Piracy

[Brendy]

I'm going to use this forum as my personal confessional.

I engage in alot of online pirating. I download movies, some software, pc games, and ebooks all illegally. Some examples: Rosetta stone (to learn spanish), Counterstrike (to take my aggression out on noobs), and the entire 5 seasons of Entourage (for the awesome entertainment it provides).

It use to be that there was no legal online source for movies. They were very behind on this method of dispersement. But even though I can buy movies on itunes now, I still don't.

I don't even have to justify it to myself. I just don't care.

Ok, i'll try to justify it a little. I personally would never buy the products I download. It's not the same as theft because no one loses money. I won't subscribe to HBO if torrents suddenly disappeared because I can't afford it. I wouldn't purchase Rosetta Stone; it'd instead use legally free online tools to learn it or more likely never attempt to learn it at all.

That justification breaks down with movies though. Now I wouldn't go to the movies more if filesharing disappeared but I would rent movies more. So they do lose some money there.

The only thing that would make me stop is a credible threat of legal action against me. For example the only reason I didn't use to speed on the streets is because the threat of getting pulled over. Now that i'm grown up a little, I just go slow because I'm a granny.

Oh and there's pirating porn. But i'm not including that because EVERYONE pirates porn. I'm mean really, who are these people paying for porn? I don't know anyone who does.

Now I know I'm stealing people's hard work and ideas, but again I just don't care.

So my questions are what are everyone's opinions on filesharing and pirating, and which level of hell to pirates go to.

I know I sound like a bad person, but it's just so easy I can't help myself.

[TragicMonkey]

I, too, must confess to piracy. From 1723 through 1756, I captained the ship Monstrosity under the alias "Captain Bloodbuckets". In that time I captured and plundered 4,002 ships. I made the crews walk the planks, haul the keels, and poop the decks. I committed slaughter, murder, killing, slaying, and deathdealing. I looted, stole, plundered, robbed, burgled, and misappropriated. I did saucy things with my crew when we were long of out port. I kept forty mistresses in fifty countries. And I had a long beard that I kept a blunderbuss inside, for emergencies. And when I was caught and sent to be hanged, I flirted my way out of it. I admit it all. I committed all the sins and invented many new ones. And it did it all with extreme gusto, and a pet monkey named Mr Cheekers who rode around on my shoulder after he ate the parrot that had preceded him there.

[Bikewer]

Me too. I plead poverty, mostly. Money is really tight, and I really did want to play Fallout 3, which is 50.00 for the PC.
I get a lot of my music via bit torrent, but I also justify this by the fact that much of the stuff I download is obscure/commercially unavailable, such as live concert material from bluegrass or singer/songwriter types.
Normally, if we really like an artist, we'll make the effort to go see them in concert, and buy a CD there.
Likewise, I have some scruples about gaming; I will play a pirated game in single-player mode, but I will not use a cheat or crack to play online; I see too many complaints from guys who say, "Hey, I bought this game and when I tried to join a game it said my code was already in use!"
As to porn....I really wonder about this. As a theoretical, let's say that some individual likes material from one of the subscription sites. Go to eMule or any of a number of Bittorrent sites, and there the material will be, usually the latest segment, usually well-edited and in high resolution.
Who is doing this? You'd think the producers would almost have to be complicit in this, using the download material as a form of advertising? It's hard to imagine someone shelling out hard money for this footage and then putting it up in a torrent out of the goodness of their hearts....
Folks hacking into the sites? I suppose....Seems like a lot of work for little (ie=no) return.

[Alkatran]

I find the moral problem very interesting.

If you can't afford to buy a movie, then by copying it you haven't harmed the seller. You haven't even stolen a 'potential' sale. In that case I don't think pirating is wrong. You gain something at no cost to anyone. How can that be wrong?

