

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown - mikebo
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18815

======
chwahoo
Aside from attributing all this to the RIAA and the MPAA, I can see a line of
thought that might move policy makers in this direction. As time goes on, an
increasingly large slice of the U.S. (and world) economy is coming from non-
physical goods like software, movies, writing, speaking, etc. Politicians who
acknowledge this would want to promote an economic environment that will let
these growing industries thrive. I would imagine this is the thinking behind
ACTA - we want the world to respect copyright since we expect to rely heavily
on it. While people like to (rightly) point out that a downloaded song or
movie is not equal to a lost sale, the potential for easy, private transfer of
data WILL eat into sales significantly over time if not "controlled."

What the politicians don't seem to acknowledge is that the products of this
process are not scarce (although the inputs to the process are). Enforcing the
illusion of scarcity (particularly with all the great privacy/crypto we have)
must be extremely heavy-handed. We'll have to choose between severe
restrictions in our communication (which should bother everyone) and less
production of the software and movies that we desire (which would be
unfortunate).

~~~
swombat
What they also fail to see is that the outputs of this process are also the
inputs of this process. Imposing artificial scarcity on the output restricts
the input, which diminishes the output, which further affects the input, etc.

Every piece of intellectual output takes as input many, many pieces that have
come before.

~~~
chwahoo
That's a great point. The truly great works motivate derivative works and
copyright doesn't play well with this. No work exists in a vacuum so locking
up lots of our culture behind copyright will limit the space of ideas pursued.
I've read that book publishers won't even allow quoting from other books
without permission from the publisher (they don't trust fair-use).

Still, many of the other inputs: the time of lots of people (many of them very
talented) and the money of investors are definitely scarce. I think it's a
tricky balancing act. However, I'm not sure the status quo is so terrible. By
getting permission or paying, many copyrighted works can be used in new works.
In cases where they can't some works may not be created. Along the way,
creators can be compensated.

------
patrickk
Very uncool, Obama. Very uncool.

He obviously never read this quote from the world's richest man (talking about
piracy in China):

 _"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people
don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience
at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we
want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow
figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."_

Source: [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-
micropir...](http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-
micropiracy9/2)

If the Obama started listening to smart people in the tech and music industry,
not to mention the _young people_ who voted him into power, then he would make
far more informed decisions.

------
nearestneighbor
> which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about
> to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft
> punk").

I find this difficult to believe.

~~~
amalcon
Not as difficult as this: _The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client
development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for
infringement._ UDP is peer-to-peer technology, in every sense of the term
(there's no implementation-level difference between the client and server). Is
everyone who produces an implementation of UDP going to be in potential
violation of this measure?

Either this thing's being massively exaggerated, the people who wrote the law
have absolutely no understanding of communications technology, or (more
likely) something in between.

~~~
pyre
Even worse:

    
    
      > The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client
      > development a criminal offense if the distributed
      > software was used for infringement.
    

So if someone uses Skype voice or chat to coordinate the downloading and/or
distribution of copyrighted material, could Skype have been 'used for
infringement' (it's already a p2p app)? What about people peering Android
and/or iOS devices together and sharing files?

------
techiferous
How is music piracy different than the following scenario:

(1) I quit my day job and decide to launch a web-based startup.

(2) I base my business plan on a monthly subscription model.

(3) I achieve product/market fit and revenue starts coming in.

(4) A technology emerges that magically makes it easy to copy my SaaS app and
use it in its entirety without paying the monthly subscription.

(5) My revenue plummets and I have to completely revamp my business model or
go out of business.

This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know what is the
difference. Thanks!

~~~
abstractbill
Assuming your technology #4 really could be created, I don't this _is_ much
different from musical piracy. And I'd be just as ok with this as I am with
things like peer-to-peer networks existing. Such a technology would be
_awesome_ \- as you said, it would appear to be magic. And it would be _my_
problem to come up with a new business model, not to outlaw a piece of new
technology.

~~~
chwahoo
Copying things has existed for a while (although it was never as easy as it is
now). We chose to develop copyright despite this because we wanted to promote
creation of works like books and music.

I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but It's worth noting
that copyright was created for exactly this purpose (limit distribution of
something that would be easy for copiers to distribute, but hard for them to
originate).

