SOPA is at it again

[Nekojin]

You're missing a piece of the puzzle here, Yeti. The bulk of copyright laws (heck, all IP laws) that we have were written before consumer-level infringement was even possible. The laws were written to keep Company B from taking Company A's products, copying them wholesale, slapping their own label on it, and selling at a lower price point than A could have. The entire purpose of existing IP law (including the massive fines) is to be a suitable deterrent/punishment for bootlegging and other corporate profiteering from IP theft. In that context, it makes perfect sense for the IP holder to protect their own rights, just as it's an IP holder's responsibility to enforce their contracts through civil litigation. You don't send police out for breach of contract, you settle it in court.

The current state of affairs has evolved from IP holders being resistant to changing the way things have been done - rather than allow the laws to evolve to cope with the fact that IP infringement is far, far easier than it has ever been, and perhaps make a distinction between bootlegging and petty infringement (or casual infringement), they instead went the other way, and attempted to enforce laws designed with corporations in mind on private individuals. There's some possible headway being made, but until the lawmakers and the lobbyists who pull their strings (and the corporations who pull their strings) wrap their minds around the idea that we can possibly treat private individuals separately from how we treat corporations, we're going to see more Joel Tenenbaums and Jammie Thomas-Rassetts.

We've got two psychological principles working against the idea that people will eventually start abiding copyright law (as well as a few other factors).

First is that the punishments are already beyond what the average citizen can possibly handle. If I were hit with a judgement for $100k, I'm functionally ruined financially. Crank that up to 200k, 500k, 1m, 10m - I'm still functionally ruined, they can't ruin me harder, especially since the US abolished the idea of debtor's prison. So, while increasing the punishments might deter corporate infringement, it does nothing to deter petty infringement.

The second is that unenforced laws not only weaken obedience to that law, it weakens obedience to all laws. If people don't believe that it's likely that a law is going to be enforced at all (or erratically), it reinforces the idea that it can't possibly be enforced against them. Furthermore, a law that's on the books and only whipped out once in a while to generate example cases can result in resentment over unfair targeting, causing people to break not only that law, but other laws as well.

I believe in the general concept of IP law, but I think that it's overdue for a massive overhaul. The idea of stifling, say, 3d printing because it allows for casual patent infringement at the consumer level should be horrifying to anyone. The logical response to that, of course, is that patent law isn't intended to be used against the general public... and yet, that's already happening, thanks to the current state of patent law.

The solution to the massive broadening of copyright and patent lawsuits isn't to push these topics into criminal law. That way lies insanity.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yawn. Are you sure I'm missing things or is it possible you're not reading my posts because I'm disagreeing with you? I can see you enjoy pontificating on the topic which is nice to see, although largely unnecessary. I get it. The current state of the laws is... well nonsensical which I think we both agree on. My criticism which was originally short and without detail fired people up is because it is a criticism of the anti-SOPA side which does nothing to actually address piracy so much as... well, dig their heels in.

There are in fact criminal offenses that occur in relation to this topic, so no the whole thing is not entirely civil but it really depends what we're talking about.

Back to my original point: advance a counterproposal. A counterproposal is not, "copyright needs an overhaul." A counterproposal is an actual bill or legal framework which can be forwarded that delineates how a system should be working. The only criticism I've truly made at this point is that this is exactly what the net, which HATES SOPA fails to do.

Everything after that, it's just spitballing. Yes, I do find it absurd that if your business is IP you are often exposed to massive losses you can't control because the laws aren't there. I'm also not shocked people wouldn't want those laws fixed. Were I prone to overeating or starving, I wouldn't want the free buffet closed either.

[Andara Bledin]

We're not advancing a counter-proposal because it's not necessary.

It's a waste of time, effort, and resources.

And the real answer is an overhaul. Without that, additional legislation is moving backwards.

Oh, yeah, and nice little dig about how all who oppose SOPA and other ridiculous and unnecessary legislation are also committing infringement. Pretty much every IP lockdown apologist trots that out with depressing regularity.

[Nekojin]

Yawn. Are you sure I'm missing things or is it possible you're not reading my posts because I'm disagreeing with you? I can see you enjoy pontificating on the topic which is nice to see, although largely unnecessary. I get it. The current state of the laws is... well nonsensical which I think we both agree on. My criticism which was originally short and without detail fired people up is because it is a criticism of the anti-SOPA side which does nothing to actually address piracy so much as... well, dig their heels in.

