They want us to pay even our last penny…

Aye From Greece!

If we don’t stop things from catching on before they get rolling, then 1984 will have to be relabeled 2014. This goes double for Australia where already every other movie or game is being censored/banned as it is.

It’s about freedom, not just about any single issue. Don’t believe the industry paid-for trolls.

“They just don’t get it do they. There is no “original copy.” The CDs that are sold are copies just the same. Copies are how the music is distrobuted to legitimate, paying customers. Do they really think that the artist makes one “original” copy and rents it out to whoever pays money for their music? Also, aren’t CDs tangible objects too?”

Most people don’t want or need CD’s any longer. Else why would iTunes be the #1 music reseller.

The Biggest difference between ‘Tangible’ and ‘Intellectual’ property is in the cost to reproduce it.

Let’s take an example. A CD Player has costs to produce. It requires commodity priced supplies to produce. If those commodities go higher the cost will go higher. It has a changing cost. The market controls the price, If another company comes out with one and lowers the cost the price for the player will start to fall. The more competition the faster the prices go down and this also creates innovation. Innovative new features in players caused by competition in the marketplace is a very good thing. If the player fails to meet the consumers expectations it can be returned.

Now let’s look at IP. Okay, we have fixed one-time costs to create the audio tracks. If we refer to CD’s we have a fixed (and always decreasing) cost to produce. Digitally there is the bandwidth cost to get the music to the purchaser but since music tracks are very small the actual cost is very tiny. What drives the prices in the marketplace? The consumer? Nope. There is *no* competition. What the price is on Amazon it is on iTunes. DRM removes the ability to do what consumers want to do with the music further reducing consumer choice. On the CD side once the consumer opens it he/she cannot return it. If the consumers are unhappy with it they are stuck.

Note: Both have marketing and distribution costs which vary. These costs are generally equal for all products.

No mater which creative industry we are talking about the principals apply the same. They have removed the standard marketplace pressures and displaced the consumers ability to control what they pay and how they use what they purchased.

Since it is digital it can be reproduced with virtually zero cost the value of said product decreases dramatically. Why do you think the costs of mass produced items has decreased? The costs to reproduce them has dropped. A factory in China can make tons of screwdrivers for penny’s each and so the end result of that is a lower cost to the consumer. Now some companies take advantage of this. They use lower costs to generate more revenue for the company instead of passing that onto the consumer. Consumers will jump on to any choice that allows them to have control. So the company that thought oooh! more money! will end up losing customers in the end as they go off for the same product from a competitor.

There has always been sharing of information and culture since the beginning of time. Do you think that cavemen said in order to see our cave drawings you must bring us something of value to trade for the viewing? 2 bison per person! We have the best drawings!

I do agree with you that Information and Creative expression are two different things. Both have been treated the same way. Since industrialization they have been treated as a commodity instead of being shared for all. Don’t use the library example because you pay for the libraries with taxes so it has a cost as well. With the advances of the internet, Information has been freed from the shackles of print and is being shared by millions of people worldwide. The costs are covered by advertising on the sites. As the costs are lower so is the revenue needed to make it viable.

Not so long ago if you had a leaky faucet your only choice was to call a plumber to repair it. Now with information available 24/7 a person has no need for that expensive plumber to fix the leaky faucet. Just as we have no need now for shinny plastic discs.

“[quote]We don’t believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.[/quote]”

Note: Reply left out for brevity.

The Pirate Parities goals are going to be the opposite of the extremists. The need arose for someone to speak on behalf of the people who wanted less copyright than the extremists. So the extremists created the minimalists. I do agree it will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end.

Really Real Realism

The companies have forced their will onto people for a long time. Now people have a chance to fight back by sharing with each other. That’s what people are going to do, find an option that is best for them.

Think about how much dipping goes on within the industry. Pay to see it in the Theatre, pay again for the DVD, Pay again for the BD, pay again for the digital file, eventually pay again for the HD digital file. Who now what to charge you for the ability to make a backup copy, something you are allowed under most copyright laws to do! Let’s do some math on a older movie. $8.00 to see it in the Theatre, $6.00 to rent it before it came to VHS, $10.00 for the VHS tape, $20.00 for the DVD, now $30.00 for the BD, $15.00 for the Digital crippled file. So a person paid the industry $89.00 for 1 (ONE) movie. No other industry would get away with dipping this many times and still be in business after a year. When people see their money going out the window left and right to this industry and then they claim piracy is killing them, then they report record revenues, how does this make a person react?

