# The end of a copyright experiment. RIAA shows its true colors. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 29, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050 "2012-08-29T17:11:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/1 "2012-08-29T17:11:36Z")
UKNova was an interesting experiment in copyright ethics. They sucessfully operated for years under a strict set of rules. No music. No movies. Only British tv shows allowed. Nothing ever released on DVD could be posted there. They only kept British tv show content up for thirty days. If news of a dvd release came out, they immediately took down their torrent of that show. The admins at UKNova were real hard asses abut the rules. They followed them to the letter. They weren’t hiding in a foreign country either. Operated openly in Britain. RIAA shut them down this week. :rolleyes: Sooner or later some sort of compromise has to be found between the RIAA and fans of tv. UKNova could have been just the model that worked. Interesting article on a ethical tracker and an opportunity lost. What do you think about this experiment? Isn’t there some way a compromise can be found? Does it have to be all or nothing with the RIAA? [http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/digital-policy/2012/08/the-missed-opportunity-in-the-closure-of-torrent-tracker-uk-nova/index.htm](http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/digital-policy/2012/08/the-missed-opportunity-in-the-closure-of-torrent-tracker-uk-nova/index.htm) > [@](#): > > In this case the team running UK Nova policed their own content. No content was allowed on the site that was commercially available. So anything available for example on DVD, on paid or free streaming services, currently showing on TV or in the cinema was disallowed. > > The site, its owners claim, was there to provide links to rare content unavailable elsewhere. > > It doesn’t take a well-paid copyright lawyer to point out that even content not currently commercially available is still protected by copyright. > > K Nova wanted to avoid infringing on commercial profits by disallowing content that was commercially available elsewhere. > > But copyright infringement is not couched in terms of commercial profits; so, on the surface, this puts the ‘ethical’ torrent tracker in the category of not evil but legally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/2 "2012-08-29T17:21:51Z")
Yes, I know it was UK trade body FACT, the Federation Against Copyright Theft that closed them down. FACT and RIAA have similar goals. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/3 "2012-08-29T17:33:09Z")
To be honest, I can’t generate any outrage. They were providing copyrighted content without permission of the copyright holders. The fact that is “wasn’t commercially available elsewhere” is irrelevant. The person who creates something gets to decide how it’s used; that can include “not at all.” There’s no moral requirement that everything someone wants to see be available. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/4 "2012-08-29T17:50:54Z")
I wonder if it being taken down, and the very recent launch of [4Seven](http://www.channel4.com/explore/4seven/), are related? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/5 "2012-08-29T18:43:31Z")
“Unavailable” does not mean “out of copyright.” Simple way out: “Your material is unavailable online. May we have permission to use it?” That’s the ethical way. Any other way is copyright violation. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/6 "2012-08-29T19:10:02Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Simple way out: “Your material is unavailable online. May we have permission to use it?” > > That’s the ethical way. Any other way is copyright violation. And if the answer is “No”, that’s the end of the discussion. You’re not entitled to a reason, and if one is given, it’s not subject to your approval. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/7 "2012-08-29T19:13:50Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > To be honest, I can’t generate any outrage. They were providing copyrighted content without permission of the copyright holders. The fact that is “wasn’t commercially available elsewhere” is irrelevant. > > The person who creates something gets to decide how it’s used; that can include “not at all.” There’s no moral requirement that everything someone wants to see be available. > [@Doug\_K](#): > > And if the answer is “No”, that’s the end of the discussion. You’re not entitled to a reason, and if one is given, it’s not subject to your approval. Yes and yes. I don’t know what “true colors” are being shown here except that copyright owners will insist that their works be used only with their authorization. There’s nothing controversial about that. And, frankly, I have trouble coming up with any sympathy for yet another business plan that is based on profiting from content created by other people without compensating them for it. It’s pretty damn simple, if you didn’t make it, you have to ask permission to use it. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/8 "2012-08-29T19:19:38Z")
I don`t understand why we have to pretend there’s some elusive model that will someday be found that permits content creators to co-exist with the Internet. If the networks don’t stream it for free I buy my shows legally on iTunes (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc). I watch lots of older stuff on Netflix. I guess if I was more into TV I might be frustrated by the unavailability of truly obscure stuff. But I think I’d be frustrated that the copyright holders haven’t found a way to make it available for a fair price, not that I couldn’t watch it for free. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/9 "2012-08-29T19:25:12Z")
