Well apparently Philip Ruddock is considering to make some sort of 'fair use' clause with a review of copywrite laws just announced.

link

though what was interesting was this part:

I wonder if you actually have to be paid for the review and if it actually has to be published...

I totally agree with this, if you brought the product and want to make a copy for the car you should be allowed.

When you sell a copy of it or lend a copy of it to a friend thats when you should get into trouble.

Sounds fair. When I read that article in the Sydney Morning Herald on iPod's and how they are (under the current legislation) practically useless, my eyes were opened. So I think leniency is the way to go here.

I think it's bullshit the way people think all mp3s are illegal, because there's a massive assortment of free legal music, from sample tracks of unknown bands to stuff like ocremixes.

That's only because 90% of all people only use illegal Mp3's. It's why MP3's get a bad wrap. Its unfortunate but true.

News

DVDs will be harder to copy thanks to new anti-piracy measures devised by copy protection firm Macrovision.

Yay. :rolleyes:

That's good you nong.

While it won't stop piracy, it should give a large number of ignorant, selfish little s**ts a nasty surprise. Yeah, take that you f**king dumbass pirates...

*gasps* Hey, that's not like me to be mean-sounding. I must rectify the situation!! Um...er... *looks around frantically* DISTRACTION!!!

Meh, it won't take people very long to find a way around it. Just like every other type of protection. :P

Yes, congratulations. You were the target audience and you bought into it.




Piracy is a good start.

Bought into it? What? The fact that they've found a way to make pirating harder to do? Don't see a reason why not to believe it. And target audience? As in a guy who f**king hates piracy? Yep, that'd be right.

Good observation...

One word for ya FG, "hax0r"!!!!!111!

Hmm, I wonder what kind of DVD players wouldn't work with it though. So it could perhaps be a bit of a double edged sword.

The coders see it not as a hinderence, but as a challege.

I'd give it a month or two after implementation untill they've cracked it.

Very true.

Perhaps we're going to be in a situation of cat and mouse where the anti-piracy people are always catching up with the coders (note that the article said this could be updated for new programs). I wonder if each new edition of the anti-piracy software will result in more DVD players being rendered useless?

Is converting audio tracks from a purchased music CD, to mp3 for your own personal use illegal?

That seems to be the case at the moment.

More like 95%. :P

The fact that most pre-feature piracy infomercials are propaganda with the remainder being appalingly stereotypical. The fact that the anti-piracy movement's essentially the top 1% looking out for the top 1%. The fact that any measure of copy-protection usually violates IEC Book standards, and in the process actually degrades A/V quality on certain media.

I just fail to see how any rational consumer, artist or not, can even empathise, let alone vehemently advocate anti-piracy. Even from a general legal perspective, I can't see anyone earnestly mustering much more than an solemn head-nod.

But you're bucking the system with the whole wanky jumping-up-and-down thing and the expletives and blanket statements...so, no, I wouldn't mind that clarified.

...

PIRACY IS F**KING STEALING! Plastering efforts to keep artists in a job with words like "propaganda" is inasane and idiotic. Personally, I think authorities aren't doing a good enough job crushing piracy, hell, they almost encourage it with their lame "anti-piracy" ads, but you insult me because I'm happy that they're actually trying? Nice one. :rolleyes:

Before you go complaining about anti-piracy measures degrading media or whatever, remember that piracy exists, and ignoring it will only make it worse. People who pirate are ruinging it for the rest of us. Their fault, not the guys who are trying to stop 'em.

Seriously h&r, I have no idea how you can be against anti-piracy. It's doing massive damage to the film industry!

Hey so I was thinking last night, what's the difference between piracy and a library?

it's sanctioned by the government :P

And I suppose publishers might be a little less worried about having people borrow a book that they'll have to return in a few weeks that may not always be available as opposed to something that can be accessed if you know the right place to look and results in a copy that can be kept indefinitely.

Well, off the top of my head...writers give libraries permission to lend out their book, books don't cost countless millions to make, and piracy is more like if you stole tons of books from a library, cause then it would come out of the librarian's pocket.

And yeah, as kami said, you can't keep those books...

What's the most expensive part of making movies? Maybe the problem is that they're overpaying on that...

