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

Peanut

Somehow this thread has got around to the point where people who are against "3 strikes" apparently support those who want everything for free on the net.

I think it's important to make the distinction.

I don't think anyone here doesn't want to see musicians & other artists rewarded fairly, and to have an appropriate legal framework that protects their work in the form of copyright.

However there are numerous ways to do this, and lobby groups saying "It's my way or the Highway, Sonny!" are not helpful, especially when they do not truly represent the opinions of the people they claim to speak on behalf of.

watty

blubloblu wrote: »

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.

"Creative Commons" just cons people into making their stuff effectively Public Domain. It's so easy to do that people don't think about it and it's too late when they discover what they have done. It's not innovative, magical or easy. Just stupid and has fooled over 100s of millions of people.

Without the Geneva Convention on copyright, and most Countries recognising the Moral Right of the Author to be recognised as the creator of the work there would be:
Less publishing of original Work
More Plagiarism
Almost no income from artistic / creative endeavour.

The whole point of copyright is to protect creators and encourage creativity. Abrogating all rights and letting everyone have everything for free would kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs.

To simply say Hollywood / Broadcasters/ Record labels are too greedy and stupid, thus I should download everything for free is illogical, stupid. Creative Commons takes that stupidity one step further by saying the creators should deliberately give away all rights, irreversibly, forever to satisfy the downloading and sharing "freetards".

I create stuff. Some I share generous rights, people can have it free. However not as free as Creative Commons or some GNU licences.

Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list
of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed
or implied, of <copyright holder>.
2-clause license ("Simplified BSD License" or "FreeBSD License")

If it isn't free it says
Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved.
Contact Author for licensing at <email address>

Peanut

watty wrote: »

"Creative Commons" just cons people into making their stuff effectively Public Domain. It's so easy to do that people don't think about it and it's too late when they discover what they have done.

I'm sorry Watty but that is just purely rubbish.

Of course some people mis-understand the licenses, but they can change them at any time they like. The new license will then be in effect, it's just people who obtained the photo etc. under the older license are still under the previous license.

And even if they were entirely irrevocable, the fact that some content creators may not understand a particular license is hardly a compelling argument against using them.

The source of the misunderstanding centers around what the CC is attached to. It's not the photo, but user of the photo. Or rather, the terms of use that were in place at the time they acquired the image. The language says, "you cannot stop someone who has obtained your work under a CC license." It's the someone that you can't revoke the license from, not the photo. As you may have seen later in the same FAQ, you can revoke the CC license and "redistribute" the photo, but most people skim over this and forget about it.

And strangely enough, a lot of people ARE happy enough to make their work available in return for Attribution, and I'm speaking from experience here.

BrianD

Peanut wrote: »

And strangely enough, a lot of people ARE happy enough to make their work available in return for Attribution, and I'm speaking from experience here.

But not those people who depend on their creative work for their income.

Peanut

BrianD wrote: »

But not those people who depend on their creative work for their income.

Some of them are. You get all sort of mixtures, have a look at Flickr's Creative Commons areas and there are both professionals who license some images as CC but not others, and amateurs who may license all their photos as CC.

Incidentally, most of them will use the "Non-Commercial/ShareAlike/Attribution" license.

watty

Peanut wrote: »

I'm sorry Watty but that is just purely rubbish.

In your opinion

Peanut wrote: »

Of course some MOST people mis-understand the licenses, but they can change them at any time they like. The new license will then be in effect, it's just people who obtained the photo etc. under the older license are still under the previous license.

They can't, The CC is irrevocable. (fixed error in your post )

Peanut wrote: »

And strangely enough, a lot of people ARE happy enough to make their work available in return for Attribution, and I'm speaking from experience here.

You can do that simply and easily without the morass of Creative Commons.
Not attributing a source is Plagiarism, no matter what licence was on the source.