Personally I have over 6k movies on VHS/DVD (85/15 split) and I’m not paying anymore for a DVD or BD of what I already own! I just download the SD or HD Digital file from P2P. No more super dipping from my bank account! I also have made 2 purchases of Video from the iTunes store. Once I found out I was limited to the devices it would play on, my $$$ never went there again. With P2P I have no limits, it can play on my iPhone, my TV’s via a 360, PS3 or the 2 Popcorn hour’s.

Now this choice-less feeling is what has pushed people to P2P. Once they get there they see they can have anything the want, 24/7 within 1-2 days. So why go back to the ‘Super Dippers’? So people are staying with P2P and will stay until a solution can be provided that will give them the freedom to do what they want when they want instead of how someone else wants it.

In the digital age TV networks, Cable TV channels and anything else is not really needed any longer. They, like the horse & buggy, are obsolete. Why not pay a monthly fee like you do to cable, for all the video and music you want? DRM free? no middlemen taking money, no shinny plastic discs. It would replace Cable & TV Networks with a realistic solution for a higher revenue stream for the studios?

Never going happen? Why? It is not what they want. It does not give them the same dipping they have been getting for years.

Ask yourself this question. if a music track cost 0.10 and 1% of the planet paid for it could the artist make a good living? (Not the music industry, the artist). If a movie cost $1.00 and 5% of the planet paid for it would it earn a living for the people involved with making the movie?

Food for Thought…

While your arguments sound somewhat more reasonable than the usual drivel, your basic logic is quite limited, when not simply wrong.

First of all, there ARE original copys, of which all CD’s and DVD’s are derived from – the uncompressed ultra-high-quality studio recordings. However, THEY aren’t actually on sale, are they? Instead, we get either “lossless” CD’s or downright crappy MP3′s with ridiculous overpricing. It’s like being fully charged for an A4 POSTER of a Picasso, instead of the real deal.

Second, the uncommercial copying of, say, VHS tapes, has long been off the hook in terms of copyright infringement. The same goes for CD’s, in case propaganda forgets to mention it. The TAXES paid with each blank media sale already compensate for possible “piracy”, so the industries’ asking for more is nothing but an act of greed, not intended to either protect the artists, nor uphold the ACTUAL LAWS.

Lastly, like I commented in the “Never Back Down” article, creators rarely if ever gain their money from CD and DVD sales. Singers are paid for LIVE performances (and THESE revenues have recently increased their growth rate), ad contracts etc. , movies gain their profits from cinema goers (also increasing) , and considering the ever-growing game market, games are actually GAINING free publicity from P2P downloads.

As you can see, political freedom and profitable business aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, if the cards are played right, they are most often mutually SUPPORTIVE. What IS ommited, however, is the “money-for-nothing” policy the industries have exploited for far too long.

Good to see more pirates laying down their anchor.

Wow,these pirate parties are really popping up all over the place and while I agree with a few of their messages, overall, moral confusion seems to be biggest thing they have in common.

A few examples :

Real property is something that you can touch. In simple terms, if one person possesses it, another person cannot possess it at the same time. Intellectual property is information. If a person makes a copy of a song, the person who owns the original is not deprived of the song.

They just don’t get it do they. There is no “original copy.” The CDs that are sold are copies just the same. Copies are how the music is distrobuted to legitimate, paying customers. Do they really think that the artist makes one “original” copy and rents it out to whoever pays money for their music? Also, aren’t CDs tangible objects too?

Why don’ they understand the difference between information and creative works. Something you get off of wikipedia, that is information. “DVDs store 8 gigs.” That is information. “AMD makes CPUs.” That is information too. A movie, a piece of software, or a album is creative work. Not even remotely the same thing.

It gets interesting when they answer questions on copyright :

We are not against copyright as a concept.

And then they go on to admit that people should be abllowed to download copyrighted works withot contributing a single penny to their creators :

We don’t think you should be considered a criminal, so one of our main policies is to decriminalise non-commercial copyright infringement.

So, they are not against copyright, they just support copyright infringement. Just because someone doesn’t earn money off of infrignment doesn’t mean that the creators lose money.

