Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[cobalt124]

It's theft...

Agree...

Agree too. It is theft. But call the companies to account too. Publishers, ISPs and the rest place profit before punishing theft, and also do not give a tinkers cuss when it comes to publishing artists creative work as widely as possible, also a consequence of punishing theft would be to create "haves" and "have nots" when it comes to buying films, music or whatever. We need a better model.

 

[Evo]

Agree too. It is theft. But call the companies to account too. Publishers, ISPs and the rest place profit before punishing theft, and also do not give a tinkers cuss when it comes to publishing artists creative work as widely as possible, also a consequence of punishing theft would be to create "haves" and "have nots" when it comes to buying films, music or whatever. We need a better model.

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable. You know what they say "if downloading music is criminal, only criminals will have music".

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable. You know what they say "if downloading music is criminal, only criminals will have music".

They also say "If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

 

[AlephZero]

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable.

It seems to me the problem is a temporary disconnect between the notions of "stealing" and "illegal possession of physical objects".

Given the ever decreasing cost of technology, I think it's only a matter of time before ALL access to information can be tracked to individuals. Years ago, there were "high tech" hardware devices issued to people to control access to high security computer networks Now, similar devices are cheap enough to be given "free" to all customers of online banks. I saw a recent news item that Mastercard was about to issue credit cards with similar technology built in.

How long before every iternet access account with an ISP or phone company comes with a "free" access control device - and doesn't work unless you use it? Once that has happened, companies of the size of youtube will be in a position to enforce that ALL uploaded data is "controlled", whether from big corporations or individuals.

And the onus would be on anybody operating an uncontrolled information sharing site to prove that what they were doing was legal, rather than the other way round.

None of the above would prevent people giving unlimited access to their own data, if they want to. The current issue is mainly about people giving unlimited access to somebody else's data.

How long to get to that sort of scenario? I would guess maybe 10 years from now...

 

[SixNein]

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

 

[Evo]

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

Please go back and read the rest of what I said.

 

[SixNein]

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

 

[SixNein]

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted all over the forum. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP. People have to either blotch out the logo or put tape over it. A youtube video with that tv playing in the background is violating copyrights.

 

[Evo]

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP.

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

 

[Evo]

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Did you read through the thread before posting?

 

[SixNein]

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

 

[Evo]

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it

 

[SixNein]

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

I'm trying to figure out a way to explain to you in a convincing way why I'm not a fan-boy of copyrights, and I was trying to use Google as an example. Google is arguable committing copyright infringement. But let me drop this approach and try a more straight forward approach:

I suppose my greatest concern with intellectual property is how it allows people to control, through exclusive rights, the building blocks of knowledge. For example, mathematics can be both patented and copyrighted when it is employed on a computer (Something that concerns me GREATLY). In addition, there has been a long history of continuous extensions to the term of copyright protection and also the scope of such protection. Also, there is little consideration given to how a copyright effects the public in the long term. The only consideration being given is corporate profits.

To provide an example, suppose I created a software program. I would own the copyrights to the program for my entire life and even 50 years after my death. And this assumes that congress does not decide to extend copyrights yet again in the meantime (And congress has a long history of periodically doing exactly that). Even patents provide a 20 year protection, and software qualifies for both copyright and patent protection. In a basic nutshell, I have been granted exclusive rights over what is likely well beyond the lifetime of the actual usefulness of the product. And the public will be unable to so much as create an extension to my software without my permission. Quite frankly, we aren't talking about me making some profit for my troubles. We are talking about my great grandchildren having exclusive control over something I made long after I've turned to dust.

My opinion is that monopolies shouldn't be handed out so freely. They should be rare and limited in scope and span; otherwise, the real theft is theft of the public. (Theft is still a bad word for it)

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not seeing the problem SixNein.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

 

[SixNein]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

I disagree about the perspective in link #1 as being reasonable. Instead, the perspective is from an Attorney making a sales pitch to potential clients.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from around 1990. (Local image copy)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

 

[Evo]

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

 

[TheMadMonk]

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

 

[nazarbaz]

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.
You're not going to change the actual trend with moral or legal injunctions while the authorities lack the means to enforce them.

