However you cant expect those that are honest to remain integrable when the labels treat them as thieves from the beginning.

Patrick, forgive my bluntness, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that your integrity, or the lack thereof, is determined by those around you and their level ingerity???

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."--Leo Tolstoy

I really don't understand why they can't come up with a "Disc Only System" (not DOS and not software) that would permit 3 copies be made from the original disc and the copies that were made could not be copied.

JJK

"Patrick, forgive my bluntness, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that your integrity, or the lack thereof, is determined by those around you and their level ingerity???

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."--Leo Tolstoy"


No you misunderstood me Jay. What I am saying is that if you continue to treat people as thieves, they will at some point become them. Integrity in itself is a wonderful characteristic and even better when people recognize and admire your integrity. That in itself inspires people to be more integrable. Lets call that respect if you will. Once that respect or acknowledgement is gone, wheres the incentive for people to remain moral other than self satisfaction. After all, we are talking about stealing. There will always be people that will steal and there will always be some of us who will never steal. But the majority is in the middle and need less reasons to be convinced to steal. Maybe I am not making it clear.

Reminds me of a story I remember growing up. I had a friend at school and I would go over his house to play and I remember his mom always calling him stupid or telling he will never amount to anything. He heard it enough to the point that he no longer tried or cared.Call people or treat like thieves long enough they will become thieves.

Its like the old addage, if you are going to treat me like a thieve I might as well be one. We are getting dangerously close anymore to stereotyping people as a whole. Because 20% of a population steals without regard, does that mean the entire population is likely to steal? No. But thats what it is coming to. Because 20% steal, the rest of the population suffers. Because 1% of the religious fanatics who bombed abortion clinics or the 2% of Catholic priests who molested their altar boys does that mean all Catholics and Christians are going to do the same? No.

Whenever you punish a population for the minorities (in this case pirates), all you do is increase backlash and force more to turn to the same way of life. I dont think enviornment dictates action but it does lend some credence to it. How else can you explain the higher crime rates in cities like Miami and LA and NY where you have extremely rich and extremely poor people. Its basic sociology that is being ignored by the labels .

Theft is wrong in any sense. But to punish society as whole because some refuse to follow the law or respect value of content, an entire audience will be impacted and punished.

So answer me this. Will this law if it gets enacted decrease piracy? Not at all. IMO it will only make it worse. Because when you take away the ability that has been free, you cant expect people to just accept it. What does that to do the poor class of people that even though they couldnt afford to buy the DVD or see it in the theatres, knew that someday they could watch it on free TV and record it and watch it again? What will they do? They will find ways to still get it and probably take it a step further than they did before with the causal copying of over the air stuff and start copying DVDs etc...

The issue here is MONEY, not "control" or "ownership" of content. That has always been the central issue with piracy is compensation for an artists work. The labels claim they are losing money to piracy and the pirates claim too high of a price as a reason they pirate. So why not some middle ground? Why not lower prices considerably to at least attmept to curb piracy? While I dont think Itunes will stop piracy, I am sure there were some who used to download songs for free that were happy to pay for legal copies.

Content owners can choose to not release their content as DSE stated above. But then you have to find a new line of work because how else will you earn a living if the content you create is never open to consumption what really is the point of creating it other than self accomplishment? Besides, there will always be someone else there to fill that void even if its not as quality as your work was.

>>>How much does it cost to join the MPAA and get their "protection'?<<<

If you have a specific question about membership try emailing Jill at jill_whitley [AT] mpaa [DOT] org

Funny thing the MPAA. Anyone can pay them to have their film rated by MPAA members. However for "protection" they only care to deal with highly visable things...major studios, major releases. Indy's are screwed one way of the other. I know first hand because several years ago I contacted the MPAA about someone bootlegging some of the companies films I was working with at the time. The MPAA told me flat out they only went after major films that were being bootlegged, not any sort of indy films.

