Don't Worry About Copy Write Protection!

[Captain Kwok]

David, you must have been one of those guys who thought the additional tax on recordable media here was a good idea - even though it did nothing to stem falling music sales and the extra money went to record companies and not the artists...

A large percentage of pirates would never buy the game under most any circumstance anyway, so it doesn't make sense to punish people who have very legimate reasons for using recordable CDs, DVDS, etc. That's like assuming everyone is guilty and is contrary to our legal system.

[Phoenix-D]

Ah yes, the attitude that "Everyone's guilty, so everyone should pay". Sorry David, that's not really a good idea..and it wouldn't slow piracy much anyway. Unless you also want to tax internet connections..

Oh and you better tax those mass duplication machines as well..because there's a good chunk of the pirating right there.

[Fyron]

Sorry David, but your solution is not even close to solving the problem. With the advent of virtual CD drives, physical media are no longer relevant for piracy. All you have to do is download a CD image, mount it up, and you are good to go. No burning to CD is required. As long as the media can be read by a computer, any copy protection will be hacked. There are a lot of sick bastards out there that like to break copy protection schemes. Your solution does nothing more to stop "casual" piracy than CD copy protection measures already polluting the games market, and those do nothing to stop determined pirates.

Hefty media taxes will only hurt legitimate customers. Want to make a mix CD to listen to on your hour long commute to work? Well now it will cost you $10 above and beyond the cost of the music CDs you purchased in the first place... And then the ludicrous cost of backing up data this would impose...

Oh and you better tax those mass duplication machines as well..because there's a good chunk of the pirating right there.

Exactly... the people making money off of piracy have mass duplication machines at their disposal. It just isn't efficient if it is taking you 4-6 minutes to burn each CD, one by one. Not that this is an argument in favor of taxing them...

Look at VHS tapes. Content providers cried foul over how piracy on tape would ruin their industries. What really happened? A huge new industry of video tape sales and rental sprung up, creating a huge cash cow for them... Same thing with cassette tapes.

[Atrocities]

I have spent over $10,000.00 on music since 1990. Easily. I just bought two new CD's the other day, well used via Amazon, but still new to me.

The appeal of downloading music is a simple one, availablity. You can often find the songs, albums, or whatever it is that you are specifically looking for without having to endure all the crap that you don't want to hear.

But nothing compares to having it on CD, authentic real Music CD from the stores.

[Azselendor]

DEG's method would go a long way to help curb piracy. But it won't stop, as fyron said, people with virtual drives. However, if you tax media duplication devices, office theft of blank cd's would rise and shoplifting as pirates aren't detered by taxation.

Here's what I'd do.

1.) Have ISP's block ports used by peer-to-peer systems and ones that can be used.
2.) Require all servers to have a domain name if it is accessable to the web. This allows pirates to be hunted down and found. Domains can only be registered to valid mail addresses, no po boxes (but I'd allow an exemption for rural locations by means of a special application).
3.) Sites containing porn must use a .XXX extention as proposed. Many warez sites have prono advertisers and we can force them into the .xxx domain type and then use ISP's to lock them out.
4.) Levy taxes against companies that manufacture recordable media software, hardware, and media. Individuals that make the software can be made liable for infringment suits if their software is involved in piracy.
5.) Create a system of financial rewards for the successful capture and conviction of pirates. This will seriously harm flea-market pirates.
6.) Make piracy penalties involve a mandatory prison sentance and fine, not one or the other and up to limits.
7.) Require pirates to register in a national database distributed to computer companies and retailers when caught. Much like how sex offenders can't work or live near children, we want to make sure pirates are run out of computing for good.

Now that won't stop pirates, just really give them a bad day. We need to combat this on the industry level as piracy is rampant in price-senstive nations and areas where $50+ price tags on software is insane.

[Atrocities]

Lets fill up the jails with people who make illegal copies of software and music instead of the creal criminals. The only way to stop piracy is to simply outlaw the technology.

[Suicide Junkie]

1) You mean block *all* ports? That's the only way its gonna happen.

2) IOW, destroy load balancing, and put every PC in the DMZ? No routers or NAT or serious firewalls?

3) Who's definition? Who enforces it? Take this simplified version, and see if you still think it will be possible:
You don't even need the ISP part. Just have them all change their names to "something.not-a-TLD" so they don't resolve.

