That may be the case. It makes sense from this perspective , and piracy is a real and growing problem. The majority of major media companies Comcast, News Corp. We may collect cookies and other personal information from your interaction with our website.
For more information on the categories of personal information we collect and the purposes we use them for, please view our Notice at Collection. Become a Member Sign In. General Newsletters Got a news tip? Free: Join the VentureBeat Community for access to 3 premium posts and unlimited videos per month.
Learn More. Sign up with your business e-mail to continue with ticket purchase. VentureBeat VentureBeat's mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact.
Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. SOPA was once expected to sail quickly through committee approval in the House. But tech companies, who largely oppose the bills, mobilized their users to speak out. Google GOOG , Fortune drew more than 7 million signatures for a petition that it linked on its highly trafficked homepage. The bills lost some of their Congressional backers as a result of the backlash.
One major tenet of the original SOPA legislation has already been removed. As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers ISPs to block access to sites that law enforcement officials deemed pirate sites. But the White House said its analysis of the original legislation's technical provisions "suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity," and that it wouldn't support legislation that mandates manipulating the Internet's technical architecture.
What are the alternatives? One option, of course, is that Congress does nothing and leaves the current laws in place. Alternative legislation has also been proposed. It also beefs up the enforcement process. It would allow digital rights holders to bring cases before the U. International Trade Commission ITC , an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other trade disputes. OPEN's backers had posted the draft legislation online and invited the Web community to comment on and revise the proposal.
SOPA supporters counter that the ITC doesn't have the resources for digital enforcement, and that giving it those resources would be too expensive.
Print Comment. Did Apple save Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine just in time? How to make good TV for the web, according to Amazon. Tech Jobs. See all jobs. And that this one way transaction is morally acceptable. I'm really not sure that it is. I'd agree that artists should not expect to get paid for every single shared file. But what we hope is there are still enough people prepared to give something back in return for the pleasure we give them.
It simply isn't reasonable to expect us to carry all the costs and then just give it to you all for nothing, just because it happens to be digital. For an answer I will give you this: And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services.
And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so.
If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law.
Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement. When few people infringe because it is easier not to, then it becomes very difficult to make money off of advertising to infringers.
I'm just sayin If you think that leaving such a possibility open is okay, you are a part of the problem. It's better to endure the possibility that the guilty will go free than to allow the possibility that the innocent will be punished. Would you support legislation that enforced the rights of artists against record labels and movie studios? Where is the sweeping legislation to counter the abuses of the DMCA takedown notices? Search engines catalog data and supply results. If the data didn't exist, the search engines wouldn't report its existence.
There's no such thing as "Big Piracy. You can't blame a bucket manufacturer because someone bought a bucket and put illegal drugs in the bucket. Where is the legislation to curb Hollywood accounting practices that keep royalties out of the hands of people who work on a movie?
Put your legislation where your mouth is. Target the users, not the tools. I don't recall being asked to pay for a membership to a torrent site. But tell me, why aren't media companies making that money by selling access to convenient content instead? If the pirates can make that money, so can the big media companies Everyone here is NOT dead set against any kind of punishment whatsoever. What people ARE dead set against is these two acts, which will do nothing to actually stop infringement.
In fact, people keep saying we need to do more and we need to do more. Yet conveniently seem to ignore the fact that laws are already on the books to deal with infringement. More isn't needed to be done as in passing worse laws , we need to enforce properly the ones we already have. If they can make money, why can't you? If Netflix, Spotify, and iTunes can all compete with "free", what's the problem?
Because evidence shows they are doing exactly that. In fact, evidence shows that the more legal, convenient services put out there, the less infringement you find occurring. What you do about "rogue sites" is beat them at their own game. They're not necessarily easy for the laymen to use or understand.
But iTunes and Netflix are. So what do you do? Give the goddamn people what they want. Your products at reasonable prices in formats they want. You don't dictate to the market. The market dictates to you. The market is already telling you and showing you what it wants. So just listen to it. It really isn't hard to figure out. You want something along those lines? Make something that targets things specifically. Something that isn't what it currently is, which is a joke.
Look up above at the article. Mike clearly points out all the problems with those two acts. So why not address them? Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "See! You just don't want us to do anything at all! You want to keep stealing!
