2 ms·

The art piece is not -making- an analogy. It is -mocking- a line of reasoning used by the copyright industry. That is, the copyright industry comes up with num

The art piece is not -making- an analogy. It is -mocking- a line of reasoning used by the copyright industry. That is, the copyright industry comes up with numbers about how badly file sharing hurts their numbers by counting one download, that is, one copy, as a lost sale. They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people from ripping their own music, DVDs, etc (it's still technically illegal to copy your own DVD to your hard drive, for your own viewing). This is an art piece to show how nonsensical that argument is, that a copy does not equate to a lost sale.

ikeboy 11y ago
It's mocking it by making a parody, and there's an analogy between the parody and the original. As that analogy breaks down,the parody becomes less meaningful. You could not call it an analogy if you want, it's just semantics. >They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people from ripping their own music, DVDs, etc They want to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs. They couldn't care less whether you rip them for yourselves, afaik, but they want to ban the tools to do so because they're also used by pirates. If I'm wrong, do you have an example of when they tried to stop self-copying for its own sake?
- lostcolony 11y ago
  Yes; it's called the DMCA's anti-copyright circumvention. You seem to be saying such laws and lobbying is only there to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs, but the obvious problem there is such actions -are already illegal-. Their incentive may be to prevent piracy, but their actions are very clearly to prevent -anyone- from ripping their legally purchased media. They will not -prosecute- an individual who never uploaded something, no, but they have -no- problem with making it illegal and going after anyone who would produce the tools to allow it to happen. Their actions, and the rationales they use to justify it, are the problem, not their incentives. I am in complete -agreement- with their incentives; file sharing is certainly a threat to their business model, and they either need to change business model or try and stamp it out. But in trying to stamp it out they are effectively also trying to stamp out things that I should be able to do (and legally may be both allowed to do, and not allowed to do; I'm legally allowed to rip my content, but not legally allowed to circumvent DRM to do it). But we're digressing. My point was, and still is, simply that there is no analogy being made by the article, nor Sunde; the analogy (or whatever you want to call it; it's just semantics) is being made by the copyright industry. Agreed, in mocking it they're straining it a bit, but the point is that they're mocking a terrible argument that the copyright industry has made to make their case in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. Same as the "You Wouldn't Download A Car!" meme was made to mock their "You Wouldn't Steal A Car!" ad campaign.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I'm not sure if there's any relevant point of fact we disagree on now. The only point I'd make is that the copyright industry hasn't claimed "every copy is a lost sale", they've claimed that some copies are lost sales. Often, the question is whether the "main purpose" of a technology is for illegal purposes, and if the answer was yes, it wouldn't be allowed, even if there were legitimate uses. Regardless, "the analogy breaks down here, therefore the analogy isn't valid anywhere" is not a valid argument. To the extent the parody is doing that, it's wrong.
    - lostcolony 11y ago
      Stretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy. That is, when the copyright industry says "sharing these files is hurting us, we must make it illegal to make copies" (because that is what they lobby for, anti-DRM circumvention and the like), showing that making copies -is not what hurts your business model- is a worthwhile goal, in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. The initial analogy is not a valid argument; taking it to the breaking point and by doing so showing that the analogy is too simplistic to be accurate, is a valid response.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Again, the original is not an analogy. They never said every copy is a lost sale. So only a strawman is being attacked here. The avenue you should be pursuing is getting the LoC to allow DVD ripping as a DMCA exemption. I don't even think the movie industry would oppose.

ikeboy 11y ago

It's mocking it by making a parody, and there's an analogy between the parody and the original. As that analogy breaks down,the parody becomes less meaningful. You could not call it an analogy if you want, it's just semantics. >They've extended that analogy, in fact, to try and prevent people from ripping their own music, DVDs, etc They want to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs. They couldn't care less whether you rip them for yourselves, afaik, but they want to ban the tools to do so because they're also used by pirates. If I'm wrong, do you have an example of when they tried to stop self-copying for its own sake?

lostcolony 11y ago
Yes; it's called the DMCA's anti-copyright circumvention. You seem to be saying such laws and lobbying is only there to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs, but the obvious problem there is such actions -are already illegal-. Their incentive may be to prevent piracy, but their actions are very clearly to prevent -anyone- from ripping their legally purchased media. They will not -prosecute- an individual who never uploaded something, no, but they have -no- problem with making it illegal and going after anyone who would produce the tools to allow it to happen. Their actions, and the rationales they use to justify it, are the problem, not their incentives. I am in complete -agreement- with their incentives; file sharing is certainly a threat to their business model, and they either need to change business model or try and stamp it out. But in trying to stamp it out they are effectively also trying to stamp out things that I should be able to do (and legally may be both allowed to do, and not allowed to do; I'm legally allowed to rip my content, but not legally allowed to circumvent DRM to do it). But we're digressing. My point was, and still is, simply that there is no analogy being made by the article, nor Sunde; the analogy (or whatever you want to call it; it's just semantics) is being made by the copyright industry. Agreed, in mocking it they're straining it a bit, but the point is that they're mocking a terrible argument that the copyright industry has made to make their case in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. Same as the "You Wouldn't Download A Car!" meme was made to mock their "You Wouldn't Steal A Car!" ad campaign.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I'm not sure if there's any relevant point of fact we disagree on now. The only point I'd make is that the copyright industry hasn't claimed "every copy is a lost sale", they've claimed that some copies are lost sales. Often, the question is whether the "main purpose" of a technology is for illegal purposes, and if the answer was yes, it wouldn't be allowed, even if there were legitimate uses. Regardless, "the analogy breaks down here, therefore the analogy isn't valid anywhere" is not a valid argument. To the extent the parody is doing that, it's wrong.
  - lostcolony 11y ago
    Stretching the analogy to the point of breaking is actually a very useful bit of rhetoric when one side insists on using an analogy. That is, when the copyright industry says "sharing these files is hurting us, we must make it illegal to make copies" (because that is what they lobby for, anti-DRM circumvention and the like), showing that making copies -is not what hurts your business model- is a worthwhile goal, in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. The initial analogy is not a valid argument; taking it to the breaking point and by doing so showing that the analogy is too simplistic to be accurate, is a valid response.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Again, the original is not an analogy. They never said every copy is a lost sale. So only a strawman is being attacked here. The avenue you should be pursuing is getting the LoC to allow DVD ripping as a DMCA exemption. I don't even think the movie industry would oppose.