I suspect copyright is one of the driving forces in the existence of lots of
the information and entertainment I enjoy consuming on a day-to-day basis, so
I'm skeptical of tossing it out completely.

~~~
pyre
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents also weren't as complex and over-bearing
when they were first created as they are today. If anything, the content
industries only have themselves to blame with their egregious extensions to
copyright terms amongst other things.

I don't think there would necessarily be the same 'tear it all down' mentality
around (for example) copyright if it wasn't: 1) overly abused and 2) a
ridiculous length of time. It also doesn't help that a lot of people feel
_entitled_ to copyright, when in reality it is a monopoly granted by the
people, not some sort of 'God-given' right.

~~~
nailer
I feel entitled to copyright on what I make. Don't you?

I make something, I determine the price and distribution. You have the right
not to buy it.

~~~
pyre
Copyright is not a basic human right. You may like that you have copyright on
what you make, but to claim ownership over ideas is like trying to grab a
handful of water.

Also, please don't try to frame this argument as, "If you are against
copyright then you must be a pirate!" Please let McCarthy-ism stay dead.

Since you've consistently posted in favour of copyright recently:

    
    
      * Do you feel the *need* to have copyright 90 years
        after you are dead? Is that your only incentive to
        create?
      * What about retroactive copyright extensions? Are you
        planning on 'un-creating' things that you created in
        the past because you weren't retroactively granted a
        copyright extension so you now have no incentive to
        create something that you already created?
    

If copyright terms were 14 years long (IIRC like they were originally), I
think people wouldn't have such an issue. The fact that black & white films
like Steamboat Willie are sill under copyright _long_ after anyone can make
any significant amount of money off of them is a travesty. This is
_especially_ true because a lot of things that are under copyright have become
part of our culture (the 'Happy Birthday song' anyone?).

~~~
nailer
I'm not claiming ownership on my ideas. I'm claiming the right to prevent
copying of my software and writing!

> Also, please don't try to frame this argument as, "If you are against
> copyright then you must be a pirate!"

I'm not - the article isn't about copyright reform, it's about stopping
piracy. This post is filled with n-2 people who apparently don't want piracy
stopped, and 2 people who've actually had experience with having their works
ripped off and oddly enough aren't so keen. If you made something, then
someone distributed the source code for that against your wishes, you'd join
us.

> While we're at it, do you feel the need to have copyright 90 years after you
> are dead? Is that your only incentive to create? What about retroactive
> copyright extensions? Are you planning on 'un-creating' things that you
> created in the past because you weren't retroactively granted a copyright
> extension so you now have no incentive to create something that you already
> created?

1\. I'm quite fine with my work going PD after I die. I support copyright
reform too - people that support piracy at the same time harm the cause.
Saying 'hooray, taking things without permission is awesome' isn't the best
way to have a debate about copyright length and PD.

2\. No, my incentive to create is that I enjoy it. Money is what I exchange
for goods and services in return for my work. Do you make something and get
paid for it?

3\. Er, no. I just don't like people stealing my work. Do you work on an app?
Would you like it if someone ripped off the source code and uploaded it to
TPB?

~~~
_delirium
> I'm not claiming ownership on my ideas. I'm claiming the right to prevent
> copying of my software and writing!

How are you going to do that, though? It just so happens that the natural
world does not provide you with an obvious way to do that. If you physically
occupy a house, someone has to violently eject you to take it. But if you
voluntarily put your software out into the public sphere, someone can copy it
entirely in the privacy of their own home, using 100% materials they own! Now
it's _you_ who'd have to engage in the violence to stop them: you, or a state
acting on your behalf, would have to intrude into their private house, and
tell them they can't use the materials they physically own in the way they're
doing. That, to me, seems a much worse intrusion on _actual_ property rights
than any "intellectual property" defense could justify.

~~~
nailer
> How are you going to do that, though?

This bill is a good start.

> That, to me, seems a much worse intrusion on actual property rights than any
> "intellectual property" defense could justify.

We already raid houses in relation to fraud, embezzlement, and other crimes
based around intellectual values.

