Why fund a cure for cancer when you can fight piracy?

[panteragstk]

You would think the governments of developed nations would have more important things to do with tax dollars than fight piracy. It is a sad day when something as irrelevant as movies/tv/music are important enough for multiple governemts to have a secret conference. Wonder what they'll do when they find something important to talk about?

[Djc208]

Personally it's just scary that our government is pushing so hard for this bill. It's blatent proof that our government is not working in the best interests of its people and is more concerned with the profit margins of major corporations.

My local representatives will be hearing my opinion on this one and I'd urge everyone else to do the same.

[sic0048]

Please take the following comments with a grain of salt. I haven't read the treaty draft to know what it really is trying to enact.

But clearly our government SHOULD be involved with protecting the intellectual property of others. It is a basic building block of our society. If I create something unique, and take the necessary steps to protect it from being copied or reproduced, then I would hope that the government would support my efforts. It doesn't matter if the newly created item is a new medicine that does cure cancer or a bad song lyric/music. Both should be protected. If the government doesn't take action to protect these things, then we never will see a cure for cancer - there will be no motive to spend the money and time searching for a cure if someone else can steal it without repercussions.

Now it is quite possible (and likely in my mind) that the protectionary measures being considered are too far reaching and may step over privacy lines that shouldn't be crossed according to our Constitution. But that very different from saying our Government shouldn't involve itself in the protection of intellectual property.

[stanger89]

The problem is Copyright has been around for ages (don't know the year off hand) and it's been illegal for that long to violate copyright, to commit piracy. The problem is the government has had the authority (since Copyright was enacted) to pursue, prosecute, and punish those who violate it.

I've got absolutely no problem with the gov't pursuing pirates or protecting Copyrights. The problem is bills/laws like this that are completely unnecessary (since the authority enforce Copyright was already there), ineffective (only affect law abiding citizens) and are damaging to liberty and innovation (how much different would the landscape be if ripping DVDs weren't illegal for personal use?).

Of course the really scary thing about this one is the concerted effort made to keep it secret. If this were really about the good of the content creators, one would think it would be loudly proclaimed for all it's benefits and not burried in secrecy of back rooms. We sure have strayed a long, long way from the path that made this country great.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stanger89

We sure have strayed a long, long way from the path that made this country great.

Starting with far too broad of an interpretation of "corporate rights". Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

But clearly our government SHOULD be involved with protecting the intellectual property of others. It is a basic building block of our society. If I create something unique, and take the necessary steps to protect it from being copied or reproduced, then I would hope that the government would support my efforts. It doesn't matter if the newly created item is a new medicine that does cure cancer or a bad song lyric/music. Both should be protected. If the government doesn't take action to protect these things, then we never will see a cure for cancer - there will be no motive to spend the money and time searching for a cure if someone else can steal it without repercussions.

The issue when the same govt circumvents it's own agenda by trying to create a secret treaty. ACTA is about counterfitting... WIPO is about IP, and the ACTA aims to make WIPO irrelevant by making it about IP, simply because the govt isn't happy with the results so far... and by govt, I really mean corp interests.

ACTA right now reads almost like the patriot act of copyright... when you start introducing things like 3 strikes without judicial oversight... ISPs become on the police of the internet, and can lose internet for any number of reasons, without the ability to challenge. No one disagrees that copyright is important, but as stranger pointed out... laws are in place to deal with it today.

ACTA was established to help protect against counterfit drugs, etc, that pose a safety risk to people. 15 year old kids downloading a mp3s pose no public safety risk.

You could argue that perhaps ACTA and WIPO should merge, and you'd probably be correct.... but if that's the case, why not make it transparent to everyone? Flying around the world holding secret meetings is not the way that govt for the people should be run

[sic0048]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here with this reply. In fact I agree with most of your comments. But I do have a problem with one.....

Originally Posted by stuckless

ACTA was established to help protect against counterfit drugs, etc, that pose a safety risk to people. 15 year old kids downloading a mp3s pose no public safety risk.