Not even remotely. People are very clearly yet again saying what the problems are, unless you're an idiot, it shouldn't be too hard to fix the problems. I'm done with my comment. I think NOFX said it best with the entire lyrics to one of their songs, as well as quite bluntly with the song's name, "Dinosaurs Will Die".
Arthur profile , 22 Nov pm. Under these laws you couldn't stop the abuse because they actually protect and even encourage the abuse. Laws are supposed to protect the innocent -- these laws encourage the abuse of the innocent and protect the abuser. There are absolutely no penalties for misusing these laws. All the penalties are on the accused, even if they are completely innocent. Part of the message that often gets lost is that these laws, while meant to target lawbreakers, do not actually target lawbreakers.
They target companies and services to attempt to put pressure on said lawbreakers. Once faced with this pressure and inability to continue to use a company or service to commit what ever crimes they may the lawbreaker simply moves on to another method of continuing to do what they do. No expense or risk to them at all, just a little inconvenience, which many people argue is what drove them to copyright infringement in the first place. I know that the real supporters of legislation like SOPA and PIPA will never believe this until they can quantifiably witness it but the way to minimize the copyright infringement problem is to make it not worthwhile to infringe.
Josh in CharlotteNC profile , 22 Nov pm. It is utterly simple. Out compete them. The content companies could have a tremendous advantage and nearly put torrent sites out of business in a few days if they were willing to pull their heads out of their asses and compete.
You want to get me to stop torrenting my favorite TV shows each week? Let me download them in a good quality format the moment they start airing and charge a reasonable price straight from the network's home page.
You put it up, I'll get my credit card. You want to get me to stop torrenting a movie that's still in the theaters? Let me download it in a good quality format on release night for a reasonable price.
There is no technical or economic reason why what I've mentioned is either unreasonable or unfeasible. So, get on it, and I'll get my credit card. I'm sorry. You can't out compete someone who takes your goods and resells them without paying for them.
Any legit company that actually pays the artists any fraction, no matter how tiny, can't compete against a company that pays zero. Get a clue. Jay profile , 22 Nov pm. Anonymous Coward , 23 Dec pm. Just look at the evidence. All you need to see is iTunes and Netflix, among others. How about, YOU get a clue, and see the evidence of the truth. You're right If the likelihood of misuse is tremendously high, and the benefit of the actual law is minimal, then that certainly seems like an issue, no?
Every time you bring out those "Bigs" you look really stupid. No offense, but just saying. If you want to have a serious conversation, it would help for you not to look clueless. None of those are "cheating the system. Makes no sense. I thought I stated that in the post: you out-compete with them. It takes work, but it's really not that hard. Look at the way Americans flocked to Spotify when it finally launched here. Look at how it's being used massively across Sweden, home of the Pirate Bay.
Compete and win. People would prefer to go to the source -- but they don't right now because the authorized sources come with too many problems. You either repeal copyright law or enforce it.
Anything less is a mockery of law, and by extension, a negative commentary on society. Modplan profile , 23 Nov am. I guess we should repeal it then. This has a very, very low priority for them.
HungryCollegeKid , 28 Nov pm. See, I think you're right. It sucks that people profit off stuff that is not theirs. However, this law is waaaay too overextending. Anonymous Coward , 14 Dec pm. Absolutely nothing can physically be done about ISOhunts or any site like it because of the ways in which they operate. In the most extreme case a well established site hosting infringing content could maybe through great expenditure of time and resources be taken down.
The site admins will then set up another site in a better location. With massive untold expenditures of time and resources it's They would then get together and put the whole community on a Tor-like network of fully obfuscated systems that could never ever be traced and we'd be in the hole for our entire GDP with nothing to show for it. NickNackGus , 16 Dec am. Alright, it sounds like you know a few illegal sites. Should you be arrested for knowing they exist, should the websites be shut down leaving the site owners to rebuild elsewhere, or should the site be shut down and the owners taken to court?
What you've said so far sounds like you should be arrested for visiting those sites, and any site that mentions them should be shut down. This would also shut down any good search engine, just so you know.
What incentive does the public have to continue allowing copyright? Anonymous Coward , 17 Dec am. Honestly I have heard a few bands on tv actually encourage music piracy. Dzonatan , 27 Dec am. Some might actually start believing they are and they will continue to do so because they are labelled as such regardless of what they do.
