A German court finds in favor of the Police State

[greggh]

http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-859.html

A German court has ruled that Rapidshare.com isn't doing enough to combat piracy and that its filters are ineffective. The court decision of the Hamburg district court, which was published a few days ago, states that Rapidshare has to become active against copyright infringements as soon as rights holders make the companny aware of them - a rule that is somewhat similar to the DMCA in the United States.

However, Rapidshare has to do a lot more than just take down infringing content. The company also has to "proactively check content before publishing it" if there have been similar infringements in the past. Rapidshare has to log and check IP numbers of potential infringers as well, according to the court decision.

Those who haven't realized it yet, will come to this realization eventually. Copyright and freedom in a networked world are incompatible. When the cost of producing a copy of a digital good is effectively zero. And the marginal cost of distributing that digital good is effectively zero, what can the moral justification be for ever excluding a person from knowledge based on an ability to pay? The answer to that question is really very simple. A system based on the ownership of ideas (copyright) can never be morally justified in the world that we now find ourselves in. And people intuitively understand this even if they can't express it logically. That's why they don't feel morally conflicted to any great degree when they copy and share music with others.

The only way to prevent people from copying and sharing would be to institute a world wide Police State where every computing device and all data contained on it was subject to inspection on demand.

This decision by this German court is another attempt of establishing that Police State and stamping out freedom. But it won't work.

[MattKingUSA]

http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-859.html

A German court has ruled that Rapidshare.com isn't doing enough to combat piracy and that its filters are ineffective. The court decision of the Hamburg district court, which was published a few days ago, states that Rapidshare has to become active against copyright infringements as soon as rights holders make the companny aware of them - a rule that is somewhat similar to the DMCA in the United States.

However, Rapidshare has to do a lot more than just take down infringing content. The company also has to "proactively check content before publishing it" if there have been similar infringements in the past. Rapidshare has to log and check IP numbers of potential infringers as well, according to the court decision.

Those who haven't realized it yet, will come to this realization eventually. Copyright and freedom in a networked world are incompatible. When the cost of producing a copy of a digital good is effectively zero. And the marginal cost of distributing that digital good is effectively zero, what can the moral justification be for ever excluding a person from knowledge based on an ability to pay? The answer to that question is really very simple. A system based on the ownership of ideas (copyright) can never be morally justified in the world that we now find ourselves in. And people intuitively understand this even if they can't express it logically. That's why they don't feel morally conflicted to any great degree when they copy and share music with others.

The only way to prevent people from copying and sharing would be to institute a world wide Police State where every computing device and all data contained on it was subject to inspection on demand.

This decision by this German court is another attempt of establishing that Police State and stamping out freedom. But it won't work.

I think what you are reffering to is the effort that it takes to rip an mp3 and re-distribute it. That's effortless and basically costs nothing. But it can literally take years to compile lyrics, compositions, studio recordings, mixing and mastering. That is what is reflected in the cost. Not ripping a .cda to an mp3 or ogg. I preffer ogg. Anyway, the point is that making music is free. But making a sellable product can cost millions and take a lot of time. That is why copyrights are so closely protected.

[greggh]

You're missing the point of what I'm saying entirely. I'm saying that there should be no copyright system. I'm saying that it is not the job of the State to ensure a specific business model for creative works. That, for the reasons that such a system has heretofore existed, now serves no useful purpose, and now harms society. I'm saying that everything that can be digitally copied and digitally distributed, should be, freely, without restriction.

[MattKingUSA]

You're missing the point of what I'm saying entirely. I'm saying that there should be no copyright system. I'm saying that it is not the job of the State to ensure a specific business model for creative works. That, for the reasons that such a system has heretofore existed, now serves no useful purpose, and now harms society. I'm saying that everything that can be digitally copied and digitally distributed, should be, freely, without restriction.

Well, then maybe you're right. But recording and producing music is a job and the product created is of course music. So if it is givin away for free than it kind of makes it hard to continue the business. I guess it really just comes down to weather or not you think that things should be purchased or givin away. I think that Recorded Music should be sold and that the rights for the music should be reserved for the creator and that they should recieve due royaltees for their work.