But suppose you have enough money for one movie, and want two movies. Buying a movie isn't wrong and once you've bought one movie, copying the other one isn't wrong. But now it seems like you've taken something from the maker of the other movie, because you could have paid them instead of the makers of the movie you paid for. It seems like the correct thing to do is send half the price of a movie to each maker.

In the end, that's really what it comes down to. You can pay the same amount of money, and watch more movies. If you're paying out the same amount of money as you would have without pirating, then you're not in the wrong, because you aren't taking potential sales. Essentially the price of a movie drops like a rock, but the number of movies watched skyrockets to balance it out. That is the reality of our time.

[TragicMonkey]

Except that you're jerks for not spending the cash. Look, losers, if you can't afford something it means you don't deserve it. Go work some overtime. Make a little lunch money the oldfashioned way if you really, really need to play Bratz: Pony Pals Farm so badly. Cash in some of your food stamps.

For the love of monkeys, people, you're talking about entertainment. It's not a need! It's a luxury! And you're thieves, dirty, dirty thieves, for stealing it! "Oh, I'm too poor to buy x"....well, maybe you'd not be too poor if you spent the time you'll spend playing your stolen version doing, I don't know, something like working?

[geni]

I find the moral problem very interesting.

If you can't afford to buy a movie, then by copying it you haven't harmed the seller. You haven't even stolen a 'potential' sale. In that case I don't think pirating is wrong. You gain something at no cost to anyone. How can that be wrong?

One of the rights that copyright grants is the right of the artists to control the distribution of their work. By pirateing you are takeing that right away.

[The Atheist]

I find the moral problem very interesting.

Do you?

I don't even see a moral problem.

It's there, it's free, it's yours.

[quixotecoyote]

The only thing I'll pirate now is abandonware that isn't available for purchase anymore. Of course, that's less of a problem now with places like Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com) popping up that not only sell old software, but have ported it to modern operating systems.

While I agree its morally wrong to infringe copyright, it isn't thievery. You aren't taking anything from anyone. You're damaging the business model set up to compensate content providers, while while also wrong, is not close to the same thing. It annoys me when people conflate the terms.

I used to download music and games as a freshman in college. I was drunk on the power of unlimited high speed internet. :blush:

However, I wised up pretty quick and realized I was using a service without paying for it. Stealing cable was the analogy that made it click for me.

eta:
A comment from Steven Peeler (http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/2008/08/depths-of-peril-creator-steven-peeler.html), creator of the excellent Depths of Peril (http://www.soldak.com/Depths-of-Peril/Overview.html):

Steven Peeler: The biggest struggle has simply been to get enough attention so that we can make enough sales to continue. We’ve already created an innovative, fun game, but getting the world to notice that is harder, possibly even harder than making the game in the first place.

Personally my biggest disappointment is how much piracy that goes on in the PC market. Since we are a small developer, that has a hard time getting attention, you would think we would have very little piracy. Unfortunately, that’s not the case at all. It’s depressing how many sites are pirating Depths of Peril. What’s even worse is that after working on the game for almost 3 years, some #$%^ posts a crack on some pirate site, and the forum users thank him. I even saw one pirate site that was getting donations. Sigh, ok, enough on piracy, it’s depressing even typing this.l

[Tiktaalik]

I don't pirate things online. First of all, I can't. I have a dial-up connection. I can't even watch Youtube. But I probably wouldn't anyway.

But I did take all my LPs, including 45s, and burned them to .wav files & then converted the .wavs to mp3. And I convert my CDs to mp3 and put them on my mp3 player. Technically that is piracy since I have now created up to 3 different versions of each album without re-buying it. I suppose the same thing applied when I used to make tapes of my records, but I never thought about it. And I don't feel particularly guilty about it.

[quixotecoyote]

I don't pirate things online. First of all, I can't. I have a dial-up connection. I can't even watch Youtube. But I probably wouldn't anyway.

