SOPA is at it again

[s_stabeler]

Andara, I'm not accepting any bullshit either. The sites that offer downloads usually offer an incentive scheme. I'm not going to go into details, but I know of at least one person, who uploaded the latest stuff to these sites, that got an average of $500 per month. it certainly seems reasonable, since 1000 downloads per link is probably a conservative estimate. That's $20 per link. that's $80 per month, assuming they upload new stuff each week. When you consider that they usually upload the new albums as well as the entire Top 40? that's $80X6 ( usually there's 4 or 5 new albums in the Top 40) which means $480 per month. When you consider some get more downloads than that, it's reasonable to assume they earn a fair amount of money. Ergo, barring Bittorrent, ALL of these assholes are earning money.

I will admit that downloading may as well be ignored, but I fail to see why content creators should ignore the rampant piracy on the internet, considering that these assholes are profiting off of somebody else's work. ( and before somebody asks what content distributors do- they pay the distribution costs. ergo, the profit is on manufacture and distribution)

[Nekojin]

Anecdotes are not evidence. This quote:

I'm not going to go into details, but I know of at least one person, who uploaded the latest stuff to these sites, that got an average of $500 per month.

...is far from a common occurrence. Even among people who do use sites like that, most people don't see even so much as $10 per month out of it. So I seriously doubt that you "know of at least one person" who's clearing more than a part-time job at it. Furthermore, you're handwaving numbers, making assumptions (several times!) and using those numbers to "legitimize" your argument.

Your entire post is smoke and mirrors, not evidence of anything.

[s_stabeler]

the 1000 downloads? I used to be employed by an anti-piracy department, and that was an average of the number of downloads per link I saw. the $20? was the average amount these sites paid for 1000 downloads.

the $500 per month was what the guy in question was claiming to get, by the way.

so no, I was not merely making assumptions, albeit my post was backed up by personal experience, so I can see how it would look that way. The one assumption I did make was that most people make significant amounts- it is true I can only be sure of one. However, the assumption is based on seeing the same names come up as the uploader of links time and time again. The more links someone uploads, the more they make. Therefore, the assumption is that most links are put up by someone earning a fair amount of money from the total number of their links, especially when you realize that some upload to as many as 10 sites.

I should clarify that what i have a serious problem with is people who upload music/games/whatever for anyone to download when they did not create it. If it is merely someone sending something over e-mail or similar to a friend? then I don't much care. but when it is more-or-less organised piracy? I care.

[Andara Bledin]

When it's organized piracy? Throw the book at them.

But we've already got a book to throw. Why do we need a new one?

[Nekojin]

the 1000 downloads? I used to be employed by an anti-piracy department, and that was an average of the number of downloads per link I saw. the $20? was the average amount these sites paid for 1000 downloads.

the $500 per month was what the guy in question was claiming to get, by the way.

How long ago was this? I'd be astonished if any sites offered payments like this any time in the past five years. Possibly ten.

so no, I was not merely making assumptions, albeit my post was backed up by personal experience, so I can see how it would look that way. The one assumption I did make was that most people make significant amounts- it is true I can only be sure of one. However, the assumption is based on seeing the same names come up as the uploader of links time and time again. The more links someone uploads, the more they make. Therefore, the assumption is that most links are put up by someone earning a fair amount of money from the total number of their links, especially when you realize that some upload to as many as 10 sites.

You use the word "assuming" while crafting your narrative. You make several blatant assumptions. Here, let me make it clear:

it certainly seems reasonable, since 1000 downloads per link is probably a conservative estimate. That's $20 per link. that's $80 per month, assuming they upload new stuff each week. When you consider that they usually upload the new albums as well as the entire Top 40? that's $80X6 ( usually there's 4 or 5 new albums in the Top 40) which means $480 per month. When you consider some get more downloads than that, it's reasonable to assume they earn a fair amount of money.

You're creating numbers from whole cloth, with nothing more than your anecdotal experience here.

I should clarify that what i have a serious problem with is people who upload music/games/whatever for anyone to download when they did not create it. If it is merely someone sending something over e-mail or similar to a friend? then I don't much care. but when it is more-or-less organised piracy? I care.

See, I have no problem discussing piracy as piracy, but you've been banging the drum against casual/petty infringement up until now as well, and now you're backing down against the petty infringement angle.

From the perspective of the average person, there's not much of a difference between hearing a song on the radio (costs nothing, completely legal), listening to it on GrooveShark or Pandora (costs nothing, completely legal), and downloading it from a download locker site (costs nothing, arguably a civil infringement*). Movies are somewhat less so, since there are fewer sources for free enjoyment , and games even less so.

I still stand by Gabe Newell's statement that the people who download games without paying them are underserved customers. Services like GrooveShark, Netflix, Redbox, and Steam make it far easier for people to enjoy their media without much cost, which will naturally reduce the people who download because of monetary concerns.

