Posted by name on 12/31/05 00:15

Dave D wrote:
> "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135732581.757710.209990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I think you have to look at it this way. People who own cars and use
> > roads pay tax so the government is able to maintain the roads. Likewise
> > people who use infrastructure used to transport information ought to
> > pay tax so this network is maintained.
>
> That is why we in the UK pay line rental for the telephone line, and a fee
> to the ISP- to use their infrastructure to access information! Is the
> internet entirely free where you live? The taxpayer and telecomms user
> already pays handsomely for the development, installation and maintenance of
> the systems, you think they should pay twice? These organisations are
> already obscenely rich.

I was just characterizing the current situation.

>
> > So in that respect there is nothing wrong with a tax on information to
> > maintain
> > the essential infrastructure allowing people to access and share
> > information.
>
> Maybe, if the basic facts to support your argument weren't bogus!
>
> > But perhaps such a taxation system can also be used to compensate
> > people coming
> > up with original content.
>
> I think we (almost) all want to see that happen.
>
> >I would trust the government more to come up
> > with such a system,
>
> I wouldn't. Governments, at least the current UK one, operate in their own
> interests, not the people's. Worse still, they are easily bought by big
> business. Ask any US citizen interested in the politics of P2P and
> filesharing.

True, in that respect the government ought to become more transparent
first.
Businesses buying their way into the government are totally
unacceptable.
The government ought to serve the people, not the corporations.
But the internet could also allow for more direct forms of democracy.

>
> >since they are accountable for their actions,
> > instead of private corporations that are scamming people most of the
> > time with illegal price-agreements, etc...
>
> Are you referring to ISPs?

No, in this case I was referring to the recording industry and their
traditional
ways of distributing and marketing content. The price of CDs is
artificially inflated and isn't governed by laws of supply and demand.

> Here in the UK, broadband is priced reasonably,
> and ISPs generally like to allow their subscribers to do whatever they want
> within reason, including P2P. They have warnings in their terms and
> conditions against copyright infringing activities, but I've never heard of
> it being rigidly enforced. ISPs aren't stupid- it's a competitive business
> and they know a large chunk of the demand for their services is P2P use.
> When that demand is eliminated then so is a big chunk of their customer
> base.

There isn't even a clear distinction between p2p and other internet
services.

>
> > What's essential is that a new economic model is developed that takes
> > into account that information is essentially free (because it's not
> > scarce), but that still allows for some method of financially
> > compensation for people coming up with original content.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Just raise the cost of
> >> >> > an internet connection based on the amount of data you download
> >> >> > (uploading being free).
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Not everyone uses the 'net for illegal downloads!
> >> >
> >> > The problem is that it's virtually impossible to distinguish between
> >> > 'legal'
> >> > and 'illegal' downloads. I think the distinction between 'public
> >> > domain'
> >> > and 'copyrighted' material is untenable in the digital age.
> >>
> >> That doesn't justify a clunky, unsatisfactory and unjust law.
> >
> > It might,
>
> No, an unjust, clunky law is *never* acceptable.

Taxing p2p might equally well be unjust and clunky.

>
> > if it ensures a fairer system of financial compensation of
> > those coming up with original content compared to the current situation
> > where a minority of people pays excessive money for their cds/dvds
> > while others get it for free on p2p.
> > It doesn't have to be a perfect system as long as it's a significant
> > improvement of the current situation.
> >
>
> Few laws are perfect, but we can do better than this IMO.
>
> >>
> >> > If someone creates something, they have to be compensated for it
> >> > financially,
> >> > regardless whether they like their creations to be distributed for free
> >> > or whether
> >> > they insist that everybody who enjoys their creations must pay for it.
> >>
> >> Why? If someone wishes to make their own work public domain free of
> >> charge,
> >> that is their right. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that
> >> they
> >> *must* receive compensation for it even if they have explicitly stated
> >> they
> >> do not want it. That is the beautiful thing about the 'net and the WWW,
> >> so
> >> many individuals prepared to contribute their own material completely
> >> free
> >> of charge.
> >
> > But either way, one group suffers from the freedom of the other group.
> > Either the people who insist on payment suffer from the right to share
> > information freely, or the people who insist on not getting payed
> > suffer from
> > the right of those who deserve to get payed to get their money.
>
> I just don't get this idea where you believe that people would be *forced*
> to be compensated for their work, against their wishes. It doesn't have to
> be like that, even with your model. The money simply gets distributed
> amongst copyright holders, it doesn't have to involve private individuals
> offering their own material for free.

But private individuals can be copyright holders just the same. If I
write a story and post it on usenet, I'm the copyright holder of that
story. If other people massively email that story against my will, that
constitutes copyright infringement.
All I'm saying is that we don't have the technology to differentiate
between various intentions and preferences regarding publication.
It's even a question as to whether or not we have the technology to
compensate for copyright infringement (in a fair way) in the first
place. Since this would require a kind of global centralized agency
exactly keeping track of what is copyrighted and by whom (and if
applicable, under what terms).

>
> > I think that the only fair way to ensure financial compensation would
> > be
> > to simply compensate anyone who contributes something originally,
> > regardless
> > whether they would like their creations to be shared freely or whether
> > they would
> > object to this.
>
> How do you propose to force someone to accept payment?

Just like you force people to pay tax. If you come up with something
original and your creation is shared massively, you get compensated
financially for your efforts, whether you like it or not. The idea here
is to have some kind of uniform scheme of compensation that doesn't
require people to depend on major corporations (like the recording
industry) to enforce their copyrights.
The recording industry and their traditional means of production and
distribution are made redundant by the internet. Copyright served a
role in the past protecting traditional publishers from unfair
competition amongst their peers and what's needed now is a reformed
kind of copyright and associated financial recompense that works for
the internet and acknowledges decentralized publication where everybody
is free to copy/share anything they like.