There are in fact criminal offenses that occur in relation to this topic, so no the whole thing is not entirely civil but it really depends what we're talking about.

Well, see, there's a problem with your point - and if you're really the attorney you claim to be, you should already see this. If you make it a criminal offense, not only do you have police doing the enforcement, there is no restitution for the original company. Criminal courts don't award damages; all they do is fine people (give money to the government) or jail people; neither of these are beneficial to the IP holders.

Back to my original point: advance a counterproposal. A counterproposal is not, "copyright needs an overhaul." A counterproposal is an actual bill or legal framework which can be forwarded that delineates how a system should be working. The only criticism I've truly made at this point is that this is exactly what the net, which HATES SOPA fails to do.

Everything after that, it's just spitballing. Yes, I do find it absurd that if your business is IP you are often exposed to massive losses you can't control because the laws aren't there. I'm also not shocked people wouldn't want those laws fixed.

You seem to have missed my counterproposal while you were busy with melodramatic eye-rolling. Separate the concepts of corporate infringement and personal infringement. Separate laws, separate punishments.

Were I prone to overeating or starving, I wouldn't want the free buffet closed either.

This is little more than a veiled ad hominem attack, slyly accusing the people opposing SOPA of being infringers.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Let me just start by disambiguate something for the future. The esquire I use in my title is a joke. Oddly I just find the entire name silly. I'm not claiming anything, but I do get why you'd get that impression.

We are two people discussing a point of legal significance, end of story.

And maybe this is what you're missing. I think it should be criminal with centrally administered fines rather than IP enforcement. Were I writing the law, I would make getting caught financially uncomfortable and allow the Ip holder to only collect fair market value in a civil court. We have laws that protect corporations from unreasonable damages and that should go both ways. But let's see that proposal.

I'm tired of seeing "kill SOPA" because that's a label. I need more substance. What is wrong with this current proposal. Advance something better. I don't subsist on directed outrage. It bores me.

As for the dig, you don't have to like it and I don't stand my argument on that as a base, but why should I pretend that most of the people in opposition have never pirated anything or currently pirate even if it's just to see Dr. Who quickly? That feels a bit like lying so we can all feel great about ourselves. I also would say most people opposing speed limits speed. That's about the level of animus you're getting from me as I also speed as do most people on the road. If it colors the debate too much, forget I said it. No apologism is necessary or implied.

[Andara Bledin]

Advance something better.

No. We don't need more of the same only more-so. Enforcement is already uneven and punishments are already ridiculous to the point of people committing suicide over the likely outcomes.

So, tell me again why we need worse?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Suicide is a choice. Being financially imperiled is hardly a groundbreaking phenomenon. That's not an argument against fixing laws rather than an argument for why they should be fixed. When your laws are off, you get uneven enforcement. So no, hand sitting isn't good either.

[Andara Bledin]

So no, hand sitting isn't good either.

So, you admit that writing new, broken laws isn't good.

And, no, handsitting isn't good. But you aren't going to fix the broken laws by writing more of the same.

[s_stabeler]

You don't get to call current laws broken and not say what you would do different. How would YOU prevent piracy, or reduce it from current levels? bear in mind that it has to be able to be quick, since music ( for example) makes most of it's sales within a month or two, so there is no time for a prolonged court case over individual links.

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, I do.

Nevermind the fact that piracy does not equal copyright infringement, and that the type of copyright infringement that the vast majority of everybody who infringes partakes is merely assumed to cause damage. But for every "study" you can find that shows damage, you'll find one that says that the increased exposure turns into more sales.

The year that the RIAA was going after Napster? Where they bitched that they only made 80% of the profit as compared to the year before? They only realeased 75% of the content. An industry insider actually spoke of the fact that they were selling record numbers of older material.

And fuck "quick." Quick is how mistakes are made and lives are ruined.

These laws are solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. Not the way it's being portrayed. Casual infringers are not only not going to go away, but they're not even a new phenomenon. The only difference is that now they're easier to see.

You want to "solve" that "problem?" Make the legitimate experience superior to the infringing experience at a price point that isn't usurious. One of the top-selling computer games in the last decade did so with zero DRM and nothing more than an activation code. That activation code gave the game's purchasers a superior and expanded experience playing the game.