 

[Evo]

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.

 

[Drakkith]

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.

Theft? No. It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

As for teenagers not being able to afford the music they like, well, welcome to life.

 

[Borek]

It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

That's the derivative of the way this system is set up, so it doesn't mean it HAS to be this way. Sure, for these people it is nice that it works this way. But there are bands that have cheap CDs and cheap concert tickets and they still make a decent money (although for sure not comparable with the major stars). I believe by redefining the approach (law) you will change money distribution and the constellation of stars would be different, but I don't think it will kill the idea that some people want to play and others want to listen.

 

[nazarbaz]

Theft? No. It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

As for teenagers not being able to afford the music they like, well, welcome to life.

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

 

[Evo]

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

New laws, if properly enforced, can change things. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, going after the people that run illegal websites would be the easiest and most likely target. If you download from them then your information has been captured on their side. Probably only people that steal unusually large amounts of the products would be individually targeted, but that's just a guess. Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

 

[Drakkith]

That's the derivative of the way this system is set up, so it doesn't mean it HAS to be this way. Sure, for these people it is nice that it works this way. But there are bands that have cheap CDs and cheap concert tickets and they still make a decent money (although for sure not comparable with the major stars). I believe by redefining the approach (law) you will change money distribution and the constellation of stars would be different, but I don't think it will kill the idea that some people want to play and others want to listen.

I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.

A new set of laws won't change anything. They tried in France with the HADOPI Law : a true failure. My ISP is still reluctant about snitching on its subscribers. Welcome to life too.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.

 

[TheMadMonk]

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.

What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.

 

[nazarbaz]

New laws, if properly enforced, can change things. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, going after the people that run illegal websites would be the easiest and most likely target. If you download from them then your information has been captured on their side. Probably only people that steal unusually large amounts of the products would be individually targeted, but that's just a guess. Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

For that kind of strategy to work, you'll have to standardize the laws in a vast majority of countries... Some of them will never do that just to annoy some other countries...
According to your standards, I must be a real gangster...

 

[nazarbaz]

I don't see what the law has to do with how the music industry runs itself other than to enforce certain things like copyright issues and the like.
I don't think you can reasonably claim that new laws won't change anything. The internet presents a vastly different landscape than anything prior to it and requires a substantial change in how we go about enforcing laws if we want to be effective. I personally just don't understand the near absolute refusal of most people to accept ANY new regulations regarding the net. It's like people absolutely don't even understand that some activities might be wrong.

We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.

 

[SixNein]

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

But your confusing legislation to promote the arts with legislation to protect property. And there are many consequences that go along with such a line of thinking. For example, why wouldn't their "property" be perpetual? Why would fair use ever be considered? So let's get away from that line of thinking a moment and talk about legislation to promote the arts.

Does there need to be additional legislation for the promotion of the arts? I don't think such promotion is needed or warranted at the moment. In my opinion, the current woes of the entertainment industry are self inflicted because they refuse to change outdated business models. In fact, they have been going to some great lengths to avoid having to complete on the internet. For example, cable companies have a conflict of interest in the internet. If they released their stuff over the internet, they would eventually lose their television subscriptions. So their business model is to force people to buy both while strongly limiting the capacity of the internet. Hence why we are now seeing bandwidth usage caps being implemented. And they have consistently refused to release stuff on the internet for this very reason, and so copyright infringement is the only way to obtain their material. In addition, they are shutting out competition from the internet through such limitations. For a moment, think of how these bandwidth restrictions effect companies like netflix.

If these people were making genuine efforts to change their business models, maybe some legislation would be needed. But until they do it, I don't see any legitimate reason to step in with government. Technological progress is already being severely harmed for no other reason than to protect old industries like telephone and cable from open markets.

 

[Drakkith]

We had experienced it and it simply failed. Downloaders adapted. I'm not against Internet regulation per se. I'm not convinced by the logic of intellectual property itself.
Borek's attitude seems right to me : the business of cultural products needs to change and to adapt.

What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?