According to all your posts, the problem with piracy is that it deprives the artist of income. If you were arguing that piracy is costing Greater Union millions then your librarian arguement would make sense, but really borrowing the books legitimately from the library means that you're not going to buy them and thus the author isn't going to make the extra cash they otherwise would have (in the same way that a film creator would otherwise make extra cash if their movies made more revenue - grants for new movies etc I guess).

The fact that you can't keep the books doesn't really matter either. It's rare that someone reads a book more than once so they get full satisfaction from reading it via borrowing it. They're not exactly sampling it before buying it. If they really want to read it again they can borrow it again.

To look at it another way, do you think it's ok for me to download a movie off the net if I delete if after watching it? If I want to watch it again I can always download it again.*

Admittedly the author/publisher have given permission for the library to lend out their books. Given that they will face the same financial result (i.e. lost revenue) as a movie creator would, could it be said that movie creators are simply more tight arse?

*I can't be arsed downloading movies, this is theoretical.

I like being able to download whole movies in like 2 hours maximum. Makes me feel like a tough man.

Libraries have special permission to lend items? Just like a video store.

I voice my support.

A lot of libraries also have DVDs and CDs to borrow.

And I'm tihnking the librarians wouldn' be too fussed... well unless they were put out of a job because nobody ventured into the library because they had access to all the books. I think it'd probably be the authours who'd be a tad peeved about it.

But I think if we look at it on a fundamental level, people essentailly have access to material they'd normally have to pay for - in priacy and borrowing from a library.

As license agreements get more and more harsh, and as software design goals move towards total consumer lock-in (microsoft, valve, blizzard etc), I become more and more motivated to pirate. I don't feel I am getting anything for my money since I'm basically left with no rights at all to what it is I've purchased. Also, the blatant false-advertising that surrounds games and other media does not motivate me to spend. If anything it has given me a cynical view of gaming in general and an antipathy towards all publishers.

I believe companies like id software have struck the right balance between anti-piracy measures and user freedom. You can download and copy quake3/doom3, and play the single player mode all you want, but if you want to play it on-line consistently, you've got to have your own legitimate cd key. Should id go under tomorrow, the games are automatically 'unlocked' when the auth servers go down, and people are still free to use the product they purchased. Good luck getting valve to do that with steam.

I burn CDs for mates. I do it to share and spread the music I listen to. It's just the same as a mix-tape from the 80s. It's not like I'm selling heroin to a 10 year old, so I don't really care about all this "OMG IT'S STEALING"-type stuff. If you think it's stealing, then fine, don't do it. I'll keep doing it, because I don't see it as a hugely bad thing.

Cool, so it's alright for me to come steal your TV cause I don't think its a hugely bad thing. How stupied is that, stealing is stealling, it is a hugh thing.

I don't care if you steal or not, but if you going to do it don't try and suga coat it when trying to justify it.

What is it that people are stealing exactly? It can't be the box or the cd. Maybe I should rephrase the question: What is it that people are buying? Those EULAs have so many restrictions and they are so loosely worded, its hard to tell (assuming they're even legally binding to begin with) what it is you're allowed to do. 'Intellectual Property' is an ok concept, but currently it's just being used as an excuse to bully consumers into paying exorbitant prices for (mostly) slipshod products - sometimes again and again, for the same old crap. Unlike 'reality-ware,' execs can claim all sorts of crazy statistics to describe the cost of development for software. I laugh when they claim that 'billions are lost every year to piracy.' What they don't tell you is that some large percentage of those pirates would never have purchased a copy in the first place and wouldn't be using the product if a warez version was unavailable. Microsoft knows this, that's why they don't lock windows down, hardcore. they don't want to lose their massive userbase.

When you buy a car, its yours. You own it. You can do pretty much whatever you want to it. Why aren't software, music, or movies any different? Honestly, I'm tired of publishers telling me I can't do this or that or whatever with products I buy from them. I can understand them wanting to protect their revenue stream, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of the product. A lot of times the protections they throw in there hinder this, yet somehow the warez version is always available anyway, many times before official release - and without those annoying and sometimes invasive protections that mess with the overall functionality of my machine.

That said, I will pay for software when I think the purchase price is fair, the product is of high quality, and when the publisher isn't too abusive with user rights. That's voting with my wallet. I consider piracy an active way to deter those who would abuse consumer rights.