You hear similar arguments about the fact that illegally downloading music isn't hurting anyone, that the music companies are fat cats anyway and have long taken advantage of artists, etc, etc, etc, etc - all from people trying to justify their actions. I'm not trying to imply that this is what you are doing (I think you were trying to make another point actually), but your comment stands out as one that you hear regularly. My comments below are not necessary directed at you as an indivdual, but to the forum as a whole.

"It's OK because it _____________. Fill in the blank with whatever: "It's not harming anyone" "It is such a small amount" "It's just a song" "If I like it I am more likely to buy the song legally" etc etc, etc. Whenever a person makes that arguement, they tend to loose sight of the fact that they just made themselves judge and jury for that theft.

The problem with that logic is that if you buy into it, you've started down a slippery slope which says some theft is OK and some theft is not. But by who's standard? The person stealing the property?

When the cure for a certain type of cancer is found, should we let people steal it because it will save thousands of lives? "Why should the pharmaceutical companies make money off other people's suffering" "Some people would die if we didn't copy the medicine and give it to them for free "The pharmaceutical companies are just a bunch of fat cats and have long taken advantage of patients" etc, etc, etc.

Where does it all end?

Obviously the copyright and other intellectual property protections have been around for a long time. But that doesn't mean that the current laws provide enough enforcement given the new digital age. I don't agree with people that think the laws don't need to be updated to reflect this new medium and way to exchange information.

I'm not saying this treaty is the right way to do it (again I admit to not even reading it yet), but I also think it is futile to argue that the existing laws are adequate to deal with the digital age of piracy.

I also hope this thread doesn't spiral down into the typical copyright forum thread. Those things can get ugly!

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

I'm not trying to be argumentative here with this reply. In fact I agree with most of your comments. But I do have a problem with one.....



You hear similar arguments about the fact that illegally downloading music isn't hurting anyone, that the music companies are fat cats anyway and have long taken advantage of artists, etc, etc, etc, etc - all from people trying to justify their actions. I'm not trying to imply that this is what you are doing (I think you were trying to make another point actually), but your comment stands out as one that you hear regularly. My comments below are not necessary directed at you as an indivdual, but to the forum as a whole.

"It's OK because it _____________. Fill in the blank with whatever: "It's not harming anyone" "It is such a small amount" "It's just a song" "If I like it I am more likely to buy the song legally" etc etc, etc. Whenever a person makes that arguement, they tend to loose sight of the fact that they just made themselves judge and jury for that theft.

The problem with that logic is that if you buy into it, you've started down a slippery slope which says some theft is OK and some theft is not. But by who's standard? The person stealing the property?

When the cure for a certain type of cancer is found, should we let people steal it because it will save thousands of lives? "Why should the pharmaceutical companies make money off other people's suffering" "Some people would die if we didn't copy the medicine and give it to them for free "The pharmaceutical companies are just a bunch of fat cats and have long taken advantage of patients" etc, etc, etc.

Where does it all end?

Obviously the copyright and other intellectual property protections have been around for a long time. But that doesn't mean that the current laws provide enough enforcement given the new digital age. I don't agree with people that think the laws don't need to be updated to reflect this new medium and way to exchange information.

I'm not saying this treaty is the right way to do it (again I admit to not even reading it yet), but I also think it is futile to argue that the existing laws are adequate to deal with the digital age of piracy.

I also hope this thread doesn't spiral down into the typical copyright forum thread. Those things can get ugly!

That's quite the rant... but my statement was factually correct. 15 year old kids downloading music is not a public safety issue. I'm not saying it's ok to do it, only that the ACTA has historically has an agenda to protect people from counterfit goods... and the WIPO is there for the IP stuff.

[tmiranda]

I'm pretty much with sic0048. Theft is illegal. If those 15 year olds were breaking into banks and stealing a few hundred dollars that wouldn't be a threat to the public safety either, and it wouldn't really be hurting the bank because they are all a bunch of rich fat cats, etc, etc, but the kids should (and would) still go to jail.

