Wikipedia blackout

russ_watters

Jimmy was probably making a commentary over the silliness of nitpicking the difference between the two definitions if there is no moral difference.

ginru

The key is that they adapt to the consumers. Goggle acquired Youtube while Apple has iTunes, both popular means of content distribution in a new market where much of the content is user-generated or digitally replicated. In addition, they both made sure to get a firm grip on the smartphone app markets as again, this is where consumers are shifting.

Businesses that stick to old, one-dimensional models (like Blockbuster and Borders) will struggle in this new market. Another thing to mention is that the content itself isn't really what has the value but rather it's the fan culture around that content. For example, when I dropped my cable TV, I realized that I didn't actually miss any of the shows I was once addicted to but I did miss the water-cooler chat about those shows. I no longer have the patience to sit through the fluff of an entire series, but I do enjoy the short clips and comments that I read on Youtube. It's like watching a long trailer of all the good parts while chatting with fan geeks who read the book.

As for conventional content providers, Disney was smart to re-release their beloved classics in 3D. In addition, they also bought the established fanbases of Pixar and Marvel Comics. Not only does that still pay off in terms of movies, but they can reap the benefits in other media, like gaming.

I'm glad MarcoD mentioned World of Warcraft because it reminds me of my old addiction to Diablo. The game itself was ok, but what really sucked me in was the Battlenet multi-player network/chat. Blizzard and other game makers are a great model to follow as they provide a total package with their own built-in fan culture that gives the users a dynamically evolving experience. This reflects the essence of what consumers want from technology. If these companies had simply focused on that instead of trying to continue exploiting consumers through overpriced CDs and DVDs, then perhaps they wouldn't be so desperate now for legislative help.

Galteeth

An interesting note: MTV is now offering their shows online with commercials. I think this is the way it has to be done now.

MarcoD

I think so too. Together with stuff like international and national entertainment and news Internet channels. So the whole world can talk about the same subject when having coffee.

(I have the feeling that a flat rate subscription on a number of channels would work best. Where the provider essentially would sell you the 'experience' of being among the first to watch new content. Guess it needs to happen because I don't think movies or series have a lot of value left once they have been aired anywhere on the world.)

Curious3141

There is a moral difference. They're both crimes under current law, but with vastly different implications and ramifications.

To assert there is no moral difference would be as ridiculous as asserting that shoplifting and armed robbery are equally reprehensible crimes.

Pythagorean

We can talk moral philosophy all we want, but if you want to be practical about it, people are going to take the free copy, given a choice. If companies want to preserve profit margins, they just have to come up with a better method of product delivery and development. That's it, no matter how wrong they feel piracy is.

Curious3141

This, I agree with. And the (reasonably-priced) paid distribution of said content should be done equitably across the world. Right now, when I try to access legitimate media services hosted in the US from outside the US, I often get a message that tells me such access is prohibited from my location. This is another example of the unfair practices of "copyright holders" - presumably they're holding back on this so that they can make more lucrative deals with the local (non-US) cable networks to release the TV shows at a later date. In the meantime, the avid-TV watching consumers who want to keep current of the latest shows without being done in by the spoilers prevalent on the Internet are disenfranchised.

Jimmy Snyder

Don't be silly. The only difference between shoplifting and armed robbery is the weapon. No such difference exists between theft and copyright infringement.

Evo

If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim. That's the point. Anyone really not understand that?

Pythagorean

The difference is the loss of value. Theft = loss of value. Copyright infringment does not necessarily mean loss of value. It's circumstantial.

There's an obvious loss of value if you copy materials then sell them to the customer yourself. There's no loss of value if someone who would have never bought it, makes a copy for personal use.

This is why it's the responsibility of the company to enforce copyright, not the government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...responsibility

Whereas government can enforce theft, because it ALWAYS involves a loss of value. A company can tell me not to copy my CD and give it to a friend. They can't arrest me for it until I start mass distributing (or have evidence that I intend to) and make the loss of value indisputable.

ParticleGrl

There is actually a tremendous difference between the two. Theft deprives someone of a good, copyright infringement does not. If I break into a bookstore and steal a bunch of books, or break into a Best Buy and take a bunch of software, the store no longer has the property I stole.

Now, if I break into a bookstore and photocopy the books, or into the Best Buy and copy all the software, they still have the property. This is an important distinction. There is no material loss in infringement.

A friend of mine has a netflix subscription, and invites many people in the apartment building for a movie night once a week. He probably does more damage to the movie rental industry (within our apartment building) than any illegal downloading that occurs in the building- and yet no one would suggest cracking down on having a friend over to watch a movie. Its "theft" in the same way most digital piracy is- enjoying media content you didn't personally pay for.

In my mind, the issue with piracy comes down to two large points-
1. there is a tremendous cost to increase our efforts at policing IP
2. we are in no way suffering from a serious lack of entertainment- movies budgets seem to grow and grow, and yet are still profitable. Itunes has more new music every weak than the local cd shop when I was growing up. Even TV is much better than when I was younger (every cable channel seems to be producing their own content now!).

Until 2 is no longer true, its simply not worth the cost of 1.

Inviting a friend over to watch a movie you own (or have rented) results in loss of income for movie companies. Should it be in the same moral area as theft?

Pythagorean

Writing a negative review for a popular magazine/newspaper/online source results in waaayyyy more loss of income than inviting your friend over. And they get paid for it.

Curious3141

The *only* difference is the weapon?!

How about aggressive intent and assault?

How about long-lasting and scarring emotional and possibly physical trauma caused to the victim(s)?

To disregard all this is far sillier!

And to assert that "no such difference" exists between theft and copyright infringement? That's just as silly! I've already made a long post detailing why I think no exact parallel can be drawn between the victim(s) of theft and the "victim(s)" of copyright infringement. I don't like repeating myself, so feel free to re-read that at your leisure.

And please stop *your* silliness. There is no way you can convince a rational, objective party (i.e. one not brainwashed by the massive disinformation campaign in the media) that theft and copyright infringement are the same thing.

Curious3141

Nope, not the same damage at all. I do understand that there *may be* fiscal damages to the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement - and even this has NOT been conclusively proven. There are definitely very tangible material and financial losses suffered by the victim in cases of actual theft.

My understanding is fine, thanks very much.

(Not to nitpick - but the issue in theft is not the loss of *income*).

Jimmy Snyder

Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

Curious3141

Prove it.

Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Noone has yet been able to do this. All we have is a massive smokescreen fudging the issues.

Vanadium 50

Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

There is a difference between saying "a little theft is too much trouble to try to counter" and "a little theft is morally OK".