Jump to content
New account registrations are disabed. This website is now an archive. Read more here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    2
  • views
    3,313

The Big Picture

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jon Bon

Entry posted by Jon Bon ·

563 views

I spend my whole life devoted to the art of video games. When I grow up I become a video game maker. Eventually I am successful, and my games are worldwide popular. My company expands with the growth of profits.

One day I am informed that a group from a foreign country has pirated (copied and redistributing) my most recent and popular game and is giving it away for FREE and selling advertisement space on the website they have it available at.

I contact my lawyers in an effort to have the pirates served with a cease and desist letter. My lawyers unfortunately inform me that the pirates are geographically located where my countries laws do not apply to them and there are no international laws that govern their current actions.

I spend a ton of money upgrading my security and release a sequel to the game, it also becomes worldwide popular. And again the pirates crack my security, copy the game, and redistribute it, again selling advertising space. Except this time my advertisers are wise to it and pull their ad space on my sites in order to advertise on my ‘competition’ (the pirates), and they do so legally.

I must close close my business, no one will advertise or invest for a game that won't see it's return in profits, and there for I can't afford to pay my staff and I can't do it alone.

Boy I wish there were some kind of law, or governing body that were here to protect me in the event of a scenario like this…

 

That fictional situation is a very basic and small scale example of one of the effects of piracy. The current laws being proposed for policing the internet are being created in an effort to help prevent the type of situation described above. I do not agree with the proposals in their current form; however I fully recognize their need to exist.

My understanding is that the generally agreed upon main ‘hiccup’ if you will, with the current proposed laws to govern the content on the internet is that people will lose their rights(in the form of censorship).

Last I checked in the average ‘free country’ you do not have the right to public nudity, and with good cause. One could argue that clothing is the first form of censorship yet most wear it happily.

People fear that if the law(s) pass the governing body (who will enforce the laws) MAY use it for outside interests. The majority of this fear lies in the fact that the proposed laws are vague in terms of what they can specifically remove/ban from the internet.

So if it is possible to exploit the system, let’s not implement it at all? Have we forgotten about my game company?

The next argument point the average person will bring up is the corporate owners who benefit most from this law change, and who will potentially exploit it. Corrupt business owners and law officials, really? That is the best counter argument available?

 

As I said, the laws in their current form are too vague and allow too much room for interpretation and there for should not be passed. However piracy IS still a problem. Most people want to make money, a lot want to own their own business, and everyone wants to get paid to do what they love for the rest of their life, piracy puts that at risk.

Change is almost always a good thing, but it does need to be done right. The corporate ‘big wigs’ will always be looking for ways to exploit the system, they will always be greedy and they will almost always end up on top. That is a problem with the way we run things as a society, and should not be a direct consideration when out right refusing the idea of a law. If half as many people concerned about internet policing showed concern with corruption it wouldn’t be an issue. Mass fear of a loss of rights is blinding people into thinking that any law that wants to govern internet content is automatically bad.

 

 

I create a product; I patent it, and begin sales. Anyone who copies (pirates) my product is infringing upon my rights as the owner of that product, capitalism. By being completely against any law that looks at governing pirated content on the internet, you are valuing the illegal consumer’s rights over my own (as the product creator and owner).

People are receiving little to no compensation for their work because of piracy, companies are passing up ideas based on piracy, and consumers are shopping based on piracy. Piracy (specifically in digital sense) does exist, today, right now. These maybes, ifs and possibilities, they speak of if these laws are passed, are just that, potential and not definite.

 

I personally think the internet should be a free tool for the sharing of all information worldwide. But alas that is not the reality of the situation. However censorship IS needed; child pornography, snuff films, rape, and murder dictate it.

But where does it end, female circumcision is illegal in America, but not everywhere. Does that mean photos of it would also be illegal? What about text, describing it's existance? What about drug use like marijuana? Will licensed smokers be allowed to have their photos (of them smoking) online, but not the unlicensed people?

Obviously a law(s) that govern the internet as a whole needs a lot of discussion before implementation, but in my opinion, the idea by no means needs to be abolished completely. I for one can see the big picture and do not want to see the death of good art thanks to piracy.

 

-Your right is only free to have, if it does not infringe on anyone else’s.

Ecowolfsteen reacted to this
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

2 Comments

Recommended Comments

Marked

I think the geographical system is a problem. You can't let one law system govern the whole internet, especially not American laws. If I live in New Zealand and say piracy is legal (its not), should an American prosecution be able to prosecute me? I don't believe so. Although I think I can extradited, just like the New Zealanders who are a party to the conspiracy charges against kim dotcom, founder of megaupload. I fully disagree with this. I believe that laws of the land have to committed on the land. I believe this type of extradition is wrong and a breach of my free country, which holds ministers of parliament to far greater accountability than the US ever will.

 

My second point would be that you cannot measure the effects of piracy accurately enough. The online music industry grew by 8% last year, and we all know that music is one of the most popular things that is pirated. Come on, 8% is huge growth. In your hypothetical example, would the business have to shut down because of pirates?

 

I'm not for piracy, I'm for fair laws and against globalization, especially involving corrupt and immoral countries. I don't think a New Zealander (for example) should be prosecuted by the US for copyright infringement, he should be prosecuted under New Zealand law because only those laws should apply to him.

 

Who is the pirate when the New Zealander uploads something illegal in the US but legal in New Zealand, to a NZ server, and its the American who CHOOSES to download that illegal content? This is just an example to demonstrate my point, because its probably never legal in NZ.

Ecowolfsteen reacted to this

Share this comment

Link to comment
Jon Bon

I couldnt agree with you more.

The fact still remains that America obviously has the power to pass laws that affect the Internet (wether it's right or wrong is moot, how things should or shouldn't be is irrelevant). They ARE trying to pass a law, that does protect people. In it's current form, a joke, but it still remains necessary.

Thankfully international copyright laws already exist, the problem is that not every country that has access to the internet adheres to these laws, and there for they remain unprosecutable in any country.

I agree though that if you break an international law you should be prosecuted in your own country, by their means and methods.

 

Because of international copyright/patent laws, there should be no scenario where a NZ uploads something illegal (pirated) in US that is not legal in NZ. You country either goes with international law, or it doesn't, period.

 

If I create something, and you take and sell it without my permission, that's theft plain and simple, location is not important. Theft is wrong everywhere.

Unfortunately, the NZ'er is not only affected by his countries laws the second he starts interacting with the rest of the world, this is why we have international laws, and interpol.

 

Measuring the effects of piracy is also not needed. We don't need to know how bad it is, or what the outcomes are, just that is exists, and is infringing upon peoples rights as is. The amount of money pirates take from rightful owners is irrelevant, even if they didn't get any compensation, monetary or otherwise, they are still violating the proprietary rights of the owner/creator.

8% growth(industry, not company specific) can be attributed to anything, population size increase, demographical shifts, marked increase, etc. Also how much you want to bet the 8% is the major lables, and not the indy ones.

My hypothetical point was to show that piracy is not a victimless crime. It's not about how much money priates steal, it's about the fact that they are stealing, and we are allowing it.

 

I personally think America is a corrupt and immoral country, and that is why the laws as proposed wouldn't work. However I can't realistically stand by while people say the laws should NEVER come about.

Additional it's extra frustrating to see the internet blow up with talk of these laws, but every day people lay silent about the injustices that are allowed to continue that threaten the vary laws being proposed.

Everyone is fighting the wrong battle.

Ecowolfsteen reacted to this

Share this comment

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...