There're multiple sides to this arguement. Its gotten heated enough (due to the amount of money flowing into gov't from the RIAA/MPAA) that U.S. congress is trying to legislate this issue. (good luck to them).

Spot on Mach, well said. :thumbsup:


Just another point I'd like to add; How many people would buy some of the music/films that they get copies of if a pirated version wasn't avliable? And how many people have bought albums because they downloaded a few of the band's songs off of the net and liked what they heard.

I know I wouldn't have bought Alien Vs. Predator, but I have a pirated copy.
I'm sure I wouldn't have bought that Area 7 CD, but I have the album on my PC.

I downloaded some A Perfect Circle songs, and because I liked them I went out a bought all the their albums...which probably wouldn't have happend if I couldn't download some of their songs.

I really think that the Music and Film industries are over exagerating their losses.
Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt that they are making losses, but I'd say they just look at the amount of downloaded songs/films, and see each song/film as a loss; which is total bush shit.


I'd go as far as saying that downloading a song is no different to recording it off the radio.
In fact, I see no difference what-so-ever.

EDIT: I was just thinking about another thing; what if someone downloaded an album they were planning on getting, but decided against buying it as the album was shit?
Well to that I'd say, since the album was shit, the artist/company doesn't deserve the money. :P (Same with films.)

I agree with Estapol. I would never have bought all the Tool or A Perfect Circle albums if hadn't downloaded some songs and got so hooked I had to own the albums.

I work on the principle: "Support the bands you like" If they are good enough, buy the album. If they are shit, stay away.

I think people are looking at this completely the wrong way. Instead of trying to stop downloading completely they should be trying to harness it's power and turn it into a money making exercise, much like iTunes music store.

Mmm, I agree too. Thanks to the internet I've gotten/found out about so much wonderful music, I'd be nowhere without it. There's so much music out there to explore and the internet is the greatest tool to use it.
I justify this with my cd collection, I'm very into buying music. I find I'll enjoy something alot more if I pay money for it; so I aim to purchase everything I download. And I do, gradually.

The other side of the coin is that though; it is potentially robbing the artist of their money, which they do deserve, especially smaller bands (in which cases they aren't marketed so heavily and 70% doesn't go to record companies). But as Estapol said, you probably wouldn't have bought alot of it anyway without trying it.

Hmmm. I don't like people who just aim to build up a massive collection of music/movies on their hard drive without actually listening to it and appreciating it. That's piracy for the sake of piracy. That's wrong in my books.
To quote my friend; "Music is too addictive to be limited by money or location."

At the moment, it is illegal to record a song from the radio and it is illegal to download a copyright mp3 from the internet, so you are right in that sense.

You must have bought hundreds of albums then going off that theory considering your constant bragging about your massive iTunes collection. :P

Both items are mine: the CD and the television. I purchased both items with my own money.

The law says I'm stealing, cool, but I don't feel any guilt. I sleep easy at night.

I wasn't trying to justify burning something as not stealing, just pointing out why I don't feel any guilty about doing it.

A question:- If the laws were changed so that you could burn/download whatever you wanted, would you anti-burn/download people still think it's a bad thing?

For me, being anti-piracy, It all comes down to this:

We live in an insanely selfish and ignorant society where people believe that gifts and privilages offered to them are somehow rights. Movies, video games, books, music, they're all immense privilages. We are incredibly lucky to have them, and every time we purchase some we should be grateful. But somewhere along the way people started thinking they had the right to choose which products are "worth paying for" and which ones they pirate. They started assuming that if they can't afford it, they have the right to have it, or they need it.

Artists bring you entertainment. They give you gifts for you to enjoy. And countless people spit in their faces and give them a big "f**k you" but stealing their products. If I had a dollar for every dellusional excuse and insane justification I've heard over the years I'd be able to retire. People are not only missing the point, but lying to themselves. When several major movie companies lose money over the course of 2004 to bring you gifts and privilages, something isn't right. If their losing money, why should they bother? If their market just steals from them, there's no point in continuing.