>
> >We simply don't have the technology to differentiate
> > between public domain and copyrighted material.
>
> How do you think the RIAA/MPAA et al do it? An ISP can filter out P2P users
> by monitoring for a bandwidth/port usage profile, then after they've
> narrowed it down, analyse traffic for known copyrighted material.

No need to filter out p2p use. You'd simply have to monitor or filter
all internet traffic, which is done anyway because of terrorism
threats.
The problem lies with the notion of 'known copyrighted material'. Who
decides what is copyrighted and what not? There is no global copyright
agency yet.
Copyright legislation differs for various countries and the internet is
a global phenomenon requiring a global solution if we want to end up
with a fair system of compensation for copyright infringement.

>
> > Alternatively we could completely abolish this approach and declare
> > that anything belongs to the public domain.
> >
> >> The less governments get involved in the evolution of the WWW the
> >> better. The more governments get involved, the less freedom of speech
> >> we'll
> >> see on the web.
> >
> > It's not necessarily a problem if the government gets involved,
>
> If governments get involved, the web would be a very different place- for
> the worse.

Governments are already involved. Freedom of speech online doesn't mean
that you can peddle childpornography or plans for terroristic
activities.
So I'd have to rephrase my earlier statement "having the right to
access any information I want" to "having the right to access any
information I want as long
as this information doesn't compromise the freedom of others".

>
> >as long
> > as the government is not primarily motivated to protect the interests
> > of major corporations but balances these with the rights of individual
> > users.
>
> Can you see that happening? One has only to look at the relationship the US
> and the EU has with big business to see what will happen. You might want to
> take a look at the case of French MEP, Janelly Fourtou.
>
> http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/jfourtou/index.en.html
>
> Look who her husband is!
>
> She was also responsible for pushing draconian anti-P2P legislation through.
> How nice of her to abuse her position and push her husband's business
> interests through, that's hardly putting the people first.

I agree governments would have to undergo a major reformation before we
can rely on them to come up with a fair system of compensation for
copyright infringement.

>
> >A transparant government that is accountable for its actions
> > isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I agree a government should
> > strive to make itself redundant by educating and emancipating its
> > citizens to the point where they behave responsibly and are effectively
> > self-governing.
> > I have more fears for basic rights like the freedom to exchange
> > information and freedom of speech when commercial corporations own the
> > internet and their actions are primarily motivated by financial
> > interests. They would like to see submissive customers that buy into
> > anything and slavishly accept anything thrown their way.
> > The government, in the ideal case, is a tool for citizens to improve on
> > society and making it more fair for everyone, not just the people or
> > corporations with a lot of money.
> >
>
> This is why competition must be encouraged and monopolies and uncompetitive
> practices squashed.

Yes, otherwise capitalism is just a totalitarian system. Competition is
supposed to be one of the great boons of capitalism. If the government
doesn't regulate capitalism it turns into an oligarchy.

> For example, things like DVD region coding should be
> outlawed, it's disgraceful that studios have so much pull over electronics
> manufacturers that they can force them to add this technology into their
> players, and only serves to assist their price fixing cartels- nothing to do
> with piracy. The government would be the last institution I'd trust with
> controlling information. Especially given that no country has an ideal
> government, and isn't likely to either.

I hope the internet eventually dissolves national borders.
People should demand from their government that it is transparant and
accountable for its actions. If the government isn't serving the
people, it's time for a new government.

>
> >>
> >> > Just like people pay tax whether they like paying tax or hate it. We
> >> > don't tax people only when they enjoy paying their tax.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Strawman.
> >>
> >> >> I don't see why people should effectively have to pay a levy to the
> >> >> entertainment industry just because they view web pages or download
> >> >> windows
> >> >> updates, Linux distributions or other non-copyright infringing
> >> >> purposes.
> >> >> This reminds me of the UK TV licence idea which is to fund the BBC. We
> >> >> pay
> >> >> the TV licence whether or not we watch BBC services or not, even
> >> >> satellite
> >> >> services.
> >> >
> >> > You also pay tax for social security in many countries whether you
> >> > actually end up
> >> > using it or not.
> >>
> >> We are not discussing the welfare state! We are discussing every internet
> >> user having to pay a levy to a private organisation because some people
> >> download the intellectual property of that organisation. It's like
> >> everyone
> >> who enters a shopping centre being forced to hand over money to
> >> compensate
> >> shop owners for shoplifting losses.
> >
> > Who's talking about private organisations?
>
> What do you think a recording company is? I'm talking about a government
> 'shopping centre' tax charged to anyone entering, paid back to businesses to
> cover losses, which I don't think is a bad analogy. In your model, we the
> internet users would have to pay a levy to the recording companies. The fact
> that the government would administer this and collect the money doesn't
> change that fact.

No, because recording companies will cease to exist. The activities
performed by a traditional recording company are technologically
obsolete. So I reckon we'll end up with individuals or small
collectives as the people who own the copyright to their own creations.


>
> >You'd pay the levy to the
> > government and they in turn distribute it among the people coming up
> > with original content.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > I think people who enter a shopping centre already pay for shoplifting
> > because shoplifting naturally raises the price of goods. It would be
> > cheaper to have stuff laying around on the street instead of investing
> > in all sorts of security measures to ensure people actually pay for the
> > products they are interested in. More shoplifting means more security
> > measures and these investments are taken into account in the final
> > price of the product. But the analogy between shoplifting and p2p
> > sharing (not that you were suggesting this)
>
> Correct, I wasn't making that analogy and I agree, filesharing is neither
> theft nor equivalent to shoplifting, despite what some people would have us
> all believe.
>
> >is faulty because stuff
> > shared on p2p is duplicated whereas in shoplifting things are actually
> > being taken away.
> >
> >>
> >> >It can be hard or almost impossible to come up with a
> >> > system that ensures only people who actually use a service pay for it.
> >>
> >> Well, I mentioned a workable alternative at the end of my last post.
> >
> > It's not workable because I don't think there are effective ways to
> > differentiate
> > between p2p and other internet uses.
>
> Then you'd be wrong!