Stealing $100 worth of music from the internet is no different from stealing $100 from a bank. That's factually correct as well.

Now, should the government be focusing on piracy vs. other issues is another story altogether.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm pretty much with sic0048. Theft is illegal. If those 15 year olds were breaking into banks and stealing a few hundred dollars that wouldn't be a threat to the public safety either, and it wouldn't really be hurting the bank because they are all a bunch of rich fat cats, etc, etc, but the kids should (and would) still go to jail.

Stealing $100 worth of music from the internet is no different from stealing $100 from a bank. That's factually correct as well.

Now, should the government be focusing on piracy vs. other issues is another story altogether.

First off... I'm not against your or sic... and nowhere did I say that 15 year olds infringing copyright was somehow good. The difference is this... under the ACTA "improvements" catching "infringers" is a fishing exercise. The ISP is the police... they cast their net, and pull in the infringers, and you might be ok with that, because those 15 year olds deserve it. But before you are so quick to judge, ask yourself if broke the law today. Do you driver a car? Speed limit is 50, and you hit 51... you broke the law... should your car automatically issue you a fine everytime the needle goes above 50? People really need to get off their high horses.

Under the ACTA, the small amount of "fair use" that you have left in the US is pretty much gone. Not only for those pesky 15 year olds, but also for those teachers as well... after all, we don't them photocopying stuff for class "fair use". Oh, and those dvds you rip... criminal. That's not bad for a treaty that there is there to protect people against counterfit goods.... Not sure there's much left for WIPO.

Oh, and I love how people assume you are a pirate because you somehow are against secret govt treaties... If you use sagetv to record TV or if you rip dvds.... you shouldn't be a criminal for that. You might morally draw see the distinction between 15 year olds downloading music and you "ripping" dvds, but the content industry doesn't. You have people like ted turner that thinks you are "stealing" if you skip commercials. murdoc thinks that indexing headlines is copyright infringement... it's only getting worse... and the ACTA is a part of it.

[KarylFStein]

Originally Posted by stuckless

You might morally draw see the distinction between 15 year olds downloading music and you "ripping" dvds, but the content industry doesn't.

I know it sounds weird, but I actually have a problem when *I* rip a DVD because I know it is technically against the law. It's not like I'm ripping DVDs I don't own and I'm not giving them away to anyone, but still it bugs me. If only some case law could be made to loosen that up, but I can't see anyone getting arrested for just that...

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm pretty much with sic0048. Theft is illegal. If those 15 year olds were breaking into banks and stealing a few hundred dollars that wouldn't be a threat to the public safety either, and it wouldn't really be hurting the bank because they are all a bunch of rich fat cats, etc, etc, but the kids should (and would) still go to jail.

Stealing $100 worth of music from the internet is no different from stealing $100 from a bank. That's factually correct as well.

Now, should the government be focusing on piracy vs. other issues is another story altogether.

I don't mean to sound arguementative, but I thoroughly disagree that music from the internet/etc. is the same as stealing from a bank.

Theft presuposes that someone has actually suffered a loss - ie, your bank example: The bank no longer has that $100 it once actually did have. A digital copy of a music file has not reduced anybodies inventory. One could make an arguement that demand for a given product is reduced, but that is virtually impossible to prove - hence why the 'law' has a difficult time with the 'Digital Age'. Not saying either side is guilty or innocent, just that much more debate needs to be done before anyone can say 'guilty of theft' for downloading a file.

I'd venture to guess had the music industry readily embraced technology in the first place and made it easy for anyone to move the music to whichever device they see fit, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in now. It all boils down to staying current with the publics' needs/desires. Ever since LP's were in existence and available to the public, it was percieved (by the public) that if you bought the record - you owned it! When CD's came around and copying them became a reality, somehow the music industry tried to get people to belive that 'buying' the disc was in reality buying the 'rights' to listen to the disc - they somehow still 'owned' it. The public didn't swallow it, so the industry looked for ways to force it on the public - via DRM.

