(this beautifully constructed Ouroboros symbol is borrowed from the public domain through Wikimedia commons)The "ideology of violation"* everpresent on the web is, I suggest, like an ancient and heavily symbolic serpent who, the other day, found a very tasty morsel indeed at the end of its own slithery body.
The Pirate Bay, one of the most notorious and well-used torrent sites catering to those who have decided that paying for creative content is just so 20th Century, has been hacked.
Read here, how Argentinian hackers, still smarting from Germany's 4-1 trouncing of their national soccer team, took out their frustration on northern Europe by reaching deep into the databases of the Pirate Bay, cracking the digital locks (what?) around the personal information and piracy habits of TPB's loyal customers.
Word is The Pirate Bay plans to complain very loudly about this intrusion on their property, just as soon as they manage to get their own tail out of their mouth.
15 comments:
Funny! Not the irony you perceive in this article of course, but the fact that you perceive any irony here at all.
Perhaps when you learn the difference between digital locks that give 3rd party access vs digital locks that prevent 3rd party access, and when you learn that the 'violators' are in fact the ones installing the former type of lock, you will not see quite so much irony in these stories. Until then, I guess I will snicker when I read these posts of yours too.
I'll also bring to your attention Geist's most recent blog regarding the limits that Brazil has put on the power of these locks to prevent peoples freedoms from being violated.
Darryl,
We all await the day when I understand what the heck you're talking about.
In the meantime, I reserve the right to laugh a little bit at the poor pirates.
Also funny is how you think you are scoring a point by linking to Geist.
Remember how I'm all about fair dealing? You and I simply disagree on what the "fair" part means.
For instance, I don't think it's fair to censor the film on a copy of a DVD that you own. You seem to think that's okay.
I'm just going to go ahead and declare I think I have a better handle on the whole fair thing.
John, please, declare away. While you're at it you might declare that the moon is made of green cheese too. It wont make that one any more true either though.
I too, am waiting for the day when you understand what the heck, I, Geist, Russell, Knopf, and many others, are talking about. Don't think I'll hold my breath on that one though.
Fortunately the one thing that all of us, and the pirates have, which makes the wait bearable, is control of our own technology. That means that while you are still trying to figure it out and the government and big media are playing with ways to try to maintain their weakening grasp of distribution channels, we can continue to exercise what we consider our fair rights, regardless of what you think or the state of the law.
Sadly this state of affairs does little to prevent institutions from paying more than they should have to, or help creators get what is due to them, instead of it all going to the distribution industries. It also does little to establish any sort of respect for copyright law among the new purveyors of copying technology (us).
I am hopeful you will figure it out. I am. You will need too for copyright law to have any hope. In the mean time I will continue watching some of my favourite TV shows like IT Crowd and Sea Patrol via TPB, and buying blank CDs from grey market sources to avoid the levy. Russell will continue ripping his DVD collection and watching it on (gasp!) unlicensed players, and others will jailbreak their iPhones, and use VPN to circumvent geo-blocked web sites, etc... and life will more-or-less go on.
Darryl,
That's some rarified company you put yourself in.
So, you support various infringments and actively avoid compensating artists (and paying sales tax, I imagine) by skirting an existing levy.
How about the censorship thing you support? Will that go on as well?
I wonder if those legal fellows you reference actually agree with you on all that. You should ask them at your next lunch.
John, I doubt very much all those other people agree with everything I say. I certainly don't agree with everything they say, but we do all share some common understanding. Despite how much you like to declare it, there is no "Geist's Army".
(See what I mean about the truth of the things you declare?)
Regarding the things I support.
I do support not paying artists for the private copies I make. I pay them once for the copy I purchased. After that any copies I make for my own use, is my own business. They have no right to compensation for those copies, so yes, I go out of my way to avoid paying the levy. Especially, as is usually the case for me, I am putting software, NOT MUSIC, on the CDs I buy.
