Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING

dub45

FloatingVoter wrote: »

There is also a theory that some artists / bands sell less records over time because they become crap.

That's hardly a blinding flash of insight - of course thats going to happen and generally new people come along to take their place.

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

How about the fact that physical media is clearly on the way out? All you have to do is look at the growth of services like iTunes etc. to see a fairly plain illustration of that.

Yes indeed file sharing has an effect but in no way is as dramatic as the Record Labels would have one believe. They would have the world believe that they are teeming on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of file sharing. Too bad their annual couple of billion in profits shoots a hole in that. :rolleyes:

Well EMI are constantly in financial trouble and as I have pointed out before here there is no consideration being given to the effects that file sharing has had on specialty labels who work very hard for minority artists.

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

Digital sales are responsible for an increase in music sales worldwide. If you look at the IFPI's own report, you'll see that legal online services struggle to meet the demand, people just can't get enough, hence the massive success of iTunes in just a few years.

These online services usually allow for 99c downloads of any single within an album, versus €12 for the CD. That alone would cause an enormous drop in revenue. There's also the recession and the rise in entertainment money being increasingly spent on video games as well.

Study after study shows that filesharers buy as much, to ten times as much music as non-sharers.

I'm writing this from my iPod and I'll supply my sources tomorrow.

Anyway, even if piracy isn't the cause of the fall in profits, it's still illegal. It's wrong to dowload a person's work without permission. They should be allowed protect themselves through the proper legal channels available to them. It's the bypassing of due legal process that I will not support. We cannot have a situation where people start creating their own laws with different standards than those we hold as a democracy.

I am really looking forward to finding out who these mythical file sharers actually are!

blubloblu

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers.ars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html
http://www.myce.com/news/study-uk-illegal-downloaders-buy-more-music-21795/

blubloblu

dub45 wrote:

And I will say it again I have yet to meet or hear of a file sharer or downloader who has increased their purchases of legitimate material as a result of their downloading activities. I know of several 'music lovers' with hard drives full of music that they havent paid a cent for and wouldnt know what the inside of a record shop looked like.

dub45 wrote: »

I am really looking forward to finding out who these mythical file sharers actually are!

Do you have any studies to support your claims, or are you basing them on your personal anecdotes? Don't be afraid to admit your hypotheses didn't match up with reality. I've had my fair share of incorrect assumptions as well.

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

Do you have any studies to support your claims, or are you basing them on your personal anecdotes? Don't be afraid to admit your hypotheses didn't match up with reality. I've had my fair share of incorrect assumptions as well.

Personal experience:)

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

Well EMI are constantly in financial trouble and as I have pointed out before here there is no consideration being given to the effects that file sharing has had on specialty labels who work very hard for minority artists.

I think its worth noting that popularity on the file sharing ecosystem would have to be proportional to the actual popularity of said artist in the first place. So if they're a minority artist their work isn't going to be downloaded all that much anyway. Also I would imagine that any musician(s) that is/are trying very hard to get noticed would be delighted at the increased popularity gained as a result - As a reasonabally acomplished musician myself I would be delighted were my music thought good enough by thousands of people to download.

Don't get me wrong, file sharing isn't all roses, but it's definitely not as bleak as the big 4 Record Labels would have you believe, and invaribly those who download stuff don't tend to be the sterotypical parasitic freeloader whose sole intention is to destroy people livelyhoods that the record labels constantly label them as.

Anyway, I've my own views on the whole file sharing debacle, I don't need others to agree with me or not, but I will say this - Corporate bodies will tell you what they want you to hear. Case in point - Record Labels "suffering" billions upon billions of losses from p2p piracy. However there's a fairly detailed report calling into question those "losses" here:
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-recognizes-benefits-of-piracy-100413/
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

I think its worth noting that popularity on the file sharing ecosystem would have to be proportional to the actual popularity of said artist in the first place. So if they're a minority artist their work isn't going to be downloaded all that much anyway. Also I would imagine that any musician(s) that is/are trying very hard to get noticed would be delighted at the increased popularity gained as a result - As a reasonabally acomplished musician myself I would be delighted were my music thought good enough by thousands of people to download.

Don't get me wrong, file sharing isn't all roses, but it's definitely not as bleak as the big 4 Record Labels would have you believe, and invaribly those who download stuff don't tend to be the sterotypical parasitic freeloader whose sole intention is to destroy people livelyhoods that the record labels constantly label them as.