Unlike some of the shitty DRM schemes that actually provide those who choose to do the right thing a worse experience. I shouldn't have to go out and get an ISO for the game I bought and want to play because their "solution" has decided that my computer isn't kosher.

[Nekojin]

To say nothing of the fact that there's really no evidence that petty infringement actually costs sales to begin with.

In 2009, EA released The Sims 3. EA was very vocal about "piracy" costing them money. Despite that, The Sims 3 broke records for the franchise, selling more copies and earning more money than any installment in the franchise ever had. The top-selling game for that quarter among all PC games was The Sims 3. Care to guess what the most "pirated" game was*?

And then, when the fiscal year ended, surprise, EA turned a record profit for the year. Tell me again how all those dirty pirates are harming the bottom line?

We see that in the record industry, too - time after time, when the discussion turns to piracy, the companies moan about how piracy is costing them so much money. Then, surprise! Another record year.

So, before we talk about "solutions" and demands of proposals to "fix the problem," why don't we actually identify what actual problems are being faced, here.

*Hint: This occurs across all media - the most pirated IPs are also, and consistently, the most profitable. Harry Potter, Avengers, Pirates of the Caribbean - all of these are hugely-pirated movies, and yet they still set new records, both for box office ticket sales and home DVD/BR sales.

[TheHuckster]

Do you really think there isn't a reason for a lack of a rampant abundance of pirated copies of Glitter compared to Harry Potter?

The more popular anything is, the more people want it, thus the more people are willing to steal (and buy) it. I'd be willing to bet the number of pirated copies of software is proportional to the number of sales. Assuming a 10% piracy rate across the board, a game that sells 1,000 copies might be pirated 100 times, whereas a game that sells 10,000,000 copies gets pirated 100,000 times.

That's why, despite the great sales and profits, those software companies consider that loss of $5,000,000 (assuming the game was $50 a pop) to be a lost revenue that they wish they could mitigate as much as possible.

I don't think people's lives should be ruined for daring to view a bootleg copy of Star Trek Into Darkness, but I can't fault the producers for getting upset over a black market of bootlegs that translate to millions of dollars in lost revenue. Even if some people were not going to purchase tickets or DVDs even without the bootleg option, or if some people were going to buy the DVD if they liked it enough, I would like to see some numbers of how many people are doing it just because they're cheap and would actually buy the product if they really had no other option.

[Andara Bledin]

That's why, despite the great sales and profits, those software companies consider that loss of $5,000,000 (assuming the game was $50 a pop) to be a lost revenue that they wish they could mitigate as much as possible.

This is, at best, a fantasy. And at worst, it's actually counter to what really happens.

The vast majority of casual infringers will never be a sale. Ever. Some are anarchists, some are just poor, and some don't even care about what they have but are fulfilling some OCD need to have all the things.

And, on the other end of the spectrum, you have a not insignificant portion of the actual buying public that will not buy a pig in a poke. Unless they can try it out first, there will be no sale. And when you look at the cost of some of the software out there and factor in that there are no refunds, I really don't blame them.

[s_stabeler]

Nevermind the fact that piracy does not equal copyright infringement, and that the type of copyright infringement that the vast majority of everybody who infringes partakes is merely assumed to cause damage.

actually, piracy does = copyright infringement. How come? because you are creating a COPY of the work without authorisation. It's as simple as that.

And murderers aren't going to go away, but does that mean you should not do anything about them? YES, there will always be casual infringers. BUT you should still minimise the number of them. PLUS, many of the people who upload these links actually make money off of them. ( if they regularly upload the latest stuff? approx $500 per month)

one final point: piracy is inherently wrong because you aren't paying the CREATOR for what they created, but are still getting the benefit. You are a freeloader.

Oh, and Andra? check your facts next time. Last time a site offering pirated music was forced offline, over half the users of the site went to legit sites afterwards. Thus, a majority of the users of pirate sites would use legit sites if they had no option.

[Andara Bledin]

No, copyright infringement and piracy are not the same thing, legally speaking, and I'm incredibly tired of the press and people who can't be bothered to know the difference keep conflating the two.

Piracy is a form of copyright infringement, but not all copyright infringement is piracy. If you're not making profit from the action, it's not piracy. And the vast majority of copyright infringers are getting no profit other than not paying for the content they're taking, and that, in and of itself, does not constitute piracy.

And, yes, I've actually done research in this field. Mostly because I'm tired of people accepting the bullshit spoon fed to them by the content distributors as fact without any backing data.