Would I support raiding a house for piracy? I don't think anyone's proposing
raiding houses for casual downloaders. If they were an organized piracy
network ALA TPB, who have inflicted massive amounts of damage on authors,
artists, game makers, and app developers, big and small, then as a writer, a
software maker, and an ethical human being I'd certainly support that.

------
henning
Piracy is not theft.

~~~
pmccool
More to the point, illicit downloading is not piracy. Equating downloading
with armed robbery(or worse) at sea is silly.

~~~
spudlyo
It's the kind non-nuanced thinking I've come to expect from Biden.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Yeah, Palin would've offered much more nuanced commentary.

~~~
jokermatt999
Just because Palin would be worse doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge the
fact that Biden could be much better than he is now.

------
rchi
I doubt that Obama (with his intellect) genuinely believes that this policy
will help the economy at all.

Disappointing on so many levels.

~~~
djcapelis
Why do you think smart people can't make stupid decisions now and again?

I doubt he's getting full and accurate data and I doubt he's really had time
to spend on the issue that this needs given the other major issues that need
to be dealt with.

~~~
edanm
You know, there's the off chance that: 1\. He _is_ smart. 2\. As the President
of the United States, he _is_ getting all the data he needs. 3\. You're the
one who's wrong.

I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but it sounds a little funny to say
"yeah he's either stupid or ignorant" about someone who is very likely
neither. It's possible he just disagrees with you, despite being smart and
knowledgeable.

~~~
loewenskind
It doesn't have to be one of:

a) Stupid b) Ignorant c) Wrong

It is most likely that Obama has different motivations then we do so his
"right" is different than ours.

~~~
edanm
Yep, that definitely seems more likely than him being stupid or ignorant.

------
ScotterC
I find it hard to argue that piracy is beneficial. I am of the mind that
intellectual property rights are currently inadequate from my own experiences
in patent law.

My main beef is that the RIAA and MPAA have a defunct business model and they
are wielding the U.S. legal system as a tool to punish non-violent criminals
severely.

------
_flag
I really don't understand how anyone expects to stop people from downloading
things for free. It's even possible to get songs directly off youtube and tv
shows directly off hulu, just as it is possible to record songs directly off
the radio. Nobody seems to notice though.

------
nailer
Good to hear. Anyone on HN that makes something - whether it's been ripped off
before or not - needs to be able to know they can do something about it should
it happen.

------
itistoday
Just another symptom of living in an idiocracy. This situation will work well
for the for-profit prisons in the United States, who, like the for-profit
health insurance companies, make a profit off of people's misery, and will
ensure that America remains #1 in persons incarcerated:

[http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-
high-...](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-high-
budgetary-cost-of-incarceration/)

Thankfully, the article does point out the discrepancies in Biden's claims:

    
    
      Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a  
      recent Government Accountability Office study released to 
      U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there 
      is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar 
      losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested 
      that piracy could even benefit the economy.
    

Nevermind facts, we don't care if the evidence suggests that piracy helps the
economy, or whether Biden's metaphor is a metaphor and not a substitute for
reality, or whether that drug you're taking is not only safe, but healthy,
we're still going to toss your ass in jail, or give you a fine you'll spend
the rest of your life dealing with.

Ars Technica did a great job thoroughly debunking the claims of the RIAA and
MPAA:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-
digits...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-
behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars)

And here's their take on the referenced government study:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-
governmen...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-
finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars)

But in this country, facts don't really have much weight when it comes to
policy making.

The irony of all of this is that like the War on Drugs, instead of keeping
people safe and happy, this coming War on Piracy will only serve as a drain on
America's economy and morale, and yes, could even result in the creation of a
dangerous black market. Tax dollars flushed down the toilet for the purpose of
spreading misery and soothing the irrational fears of an aging and nervous
minority of rich people.

~~~
nailer
Piracy doesn't just hurt the RIAA and MPAA. It hurts:

* indie game developers

* Unsigned bands

* authors and book publishers

* OSS companies that sell their compiled binaries training material while giving away their source.

People who create things deserve to be compensated if they wish to. Taking
something that doesn't belong to you is stealing.

~~~
swombat
Nice sense of entitlement you got there.

I'd like to rephrase your statement to:

 _People who create things should be compensated if we can figure out a system
to do so that's not too costly to the general public. "Intellectual property"
is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-
physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the
universe._

Note: I am an independent content creator (though I don't live from my content
at the moment).

