Canada puts a cap on filesharing penalty: $5,000

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance, in the Canadian legal system, suing for damages in any other case requires actual, objective damage to be presented. As far as I understand it, it is one of the major differences between our and the American civil courts.

That's why I like my idea of it being pure compensatory in nature rather than punitive. The "compensatoriness" of the reparations from the offender would be the most direct and "objective" way to make that restitution. It does not get any purer than that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's why I like my idea of it being pure compensatory in nature rather than punitive. The "compensatoriness" of the reparations from the offender would be the most direct and "objective" way to make that restitution. It does not get any purer than that.

sure, if you could meaningfully quantify the "compensation"

because, at best, there is a correlation between p2p technology and a loss in sales of a very specific type of industry supported media, and even in this thread people have brought up reasons to suggest the relationship may not be casual, and if it is, it may work in the other direction (poor variety of industry music promotes filesharing). Certainly I think "X # of downloads = X # $" is a fools errand in this issue, even if it might be the most fair.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Certainly I think "X # of downloads = X # $" is a fools errand in this issue, even if it might be the most fair.

There is no other way to be objective about it, a far as a court is concerned. It also functions in the same exact manner for how someone would have purchased the music legally and digitally: that is how much they would have had to pay had they downloaded it from, say, iTunes music store.

We can certainly argue that the price per song on the market may not be fair, but setting a value to the music itself is best left out of the courts: let the market determine that and allow the court to use that as the meter-stick but don't allow the court to determine that meter-stick because you end up with stupid shit like a $1.4 million dollar fine to a lower-middle class single mother.

but still, that equation promotes an causal relationship between loss of sales and p2p sharing, which I think is not proven at all, considering there are numerous artists, weird al being the one that comes to mind first, who have seen an increase in revenue given the internet.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but still, that equation promotes an causal relationship between loss of sales and p2p sharing, which I think is not proven at all,

It isn't. In fact, the opposite is shown to be true.

However, it is the same as busting into an electronics store and stealing a sound system: the person that stole it is extremely likely to not have purchased that sound system, anyway, but the company still lost the sound system that should have been sold.

The difference is the confusion with digital assets, which are less quantifiable than physical assets because digital assets are much easier to "fabricate".

The "good" was still stolen. The value of that good, at the time of the thievery, should be the compensatory damages paid. If the person setup a P2P file that got it shared, without purchase, by thousands of people, that thievery is multiplied by thousands of people. Even if that good would have never been consumed by those thousands of people, it does not matter: they still stole it.

but your analogy fails when you accept the charge people get for p2p isn't theft, but copyright infringement.

I don't think anyone reasonably suggests that shared files are stolen property.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but your analogy fails when you accept the charge people get for p2p isn't theft, but copyright infringement.

A legal definition, only, but morally, it is still theft.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think anyone reasonably suggests that shared files are stolen property.

I think our disagreement is our approach to the topic. Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong. You obviously don't.

We are a stone-age creature operating in an information-age world. We know we are stealing. It is theft. Just because it was duplicated rather than physically taken does not mean it is not theft.

If you ask:

"Is that yours?"

And you legally cannot say yes, you either borrowed it with permission or you stole it. All new, modern, legal definitions are superfluous to this. If the person knows that they do not own the item in question, the dissonance felt leads to things like your response.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A legal definition, only, but morally, it is still theft.

theft is a law defined legally...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think our disagreement is our approach to the topic. Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong. You obviously don't.

not really, no... I see a huge value to IP laws

what I don't see is any use in trying to pigeon-hole various laws that were already out of date when VHS was released being relevant in the modern world, and major corporations trying to bribe the government to maintain the status quo.

So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).

Originally posted by Oliver North
theft is a law defined legally...

And laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily. Morally, the person knows it is "theft" because of the way I described it. If you want to insert another word that means exactly the same thing as "theft" but does not carry the legal baggage, by all means, suggest a word and we can use that. But it is not purely copyright infringement from the perception of the individual doing the thieving.

Originally posted by Oliver North
not really, no... I see a huge value to IP laws

what I don't see is any use in trying to pigeon-hole various laws that were already out of date when VHS* was released being relevant in the modern world, and major corporations trying to bribe the government to maintain the status quo.

*betamax because I assume you are referring to Sony of America v. Universal City Studios (1984)

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).

I need to make a clarification:

IP = Intellectual Property not internet protocol or shorthand for internet protocol address.

What type of condom would you afford those creators, though? Be specific enough that I could form a law around your idea but vague enough so I don't have to read a 50 page legal document.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily. Morally, the person knows it is "theft" because of the way I described it. If you want to insert another word that means exactly the same thing as "theft" but does not carry the legal baggage, by all means, suggest a word and we can use that. But it is not purely copyright infringement from the perception of the individual doing the thieving.

are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

because, otherwise, your or my personal opinions on the matter are sort of moot. There are lots of legal things I think are immoral, yet I wouldn't suggest people be not allowed, because freedom.

like, tbh, I don't know what could be more irrelevant to the conversation than your personal distaste for p2p...

legally, it is only and has only ever been copyright infringement

Originally posted by dadudemon
What type of condom would you afford those creators, though? Be specific enough that I could form a law around your idea but vague enough so I don't have to read a 50 page legal document.