This is no wonder - direct from the MPAA here is the "who is"

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include:

It's nothing to do with integrity. If that was it the problem would not exist as most people have integrity - as I have said, those who buy a pirated DVD would never steal one of the shelf because they do consider stealing is wrong. People do not see bootlegging as stealing! It's all about how intangibles are perceived by the average Joe. I think most of you are talking about a problem you don't understand.

My kids friends download from P2P and copy rented DVDs at their computers every day as a matter of course. Why do they do this? Because they can. How can something that I do alone in my own living room be wrong? I have told my kids that they (me) can be sued or fined if caught and that stops them, but explaining it is theft is almost impossible while they know to steal a candy from the check till at WalMart is morally wrong and would not do so even if there were no consequences.

Mike

Mike, it has everything to with integrity. Just because I don't see killing a jerk as murder, does that make acceptable?

It's nothing to do with integrity. If that was it the problem would not exist as most people have integrity - as I have said, those who buy a pirated DVD would never steal one of the shelf because they do consider stealing is wrong.

According to Merriam-Webster, the primary definition of integrity is incorruptibility.

It seems that those who find it OK to steal intangibles are easily corrupted. I suspect they know it is wrong, "but it's so easy and convenient." They have seen shoplifters being perp walked in handcuffs, and they wouldn't want that. But they've never seen a bootlegger perp walked, so it must be safe and OK really, because "those companies make so much money anyway that it won't matter."

It reminds me of my bootcamp training at the very green age of 20.

We were told that after a local bomb attack, the first thing to do was to make sure the wounded got cared for immediately. OK so far.

The next step, they said, was to post armed guards everywhere to stop the looting. "What looting???," we asked. "Surely nobody in this town would take advantage of a major emergency to steal stuff!"

The instructor rolled his eyes, and said, "It's been the same thing everytime, everywhere, worldwide. Doesn't matter who the people are, many will still see 'their unique chance to gain."

Nobody in my group believed him of course. At least not until we read in the papers about what happened after every single major catastrophe: looting.

A few months ago somebody asked here in this forum if it was possible to do anything morally wrong on the moon when nobody was looking. The very certain answer was something like "Of course not, if there is nobody to observe it, it's not wrong."

I think it's time for parents to do a better job of explaining values to their children, and to explain that there is an inherent value in not stealing, starting with "a good conscience is the best pillow," and continuing with how we humans actually feel
better when we are honest than when we are crooked, and how our honesty can influence people around us so that at least our little corner of the world can be a bit more pleasant for everybody.

Perhaps parents also need to say, "Don't look at the politician behind the curtain, the one with wads of bills hanging out of his back pocket. He will get his own punishment, and we certainly don't have to follow him regardless."

"Perhaps parents also need to say, "Don't look at the politician behind the curtain, the one with wads of bills hanging out of his back pocket. He will get his own punishment, and we certainly don't have to follow him regardless."

Only problem with that is that politicians are SUPPOSD to be role models and the voic of the people which all fail to achieve miserably.

I do agree valeus and morals begin at home with the parents teaching the kids but someone also needs to teach the industry the same values and morals. Wasnt it not oo long ago that the music industry and retail stores were found guilty of price fixing and gouging? So they paid a fine or whatever. Who received the money? Was it the consumers who were stolen from? Nope. The government received it and the consumers received squat.

In the grand scheme of piracy, again, the only people truly hurt are honest customers who play by the rules and pay extra to cover some ass hats (pirates) refusal to abide by the laws. Add tot hat group the artists/directors/actors/etc... as the studios and labels will ALWAYS get their money first and ALWAYS get the share they want before they break off a piece for those it represents.

