This Is Why I Pirate

[Jaerb4]

The problem with this is how the situation should play out versus how it does play out in reality.

In theory:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so company lowers price on item to appeal to consumers.

How it actually goes:

1) Company releases product for too much money.
2) Consumers do not buy product because they feel it is overpriced.
3) Sales are low, so companies keep prices the same and blame piracy.

You're missing a step between 2 and 3, where 10,000,000 people decide to pirate something to try it out, even if it's a shitty product.

If that doesn't happen, then you're more likely to see 3.1. When that does happen, the company sees it on PB and then you have 3.2.

I agree that there's a lot of garbage products out there, but that doesn't stop people from pirating them. From the perspective of the seller, it's hard to see those piracy numbers and realize your product is shitty, because it seems like there's still people who want it.

 

[wabbitseason]

Not really. The license has not changed in years. Steam actually enables capabilities the standard license model did not like unlimited installs on unlimited machines. But you said OWN, and you don't OWN any of your games.

Steam enables nothing and exists purely to extract information and money out of users. Steam is worthless software that provides no functionality that a standalone game cannot.

The hatred for steam stems from the fact that this unwanted software (and others like it) are becoming accepted prerequisites to the use of mainstream, worthwhile software (Skyrim and Shogun 2 come to mind). The fact that people like you are OK with this, or even laud it as some sort of welcome evolutionary step in gaming, absolutely boggles the mind.

And your point about owning is a pathetic distinction at best. You say we're paying 50 bucks for the right to use software. Well, we, the users, decide the acceptable scope of that license. We decide if its acceptable to have that license taken away because big brother saw a mod running in the background and misidentified it as a hack. We decide if its A-OK for Blizzard to remove LAN functionality from diablo 3 and require an internet connection for single player.

We decide. I say no to all of that, and I pirate anything that buys into it.

Used to be, you'd buy a game and play it. All these anti-piracy countermeasures and third party software do is make legitimate buyers frustrated and angry. It's still a joke to pirate anything you want, and due to the nature of digital entertainment, always will be.

 

[wizdum]

Steam enables nothing and exists purely to extract information and money out of users. Steam is worthless software that provides no functionality that a standalone game cannot.

The hatred for steam stems from the fact that this unwanted software (and others like it) are becoming accepted prerequisites to the use of mainstream, worthwhile software (Skyrim and Shogun 2 come to mind). The fact that people like you are OK with this, or even laud it as some sort of welcome evolutionary step in gaming, absolutely boggles the mind.

And your point about owning is a pathetic distinction at best. You say we're paying 50 bucks for the right to use software. Well, we, the users, decide the acceptable scope of that license. We decide if its acceptable to have that license taken away because big brother saw a mod running in the background and misidentified it as a hack. We decide if its A-OK for Blizzard to remove LAN functionality from diablo 3 and require an internet connection for single player.

We decide. I say no to all of that, and I pirate anything that buys into it.

Used to be, you'd buy a game and play it. All these anti-piracy countermeasures and third party software do is make legitimate buyers frustrated and angry. It's still a joke to pirate anything you want, and due to the nature of digital entertainment, always will be.

Wow. What color is the sky where you live?

 

[wizdum]

You're missing a step between 2 and 3, where 10,000,000 people decide to pirate something to try it out, even if it's a shitty product.

If that doesn't happen, then you're more likely to see 3.1. When that does happen, the company sees it on PB and then you have 3.2.

I agree that there's a lot of garbage products out there, but that doesn't stop people from pirating them. From the perspective of the seller, it's hard to see those piracy numbers and realize your product is shitty, because it seems like there's still people who want it.

The problem is that a lot of the content creators that search for their work on piracy sites don't know that most of them are scams. Type anything + "torrent" into google and you will find torrents sites offering downloads for that exact thing. For example, "Sewage Laptop Sunshine [2010]":

 

[wabbitseason]

Wow. What color is the sky where you live?

Do you have some sort of problem with the position that complacently accepting more control is a bad thing?