But I did take all my LPs, including 45s, and burned them to .wav files & then converted the .wavs to mp3. And I convert my CDs to mp3 and put them on my mp3 player. Technically that is piracy since I have now created up to 3 different versions of each album without re-buying it. I suppose the same thing applied when I used to make tapes of my records, but I never thought about it. And I don't feel particularly guilty about it.

Yeah, that's the grey area I find acceptable. I've paid the artist for their work, now they need to butt out with the DRM/coyprotection crap.

[geni]

Do you?

I don't even see a moral problem.

It's there, it's free, it's yours.

That aproach has the slight problem that it applies to everything.
It's there, it's free, if someone tries to stop you neutralise them.

[geni]

Yeah, that's the grey area I find acceptable. I've paid the artist for their work, now they need to butt out with the DRM/coyprotection crap.

You didn't pay them for their work. You paid for a copy of their work that you could use under certian conditions.

[Lanzy]

Brendy, If you don't care, why are you confessing?

Oh wait, nevermind, I really don't care.

[LibraryLady]

So, you work for two weeks, you complete the project you've been assigned to do, and then your boss refuses to pay you for it. Hey, he has it, no harm no foul. You can make another one and get someone else to pay for it. No matter that that's twice the work for one return. If the next person agrees to pay you for it.

Thanks, but I prefer that people get paid for the hard work they do.

[quixotecoyote]

You didn't pay them for their work. You paid for a copy of their work that you could use under certian conditions.

Conditions which are both unreasonable, unethical, and unnecessary for the continued functioning of the business model.

Sorry geni, but I see nothing wrong with buying a copy of a game and then cracking it to play it without the cd. Nor do I see anything wrong with buying a cd and then transferring the songs onto an ipod. The artist got paid and the attempts to force me to artificially limit functionality or pay twice for the same product are simply ********.

[I Ratant]

Copying, that is, copying something you have already purchased, for your own use, that's legitimate.
Burning copies to share with Biff and Corky and Sam, that's illegal.
Going on the 'net with the purpose of ripping off what is available for purchase, I do believe that's petty larceny!
Arrrrrrrrr... To the yardarm wit yez!

[tomwaits]

Conditions which are both unreasonable, unethical, and unnecessary for the continued functioning of the business model.

And yet you agreed to it.

[quixotecoyote]

Copying, that is, copying something you have already purchased, for your own use, that's legitimate.

Actually it isn't. If the media has any copyprotection on it, you can't copy it. That's actually illegal under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml).

So if your cd has copy protection, but you use software that defeats that protection in order to listen to it on your ipod, congratulations, you're as bad as someone who didn't pay for the cd at all.

[quixotecoyote]

And yet you agreed to it.

Nope. I deny the implicit agreement.

Hell, I deny the explicit agreements in software EULA's as a form of unfair contractual negotiation.

eta: I claim a right to copy, reproduce, and modify content I pay for, so long as I do not distribute it or otherwise interfere with the artist's right to be paid for his/her work (for example, using multiple copies instead of buying a site license). Therefore I have no qualms about ignoring licensing agreements that arbitrarily infringe that right. Granted, the government does not recognize that right and so it may be taken away as technology permits better policing tactics, but I'm comfortable on moral/ethical grounds.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is a difference between the way that the software industry and the others handle piracy. This is because when people illegally download software that costs hundreds of dollars, they probably would not have bought it in the first place, and the company can entice them to buy it with upgrades and support and the like.

Music and movies, on the other hand, are not something that people literally "wouldn't be able to afford in the first place".

[geni]

Conditions which are both unreasonable, unethical, and unnecessary for the continued functioning of the business model.

Sorry geni, but I see nothing wrong with buying a copy of a game and then cracking it to play it without the cd. Nor do I see anything wrong with buying a cd and then transferring the songs onto an ipod. The artist got paid and the attempts to force me to artificially limit functionality or pay twice for the same product are simply ********.