Digital downloads from sites like Amazon (and now iTunes) are showing that DRM isn't necessary for the music industry to prosper. Imagine what their balance sheet would look like had they been pro-consumer from the outset.

-PGPfan

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

Theft presuposes that someone has actually suffered a loss - ie, your bank example: The bank no longer has that $100 it once actually did have. A digital copy of a music file has not reduced anybodies inventory. One could make an arguement that demand for a given product is reduced, but that is virtually impossible to prove - hence why the 'law' has a difficult time with the 'Digital Age'.

Untrue. Theft of intellectual property is no different from theft of tangible property.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm pretty much with sic0048. Theft is illegal. If those 15 year olds were breaking into banks and stealing a few hundred dollars that wouldn't be a threat to the public safety either,

Actually it would/could be because they'd probably need a weapon, or at least threat of a weapon (which must be taken seriously) in order to actually succeed.

Stealing $100 worth of music from the internet is no different from stealing $100 from a bank. That's factually correct as well.

Problem with that is that's not "factually correct" that's the opinion of some, most notably the content owners. What is "factually correct" is that a downloaded song has the potential of reducing the demand for the for-sale good, but even that is not clear cut.

There was a study done a few years back that actually looked at file sharing and sales, what it showed was that at worst file (music) sharing very little effect on sales (far less than a 1:1 reduction) and at best even had a potentially positive effect (people exposed to music they wouldn't otherwise have tried, ending up buying stuff they wouldn't have bought).

So let me be 100% crystal clear on my position here. I am absolutely for the procecution of copyright violators, especially commercial pirates. The problem is there is IMO no evidence that the crime of "casual" Copyright infringement (file sharing, downloading, etc) rises to anywhere near the severity that would justify the liberty crushing treaties and laws that have been getting put on the books over the past decade or two.

To put distil it down to one sentence:

Liberty and the Constitution are far, far more important than stopping "15 year olds downloading songs on the internet."

Now, should the government be focusing on piracy vs. other issues is another story altogether.

Again, the problem isn't fighting piracty, I'm all for that. The problem is creating new, secret laws/treaties that most likely violate Constitutional principals (unreasonable search and ceasure, presumtion of innocence, etc) when there are already laws on the books and have been for years that provide the authority.

The problem is these latest actions, WIPO, ACTA, DMCA, etc have more to do with taking away rights than they do with fighting piracy.

It's been proven, over and over and over that the heavy handed, forceful solutions to piracy have little to no effect on anything but the fair use of content by law abiding citizens. And especially little effect on commercial pirates.

[stuckless]

Over the years, the "losses" attributed to piracy has been based on "studies" that have been published by the govt groups. More recently, ie, a just a few days ago, the GAO has basically said that these #s (ie 250 billion annually) is basically a made up number, citing the fact that the agencies that reported them, had no factual studies to back them up.

First, a number of industry, media, and government publications have cited an FBI estimate that U.S. businesses lose $200-$250 billion to counterfeiting on an annual basis. This estimate was contained in a 2002 FBI press release, but FBI officials told us that it has no record of source data or methodology for generating the estimate and that it cannot be corroborated.

This is why we don't need secret treaties based on made up numbers. No one disputes that piracy has some net effect on sales, but shouldn't we try to understand it first, instead of just making up numbers? I deal with this with my kids and math... I ask a question, and they quicky reply with a random number... my response is always the same "While randomly picking a # to a math question is quite fast, it's not very accurate"

btw.. because you wont these reports on the daily news, fox news, cnn news, (and I'm always surprised by that, since they have paid journalists that go out an research these things)...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04..._exaggerators/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002348-261.html

[stuckless]

If you are curious about the internet provisions in the ACTA, you can read a summary here. This is a canadian blog by a professor in canada, so this has a canadian spin. (He's like the EFF for Canada ) If you are a US citizen, then the ATCA probably doesn't do much to reduce your rights, except maybe take away the last few bits of fair use that you left after the DMCA... but in other countries, that still have fair use, etc, this is a huge deal, and it undermines current efforts that these governments are doing to try to bring about a balanced copyright reform.