 

[wonderfield]

I say no to all of that, and I pirate anything that buys into it.

You pirate because you want free software. Nothing more; nothing less. Dress it however you'd like, but you'd come off as being much more rational if you had just said, "I pirate because I want software for free."

 

[Jaerb4]

The problem is that a lot of the content creators that search for their work on piracy sites don't know that most of them are scams. Type anything + "torrent" into google and you will find torrents sites offering downloads for that exact thing. For example, "Sewage Laptop Sunshine [2010]":

Well, it depends where you go. I'm just saying, there's a lot of shitty movies out there but instead of choosing not to see them all together, people choose to watch them without paying for them. That gives a completely different message than not watching them at all.

That's what people should be doing.

 

[wizdum]

Do you have some sort of problem with the position that complacently accepting more control is a bad thing?

Not at all. I have a problem following your "steam adds nothing" position. Do you really think over 5 million people installed steam just because.....nothing? The only reason I can think of is that you don't remember what a PITA it was to get into games with your friends before services like steam.

 

[ekuest]

as a pirate myself, i can tell you theres no rationale for piracy. i can tell you that if i didnt pirate, i would waste a lot less time on worthless shit, and i would not give much more money to big studios. i would never buy media as formats grow old and outdated (betamax, vhs, laserdisk, minidisk, zip disk, cds, dvds, etc) and i wont see movies in theaters as theyre just not an enjoyable experience (loud, pakced, bad view, gross, expensive, etc.) i would redbox once or twice a week, and maybe have netflix. THAT IS ALL. the current idea that we should pay $20 to own and $10 to see a movie is ridiculous and can not support itself.

if i can rent a bluray movie to watch on my comfy house on my projector with whatever food i want for $2 at redbox, then digital distribution should be able to pull off the same prices or less. when that happens i will surely buy in. at current prices, the media is not at all worth the price.

 

[wizdum]

Well, it depends where you go. I'm just saying, there's a lot of shitty movies out there but instead of choosing not to see them all together, people choose to watch them without paying for them. That gives a completely different message than not watching them at all.

That's what people should be doing.

And i'm saying that people don't even have to pirate the movies in-order for content creators to "find" copies online.

I do agree with your point for movies. I don't pirate movies, because there is no stopping point. You can't watch half a movie, like it, and then decide to buy it (unless it is really good and you plan to watch it multiple times). I have pirated TV shows in the past because my DVR screwed up and missed an episode. I can kind of see pirating games to demo them, since there are games like Dead Island and Brink that ended up being nothing like their trailers. I have pirated two games in the past, Borderlands (which I purchased after reaching lvl 15), and MW2 (which I did not purchase since I couldn't get it to run on my PC).

 

[PornoSatan]

This is why I pirate:

Because it's easy, and free.


Just trying to keep it real. And for what its worth I haven't pirated anything in around a year or so.

 

[wabbitseason]

You pirate because you want free software. Nothing more; nothing less. Dress it however you'd like, but you'd come off as being much more rational if you had just said, "I pirate because I want software for free."

That's your response to my post. You're going to tell me why I do something.

You might've considered dressing that response up with less idiocy and more argument.

 

[wabbitseason]

Not at all. I have a problem following your "steam adds nothing" position. Do you really think over 5 million people installed steam just because.....nothing? The only reason I can think of is that you don't remember what a PITA it was to get into games with your friends before services like steam.

5 million people installed it because:

1. They had to to play some new great game, because it won't work without steam

2. They don't know how to LAN

3. The games they want to play don't support LAN anymore (see 1)

4. They can't play their single player games which they bought legitimately without keeping a third-party, internet-active application constantly updated and running in the background.

I don't understand why this is acceptable to so many people. I expected more resistance from [H] at the very least.

Steam isn't a service. Steam is a parasite. It's an insult to the user every time a game requires it.

 

[JosiahBradley]

5 million people installed it because:
4. They can't play their single player games which they bought legitimately without keeping a third-party, internet-active application constantly updated and running in the background.