The issue is to recognize copyright infringement and not p2p use.

>
> >If you allow people to share
> > information freely, there is no way to only allow sharing public domain
> > stuff freely while preventing people from sharing copyrighted material.
> > Many people use p2p just the same for downloading public domain
> > material (like linux distributions on bittorrent), so why should they
> > pay extra for p2p when they only use p2p to obtain public domain
> > material?
> >
> >>
> >> > Like an insurance, you pay for something that might happen. If it
> >> > doesn't happen you still pay.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's a pretty atrocious analogy! :-)
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

I think it does, given that most people using the internet are also
likely to infringe copyrights (similarly to how p2p users are likely to
do it).
Most people have infringed an occasional copyright by mailing a graphic
ripped from a webpage in their xmas email.
If people are not infringing copyrights while using the internet, they
probably lack a clue what the heck is possible with their internet
connection, rather than a deliberate decision not to engage in
copyright infringement.
I think the number of internet users that deliberately refrain from
copyright infringement while extensively using the internet as a
pastime is negligible.

>
> >You might pay an information tax just in the case (which is kind
> > of likely) that you end up downloading stuff made by someone who'd like
> > to receive financial compensation for their creative efforts.
>
> You're contradicting yourself here. Why don't you apply this logic to my
> proposal of a P2P tax? You argue that my idea is unfair because not everyone
> uses P2P for illegal downloads, yet argue that it's OK to charge *everyone*
> who uses the internet to pay, even though a lot of people will pay for
> something they won't use?! You can't have it both ways! You say it's likely
> that people using the internet will end up downloading copyrighted material.
> I suggest it's *far* more likely a P2P user will end up doing just that.
> There are far more legal web users than P2P users.

I doubt it, given the number of people that email attachments (or use
chatprograms to send files) with audio or graphics made by others.
Peer to peer just means internet traffic between two individuals.
If I post to a newsgroup, it's also peer to peer, whether or not my
posting includes a binary attachment doesn't make any difference.
So maybe the whole discussion would make more sense if some terms would
be more rigorously defined. 'P2p' and 'copyright infringement' are
pretty vague terms when you think about them.

>
> > Maybe most people who are downloading stuff are not interested in
> > knowing whether or not the stuff they download is made by people who
> > like it to be shared freely or not.
> > So you just download stuff and never have to worry about whether the
> > person who ultimately provided it likes you to download it or not and
> > under what conditions.
> > A copyright notice accompanying something you download is kind of silly
> > because there is no way to guarantee it's genuine. Anyone can easily
> > modify or forge it and change public domain stuff into copyrighted
> > stuff or vice versa. Also after a certain period things automatically
> > belong to the public domain when they have been copyrighted and the
> > accompanying copyright notice would no longer be valid.
> > One other option would be for the government to set up a website
> > containing an archive where people can check whether or not something
> > is public domain material or not. But that sort of nullifies the
> > 'decentralized distribution' idea that makes the internet so beautiful.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Everybody should be free to exchange software,
> >> >> > music, movies, books, etc..
> >> >>
> >> >> That depends. I don't see how they can object to lending/exchanging
> >> >> copyright material person to person, ie amongst friends or families,
> >> >> but
> >> >> making a copyrighted file available to millions on a network is a
> >> >> different
> >> >> matter. I don't kid myself here- I download/upload copyrighted
> >> >> material
> >> >> regularly, and I know it's illegal. However, I don't care! Ultimately,
> >> >> I
> >> >> do
> >> >> what I do without too many pangs of guilt, because I know how shitty
> >> >> the
> >> >> entertainment industry is. I may be dishonest in downloading but I
> >> >> feel
> >> >> they
> >> >> deserve all they get. However, I do not believe I should have a
> >> >> *right*
> >> >> to
> >> >> do what I do, I just do it in the hope I won't get caught!
> >> >
> >> > I do believe I should have the right to acces anything I like.
> >>
> >> Do you really mean 'anything I like'?
> >
> > Yes, because nobody owns information. Nobody owns 0, 0110, 1101011 or a
> > bitstring
> > consisting of a thousand or a million digits.
>
> This argument is as old as the hills, but it doesn't hold water IMO. How
> copyrighted material is stored, whether it be a photocopy of a book, a
> magnetic recording of a vinyl record or a CD ripped into 0s and 1s is
> irrelevent. It is a reproduction of someone else's work which they are
> entitled to earn compensation for. That is their livelyhood, their way of
> making ends meet.

Well, what if their way of making a living has become technologically
obsolete, like people making a living producing steam engines were put
out of their job when petrol engines were invented?

You are talking about the notion of copyright as it used to be
interpreted in the context of centralized distributors competing with
each other (not with consumers). They could use that argument to sue
other centralized distributors for copyright infringement.
It wouldn't work anymore if, hypothetically speaking, people gained the
mental ability to transmit thoughts to the degree that they would be
able to communicate complete books, movies or concerts to each other,
since it would no longer be practically feasible to randomly sue
individuals when everybody has access to 'copyrighted material' so
easily. Simply put, if people would acquire this ability miraculously
somehow, it would put publishers out of business.
I think this can be seen as a metaphor for what we currently see
happening with the internet. It has become so easy for people to
communicate complete works of art (music, movies, concerts, etc..) that
publishers no longer have any role to play in the production and
distribution of such works of art.