Sometimes you have to wounder if it was worth beating napoleon. You purchased it under certian terms. If you don't like those terms you are free to try and negotiate different ones. The alternative (that governments should interfere with the rights to make and agree contracts in the area of intellectual property) causes all sorts of issues.

[geni]

Actually it isn't. If the media has any copyprotection on it, you can't copy it. That's actually illegal under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml).

So if your cd has copy protection, but you use software that defeats that protection in order to listen to it on your ipod, congratulations, you're as bad as someone who didn't pay for the cd at all.

CDs haven't commonly had DRM on them for some time.

[The Atheist]

That aproach has the slight problem that it applies to everything.
It's there, it's free, if someone tries to stop you neutralise them.

False analogy.

If I buy a cabbage, nobody may tell me who I can give it to. I see no reason why a video or song should be treated differently.

[quixotecoyote]

Sometimes you have to wounder if it was worth beating napoleon. You purchased it under certian terms. If you don't like those terms you are free to try and negotiate different ones.

:dl:

The alternative (that governments should interfere with the rights to make and agree contracts in the area of intellectual property) causes all sorts of issues.

Hardly, they do it already. They define what intellectual property is and what the intellectual property owner's rights are. I think they're wrong about what they should be.

In case you're wondering, I also support the movement to outlaw the mandatory arbitration that's a part of almost all car deals and a growing number of other transactions.

[quixotecoyote]

CDs haven't commonly had DRM on them for some time.

Put it the other way around then. You bought a Wal-Mart DRM'ed mp3 and put it on cd. That'll be a civil liability please. Granted, they're moving away from that disaster, but the point is solid.

[quixotecoyote]

False analogy.

If I buy a cabbage, nobody may tell me who I can give it to. I see no reason why a video or song should be treated differently.

Unless you have a magical cabbage copier, this analogy fails; since once you give your cabbage away, you don't have it anymore.

[shadron]

These single ownership copy points haven't been challenged in court yet (and neither have the shrink-wrapped EULAs, BTW). There is plenty of argument that they fall under the fair-use provisions of the older copyright law and should be allowed; the reasoning is very close to that which does allow users to make copies of broadcast shows for their own use, explicitly allowed by the courts under fair-use in the beta-max decision (see http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/betamaxcase/betamaxcase.htm). The reason they are not in the DCMA, according to many is because once multiple copies are in hand it is simply too easy to give them away to friends, which is most certainly not covered by fair-use. I've heard recording company lawyers complain that fair-use should be struck from the copyright law, so that snippets couldn't be copied for illustrational or educational use, but I have doubts that a legislative act will ever see that happen. The DCMA didn't touch it, for example.

Legally speaking, making a copy of a copyrighted work for any reason, unless you can justify fair-use (and it is quite well defined in the law) is illegal. The DCMA adds that if you avoid any copy protection scheme to do the copy in any case, you are also illegal. And, as Geni pointed out, after the Sony root-kit debacle many labels have discontinued using DRM (digital rights management) on the CD/DVDs, just as Windows Vista finally started enforcing it (giggle!).

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Everyone knows it's only stealing if you use violence, and even then only if you're taking stuff from, you know, like, poor people and stuff. It's like shoplifting from Wal-Mart. They expect you to shoplift a little bit. As long as it's little things, they won't even know. They plan for it in their budgets. If your grandma leaves her purse unattended, and you slip out a couple of bucks, she's not gonna remember how much she had in there. What's wrong with that? And if some guy is dumb enough to leave his car unlocked, and you take his CD's, well, that's his own fault. As long as you're not breaking the window or something. Well, I guess if it was an expensive car, like a BMW or something, I suppose breaking the window would be okay, 'cause the guy could afford it, right?

[geni]

False analogy.

If I buy a cabbage, nobody may tell me who I can give it to. I see no reason why a video or song should be treated differently.

It isn't. Buy a DVD and you can give that DVD to whoever you like. Buy the rights to distribute copies of the DVD and you can distribute copies to whoever you like.

