That is a very clever video - it kinda sailed a little close to the wire towards the end, no doubt what he intended. Original and funny, yet at the same time actually puts across the basics of the law on it - albeit its clear he dont like it

Great Stuff ....

Regards
Zy

One point, it did say a person had to be caught three times pirating. Generally, you get caught once you're unlucky, getting caught three times is stupid.

That said, if piracy was impossible, I'd probably not take any chances on games ever again, which would kill much of the industry. Why risk paying $50+ for crap?

This is the reason, even though I own a console, I have bought a grand total of one non-download game as of this time (will be two at end of month)

Yeah I really enjoyed it, the guy has good reason to not like the law.  I mean why does and why should copyright last the creators lifetime plus 70 years!  That is just plain absurd and really only there for corporate intrest.  Can you imagine not ever having Shakespear or countless other items from other greats in the public domain?  Unacceptable!

To provide for relatives and family. To go second generation after death would be stretching the point a little too much, but life + 70yrs is fair enough. The majority like to provide for their immediate family. To take to extremes to illustrate, why should the world benefit from a freebie, and their family live on the breadline.

Regards
Zy

Kill one family benifits a million LOL

I guess I don't agree or even see that as a valid reason.  Somehow up until 1972 everyone was perfectly happy with I do believe 20 years total, I could be wrong will have to look it up when i have a chance.  So are we saying somehow those individuals were screwed?  I think not I would bet that the main reason that even changed was due to corporate intrest.  Not only that but I also believe that music, movies, art, and so on are no different than any other product once you sell them you no longer own it.  I mean would you be ok with the car dealership dictating to you after purchase how you can use or even if you can use your car, sell it, or trade it in?  Or how would you like the builder to do the same with your house.  Why don't we pay a continued royalty to Thomas Edisons family or Henery Ford's for the continued use of their inventions? I mean it hasn't been 70 years since Fords death and it has barely been 70 years since Edisons?  That brings up another issue why are movies, art, music, and the light anymore important than a patent which only gets 20 years? 

Be wary of a knee jerk "Corporate Interest". In UK 95% of personal employment is outside the Corporate sector in small and medium sized companies. I dont know the US figures, but even given the common practice over there of Incorporation even by small one man bands, I'll bet its over 80% of employment is outside the classic big Corporate sector.

There is also very large differences in the principles behind copywrite US & UK which does not help the issue in this Age of Globalisation.

re car dealer - no because its not theirs to dictate those terms, they did not design it.

Builder - does not apply because I own the land freehold, and I contract the builder to make it for me, so its irrelevant.

Thomas Edison died in 1931, seventy seven years ago. In UK at least - dont know US law - thats over the 70 year limit. He held over a thousand US patents so I guess his relatives did well for a while.

Henry Ford - no idea about the US legal position, but I doubt he had a copywrite on the cars, he didnt invent the car, just built them. Dont know the position re patents. In UK that would shortly run out anyway, as he died 61 years ago - nine years time, null and void in UK.

Movies etc, not the faintest idea, dont know the actual legal position & facts for the US.

Regards
Zy

I find it interesting that in a society like ours "corporate interest" can be used as a curse word.

If I may quote:

"and therefore it's bad".

I wouldn't argue that the bulk of personal employment is not corporate, however there are very very few independent movie or music companies.  In fact the MPAA and RIAA pretty much control it all and that the problem when I say corporate intrest that is what I am refering to.  So my point still stands.

True and I am speaking from the US stand point not overly familiar with UKs copyright.

Ok regardless should I have to get permission from the cars designer?  No, in fact is it just like myself in the IT business I create scripts, queries, and programs on a daily basis that will be used and are being used after I have left a company.  Should the company pay me royalties on those or rewrite them?  No way, as I said once you sell it or in my case agree to produce it for said company it is no longer mine.

As for the builder example yes you own the land but I also own the CD Player,  Computer, or whatever else device is requried to use the work that I 'purchased' from said artist.  I don't see how that is any different?

In regards to Edison that is exactly my point, patents which I see no differently than copyrights are only good for 20 years!  So again I don't see why someone who rights a song should have more protection than someone that invented the lightbulb, and am arguing that they don't.