* The laws, as written, make the person who provides the file the infringer; it's questionable whether the downloaders are actually infringing at all. This is consistent with bootlegging laws; someone selling a bootleg Nirvana CD (or even a fake Gucci bag) is the one breaking the law, not the person who buys it (regardless of the price). This, of course, gets considerably muddier when talking about torrents.

[kamn]

the 1000 downloads? I used to be employed by an anti-piracy department, and that was an average of the number of downloads per link I saw. the $20? was the average amount these sites paid for 1000 downloads.

How long ago was this? I remember this being around 10-something years ago, but since bittorrent and similar sites popped up, I highly doubt they still exist in any real numbers. There are sites that will kick you out if you don't upload or share downloaded content to a certain ratio, that could be argued in this manner, but no one gains a cent from them (except possibly the owners, for ads).

[Andara Bledin]

Services like GrooveShark, Netflix, Redbox, and Steam make it far easier for people to enjoy their media without much cost, which will naturally reduce the people who download because of monetary concerns.

Don't forget the massive percentage of infringers who live in places where the content isn't even available at all, except through infringement. A recent story about a game (overpriced and kind of crappy - I won't ever be playing it) where they had a few hundred actual sales on the app store and then thousands of downloads, the vast majority (somewhere between 80 and 90%) of which were from China and Russia, which are places where zero sales are lost because there is no way to legally acquire it.

Underserved and outright ignored markets are the cause of the vast majority of copyright infringement. And, to a lesser degree, you run into this same issue with media that's released in one place significantly earlier than another. It's a global ecosystem, now, and there's really no excuse (beyond the honest technical ones, such as dubbing or subbing) not to release for all markets at nearly the same time. I mean, really, what legitimate excuse is there to release in the UK 2 weeks before the US and one month before Australasia?

[s_stabeler]

It wasn't whole cloth, but i already admitted it was based off my own experience.can you PLEASE stop banging on about it?

now, let me clarify something. To me, petty infringement is when your mate gives you a copy of a track he owns. THAT it is pointless to go after. To get stuff removed where it if offered for free download to everyone on the net? is NOT petty infringement. ( and yes, if it's uploaded to a site without it being publicly available, it comes under petty infringement)

as for why a new book is needed? first, the DMCA doesn't really help when sites ignore DMCA notices ( like The Pirate Bay) and there is no method of enforcing such. Do I agree with SOPA? No. I DO, however, agree that a method for removing a site from the internet IS a good idea. ( The way I see it, it should be difficult. But if a site has repeatedly outright refused to obey valid DMCA notices, then yes, that site should be forced off the net.)

oh, and I'm not sure Grooveshark IS legal- IIRC they are unlicensed for at least some of what they have on there.

as for underserved customers- I happen to agree. However, legal services have to fight against piracy ( I will admit to not knowing exact figures) and I think that is unacceptable.

[Andara Bledin]

So, you think that being able to remove an entire domain from the Internet before any proof is required is a good idea?

Most of these bills are draconian, overbearing, and utterly insane reactions to a problem that exists because of reasons that are often the fault of those providing the content and could be fixed by them if they would only let go of the deathgrip they have on 20th century distribution and would move into this millennium.

The DMCA is horrifically broken, and even the legislature admits to this fact, and yet, not even they can manage to change it to stop the chain of unintended consequences. The idea of adding even more broken legislation on top of that which we already have should be abhorrent.

[s_stabeler]

reread my post. I said I disagreed with SOPA, but not with the idea of forcing a site off the net if it is deliberately ignoring DMCA notices. As it happens, I agree that it should require proof, and overwhelming proof, at that. ( to me, it should require proof that a site is routinely ignoring valid DMCA notices)

Is the DMCA broken? probably. However, the majority of the issues are DMCA notices being sent when the situation isn't even covered by the DMCA.

[Nekojin]

reread my post. I said I disagreed with SOPA, but not with the idea of forcing a site off the net if it is deliberately ignoring DMCA notices. As it happens, I agree that it should require proof, and overwhelming proof, at that. ( to me, it should require proof that a site is routinely ignoring valid DMCA notices)

Is the DMCA broken? probably. However, the majority of the issues are DMCA notices being sent when the situation isn't even covered by the DMCA.

Which is a major problem - DMCA takedowns are being used to stifle legitimate speech, and the way DMCA is written, the takedown is presumed to be in good faith, and the person receiving the takedown is presumed to be infringing - and the host must take it down, period. It's utterly bogus, and yet there's little interest in fixing this egregious problem.

When companies are using DMCA takedowns as a response to valid criticisms of them and their products (to squash any negative press), I'd say that's a pretty clear sign that it's a bad law.