If a musician wants to get noticed then there is nothing wrong of course with he or she wanting to make their music available in whatever way they can. But the choice should be theirs! There are plenty of musicians who count (or did count) on the extra income availalbe from the sales of cds to augment their other musical activities.

I remember reading an interview not too long ago with the trumpeter Dave Douglas who told a story of a 'fan' asking for a cdr of one of his albums to be autographed needless to say he was not impressed.

The average downloader of course does not set out to destroy an industry but none the less when music is so easily available it creates an expectation and culture where many people see no reason not to expect an unlmited supply of free entertainment.

A friend of mine's young daughter recently came home from school asking him to download a track from limewire for her. That is her impresson of how music is obtained.

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

If a musician wants to get noticed then there is nothing wrong of course with he or she wanting to make their music available in whatever way they can. But the choice should be theirs!

No argument there, but understand this - Piracy is a constant, it's going nowhere now and probably won't ever. If music can be listened to, it can be copied and distributed without the author's consent. Thus one can never control the distribution of said media 100%. Better to embrace it, (provided the studies hold merit) rather than fight it tooth and nail.

dub45 wrote: »

The average downloader of course does not set out to destroy an industry but none the less when music is so easily available it creates an expectation and culture where many people see no reason not to expect an unlmited supply of free entertainment.

A friend of mine's young daughter recently came home from school asking him to download a track from limewire for her. That is her impresson of how music is obtained.

Largely for that you can lay the blame at the feet of the media conglomarets for being so slow to adapt to new technology. Why has p2p got so popular? Because its easy, quick and a damn site more convienent than actually going to a shop and buying a plastic disc then transferrring the content onto your iPod/other mp3 player etc. It's much much easier to simply start your torrent client and download what you want. And there's also the argument that it provides a superior product than the legit version. There's a great illustration of that here:
http://humorpix.com/images/f47fd6516f390045ff166bfdcc3fe1c7/Legal_vs_pirated_DVD0-size-600x0.jpg
That doesn't make it right or wrong however, just that it's evolved to the point it has thanks to the blatant incompetence of the entertainment industry.

TBH I think subscription services are the way to go. Suppose one could have unlimited access to a repository of DRM free movies/music for something like €200/300 a year. Now that's a very attractive service, media at your fingertips whenever you want it, and from the Studios/Labels point of view how many people would spend that much on media in the year anyway, I would wager very few.

I've already argued that the point of a Record Label is largely redundant thanks to technology HERE, however if they adapt and innovate accordingly they can stay relevent. A company protecting ones investment is fine and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise, but clinging for dear life to an outdated business model that that is heavily flawed by todays standards, and then laying the blame solely on piracy is silly frankly.

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

No argument there, but understand this - Piracy is a constant, it's going nowhere now and probably won't ever. If music can be listened to, it can be copied and distributed without the author's consent. Thus one can never control the distribution of said media 100%. Better to embrace it, (provided the studies hold merit) rather than fight it tooth and nail.


Largely for that you can lay the blame at the feet of the media conglomarets for being so slow to adapt to new technology. Why has p2p got so popular? Because its easy, quick and a damn site more convienent than actually going to a shop and buying a plastic disc then transferrring the content onto your iPod/other mp3 player etc. It's much much easier to simply start your torrent client and download what you want. And there's also the argument that it provides a superior product than the legit version. There's a great illustration of that here:
http://humorpix.com/images/f47fd6516f390045ff166bfdcc3fe1c7/Legal_vs_pirated_DVD0-size-600x0.jpg
That doesn't make it right or wrong however, just that it's evolved to the point it has thanks to the blatant incompetence of the entertainment industry.

TBH I think subscription services are the way to go. Suppose one could have unlimited access to a repository of DRM free movies/music for something like €200/300 a year. Now that's a very attractive service, media at your fingertips whenever you want it, and from the Studios/Labels point of view how many people would spend that much on media in the year anyway, I would wager very few.

I've already argued that the point of a Record Label is largely redundant thanks to technology HERE, however if they adapt and innovate accordingly they can stay relevent. A company protecting ones investment is fine and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise, but clinging for dear life to an outdated business model that that is heavily flawed by todays standards, and then laying the blame solely on piracy is silly frankly.