Actually you only need steam to activate the game. After that you select 'offline mode' and you never have to have steam running in the background checking anything.

While I am generally against DRM, steam is extremely accessible and doesn't prevent you from using the game how you want it. You can still mod and rewrite almost any part of the game, it's just for activation. Of course they will ban you if you mod an installation of Counterstrike so you can cheat, but then again that is a good thing because online play sucks with cheaters. However if I want to install a wall hack and play against bots there is nothing against it.

If steam were to go away in the future then a simple patch/crack will allow the game to continue to be used outside of steam, because all of the games original executables are still there. When I got Unreal tournament 3 I found I could play it completely outside of steam simply by running the exe even without steam loaded.

The only modern game I've got from steam is Skyrim and it only used steam for activating the game. I still have the physical CD and manual and everything offline.

 

[wonderfield]

You might've considered dressing that response up with less idiocy and more argument.

What exactly would you like me to argue?

 

[Starcrossed]

Please hook me up to something that sucks money out of my pocket!

 

[Starcrossed]

(I say that not because I'm pro-pirate, but simply because after reading the comments about Steam, which I don't mind so much, that I am really tired of companies doing whatever they can to ply money from me!)

 

[Modred189]

Steam enables nothing and exists purely to extract information and money out of users. Steam is worthless software that provides no functionality that a standalone game cannot.

The hatred for steam stems from the fact that this unwanted software (and others like it) are becoming accepted prerequisites to the use of mainstream, worthwhile software (Skyrim and Shogun 2 come to mind). The fact that people like you are OK with this, or even laud it as some sort of welcome evolutionary step in gaming, absolutely boggles the mind.

Unlimited installs pulled from the cloud.
Unintrusive DRM
Easy one-stop shop for most games at competitive prices
Achievements, friending, chat, voicechat, communities and game-invites/joins across games.
Fast downloads, cloud saves and crazy fast patching
Screenshot taking and sharing, fb integration, in game web browser
I could go on. All of these are incredibly valuable to me. I dislike Origin because it offers few of these and nothing new.

And your point about owning is a pathetic distinction at best. You say we're paying 50 bucks for the right to use software. Well, we, the users, decide the acceptable scope of that license. We decide if its acceptable to have that license taken away because big brother saw a mod running in the background and misidentified it as a hack. We decide if its A-OK for Blizzard to remove LAN functionality from diablo 3 and require an internet connection for single player.

We decide. I say no to all of that, and I pirate anything that buys into it.

Used to be, you'd buy a game and play it. All these anti-piracy countermeasures and third party software do is make legitimate buyers frustrated and angry. It's still a joke to pirate anything you want, and due to the nature of digital entertainment, always will be.

[/QUOTE]
My distinction is not 'patheic at best' it's the law. WHen you install the game, you agree to the EULA, you agree to these things, AND acquiesce to liability if you breach it.

So Pirate away, harming the industry, devs and every one else's chances at less restrictive DRM while your're at it.
ALso, please let us know what you're smoking, 'cause it seems potent.

 

[Pitbully]

I must be one of those weird people because;
1. I never buy a DVD or Blue-ray unless I've seen the movie first, (weather it be in a theater or online)
2. I rarely ever pirate programs, I have once in a great while, but 90% of the time I find out the program is a complete piece of shit or overly complicated to use and ditch it anyway.
3. I used to pirate music, yes its wrong, but somehow I find it hard to feel any sympathy for idiot musicians who are making MILLIONS of dollars a year already and are crying about how much they are losing due to piracy on the internet. I happily buy their CDs after I've listened to some of the songs on them as well so fuckoff musicians.

The sad thing is piracy is going to happen no matter what, but 99% of the time its the lawyers who are getting rich off the lawsuits and not the actually people who made the program, played the music or starred in the movie. In short, fuck off and die lawyers! :-P

 

[Modred189]

In short, fuck off and die lawyers! :-P

Sad face: I'm about to start my career as an IP (albeit patent) attorney.