Peanut

Obviously the CC is so useless that the biggest reference site on the net and the biggest photo-sharing site on the net are just jumping on the bandwagon by supporting it.

The fools...

BrianD

Peanut wrote: »

Some of them are. You get all sort of mixtures, have a look at Flickr's Creative Commons areas and there are both professionals who license some images as CC but not others, and amateurs who may license all their photos as CC.

Incidentally, most of them will use the "Non-Commercial/ShareAlike/Attribution" license.

I would respectfully disagree with you. In fact, the photography area is another area where the copyright holders/authors are ruthless enforcing their rights. Of course there will be photographers who will be happy to give away some of their creative output from time to time. In the same way that a band may make a free download available from time to time.

Rightly or wrongly, I sense from your posting that you seem to be of a view that a low copyright protection regime should be the default. There's no future for anybody who wants to make a living out of their creativity.

Peanut

Both of you are missing the point that CC allows for a non-commerical license to be granted, and this (at least on Flickr) is the one most commonly used.

So the creators are still entirely in their rights to charge for commercial usage, but they get more exposure to non-commercial content-publishers/aggregators who don't want to negotiate licenses/permission with 100s of separate content creators.

blubloblu

watty wrote: »

"Creative Commons" just cons people into making their stuff effectively Public Domain. It's so easy to do that people don't think about it and it's too late when they discover what they have done. It's not innovative, magical or easy. Just stupid and has fooled over 100s of millions of people.

I'd hardly call it a con. They make it explicitly clear what rights you're giving away http://creativecommons.org/choose/ You would have to make an active effort to ignore what you're doing to not realise what right are being released. You gave an example of a license you use, it suits you. Creative Commons suits other people. They provide an easily understandable ready-made license for them, instead of having those 100s of millions of people making their own. What's your issue with that?

watty

Peanut wrote: »

Obviously the CC is so useless that the biggest reference site on the net and the biggest photo-sharing site on the net are just jumping on the bandwagon by supporting it.

The fools...

Indeed.

BrianD

Peanut wrote: »

Both of you are missing the point that CC allows for a non-commerical license to be granted, and this (at least on Flickr) is the one most commonly used.

So the creators are still entirely in their rights to charge for commercial usage, but they get more exposure to non-commercial content-publishers/aggregators who don't want to negotiate licenses/permission with 100s of separate content creators.

I'll be honest, I'm having difficulty in following your logic here! The point is that there is no value in these creative commons licences to those who want to make a living out of their creative endeavour in whatever medium they choose - music, visual etc. These works are commercially released so a more robust licence/copyright system needs to be apply. It seems to be me that creative commons is just a nice way of recognaising the actual creator of the work and that it shouldn't be used for commercial purposes and/or passed off as your own work.

This "exposure through non-commercial content aggregators" that you refer to I assume means blogs and the like. Over hyped in my view and there is ample research to back this up. It is not unusual for companies to engage in limited sampling which can range to handing out samples at the traffic lights to giving celebs a high value product. The reality is that there is no business model in giving out free product and the same applies to the music industry. There is no shortage of ways to sample and hear new music without requiring it to be downloaded.

Peanut

BrianD wrote: »

These works are commercially released so a more robust licence/copyright system needs to be apply. It seems to be me that creative commons is just a nice way of recognaising the actual creator of the work and that it shouldn't be used for commercial purposes and/or passed off as your own work.

That's my understanding of it too, although I would qualify it by saying there is no direct commercial benefit from using these licenses.

I'm not sure if anyone was arguing that artists should give away their tracks under CC. Some of them do, and it may work for them depending on their situation.

dub45

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Well dub blamed the internet for declining newspapers sales.

I mean come on.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJf0ZOXN22jY

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28paper.html

And I am much better looking than Rubert Murdoch too! (Which admittedly is not that hard)

Cabaal

watty wrote: »

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.

Fully agree, its scary the amount of people that stick CC on their work be it music or photos and think "Oh thats fine", they don't even understand what they are doing.