As for Ford I am sure he didn't have a copyright but he sure as heck had patents, and again I am using as an example of the disparity between patents and copyrights and why if it is good enough for patents and no one is up in arms why is it not good enough for copyrights?

Nice to actually have a civil conversation about this and not be called a name or labled as a pirate which I am not, just don't agree with the current laws.

Copyright and IP is perhaps the most convoluted piece of law today.

Thiose who say you should go to jail for Copyright Infringement and Piracy... Well go down to the police station and turn yourselves in because YOU ALL HAVE VIOLATED COPYRIGHT! If you've used the internet you've violated copyrights right left and center... Type in a google search for Mickey Mouse... hope you have 100 million dollars lying around because thats probably the amount you'll pay in fines if the laws were enforced... And YES IT IS JUST AS BAD AS STEALING A PIECE OF MUSIC OR A GAME! At least in the eyes of the law.

Ever copy/pasted a news article from CNN. Well get out your checkbook. That News article is just as protected as any piece of software/music/picture... Get out your checkbook and pay Reuters/AP $250G's because you sure as heck never got their permission!

Ever looked at an AMV on youtube... Well get out your checkbook and turn yourself in! You've just violated not one but at least two people's copyrights!

The law as it is is disgusting. It's designed for big corporate incidences of piracy like Warner Bros using Mickey Mouse w/o paying Disney and they've bolted that onto personal. And seriously WTF is with the whole IP owners getting all the cash. If this was REAL THEFT it would be the govn't prosecuting with all the rules aka BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT not the BS is is now where there are thousand dollar shakedowns. No instead of this crap you should have a company lodge a criminal complaint just as a 7/11 would if I lifted a bag of chips. All the fines should be to the govn't as well and then and only then do we have restitution....

If we are going to pretend IP is the same as tangible property and treat its 'theft' as the same well I want my day in court with my lawyer vs a govn't paid prosecutor (and not some corporate suit) who has to prove to a jury of my peers that I 'stole' beyond a reasonable doubt not the BS 'preponderance of the evidence 50.1%' civil trials it is now. And then I want all of the rest of you who have ever copy/pasted anything copyrighted or ever done anything illegal wrt copyright (look at the statues, I think you'll find them quite enlightening and those of you who protest that they never steal or infringe well... ignorance of the law is no defense) in jail next to me.

Er....what?

That's about as logical as saying 'if you have children you are a paedophile'.

Make up your mind...if you say it's 'illegal' then it is.

Why the convoluted argument to the contrary?

In UK that's because as part of the terms and conditions of employment, you sign agreeing that all you produce during that employment (that is related to or materially assisted by the employers business) is the employers. In UK that's specifically enacted to prevent individuals using Company facilities - in their own time or not - to further their own ideas, when in fact they were materially assisted in terms of facilities, time or advice. In short, you work for them, tough, its theirs. Reasonable enough as a general proposition - provided you have signed to that effect. If you didn't, the UK Patent Office will tell the Company to go spin.



The difference is with the house, you are (at least you do in UK) buying all rights and claims to the house. Builders are happy, last thing they need is ownership in perpetuity and the bills that will follow. Its also a "one off" event in Law, a unique contract as the builder is specifically offering it "For Sale". The builder could offer it for Rent or Lease, "For Sale" is not mandatory if it was built on spec to a design they uniquely conceived for themselves. If it was built specially for you, you own it, you are contracting in skills.

Its similar for the CD Player and Computer, you buy it entire - the manufacturer is offering it "For Sale" - they could just as easily offer it for Rent or Lease, its their choice, they own the patent/copy write as applicable. The latter often happens in Corporate life whereby PCs are Leased not bought. Software is the same, however the overwhelming number of people/companies choose to licence the software, not sell it in perpetuity. Its their software, they can do what they want, same as the builder - but a builder would not sell many houses just licensing ....

Finally software houses need to legally keep hold of the source code, they cant if they "Sell" it, so software is "licensed", which is fine, they then hold ownership of the source code, its theirs to do with as they wish. If they were nuts enough to "Sell" it, they lose the source code after first purchase.

The right to Sell, Lease, or Rent is the same for anyone or anything as a general principle as long as you have the patent or copy write. The waters get muddy when individuals assume common practice is absolute law - it isn't eg a builder of a unique design that he owns could licence it, but he would be a candidate for the Funny Farm in the real world.