 

[bigbadgreen]

this whole issue is a vicous catch 22 cycle. I think the real issue is how easy it is to get any content you want at any time for free. Even people with little knowledge of technology can find and use tools to pirate. It's just become way to casual. Just read how responses here are I have pirated or pirate now etc... You want DRM to lighten up then the stance on piracy by the communitoes involved needs to be more stern. Instead of accepting the fact of piracy as inevitable among the masses, try to except it as inevitable for only a small group of tech savvy individuals.

I propose that they loosen up some laws and allow companies to release harmful files into the torrent universe as long as they make the trade off of lesser DRM. think about it. If you make all the casual pirates unable to find the files they want without digging deep they will go away. It'll probably get torn up here because people are much more knowledgable on the situation that I am. However I think that if somebody is stealing from you, you have the right to go after those people. If that means that some torrents are fed in by a game dev that gives you a hardware ban for that game, then so be it. the only caveat I can see with these types of things is that the harmful torrents have to be clearly identified as to what game/games they are for and that they can only ban you for programs you actually install. these files should not harm any other files or parts of your system.

ok tear me up lol

 

[ekuest]

this whole issue is a vicous catch 22 cycle. I think the real issue is how easy it is to get any content you want at any time for free. Even people with little knowledge of technology can find and use tools to pirate. It's just become way to casual. Just read how responses here are I have pirated or pirate now etc... You want DRM to lighten up then the stance on piracy by the communitoes involved needs to be more stern. Instead of accepting the fact of piracy as inevitable among the masses, try to except it as inevitable for only a small group of tech savvy individuals.

I propose that they loosen up some laws and allow companies to release harmful files into the torrent universe as long as they make the trade off of lesser DRM. think about it. If you make all the casual pirates unable to find the files they want without digging deep they will go away. It'll probably get torn up here because people are much more knowledgable on the situation that I am. However I think that if somebody is stealing from you, you have the right to go after those people. If that means that some torrents are fed in by a game dev that gives you a hardware ban for that game, then so be it. the only caveat I can see with these types of things is that the harmful torrents have to be clearly identified as to what game/games they are for and that they can only ban you for programs you actually install. these files should not harm any other files or parts of your system.

ok tear me up lol

you expect them to fight back against pirate? but if they did that they might win! instead they just choose to buy off government officials and try to get what they want as underhandedly as possible.

 

[Pitbully]

lol, I'll make an exception with you then!

 

[Staples]

you expect them to fight back against pirate? but if they did that they might win! instead they just choose to buy off government officials and try to get what they want as underhandedly as possible.

Seems to be the only option they have. Unless they lower their prices to $0 like the pirates want, they have no other option.

But what I want to know why everyone sees this as unfair. This is how it always has been. If you want to change the laws, you better have a lot of money.

Also, just because congress wants to enforce copyrights, why the hell does is the consensus that they were bought off by the RIAA? I mean, it is easy to prosecute people for child porn too because of some law that went through congress at one time. Were they bought off by the "molested as a child" coalition?

I find the over reaction to SOPA and other similar bills just baffling. I mean, it is no wonder how some people win presidency.

 

[wizdum]

Seems to be the only option they have. Unless they lower their prices to $0 like the pirates want, they have no other option.

But what I want to know why everyone sees this as unfair. This is how it always has been. If you want to change the laws, you better have a lot of money.

Also, just because congress wants to enforce copyrights, why the hell does is the consensus that they were bought off by the RIAA? I mean, it is easy to prosecute people for child porn too because of some law that went through congress at one time. Were they bought off by the "molested as a child" coalition?

I find the over reaction to SOPA and other similar bills just baffling. I mean, it is no wonder how some people win presidency.

They weren't bought off, but its sort of political suicide to say "I am against protecting children from online pornographers". The bill could say that we need to protect the children by killing them all before the pedos get them, and it would still pass.