~~~
nailer
> Nice sense of entitlement you got there.

Sorry, what's wrong with being entitled to the benefit of my own work? What
right does anyone else have over something I made, with my work, taking
hundreds of hours of my time?

I can't believe such a shitty personal attack on someone for daring to say
they're entitled to what they create is sitting on HN with +3.

How would you feel if someone uploaded all the source for Woobius to TPB?

~~~
_delirium
I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work.
You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which
unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse. Not only
that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create artificial
scarcity that would allow you to profit in that manner!

~~~
nailer
> I don't think anyone has any particular right to profit from their work

Then how will you make money from Woobius? How will any of us on HN make money
from our work? Not everything can be ad-supported.

> You're arguing for some sort of positive freedom to profit from labor, which
> unsurprisingly no libertarian-leaning person would really endorse.

What? Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something
Libertarians hold dear.

> Not only that, you're arguing that state power should be used to create
> artificial scarcity

Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets. Piracy isn't
a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets.

~~~
henrikschroder
_Freedom to profit from their own labor is very much something Libertarians
hold dear._

 _Libertarians want the government to stop interfering in markets._

Yes, but profiting from your labour is typically handled by an exchange of
goods, and once the exchange is done, each party has no say over the goods
they traded.

Not so with copyright, it limits what people can do with goods after they have
been exchanged, and it does so through a state-enforced artificial monopoly.
It is definitely government interference in the market. If it was completely
free, you would lose control over your creations the second you sell them.

 _Piracy isn't a market, it's a crime - piracy hurts markets._

It is a market, and it works exactly like any other market. Piracy appears
when a large amount of consumers disagree on the pricing of artificially
scarce goods, and instead acquire the goods illicitly, by circumventing the
artificial scarcity.

The easiest way to combat piracy is through the market, simply provide a
better product than the pirated product, and provide it at a price most
consumers are willing to pay. Most people pirate not because they want
everything for free, but because there is a huge discrepancy between the price
of something and what they percieve it to be worth.

There is a reason that, for example, the Apple Music Store is so incredibly
successful even though anyone can pirate music easily. They provide a better
product (legal DRM-free files conveniently and quickly delivered is better
than illegal DRM-free files that are inconvenient to get) at a better price
(1$ per song instead of ~15$ for a bundle you didn't want just to get the song
you actually wanted).

It is perfectly possible to compete with the pirate market, and doing so can
be more profitable than trying the heavy-handed approach and strengthening the
monopoly.

~~~
nailer
> Not so with copyright, it limits what people can do with goods after they
> have been exchanged

Fair use is awesome. Copyrights shouldn't last forever. Unfortunately, a lot
of people have been conned by places like TPB - which punish everyone,
including those who make OSS, and people who give away some of their works for
free but charge for others - into thinking copyright reform requires
advocating piracy.

There are many people who believe authors deserve to be paid, but fair use has
a place. In fact, I think most human being fit into that category. Advocating
for fair use while advocating stealing alienates everyone from the cause.

~~~
henrikschroder
I'm not advocating piracy, and neither is anyone else here. However, I think
you should be more realistic towards it and realize that it's not such a big
deal. Casual non-commercial private copying of stuff _probably_ doesn't hurt
anyone. You shouldn't do it, but if someone does, it doesn't equal a lost sale
for the creator.

And, to return to the original article, I'm convinced that dealing with it in
this heavy-handed way, by adding more legislation, more law enforcement, isn't
the right way. And I don't think it helps you or me as creators.

(I also wish people would stop downvoting you just because they disagree,
that's really not the HN way. :-/ )

~~~
nailer
> I think you should be more realistic towards it and realize that it's not
> such a big deal.

It really is if you've had your work stolen. There are 3 people, last time I
checked, in this thread who have. They're all pretty strongly against piracy.

> (I also wish people would stop downvoting you just because they disagree,
> that's really not the HN way. :-/ )

Hehe, thanks. It's been quite odd to watch - +2, -1, +1 etc as different
groups for and against moderate reddit style.