The image of the evil record company though is overdone and and a convenient justification (as you can see on here with monotonous regularity) for people to justify downloading.

Record companies find artists, invest in artists, pay for recordings and so on. Also record companies are the 'guardians' of huge libraries of recordings that require storage, investment and so on. There are also record labels that exist purely to reissue important music with a minority interest.

Why has p2p got so popular?

Because it costs nothing pure and simple!!!

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

The image of the evil record company though is overdone and and a convenient justification (as you can see on here with monotonous regularity) for people to justify downloading.

Maybe, but it does have a lot of merit though, (though I don't agree with it as a justification though). I suggest you read the following, from those who have experienced it first hand:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love

dub45 wrote: »

Because it costs nothing pure and simple!!!

You're missing the point, there's more to it than that. Obviously the cost factor is definitely a prominent one, but it is by no means the only one by a long shot.

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

Maybe, but it does have a lot of merit though, (though I don't agree with it as a justification though). I suggest you read the following, from those who have experienced it first hand:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love


You're missing the point, there's more to it than that. Obviously the cost factor is definitely a prominent one, but it is by no means the only one by a long shot.

I have been buying music and reading about the antics of record companies for over forty years I can assure you!

I can assure you I am not missing the point at all:)

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

I have been buying music and reading about the antics of record companies for over forty years I can assure you!

I can assure you I am not missing the point at all:)

Well at the end of the day it's up to the Record Labels to adapt to the times and actively compete with piracy, otherwise they'll never put the dent in it they seek to do so. The Pirate Bay is a great example, it's a great symbol of the entertainment industry's utter failure to do anything about p2p piracy. Technology has to be harnessed, it can't be fought.

Anyway, with that I'm calling it a night.

conor.hogan.2

Good.

so you know its all hype - like taping of the radio et al......



Greed is not good - they are making great money, but they want more and more.

conor.hogan.2

dub 45 - your arguments are so flawed.

Are you rupert murdoch, you seem to have little grasp of the internet.

Cabaal

z0oT wrote: »

No argument there, but understand this - Piracy is a constant, it's going nowhere now and probably won't ever. If music can be listened to, it can be copied and distributed without the author's consent. Thus one can never control the distribution of said media 100%. Better to embrace it, (provided the studies hold merit) rather than fight it tooth and nail.

Very weak logic behind that,
Thats like saying motorists speeding is a fact of life, best to embrace it then fight it sure may all roads with an unlimited speed limit
or
Underage drinking is so wide spread might as well relax all age limitis

Just because people break a law and "some" people think that this is ok doesn't make it logical to not bother enforcing it and instead embrace the law breaking.

If an artists creates a work they are entitled to charge for that work if they don't want to thats fine., this is a simple fact.

Why has p2p got so popular? Because its easy, quick and a damn site more convienent than actually going to a shop and buying a plastic disc then transferrring the content onto your iPod/other mp3 player etc.

You forgot the most important reason, because people like free stuff

Why were ftp sites popular in the 90's?
because you could download Doom 2 and other games for free, a damn sight more convienent then actually paying for it.

Sure you can say its more convienent then going to the shop etc but free wins overall and don't try and even suggest that this is not the most important factor here.

TBH I think subscription services are the way to go. Suppose one could have unlimited access to a repository of DRM free movies/music for something like €200/300 a year. Now that's a very attractive service, media at your fingertips whenever you want it, and from the Studios/Labels point of view how many people would spend that much on media in the year anyway, I would wager very few.

Both you and I know that the average Joe won't pay anything like 200-300 a year for access to such a service, don't kid yourself. You'd be lucky to see a decent percentage of people fork out 150e a year.

Giving students often tend to pirate more can you explain where you expect them to get 200/300e a year from?

A company protecting ones investment is fine and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise, but clinging for dear life to an outdated business model that that is heavily flawed by todays standards, and then laying the blame solely on piracy is silly frankly.

Is it?, surely if you don't agree with a company business practices you just don't support the company in anyway?!

This means not buying their goods, not in anyway promoting any of the bands or groups they own as doing so will only get more promotion for the band in media and will earn the company money when it comes to concerts. The promotion includes not downloading their stuff.

If you don't like these companys then boycott,

Piracy and warezs is just a way of someone wanting their cake and eating it to, they don't agree with the company but they want the company to invest in the band/group so that they (the downloader) can get some of the benefits (the music) but not have to pay for it thus not giving the artists much (money) unless they (the downloader) go to concerts.

