Comments on: Censorship is No Cure for Piracy, Legal Options Are

By: Ben Jones

Ben Jones — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:43:00 +0000

Except the numbers don’t lie. ‘piracy’ is an excuse for bad performance, not a cause of it. And enforcement is just an easier way to try and make money.

By: Fabio

Fabio — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:02:00 +0000

like… Netflix?

By: !@#$%

!@#$% — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:54:00 +0000

Calling anti-piracy efforts censorship is as retarded as calling file sharing stealing.

By: timberwolf_0012

timberwolf_0012 — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 04:59:00 +0000

they can never stop the die-hards and cutthroats….people will always find ways around whatever they come up with

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 22:40:00 +0000

amen

By: riannonqas321

riannonqas321 — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 14:29:00 +0000

my Aunty Grace got a nearly new blue Kia by working part
time from the internet. look at this now Buzz32.ℂom

By: MC

MC — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:02:00 +0000

“So how should copyright holders combat piracy? According to the researchers there is some evidence in the literature that harsher punishments and strong enforcement may be effective.”

I read this as

“Sure, you can reduce the problem if you turn the internet into a copyright police state. But is that something that really seems sensible?”

By: rmstallman

rmstallman — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:16:00 +0000

Please don’t refer to sharing with the smear term “piracy”.
The perverse term “consuming” should also be avoided
because playing digital (or even analog) recordings does not
consume them. Both terms are part of the copyright industry’s spin,
so using them supports the copyright industry’s PR. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.

“Reasonably priced, up-to-date and easy-to-use legal” distribution
is not an ethical replacement for sharing if it involves
DRM, unjust EULAs or requires users to identify themselves.
See http://stallman.org/ebooks.pdf.

Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)

By: The Bay Librarian

The Bay Librarian — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 03:31:00 +0000

I take it back about YouTube. Thought I’d listen to Mozart 40th Symphony by Christopher Hogwood and they only have the first movement. You can’t do that. The Hogwood version is a world treasure – everyone should be given the chance to listen to the whole symphony. YouTube’s cultural mission negated until the whole Hogwood version is uploaded.

By: i desktop publish

i desktop publish — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 02:54:00 +0000

The problem with their argument for legal alternatives is that there are already numerous models of user driven sites with minimum copyright restrictions or none at all. The problem is not piracy its the explosion in technology. blogs, public domain, creative commons, wiki sites, open source, video sites, etc. The power of the internet has sped the world up and the older businesses are not sure how to react. The movie industry still follows their old model of cinema releases. The music industry no longer has a physical shop front whereas people still like to go the cinema (though it looks as though the cinema is entering the front room). It seems to be a change in the way we do things. Regardless of what happens I don’t think they can rely on their old business model which was based on a physical product. What is the value of a file of zeros and ones whether that represent Mozart’s 40th symphony or Die Hard? How do you persuade intelligent consumers that the value you assigned to an internet product is a true reflection of the cost of production and distribution. A lot of the profits generated by major blockbusters seem healthy. The film industry sees file sharing as theft but it seems to be a change in the way people think about digital products. Almost as though people don’t want to pay the price they are asking. How much do they want for a blockbuster film when first released on DVD? Really that much? Shall we just keep letting them shoot themselves in the foot? Everyone got a DVD burner?.