>
> The current model is deeply flawed, and I'd like to see the recording
> industry extinct and all the greedy executives cleaning toilets, and the
> artists getting paid fairly for their work. However IME this red herring
> about 0s and 1s is usually a distraction used by people who cannot admit to
> themselves that they are accessing copyrighted works without paying for it.

I disagree. It's a fundamental discussion about what can be
copyrighted.
You can't just arbitrarily allow people to copyright some things and
deny other
people the right to copyright other things. You need to have some kind
of systematic
definition of what it is that can be copyrighted and in this case
technology has
been rendering our commonly accepted definition of what can be
copyrighted and what it means for something to be copyrighted as
obsolete.
The fact that a bitstring of a million bits can be copied just as
easily these days
as a single bit means that you can't allow people to copy bits but deny
them their right to copy bitstrings as soon as bitstrings get fairly
long.
There simply is no practical way to sort out the bitstrings that can be
copied from the ones that can't be copied, like there used to be a way
to sort out which strings of characters could be written/printed in
compliance with copyright legislation.

>
>
> >So why should I be
> > prevented to access
> > certain bitstrings that are 'copyrighted'?
>
> You shouldn't be prevented from accessing them, provided you agree to pay
> whoever created the works that those 0s and 1s represent.

But who keeps track of who created what?

>
> >It doesn't make any sense.
>
> Sure it does. 0s and 1s in this instance are a (almost) perfect reproduction
> of someone else's labours. If they choose to exchange their work or a
> reproduction of it for money, that is their right.

So if I come up with 111100001011101011101010101111110100000, I can now
start charging people money whenever they use that bitstring? I can sue
people for copyright infringement when people use that bitstring
without paying me?
If not, how long do you suppose the bitstring has to be before I can
start claiming money or sueing people for using my invention without
paying me?
I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever.

>
> > Note that 'anything' in the case of digital information amounts to a
> > bitstring of arbitrary length. Since that can encode any book, movie,
> > music, software, etc.. there could possibly be.
> > This is a kind of controversial statement though, because a bitstring
> > might also encode childpornography or other controversial 'content'.
> > But on a philosophical level, I think it just doesn't make sense to try
> > and distinguish between legal and illegal bitstrings for people to
> > access or share.
> >
>
> I disagree. I think people are hiding behind this '0s and 1s' philosophy
> because they cannot come up with a cogent argument as to why they should be
> able to 'legally' access people's professional artistic creations without
> reimbursing them.

Just tell me how long bitstrings have to be before people or
corporations can own the right to use them.
Note that micro$oft might actually sue me if I dump their latest
operating system on usenet in the form of a bitstring.

>
> >>
> >> >The
> >> > entertainment industry
> >> > doesn't have the authority to dictate the terms on which to enjoy the
> >> > creations produced by them. It doesn't work that way.
> >> >The idea of
> >> > making a copyrighted file available to millions on a network is a myth
> >> > to begin with.
> >>
> >> It's not, and I think this is splitting hairs and isn't really an
> >> important
> >> or valid distinction.
> >
> > It's not splitting hairs. It's the essential distinction between
> > traditional centralized
> > distribution of a single source providing all available copies (and
> > being able to sue other centralized distributors for copyright
> > infringement in case of unfair competition) and contemporary
> > decentralized distribution where anyone with a computer and an internet
> > connection can (and often does) contribute in the distribution process
> > where it's virtually impossible to trace back a copy to the original
> > source.
> > In the latter case it doesn't really matter whether someone shares a
> > song ripped from cd or a song downloaded from p2p, because many people
> > will rip the same song from a cd they bought, whether it's already
> > available on p2p or not (given that there are so many p2p
> > alternatives).
> >
>
> If only one person ripped each song, give it long enough and, if the demand
> was there, that song would propagate onto as many PCs as multiple versions
> of the same song. All that matters here is the end result. One person
> ripping one song releases it into the public domain, amd ultimately into the
> hands of as many people who want it.

But this never happens. If you can find evidence of a single instance
where this has actually happened, I'd like to hear about it. Has anyone
ever been sued as the original ripper of a song widely distributed on
p2p? It sounds more like a joke.

>
> >> Only one person has to rip and share a song, and
> >> through natural P2P propagation it could be on millions of computers
> >> within
> >> months.
> >
> > Well, think a little... this is extremely unlikely isn't it?
> >When a
> > music cd is available in
> > stores worldwide, that only a single music fan would decide to rip it
> > and share it on p2p?
>
> ??
> I didn't say that. I simply stated that it only takes one person to rip a
> song for it to propagate.

It might, theoretically, in an extremely unlikely scenario.
In 99.9% of all instances, songs on p2p have been ripped by many people
whenever the original cd has been sold world wide.

>
> >So what's more a likely scenario is that thousands
> > of them do this and no single one of them can be hold accountable.
> > Users are typically sued in certain countries for p2p sharing when they
> > share 10000 or 50000 songs and not because they were found to be the
> > first and only users ripping a particular CD.
> >
>
> That's not the point I was trying to make.

But what is it exactly, according to you, that's unethical about p2p
sharing of copyrighted material?
In my opinion, p2p sharing causes recording publishers to go out of
business because of their refusal to reform their business model in
accordance with modern information communication technology and artists
that have become completely dependent on their services suffer from
that in the process. Either artists evolve and adapt to new technology
or they should find a different occupation.
Any artist interested in reaching as massive an audience as possible
would embrace p2p, but in order to exploit their popularity
financially, they would have to come up with something that doesn't
depend on record sales (giving concerts for instance).

>
> >>That is why copyright owners get so steamed up about cracking DRM
> >> and uploading.
> >
> > They get so upset because they depend on centralized distribution for
> > financial compensation and certain technological developments have
> > rendered centralized distribution to become obsolete. The whole process
> > of pressing cds, distributing cds to stores, marketing sales, etc. has
> > become redundant,
>
> Well, not really. It's still a profitable business.