Regarding TPB. Big media wants a global market for their wares, but only so far as it suits them. They therefore geo-block web sites, region encode DVDs, prohibit resales based on geography. I think once they allow something for sale anywhere, they have to allow it for sale everywhere. Merchants are not allowed to pick and choose their customers based on race religion or anything else for that matter. Why should they then be allowed to discriminate on geography? Until they drop this notion of market segmentation so that they can squeeze the maximum possible out of consumers, I will not give a second thought to acquiring the product by any means, when they refuse to sell to me, but not to others.
Regarding censorship. We've been around this one. I think you are being the censor by not allowing me to choose how I enjoy the work I have purchased, and you think I am being the censor by insisting I be allowed to do what I want with it, against the authors wishes. There is no common ground of understanding here.
Tell me. If it is not OK for me to cut scenes from a movie I don't like, is it not similarly bad for you to remount a painting in a different frame from what the artist sold it to you in? Perhaps the artist should review your living room decorating plans. he may take offence of the context in which you wish to present his work.
Darryl,
You sure can spin some rationalizations for illicit behaviour (I notice you neither confirmed nor denied the avoidance of sales tax in your righteous "grey economy").
In the real world, there are still borders and international trade rules tied to inconvenient little concepts like culture and sovereignty and such. But I can totally see how your desire to watch a British sitcom about IT workers is more important than all that.
Nevermind that the writers, actors, producers and investors for that show you enjoy so much might have been counting on selling foreign distribution rights and therefore getting paid for your access to it.
After all, they're not real people trying to make a living; they're Big Media.
And so, that's a yes on the censorship thing, then? You do believe it's okay for that Utah company to censor the film Titanic, despite a court ruling and general societal consensus to the contrary? You do support censorship in the name of total consumer freedom?
Alright then.
"I notice you neither confirmed nor denied the avoidance of sales tax in your righteous "grey economy""
I do pay sales tax on the CDs I buy. Just not the levy.
"In the real world, there are still borders and international trade rules tied to inconvenient little concepts like culture and sovereignty and such. But I can totally see how your desire to watch a British sitcom about IT workers is more important than all that. "
Absolutely, and I can so see how them selling their product here is a real sovereignty issue. We should get Stephen Harper right on that one right away.
"Nevermind that the writers, actors, producers and investors for that show you enjoy so much might have been counting on selling foreign distribution rights and therefore getting paid for your access to it. "
That's right. Their choice of unworkable business model is my fault. This is part of that whole thing about adapting to the new digital age. When they actually do adapt they will start making money again and piracy rates will go down. What they are doing now is trying to hold on to their old business model against the incoming tide, and they only have themselves to blame for getting all wet. They can't blame the tide.
"And so, that's a yes on the censorship thing, then? You do believe it's okay for that Utah company to censor the film Titanic, despite a court ruling and general societal consensus to the contrary? You do support censorship in the name of total consumer freedom?"
See there ya go. That's why I'm not holding my breath about you ever getting it. What you erroneously call censorship, I call free expression. What I call censorship through copyright, you call an author's moral rights and respecting the text.
I do believe it's okay for that Utah company offer edited versions of the video, and once again, you demean the term censorship by using it inappropriately.
What a court rules is legal or not is only ever weakly related to what is right or wrong. Right/Wrong Legal/Illegal are constantly changing. Though there is usually significant overlap, one does not have to imply the other. We've been around this whole legal vs moral thing too. You need to get above the second level of Maslow's hierarchy, before we can really have any productive conversations on this.
Gosh, Darryl, one might interpret your reference to Maslow's hierarchy as a personal attack. I thought you were opposed to those.
Since creative expression would sit at the pinnacle of self-actualization and consumerism significantly lower down, I'm happy to let Mr. Maslow map us both, if you are.
On censorship, if you are satisfied to stand in defence of those who would carve nudity and swearing out of a film without prior permission or any authorized editorial control, then I encourage you to keep linking copyright and censorship.
"On censorship, if you are satisfied to stand in defence of those who would carve nudity and swearing out of a film without prior permission or any authorized editorial control, then I encourage you to keep linking copyright and censorship."
