Bad Pirates Vs Not-So-Bad Pirates: EU Handles File-Sharers With Kid Gloves
	found on Music Industry News Network written by mi2n, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 2 Feb 7:52pm
		"The term 'piracy' can cover a whole host of activities, depending on whom you ask. One recent distinction is between what I'll refer to as 'clandestine' piracy—activity by lone individuals such as file sharing, downloading and CD-swapping—and commercial piracy, the widescale distribution of counterfeited works for profit. While there is some debate on the status and treatment of 'clandestine' piracy, given the issue of 'fair use' and the problem of policing, you'll find unanimous condemnation for the commercialized form from all sides, including 'free' music advocates. "This key distinction forms the heart of the European Commission's newly-proposed directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights: it 'concentrates on infringements carried out for commercial purposes or which cause significant harm to right holders', but 'would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.' "As would be expected, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) expressed 'dismay' at the proposal, which goes counter to US laws such as the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act & DMCA: 'The proposal creates a two-tier system of enforcement where some types of piracy are acceptable and others not.'"

	"The Commission proposal relies on a basic assumption that commercial piracy is a greater threat to the creative community and its economy, because it is a direct substitute for CDs, DVDs and software that would otherwise have been sold. Commercial piracy also sustains clandestine piracy because it distributes content stripped of any copy-protection technology otherwise incorporated by rights holders. "The jury on the impact of clandestine piracy is still out and depends greatly on the specific circumstances surrounding individual cases. But for the media industry, clandestine piracy actually poses a greater threat for it undermines the very foundation upon which the industry has been built since the phonograph: the sale of music."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 25 commentsbest: 0 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Commerical vs Clandestine in software   by Pravda       at Sun 2 Feb 8:47pm score of 1     There's no doubt that commercial piracy is far far worse for the software industry. Back when I was a student (all of a month ago), there were very few of us CS-types that didn't have a copy of Photoshop or something like that on our machine. But had there been no way to easily pirate those programs, very very few of us would have bought them - they just were too expensive for the limited use that they got. Plus, how easy would it be to audit every single person in my dorm to make sure their copies of Visual Studio were registered? (Actually, all were, since my school gave it to us for free, but that's besides the point). The situation changes immensely when it's a question of a company (even a relatively small one) pirating essential software, whether it's Windows, Photoshop, or a dev environment. On a purely moral ground, the company is making money off its use of the software, hence they can afford it - their prices need to take into account the overhead of producing whatever they are producing. Also, pirating software can be dangerous. There's no support, and importantly, there's no guarantee that the software's clean. I always thought it might be a fun experiment to compile a little trojan horse into a pirated copy of Photoshop or something that would send the computer user's information to some ftp site so I could track the distribution of the pirated software. I never did this of course (I'm a fraidy-cat), but it could be done, and with a much more malicious intent. And there would be no recourse... Seen in the subQ: "For once I have to +Pravda. Scary. - Anonymouse Savant"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: Commerical vs Clandestine in software   by SJT       at Mon 3 Feb 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     The situation changes immensely when it's a question of a company (even a relatively small one) pirating essential software, whether it's Windows, Photoshop, or a dev environment. On a purely moral ground, the company is making money off its use of the software, hence they can afford it - their prices need to take into account the overhead of producing whatever they are producing. Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the companies leak occasional serial numbers, copies etc. It is in their interest to have the up-and-coming purchasers of their software hooked on their particular brand; so if a student finds they are reliant on some piece of software they can be pretty sure it'll be bought once the student has to make a living from it, needs the tech support etc.