Covering it with laws instead making it better makes people pirate it more. It's just how human react when they are unconvienced and then forced into thinking something is like this or that. It's been as long as digital content exist, yet music, movie, game industry still exist and as a matter of fact keeps evolving.
Example: Minecraft, in terms of graphic the most primitive 3d game in this generation, piss easy to pirate both single and multiplayer. Did it died and Notch went bankcrupt? He's a rich man now thanks to the fact that his game is creative and the very same "rogue" his gamess made people believe that simply by seeing what is possible in that game.
If i was the driver's fault,and not some manufactuars defect, y should i be able to sue Toyota. Or, a thief stole from me and cept these stolen goods in an Arvest bank box. Then, i have the entire company shut down because some stolen goods were in a strong box there.
These Websites, even perfectly legitamite websites, can be shut down with absolutely no warning what so ever. The Average John Doe can not understand how the internet works. They can use it, but not understand it. The legislators, who are writing this bill probably couldn't open an E-mail if I sent one to them.
They admitted to not having any idea what they are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think you meant musicians, right? You are too naive! This whole thing is being pushed by the commercialization channels. They used to make a lot of money by controlling the distribution channels. The music you used to listen to had been choosen by few people who market it aggresively on those channels and profited a lot on that.
A small percentage went to the artist. Didn't you know you this? Well, music is information Sheet music is just information to play a piece. The digital age you live in has been made possible by the ability of easily copying information from one place to another: this copying allows you to read this page! It is really too easy. Some artists are actually embracing it and jumping the old middle-man creating new ways to make a living and share their talent at the same time. But the middle-man is seeing its role vanishing and now screams in despair.
As the article says, they have to innovate and serve Gavyn , 14 Jan am. Very interesting insight indeed. However look at it from a stand point as a business owner. All business's must compete generally is the idea however, the way that everyone completes the tasks is not all ways clear to the consumer. You bought something today or another day, whose to say it was paid for from the place you got it? Whose to say that all legit businesses do everything right?
I don't agree with infringement in anyway however if these laws are being passed by people with little to no understanding that in order to survive business plans and strategies need to change. The internet is a great tool yet like anything in life it can be used for horrible things. There are many instances in life that show that anything can be used improperly with devastating results.
Yet this can change by promoting new ways of people getting there products legally. There should be a bill passed to protect websites who offer content to buy at the very least.
Allen , 14 Jan am. First though, USNETs have beena profit model before people were figuring out that you could use them to "share content". The owners and facilitators of these sites shut down illegal use when they are able to verfy and stop the crimes that are happening. Torrent sites have always used a free model and anyone who payed for content from a money model site has not been guaranteed that they were getting the content that they want.
People still go buy movies eventhought they can be watched online for free on site hosted in foreign countries.
Games will always be traded and downloaded and same with music; these business models still make lots of money but the giat recording labels and software giants are not making the record profits they once did. Any giant that tries to tell you they are trying to keep Americans employed with this legilation is lying; they don't want to make a cut to thier record paychecks in order to keep people staffed and when this legislation is in place nothing will change, politicians will be earning money from lobbyists and legislation and pirates will still be pirates but the ones who are try to use the internet for getting or receiving information are going to find out that now you have to pay more, not just for the internet connection but for the information because know onw wants it to be pirated or be considered a pirate.
Think things are expensive now, wait till this goes into effect. LBishop PhD profile , 14 Jan am. What concerns you is a perfect example of what will be your downfall. Greed, man, you are filled with greed.
Did you really believe the creative spark that you drew upon to create whatever it is that you now claim was taken from you or not rightfully credited you was only yours to draw upon? Ever notice how many hands develop seemingly from the same idea pool at once? Did you really think that was coincidence? None of any of this is yours or mine to begin with.
Your greed will get you nowhere, when there is no one left to buy your creative vision, then what? When the greedy are all left with their piles of money and no one to buy and sell then what? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer up until the point when there is no one left with any money to line the rich mans pockets.
Will your greed end then? Will you still be crying about what was taken from you? That song or performance or great idea that belonged to YOU! There will come a day when you regret wasting so much of your precious life here on earth protecting that which was never yours to protect, and guarding against villains which never existed when you could have loved life and your place in it. You will regret not having spent time getting to know your neighbor, or really listening to that tired old story a grandparent repeated one too many times instead of finding a new means to repress a free exchange of information and technology for the sake of perceived financial gain.
