Originally Posted by ressurrectin
It is possible to do a specific Google search that will give you direct links
to copyrighted mp3 files (songs).
^ What Google does is on the same legal grounds as what TPB does - they index links/references to material, neither of them host the material, they just host links.
The only difference between the 2 is that Google plays nice with DMCA and their requests because they are in the US and vulnerable, but in Sweden DMCA takedown requests have no effect because TPB will always be able to just argue "we don't host ANY copyrighted material, *bleep* you".
I think the main difference is not necessarily how google plays with the DMCA, but rather the intent of each "search engine" (for lack of a better term). Though I wouldn't say that TBP was like google. Google indexes info available throughout the web, whereas TPB would harvest specific items, where most--thought not all--are there for the explicit purpose of acquiring something that they would otherwise have to pay to have. I think that makes it a big difference.
Originally Posted by Malcolm
Digital information is post-scarcity. It's nothing but a string of 1s and 0s, and can be cloned indefinitely for essentially nothing. Physical property exists in finite quantities and is therefore "scarce", intellectual property and digital information is not. It's kept artificially scarce to maximize profit, nothing more. Do you think the federal government's first and foremost concern should be about protecting the profits of corporations and businesses, especially in this day and age and with all else that's happening right now? Might just be me, but I for one think that thousands of Americans dying per year because they can't access healthcare seems like it should be a bigger concern than Hollywood whining about supposedly losing money to piracy all while posting record profits.
That's an oversimplification of what it is. The way you document something doesn't change what the content is or how much time/money was spent on inventing it. The method in which intellectual property is stored or documented doesn't detract from the content--it's called intellectual
property for a reason, not physical/digital property. Take the example where if you have something that someone else worked on as a means to make a living, which you acquire and use which saves you time or money, except you
didn't pay for it, and everyone else can do so without benefiting the inventor, you don't see why that's at least a problem? This doesn't transfer perfectly to the situation of entertainment media content, but if someone also relies on making a living by producing entertainment media content, why should they not be entitled to compensation for their efforts as well? The way they end up formatting and storing the information is inconsequential to the actual invention.
I think the problem comes down to the entertainment media people like to enjoy is an entirely overvalued industry in many peoples view--or rather, the key players in the industry are not the people that we generally feel should be entitled to the revenue generated from the industry.
Originally Posted by Ryanb213
The point is, copyright laws are absurd and over extend their intended purpose of promoting new material; as demonstrated in the particular video.
I think for the specific case of entertainment media, the material is hugely over-valued. That doesn't necessarily make copyright laws absurd. What I do think is absurd is that copyright laws are rarely used to protect the poor people who invent
intellectual content, and almost entirely protect the rich people who end up owning
the intellectual content. As if that were something new.
I would say that generally, the entire situation is overblown. I don't think it's okay for people to acquire content that they would otherwise have to purchase/pay for, but at the same time I can't agree with the way the entertainment industry is valued. But that's a matter of personal opinion, and generally if one disagrees with the value, they ought not have access to the material--not acquire it without paying for it.
I'd be pretty unhappy, for example, if the philosophy people hold of intellectual property no longer being protected resulted in the entire video game industry going bust. On the other hand, I would be interested to see what happens in a society where IP laws on entertainment media are not protected.