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Commerical vs Clandestine in software   by holgate       at Tue 4 Feb 10:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     The situation changes immensely when it's a question of a company (even a relatively small one) pirating essential software, whether it's Windows, Photoshop, or a dev environment. On a purely moral ground, the company is making money off its use of the software, hence they can afford it - their prices need to take into account the overhead of producing whatever they are producing. The bumped-up pricing of applications designed to be used in a corporate environment, as opposed to the home, is similar to the inflated price tags that surround 'business' items everywhere, most notably the cost of hotel accommodation around airports and in big cities. (If you're a businessperson, you're likely to be expensing your hotel room, so you don't shop around.) It's an open secret that while Adobe is big on enforcing action against pirated software in the workplace (and especially on unauthorised use of its fonts), it essentially tolerates consumer piracy. That's because the best way to ensure sales to businesses is to make it relatively easy for people to acquire their Photoshop skills on a pirated copy they installed on their home computer. (That's partly why Adobe's copy protection is actually much less sophisticated than that found, for instance, in $30 shareware programs, where it's far more incumbent on the authors to restrict illegal duplication in order to earn any money from their software.) It's drug dealer economics: let them have the first one for free, and get them to pay when they're hooked. After all, you read the job ads asking for people who are already skilled in Photoshop. How are people supposed to learn these skills at the bottom end of the job ladder? Spend $600 as an 'investment'? Yeah, right. Go to classes? Possibly. But in the real world, they download a warez copy, perhaps splash out $50 on a Photoshop tutorial book, and keep the Adobe gravy train rolling once they're hired... to use Photoshop.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Commerical vs Clandestine in software   by Issaac       at Wed 5 Feb 11:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Like you said, mi2n, these days, software that college students need to get and use are soooo expensive these days. I believe that the ability to download and use these pirated software programs like Photoshop are all on the student. Hey, when you are poor, you are poor. Maybe if these companies lower the software programs for students, maybe they would stop the downloading of these softwares. For me, I'm still going to keep doing my thing with kazaa . hehe.. Oh well, do what you want, but until I graduate and get a good job, kazaa is the way to go.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Commerical vs Clandestine in software   by Pravda       at Wed 5 Feb 5:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Dunno what college you go to, but mine had relatively good deals on Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, etc products. Of course, I used to work for Adobe, and we got copies of Photoshop for $40... Seen in the subQ: "For once I have to +Pravda. Scary. - Anonymouse Savant"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  piracy   by flamenco       at Mon 3 Feb 7:19am score of 1.5 informative     I would have to disagree with you. Commercial piracy is far worse than what you call clandestine piracy - and by the way I don't know a single musician who has not shared mp3s....I recommend an article on salon.com written by somebody in the music industry: a www.salon.com link The fact is that the music industry has to find new ways of selling or renting music or go the way of the dinosaur. I for one won 't shed a tear if they cannot adapt.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Piracy   by K8ters       at Mon 3 Feb 8:10am score of 1.5 succinct     I think that there is a huge difference between "clandestine" and commercial piracy. I should be able to burn all the CDs I want, download all the music I want-as long as I am not trying to make a profit. I am still buying CDs...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Piracy   by Anonymous SidVicious       at Mon 3 Feb 9:22am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 8     I agree. I'm far more selective when buying CDs these days, although getting them off the net isn't exactly "free" either. The computer, a decent burner, the cost of a highspeed connection and the blank CDs all cost money; its just going to somebody else instead of the usual industry people, who, when I think back over the years (and hundreds of CDs and cassettes), have presumably received their "fair" share from me by now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  So how did we let this happen?   by fluff       at Mon 3 Feb 11:29am score of 1.5 compelling     Ten years ago, it would have been inconceivable to prosecute a private consumer for violation of copyright. `Clandestine piracy' would have been an oxymoron. The interpretation behind copyright was that it gave one person the right to sell certain content. The concept seems to have changed to say that the copyright holder owns the content, and is basically loaning it out to the consumer under certain terms. How'd this change happen? Yes, copying data is easier than copying a book, but dubbing a CD to cassette really wasn't that hard, nor was photocopying your friend's photocopy of a $100 textbook. Anyway, if you're bothered by the fact that the paradigm has shifted from ownership of sales rights to ownership of ideas, then do something. If you're in the States, write your congressperson. If you make more than $25/year, join the EFF. Legal paradigms don't come out of nowhere, and articles on salon.com are not the best way to bring things back to where they should be.