Honestly, I don’t understand them at all. Although it may seem like a great mystery to them why it is neccesary, creators profiting from their work is crucial. When people download something instead of paying for it, the creator does not profit. Profit fostors creativity. When people complain about the movies or music not being good enough, they should keep in mind what happens when you choose to ignore it’s creators.

We don’t believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.

While I think that the lifespan of copyright is a reasonable subject for discussion, is this really the issue? Do they really believe that all the movies that have been rampantly pirated in the last few years are 50 or 60 years old? How about star trek, 2012, inglorious bastards, etc? A song from the 1940s is hardly something we should concern ourselves with because the demand for it is trivial. In contrast, every movie, game, piece of software, and music that has come out during the age of “information freedom” has been a victim of it’s own popularity due to out of control “filesharing.”

I am going to watch this with great interest. Political freedom is of the utmost importance, but so is profitable business. Will the government have the strength to draw the line and not give in to a bunch of online vigilantes and armchair activists who are trying to change the system into one that revolves around soley themselves?

A few examples :

[quote]Real property is something that you can touch. In simple terms, if one person possesses it, another person cannot possess it at the same time. Intellectual property is information. If a person makes a copy of a song, the person who owns the original is not deprived of the song.[/quote]
They just don’t get it do they. There is no “original copy.” The CDs that are sold are copies just the same. Copies are how the music is distrobuted to legitimate, paying customers. Do they really think that the artist makes one “original” copy and rents it out to whoever pays money for their music? Also, aren’t CDs tangible objects too?

Why don’ they understand the difference between information and creative works. Something you get off of wikipedia, that is information. “DVDs store 8 gigs.” That is information. “AMD makes CPUs.” That is information too. A movie, a piece of software, or a album is creative work. Not even remotely the same thing.

It gets interesting when they answer questions on copyright
[quote]We are not against copyright as a concept.[/quote]
And then they go on to admit that people should be abllowed to download copyrighted works withot contributing a single penny to their creators :

[quote]We don’t think you should be considered a criminal, so one of our main policies is to decriminalise non-commercial copyright infringement.[/quote]
So, they are not against copyright, they just support copyright infringement. Just because someone doesn’t earn money off of infrignment doesn’t mean that the creators lose money.

Honestly, I don’t understand them at all. Although it may seem like a great mystery to them why it is neccesary, creators profiting from their work is crucial. When people download something instead of paying for it, the creator does not profit. Profit fostors creativity. When people complain about the movies or music not being good enough, they should keep in mind what happens when you choose to ignore it’s creators.

[quote]We don’t believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.[/quote]
While I think that the lifespan of copyright is a reasonable subject for discussion, is this really the issue? Do they really believe that all the movies that have been rampantly pirated in the last few years are 50 or 60 years old? How about star trek, 2012, inglorious bastards, etc? A song from the 1940s is hardly something we should concern ourselves with because the demand for it is trivial. In contrast, every movie, game, piece of software, and music that has come out during the age of “information freedom” has been a victim of it’s own popularity due to out of control “filesharing.”

I am going to watch this with great interest. Political freedom is of the utmost importance, but so is profitable business. Will the government have the strength to draw the line and not give in to a bunch of online vigilantes and armchair activists who are trying to change the system into one that revolves around soley themselves?

xD

However in the eyes of the stubborn and blind media industries we are harming them. More than the people selling their goods on the streets. More than drug dealers harm the security.. But oh well…

As I said in a previous article, TPB won an epic victory against them. The spoils of war so far are 2 seats in europe and pirate parties being born all around the world. Not to mention P2P activity is boiling hotter than ever.

I think I started lovin MAFIAA for all these great things we have now =D

We do have third parties. That is why we have the term “third parties.” They don’t win, but they can cause the main two candidates to change their issues to get the votes from the party.

Except for Somali pirates. :(

IPREDATOR has launched publically, when is a TF in-depth review and article coming?

I’d especially like to see someone find an option for anonymous payment quite frankly.

http://www.pp-international.net/

Something is out of whack when people are more motivated to vote on parties in other countries than their own.

I think it would help to pick a more “serious” name.

What do you think?

[If you search TorrentFreak for US Pirate Party, you'll find a number of articles referencing them, since their founding 3 1/2 years ago - Mod]