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by stuckless

But before you are so quick to judge, ask yourself if broke the law today. Do you driver a car? Speed limit is 50, and you hit 51... you broke the law... should your car automatically issue you a fine everytime the needle goes above 50? People really need to get off their high horses.

It can be as simple as watching a YouTube video. The way I understand some of the allowances in this bill, not only could a content creator/owner come after Google for hosting it, the member who posted it, but also you for watching it.

In fact according to some of the stuff I've read they can start legal proceedings if they think you are an "immenent" threat to commit a violation. It would be like getting a speeding ticket for buying a car capable of going over the speed limits, because they know you'll speed at some point.

Then to add insult to injury if you have more than three incidents the law allows them to restrict or deny you access to the internet.

I'm not against protecting against commercial piracy, but like Stanger said, this isn't about going after the producers, this is about using your tax dollars and law enforcement agencies to protect the IP of these companies at the cost of your freedoms.

You also have to look at the other side of the coin, locking down and restricting IP to the level that most of these organizations want would not only kill SageTV, but even if it did survive Sage could easily come after you for downloading or creating features and add-ons that affect their IP, a feature most of us like about this program vs say WMC. Add in the broad and unrealistic copyrights approved to some of these companies and you have a recipie to completely stifle innovation and competition.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

Theft presuposes that someone has actually suffered a loss - ie, your bank example: The bank no longer has that $100 it once actually did have. A digital copy of a music file has not reduced anybodies inventory. One could make an arguement that demand for a given product is reduced, but that is virtually impossible to prove - hence why the 'law' has a difficult time with the 'Digital Age'. Not saying either side is guilty or innocent, just that much more debate needs to be done before anyone can say 'guilty of theft' for downloading a file.

So if you find a cure for cancer and have the "magic formula" saved on a hard drive somewhere, I can copy that formula and use it without your permission and you would be OK with that? After all, your "inventory" hasn't been reduced any and I didn't steal the actual medicine after it was manufactured, so according to your arguement I've done nothing wrong.



I don't like the treaty however the more I read about it. For one, it will effectively make internet "hotspots" a thing of the past, because if someone was to use that hotspot and download illegal material, the owners of the hotspot would be fined or cut off from the internet. Therefore no company is going to run that risk and they will simply remove any internet access from their facility. This would mean that there would be little to no browsing available anywhere except your own home. Internet access in restaurants, hospitals, libraries, internet cafe's, airports, public hotspots, etc would all likely disappear.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

So if you find a cure for cancer and have the "magic formula" saved on a hard drive somewhere, I can copy that formula and use it without your permission and you would be OK with that? After all, your "inventory" hasn't been reduced any and I didn't steal the actual medicine after it was manufactured, so according to your arguement I've done nothing wrong.

It might just be me... but man, if you had cancer, and I held the cure... i'd be OK with you using the formula to cure yourself... now after you were cured, you decided to set up shop and compete with me by selling my formula... then yeah... i'd shut you down using the current laws... and don't need secret govt treaties to do it. That being said, if the "magic" cure was simple to eat more red meat... then i'd probably be sol

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stuckless

It might just be me... but man, if you had cancer, and I held the cure... i'd be OK with you using the formula to cure yourself...

I appreciate the sentiment.

Originally Posted by stuckless

now after you were cured, you decided to set up shop and compete with me by selling my formula... then yeah... i'd shut you down using the current laws... and don't need secret govt treaties to do it. That being said, if the "magic" cure was simple to eat more red meat... then i'd probably be sol

What if I didn't actually create anything, but simply decided to distribute the formula across the internet for anyone to download and use for free? Would you still be so generous, or would you try and stop me?