 

[Bootleg Usher]

Unlimited installs pulled from the cloud.
Unintrusive DRM
Easy one-stop shop for most games at competitive prices
Achievements, friending, chat, voicechat, communities and game-invites/joins across games.
Fast downloads, cloud saves and crazy fast patching
Screenshot taking and sharing, fb integration, in game web browser
I could go on. All of these are incredibly valuable to me. I dislike Origin because it offers few of these and nothing new.

I like it for the patching. Go out and buy Company of Heroes retail box and try to play online, then buy it on Steam and tell me which experience was more enjoyable.

The other point I wanted to make is that people who pirate games without DRM are the ones who are really screwing us. If people bought DRM free games it would show the big publishers like EA and Ubisoft that money can be made without DRM.

 

[MavericK]

I propose that they loosen up some laws and allow companies to release harmful files into the torrent universe as long as they make the trade off of lesser DRM. think about it. If you make all the casual pirates unable to find the files they want without digging deep they will go away. It'll probably get torn up here because people are much more knowledgable on the situation that I am. However I think that if somebody is stealing from you, you have the right to go after those people. If that means that some torrents are fed in by a game dev that gives you a hardware ban for that game, then so be it. the only caveat I can see with these types of things is that the harmful torrents have to be clearly identified as to what game/games they are for and that they can only ban you for programs you actually install. these files should not harm any other files or parts of your system.

I actually think something like this happened awhile back...the RIAA started putting out fake MP3s with viruses or something Pretty sure someone got sued over that one. It was either that, and/or they put out fake files, then tracked who downloaded them and tried to sue them for it (basically entrapment). Either way it did not end well for them.

Plus, it wouldn't solve the problem. If complex DRM can be cracked by pirates in a matter of hours, some random virus would be removed immediately. Plus, knowing the way DRM works now, it's likely that legit users would get the virus where pirates would get off scot-free.

That's one of the main problems with DRM in general; no matter what it is, it will get hacked eventually, and legit users are the only ones who will suffer with it. DRM is clearly not the answer.

 

[MavericK]

Seems to be the only option they have. Unless they lower their prices to $0 like the pirates want, they have no other option.

But what I want to know why everyone sees this as unfair. This is how it always has been. If you want to change the laws, you better have a lot of money.

Also, just because congress wants to enforce copyrights, why the hell does is the consensus that they were bought off by the RIAA? I mean, it is easy to prosecute people for child porn too because of some law that went through congress at one time. Were they bought off by the "molested as a child" coalition?

I find the over reaction to SOPA and other similar bills just baffling. I mean, it is no wonder how some people win presidency.

So many things wrong with this post it's hard to even know where to start...

First you say that it takes money to "buy" laws, and then you argue against the supposition that the RIAA paid to get the law in there? You can't even agree with yourself.

More disturbing is that you think it's okay because that's "how it's always been"...I guess maybe you would have been pro-slavery back in the 1800s as well because, well, that's "how it had always been"?

Your "molester" argument is just ludicrous...not even going to get into that.

 

[Yobbles]

one of the reasons i use steam is that it goes directly to the makers, but even when i do i dont buy the full retail price, i wait for the sales, not only to save some money, but i think that paying the same price for electronic goods as i would for solid goods is a rape.

Huh? Valve takes 30% of the profits.

 

[Yobbles]

Pay for it, and then play it for personal use on whatever device own is perfectly fair imho.
Buy, and crack, to avoid DRM, or online service requirements, legal or not, can hardly be considered immoral.
But, pirating it because it costs too much, or because of your politics, are just bullshit excuses of people that somehow feel they are owed something by society. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. This stuff is not food, or shelter. Music, movies, and games, are all luxury items.

I bet you would have accused a black slave of stealing if he took a drink of water when his overlord said he wasn't allowed to.

 

[Modred189]

I bet you would have accused a black slave of stealing if he took a drink of water when his overlord said he wasn't allowed to.

Really?