Of course its win win for the downloader as they get all the stuff for free yet they'll continue to bitch about the industry that they still continue to support in indirect ways.

Hypocritcial perhaps?

Cabaal

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Are you rupert murdoch, you seem to have little grasp of the internet.

Less of this type of non-sense please

conor.hogan.2

The internet is at fault for waning paper sales.

And I am talking ''non-sense'' - right.

Cabaal - they are not the same as illegal download, so fight weak logic with bad logic?

z0oT

Cabaal wrote: »

If an artists creates a work they are entitled to charge for that work if they don't want to thats fine., this is a simple fact.

I'm not trying to contest that, my point is that piracy isn't going anywhere anytime no matter what the entertainment industry tries to do. If everyone had a 100% respect for intellectual property laws, Napster would not have happened. Also, software that rips music to your HDD would also not exist and people would not do it anyway. As a knock on effect, portable MP3 players would not have come into being – there was no legal music to put on them so what was the point?

You forgot the most important reason, because people like free stuff

Why were ftp sites popular in the 90's?
because you could download Doom 2 and other games for free, a damn sight more convienent then actually paying for it.

Sure you can say its more convienent then going to the shop etc but free wins overall and don't try and even suggest that this is not the most important factor here.

True it's without doubt a very very prominent factor, but as I said it's not the only factor. The industry has a large role in the current mess that's been created. People are not fundamentally dishonest. People are perfectly happy to to pay for things, but you need to offer a superior product at a competitive price. Point being, they need to compete with piracy, they can try to change the legal playingfield, but that won't automatically make their outdated business model as profitable as it once was. They seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world whereby just that will happen if they sue enough downloaders and bend enough ISPs their way.

Both you and I know that the average Joe won't pay anything like 200-300 a year for access to such a service, don't kid yourself. You'd be lucky to see a decent percentage of people fork out 150e a year.

Giving students often tend to pirate more can you explain where you expect them to get 200/300e a year from?

That was just a number I pulled out of the air. And this is only throwing suggestions around. The massive growth of online services is a definite illustration of that. Labels/Studios fail to appreciate the impact of the Internet.

Is it?, surely if you don't agree with a company business practices you just don't support the company in anyway?!

This means not buying their goods, not in anyway promoting any of the bands or groups they own as doing so will only get more promotion for the band in media and will earn the company money when it comes to concerts. The promotion includes not downloading their stuff.

If you don't like these companys then boycott,

Again no argument there. But I don't think you can deny it is silly from a business standpoint. But that's their decision to make.

Anyway, at no stage am I trying to justify piracy/sharing or whatever other name you put on it, my point is that the media conglomorates themselves have a very large role in the popularity it has gained.

Cabaal

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

And I am talking ''non-sense'' - right.

Refering to dub45 as rupert murdoch is complete nonsense,

Cabaal - they are not the same as illegal download, so fight weak logic with bad logic?

The law is the law, you don't get to pick and choose whats ok or not ok, it either is or isn't illegal. Its also against your ISP's T&C's to utilise the service for such a usage...always has been.

Cabaal

z0oT wrote: »

I'm not trying to contest that, my point is that piracy isn't going anywhere anytime no matter what the entertainment industry tries to do. If everyone had a 100% respect for intellectual property laws, Napster would not have happened. Also, software that rips music to your HDD would also not exist and people would not do it anyway. As a knock on effect, portable MP3 players would not have come into being – there was no legal music to put on them so what was the point?

People will always love free stuff, free software, free beer and in this case "free" movies and music.....I mean why would these people pay when they get it for free.

Sure the popularity of mp3 players increased because of some aspects of piracy but they were going to happen anyway as music and media was going from physical to 1 & 0's anyway and had been for years.

I didn't say that. I said it's not the only factor. The industry has a large role in the current mess that's been created. People are not fundamentally dishonest. People are perfectly happy to to pay for things, but you need to offer a superior product at a competitive price.

Ok fair enough,
However I woul;dn't agree with this being applied to all people,

First off you'll always have a percentage of people who will be dishonest and second now that they've got the taste of free music its going to be harder to get these people to pay.

Point being, they need to compete with piracy, they can try to change the legal playingfield, but that won't automatically make their outdated business model as profitable as it once was. They seem to be living in some sort of fantasy world whereby just that will happen if they sue enough downloaders and bend enough ISPs their way.

