The Copyright Police Are Coming! - Comments Page 1

There is a sinister use of the word 'educate' here of which George Orwell would be proud.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I almost added "re-educate" in parentheses after that word. :-)

Yes, it's illegal. Yes, the ISPs are within their rights to check, since they own the system. Yes, they should tell you they may check. Yes, there should be a penalty, but not a bazillion times the actual cost. (Can you say "greedy lawyers"? I know, redundant.)

No, ISPs should not get into bed with the RIAA, MPAA, feds, states, et al.

The worst part is that you're guilty until proven innocent, and you have to pay to prove your innocence. Who gets the fee? It's more than the "damage," and I'll be the RIAA gets a cut.

People joked when 1984 came and went, but it hasn't been even 30 years, and check out the poles above you the next time you're stopped at a traffic light.

I am one of the founders of the PPR (Piratskaja Partiya Rossii, the Russian Pirate Party), and we have our own ISPs... The mogols might well stick their claims --- they surely know where. BTW, we welcome foreigners as well - the service is free, and will remain free, as we get enough from our sponsors.

Hi
I am not sure what patrolling peer-to-peer sites means. Does this include youtube. How can we tell when downloading something from youtube, or vimeo that we are not infringing on copyright. Please clarify how this would work by using specific examples.

I faithfully follow your columns
best regards
Margaret G.

Have YouTube and Facebook been grandfathered out of culpability? Or is it just us little people who have to pay the toll at the illegal toll booth on this public highway? A song is a commercial for the artist. The artist must use his commercial to go out and play to earn money. By working and not just counting. Without the commercial...they sell no tickets. If I pay for access to the internet...and something is posted...my access fee is already paid to the ISP...and the denial of access creates standing to sue also. Don't want it shared? Don't post it on the web. The internet is about informational exchange and the intellectual property owners can either participate....or not. Get off the highway.

Hi Bob
What do you think of those P2P applications like Imule, Stealthnet, Usenet and many others that are supposed to let you make downloads and file sharing and anonymously?
Thank you and good day

jpr

I find this article bit disturbing, but I do agree something has to done to eliminate copyright infringement. I sense a bit of "Big Brother" in this article and that is what disturbs me. I am sure there ways to prevent the illegal downloading of music, movies and TV shows, by embedding protection codes in the content. When you purchase a CD or DVD from the store, I believe there are codes embedded in the discs to stop you from copying the content to a new CD or DVD.

My question here is: What will happen to websites like YouTube? It shows copies of TV shows all the time. Are they illegally downloaded and then uploaded to the website by people? Does this mean You Tube is showing illegal content?

Copyright laws have been around for a very long time. They were created to protect the written word, from music and books. But, the Internet is a very big place and I for one believe Big Brother as bitten off more than it can chew here.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Youtube makes a pretty serious effort to remove copyrighted content if it gets posted there. I don't think anyone is going to get in trouble for watching a YT video. Here's a related link: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/14/google-sends-youtube-copyright-violators-to-school/

With all the crap in both music and videos thats out there these days, I have to wonder if its worth all the problems. Me? I'm going to either go with a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to hide my IP address, or go back to Netflix and d/l the movies from there.

Good information, Bob. I really enjoy your site. I have been a subsciber for a long time.

I think we should pay for original content. Most people are willing to pay for original content; but not willing to pay the prices, the large price tags, associated with lots of material. I am willing to purchase movies and music. I usually purchase second hand if possible.
However, there are lots of folks charging for non-original stuff. If it is not original; maybe you should not be charging for it! If it gets stolen and you stole well not expect a payment. Changing a few words does not make it original. All information should be reference and most work is not referenced on the internet.

To me it is clear. I dont need a brick to fall on me. If I copy without permission I am stealing. I am not only stealing from the artists but also from the producers etc, etc. I know that people who copy dont think its wrong and I have even had people get mad at me when I pointed this out. So go ahead and break the law as for me I wont copy and I wont accept anything that is copied. Also, if I want to copy and cant get authorization than I dont go ahead and copy it.

I think what they are trying to do is right. I understand why people download these things too. Movies and cds are real expensive. This could stop the internet problem for them but not stop it totally when it comes to movies and music. With music channels and movie channels on tv and recorders that can record from tv it will continue but only a little slower. I don't think they can stop it completely without installing software of some sort in electronics that can stop it by needing a code to download those formats.

Well, here's a bit of abuse, or a scam in the making:

"However, it will cost you $35 for such a review."

Get falsely accused, but you have to pay $35 to heard as an individule? Right.... I wonder how long that will go on before someone gets sued?

I am an author with 6 published books to my credit, so I feel that I have some right to speak to this issue. When I purchase a physical book or DVD, I can share it with my friends, my kids, and my siblings. I am unlikely to share it with strangers. I think digital media should be available to share with people we know. And what about being able to borrow things from libraries? The digital rights legislation is cutting the heart out of libraries, much to the detriment of our culture.

I do not think content should be shared willy-nilly with strangers over the Internet. Authors/artists have worked hard to produce that content, and the publishers pay them a pittance as it is. I don't want to rob them of the little they earn for their efforts. Frankly, I think the publishers rip off the public, and if someone shares media with a friend, a sibling or a kid--or a library lends to a patron--I think it should be legitimate. As for wholesale downloading of media, it's against the law, just as making photocopies of books is.