I hear the thoughts on Copy Write V Patent, and I dont know the reasons. However one thing I am sure of, this stuff gets tested so often in the Courts there will be a rationale for it, and despite popular opinion Corporates don't own the Courts of Law so rulings are absolute not biased.

UK music copy write is 50 years, and currently they are challenging that to extend it, there is a case pending in the European Court of Justice on the issue after a referral by the House of Lords.

Regards
Zy

Before I continue on this I just want to clarify something as I don't think we are on the same page so to speak.  I am not claiming that the current laws don't state something specific or have a 'rationale'.  What I am saying is I don't agree 100% with the laws and think that they need to be changed not just for the consumer but also the artist/corporation. 

Jafo, obviously there is no winning with these people. They are either dumb (my personal favorite) or they are hopelessly unscrupulous (the unfortunately more likely explanation). I'm done with this piracy debate.

Whoever designs a building owns its design.  That can be the Architect and/or Builder...depending on with whom the 'designer' is employed.

When a client contracts an Architect [or Builder/designer/co] he as client 'owns' rights to that design....PROVIDED HE HAS PAID IN FULL AS CONTACTED ...those 'rights' are in its 'intended use', namely to take and use to construct the project.

Typically [unless contracted] he does NOT own the rights to subsequently use the design on a second project, and it's even not guaranteed he has the rights to sell the property/design to a third party for them to complete/own.

I personally have several thousand houses/factories/shops/motels/unit developments/etc that are ALL mine....all designed by me...all licenced to their respective client...all over the past 35 years.

If any one of them were to take that design and re-use it on a second project without my consent they are liable for loss of 'profit'...that's my usual fee minus material costs....and typically on a $5000 drawing the ink/paper/printing costs are abot $20

Back to Basics

It'll be a short day.

The starting premise is IP is owned by the creator, to go down any other road is an exercise in self denial. No sane human being is going to work on something, sometimes for years - blood sweat and tears yaddie yadda - then say to the world "hey help yourself its all free take it away", with no material reward, and then they expire supremely happy into their six foot grave or raging furnace knowing they furthered the good of mankind. If they do, fine, strange people, but no case to answer - next case please.

Second premise
Prosecution presents proof of ownership, patent - copy write - licence whatever is applicable to the case as ownership. Hardly controversial by any normal standard.

Judge asks "Did you pay for the software licence?

Answer Yes: - "Case dismissed"
Answer No: - "Guilty, Court will retire to consider sentencing"

End of Story. The rest is just Fluff and matters of degree, which is what the appeal system is for, dont waste time appealing ownership - pointless.

The choice to bring the case lay with the owner, as in real life the choice to prosecute criminal cases lay with the DA - not all cases are brought, as Judges will throw them out as frivolous, stupidly minor (illegal or not), or no evidence. The owner will decide if his interests have been materially hurt, and if the Court agrees that's possible, it'll get heard, if its a minor frivolous case it will not get through the court door technically illegal or not.

Don't like the outcome, appeal to the State Supreme Court, and later The Supreme Court given leave to do the latter. But don't waste time on appealing on grounds of ownership, you will not get past first base, not gonna happen.

Licensing / Patent / Copy Write Law all messed up? Supreme Court - until then tough, live with it. Lost the case? Thats life - move on. Supreme Court bought out by Corporates, and have evidence? Great, tell The Senate - they'll love that one.

Life's a bitch then you die, its as simple as that.

Regards
Zy

I'll retire hurt on that one, I'm no lawyer

The process is there via the Courts if you think there is a case, but it going to have to be a real doozey, this stuff has been through those guys so many times its unreal - all the way up to the Supreme Court. Patent / CopyWrite Law goes through both House of Representatives, and The Senate, with The Supreme Court sniffing around in the background. Whilst there's always the case that something new crops up ..... if its the old arguments I would suggest you will waste your time... but that's why I retire hurt (on that one), me no lawyer.

Regards
Zy

Nice one



Absolutely right, I certainly have no issue with that, owners have every right to licence if they wish - whatever the product is.

Regards
Zy

"People need to get the "Robin Hood" fantasy OUT OF THIER HEADS.