[pounce]

there are numerous, obvious problems with the op's premise.

While the technological ability to take something without paying for it exists, those items are NOT FREE. You are simply taking them without paying for them. Technically it's a copyright violation wrt to law being broken when you do this. And yes, it's illegal and unethical. I still think it can be called stealing, as that term still describes the behavior of taking a commercial product without paying for it. The fact that you are talking about information not affixed to a physical medium has apparently confused the issue, at least for people who's sense of personal responsibilty or ethics is weak. Producing music is something I do. I want my works to be purchased on iTunes, not taken from me without any patronage. I don't reaaly like the term piracy. I think it's more like looting. Some selfish herd mentality takes over and otherwise normal people sense the opportunity to help themselves because "everyone" is doing it. Were the roles reversed, nobody would put up with having THEIR work taken from them without compensation. Why anyone feels entitled to help themselves boggles my mind. And yes, I think it tells me plenty about their character. I still live by the idea that what we do when we think we won't get caught is in fact the true realization of our character. The riaa legally pursuing illegal filesharers was quite unpopular, and I have mixed feelings about their efforts. But I do wish there were repurcussions for those who help themselves without paying. This is not about food on the table. This is entertainment and such. The fact that you want these things inherently demonstrates that these items, be they songs or movies or whatever, have value and are in demand. This illegal filesharing tends to devalue these works and attempts to turn them into a commodity, which I think is the wrong way to talk about things like music. Done without guilt tells me more about the op than it does to inform anyone about the real consequences for all of those trying to create works. In fact, in the information age, with so much being tranferred as digital files I'm concerned about the lack of respect for their value. When I want music and such I buy it. It's that simple really.

[D'rok]

These single ownership copy points haven't been challenged in court yet (and neither have the shrink-wrapped EULAs, BTW).

Sorry, just have to correct you on this. They have indeed been challenged in court, and based on this case, they are enforceable contracts:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=961139

Carry on

[Oliver]

Personally I used to download everything when the Internet was new to me
a decade ago. Nowadays it isn't exiting anymore.

[Jackalgirl]

It isn't. Buy a DVD and you can give that DVD to whoever you like.

And you don't keep the original DVD. You have gifted it, whole, upon someone else. Totally okay.

Buy the rights to distribute copies of the DVD and you can distribute copies to whoever you like.

Also absolutely correct. Although simply buying the DVD does not confer the right to distribute copies (I think this is your point, actually, and I just want to underscore it).

I don't pirate stuff because I believe I generally assume that the artist(s) gets a cut, in some form, of the profit of sales. If I were to make a copy of the work and hand that off to someone else, I have just taken the artist's(s') cut away. If I like the work -- and respect the artist(s) -- then I will honor the work and the artist(s) by making sure that the artist(s) gets his/her/their cut, and I will not insult him/her/them by denying it to them.

If the work is something I'm not interested in, I won't bother with it at all. It would be a waste of bandwidth and storage space to even consider downloading it.

If I am not sure whether I want a work or not, I can always a) borrow it from a friend or family member for review before deciding to buy, b) rent it (usually not too expensive) or c) consult that wondrous and magical place known as "the library". One or the other is likely to have it and that way I can find out what's up and whether I want to add the work to my library after all -- by obtaining it legally.

I do understand that in many cases, the artist sells his/her work (and all associated rights and right to future profit) to someone else ("The Man"). But I can't think of many cases in which I'd actually take the trouble to find out if this is the case, and it probably wouldn't change my modus operandi anyway if it did.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, and I know the OP doesn't care one way or the other, but the OP also did solicit opinions, and here's mine.

[NewtonTrino]

I think everyone has to follow their own conscience. Personally I don't pirate stuff, it's just not in my nature and I prefer that the authors get what they ask for.

On the flip side when people pirate my products (which has happened millions of times) I don't judge them. If they think it's ethical and how they would want to be treated, more power to them. Many people have told me in person that they have pirated things I've worked on btw.