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

There are a lot of moral arguments in this thread, but that's not going to get anywhere because morals and ethics are subjective. We could expand on it and argue whether or not its morally right for copyright holders to engage in de facto extortion and threaten people with multi-million dollar lawsuits, pay off politicians for absurd and draconian copyright legislation, tell people what they can and can't do after they've paid for something, or abuse copyright laws for the purpose of engaging in anti-competitive practices and monopolizing an entire industry.

The financial and economic facets are the only ones which can be looked at objectively. These companies are claiming that unauthorized P2P distribution and copying are causing them to lose X amount of money, but not a single independent study has been able to verify this. As a matter of fact, the evidence which has been gathered shows quite the opposite. In spite of the fact that it's been extremely easy to get any form of digital media whether it be music, movies, video games, or computer software since 2001, the entertainment industry has been making money hand over fist. There's also no way to objectively measure exactly how many people would have bought the media had the download not been available, how many people have actually been spurred to purchase media after downloading from a P2P network/cyber locker, or how many people just download for the sake of it because it's there. That being said, if they're going to make the assertion that they're losing X amount of money, then they're going to need to furnish more evidence other than going to a torrent site and multiplying the number of downloads by the actual retail price, and this doesn't look like something that they can actually do.

It looks even worse when you examine the real reason they're so ready to push attrocious legislation like SOPA and PIPA. The entertainment industry controls every channel and medium of distribution, so if you want to be recognized and make it, then you have to go through them. The internet takes this power away because it's the only medium that they don't control. Anyone can put their music, movies, games, and software online and get the recognition that they want. No longer are people limited to artist/movie/game/software du jour. The internet gives people access to any media that they want and not just what the industry has decided will be popular. The entertainment industry has known for a long time that digital distribution was going to be big. It's just that instead of adapting, they want to make sure that their content is the only thing that's available so that they can maintain an archaic business model.

 

[Modred189]

While yo are right in regards to the moral/ethical considerations, the same applies to the issues of economics and industry performance. None of these things are, or should be, considered when it comes to the violation of their rights.
Violated rights are violated rights no matter if it is en masse or if they belong to a multimillion dollar company.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

While yo are right in regards to the moral/ethical considerations, the same applies to the issues of economics and industry performance. None of these things are, or should be, considered when it comes to the violation of their rights.
Violated rights are violated rights no matter if it is en masse or if they belong to a multimillion dollar company.

That's true, but copyright holders aren't the only ones who have rights, and I think that's something that's forgotten whenever this subject comes up.

 

[NoOther]

That's true, but copyright holders aren't the only ones who have rights, and I think that's something that's forgotten whenever this subject comes up.

Yes, but quantifiable measures are needed to be able to defend "rights" of consumers. This is where people talk about morality vs legality. The consumer has no "right" to the content. So they are not losing anything by the execution of copyright and patent law.

Publishers can quantify how much they have "lost" due to pirating. Damages are then based upon that "loss". The issue of the theft, while questionable, is still a measureable quantity. As others have suggested, the legal definitions for software piracy and digital theft need to be penned in legal format with quantifiable measures. Then judges have something to go off of.

Too often people think judges are too old and don't understand our generation or computers or the internet. The problem isn't whether they understand, the problem is what can they do about it? They are obligated to uphold the law based on precedence and legality. If there is not a measureable legal standing somewhere, they are put between a rock and a hard place. No matter what they may think or feel personally, they are still obliged to dictate according to current laws. There are some exceptions to this, but they are not the norm.

 

[Modred189]

That's true, but copyright holders aren't the only ones who have rights, and I think that's something that's forgotten whenever this subject comes up.

Yea, but their rights are the first to exist in regards to the subject matter in question. Isn't there a bit of a 'first come first served" facet to it? Like,my wishes regarding what should be done with my body when I die override my family's, despite my body being their property.

So take a book. The author's rights to that book arise as soon as the words are on the page. he has absolute rights to the book in every way. No one can take it from him. As he goes through the process of printing, publication and distribution, he gives up little slices of those rights to enable these activities.

None of these slices give any real rights to the end user, particularly in the case of non-physical media like digital music, where so much of this rights-pie is reserved.