If anyone seriously thinks this law isnt about money or the control of content for monetary purposes is digging their head in the sand. Its not about having a choice in how or the number of times your content can be viewed but more so, how can you lock people out of your content until you come up with others ways to make them buy it over and over again whether it be PPV, licenses for each device used, etc... Think I am being foolish? Look at the software industry. The majority of licenses say you can only use the software on one machine. So what is going to happen when all this technology that is being pushed currently (computers, Ipods, PSP, game consoles, dvd players, etc...) has to have their OWN license to view content that you have already paid for. Now think about this for a moment. Ipod Video is pushing video to go and also boasts users ability to take their content anywhere they go. PSP does the same thing. Yet if you purchased a DVD that you own a license to view, there is NO LEGAL way to consume that same media on those devices. So unless the consumer has an abundant need to carry around their home movies, what other purpose do these so called devices serve other than ways to view pirated material?

Again, as it has been stated time and again, pirate isnt going to stop ever. But since piracy has become such a huge commonplace on the net these days, what has been overlooked is that both industries have faied to embrace it and make money during this time. If it took Itunes no time at all to sell a million songs at a dollar a shot, how much more money would have been made over the last 8-9 years with mp3s alone? I guarrantee more than they have recovered in lawsuits and spent in DRM research and failed technologies. That certainly would have set the stage to introduce video sales which would have translated into even more dollars. However, the industry wants everything on their terms and the general internet pirates have decided against that and won nearly every battle (DRM/CSS/etc.)

Will online distribution curb or stamp out piracy? Certainly not. However it will decrease it IMO. And in the beginning, piracy will still be ramapant but slowly decline as more embrace digital delivery of their shows and content. Heres the kicker. Both industries are making money in the process. So what makes more sense? Begin digital distribution now and make money and still have piracy (not going to stop ever) or continue waiting and holding back and piracy still continues and you make no money.)

Like pornography, what is moral or ethical is defined not by Marian Webster but by the current consensus of the people. The vast majority of people from all walks of life and backgrounds do not have a conscience about bootlegging. Jay and CD, no matter how strongly you may feel, to understand this issue you must know that ordinary middle class educated Americans download/copy openly and without shame all the time and everywhere. By current moral and ethical standards bootlegging is socially acceptable. Unless you start from this position you will never formulate a solution to this problem.

If I buy a CD of music and then decide to use one of the songs on the CD in a DVD of family pictures then I have done nothing wrong. I purchased the CD to listen to the music and I am doing so for the profit of me. I paid money for the right to listen to the song anytime I want and not wait for it to be played on the radio or live on stage when ever I could find the band in my home town. I purchased the right to listen. If I make 5 copies of the DVD and give it to family members for Christmas I have done nothing wrong. Not one person has lost any money on the sale of the CD and in fact someone else might listen to the music on my DVD and go out and buy the CD for themselves or be inspired to buy a CD of their favorite music and do something similar. These types of activities stimulate sales not hurt them.

If I buy the CD, rip the songs onto a DVD and then sell the DVD I have done something wrong. I need to compensate the music owners for their contributions to my success or attempted success. My money making adventures should not be at the cost of anyone else except my competitor.

Alcohol prohibition demonstrated that the will of the people rules. You are not going to stop people from drinking. It was the law of the time and yet people still drank. You have have to have solutions that work. Passing laws often times have the opposite of the intended results.

"If I buy a CD of music and then decide to use one of the songs on the CD in a DVD of family pictures then I have done nothing wrong."

According to the law you have done something wrong as you have synched music to video without compensating the artist without a license. Now would they come after you for it? Probably not. But the law is the law.

"If I make 5 copies of the DVD and give it to family members for Christmas I have done nothing wrong. Not one person has lost any money on the sale of the CD and in fact someone else might listen to the music on my DVD and go out and buy the CD for themselves or be inspired to buy a CD of their favorite music and do something similar. These types of activities stimulate sales not hurt them."

Again, you cannot by law reproduce copyrighted material and give it to somone else, free or not. Thats exactly the pirates anthem. Free advertising. And actually the aritist/labels did lose money because you failed to pay for a synch license in order to put thier music to video.

I dont agree with the law but that is how the law is.

