CopyRight Law 2010 January 1st

[Ichigo91]

Originally Posted by Solais

They should set up the servers in my country, where piracy is legal and encouraged.

Holland? :P

[Doughnuts]

Originally Posted by Ichigo91

Holland? :P

Probably not

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'm going to wager a guess that fat, old white guys don't hold much political sway in Japan, anyways.

Unless we're going to get really technical and argue Japan is a client state to the US, but that is another issue entirely.

They do in Italy.

Imho, having read the link in the OP more carefully, I think this law's a bit dumb because downloading illegal content is illegal. Yet there's no penalty.....

[RadiantBeam]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Imho, having read the link in the OP more carefully, I think this law's a bit dumb because downloading illegal content is illegal. Yet there's no penalty.....

Hence why people starting illegally downloading illegal content in the first place, and will continue to do so even with this law in effect. Because they aren't suffering a penalty for it.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by RadiantBeam

Hence why people starting illegally downloading illegal content in the first place, and will continue to do so even with this law in effect. Because they aren't suffering a penalty for it.

This wins the award for "Most ridiculously useless law ever made just to give people something to do" award. I think it's time we build another conspiracy.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

This wins the award for "Most ridiculously useless law ever made just to give people something to do" award. I think it's time we build another conspiracy.

What's the most ridiculous? The law or the fact that when a person knows she/he can't be caught for doing something illegal, she/he will do it?

The law is ridiculous, but think about the people ethics too. People are ridiculous too.

And here you have many people who say that only blaming people should be preferred to prison/fine penalty etc. That reppression is not necessary.

But apparently, if there is not any, people start to steal and do it as if it was normal and ethical.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

What's the most ridiculous? The law or the fact that when a person knows she/he can't be caught for doing something illegal, she/he will do it?

The law is ridiculous, but think about the people ethics too. People are ridiculous too.

And here you have many people who say that only blaming people should be preferred to prison/fine penalty etc. That reppression is not necessary.

But apparently, if there is not any, people start to steal and do it as if it was normal and ethical.

What's ridiculous is the law and the fact that despite it stating that downloading illegal content is prohibited, there's no penalty associated with it. When you really think about it, there's no point to passing this law. All it is is a waste of time, law writing practice and bureaucracy. It's pointless for such a law to exist because despite it, there will still be people who will be downloading illegal content without a worry in the world.

Ethically speaking, it is wrong for people to download illegal content like movies, TV series, etc, because it undermines the effort all the people put into making these things with the idea they would get something back for it. Problem is that with these downloads, they're not getting anything. Yet people still do it as if it is normal, and you're right in saying that as well.

But like the blog says, there's the problem that as people surf the inet, they will ultimately be downloading illegal things without even being aware of it. Do they also deserve a fine? It's impossible to stop people from downloading. That was the main argument of the side opposing the passing of this law. That doesn't justify people who do it willingly, but the only way to stop people from downloading illegal copies of movies, for instance, is to stop people from creating torrents, for example. Fine the people who create illegal content rather than the people who take it from them.

[synaesthetic]

Granted, there are people that will always pirate media.

But the vast majority of more normal folk pirate media because the game has changed, but the empty suits in charge of it refuse to adapt. Instead, they throw tantrums, kicking and screaming, suing twelve-year-old girls, equating media piracy to theft, pressuring politicians to pass even more draconian and restrictive regulations that hurt the consumer and the original creator while benefiting the gatekeepers.

It's like a form of protest. These companies know they hold all the cards and they know that the average person is just going to suck it up and pay their ridiculous inflated prices. You guys remember when anime DVDs cost $30 or more for 2-4 episodes of a series, right? They're a lot more reasonably priced now, to the point where they're right in line with seasons of American TV on DVD. The reason for this is because the companies are starting to adapt to the changing market.

I've said it again and again, and I'll say it again. Crunchyroll (their shit-tastic website notwithstanding) is going the right direction. But they're not quite there yet. They need to take a lesson from Amazon.com's MP3 store, rather than a cable TV model.

Give us un-DRM'd, downloadable (NOT STREAMED), high-quality video, in a range of resolutions. Give us an option for 480p, 720p and 1080p. Hell, even go ahead and charge more per episode for the HD content (since DVDs are typically cheaper than BDs). Do not hardsub. Do this, in a reasonable period of time after the Japanese releases, and I won't download fansubs again.