Do we really want to imply that the rights owner is giving up rights he has not explicitly given up?

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Yea, but their rights are the first to exist in regards to the subject matter in question. Isn't there a bit of a 'first come first served" facet to it? Like,my wishes regarding what should be done with my body when I die override my family's, despite my body being their property.

So take a book. The author's rights to that book arise as soon as the words are on the page. he has absolute rights to the book in every way. No one can take it from him. As he goes through the process of printing, publication and distribution, he gives up little slices of those rights to enable these activities.

None of these slices give any real rights to the end user, particularly in the case of non-physical media like digital music, where so much of this rights-pie is reserved.

Do we really want to imply that the rights owner is giving up rights he has not explicitly given up?

My point is that everyone has rights that need to be protected, not just the copyright holders, and no, there is not a "first come, first serve" facet to it.

End users also have rights such as Fair Use. There's also the right to due process which the entertainment industry wants to take away (SOPA and PIPA).

For example, the media has freedom of the press, but a judge might impose restrictions on how the media can cover a court case because the media's involvement might infringe upon an individual's right to a fair trial.

No one's rights are absolute that they would give them a blank check to do as they please with the subject in question or place them above the law.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Who here ever downloaded porn? Yeah you're a pirate.

Some things we just don't give a shit about.

The end.

 

[Modred189]

My point is that everyone has rights that need to be protected, not just the copyright holders, and no, there is not a "first come, first serve" facet to it.

End users also have rights such as Fair Use. There's also the right to due process which the entertainment industry wants to take away (SOPA and PIPA).

For example, the media has freedom of the press, but a judge might impose restrictions on how the media can cover a court case because the media's involvement might infringe upon an individual's right to a fair trial.

No one's rights are absolute that they would give them a blank check to do as they please with the subject in question or place them above the law.

Fair enough, I suppose, but you miscategorize fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. Essentially, claiming fair use ( and this is where a LOT of people screw up, claiming it right away) is saying, "yes, I have infringed, but my infringement is allowed because it is a fair use."

That being said, don't you give priority to those who had a particular right first, as opposed to a second-comer who wishes to limit those rights? Shouldn't I be able to keep people off of my lawn if I wish? I bought that lawn, it's mine to do with as I wish. Including limiting others' access to it. Just because someone says that they aren't doing any harm doesn't mean I should have to put up with that infringement of my "right to exclude."

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Fair enough, I suppose, but you miscategorize fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right. Essentially, claiming fair use ( and this is where a LOT of people screw up, claiming it right away) is saying, "yes, I have infringed, but my infringement is allowed because it is a fair use."

That being said, don't you give priority to those who had a particular right first, as opposed to a second-comer who wishes to limit those rights? Shouldn't I be able to keep people off of my lawn if I wish? I bought that lawn, it's mine to do with as I wish. Including limiting others' access to it. Just because someone says that they aren't doing any harm doesn't mean I should have to put up with that infringement of my "right to exclude."

Maybe it's not a right by the text book definition, but it is allowed instead of simply being usurped by copyright law. Again, it doesn't give absolute power.

You have the right to keep people off of your lawn, but you don't have the right to mount a machine gun turret on the front porch and blow away anyone who so much as touches a single blade of grass at the edges.

Unfortunately, copyright holders seem to think that holding a copyright does exactly that. The bigger problem here is that copyright law was written long before the internet was around, so it needs to be reformed to take new technologies into account. Allowing copyright holders to do as they please without any regard for the rights of others is not the answer. It's that mentality that's led them to demonize people as "thieves" and "pirates", sue them into submission (which, by the way, has done more to harm their business than any p2p program or download site could ever hope to do), and lobby congress for horrid legislation.

It's really a problem when they start using these copyrights beyond there intended purpose, because as it stands right now they're using them to monopolize an entire industry. Laws like SOPA and PIPA do exactly this. They want to use copyright to shut down websites through a mere accusation of infringement of their statutory rights which infringes on the constitutional rights of others to due process.