[Gate2501]

Fallout 3 was the first game in years that I have felt a *twinge* of guilt for pirating...

Damn it was leet.

In other news, me, Gate2501(King of Piracy), has pre-purchased for download on steam, one copy of Left4Dead @ 44$USD. Why?

Multiplayer with Valves anti-hax support.

You video game companies can get me monies, ye just must know how to go about it!

Music and Recording companies... You probably won't ever see me monies again!

AHOY!

[shadron]

Sorry, just have to correct you on this. They have indeed been challenged in court, and based on this case, they are enforceable contracts:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=961139

Carry on

Thanks for the correction.

I don't pirate stuff because I believe I generally assume that the artist(s) gets a cut, in some form, of the profit of sales. If I were to make a copy of the work and hand that off to someone else, I have just taken the artist's(s') cut away. If I like the work -- and respect the artist(s) -- then I will honor the work and the artist(s) by making sure that the artist(s) gets his/her/their cut, and I will not insult him/her/them by denying it to them.

Your assumption is correct - they do make money from each sale. That money may be applied against whatever advance was made to them on the promise to create the work, but that doesn't alter the fact. Eric Flint, a very popular science fiction writer for Baen Books, has stated that he makes about 25 cents per copy of his works sold (hardback and paperback). He also is a very forward proponent of free book libraries, as he created and runs the one supported by Baen Books. See this: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver.htm for his reasoning.

[lionking]

I pirate TV shows which, if they ever do come to Australia, it will be some time in the far distant future and then to be played late at night. But I do know it's wrong and will not try to justify it.

[luchog]

I don't pirate stuff because I believe I generally assume that the artist(s) gets a cut, in some form, of the profit of sales. If I were to make a copy of the work and hand that off to someone else, I have just taken the artist's(s') cut away. If I like the work -- and respect the artist(s) -- then I will honor the work and the artist(s) by making sure that the artist(s) gets his/her/their cut, and I will not insult him/her/them by denying it to them.
That's more or less how I look at it. I used to pirate a lot of stuff, now; not so much. The only exception being music, and ebooks. The former because there is a lot of music that I like that is almost impossible to find legimiately, typically because it's out of print. The latter because they're typically not available legitimately at all, anywhere, ever (I do buy books I like, because I really like books, my house is full of them.) And, again, many of them are out of print and very difficult to obtain.

I used to pirate most of my software. I quit doing that. Now, if I can't afford it, I don't use it. The only exception to that is orphanware/abandonedware.

I do download a lot of anime, but that's mainly because I don't have any other way to get it. Most of the stuff I want to see is not available locally, and not available on Netflix. Some of it isn't available anywhere outside Japan, with no intention to ever make it available; so the only way I can see it is through fansubs.

Now, that said, I still copy and download a lot of stuff; but only on a trial basis. Music from artists I've never heard before, anime that I'm not familiar with, software that I don't for sure will do what I need it to do. If it turns out I like it, then I'll buy it, if it's available. If I don't like it, then I just delete it.

DRM is a serious annoyance to me, because it makes it ludicriously difficult, often impossible, to use what I've purchased, however is most convenient for me. I've refused to purchase things because of it. I won't buy DRM-ed music, because I refuse to allow myself to be locked into a single platform/device. My best example is Spore. The DRM on that is as bad as any virus. Many people I know purchased it, and it screwed up their computers in very bad ways. Many others purchased it, then downloaded and installed the cracked versions instead of the official ones. Many many more simply downloaded the cracked version, without paying for it. I refuse to do any of these. I don't simply download it, because I don't see that as ethical. I don't buy it, because I don't want to give my money to Sony as long as they insist on using virus-like DRM; and because there have been issues getting it to run on 64-bit systems. So, I'll just give it a miss entirely and stick with Dawn of War for now, which I did pay for.