I don't think I need an iron clad idea of how IP should work to claim the current system is both antiquated and set up to benefit massive corporate interests.

However, under current law things like damages, loss, etc, are almost impossible to prove, so imho, we probably should be looking at new ways to deal with it, rather than trying to maintain a status quo that, as you pointed out, was irrelevant 30 years ago (and no, I was more referring to the legal grey area about even showing a movie to your friends in various contexts).

Wired had a great article a few months back about how different companies are trying, with varying degrees of success, to allow TV or movies to be streamed on the net. One company was allowed to provide the service because each time a person requested a movie a "new" digital copy was created for them, whereas another was shut down because it streamed DVDs, and each in theory had multiple uses. The whole thing was a study in how the laws are basically failing at both providing the customer what they want and at effectively protecting IP, with most court cases getting into technobabble about how many copies of what are made and distributed to consumers.

The need isn't to get rid of IP, the need is to make it make sense in a world where information can be transferred to millions at the speed of light, and to accept that Hollywood and the RIAA shouldn't have the last word on the issue, because they are a) motivated only by profits and b) largely dishonest brokers who don't want to lose their monopoly on the distribution of media.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

Wait...are you arguing that laws are not official morals?

Additionally, are you missing the point on purpose?

Originally posted by Oliver North
because, otherwise, your or my personal opinions on the matter are sort of moot.

Not really. What is the point of discussing it if our opinions are moot? We can run for political office and petition or representatives, all the same, if you want to be literal about it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
like, tbh, I don't know what could be more irrelevant to the conversation than your personal distaste for p2p...

My personal distaste of P2P? I'm lost. Where is that coming from? I think the protocol is awesome and I use it everyday at work to share documents, executables, and spreadsheets. Do you mean something else? If I were to assume, I'd think you meant illegal P2P sharing: a.k.a. copyright infringement.

Originally posted by Oliver North
legally, it is only and has only ever been copyright infringement

I argued against your restrictions (restriction = only allowing and entertaining the strict legal definition of "copyright infringement" in the discussion), already:

"...laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily."

"Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong.

...

We are a stone-age creature operating in an information-age world. We know we are stealing. It is theft. Just because it was duplicated rather than physically taken does not mean it is not theft.

If you ask:

"Is that yours?"

And you legally cannot say yes, you either borrowed it with permission or you stole it. All new, modern, legal definitions are superfluous to this. If the person knows that they do not own the item in question, the dissonance felt leads to things like your response."

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think I need an iron clad idea of how IP should work to claim the current system is both antiquated and set up to benefit massive corporate interests.

However, under current law things like damages, loss, etc, are almost impossible to prove, so imho, we probably should be looking at new ways to deal with it, rather than trying to maintain a status quo that, as you pointed out, was irrelevant 30 years ago (and no, I was more referring to the legal grey area about even showing a movie to your friends in various contexts).

Okay, I can agree to that. I agree that at least one study has shown the file-sharers actually spend more money on things like software and albums than their non-sharing unspendy counterparts. So, yes, the laws do not fit properly. That is why I suggested strict compensatory and eliminate all notions of punitive damages when it comes to this topic.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Wired had a great article a few months back about how different companies are trying, with varying degrees of success, to allow TV or movies to be streamed on the net. One company was allowed to provide the service because each time a person requested a movie a "new" digital copy was created for them, whereas another was shut down because it streamed DVDs, and each in theory had multiple uses. The whole thing was a study in how the laws are basically failing at both providing the customer what they want and at effectively protecting IP, with most court cases getting into technobabble about how many copies of what are made and distributed to consumers.

The need isn't to get rid of IP, the need is to make it make sense in a world where information can be transferred to millions at the speed of light, and to accept that Hollywood and the RIAA shouldn't have the last word on the issue, because they are a) motivated only by profits and b) largely dishonest brokers who don't want to lose their monopoly on the distribution of media.

I agree that the subscription service idea is much better than the physical a la carte offering that places like Apple iTunes and brick and mortor stores offer for Intellectual Property consumption. Think Netflix versus paying for every episode or buying the "Blu-ray boxset".

The market clearly wants to subscribe to an unlimited service where we can choose what we want to consume.