Stealing from the rich, "they don't need it" "they won't miss it". IT'S STILL WRONG
The CEO of stardock is one example. Why is he the CEO of stardock? Well probably because he worked to get where he is.
We have words to describe the lifestyles of the rich. It is called LAVISH and LUXURY. Look them up you will learn they buy these things because they can afford to purchase them. Some even have established a buisness with enough money to ensure thier descendants never have to work.
DO NOT ENVY another man's belongings or lifestyle it is a waste of time."

Excellent point, the Robin Hood fantasy is a horrible reason to pirate. Envy of the rich is retarded.

One minor detail though. The rich get rich by being given money in return for goods and services.(the legitimate ones, naturally there are loopholes in life) This is the root of why envying them is retarded, they become rich because we choose to make them rich. One could say that piracy is the result of a failure of the creator to sufficiently convince the pirating populace that he is worth paying.

If I fall to the dark side and pirate a game, that is the exact reason I'm doing so. I either have insufficient reason to buy it, but a curiosity to see if I should, or I have sufficient reason to buy it, but other factors outside the product itself prevent my purchase. I'm not talking about a lack of money either, DRM for instance. Ubisoft and EA have both released numerous titles that were at best beta's, and then dropped all support for them. They aren't alone in their atrocious behavior, anyone wary of getting another KOTOR2? That used to be a company beyond reproach. Legally, you are a pirate if you check the game out before adding it to your collection.

When was the last time a major release that was a buggy, unfinished game actually got bad reviews pointing out the flaws? How would you have found out that KOTOR2 was only half finished from a demo? The game can be gone from shelves and in discount warehouses by the time you get accurate information second hand. You can pirate most of them day one and actually buy the game when the sale will count for something. In such a case, piracy is actually of substantial benefit to the company being infringed upon if they are creating a good product.

If you are a reasoning individual, you cannot say that there are no good reasons to pirate. You can say there are no legal reasons to pirate, thanks to the DMCA, but there are good reasons. The Robin Hood fantasy could apply to most people, but it surely doesn't apply to all, and I have a feeling it applies to a minority. I expect most pirates just have a great big fuck you to anyone that expects them to shell out money for the games they're pretty sure wont entertain them for five minutes and would gladly pay for a product they felt was worth it. Of course, no one is willing to do honest studies, so we'll never know.

They can't even tell the truth about their own knowledge.
PC piracy study commissioned by the BSA

Now how do they get 90-95% for PC games? They pull a number out of their ass. Not one study they've done has ever published the actual results, they just give us a number. They never come up with the same number either. They don't tell us how they arrived at the number to start with. The only one they actually bothered to publish is PC software in general, I look frequently and I've never found any, let alone useful ones.

How about a bill that bans whores from entering politics.

As for piracy stats, they always equate 10 pirated copies as 10 lost sales. Unless you're the cretins at Starforce who said it meant MORE than 10 lost sales...

Any study from RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc... Follow the money. Who do the stats benefit? The BSA is hardly going to release a study that says "Hey, we were wrong. The dent in our sales is minimal as 95% if those who pirated it wouldn't have bought it anyway!" are they.

I've pirated a few titles over the years. Stuff I'd never have bought. And if I discovered that it was actually GOOD (like Dungeon Keeper for example), I went out and bought it.

Fair enough but... and this is another topic all together...  I hope you aren't saying just cause it is a law and supported by the government that it is fair and just?  Need I mention a few things like racism (remember it was state sponserd for a while) and Prohibition that was a dosey!   Anyway thanks for the chat!

UncleDrood... Did you even look at the study? 21% They commission a study, only tell us the findings, 21% across the board in the US, 37% worldwide. Then they come up with other numbers that have no relation to it.

Chat away - no worries, I'm well into that - you'll not get anything significant out of me on the legals though, I have no real depth of knowledge of the US system, only the outlines, and dont pretend otherwise.

Government belief, well I guess I've been there a few times, I tend to be Right of Atilla the Hun on a few things   

Fair and Just? Hmmmmm seem to remember this charactor ....... George III??

*Runs like Hell*   

Regards
Zy

He he he he:D  Good stuff!

It doesn't take a law degree to understand right from wrong   (:(