impossible by adding DRM to the media you buy. If you can find a way to get to the content on the media, you can do whatever you want with it in your home.
Click to expand...

The DMCA makes it illegal to crack a copy protection scheme, even if the subsequent use of the material would be covered under fair use. Our government continues to screw us over and over again. Just look at the moratorium on works entering the public domain or the completely insane length of copyright terms. We are very likely to end up with perpetual copyrights by the time the big media conglomerates get done greasing palms in Washington. Fuck these guys and the horse they rode in on.
 
elfstone said:
They are back!!!!!!!

https://forum.redfox.bz/forums/general-chat.12/

Aaaaaaaaargh bitches. Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrgh.
Click to expand...

Can't stop the signal!

Also cannot stop piracy until they solve the problem of piracy being easier and more convenient than legal ownership laden with a million DRM restrictions. It is like this crap with Google, Amazon and Apple creating a world where you cannot play all of the media you own on any device you want. Screw that. I legally own over a thousand movies that I cannot play on Amazon or Apple devices. A lot of my content gets downgraded to SD if I play it on a Windows device. If I pirate something or rip a disc I own, I can play it on any device. Seriously, screw these assholes. I have no sympathy for them at all. DRM must die.
 
Haywood said:
The DMCA makes it illegal to crack a copy protection scheme....
Click to expand...

:!:
Hmmm. Wonder if that law could play in to the (former) Apple vs. FBI battle? :shhh:
 
Asked and answered. It's illegal to do a lot of things without a warrant. The FBI had a warrant however the debate was wether a warrant can compel speech. It's been legally established that writing computer code is speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top