Hire some QA people for the damn subs, too. It's appalling how bad commercial subs are compared to fansubs.

This whole blowup happened with MP3s several years ago. It was resolved to an almost-satisfactory conclusion. You can get un-DRM'd high quality MP3 downloads from several sources now. It will also happen with video. Of course, there are people who will pirate no matter what, but for the most part, give the customer what they want and they'll happily pay you for it.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What's ridiculous is the law and the fact that despite it stating that downloading illegal content is prohibited, there's no penalty associated with it. When you really think about it, there's no point to passing this law. All it is is a waste of time, law writing practice and bureaucracy. It's pointless for such a law to exist because despite it, there will still be people who will be downloading illegal content without a worry in the world.

Not in my opinion. I believe you can also use that to increase people awareness on that issue. In a way, it's like admitting that trying to fight pirates is a lost cause, but trying to talk to people could change something.

I would not be against a law in France that allow authorities to just mail people who download illegal stuffs and that it is bad and that they should stop and think about it. No penalty.

Ethically speaking, it is wrong for people to download illegal content like movies, TV series, etc, because it undermines the effort all the people put into making these things with the idea they would get something back for it. Problem is that with these downloads, they're not getting anything. Yet people still do it as if it is normal, and you're right in saying that as well.

What I greatly dislike is actually not the fact that people download copyrighted files. What I dislike is that the people who do that could at least shut up because they are doing something bad and unethical. Yet, in France, you have many people who like to claim with a big smile that they can download and that they risk nothing in doing it. And even get mad at you if you dare comparing them to robbers.

There's nothing fabulous in doing that.

But like the blog says, there's the problem that as people surf the inet, they will ultimately be downloading illegal things without even being aware of it. Do they also deserve a fine? It's impossible to stop people from downloading. That was the main argument of the side opposing the passing of this law. That doesn't justify people who do it willingly, but the only way to stop people from downloading illegal copies of movies, for instance, is to stop people from creating torrents, for example. Fine the people who create illegal content rather than the people who take it from them.

There's the fact of committing something illegal, and the fact that a company or a person can bring you to the court for this.

I break the law if i use the logo Nintendo on my website (since the logo is copyrighted). Yet, if Nintendo doesn't complain about it and even is happy to see my website talking about them it is different than companies who actually try to sue people for using their copyrighted stuffs.

I hate how some companies put too high prices on their products and all, but it should never be a legitimate reason for people to start stealing. Thos companies do nothing illegal.

So, that the people download, I don't really care. But to see people (at least here in France) wanting to be seen as superhero because they disregard a law without being caught is something else.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Granted, there are people that will always pirate media.

But the vast majority of more normal folk pirate media because the game has changed, but the empty suits in charge of it refuse to adapt. Instead, they throw tantrums, kicking and screaming, suing twelve-year-old girls, equating media piracy to theft, pressuring politicians to pass even more draconian and restrictive regulations that hurt the consumer and the original creator while benefiting the gatekeepers.

It's like a form of protest. These companies know they hold all the cards and they know that the average person is just going to suck it up and pay their ridiculous inflated prices. You guys remember when anime DVDs cost $30 or more for 2-4 episodes of a series, right? They're a lot more reasonably priced now, to the point where they're right in line with seasons of American TV on DVD. The reason for this is because the companies are starting to adapt to the changing market.

Whatever how you put it. High prices is not a legitimate reason to srart stealing something that it is not a necessity in a life.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

Not in my opinion. I believe you can also use that to increase people awareness on that issue. In a way, it's like admitting that trying to fight pirates is a lost cause, but trying to talk to people could change something.

Yes. It does make people aware that it's wrong. But making a useless law like this one isn't the right way of doing it. Corporations and other such groups have been spreading this awareness long before this law was passed. For example, when I went to see Quantum of Solace at the theater, the people who made the movie also made this commercial outlining the effort all the hundreds of people made to create that movie, and how downloading illegal copies of it through the internet is undermining that effort. People make a living making those movies, and we're stealing from them, yadda yadda. Did that ever stop people? Of course it didn't. A new law will fare no better.