4) That makes zero difference from today. The costs all get passed on to the consumer in the same way.

5) If police aren't going to take up free tips, why would they pay for them? And who is going to pay for that; You, in taxes.

6&7) Cranking penalties beyond reason dosen't help the issue. It may reduce some copyright infringement, but it certainly dosen't anywhere near fit the crime.
At what point does murdering the witness become less of a crime than getting caught copying something?


The REAL SOLUTION
- Stop screwing around, and parent your kids properly. Take responsibility.

[Renegade 13]

Oh man, where to start!??

First off, David and KlvinoHRGA, I respect both your opinions but I am forced to disagree with you both, adamently.

I'll start of with David

Taxing/increasing the price of recording software, hardware and media will not stop piracy. Most piracy does not require those things at all, as others have mentioned. The only thing this might stop is the people on the streetcorners selling bootlegged material. Might. At the cost of every single person who wants to back up information from their computer to a safe location.

Lets say I have a couple kids, and I love videotaping them. Or even my cats. I love cats, maybe I have a lot of video of them. This video quickly eats up hard drive space, so I want to back it up. But why should I have to pay $200-250 for the burner plus the expenses of the media to record it on? Because it's assumed that if I use those things, that I'm a pirate? Do I deserve that? Do we in a free society assume guilt before innocence? No, that is not the solution. People making legitimate backups should not be punished, when those people are in the vast majority over the people who use such devices to pirate. It'd be like hugely increasing the price of electricity, just to try and cut down on the marijuana grow-ops!!

Anything that I wanted to pirate would not require burners, blank media, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm no pirate. I earn the money to buy the things I want. But there's no need for all the hardware.


Now, KlvinoHRGA My opinion.

On your point #1, I have no opinion.
Point #2, well you'd be excluding a lot of Canada right there. Huge areas of Canada only have PO boxes. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to get international cooperation on things like this, which, practically, would not happpen.
Point #3, no opinion.
Point #4....here's where I vehemently disagree with you. Holding people liable for the way their products are used is, in my own opinion, the worst thing that could possibly be done. Think of what it would open the door to. People would want to hold Ford responsible for making the car that someone ran down and killed someone in. Gun manufacturers could be held responsible if one of their guns was used in a crime. The software that is used in piracy has many legit uses. Our legal systems are not predicated on the "guilty until proven innocent" idea. People can not be held responsible for the actions of others, that would be just another extension of the rampant feeling nowadays that it's someone elses fault that I did something wrong. There's already too much of that.
Point #5, go for it. Don't think it'd work, but it wouldn't hurt legitimate consumers.
Point #6, sure. But you'd have to define the term "piracy" much better. People who download the pirated copies, or people who crack and create and distribute the illegal copies? But if you mean the people who 'just' download the illegal copies...well if you don't even go to prison for multiple car thefts, why would you go to prison for a $40 theft? You sure don't if you shoplift that much!
Point #7, seems a little overboard. If you already implemented #6 and that didn't stop them, no database will stop them.

That's about it for me. My main point is this; just don't punish the multiple legitimate users that exist for every one illegit user. Don't presume everyone is guilty, or make everyone suffer monetarily.

[Alneyan]

Suicide Junkie said:
1) You mean block *all* ports? That's the only way its gonna happen.

[Sarcasm] Don't be silly. It may be possible to allow some ports from trusted sources. So, you could still bask in the glory of port 53or port 137 , so long as you stick with approved servers. There are probably a few other such services, where all traffic can be routed to a few, trusted servers.

Yeah, so perhaps you will lose access to a handful of ports. Well, it's not as if they were actually important. I mean, who uses port 25, port 80 or port 110? And don't start complaining about ports 22 and 23: only crackers and hackers (them are the same exact thing) have any use for them. [/Sarcasm]

Yup, ain't gonna happen, unless you really want to be stuck with DNS, NTP and their ilk (in a best case scenario; closing down everything ought to be faster and easier). And you should really close down port 80 to begin with: it's probably the one most used for downloads of all sorts. It also happens to be used by the HTTP protocol, but hey, who cares about that? Well, perhaps you would.

[Suicide Junkie]

I do.

After the servers for FTP, HTTP, and etc, I've got lots and lots for games.

Besides, you can always use any port for any purpose you like.
Limiting them just means more hassle for users who have to turn X off inorder to free up a port for Y.