Companies do not like that because it gives them less control on profit. For instance, wireless phone companies did the unlimited data thing for a while. Then they realized they could make more money by capping the amount of data that could be consumed per unit time (in am month) and then charging extra for anyone that exceeds that cap. Then they took it further by tiering their capped system so people could buy different levels of data plans. Bam: tons of more profit despite the fact that all studies showed data usage was increasing in the mobile market (they saw dollar signs when they looked at that chart). That is not consumer friendly nor is it "forward progress" thinking as far as technology is concerned. I called my wireless service provider, AT&T and asked them if they had an unlimited plan. The rep said no. I said, "I am a business user so I obviously have more need than just 5GB a month." So they transferred me to the business unit. Business unit rep said: "No, no unlimited data plan." So I asked my question a different way, "So, you're saying that even though I want to give you more money for a specific service, you don't want it?" She laughed and said yes, they do not want more money because they make it off the overage fees when people exceed the caps. That makes sense...but they are not giving me what I want. FFS, I want to give them more money but they won't take it. Translate this over to Netflix: I want to give Netflix more money for more instant watch options but they won't give it to me. I would be willing to pay $40 a month to get access to tons of more big-name shows like current episodes of Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad. They just won't offer it because there is more money to be made by forcing me to have to pay the cable company for cable service, premium channels, the DVR, the DVR service, and all the nice little fees attached to that bill.

That is how digital media organizations are going these days. I remember the whole mess with Netflix a couple of years back. Their partners were getting greedy once they realized how much media is actually consumed that they licensed out to Netflix. They wanted more...much more money on their contracts. (I do not know if this is true but one of my professors said that Netflix is the second biggest internet traffic causer in America.)

But why? They actually saw an increase in revenue because a service like Netflix existed? That media was not being purchased, before, but now people had instant access, with no noticed increase in spending, to tons of old stuff. Stuff they would not have purchased or watched (who wants to buy seasons 1-26 of the old Dr. Who? Right?) So these media corporations want a bigger cut that they would not have gotten to begin with if streaming services like Netflix never existed.

Additionally, some, like ABC are streaming their own stuff and putting commercials in their streaming service (annoying, browser crashing, commercials, sometimes):

I am willing to bet that more ABC shows are consumed on Netflix than on ABC, itself, minus the "new episodes" that ABC refuses be allowed to be played anywhere else for a waiting period (I believe ABC's "cooldown period" is 6 months).

So what do people do to get around these greedy restrictions from the media houses? They share them. Some dude records it with his DVR, creates a torrent file, then shares. Seeds are made and everyone downloads it from the peer network newly created.

This is why Game of Thrones is the most torrented show of all time: everyone wants to watch it but people don't want to pay the stupid amount of money for the "pay channel" prices. Additionally, nobody wants to wait the 6-12 months it takes for it to be released on Blu-ray and DVD. Lastly, HBO will not release that show on places like Netflix or Hulu. So we end up with a media house that is not catering to the wants of the market so it gets torrented 2+ million times. 😐 Maybe HBO should pull its head out of its ass and realize that their show is being torrented so much because they "protect" it too much from being consumed the way the consumer wants to consume!

So this is why I think punitive damages should be eliminated. I like why Canada capped it. Whoever thought of legislating that in Canada was very forward thinking. If bitches like the MPAA and RIAA are forced to have to adjust to the market instead of suing single, lower-middle class, mother $1.4 million, they may actually improve the customer experience! Yippeee!

ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).

The law protects owners not creators. This is the same way it works with physical theft, too. If my car is stolen Ford doesn't get compensated when the thief is caught.

I'd say large companies are of benefit to IP creators. They bring the IP to a wider audience and have the money and resources to enforce IP laws to benefit the creator.

I don't really see the difference between p2p sharing and downloading. A copy is created in both instances.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

All laws legislate morality, its inescapable.

Originally posted by dadudemon

. What do you think about my suggestion of making it purely compensatory and eliminating all punitive "fines"?

]

I think that's how lawsuits should be in general.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

My post isn't even close to 50 pages. 🙂

I think as long as the RIAA Cartel's suit for profit schemes are still going on in the US and file sharing and Pandora are killing all independent competition, things will stay just the way they are.

[dadudemon - The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad ARE on Instant Netflix.]

Originally posted by siriuswriter
[dadudemon - The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad ARE on Instant Netflix.]

Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

Sorry, I was very tired when I read your post. I was borderline delusional (35+ hours).

My point about the 50 pages was a literal legal document that was 50 pages versus a 1-2 liner that seems clever but does not actually explain your position. Something in between. 5 paragraphs?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The law protects owners not creators. This is the same way it works with physical theft, too. If my car is stolen Ford doesn't get compensated when the thief is caught.

sure, and I'm not saying owners should have no rights, but I do think looking at the total experience for creator, owner, distributor and consumer is the best way to determine what would be a more fair and beneficial system of IP. As it is, because of their financial power, the legal system favors the owners and I think most other groups suffer because of this (consumers more than artists, sure).

however, I really don't think you are trying to say there is some equivalence between filesharing and the physical theft of a person's property?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say large companies are of benefit to IP creators. They bring the IP to a wider audience and have the money and resources to enforce IP laws to benefit the creator.

I'd say there are some fairly salient examples of creators and their IP owners having major issues.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All laws legislate morality, its inescapable.

that seems either like a semantic point or some ridiculous level of reductionism.

I take it you mean something like "the idea that society should even have some order or that people should be protected by laws is a moral sentiment, thus, traffic laws are a matter of moral principle"?