Originally Posted by Narona

I would not be against a law in France that allow authorities to just mail people who download illegal stuffs and that it is bad and that they should stop and think about it. No penalty.

I wouldn't mind either, but some of the people on the receiving end of that letter will be more than just slightly annoyed and think of it as spam mail. Seriously, it would make it look like the Police have nothing better to do than sending letter to people who're downloading illegally (which number in the thousands no matter where you go) when they could be focusing their efforts on catching real criminals causing real harm to other people, like murderers, lone sharks, tax evasors, you name it.

Originally Posted by Narona

What I greatly dislike is actually not the fact that people download copyrighted files. What I dislike is that the people who do that could at least shut up because they are doing something bad and unethical. Yet, in France, you have many people who like to claim with a big smile that they can download and that they risk nothing in doing it. And even get mad at you if you dare comparing them to robbers.

There's nothing fabulous in doing that.

I never said it's fabulous. It is simply fact that no matter how much effort people put into trying to convince others that downloading illegally is wrong, people will still do it. There's nothing pretty about it, but it's hard fact that people do things despite how wrong it is. People smoke, for instance, knowing it causes harm to themselves. Some people choose to stop, others simply keep on doing it, all the while being aware of the negative effects it has on them. Downloading may not be harmful to the individual who does it, but it is still harmful to others. Despite that, they won't stop.

Originally Posted by Narona

There's the fact of committing something illegal, and the fact that a company or a person can bring you to the court for this.

I break the law if i use the logo Nintendo on my website (since the logo is copyrighted). Yet, if Nintendo doesn't complain about it and even is happy to see my website talking about them it is different than companies who actually try to sue people for using their copyrighted stuffs.

I hate how some companies put too high prices on their products and all, but it should never be a legitimate reason for people to start stealing. Thos companies do nothing illegal.

So, that the people download, I don't really care. But to see people (at least here in France) wanting to be seen as superhero because they disregard a law without being caught is something else.

Let me make this clear. I don't disagree with you that it's wrong to download illegally, nor that such laws can help awareness campaigns. My only argument is that the majority of people still do it despite the awareness campaigns companies throw around. That's what makes the law useless.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Yes. It does make people aware that it's wrong. But making a useless law like this one isn't the right way of doing it. Corporations and other such groups have been spreading this awareness long before this law was passed. For example, when I went to see Quantum of Solace at the theater, the people who made the movie also made this commercial outlining the effort all the hundreds of people made to create that movie, and how downloading illegal copies of it through the internet is undermining that effort. People make a living making those movies, and we're stealing from them, yadda yadda. Did that ever stop people? Of course it didn't. A new law will fare no better.

I wouldn't mind either, but some of the people on the receiving end of that letter will be more than just slightly annoyed and think of it as spam mail. Seriously, it would make it look like the Police have nothing better to do than sending letter to people who're downloading illegally (which number in the thousands no matter where you go) when they could be focusing their efforts on catching real criminals causing real harm to other people, like murderers, lone sharks, tax evasors, you name it.

I still think it's the best compromise.

- To not react at all, is not the best solution. The States have to be ethical too. To just let it go would be unethical and would admit that it is normal and legal.

- To do what French tried to do, AKA Hadopi-1, in which people would be punished without any presumption of innocence (while since IP can be for example stolen, it shall not be normal to do that. You have to be proven guilty by a court of law. Till it proves it, you're innocent and can't be punished) is bad.

- To do a Hadopi in which every illegal download would lead to court is impossible given the number and the money it will cost to the state.

I never said it's fabulous. It is simply fact that no matter how much effort people put into trying to convince others that downloading illegally is wrong, people will still do it.

That's not a reason to just let it go. If the state does it, then it's like making it legal.

Let me make this clear. I don't disagree with you that it's wrong to download illegally, nor that such laws can help awareness campaigns. My only argument is that the majority of people still do it despite the awareness campaigns companies throw around. That's what makes the law useless.

Something has to be done to show that it is illegal. As i said ealier, I think that's the best compromise.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

I still think it's the best compromise.

- To not react at all, is not the best solution. The States have to be ethical too. To just let it go would be unethical and would admit that it is normal and legal.