And I’m wondering why an American music industry association is being called out when what we’re talking about is British TV shows. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/10 "2012-08-29T19:33:53Z")
RIAA has become a catch all name for the copyright wars. They are the most aggressive. There are several other organizations out there. Different names in different countries. Sooner or later the archaic copyright laws will get updated for the digital world. But, for now the RIAA and their buddies have the upper hand. No one questions that there is a need for copyright. But there also needs to be digital rights for consumers to. Now we have digital books, music, film, tv. The laws need updating. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/11 "2012-08-29T19:43:41Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > No one questions that there is a need for copyright. But there also needs to be digital rights for consumers to. Now we have digital books, music, film, tv. The laws need updating. It depends on what you mean by “digital rights for consumers.” If you mean “the right to use someone else’s work without permission just because I want to,” then, no, I don’t agree that the laws need updating in this sense. Regardless of whether digital technology exists or not, it is the copyright owner’s legal–and I say moral as well–right to determine whether anyone gets to see it and if so under what terms. No one _needs_ to see a particular TV show, so I don’t see exactly where the consumer’s right is being unfairly curtailed here. Leaving aside the issue of fair use for the moment, consumers don’t have rights until they have legally obtained a copy of a work, and it’s the copyright owner’s right to decide whether and how any such works will be created and distributed. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/12 "2012-08-29T19:52:29Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > RIAA has become a catch all name for the copyright wars. They are the most aggressive. There are several other organizations out there. Different names in different countries. Different organizations in different countries with different constituencies and different interests that make different decisions to take different actions in different places at different times. It makes no sense to use the RIAA as a catch-all, especially in a situation–involving _British TV shows_–in which it is unlikely that the RIAA–again, an _American music industry_ organization–has a major if any role. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/13 "2012-08-29T22:35:29Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > I guess if I was more into TV I might be frustrated by the unavailability of truly obscure stuff. But I think I’d be frustrated that the copyright holders haven’t found a way to make it available for a fair price, not that I couldn’t watch it for free. I am _very_ into TV, I’m quite frustrated that some obscure stuff isn’t available. But one of the reasons I’m very into TV is that I respect the people who make it. They get to decide when, how, and even if it’s distributed or to sell the rights to make those decisions. Just because I really want to watch something doesn’t mean I get to. That’s a bizarre sense of entitlement to think that it’s your _right_ to watch a tv show. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/14 "2012-08-30T00:26:50Z")
Back to the OP. If you walk around with a Louisville Slugger then you can pretty much bash heads all you want. That doesn’t make you a good or righteous person. Even if you occasionally bash a bad guy. I saw UKNova as an experiment. Setup a closely moderated tracker that really tried hard not to step on anybody’s profits. Basically a olive branch held out to the RIAA and other publishers. Everybody knows the law is on their side. They can bash people with impunity. But, how would they react to a tracker that _tried_ to do the right thing? Well, they swung the club. Fine. That makes them the most bad ass dude on the Internet. At least now we know there’s no meeting these guys half way. No one was challenging the law. They were simply testing to see if these guys had any interest in meeting the Internet half-way. This war has been fought since the Napster days in 98. It would be nice if some sort of middle ground could be worked out. But, the other side is out for total destruction. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/15 "2012-08-30T00:35:07Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I saw UKNova as an experiment. Setup a closely moderated tracker that really tried hard not to step on anybody’s profits. Basically a olive branch held out to the RIAA and other publishers. Everybody knows the law is on their side. They can bash people with impunity. But, how would they react to a tracker that _tried_ to do the right thing? You keep saying that, but they _didn’t try to do the right thing_. They tried to do something illegal, but pretend they weren’t. They did not have the right to distribute the material they were distributing. The “right thing” would have been to acquire those rights, or to not distribute the material. Companies acquire rights to use stuff every day without getting “RIAA” attention. The process isn’t even hard; I’ve done it a couple times. I don’t think you’re understanding the near-ubiquitous comments here. You’re assuming that there’s some requirement (or should be some requirement) that people get to have access to everything, regardless of the wishes of the person who created it. There isn’t, and I’d argue strenuously that there shouldn’t be. _You do not have the right to the works of others_ just because they chose not to share them with you. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/16 "2012-08-30T00:37:45Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I saw UKNova as an experiment. Setup a closely moderated tracker that really tried hard not to step on anybody’s profits. Basically a olive branch held out to the RIAA and other publishers. Everybody knows the law is on their side. They can bash people with impunity. But, how would they react to a tracker that _tried_ to do the right thing? In this case, who _tried_ to do the right thing? UKNova? Nope. The right thing is not using someone else’s work without permission. Period. It doesn’t matter how much you try “really hard not to step on anybody’s profits.” If you didn’t get their permission, you didn’t do the right thing. Or, what TimeWinder said. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/17 "2012-08-30T00:47:16Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > “Unavailable” does not mean “out of copyright.” > > Simple way out: “Your material is unavailable online. May we have permission to use it?” > > That’s the ethical way. Any other way is copyright violation. It isn’t simple; quite often there’s no clear copyright holder in the first place. And “copyright” is not a synonym for “ethics”. Copyright is a legal principle that was established to encourage the creation and selling of creative works ([and is presently failing](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5139522) [to do its job properly](http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2005/03/66696)), not an ethical principle. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/18 "2012-08-30T00:53:53Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Back to the OP. > > If you walk around with a Louisville Slugger then you can pretty much bash heads all you want. That doesn’t make you a good or righteous person. Even if you occasionally bash a bad guy. > > I saw UKNova as an experiment. Setup a closely moderated tracker that really tried hard not to step on anybody’s profits. Basically a olive branch held out to the RIAA and other publishers. Everybody knows the law is on their side. They can bash people with impunity. But, how would they react to a tracker that _tried_ to do the right thing? > > Well, they swung the club. Fine. That makes them the most bad ass dude on the Internet. At least now we know there’s no meeting these guys half way. No one was challenging the law. They were simply testing to see if these guys had any interest in meeting the Internet half-way. > > This war has been fought since the Napster days in 98. It would be nice if some sort of middle ground could be worked out. But, the other side is out for total destruction. Sorry dude, you’re wrong on this one. They violated the copyrights. End of story. And what does “meeting the Internet half-way” mean? Let some people get away with it some of the time? That’s a great way to get everyone saying “Well you let THEM do it!!” ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/19 "2012-08-30T00:59:49Z")
The issue isn’t black & white. There are grey areas in how copyright should be applied. For example, I’m strongly against anyone releasing a current movie on the Internet. I understand the studios have a huge investment in a major motion picture. I don’t want to see anyone undercut their theater ticket sales and their dvd sales. They made the product and deserve every penny of profit they can make. The same goes for music that’s released. Don’t undercut a band’s sales. They worked hard creating that album. I do think copyright should expire after a few years. It’s hard to get excited about someone sharing an out of print cd from the 1970’s. Or some movie made in the 1960’s. But, for the time being we’re stuck with the archaic copyright laws. Laws written a century before digital media even existed. Eventually, I’d like to see much shorter copyright ownership. Maybe 20 years? For movies and music? That’s just a number I’m throwing out there. After 20 years the material could be shared non-profit. Anyone that wanted to make a profit off the material would have to wait much longer. Anyway, that’s something the various legislatures around the world will have to work out. The Internet is a huge place. Lots of those people vote and eventually changes in copyright law will come. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/20 "2012-08-30T01:05:11Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > You keep saying that, but they _didn’t try to do the right thing_. They tried to do something illegal, but pretend they weren’t. They did not have the right to distribute the material they were distributing. The “right thing” would have been to acquire those rights, or to not distribute the material. Exactly. The reason some obscure show is not available on DVD might be that it’s not commercially viable - not enough people will buy it to make it worthwhile mastering, pressing, distributing and marketing the discs. Making it available online could well be profitable for the copyright holder. Just because they haven’t yet done so doesn’t give anyone the right to jump in ahead of them and make it available free of charge. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050.md?page=2)