As long as cable internet is not as ubiquitous as cable tv.

>
> >because the alternative route of reaching a massive
> > audience online by p2p distribution is infinitely more efficient
> > and there is no effective way to prevent it either if you'd prefer
> > traditional methods of reaching an audience as an artist by depending
> > on centralized distributors (which might allow for more direct
> > financial compensation).
> >
> >>
> >> >You make the copyrighted file available to just a
> >> > limited number of people (let's say 10 to 100 people or something like
> >> > that) and they, in turn make it available to a similar number of
> >> > people, etc.. So it's a kind of pyramid structure. Nobody has the
> >> > required bandwith at their home to effectively distribute a file to
> >> > millions of other users.
> >>
> >> That's not really the point. The point is that it only takes one person
> >> to
> >> do the initial rip and share and the process runs away exponentially.
> >> That
> >> single person was responsible for that one file propagating onto millions
> >> of
> >> PCs because they chose to rip and share it.
> >
> > For reasons mentioned above, this scenario is theoretical rather than
> > practical and extremely unlikely.
> >
>
> Of course, but it demonstrates the damage one person can do to the music
> industry's unfair business model, which was my point.

I think p2p sharing forces the recording industry to reform their
business model
or go out of business. If, in the unlikely theoretical scenario, one
person rips music and thousands of people are involved in sharing it
with the end result that the song is available for millions, you can't
really hold that single person responsible. You could only hold a
single individual responsible if a million users are downloading the
song directly from him and that's not even theoretically possible given
the limited bandwidth of a typical internet connection.

>
> >>
> >> In a similar way, a record distributor does not distribute their single
> >> to
> >> everyone on their own, they distribute it to other companies who in turn
> >> transport it to shops. Without the original distributor the process would
> >> never come about so they are ultimately responsible for it. That doesn't
> >> mean they have a part to play in every last part of the process, or that
> >> they put the single in the hands of the end user. P2P is similar in that
> >> respect.
> >
> > No, because a centralized distributor controls and dictates the
> > complete distribution process from recording the music and pressing the
> > cd's and eventually reaching the consumer. They are not going to give
> > their product to another company and say "well, you decide for yourself
> > how you're gonna market this (in terms of number of copies and the
> > price) and when you finally manage to make a profit we will negotiate a
> > fair share of the profit."
> >
> >>
> >> > A file might reach millions of other users eventually, but that
> >> > involves many people cooperating in this distribution, instead of a
> >> > single centralized distributor.
> >>
> >> The original ripper/uploader started off the sequence of events which put
> >> that file in the hands of millions of non-paying music lovers. As far as
> >> the
> >> RIAA etc are concerned, the end effect is what is important.
> >
> > There are no original rippers/uploaders.
>
> Of course there are! The fact that they are not unique is irrelevent, the
> file still had a source, albeit usually multiple sources. (I'll bet there
> are songs on WinMX which have only one source, though they are far from
> common.) The distinction here is between sharers who merely download then
> share the song, and the original people who did the ripping. The process of
> ripping, which may or may not involve cracking DRM, then putting the song
> into one's 'shared' folder is the most damaging part of the sequence, which
> was what I was getting at.

Only recent cds are DRM addled, so that's a tiny percentage.
If it took significant effort to rip cds or to circumvent DRM, you
might have a point.
But any DRM cd can simply be played and recorded for a relatively good
copy. The fact that most people ripping music are not the first to rip
that music means that ripping isn't necessarily the most damaging. I
hardly ripped any cds myself, just 100 or so, my original cd collection
that I sold a long time ago. I hardly ever rip any cds anymore... my
collection of 40000 mp3s (170 gb at 128 kbps) consists for 95% of music
I downloaded. I used to get cds from the library sometimes, but I think
I've ripped less than 30 cds that way, since the cds at the library are
often full of scratches. I don't think the ripping I did makes any
significant difference as far as the alleged damage I inflict on the
recording industry by sharing on p2p.
I think with books it's a different matter, ripping books takes
significantly more effort and if you rip books by scanning them, that
might constitute a more significant impact on publishing companies,
given the effort involved and the relative rarity of books on p2p. But
that only concerns e-books and not audiobooks, which are as easy to rip
as music (or movies for that matter).

>
> >There are many rippers and
> > uploaders for every given copy of a song on p2p.
> > Sure, if it was up to the RIAA they would ban computers, taperecorders,
> > radio, libraries, etc.. because they all present a (more or less
> > viable) alternative to buying music from them.
> >
>
> They've tried that in the past. Thankfully the people came first. However
> the balance is shifting towards the recording companies now.

I think the recording companies realize their days of recklessly
scamming slavish consumers are over and are desperately attempting to
buy their way into the government in a futile attempt to turn the tide
of technological developments.