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: So how did we let this happen?   by OSULugan       at Mon 3 Feb 2:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     How'd this change happen? Yes, copying data is easier than copying a book, but dubbing a CD to cassette really wasn't that hard, nor was photocopying your friend's photocopy of a $100 textbook. Well, not only is copying "data" easier than copying a book, or dubbing a CD, but there's the nature of a digital-to-digital copy. 10 years ago, unless you had some good audiophile equipment, a copy of a CD to a tape lost a decent amount of quality, especially if you tried to make copies of that copy, etc.. With the ability to make a straight CD-to-CD copy digitally, we've been given the power of loss-less copying, so that if I burn a copy of your CD, then let a friend burn a copy of my copy, and he lets his friend do the same, well, his friend's CD will be (theoretically) just as good as your original CD. Try that with dubbing tapes. This is why the music and video industry didn't have such a large voice in the anti-piracy arena a decade ago, yet software has almost always had this issue. (And why I've got to wonder if the book-industry really wanted e-Books to succeed). And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: So how did we let this happen?   by David Flores       at Mon 3 Feb 2:58pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 13     Well, not only is copying "data" easier than copying a book, or dubbing a CD, but there's the nature of a digital-to-digital copy. 10 years ago, unless you had some good audiophile equipment, a copy of a CD to a tape lost a decent amount of quality, especially if you tried to make copies of that copy, etc.. Yeah, but nobody cared. Seriously, 15 years ago, half the tapes in your collection were likely dubbed off your friends' originals. Heck, when you were a kid it's likely that 90% of your tapes were dubbed from friends. I can't remember ever paying for a new cassette because it sounded better than a dubbed copy. I bought CDs for that reason, though. Once you'd heard a medium with no tape hiss, you were hooked. The problem with MP3's is not the quality of the copy, but the fact that you can log on and find anything. When I was a teenager I bought a ton of music simply because the likelyhood I'd find someone who owned a copy of a given Nazareth album was exceedingly low. Same goes for Black Sabbath. I mean what were the chances I'd run into someone who owned a copy of "Technical Ecstasy?" How many people have even heard of that album? Now I log on to Kazaa and there's obscure shit up there. The recording industry's in trouble for this very reason, but musicians aren't and never will be. For one thing, even today most real musicians make most of their money off concert tours, not album sales. For another thing, most real musicians do what they do for the music, not the money. That's why you've got great Irish bands, and Bluegrass bands, and Polka bands, and Symphony orchestras. None of those people will ever get rich, but they'll play the socks off of most pop musicians. What happens when the recording industry dies is that CD's dissappear. Music stores dissappear. And everyone gets their tunes off the internet. Bands get their money from playing concerts, and rock stars spend their evenings practicing their instruments instead of ripping up hotel-rooms because suddenly they've actually got to be able play well to make money, and they're not making enough in the first place to furnish a hotel room every night. Everybody wins except the suits. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  A wager...   by Huntred       at Tue 4 Feb 11:18am score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 15     Music stores dissappear. And everyone gets their tunes off the internet. Bands get their money from playing concerts, and rock stars spend their evenings practicing their instruments instead of ripping up hotel-rooms because suddenly they've actually got to be able play well to make money, and they're not making enough in the first place to furnish a hotel room every night. Everybody wins except the suits. You've never worked for - or own - a music store, right? To say nothing of various roles involved in the process of commercial music distribution. The suits generally win or at least spoil the earth where they have been. Huntred   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  one more thing.....   