[Tsuroerusu]

I think that Recorded Music should be sold and that the rights for the music should be reserved for the creator and that they should recieve due royaltees for their work.

I hope you do realize that that isn't selling the music at all, it's licensing the music.

"Verb
to sell (third-person singular simple present sells, present participle selling, simple past and past participle sold)
(transitive or intransitive) To agree to transfer goods or provide services in exchange for money."
Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sell

Music licensing doesn't transfer anything with regards to "rights" or ownership. I see it as paying to be dictated to. OK, first I gotta pay this big greedy company to then allow them to tell me what I can and cannot do.

[MattKingUSA]

I think that Recorded Music should be sold and that the rights for the music should be reserved for the creator and that they should recieve due royaltees for their work.

I hope you do realize that that isn't selling the music at all, it's licensing the music.

"Verb
to sell (third-person singular simple present sells, present participle selling, simple past and past participle sold)
(transitive or intransitive) To agree to transfer goods or provide services in exchange for money."
Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sell

Music licensing doesn't transfer anything with regards to "rights" or ownership. I see it as paying to be dictated to. OK, first I gotta pay this big greedy company to then allow them to tell me what I can and cannot do.

That's absolutely right. That is my understanding and possition on this discussion to a T. Viva la Musica Industry.

[MattKingUSA]

And I really do think that if you had an understanding of the work and money that it takes to produce music you would more than likele be on my side of the discussion.

[greggh]

And I really do think that if you had an understanding of the work and money that it takes to produce music you would more than likele be on my side of the discussion.

Trust me, I have an understanding, and I'm not on your side. http://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/viewt ... 93&p=20541

[MattKingUSA]

And I really do think that if you had an understanding of the work and money that it takes to produce music you would more than likele be on my side of the discussion.

Trust me, I have an understanding, and I'm not on your side. http://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/viewt ... 93&p=20541

I don't have anything against giving music away. I do on my website. I have like 49 tracks that are free. But I don't have major expenses because I'm not a label who has a million dollar advance invested. I would imagine that it takes a while before you actualy make a profit. You probly have to sell a lot of units first and those numbers get hurt by digital transfer of music.

EDIT: Just to clerify I don't agree with those DRM things that restrict how many plays you have and what types of media you can use it on and those types of restrictions. But I am for charging tons of money for CDs. Because that means that you can make a ton of cash doing music. And that sounds like a good deal to me.

[allix]

I think the state should support artists , that way they don;t need to depend on selling albums, concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
This of course would requite higher taxes.
I believe in Europe this does happen in entertainment , at least in films, ive always noticed at the credits at the end ...
This is why more effort goes into European films opposed to Hollywood where making a fat profit is the priority.
Entertainment is a necessity to a certain extent hence using tax money to me is not wrong.

[MattKingUSA]

I think the state should support artists , that way they don;t need to depend on selling albums, concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
This of course would requite higher taxes.
I believe in Europe this does happen in entertainment , at least in films, ive always noticed at the credits at the end ...
This is why more effort goes into European films opposed to Hollywood where making a fat profit is the priority.
Entertainment is a necessity to a certain extent hence using tax money to me is not wrong.

Oh that's a great idea. So every kid that hangs out at guitar center would file for federal aid to make music? I mean, how on earth would gauge the funding for this? This would be a horrible idea. Everyone in the US wants to be a rock star. We would have more people requesting federal aid than actualy paying in. That's a rubbish idea in my opinion. But I guess it could work if there was a way to guage it without screwing the tax payers. I would rather decide if I want to buy someone's music that have it mandated that I pay taxes to pay them to create music....oh gosh...

[allix]

The bbc is state funded and not everyone is a actor/actress on it.
Do you honestly think everyone wants to become a rock star ?

Being a state funded rock star would not make you millions by itself, it would make you a comfortable living. Selling records could have that potential, however that would not be a concern, as you would make a regular income from the state.

[MattKingUSA]

The bbc is state funded and not everyone is a actor/actress on it.
Do you honestly think everyone wants to become a rock star ?

Being a state funded rock star would not make you millions by itself, it would make you a comfortable living. Selling records could have that potential, however that would not be a concern, as you would make a regular income from the state.

From the state? You mean you would be leaching off of people that actualy work for their income. The End.