Ignorance is no defense, and most everyone has heard of, and understands the concept of copyright. If you were the creator of something, you would not be pleased loosing income from the thief of your product. I personally think the thief should loose his ISP service and all computers he owns on the first offense. Upon the second offense, throw him/her in jail. Then maybe the message will get through.

Downloading music or films is the same as shoplifting a hard copy.
Just because "everybody does it" does not alter the fact that it is theft and it should be treated as such without going through all the rigmarole detailed above; the first instance discovered that someone is downloading material should result in prosecution as well as for the person who allowed the file to be shared. In the latter case, separate charges should be brought for each and every instance of multiple people downloading the file. If users use the excuse that the music or film companies are making too much profit, then exercise your democratic right and don't buy the product.

I don't see any problem with this relationship with RIAA and ISP's, but then I *DON'T EVER* file share or swap music or films on the Internet. Everything you do gets recorded some where anyhow, and if you're stupid enough to get caught with your digital pants down, woe is you.

I liken it to neighbors seeing unusual possibly illegal activities in their neighborhood and asking the police to check on it. If you've done no wrong you needn't fear the police. But DO lock down your wireless router, it's too easy to wardrive... If you don't, it could bite you on the butt and cost you dearly!

I am a 73 soon to be 74 year old woman who do does not understand 99.99% of today's technology. Not sure what is legal and what is not. Is it legal to "save to watch later" etc music, videos off YouTube. I am mostly deaf and can only hear a bit of the oldies on my head sets so have done this a few times. Don't want to steal or get into trouble. Have no idea what HTML tags are either so hope this gets where it is supposed to. And hope I get to read the answer.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The "save to watch later" option on Youtube is just a way of bookmarking a video so you can find it later. It doesn't download the video to your computer, and there's nothing to be concerned about, from a legal standpoint.

Hi Bob,

This whole subject of copyright is a very grey area with so many variables as to make it nigh on impossible to know whether something (anything) you are doing is or isn't "illegal". I don't even think governments who are pushing for new legislation at the behest of record/film companies etc fully understand the depths of the problems faced with trying to manage/police this.

Ever since the audio tape was introduced to the public first by way of reel to reel machines and then cassettes, it has been possible to duplicate the contents of vinyl. I remember back in the seventies the inner sleeves of albums bore the statement "Home taping is killing music". Well, we're now some 40 years on from this statement and the music industry is still alive and well.

I also remember bootleg albums that you could buy in markets that were always kept under the counter. The law at the time was that while it was illegal to sell bootleg albums, it was not illegal to buy them, which is really a bit of a contradiction in terms as you can't have one without the other.

Now of course with broadband it is entirely possible to freely obtain virtually any album by any artist within a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds, and all it takes is a couple of mouse clicks.

When you look at the cost of new albums in the shops here in the UK (circa GBP 15 on average), and then Amazon (between GBP 8 to GBP 10) and the digital equivalent is quite often the same price or only fractionally less, then is it any wonder that potential buyers feel they are being ripped off yet again?

My feeling is that the music industry and the film industry have been too slow to embrace the technological advances that have been made over the years and their persistence in maintaining a culture of greed has resulted in the situation we find ourselves in now.

My understanding is that here in the UK at least, the type of legislation being considered will aim the interest from the authorities at the party or parties that are conducting the sharing of files with copyright attached, in other words those that upload such content. This seems to fall in line with the law regarding bootleg vinyl albums.

The pirates or uploaders are going to be difficult to shutdown/prosecute as they seem to operate in countries that have little or no regard for international law.

With this potential minefield to consider, perhaps if record companies and film companies together with tax grabbing governments would see fit to reduce the prices of both cd/dvd and digital equivalents substantially, then just maybe we would not have this little problem.

Another dilemma faced by the public - they have bought the album on vinyl, then audio cassette to play in the car, then cd, only to find that a couple of years later there is a digitally remastered edition available, followed a further couple of years down the line by a fortieth anniversary edition remixed and remastered yet again and with outtakes and extra tracks etc etc. How many times is Joe Public expected to splash out for apparently better and better editions of the same album and each time at full price?

I think the ball lies squarely in the court of the record companies.

To conclude, I wonder how many of us upright and law abiding citizens have never in their lifetime borrowed a vinyl album from a friend and taped a copy for themselves, or a cd album perhaps and burned themselves a copy with their new cd writer? I'm sure everyone has heard the one about people in glass houses .....

EDITOR'S NOTE: When vinyl ruled the day, the technology didn't exist to create high quality duplicates, and certainly there was no mechanism to distribute those copies in mass quantities, nearly instantaneously. Sounds like you're saying that the problem, which was almost insignificant in the 70's, is many orders of magnitude worse, at least to the artists and recording companies.

Are files and documents transmitted via Pando monitored by the alert system? Is Pando considered a peer to peer file transfer system?

EDITOR'S NOTE: I don't think the "police" are going to say where they will be hanging out. Pando is a popular file sharing service, so I would assume yes.