by flamenco       at Mon 3 Feb 12:56pm score of 1     Radio has become an endless + mindless loop about 60 minutes in length...remember the days when you would hear a great song on the radio + had to call up the DJ to find out what it was - that was a LONG time ago!!!....well, today the record labels pay Clear Channel, who own 60% of all rock/pop radio stations millions in payola per year (only they don't call it that anymore) to get their songs played...if you want to find unusual or non-mainstream music you have to find it on the internet because radio won't play it. Many artist can make a living only because they have been discovered by a new generation through file-sharing...and once they are discovered people can search for them by name and buy the CD....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: one more thing.....   by snarkism       at Mon 3 Feb 2:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     remember the days when you would hear a great song on the radio + had to call up the DJ to find out what it was That would be yesterday. - that was a LONG time ago!!!.... I guess you could consider 24 hours a long time, but I wouldn't. well, today the record labels pay Clear Channel, who own 60% of all rock/pop radio stations Not in Australia, because we still have great public radio. Radio with no playlists, where you can actually talk to the DJs, and hear interesting new stuff. Don't worry - you can listen from the US via webcast: a www.rrr.org.au link a www.pbsfm.org.au link Support public radio! Don't let Clear Channel rule everything. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  You're not kidding!   by Leviathant       at Tue 4 Feb 10:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     I spent a month in Australia and one of the things I was most envious about was the fantastic public radio system there. I heard so much new and good music, I grew even more scathing of the stations back home (in the US). Sure, we can listen to Aussie radio via webcast, but not in our cars :( And as varied as the radio was over there, it didn't come off as some crappy random mp3 playlist like one finds on too many webcasts. Things were queued up in relevant order, and the playlists and requests flowed like sweet wine. I am Leviathant, and I approve this message.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: one more thing.....   by Victor Lazlo       at Wed 5 Feb 2:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Hmm, you have to have real audio?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: one more thing.....   by Jojo       at Mon 3 Feb 4:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     then stop listening to clear channel dross and support your local college radio! There are also tons of college radio stations that have webcasts, like my local one: KCRW Jojo   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  The problem with my area college radio...   by Leviathant       at Tue 4 Feb 10:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     ...is that it has the transmission range of about four city blocks. The Australian public radio station JJJ, which one day I recall included Missy Elliot, The Vandals, Sonic Animation, Queens of the Stone Age, and Eminem -- most of the songs not even being label-pushed singles -- is broadcast all over the damn country. On travel maps, you get listings of which FM frequencies you can find the various public stations on as you drive along. And they've also got a brilliant public classical station. Envy! ENVY! I am Leviathant, and I approve this message.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: The problem with my area college radio...   by timnet       at Wed 5 Feb 4:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The problem with my area college radio ... is that it has the transmission range of about four city blocks. SometiS5{ that. One day in college I was working a morning shift during the summer and our main transmitter was down ... and I had no idea. I DJed for about two hours where I could barely be heard in the parking lot (and I thought I had less calls than usual...). Seriously, a bigger problem with college radio often is an extreme lack of anything resembling uniformity. While it's novel to play Black Sabbath follwed by Soundgarden, Wall of Sound, Wall of Voodoo, Big Bad Voodoo Daddies, R.E.M., Eminem, SOD, POD, MOD and Run-DMC, it's hell for listeners. (Our local college station is sometimes known for wild mood swings.) But, thankfully, the 'net has liberated those of us who crave new music from relying on regionalized tastes, sensibilities and abilities. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Arrrrrrrr!   by snarkism       at Mon 3 Feb 3:00pm score of 1     The term 'piracy' can cover a whole host of activities, depending on whom you ask. True, but I usually leave it up to Old Sailor to comment on nautical matters. I'm not qualified. I only hope I don't get keelhauled by the Coast Guard trying to smuggle in my precious cargo of hot pants. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  pirating will continue   by CattleMan2000       at Tue 4 Feb 5:29pm score of 1     I think that piracy will always exist but if they are threatening consumers people may just not download songs anymore. I feel that few will buy more cd's. I think people will just resort to burning cd's again.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]