Overall, IP law and enforcement has been getting tighter and tighter, with longer durations for *handwave* reasons. The logic being used isn't logic, it's "Think of the creators!" in an unconscious mimicry of the "think of the children" appeals to emotion. But the laws haven't been about improving the creators' lives except tangentially - they've been about improving corporate profits. Fair Use and the First Sale Doctrine are being chipped away presently... once they're gone, what's left?

There are a lot of different issues going on with IP law, and trying to touch on just one bad element in a thread like this is like throwing a cup of water at a burning house.

[s_stabeler]

Oh, I don't deny the DMCA has issues, but what actually needs to happen to fix the law is simpler than wholesale changing of it: make it illegal to file a bad faith DMCA notice. introduce some hefty penalties for abuse of the DMCA, ad the problems will clear up pretty quickly.

( the reason i recommend not touching the must take it down quickly provisioni s that in the case of music, waiting a long time for the host to take it down quickly makes it an excercise in futility, since any effect on the sales of the song has long since occured)

oh, and I don't disagree that IP law is too lomg. Personally, I would drop "life of creator plus" from the law, and make it a simple 50 year term. (yes, it's still quite long, but you could shorten it later. To be honest, I'm an advocate of having IP provisions tied to the product lifecycle- i.e. if the item is no longer commercially viable, strip copyright from it.)

[Andara Bledin]

the reason i recommend not touching the must take it down quickly provisioni s that in the case of music, waiting a long time for the host to take it down quickly makes it an excercise in futility, since any effect on the sales of the song has long since occured

And what are those effects? Do you have any scientifically sound data to back up the assertion that having a song available to be downloaded has a deleterious effect on sales of that same song?

[Nekojin]

Oh, I don't deny the DMCA has issues, but what actually needs to happen to fix the law is simpler than wholesale changing of it: make it illegal to file a bad faith DMCA notice. introduce some hefty penalties for abuse of the DMCA, ad the problems will clear up pretty quickly.

( the reason i recommend not touching the must take it down quickly provisioni s that in the case of music, waiting a long time for the host to take it down quickly makes it an excercise in futility, since any effect on the sales of the song has long since occured)

There's already penalties for bad faith DMCA notices. The problem is that it's functionally impossible to enforce - "bad faith" is not a strict legal term, and timeliness is just as important for both sides.

Hypothetical situation (And note that this isn't hand-wavy - this scenario has already happened at least once that I'm aware of): Game X is released. Company ZZ, which makes Game X, has had an embargo on previews of the game, because it sucks purple monkey wang, so the only exposure that anyone has is their glowing advertisements and press releases. Reviewer Pi gets a copy on release night, and writes a scathing review, posting it online. ZZ's automated system sends a DMCA takedown notice thirty seconds after Pi's review hits the web, and Pi's host has scripts that automatically handle DMCA takedowns, and scan high-profile review sites constantly. Pi's review is gone less than a minute after it was released (along with many other reviews on high-profile reviewing sites). Pi files a counter-claim, and a week later, ZZ finally relents, saying, "Oh, it was just a mistake." You can't prove malice, but the value of Pi's review is already greatly diminished - the key video game buying window is the first week, and that's already past, allowing X to make huge sales before word of its suckitude filters out adequately.

What's the remedy here? The company is given the benefit of the doubt for having made a good-faith filing, and there's no way to prove otherwise. It's not worth the cost for the reviewer or the review site to file a lawsuit - even if they could prevail, it's hard to prove damages for this.

oh, and I don't disagree that IP law is too lomg. Personally, I would drop "life of creator plus" from the law, and make it a simple 50 year term. (yes, it's still quite long, but you could shorten it later. To be honest, I'm an advocate of having IP provisions tied to the product lifecycle- i.e. if the item is no longer commercially viable, strip copyright from it.)

The problem with shortening copyright duration is that there's significant pushback from IP holders whose work would immediately lapse as a result of the shortening. As a result, IP duration has a ratcheting effect - getting ever-longer, but very, very difficult to shorten.

I agree with you on commercial duration, but you can't make it vague; if you do, companies will do the bare minimum necessary to retain the IP so that they can control (and litigate) derivative works. It's better to have a licensing-and-renewal system with gradually increasing costs; sooner or later, it's not going to be financially viable to renew something yet again.

[s_stabeler]

And what are those effects? Do you have any scientifically sound data to back up the assertion that having a song available to be downloaded has a deleterious effect on sales of that same song?

a) I'm not necessarily saying the effect is deletrious. I'm saying it's major.
b) the last time that a site was blocked ( I can't remember the site name) there was a significant increase in the usage of legal alternatives. ( I can't remember the exact percentages, nor can i back it up, but I recall the percentage being over 50%)

Nekojin, damages are difficult to prove. that's why I suggest fines which are designed to punish. In other words, require (say) $1k per notice that is sent maliciously, and it'll cut down on some of the crap. Plus clarify what is meant by bad faith.