"Movies, games, and other types of media are not seeing any drop in sales; but a rise. File sharing is only one of many factors attributed to the recent drop in CD sales."

Pollock explains this in-depth:

http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/p2p_summary.html

Yeah! =D
I hope we see more Pirate Partys like the one in Sweden (got 2 seats in EU union btw). We need one in the UK =D

[ファブリス]

I'm willing to let this go so far as everyone understands these topics should be limited, and this is not a forum to share torrents. If this becomes a habit, I will remove them without notice. Also I am not here to do the police, and would gladly avoid doing so, can't you guys redirect people to another forum which actually *welcome* sharing of files? As in, a forum which purpose is to share torrents and such. And then continue the conversation there. I'm just saying this for you, because as I said I'm willing to let this one go, but if any copyright holder complains, I'm removing the topics. I am not here to march for you rights, this ain't Pirate Bay.

Otherwise, as for my personal ignorant opinion, I agree, copyrights I guess are a necessary evil of a society where we need to work all our life for the privilege of putting food on our plate. So long as this model of society is the norm, there will be a need to protect people's creation and make sure they are retributed for their work (regardless of quantity, since we don't really have minimum "revenue of existence" or maximal wages as part of human rights).

Sorry Fabrice if we caused any problems.

You can remove the torrent links, but please keep the topics.

Fabice, I think the problem is in torrents only not the homemade decks, isn't it?

In my humble opinion, sharing e-books and CDs does not reduce sales.

When a fan posted a Russian translation of one of Paulo Coelho, the author of The Alchemist, novels online, sales of his book jumped from 3,000 to one million, with no additional promotion or publicity from his publishers.

Now Coelho is a strong advocate of spreading books through peer-to-peer file sharing networks!

It's a shame everyone doesn't see it that way...

Any news on the audio? Is anyone willing to upload it?

I kind of like the open source concept. Best example would be every single recipe you restaurant makes is freely available. However, you will charge customers for that recipe in the form of the food it's turned into and the restaurant it's served in.

Likewise, all this Japanese knowledge we're collecting is freely available. Every program for the most part is freely available. However, ask me to take my time to show you how to personally use them, I may ask for a modest fee.

Then there's the donation button.

I don't know where I'm going with this. But for some reason, I see an internet version of what happened in the Renaissance. However, instead of one wealthy family retaining an artist, here it's groups of people supporting their favorite artist (web designer, writer, painter, comedian, singer, etc). Just that creative people will not put their items in areas that'll be easily copied.

And no more 90 years worth of copyright protection.

Yeah, I think it's a bit unfair that someone can make something once, then sell copies of it that are absolutely free to copy. After they make enough money back from the initial costs, it's like 100% profit !

So in the future, ideas should be free. All you should be paying for is labour and materials, So when you buy a book, all you are paying for is the paper, the ink and the time the factory that made it spent on making it. If you had the resources anyone could print it and sell it / use it.

You communists! Haha.
Actually I hope society evolves from this idea that there must be a profit margin attached to contributing for the advancement of society. I don't think artistic people for the most part think with that motive anyways. Third party businessmen who want in on the profits encourage such ideas. If I had some creative idea that would help others, as long as I had enough to live a semi-modest life, that contribution would be all the reward I would want. There have been examples of this in history. For a thousand years in Tibet, the citizens paid no taxes (they had no military to support though) but voluntarily contributed money to the government for, among other mundane things, supporting monks creating artwork. No one knows who created the artistic masterpieces of Tibet. The artists took no credit or compensation. Their modest living expenses were taken care of while they did what they loved.

activeaero Wrote:I bought the books and then the audio. I'm not sure how it is "unlucky" to only get books when you only paid for books lol. Coscom is a business not a charity.

Coscom makes 2 identical-ish products. It's a book, in paper format and electronic format. The paper one costs more. They created audio and put it with the electronic one without raising the price. I found this stuff in a book store one day and there was no info there on any other eBook products they had. Had I been lucky, I would have found out about it online and not have to waste another 50$ on something I already own plus some dude reading it outloud. That's me, being unlucky.

bombpersons Wrote:Yeah, I think it's a bit unfair that someone can make something once, then sell copies of it that are absolutely free to copy. After they make enough money back from the initial costs, it's like 100% profit !

So in the future, ideas should be free. All you should be paying for is labour and materials, So when you buy a book, all you are paying for is the paper, the ink and the time the factory that made it spent on making it. If you had the resources anyone could print it and sell it / use it.

Yeah, it's so unfair that someone who worked for a long time to create something should be paid more than the paper it got printed on... I mean its not like they need to have an income or anything.

bodhisamaya Wrote:No one knows who created the artistic masterpieces of Tibet.

That's right.

Many great works have been published anonymously: Beowulf, Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan, The Secret History of the Mongols, Romance of Lust, The Autobiography of a Flea, A Woman in Berlin, etc.

Were there copyright for the works of Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare?

What if the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, Epic of Gilgamesh, Psalms, The Illiad, The Art of War, The Golden Ass, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, One Thousand and One Nights, The Tale of Genji, were copyrighted?

How can you not think that ideas take labour? A team has sat down and worked to create KO2001, and you're saying that all their time and effort is worthless (in a monetary sense), and their product is only worth the paper and ink it's printed on?

And more to the point of everyone thinking that pirating e-books does not affect sales: balls to you, it's not your decision to make. If the people who create the product think it's ok to copy it, then by all means feel free to distribute it. But while they don't want it copied, you can't just say 'oh, but I know better, so I'll distribute it'. Nothing more than common thieves.