Cabaal

Peanut wrote: »

Some of them are. You get all sort of mixtures, have a look at Flickr's Creative Commons areas and there are both professionals who license some images as CC but not others, and amateurs who may license all their photos as CC.

Incidentally, most of them will use the "Non-Commercial/ShareAlike/Attribution" license.

Are they?
Lets use an example, go over to the photography forum on boards.ie and ask anyone that makes an income from their work would they upload work and attach CC to it? Seriously

If you'd rather not use boards.ie then use photography ireland - http://www.photographyireland.net/

Think of it as a survey of sorts, you'll be hard pressed to find people that take photos of a living who will do this.

You';ll find that the VAST MAJORITY of people that take photos for a living and even those that don't are very protective of their work and rightly so, its their work so they should be the only one's to choose how it is used and how much they'll be paid for use of it.

amateurs licencing work as CC is idiotic, it allows companys to use their work for free and thus undermining people trying to make a living. This is paramount to people giving photos for free to papers....its a very bad idea.#

Cabaal

Peanut wrote: »

Obviously the CC is so useless that the biggest reference site on the net and the biggest photo-sharing site on the net are just jumping on the bandwagon by supporting it.

The fools...

Yes...fools.
Of course if you look at thje bigger picture if people upload work to flickr and attach a CC license to it without understanding how the license works this allows companys to affectively use this work for free (they have to affectively give a credit...big wow)

So of course this will make flickr a popular site for companys to find stuff on that they don't have to pay for, win win for them but no for the little guy

watty

flickr is popular with the Amateur because it's free upload space with a viewer/album app. Nothing to do with that by default it uses "cc".

Cabaal

watty wrote: »

flickr is popular with the Amateur because it's free upload space with a viewer/album app. Nothing to do with that by default it uses "cc".

Indeed it is, however as time goes by and as people become more aware of protecting their work alot of photographers actually stop using flickr as they prefer to host their own work as it gives them more control.

Hellrazer

Almost 2 weeks into this now--Just wondering has anyone received a warning yet?

conor.hogan.2

Read Creative Commons. No Watty to anyone who has even a passing knowledge on CC that is complete nonsense what you wrote.
More nonsense than the net being responsible for paper declines.
Jaysus. (Attack on his points not the user(s))


This is beyond the point anyone - if you make it Online and Cheaper, few will steal.

Very few.

conor.hogan.2

Oh my bad did the web appear in 2008?

So it was that 15 year old and more piece of technology that caused the decline.

Seriously the web is a 90's invention and the internet is older - but you qoute me two articles from 2008 and 2009.



So CC is the only thing that lets stupid people do stupid things? CC is not to blame for that - talk about one sided.

Cabaal

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Seriously the web is a 90's invention and the internet is older - but you qoute me two articles from 2008 and 2009.

..and yet many news papers didn't actually have anything on the net till the very late 90's or early 00's.

In addition internet access was not widespread and certainly not available when you were on a bus, train etc...you know when most people read the paper on the way to work?

As the net has become more available on mobile devices which has only happened in the last couple of years only then were newspapers really affected as people could commute and read the paper without buying a paper.

Hence the decline of print media papers, the age of the internet has nothing to do with it...its all about the access and that has only happened in more recent years with the advent of smart phones, ipad's etc

Simple

conor.hogan.2

Okay Eight years and then boom in 2008 and 2009 the web is to blame.

Oh it is mobile - oh coincidental correlation must mean it is simple cause and effect.

Not the recession, not the industries staunch opposition to change.

People want things where they want them - the media have had the money and the technology before the people and should have hopped on and been in front of the trend.

You know how they report on things - upcoming trends and the likes - or at least don it when it was right in front of them.

Because things have changed - if they dont they will die - simple.