Its not some fantasy world its just they fear what I've said above...people have the taste of free media and thats a danger to everything as it means if its spread people may not pay regardless of what price you charge for your media.

I can understand the fear, I don't necessarily agree with how they've gone about trying to "fix" things though

That was just a number I pulled out of the air. And this is only throwing suggestions around. The massive growth of online services is a definite illustration of that. Labels/Studios fail to appreciate the impact of the Internet.

Fair enough about taking the number out of the air but it creates an issue, what price do you charge for a subscription service that is low enough that a high percentage of people will pay for it yet high enough to cover all costs and overheads and still make a profit to allow future investment.

Allowing total access for all media on a subscription model could be paramount to suicide for the industry and its artists.

Back in the late 90's you had services like Napster which allowed mp3 downloads which people used because there was no alternative when it came to acquiring your music in a digital format unless you ripped the media.

Now you have services like those offered by Apple, singles on iTunes are very well priced compared to physical media. Back in the 90';s I remember paying IR£3-5 for a CD single yet now you can get them for 99c unrestricted from iTunes.

Yet people still say this isn't good enough? What price do they consider fair in their view?

z0oT

Cabaal wrote: »

People will always love free stuff, free software, free beer and in this case "free" movies and music.....I mean why would these people pay when they get it for free.

Sure the popularity of mp3 players increased because of some aspects of piracy but they were going to happen anyway as music and media was going from physical to 1 & 0's anyway and had been for years.

It goes back to offering a superior product at a competitive price. The game distribution medium Steam is a very good example of online distribution (and indeed DRM) done very well. As I've said earlier in this thread, if you give people what they want, how they want at a competitive price they will come to you.

Ok fair enough,
However I woul;dn't agree with this being applied to all people,

First off you'll always have a percentage of people who will be dishonest and second now that they've got the taste of free music its going to be harder to get these people to pay.

That's going to be true no matter what way you look at it or what business model they adapt. Nature of the beast.

Its not some fantasy world its just they fear what I've said above...people have the taste of free media and thats a danger to everything as it means if its spread people may not pay regardless of what price you charge for your media.

I can understand the fear, I don't necessarily agree with how they've gone about trying to "fix" things though

As can I, they've created a quite a predicament for themselves. People have indeed got a taste for free media, and if you ask the current generation about Intelluctual Property or Copyright many aren't going to heed it at all. Either way, if they want to pull themselves out of this supposed deathbed, then it's up to them to innovate accordingly.

Fair enough about taking the number out of the air but it creates an issue, what price do you charge for a subscription service that is low enough that a high percentage of people will pay for it yet high enough to cover all costs and overheads and still make a profit to allow future investment.

Allowing total access for all media on a subscription model could be paramount to suicide for the industry and its artists.

Back in the late 90's you had services like Napster which allowed mp3 downloads which people used because there was no alternative when it came to acquiring your music in a digital format unless you ripped the media.

Now you have services like those offered by Apple, singles on iTunes are very well priced compared to physical media. Back in the 90';s I remember paying IR£3-5 for a CD single yet now you can get them for 99c unrestricted from iTunes.

Yet people still say this isn't good enough? What price do they consider fair in their view?

Well a subscription model isn't all roses either and it's only one example I picked at random. No doubt its a difficult issue, but whatever standpoint you adopt, their reliance on physical media in the form of plastic discs is starting to have a detrimental effect on them. It is without doubt time for them to change their tactics, there is a very very large amount of stuff that's blatantly wrong with the way they currently do things.

conor.hogan.2

Well dub blamed the internet for declining newspapers sales.

I mean come on.

XxMCRxBabyxX

This has probably been asked before and I apologise for not having the time to be able to read the whole thread but:

I notice it says that the warning will be for people sharing files over the internet so if I only download but don't share anything am I safe?

conor.hogan.2

cue cries of ''but it is illegal''.

watty

Are "freetards" the "village idiot" rather than "Robin Hood"?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/wiggin_pirate_punishment/


I download free stuff.
But if only its copyright allows free distribution. Everything has a copyright, inherently, as soon as it's created. The creator sets the terms.

