Mikhail Kravchenko

This conversation is closed.

Rethinking copyright infringement

There are questions I ask myself that other people probably asked.
Is downloading something really stealing?
Is using copyrighted works in you-tube videos really a problem?
Is the current system vulnerable to copy write trolls? yes
Can the right-holders prove that every copy downloaded would have been bought if certain laws were in place? There are too few studies done
should we make laws blocking freedom of speech if there are few studies done? No
Should we block freedom of speech just to protect copyright? no
Does downloading something online cost anything to the uploaders or downloaders? No
Is it wrong to think of every rights holder as greedy lawyers? yes
There are many problems that arise from today's copy-right laws that are controversial. We need to rethink how the system works because it was originally intended to protect those who make and sell cd, dvd's, and vhs for distribution.
This solution is targeted at P2P communications and the problems that arise from it. It is intended to solve as much problems as possible in one swoop.

We need to define any P2P communication, streaming, direct download or any other future technology as advertisement. It is beneficial to the right-holders to have there information widely known and used by many people. The copyrighted materials are provided under fair use as long as there is not money exchange between the uploaders and downloaders. The holders cannot prosecute unless its clear that they are making money of it.

My idea is a website. That helps users find the rights holder's and compensates them for the use of their materials. The money is provided by advertisement, donation, and anyone can submit their materials to it. When a person makes a torrent they first go to a widely known registry and submits what they are putting in the torrent. they would then place a text file saying please support our sponsors, and the rights-holders.

No more space continuing with a post.

  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: I am mainly referring to the digital copyright millennial act 2000
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: ya i could have explained better, but there was little space.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: View it in the original thread sequence.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: This would be an important step on how we view information. There are definitely flaws in my plan that would need to be worked out, but I truly believe the concept can work.

    Another thing Utorrent has been making plugins that help share and rate information.

    This can provide another view point, The site can collect statistical information about how many downloads of what files, but it can also track what people think about certain works. For example if a movie is really bad. Little to no people would even download it. There might be a spike when it comes out, but if its bad enough people will not seed it and the torrent will die. This can be a natural selection decided by the people what movies are good and bad, instead of Hollywood for example charging people shameful fees just because they can. If its bad little people will download it meaning the sponsors will pay less.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: Mikhail:

    This is a common misconception

    “ ... the system … was originally intended to protect those who make and sell cd, dvd's, and vhs for distribution. ”

    In the US copyright law is founded in the constitution:

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

    The founding fathers may have made their share of mistakes, but this is one they got amazingly right. It’s incredible the insight that this phrase represents. It says that the rights are GIVEN by the government for the purpose of promoting the sciences and the arts. Not for the purpose of protecting the creators, but for the purpose of enhancing the common good.

    It is nauseating to see how vested interests have turned this into a moral issue. The public has been deceived into believing that copy “rights” are god-given and hence to copy is to steal - i.e. commit a moral offence against god.
    • thumb
      Dec 8 2011: Hi Tim,

      I agree with your point. I would argue that in a way yes the system was originally intended to protect authors and inventors. But as you have pointed out, the intent of protecting them was ultimately to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Progress of science and useful arts is sometimes in direct conflict with restricted access.

      Now, as for protecting copyright owners that either inherited or bought patents/copyrights, I am not sure that was intended in the constitution. And it certainly does very little to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

      It is deceiving when the issue is framed as "protecting intellectual property", as if ideas could be really stolen the way a car can be stolen. What the law is protecting is a future stream of revenue that may (or may not) come as a result of developing an idea into a real product. So in a sense the law is protecting speculative money.

      cheers
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: IMPLICATIONS
    The site should be widely known and trusted. It has no fees to the users or right holders. It will give options to donate directly to the authors. It will also search for sponsors to provide and pay for the use. Anyone can submit their work's to be compensated. This could mean that independent filmmakers/artists can share there work and get compensated for it without going through publishers or record labels.

    Anyone who has done P2P is probably decent enough to give credit to the makers.

    This can provide crucial statistics to see how many people actually uses torrents, and how many times a user downloads and actually supports the torrents. Instead of making baseless claims to laws that restrict rights.

    It will compensate the righs-holders depending on how many users actually use the materials.

    because any use of the material is fair use, it will save millions in legal fees instead of trying to sue millions of people. Suing many people is just impractical and impossible.
    It will also stop some copyright trolls.

    The site will help link torrents to sponsors that actually provide products or services.

    P2p will not replace other technologies but compete with them. Some people might prefer itunes or netflix instead of going through the hassle of torrents.

    Isp's will no longer have an excuse to hold back their systems. Instead of claiming p2p takes up too much traffic during peak times, they will upgrade their networks to provide for increase in network traffic.

    Would fortify and change our culture and view on free speech.

    Will stop baseless propaganda that downloading is bad.

    Things that will need to be worked out/ more detail needed. Consider this scenario. If a person downloads 300,000 songs which cost $2.00 each on itunes today. The person has never and will never listen to them all, and deletes most of them? what happens.

    The site would need to know what would be in the torrent. So the sponsors wont pay too little or too much.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: The process is this. A person makes a torrent and in it there is a text file saying please support our sponsors. People who use torrents usually read, readme's and files associated with it. For those who don't there is another file that is a shortcut to the registry which contains links to donate directly, ads and ad videos that help support the sponsors, and proof that the money is actually going to the rights holder. There can also be a file that automatically likes clients like utorrent and bittorent, that link up automatically with the website. The files placement should be enforced by the trackers who are courteous enough to ask users to support the authors. This can be in the trackers terms of use. If a tracker fails to advertise the site then they can be sued by the holders. This wont be much of a problem though because most trackers are curious to say please support the original authors.

    It also can contain hash data to make sure that the files are not tampered, or that the files actually contain fingerprints of the original data. For example if its a program or executable it can have viruses, but if checked with a hash it can determine if its safe or not. If its music or videos this is probably not needed because the sound can be edited by the users, and the quality might vary.

    I have thought up many strategies on the implications and uses and It could work. Please point out flaws so i can edit the idea.
    Continuing with another post.