- To do what French tried to do, AKA Hadopi-1, in which people would be punished without any presumption of innocence (while since IP can be for example stolen, it shall not be normal to do that. You have to be proven guilty by a court of law. Till it proves it, you're innocent and can't be punished)

- To do a Hadopi in which every illegal download would lead to court is impossible given the number and the money it will cost to the state.

The question is, why make something illegal if there's no penalty for it? Sure, government and police forces alike can advertise awareness along with companies and studios and what not to let people know that people make a living off the things you take for free. But to be very technical about the word, when something is illegal, it shouldn't be permitted for people to make use of it or act in a certain way, what have you. Yet no punishment is associated with something that's "illegal." How is it illegal when there's no penalty? That's why I'm questioning this particular law and its usefulness. Sure, they can make all the effort they want to spread awareness. I'm just not exactly sure this is the right way to do it.

Originally Posted by Narona

That's not a reason to just let it go. If the state does it, then it's like making it legal.

Downloading shouldn't be a crime. Nobody can stop anyone from downloading because there are numerous times where people download things without even knowing it. Take the sentence "downloading illegal content." Why should it be illegal? Because the content is illegal. No doubts about that. But how can you truly stop people from downloading illegal content? There's only one way to do it: stop people from creating illegal content.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

The question is, why make something illegal if there's no penalty for it? Sure, government and police forces alike can advertise awareness along with companies and studios and what not to let people know that people make a living off the things you take for free. But to be very technical about the word, when something is illegal, it shouldn't be permitted for people to make use of it or act in a certain way, what have you. Yet no punishment is associated with something that's "illegal." How is it illegal when there's no penalty? That's why I'm questioning this particular law and its usefulness. Sure, they can make all the effort they want to spread awareness. I'm just not exactly sure this is the right way to do it.

I still prefer that than Hadopi-1!!! and my last solution is, as I said, not possible given the number of people who dowload.

While you see something ridiculous, I still see something honest for once. They can't penalize all the downloaders, they don't have the means for it. And penalizing 1 or 2 guys every month to show that they can penalize too would just be even more ridiculous.

Downloading shouldn't be a crime. Nobody can stop anyone from downloading because there are numerous times where people download things without even knowing it. Take the sentence "downloading illegal content." Why should it be illegal? Because the content is illegal. No doubts about that. But how can you truly stop people from downloading illegal content? There's only one way to do it: stop people from creating illegal content.

I have one way but you'll see me as a dictator

Spoiler for not pretty solution, read it at your own risks:

- You catch them all, you kill them all without going on court and without presumption of innonence~~

More seriously, then legal and illegal contents should be definied clearly. But my point still remains. At least in France. The company has to press charges for using their stuffs. Since Nintendo doesn't care for using their logo, then nothing happens. It's different when people download their games.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

I still prefer that than Hadopi-1!!! and my last solution is, as I said, not possible given the number of people who dowload.

While you see something ridiculous, I still see something honest for once. They can't penalize all the downloaders, they don't have the means for it. And penalizing 1 or 2 guys every month to show that they can penalize too would just be even more ridiculous.

I can't blame you when you have something like Hadopi. However, I still think a law without consequences is a farce. Think of it this way: how can you enforce a certain law if disobeying said law doesn't entail any consequences? That's why I'm more tempted to think this law is nothing more than a way for governments to monitor citizens who download illegally. But enough of my conspiracy theory here

Originally Posted by Narona

I have one way but you'll see me as a dictator

Spoiler for not pretty solution, read it at your own risks:

- You catch them all, you kill them all without going on court and without presumption of innonence~~

That doesn't sound too bad. Stalin would've had them in Gulags. Now that would be pretty bad

Originally Posted by Narona

More seriously, then legal and illegal contents should be definied clearly. But my point still remains. At least in France. The company has to press charges for using their stuffs. Since Nintendo doesn't care for using their logo, then nothing happens. It's different when people download their games.