True prosperity can exist ultimately ONLY in the absence of oppression. Although it may appear that these conditions co-exist, it is only temporary. One must decrease as the other grows and this can be seen in a broader spectrum. If we , as a people, are going to pass any more laws which serve to shut down the natural organic expansion of a free market, we must accept our responsibility as an oppressive force which seeks failure on a grand scale.
Why would anyone co-sign such a death sentence? But if we can face it head on without delusion and see it for what it is, truly, I do not believe any one of us , to a man, would choose failure, oppression, despair and death over prosperity.
Everything else is folly. Bad Wolf , 14 Jan pm. Listen, I understand that you want to see people get punished for selling things that aren't theirs. That sounds great. However you, just like the people who created these bills are narrow-minded. I really don't mean this in offense, but seriously? Piracy is outdated, and a lot of the people you want punished aren't selling anything, they're distributing the stuff for free.
Is that right? However it's also not right to punish the common man for dropping names like "James Bond" or "Star Wars" on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. Here's an example: a disenfranchised teenager writes and draws fan comics and posts them to corresponding fan websites Facebook, Youtube, DeviantArt and then the corporation that owns the entity that the teen draws about finds out that this kid has been "infringing" on their content and decides to charge him as a FELON.
Now tell me, where is the justice in that? No one who was supposed to get punished got punished. That is how it WILL be, because pirates don't give a damn and will keep doing what they do.
Even though I didn't make a cent I should be charged as a felon?! Nebroxah , 16 Jan am. Simple, bob. We allow the companies to fail. I'm dead serious. If the businesses are unable to adapt to the changing tech landscape, then we shouldn't be responsible for propping up a legitimately failing business model.
Free Market Capitalism is about competition, and America is the country where a smart entrepreneur can topple a corporate giant with a single idea, many times to the benefit of everyone.
Stifle that competition and you stifle the American spirit itself. Al , 17 Jan am. Then there are the "underground" that you don't see.
People will find a way, it's going to be inevitable. Anonymous Coward , 18 Jan am. This isn't pepper spray, this is a bullet to the head to cure a freaking cold. This won't stop piracy, and will give too much power to big companies. They can already censor almost everything they want and it doesn't necessarily infringe the copyright laws , and you want to give them more power? Are you so blind in trusting big corporations with that?
Stacey , 18 Jan am. Is there a real argument here? Sounds like you want to disagree for the sake of it. Do you really think people don't consider ways to punish offenders just because they want to protect their basic freedoms?
This is ludicrous! Hey here's an option get off the Internet now and forever since you could care less about what it does as a whole And since you like to male grossly overwhelming general sweeping comments about no one caring. Anonymous Coward , 20 Jan pm. Plain and simple it need to be technology put into music or media or datas files that protects the data itself If you dont want people to steal your car you lock it-you dont make the roads everyone else is driving on disappear and keep the rest of the world from going where they want to go.
SOPA can bring down some of the most used sites on the internet. Already thousands of people will lose there jobs not to mention this isn't just affecting america anymore.
SOPA will also kill future innovation. It isn't government acts that should stop piracy. It is service. Make the real thing give a better service then the pirated version. Hell steam did it. This is the destruction of new media as we know it. Also I don't know if you know this but the effect from the internet has a MUCH larger role on peoples lives then hollywood singers do.
The average person at least. Wasn't true then either. And big companies, and random trolls, ect. That is a big problem. Matt , 22 Nov pm. A LOT of open source software is distributed via bittorrent Linux especially , and independant artists and photographers upload their works to torrent sites and usenet servers in order to make their works available to everyone.
I've uploaded a few of my photo sets myself because my favorite bittorrent site is the best way to distribute them. Go after the infringing content itself, not an entire site or server. Not enforcement. Can't allow piracy to increase without limit. You have no "new business models" that will work for the movie biz.
OOTB just stop it. It appears you are out of greedtard steam. Are you even trying anymore? It is barely english. Hey he doesn't have the capital to spell check and reread his posts, its not like he can make his money back if he keeps spending MM on these things. If you only see pirates as pirates and not as under-served customers, then I suppose you couldn't see that the best solution to the problem involves changing your behavior, not that of the pirates.
Pirates are under-served customers. Pirates exist not because new technology came out. People pirated with old technology.