[NewtonTrino]

BTW I've actively fought against us using DRM in our products. Unfortunately the bean counters seem to force a lot of these (wrong) decisions.

[UserGoogol]

One of the rights that copyright grants is the right of the artists to control the distribution of their work. By pirateing you are takeing that right away.

Yes, but that's somewhat of a theoretical harm. Anybody can have a right legally declared to be theirs, but unless it tangibly effects them I don't think it's a particularly grave injustice for that right to be violated. If Congress declared that you had the deed to Pluto, it might nominally "take your right away" if it turned out there were aliens there mooching off your land, but it would not effect your life in any way.

[Fronzel]

Actually it isn't. If the media has any copyprotection on it, you can't copy it. That's actually illegal under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml).

So if your cd has copy protection, but you use software that defeats that protection in order to listen to it on your ipod, congratulations, you're as bad as someone who didn't pay for the cd at all.

This is where DRM falls down for users.

If I buy the rights to content over iTunes(Napster did this too me a few times) and they lose the ability to license the content, I change Operating systems, I buy a non-Apple Media player or some new technology comes along, I lose the content. If I try to keep it, I am a criminal. If I try to make it play on the different technology, I am a criminal.

So, I've still broken the law, just now I'm also out money I paid for the content. If I want to reliably have my content, I need to pirate it. I'll be considered a criminal no matter what I do.

[geni]

Yes, but that's somewhat of a theoretical harm. Anybody can have a right legally declared to be theirs, but unless it tangibly effects them I don't think it's a particularly grave injustice for that right to be violated.

Define "tangibly effects".


If Congress declared that you had the deed to Pluto, it might nominally "take your right away" if it turned out there were aliens there mooching off your land, but it would not effect your life in any way.

If Congress declared that someone owned the deeds to pluto it would break an international treaty the US is a signitory to. Now breach would be purely nominal (no one can meaningfuly own pluto at this time) but I would suggest that most people would feel it is rather significant.

[geni]

This is where DRM falls down for users.

If I buy the rights to content over iTunes(Napster did this too me a few times) and they lose the ability to license the content, I change Operating systems, I buy a non-Apple Media player or some new technology comes along, I lose the content. If I try to keep it, I am a criminal. If I try to make it play on the different technology, I am a criminal.

Well yes because you chose to buy content in a format that is owned and controled by a third party. You didn't have to do that. You could have purchased it on a CD (all the relivant patents should have expired at least 3 years ago and it is a fairly open format).


So, I've still broken the law, just now I'm also out money I paid for the content. If I want to reliably have my content, I need to pirate it. I'll be considered a criminal no matter what I do.

Nope. If you want to have it reliably you probably need to buy it on phonograph record. About the only other format that has remained easy to acess for a reasonable period of time is magnetic tape and that doesn't last.

[Alex C]

So, you work for two weeks, you complete the project you've been assigned to do, and then your boss refuses to pay you for it. Hey, he has it, no harm no foul. You can make another one and get someone else to pay for it. No matter that that's twice the work for one return. If the next person agrees to pay you for it.

Thanks, but I prefer that people get paid for the hard work they do.

I'm struggling to see how that analogy is even close to piracy.

[Blackadder]

I pirated Fall Out 3 last week, but stopped playing it after 2 hours and deleted it again because I am too busy playing Wrath of the Lich King which I bought and pay a monthly fee for.

This basically sums up my viewpoint. Piracy is here to stay, so businesses that want to be successful need to embrace new models. Blizzard entertainment is very successful. Most people I know that do steal copyrighted stuff develop some moral code eventually and still pay for stuff if they feel like deserve their support.

Another aspect is age. Pirating is teenage - young adult (also low income)

Paying, even when you used to pirate is around 25-30 and older, (also high income)
This is based on myself and my friends over a quite long period. (a lot of people I hang out with are quite nerdy and have been on broadband since 1994)

When I finally will be ready to spent time on Fall Out 3 it will be far into 2009 and FO3 will be available in the budget category and I will buy it, because my 2 hours of illegal playing gave me the idea it is Oblivion in a Scifi setting and I need to find out if I get the girl back after killing here father.