When material is copyrighted and an individual is caught with illegal content and selling it for profit without the copyrighter's consent, that's when law enforcement is allowed to take action. When someone is using copyrighted material for their own personal pleasure and not advertising it to anyone else, there's really not much anyone can do about it since the person using it isn't trying to make a profit out of it. It's still wrong because the person got it for free and thus undermining the efforts of those people who made the product. It's not like the illegally downloaded content is tangible. It only becomes so if, for example, you burn it onto DVD. If you don't, it can always be deleted and at worst, you get away with it with a slap on the wrist, have a nice day from your friendly neighborhood watch committee.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I can't blame you when you have something like Hadopi. However, I still think a law without consequences is a farce. Think of it this way: how can you enforce a certain law if disobeying said law doesn't entail any consequences? That's why I'm more tempted to think this law is nothing more than a way for governments to monitor citizens who download illegally. But enough of my conspiracy theory here

Then you prefer hadopi?

That doesn't sound too bad. Stalin would've had them in Gulags. Now that would be pretty bad

I was joking that would be awful!

When material is copyrighted and an individual is caught with illegal content and selling it for profit without the copyrighter's consent, that's when law enforcement is allowed to take action. When someone is using copyrighted material for their own personal pleasure and not advertising it to anyone else, there's really not much anyone can do about it since the person using it isn't trying to make a profit out of it. It's still wrong because the person got it for free and thus undermining the efforts of those people who made the product. It's not like the illegally downloaded content is tangible. It only becomes so if, for example, you burn it onto DVD. If you don't, it can always be deleted and at worst, you get away with it with a slap on the wrist, have a nice day from your friendly neighborhood watch committee.

I'm curious. The italian laws allow it? Or you're implying that since the person can't get caught that way, she/he doesn't risk anything?

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I can't blame you when you have something like Hadopi. However, I still think a law without consequences is a farce. Think of it this way: how can you enforce a certain law if disobeying said law doesn't entail any consequences? That's why I'm more tempted to think this law is nothing more than a way for governments to monitor citizens who download illegally. But enough of my conspiracy theory here

No it's not true. There is a consequence : The fact that the person who recieve the email know that the government know what he is doing and it's not nothing.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

No it's not true. There is a consequence : The fact that the person who recieve the email know that the government know what he is doing and it's not nothing.

That's the whole point of Yoko's conspiracy theory. That they monitor you and track what you do whether it's legal or illegal.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Narona

That's the whole point of Yoko's conspiracy theory. That they monitor you and track what you do whether it's legal or illegal.

No it's not what I mean. What I mean is that they tell you that they can know what you're doing. And it's a psychological impact which is not negligible for a lambda citizen.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

No it's not what I mean. What I mean is that they tell you that they can know what you're doing. And it's a psychological impact which is not negligible for a lambda citizen.

I understand that, but it causes some other problems. In first line: people's privacy. It depends on how you track people.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

Then you prefer hadopi?

I don't prefer anything. I'm not saying Hadopi is nice because for one thing, I firmly believe the inet is, as the world's largest, most effective and most accessible source of information, a human right. All humans have the right of knowledge and the inet is the best way to obtain information and knowledge. Hadopi is an effective way to restrict internet usage and ergo violates a basic human right.

The way you explained it, this law is a way to spread awareness of why it is wrong to download illegaly. There are many other ways authorities can do it rather than waste time and bureaucracy by creating a useless law. Governments are involved in a lot of awareness campaigns. If this law is such a thing, it's a pointless law since it doesn't bring any penalty with it.

Originally Posted by Narona

I was joking that would be awful!

Lol, I know, so was I

Originally Posted by Narona

I'm curious. The italian laws allow it? Or you're implying that since the person can't get caught that way, she/he doesn't risk anything?

Iibh, I'm not exactly sure what the Italian law says. I'm only speaking generally that if someone uses copyrighted material and sells it without consent, then it's truly illegal. People who use copyrighted material for non-profit purposes, all the while making it clear it is not their product and that it is copyrighted by Nintendo, then there's nothing wrong with that, especially if it's bought and paid for.

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

No it's not true. There is a consequence : The fact that the person who recieve the email know that the government know what he is doing and it's not nothing.

Yes, but what can the government legally do to punish them? There's no law that allows them to fine them or throw them in jail after all. It's just a way to control the population and perhaps the flow of information. It could also be a method to try and track those people creating illegal content by using the information on those people downloading it.