Newer technology just made it easier and better quality and more efficient. The one thing that big media companies can change is their own behavior. They have abused the public trust. They have lobbied and bought legislation that put the public at the disadvantage as far as copyright is concerned. They have sued and vilified people who want to enjoy their content. If the pirates are supposedly able to profit off of the content, why can't the big media companies?
But of course when no one points this out they are happy to claim these sites make millions of dollars a day.
That was the response I was expecting from one of them if I was going to receive one. It still makes no sense other than in the scenario that they simply can't conceive of other ways of doing business than the ways they have been doing it for decades. Another possibility that isn't mutually exclusive with the first is that they over-value their product and refuse to accept less than "too expensive" as their retail price.
Makes total sense. It's easy to make money off of someone else's work if you do not have to worry about things like paying the rent, salaries, maintenance, etc. Yet the entertainment industry continues to pretend that each infringing copy is a lost sale. If that were true, then the media companies could use pirate business models to make some money that they're not otherwise making.
If you had choose between some money and no money, which would you choose? I take it you have never really studied the financials associated with the running of a business.
Just because the marginal cost of producing a product may be next to nothing, one still has to pay the bills, and only after they have been paid can the owner begin to realize any earnings. Which brings us back to the question: If you actually believe that copyright infringement is committed in lieu of payment, is it better to lose that full payment because pirates serve your customers better than you do or do you find a different method of making some money from the copying?
Obviously they are making enough to pay the recurring costs or else we wouldn't be having this discussion because content wouldn't be getting produced. In fact, the earnings statements show that they are profiting quite nicely despite these supposedly severe losses to copyright infringement.
The lawsuits from artists complaining about unpaid royalties or contract violations or accusations of creative accounting show that they are profiting and keeping their costs low by not paying artists as much as they should. Pirates have unrestricted access to the entire inventory of every media company, a luxury that no single media company, no matter how big it may be, has at its disposal.
Your customer's, as I posted already, have stated what they want. Now you can give it to them and make money. Or you can let someone else do it and make none. Quality content. Before you throw that in there. Also, I don't care how much you spend, nor does anyone else.
That's your problem. Not ours. Reasonable prices. This one doesn't need much of an explanation. And NO, no one is saying reasonable with the hidden meaning to be "free". Multiple formats. Not all together, where if we want one, we have to take them all. Like the blu-ray, dvd, and digital copy combo packs. DRM Free. If it's easier to download an "illegal" copy and have it play with no hassle than it is to use the copy you provide, you're failing. Rikuo profile , 22 Nov pm.
Ever hear of it? It IS the new business model. It successfully fought back against copyright infringement. And what did Hollywood do? Jacked up the license fees exorbitantly. Marcus Carab profile , 22 Nov pm. Erik profile , 22 Nov pm. You have to go down to 20 before you hit an all-time-highest-grossing movie that was released pre It is far more logical to draw the conclusion that the internet is driving box office profits rather than causing people to pirate.
I really fail to see why Hollywood and the recording industry are taken seriously when they whine about all of the people who are staying home. That tail is puffed up by increased ticket prices. And the real erosion is being seen first in smaller films.
The prices paid by distributors at Sundance, for instance, are down. Way down. A large number of indie distributors went out of business, and now the big fish that remain the specialty divisions of the big studios, the Weinstein Company, Lions Gate, Summit Entertainment, Relativity Media can wait out the sellers.
Fewer filmmakers are surrounding themselves with four middlemen who are all trying to create the illusion of hype.
That strategy generally has not paid off in the past. Similarly, the emergence over the last year of video-on-demand services as a significant revenue generator for independent films has eased the concerns of distributors about dwindling DVD sales.
Can you please explain WHY piracy is a problem? WOW, marcus! Marcus, it's a LAW!!! Like it or not, and you dont your society has decided by majority that certain acts and deeds are considered illegal. You might know quite a few of those things, they are not 'problems', they are the law.
But killing someone is not a 'problem' to be solved it is an ACT that is against the moral, ethical and legal principles that ALL people live under. Murder or the law against it , is not a problem, killing someone is.
I know that just like exceeding the speed limit, and theft and murder that they are against the law, therefore to ME it is not a problem NOT to speed, murder or steal. Why is piracy a problem, it is not until you commit it. You clearly are incapable of seeing any act or deed from the perspective of another person, you must therefore be only capable of seeing things for the benefit of yourself ONLY..
0コメント