I download stuff that isn't free
But only after I paid for it and only it I want to buy it and use it, except if it has a trial period, in which case I will buy it to continue use if useful (Virtual Audio Cable, iuVCR, CoreAVC, MixW etc are examples of purchased after trial)

I have some few genuinely free tracks and free short videos (i.e. the "rights holders" offer it free. They still own it.). Anything of quality is worth buying on CD, DVD or BD rather than buying downloads. Only an extra few days if Tesco doesn't have it cheap and you have it as a backup and in best available quality. The lads here are buying more games of Steam, but usually cheap stuff. Larger or more expensive stuff they buy the disc. Even if it was cheaper and I had fibre to home to say download a 12 hr TV series, it makes more sense to buy it on DVD/BD.

Most of the arguments (all?) have been in many threads before.

z0oT

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

This has probably been asked before and I apologise for not having the time to be able to read the whole thread but:

I notice it says that the warning will be for people sharing files over the internet so if I only download but don't share anything am I safe?

Well once you connect to another peer using your torrent client, your IP is on show for said peer to see, so no, you're not safe just downloading alone.

Peanut

watty wrote: »

Are "freetards" the "village idiot" rather than "Robin Hood"?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/wiggin_pirate_punishment/

From the man with the "ready, fire, aim" approach to critical journalism, according to Cory Doctorow.

...he [Andrew Orlowski] once claimed that Garry Trudeau had written a series of Doonesbury strips to mock the Creative Commons project, and failed to correct himself when it was pointed out that the strips had been written before the Creative Commons project launched

watty

Creative Commons *IS* a solution looking for problem. Plain ordinary copyright allows you to do what CC does, if you are that stupid.

"Cory Doctorow" is a man in a Greenhouse. Even if he is right sometimes, he should avoid casting stones. Lawrence Lessig is not a lawyer I would chose if I'm in trouble.

There is no doubt that Andrew Orlowski is sometimes to Tech what Kevin Myers is to the Indo. But poll after poll does show that "people that think they should have stuff for free just because it's on the Internet and they have Broadband" are a minority. They are in fact a deluded minority.

Hmm. Obviously Garry Trudeau was prescient then

http://lfurey.livejournal.com/5847.html

Creative commons was created as an alternative to “all rights reserved” copyright laws, enabling creators to make their work available for copying, remixing and sharing on more flexible terms. Indeed, the basis of this innovative venture is that creators are able to grant the public permission to build upon their original work under a “some rights reserved” policy.

Many people are brainwashed into uploading everything and "slapping" "creative commons" on it not realising this is WORSE than "public Domain". It's not a "some rights reserved", it's legally agreeing to irrevocably give up all rights forever. You can do that if you want with regular copyright. The point of copyright is that it recognises the moral right of the creator to reserve all rights by default, and then license or give up what ever rights they want on each created work.

If you WANT to use Creative Commons that's fine, but please understand Copyright first and what exactly GNU and Copyleft are really about. (GNU, Copyleft and CC can be quite separate things).

There is nothing "innovative" about "Creative Commons" other than obfustication as to what people are giving up.

blubloblu

watty wrote: »

Creative Commons *IS* a solution looking for problem. Plain ordinary copyright allows you to do what CC does, if you are that stupid.

"Cory Doctorow" is a man in a Greenhouse. Even if he is right sometimes, he should avoid casting stones. Lawrence Lessig is not a lawyer I would chose if I'm in trouble.

There is no doubt that Andrew Orlowski is sometimes to Tech what Kevin Myers is to the Indo. But poll after poll does show that people that think they should have stuff for free just because it's on the Internet and they have Broadband are a minority. They are in fact a deluded minority.

Hmm. Obviously Garry Trudeau was prescient then

http://lfurey.livejournal.com/5847.html

Many people are brainwashed into uploading everything and "slapping" "creative commons" on it not realising this is WORSE than "public Domain". It's not a "some rights reserved", it's legally agreeing to irrevocably give up all rights forever. You can do that if you want with regular copyright. The point of copyright is that it recognises the moral right of the creator to reserve all rights by default, and then license or give up what ever rights they want on each created work.

If you WANT to use Creative Commons that's fine, but please understand Copyright first and what exactly GNU and Copyleft are really about. (GNU, Copyleft and CC can be quite separate things).

You're right that current copyright law allows you to do what Creative Commons does. Creative commons just makes it much easier. You don't have to draft up your own legally binding license, they've made a selection to match your wishes. People recognise the licenses and they can use the works straight away. They speed things up.