>
> >>
> >> > The essential issue in this discussion is people distributing things on
> >> > a grass-roots scale for non-commercial purposes on the one hand and
> >> > centralized distributors like recording companies on the other hand.
> >> > Recording companies were used to the situation of multiple centralized
> >> > distributors competing with one another. With the advent of computers
> >> > and the internet, decentralized distribution has become a practical
> >> > alternative and copyrights are neither intended nor suitable to
> >> > 'protect' centralized distributors for commercial purposes against
> >> > 'unfair competition' from decentralized distributors for non-commercial
> >> > purposes.
> >> > Technological developments have simply rendered centralized
> >> > distribution to be redundant.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >and the government could sample the
> >> >> > downloads on a statistical basis to determine how the collected tax
> >> >> > money should be distributed among the creators of original content
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > ensure people are financially compensated for their creative efforts
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > a fair and reliable way.
> >> >>
> >> >> But this means *everyone* will pay the tax just because some choose to
> >> >> download copyrighted material. How is that fair exactly?
> >> >
> >> > It's fair if most people tend to download things made by others instead
> >> > of things made by themselves. Whether or not the originator allows
> >> > something to be distributed or not is irrelevant
> >>
> >> No, it's absolutely relevent. Just as an intellectual property owner has
> >> a
> >> basic right to be compensated for their efforts, they also have a right
> >> to
> >> choose *not* to. They have the right to do it out of the goodness of
> >> their
> >> heart if they wish.
> >
> > I think intellectual property owners don't have such a basic right to
> > be compensated for their efforts. They only have a desire to be
> > compensated (or not) and whether or not they can actually find methods
> > or technology that allows for this is another matter.
> > There is no such thing as intellectual property. It's just an attempt
> > to draw an analogy between physical property and conceptual property
> > like digital information and although this might have worked to some
> > degree in the past, it's no longer feasible in the context of the
> > widespread proliferation of interconnected computers.
> > When I come up with a new english word, I might feel that it's my right
> > to be compensated for my efforts and require everybody using that word
> > to pay me $1. However, there is no way to implement a system that
> > ensures people who use the new word I came up with pay me and I can't
> > rely on the government to fine people for using my word without paying
> > me for it. Society simply doesn't have a system that allows for
> > financial compensation for people who come up with new words.
> > They did have such a system in the case of coming up with something
> > being copyrighted, but these days copyrighted information can be shared
> > equally freely as words, so it's no longer (practically) possible to
> > enforce copyright as a method to guarantee financial compensation for
> > the creative efforts involved.
> >
>
> I don't think 'inventing' a word, which is by definition intended to become
> public domain as it enters the local language, and creating an album of
> songs or a movie, can be compared.

But albums, movies, etc.. can be shared more easily these days than
words could be shared in the past. You can send an album to the other
side of the world fairly easily and in the past it would take longer to
write a word down and mail it.

> >>
> >> >because there is no
> >> > way to distinguish between these alternative preferences.
> >>
> >> Well, there is actually- DRM. However, the major drawback with that is it
> >> doesn't work :-)
> >
> > It's not likely to work anytime in the future either, as long as we
> > have a (relatively) open society.
>
> Which is rapidly disappearing in some countries.

Who knows, perhaps in the future the internet will be owned by Bill
Gates and only micro$oft is allowed (with DRM incorporated).

>
> >
> >>
> >> > If I create something, I have control over it, until I distribute it.
> >> > As soon as I distribute something, it's beyond my control because there
> >> > are no effective methods to control what happens to your creations
> >> > after you distribute them.
> >> > So once I distribute something, it doesn't matter whether I like or
> >> > dislike the terms on which others distribute it, because it's beyond my
> >> > control.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's simply not true. You have a legal right to state how you want your
> >> product to be distributed, including insisting on *not* charging for it.
> >> One can back it up with enforcement if required. Have a look at the GPL
> >> licence.
> >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> >
> > But how feasible is this in practice? Suppose I come up with a story
> > and share it on p2p with an accompanying notice of the terms under
> > which I allow distribution. What will I do when someone in China
> > decides to say "fuck those terms"? I don't think it's practical for me
> > to do anything about it (and I probably wouldn't even know about it),
> > especially if it's just a kid who isn't doing it for financial gain.
> >
>
> That's the whole point of GNU, to prevent people dishonestly making money
> from other people's binary creations! It gives the right to modify and
> distribute the work freely, with certain conditions, and forbids charging
> for the software itself, though handling/distribution charges can be made.
> If a kid in China is distributing such material without financial gain, then
> GNU has worked!
>
> How is it enforceable? You create a work, apply the GNU licence and
> distribute it. The GNU community would pick up rather quickly on someone
> then claiming they came up with the idea and trying to market it!

What makes people in the GNU community morally superior to the general
population?
If people share things on p2p and say 'fuck those copyrights', I think
they are just as likely to share things on p2p and say 'fuck that GNU
licence'.

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > This is already happening in various countries with a levy added to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > price of blank media to compensate for copyright infringement,
> >> >> > effectively legalizing (or regulating) copyright infringement.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also unfair. Why should someone who uses media to backup their own
> >> >> files,
> >> >> photos, or whatever pay more for a blank CD just because some others
> >> >> use
> >> >> them to store downloaded music or movies?
> >> >
> >> > It's unfair to a degree, but there is no better alternative as far as I
> >> > can see.
> >> > How do you propose to distinguish between people who save their
> >> > homevideos on dvds at home or people who save movies from Hollywood
> >> > studios?
> >>
> >> They already have countermeasures in place on home DVD recorders to
> >> prevent
> >> copying movies. Sure, they can often be circumvented, but only by 'savvy'
> >> users who have the will and the knowledge to do so. Same with DVDs- they
> >> are
> >> encrypted and cannot be directly copied disc to disc. The encryption has
> >> been long since cracked, but most home users don't have a clue how to rip
> >> a
> >> DVD IME, or even know that it can be done.
> >
> > But it's not fair that only computer illiterate people end up paying
> > for stuff while others obtain it for free on p2p.
> >
>
> If they want to join the world of free movies and music, they only have to
> spend half and hour reading up on it. I wasn't born knowing how to use P2P,
> and neither was anyone else!

But p2p also comes with spyware, virusses and other threats. Imagine
your kid downloading the latest Harry Potter and it turns out to be a
fake porn movie.
I do agree though that it's inevitable for people to end up using p2p
as an alternative for buying overpriced music, books, movies, software,
etc.. as soon as they have a
cable internet connection.