I have nothing against people sharing sub2srs decks, or subtitle files, as long as they legally viewed the original products. There is no company selling the decks, no one is losing out due to the activity. But in cases like this, where people are simply repackaging a product and distributing it so the company who actually worked to produce the product miss out, I can't understand how anyone can think it's fair.

Saying that having downloads available actually helps business is all fine and all, as long as you actually practice what you preach and buy the product if you like it. If you just leech stuff and you think that somehow you're helping the world by doing that then you have issues.

vosmiura Wrote:as long as you actually practice what you preach and buy the product after you try it.

Personally, I don't buy books, CDs, DVDs, etc. and I will not.

If my brother buy these things then he lend them to me, should I go and buy the same thing after I read it or watched it? Is my brother violating copyright laws?

If I read a book in public library, should I buy one, so I "help" the author or the publisher to be exact?

Does it mean that anyone who do not buy books (e.g. he is poor or is feeding many mouths) but read them on libraries or borrow them from his friends, is "nothing more than leech helping nobody but himself"?

ahibba Wrote:What if the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, Epic of Gilgamesh, Psalms, The Illiad, The Art of War, The Golden Ass, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, One Thousand and One Nights, The Tale of Genji, were copyrighted?

You tell me. I'm not sure what you think would have happened.

By the way, the books you mentioned are copyrighted in their modern translations. The Iliad I am reading now is a magnificent translation by Richmond Lattimore. If there wasn't an ability to copyright his excellent modern translation, he wouldn't have been commissioned by the University of Chicago Press to spend years producing it and we could make due reading some clumsy Victorian translation from 1850. That would be awesome, wouldn't it? Now, since I don't want to learn ancient Greek, I can benefit from Lattimore's lifetime of scholarship in that area for about $10 in paperback. I am OK with that. And it never would have been produced if his work wasn't able to be copyrighted.

kioku3, is it illegal if I read Lattomore's translation without paying the $10? e.g. my brother's copy.

No one can stop you from reading anything published if you don't steal something physically.

Knowledge should be free.

I do think there will be a day not too far into the future when everything will be available for free legally on the Internet with $1 donate boxes for those wishing to support the effort of those who create useful things.
There should be a balance between the starving artist and millionaires who cry foul over having their ideas stolen. I always think of Patrick Ewing, a former NBA player, who when asked why he was going on strike when he was making like $10 million/year to play basketball: "I need to feed my family".
But then, I support the idea that a person's income should be capped at $25 million/year with the excess going to public works. Kind a Capitalist/Socialist morph I am

ahibba Wrote:Personally, I don't buy books, CDs, DVDs, etc. and I will not.

If everybody was like that then many creative works would never have been made.

Quote:If my brother buy these things then he lend them to me, should I go and buy the same thing after I read it or watched it? Is my brother violating copyright laws?

If I read a book in public library, should I buy one, so I "help" the author or the publisher to be exact?

Does it mean that anyone who do not buy books (e.g. he is poor or is feeding many mouths) but read them on libraries or borrow them from his friends, is "nothing more than leech helping nobody but himself"?

Borrowing and making use of your brothers or libraries things is not the same, and you are not violating copyright if you do that.

I'm just wondering do you think it would be OK to take some product from a shop without paying for it? If not, why do you consider an intellectual product to be different?

You wouldn't say it's Ok for a poor guy feeding many mouths to take some Bravia home without paying because he can't afford to buy one.

In the case of information and creative works I think that those who can't afford it should receive public aid or discounts to get access to the information.

ahibba Wrote:In Movie Maker Magazine, January 22 2004, Independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch has made the case that no intellectual creation is truly unique, and that everyone should purposely co-opt the preceding work of others. He has stated:

"Nothing is original. Steal from anything that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do, your work and theft will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable, originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery; celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean Luc Godard said: It’s not where you take things from, it’s where you take them to."

This quote is from his "Golden Rules of Filmmaking" and I believe he is referring to absorbing the work of those who have gone before as inspiration for one's own artistic work. Why do you think he is talking about copyright issues?

ahibba Wrote:kioku3, is it illegal if I read Lattomore's translation without paying the $10? e.g. my brother's copy.

No, it isn't. Why would it be?

vosmiura Wrote:I'm just wondering do you think it would be OK to take some product from a shop without paying for it? If not, why do you consider an intellectual product to be different?

Taking a physical product from a store removes the owners ability to make effective use of said product. Steal an apple and the store owner has one less apple that he can eat.

Using intellectual property does not deprive the original owner of that knowledge.

So yes there is definitely a huge difference between the two.

ahibba Wrote:Knowledge should be free.

It is. That crummy 1850 translation is free on the internet. There is no copyright on it.
Enjoy.

But you don't want that one, do you? You want the good translation, right? Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free?

activeaero Wrote:

vosmiura Wrote:I'm just wondering do you think it would be OK to take some product from a shop without paying for it? If not, why do you consider an intellectual product to be different?

Taking a physical product from a store removes the owners ability to make effective use of said product. Steal an apple and the store owner has one less apple that he can eat.

Using intellectual property does not deprive the original owner of that knowledge.

So yes there is definitely a huge difference between the two.

If everybody simply used the intellectual property without paying for it, then that would deprive the creator of a way to make effective use of his creation - and would lead to many creative works not being funded.

Your view only works thanks to the responsibility of others who do buy books, cds, etc. In other words it's an irresponsible and impractical view for everyone to hold.

--

Regarding the works you mentioned, Shakespeare got paid for his work. And as for the religious books, religion is the most lucrative business ever devised.