I didn't think that you truly did believe that however I worry that so much focus is given to the monetary side of 'art'.
If I go into the local record shop and steal 10 copies of your CD, I've stolen your money, your income, your just rewards for your hard work. But the art on them is still yours. If I give them away quite possibly the value of your art is increased, more people get to hear it, you get a higher recognition within the collective whole, isn't that what every artist wants, craves and lives for. That you may go hungry because of what I've done is a separate issue that has nothing to do with art or why the artist created it. If it is the sole reason the 'art' was created then I'd suggest the creator isn't an artist, we could call them many things, entertainer, architect, industrial designer or engineer. I guess I've spent a lot fo time working as the last, I'd hope some of the things I've created were elegant, but at no point could I possibly call them art.
Now on the other hand, if I took your music or the Mona Lisa for that matter, and ran off 1000s of perfect copies and put my name to it, then I have stolen your art. If the collective gives me the honours that were due to you or DaVinci then something priceless has been stolen, there's no amount of money that'll ever right that wrong. The courts might award you or DaVinci millions in damages and you may well become far wealthier than me. I'd suggest it's a pretty hollow victory if the collective remembers you or DaVinci as that guy who sued the man who painted the Mona Lisa.

I'm not for one minute saying that we shouldn't be protecting our work, our income, our means of survival. Yes I do it, I'd like as much reward for my work as my grubby hands can hold, who doesn't. Yes I was mighty angry when someone tried to steal my car recently and I've been mighty angry when a client thinks my knowledge is public property that they have unfetted access to with the intent of depriving me of income. But my knowledge, my skills and my car aren't art, all the issues about their ownership is a commercial issue, not an artistic one.

Bob.

By current moral and ethical standards bootlegging is socially acceptable.

You've said yourself, Mike, the current moral and ethical standards are at an old-time low, that does not justify those actions! Just because the majority is corrupt, it does not make the corrupt actions they take right, period.

"Just because the majority is corrupt, it does not make the corrupt actions they take right, period."

But does it justify punishing those that are not corrupt?

But does it justify punishing those that are not corrupt?

Such is life, Patrick. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. One kid's misbehaving in the classroom could ruin a treat for everyone else.

If we don't like the way a particular company does business, don't buy from them. If enough people do that, they'll get the message. But, it's like everything else, no one has the will to stand up to them. Everyone is thinking of "number one" and everyone else can drop dead for all they care.

The problem is, and this is what's at the heart of Mike's explanation, there simply isn't any accountability any more. Everyone else steals, so why shouldn't I? Why should I go without?

That's pathetic, twisted logic.

[Addendum]

"Many have referred to the current era as the information age. But it is ironic that, in an information-rich era, the biggest threat to our world’s societies, rich or poor, and to each of us personally is the absence of moral clarity and purpose. Take the United States, for example, where 96 percent say they believe there is a God, yet a full 79 percent also believe that 'there are few moral absolutes—what is right or wrong [they believe] usually varies from situation to situation.'”--Richard B. Wirthlin

This is what's wrong with "this picture". Like I said earlier, it all goes back to integrity, on both sides--ours and the corporations.

"The problem is, and this is what's at the heart of Mike's explanation, there simply isn't any accountability any more. Everyone else steals, so why shouldn't I? Why should I go without?"

Sadly you have summed up modern day America. While I am not part of the pirate camp, I am growing tiresome of having to foot the bill for increased prices because of piracy. See, sadly enough, the labels know their product will be priated so they increase the price a bit to help compensate for the "loss" of sales because suckers like me are honest and believe in paying for what you get even if the product turns out to suck in the end.

One bad apple doesnt necesarily spoil the rest. Why should a nation be punished because of a few bad pirates and the worst dont even reside in our own country (See Asia.) So by that theory, from here on out, we should treat everyone as guilty til proven innocent. I mean afterall, our politics supports that theory and so does our judicial systems regardless of what we are taught about the law growing up. Why do we bother having laws anymore if everyone is essentially guilty because a number of people have partaken in said acts?