Indeed I would defend any persons right to reedit a movie they own, Tie a christmas bow on a sculpture, transfer a painting to a different medium, or paint over the cover of a novel. And I would call anyone who uses copyright law to stop them from doing so, just as bad a censor as any government could be.
Unlike your use of the term this is not inappropriate.
cen·sor n.
1. A person AUTHORIZED to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or SUPPRESS what is considered morally, politically, or OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE.
Darryl,
Honestly, how many times do you need to be reminded that copyright is about copies. If someone owns a film, then sure, they have the right to edit that film. But the rental company didn't own the films they altered. They owned copies of the films. The rest of the world understands this distinction -- why don't you? When you "edit" a film you don't actually own (and therefore don't have editorial authority over) you are censoring. Go back to your online dictionary and look up the verb form of the word.
vb (tr)
1. to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc.)
Your painting transfer link goes to an article about a sculptureso I'll let you sort that out.
The Harlequin case is subtler. I tend to fall on Husar's side on that one, because she is not presenting her altered works as still the original Harleqin romances. Still, when I've talked with folks about that case in the past, they tend to see it very differently when asked to reverse the order of the infringement. What if Harlequin took Husar's images and made book covers out of them without permission?
As to Michael Snow, I'm with him. He sold a work of art, not a christmas decoration.
"But the rental company didn't own the films they altered. They owned copies of the films."
John, you're basing your whole argument on a technicality. You are right, they only owned a copy, and the edits they made could not actually be applied to that copy alone. Another altered copy had to be produced. However their original copy was locked away, and replaced by the altered one, so practically it was no different than if they had made the changes on the original alone. How does this differ from making the changes directly on the original copy if indeed that was possible? Would their actions still be wrong in your eyes if they were dealing with VHS and had physically edited the tape, thereby not making another copy?
Regarding the verb definition of censor. I think the important word here is BAN. Obviously these people who were only in control of a single copy of the film and were hardly in a position to ban anything. Their clientèle knew full well what they were getting, and they were getting exactly what they wanted. What is being banned here? The producers on the other hand were quite successful in banning the edited version on the film, thereby censoring it. So my criticism of copyright being able to be used for censorship stands.
Quite right about the bad link. I'll have to look for the one I intended. However, this one works too. When you buy a work of art you should be totally free to edit it and destroy it too. As you see fit. The only moral right that the author/artist should have is the right to disassociate his name from the work.
Tell me. What is different from altering a film or statue as opposed to say a building. Should the architect be able to come in and stop you from putting that addition on your house because it conflicts with his expression of art? I know most architects see a lot of art in what they do, as do engineers, but this would be preposterous. Yet you want these special rights for other creators.
"The Harlequin case is subtler. I tend to fall on Husar's side on that one, because she is not presenting her altered works as still the original Harleqin romances."
It is amazing how you can take Husar's side here, but not the Utah DVD rental company above. The rental company were not presenting the altered DVDs as original either. Their customers knew full well that they were altered. THat is what they wanted. Other than the fact that a copy had to be made for purely technical reasons, (that the Utah company addressed by removing the original from circulation) these two cases are exactly the same. Yet you sit on one side of the argument in one case, but the other side in the next.
You really need to do something about these inconsistent lines of reasoning before someone accuses you of being a hypocrite.
John and Darryl
or Darryl and John
(I'll not pick favorites here)
Thank you both for your comments - thought provoking, deeply felt, and unintentionally funny at times.
Keep talking, keep listening!
Martin
Darryl,
I'm sorry, I stopped reading your last comment when you wrote "You are right..." Was there anything else important after that?
Seriously though, I really can't spend any more time explaining to you the difference between an original and a copy. This is not a technicality; it is the very center of copyright. It's not about secondary copies they made; it's about the fact that edit-rights apply only to the original, not to a copy.
Alas, you are determined NOT to understand this crucial difference. I've made my peace with that.
For everyone else who does know the difference between an original and a copy, the subtle necessities of copyright reform, like Celine Dion's heart, will go on.
Post a Comment