---

Now back on track - http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01462.html

Now take this anc couple it with peoples rampant buying on itunes (or anywhere if it is as easy, quick and for that price) and the record labels and artists should be jumping and swimming in their profits.

But lack of common sense, foresight or too much greed obviously is blinding them.

Cabaal

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

This is beyond the point anyone - if you make it Online and Cheaper, few will steal.

I'm glad you see it as stealing, as such its open and shut

Your trying to justify stealing by saying items are too expensive, by your own logic its ok for me to steal a HDTV because its priced too high

Anyway.

Lets break down your excuse and see just how it works

Firstly you can get a song off iTunes for 99c which is in no way restricted...

I remember buying a CD single during the mid 90's for IR£3-5.
Based on this tell me how have things have not got cheaper?

Now lets remember that old conversation rate from 2002 (fixed in 1998) that IR£0.78 = 1e so that means you can buy a single now for less then 80p.

In comparison to the 90's when most CD singles cost IR£3-5 and the very cheapest tended to be IR£2? (Blur's Country House as an example) prices have dropped alot and you no longer even have to go to a shop to buy the song. (how handy is that! )

If 99c (or 77p in old money) is not cheap enough for you can you tell me what price you view as cheap enough?

Keep in mind that the price has to cover production costs, marketing, content delivery, actually paying the artists etc.

Nerin

That spanish judge doesn't see it as stealing. In fact,he likened filesharing to book lending.

conor.hogan.2

It is stealing - never denied. Not justifying it, i stated how the record labels can get rid off most of their problems if only they had some vision and will and were not blinded by greed.

Your comment of the TV - while very amusing - brings to mind the meme of ''you wouldnt steal a car - **** you I would if I could'' and the IT Crowd skit on the overhype of anti-piracy warnings.

Back to more serious comments.

My sister bought a house for 295 thousand there a few months back.
That same house was valued at 600,000 a few years previous.

If prices are artificially high they are bound to drop - profits are still ample and these ''low'' prices.

I said cheaper because not all music or even 50% of it is available on itunes or any online store and even the stuff there is sometimes dearer and rarely cheaper.

I will use this example because it is the most recent - The Flobots and anyone who worked with them from the label to studio etc are now 15 euro (22.50 minus 33% cut taken by Apple which I think is their cut) richer thanks to me buying their two albums and 1 ep on itunes after I ''checked out'' their music and reliased I liked it and wanted more.

http://www.neowin.net/news/spanish-judge-says-p2p-is-the-same-as-sharing-a-book
and
My link above of Canadian report above (Glossed over strangely eneough).

ZeRoY

36 pages? WOW. The all thing is a ridicule and wont change a thing in the scale of the problem... By the way, IRMA and other RIAA and the likes have been whining since the 1970s about this, nothing new here...

1974 - Illegal Tape Piracy Hurts Music Industry

1987 - Music Industry concerned over High-Tech Advance

2002 - Online music sales hit by CD burning, swapping

2002 - Record Biz Has Burning Question

.... Problem with today's situation? The Digital Performance Royalties are on the increase! Check it out HERE (Data is from 2008-2009).

conor.hogan.2

They are run by the older less informed generation and therefore are behind the times.

They will eventually cop on and realize that they should have done this (More realistic and fair pricing and available the way people want them ie online and playable anywhere easily) a long time ago and save the hassle and money on court cases and PRIVATE INVESTIGATION companies.

On a slightly related note - My niece is now watching Ccooby-Doo on Youtube and was watching Batman earlier on Vureel or somewhere because Cartoon Network only shows videos to US citizens, forcing copyright infringement as opposed to letting anyone view it with a few ads to cover the low low cost for them to do it.

THEMAVS4LIFE

listen in my opinion we all are "stealers" we watch youtube videos dont we
the latest kings of leon song . prince takes down the youtube videos why
cause it is illegal. although not to the point where ur downloading simpsons
seriers. my point is some people that are anti downloading illegal content/upload are actual hypocrite's.