Again, stereotyping to any degree regardless of the industry and its customers is a dangerous ground to be on. It surely lends no ability to sustain goodwill between a company and its customers.


"If we don't like the way a particular company does business, don't buy from them. If enough people do that, they'll get the message. But, it's like everything else, no one has the will to stand up to them. Everyone is thinking of "number one" and everyone else can drop dead for all they care."

And that is exactly what pirates are doing. They arent buying yet enjoying the fruits of someone's labors. Its very true that everyone is thinking number one and that includes companies and customers. Companies want all the money they can get. Customers want all the product they can get for as little as possible. That will never change.

But taking away a right that people have had for 20 years and restricting it under the pretense that everyone steals is not building goodwill. It doesnt take a business guru to see the writing on the wall. The is one of a few first steps in the attempt for total control of content delivery.

Here is how I see the future playing out. I may be off but to this point, this is what I believe. Should this law pass, this would give every content owner the right to designate when, what, and how much a user can view/copy their content with the broadcast flag. Now, I dont see a lot of owners saying no in the beginning. But as time goes on, more and more TV shows will be forbidden to be recorded so that a company can offer DVD sales, Ipod sales, PSP sales, etc...That way, people can no longer be content with a DVD Recorded copy from their set top box like how people were content with VHS copies back in the 80s. The model will slowly shift to a subscription similar to cable TV and their monthly channels only instead with speciic shows.

isnt it pathetic how dependent we have become on media and content whether it be music or videos? This thirst and hunger for a good tune or a compelling story is nothing more than an addiction constantly being marketed to and fed by every content producer. Every day, more players join the entertainment game and there is only so much money to go around which means bottom lines will get shorter with the variety of content out there. You can blame piracy now but then who will the industries blame once total control of content is achieved?

But does it justify punishing those that are not corrupt?

How are they punished??? I rent or buy my movies and I watch them. I buy my CD's and listen to them. How am I punished?

Also, as I've said before, why single out the entertainment industry? Why not complain about how ALL banks and ALL stores punish us? We're required to show ID at banks (that's a dongle) and actually have our credit card with us at stores (another dongle). And we're required to have a valid driver's license (dongle) and insurance. And why do our friends punish us by locking the doors of their houses, forcing us to wait outside in the cold until they unlock the door and let us in?

The simple FACT is that virtually EVERY aspect of our lives are "protected" in some fashion or another. The entertainment industry was generous in the past, but now it's necessary to lock the doors.

Someone also mentioned that it was odd that Sony has reversed itself on the home copying issue. Well duh, in the past (VHS and audio cassettes) it didn't matter as much because the scale wasn't there-- even if you wanted to give free music or videos to everyone you couldn't do it. The most you could do was make a few copies for your friends. These days though you can buy a CD or DVD and make it available to tens of MILLIONS of people. That's a huge difference, and it's understandable that since the game has changed Sony wants to change with it.

Fred

Bad laws are everywhere, they are only mans work and can be as flawed as we are. Morals and ethics hopefully are universal truths. In general laws are there to force us to be act morally and ethically but at many times they do have the exact opposite effect, that's why laws get changed. There are many ways to get them changed, civil disobediance is one of them but acting unethically or immorally negates your right to claim the high ground.
Sticking someone else music on your DVD and claiming it as your own work is immoral, unethical and illegal.
Giving them due credit for their contribution by way of a credit is still unethical and illegal.
Buying one copy of their CD for every copy of the DVD you make is well, still illegal.
I realise there's still holes in what I'm saying here, not the least being that the content creators do have a right to say how their work gets used. However if you're going to do it anyway and you aren't doing something obviously wrong with their work then you can do it in ways that although still illegal aren't also unethical and immoral. One of the guiding principles in my life has been "Give credit where credit is due", even with material that I do have the rights to or is in the public domain giving credit to whoever created it is the right thing to do.
Which brings me to one of my pet peeves of late, broadcasters killing off the credits just so they can fit another commercial in. I'm certain it's quite legal but it still strikes me as very wrong. Yes, I'm one of those oddballs who hangs around in the cinema until the end of the credits.
Bob.