>
> >>
> >> The real problem with piracy is not with home users copying the odd DVD,
> >> it's the organised crime outfits selling them that need closing down.
> >> Private individuals are soft targets and a few prosecutions will have no
> >> sizeable effect on reducing piracy.
> >
> > But eventually, when just about everybody in most western
> > industrialized nations have a high-speed internet cable connection,
> > neither organized crime outfits, nor traditional movie distributors
> > will be able to compete with users simply sharing their copies among
> > other internet users for non-commercial purposes.
> > You can do something about crime outfits selling copies illegally to
> > some degree if they do it on a large scale, but you can't effectively
> > prevent millions of computer users doing it just for fun, because they
> > lack an hierarchical organizational structure.
> >
>
> Ultimately though, most people prefer a nice original DVD with the packaging
> etc. If I like a movie after watching a download, I go and buy it! Most
> people won't settle for movies filmed in a cinema or jerky, corrupted rips,
> they want the real McCoy. There'll always be a market for original DVDs/CDs.
> I have access to 2Mb broadband and have downloaded hundreds of movies and
> tens of thousands of songs, but I still have an extensive legal collection.

I agree. There is also a difference between watching a movie in a
theatre and watching it at home. Personally I don't have the money to
spend on a huge legal collection and I never had any regrets about
selling my original cd collection.
I think people with a large house and lots of other possessions will
still be motivated to buy the original stuff so they can show it off to
their friends.
A huge library somehow looks more impressive than a computer with a
spacious HD.

>
> >>
> >> > Well, one way to distinguish between this is that people usually
> >> > download content created by others while people already have content
> >> > available that they recorded themselves.
> >> > So in that respect it would be fair to tax downloading instead of
> >> > taxing recording media.
> >>
> >> A levy on P2P use is the only fair solution AFAICS. An internet tax is
> >> too
> >> general.
> >
> > How do you propose to differentiate between p2p and other internet
> > activities?
>
> It can be done, has been for years. For example, monitoring usage patterns
> on ports outside the usual ones like web, news and mail.
>
> > People share public domain software on p2p as well
>
> That is true, but I think most people will admit that by far the biggest use
> of P2P is illicit.
>
> >and people can also
> > share copyrighted things without using programs specifically designed
> > for p2p sharing. For instance, people can simply mail a stack of dvds
> > and only share documentation of their collection online.
>
> True, but that is irrelevent in this discussion, which was about computers,
> P2P and internet taxation.

I'd prefer to call it copyright infringement tax. But I think an
internet tax makes more sense than a p2p tax. But it all depends how
you define 'p2p' and 'copyright infringement'.

>
> > Anything that is part of the internet (websites, email, chatprograms,
> > newsgroups,
> > etc..) can also be used to share copyrighted content, whether it's
> > designed
> > for p2p sharing or not.
>
> They can, but websites hosting such material are answerable and responsible
> for the content. They can easily be closed down in many cases, which is why
> they are a dying breed. Plus, they have limited bandwidth so large scale
> distribution at P2P levels is not possible.

If I run a webserver at home, the bandwidth is exactly equal to using a
p2p application.
A webserver might be more easily targeted since people tend to prefer
p2p applications and webservers with binary content are relatively
rare. But if p2p were to be taxed, perhaps many people would switch to
webservers and they wouldn't be so easy to target.

>
> Email? Well it's hardly an ideal medium for distributing copyrighted content
> to the extent of P2P. For starters, few mailboxes would handle movies!

You can zip and cut up a movie in 10 mb chunks (or whatever the max
size of an attachment allowed). A free google account already has 2 gb
of space. In a few years it is likely to be quite feasible to share
movies on your email account. For music and books it's already
practical and possible. You can exchange documentation of your
collection by email (*), pick a 2 gb selection, dump it on gmail and
exchange the usernames/passwords so you can each retrieve your
selection.

(*) a textfile like this: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/music.txt

> Even
> if it were to become the preferred choice for file exchange, it would be
> possible to offer a taxed service which permits binary attachments, and a
> cheaper text-only one.
>
> Chat programs? Similar limitations to email.
>
> Newsgroups? My ISP has (or at least had) binary and non-binary groups.
> Pretty easy solution there. My ISP already has a cap on binary NG
> downloading, which can be raised at a price. It would be possible to tax the
> binary service if necessary. How would they enforce it? Simply block
> attachments, limit the filesize to a few kilobytes and if possible block
> multipart articles.

Ok, in that respect it would be possible to differentiate between
text-only internet and internet with audio/visual (binaries) content.
But in the future most people on broadband cable internet will use the
audio/visual version anyway I reckon. How will you differentiate
between people sending home videos and people peddling Hollywood movies
in that case?

>
> > P2p sharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement, though many
> > people think it is.
> >
>
> Well that's like saying sawn-off shotguns aren't synonymous with armed
> robbery, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the time
> they are. Not everyone who installs P2P apps will go on to download
> illegally, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't it's main raison
> d'etre.

That means you would say 'screw the minority of people who try to use
p2p
for distributing their own creative output or public domain material'
just because the majority of p2p users infringe copyrights.
An artist who just starts out might consider p2p the ideal medium to
reach a massive audience and a tax on p2p might prevent this option. An
author on the other hand can spread his texts online freely and people
infringing copyrights by sharing books (as text) on usenet can
circumvent the p2p tax.
It seems like you're saying people who come up with original content in
text form don't deserve any protection of their copyright, while people
who come up with audiovisual content do, just because that involves
binaries instead of text.