People just act like "they're a big faceless corperation and they get plenty of money", or "I wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so no harm done". If you weren't gonna buy it, then why was it worth pirating? Must have been good enough to pirate. "I wasn't gonna go see that movie anyway, may as well download it" Okay, so your stealing from the video rental places who would have made their living of that rental you made. Their a small business, not the devil incarnate, what did they ever do to you? If even one major studio loses money, that's insane. There is no way on Earth that the number of people who enjoyed the movie didn't add up to the year's film's cost.

In a nutshell, people assume they have the right to gifts. Really, Hollywood and the video games world is a business. You have no right to be judging whether or not something is okay to pirate. Nothing is. Buy and game and enjoy it, rent a game and enjoy it, or don't get it at all. No excuse, no excuse changes that. Start showing these artists that you appreciate their hard work, instead of kicking them in the balls.

I wouldn't mind paying for more software if I knew just what it was I was buying before dropping the cash, I had a decent guarantee of returnability if it turns out I don't like it, and that the installer doesn't install malware such as C-dilla onto my system. When the rights aren't clear, neither is what I am buying since I still don't 'own' the software I 'purchased'. So maybe I am not buying/stealing anything? Obviously I am playing with words, but that's exactly what the lawyers would do if they were trying to prosecute me on some niggling detail of an EULA, such as a right to make a backup copy. I shouldn't have to plunk down another $100 for another install disk because the original was lost/stolen/damaged/etc at a lan. Before you say that I would intend to copy it for friends, look around, you'll find the warez version easily available. I don't have to. The only thing the protections did was stop me from exercising my fair-use rights.

I'm sure many of you will agree, there's alot of crap out there. While some publishers offer 'demos' of their games, rarely do they give you a real taste of the full version. They're usually feature crippled, or they don't allow online play (even when this is the game's primary focus) etc. Why they don't just subject the user to a time limit or stick with the 'id software method' is beyond me. I sure as hell don't want to drop $100 on a game only to have it suck and now have no way to return it. My method these days is to download the pirate version, play it for a few days and decide if its worth the money. 9/10 times, its not, and the game gets deleted. The games that don't, get purchased. I think this is imminently fair. Why? because many games don't live up to the hype, and I don't want to 'vote with my wallet' before I have an idea as to what it is I'd be buying in the first place. Review sites/mags aren't always reliable due to sponsorships, fanboism and just plain old differences of opinion. A lot of them get caught up in the hype, so I see little reason to take them seriously.

As far as music's concerned, I don't want to be hassled when I want to play music in players other than the one that is 'licensed' to play back the track. Seriously, there are so many different, incompatible protection standards, formats, and hardware out there, there's no sane reason for me to buy into that except for unencrypted use. Finally, like valve's steam service, if the escrowed key runs out on my music, and the vendor goes out of business, what am I left with besides an unplayable encrypted file, and minus the $2.99 I spent on the track? With cd's, I cannot justify the expense of $20-$30 when I like two tracks on an album, nor do I feel that $9.99 is fair for the 'singles.' As it turns out, 95% of the music on my disks is legitimately free from 'underground' musicians. A lot of what the big labels put out is crap, imo. Maybe if they dropped the prices on music a bit, people wouldn't bother pirating so much. Word has it many of the labels have the musicians in a death grip legally and financially, where they are basically owned as property and where they get a tiny single digit percentage of the profits. I would gladly send an artist a check/paypal, but most of their label contracts don't allow for direct payment. I see no reason to buy into this as neither side (myself and the artist) benefits. At the same time, I see no reason to let them lock me out either. If they care about their IP so much, then they should hoard it away in a vault and never release it for public consumption.

Once again Mach, very well said. Bravo! :P

FG; I think you need to broaden your opinion, you seem to be looking at "pirating" as very black an white subject, when that's hardly the case.
Can you seriously tell me that you have never taped a Show or Movie off the TV before? Cause if you have, then your Black & White argument(that's what it is, there's no denying it) is extremely hypocritical.

Heck, in the intro to your TV show "Film Dojo", did you ask the recording label for pemission to use that music, and where did you get it from? If you got it from a CD, you must have ripped it to your editing suite one way or another, and under Australian law, that ripped song is illegal.

Once again, in taking your argument's stance, that is pirating.


BTW, I don't think that downloading a few artist's songs, then buying their albums is kicking them in the balls.
You seriously need to think about what your saying FG.