"How are they punished??? I rent or buy my movies and I watch them. I buy my CD's and listen to them. How am I punished?"

We are punished because we are paying an inflated cost that is adjusted to compensate for casual copying and piracy.

"The simple FACT is that virtually EVERY aspect of our lives are "protected" in some fashion or another. The entertainment industry was generous in the past, but now it's necessary to lock the doors."

This is the same "generous" industry that has profited from the same actions they are trying to stop. So they have made all the money they could through casual copyign of analog so now they want to prevent people from doing it so they can push them on to their next model for profit. Sorry, but thats not how it works. This law if passed, will be appealed and IMO it should lose based on the facts that 20 years ago it was good enough for Sony to prosper from the same actions that happened then and now. Copying is copying. Stealing is stealing REGARDLESS of the number or ease of infringements.

This is no different than Creative pushing a law to now ban digital music sales. It was ok when they were profiting from selling the devices to support the product but now because they want more control over a market that they allowed to get out of control want to change it. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. So why keep funneling money into a unwinnable war? Its stupid.

Jay says: "You've said yourself, Mike, the current moral and ethical standards are at an old-time low, that does not justify those actions! Just because the majority is corrupt, it does not make the corrupt actions they take right, period."

Jay:
I don't think you see where I'm coming from - I don't justify bootlegging by from my own standards, but what I am saying is to address this problem you need understand the people who make the problem and that is the majority of us. Saying "most people" are bad does not help bring about a solution. Right and wrong, as law is decided by consensus (save corrupt politicians) and the public's acceptance of behaviour. On this issue, consensus is very much against you. If the vast majority of ordinary educated average Americans don not think bootlegging is wrong your personal strong feelings mean nothing and go nowhere to formulating a solution.

First ACCEPT that while the majority of the human race would not break into your home and steal your tapes, they do think retaining a copy of your material that comes to them free through the air or some wire is OK - They do not see it a receiving stolen goods as you do. Now start to think about a solution that accommodates the majorities perception of the issue: ignoring them is just what the big media companies are doing and as predicted it is backfiring.

Mike

Heres my solution(s)

1. Mass produce discs that do not cost anything for people to obtain (i.e AOL discs.) If the industries insist on using DRM, fine. But dont make me spend money to buy a protected disc. If they insist on a PPV, limited time frame, etc... fine, let me make that decision when I purchase my license, dont decide it for me.

Real world scenario: I goto the store or website and request a copy of King Kong in HD. I get receive the disc, pop it in my computer or set top player, that brings up a page or screen that provides me with the options of unlimited viewing, one time vieiwing, etc...In put my credit card or payment information and bam, my license is transferred to my system or machine. That way the industries retain their "control" and receive compensation and the customer decides just how much ownership they want of the right to view the content.

Second way:

Definitely not my most popular idea but one that makes everyone accountable in some way and kind of ties in to other crappy ideas that are inevitable from our government.

When you purchase said discs at retail stores, they scan your drivers license (which Im sure will be a national one) which links it to the serial number of the disc so that way if it ends up distributed, its as simple as tracking the licensee. Dont know how you could enforce online sales of discs but maybe a smart card with identification or soemthing. Maybe even a card swiper. I dunno. But there are better ways out there to maximize profits other than treating honest people as criminals.

pmasters: Neither of those two options would work because they both require a purchase. People who get stuff illegally may come up with a zillion rationalizations, but it all boils down to not wanting to spend money. One thing that would help more than most people think is to get the message to kids at a young age-- the age where they learn about other things that are wrong to do. But parents/educators must be firm, not with a "hey, it's wrong but we all do it" sort of attitude.

Fred