>
> >>
> >> > You'd need some kind of mechanism to distinguish between public domain
> >> > and copyrighted material in some way in order to come up with a more
> >> > fair taxing system
> >> > that only taxes people for copyright infringement and not for
> >> > downloading public domain material.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > What is desperately needed is a reasonable system to compensate
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > who create things instead of the fascist recording industry
> >> >> > exploiting
> >> >> > and prostituting artists any way they see fit and stifling
> >> >> > technological innovation by insisting on imposing their outdated
> >> >> > economic models on new forms of information communication
> >> >> > technology.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed, but making everyone pay is not the answer.
> >> >> I think a fairier way is simislar to an idea an ISP did here in the
> >> >> UK.
> >> >> They
> >> >> had a normal ADSL connection at one rate and a P2P ADSL connection at
> >> >> a
> >> >> higher rate.
> >> >
> >> > What is a p2p adsl connection exactly in that case? Does it mean the
> >> > regular
> >> > adsl connection has a kind of built-in firewall that blocks most p2p
> >> > applications?
> >> >
> >>
> >> AFAIK they extensively blocked ports on the cheaper non-P2P service and
> >> monitored traffic to ensure compliance. It's such an easy solution I'm
> >> amazed it hasn't been endorsed by the RIAA et al and widely developed.
> >> Actually, I'm not that amazed- the RIAA and MPAA brownshirts didn't think
> >> of
> >> it first so they'll never endorse it!
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> > I think you fail to understand it's not that easy to monitor traffic
> > and differentiate between copyrighted and public domain content.
>
>
> They don't need to. They know that most P2P'ers are sharing copyrighted
> material. Fail to understand? The only thing I fail to understand is how you
> came to your erroneous conclusion!

I think copyright infringement would have to be taxed in a fair way
beyond the text-binary dichotomy that somewhat differentiates p2p from
other internet uses.

>
> >The
> > distinction between public domain and copyrighted content differs for
> > various countries and the internet is an international phenomenon.
> > Where I live, in the Netherlands, for instance, it's legal to download
> > anything for personal use (movies, books, music, etc..), except
> > software. It's just illegal to upload copyrighted content.
>
> Effectively meaning that sharing is illegal.

Not really. See, a neighbour (or total stranger for that matter) can
buy music and share it with me. As long as I make the copy, it's legal.
So if I know someone with a massive cd collection, it would be legal
for me to borrow the entire collection (with their consent of course),
copy it as mp3s on my computer and return the collection.
Mysteriously enough, if that person had already converted his cd
collection to mp3s, I would not be allowed to simply copy the mp3s,
although that amounts to exactly the same result.
The rationale behind the law seems to be that although you buy music
for personal use, you are still allowed to share it with others, as
long as they make the copies.
Any copies obtained in this way may not be shared with others, not even
when others are making the copies.
In practice hardly anybody respects this subtle distinction of course.
It's hard to explain to people that it's legal to download but illegal
to upload (since uploading and downloading are opposite sides of the
same coin).

>
> >In other
> > countries the laws might be different and there is no world-wide
> > organization that has the authority to keep track of the distinction
> > between copyrighted and public domain content and how this works out in
> > relationship to national legislation in various countries.
> > Blocking p2p ports is unfair because nobody forces anyone to use p2p to
> > share copyrighted content. People might just as well use p2p sharing
> > only for public domain content or their own creations. In that case,
> > given your proposal for a p2p levy, they would still pay for copyright
> > infringement without infringing any copyrights.
> >
> > There is no sensible way to distinguish between p2p and other internet
> > uses as far as I can see,
>
> 'As far as you can see'. It is fairly trivial for an ISP to isolate those
> users who are using P2P by analysing their bandwidth usage. ISPs know what
> the profile of P2P usage looks like, they aren't stupid.

But copyright infringement is not restricted to binaries.

>
> >just like there is no sensible way to
> > distinguish between copyrighted and public domain content.
>
> So what's your estimation of the proportion of copyrighted v public domain
> material on P2P? My guess- 100:1. I'd be surprised if public domain content
> makes up a sizeable share of P2P activity.

But why is that? In my opinion a major reason for this is that it's
mostly young
people using the internet (especially p2p) who are more likely to be
interested in audiovisual forms of information and music and video are
so easy to rip.
If, in the future, a more easy way became available to rip books and
the average age of computer savvy users increases, we might see an
increase in the number of cases of copyright infringement concerning
text-only content, like books.
Also, since it's likely more and more people will be able to afford
cameras and other technical equipment to produce their own audiovisual
content, we can also expect an increase in the number of cases where
people share their own creations on p2p and
we can also expect an increase in the number of artists professionally
embracing p2p and public domain content in a deliberate decision to
move away from copyrighted material as the preferred status of their
artistic output.

>
> >The division
> > between p2p and other internet uses is not equal to the distinction
> > between access to or sharing of copyrighted and public domain
> > information like you seem to suggest.
> >
>
> I don't get this. You propose a system where everyone who uses the internet
> should pay a tax even though they might just read emails and surf the web,
> but condemn a model which only hits P2P users, albeit affecting a tiny
> minority of P2P'ers who may only distribute stuff legally?
>
> The logic here escapes me, sorry. How can it be fairer to penalise
> 'everybody' and thus hit a sizeable chunk of innocent websurfers, rather
> than attempt to minimise the impact on legal users and charge only P2P
> users, the vast majority of which are exchanging copyrighted material?

I'm not proposing to penalise everybody. I'm just proposing to redefine
the concept of 'copyrights' in a fair way and to tax only those
internet uses that concern copyrighted material. This is my ideal
scenario for a fair internet tax that specifically
targets copyright infringement. It should however be developed looking
towards the future and how things are likely to develop and shouldn't
focus too much on the current situation of a p2p hype. I do agree that
the p2p phenomenon constitutes the bulk of what most people would
interpret to constitute copyright infringement, but this is also
related to how traditional recording companies look at the issue and
vend their outlook on it through traditional media channels (like
newspapers and television).

>
> Anyway, time dictates that I can't really spend as much time on this thread
> as I have been, especially given the time of year! I'll look out for your
> reply but I must let someone else take up the discussion with you now if
> they like.

No problem... feel free to respond whenever you like or chime in again
at any point in the discussion where you feel compelled to do so.
The discussion seems very loosely structured anyway.

>
> Dave

[Back to original message]