[Blackadder]

I download music and don't pay (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119796) JREF Forum thread about the same subject from a few months back. Lot's of good points from both sides

[Fronzel]

Well yes because you chose to buy content in a format that is owned and controled by a third party. You didn't have to do that. You could have purchased it on a CD (all the relivant patents should have expired at least 3 years ago and it is a fairly open format).

Unless the CD has DRM.

There was a case a few years ago about a a guy that had broken the DRM of a CD by hacking. What he did was hold down the shift key so that the disc didn't autorun.

Which is a Violation of the DMCA (http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2003/10/60780). DRM has now made using the shift key illegal.

[rjh01]

The other issue are viruses. Somebody could decide to put in a virus into downloaded software and music that has not been purchased. One that wiped your hard drive or something. That would be nasty.

I hope they do that one day. Teach all your thieves a lesson.

I think your excuses are rather pathetic. If you cannot afford software that you want then you have the option of going without something else in order to pay for it and so you are depriving the author of money and forcing people who do pay for the software to pay more for less.

[Brendy]

The other issue are viruses. Somebody could decide to put in a virus into downloaded software and music that has not been purchased. One that wiped your hard drive or something. That would be nasty.

I hope they do that one day. Teach all your thieves a lesson.

I think your excuses are rather pathetic. If you cannot afford software that you want then you have the option of going without something else in order to pay for it and so you are depriving the author of money and forcing people who do pay for the software to pay more for less.

Oh, I know my excuses are pathetic. I know it's wrong. But since I don't see the person hurt and that person never knew I hurt them, it just doesn't affect my conscious.

You are right about viruses. You have to be very careful pirating. I run two antivirus softwares. Which I didn't pirate by the way. I actually paid for them :). I don't trust pirated antiviruses because if your antivirus has a virus how would you ever find out???

[shadron]

This is where DRM falls down for users.

If I buy the rights to content over iTunes(Napster did this too me a few times) and they lose the ability to license the content, I change Operating systems, I buy a non-Apple Media player or some new technology comes along, I lose the content. If I try to keep it, I am a criminal. If I try to make it play on the different technology, I am a criminal.

So, I've still broken the law, just now I'm also out money I paid for the content. If I want to reliably have my content, I need to pirate it. I'll be considered a criminal no matter what I do.

Your recourse on that is to write to your congress critters and let them know how you feel. Perhaps your sincerity will actually count for more than all the re-election contributions the recording interests have poured into their coffers in the name of Free Speech. Perhaps.

[Dragoonster]

I find the moral problem very interesting.

If you can't afford to buy a movie, then by copying it you haven't harmed the seller. You haven't even stolen a 'potential' sale. In that case I don't think pirating is wrong. You gain something at no cost to anyone. How can that be wrong?

Some possible wrongness:

*Your pirating could only be justifiable for the present. Perhaps tomorrow you'd win the lottery, and if you hadn't pirated, you would've then bought the thing legit

*You could have the movie copy, a friend comes over, do you let him watch it? You can't know whether he'd buy it if you didn't, etc. Do you let him copy it?

*You're promoting the general idea that pirating is okay, even for those who could afford it/wanted to see it enough to otherwise purchase it. And if it's online pirating, your download adds to the popularity of pirating by the illegal site, encouraging it to keep doing it

*You're adding a data-point to the problem that companies are taking steps to prevent, which in turn ironically hurts legitimate buyers of the products with asinine copy-protection, steam, etc. So, you're hurting other consumers

*With "oh I can just pirate that later" always in your mind, your other purchasing decisions are affected (as per your example). Earlier in the week you might decide to go out for lunch since you know you'll be able to pirate the thing; otherwise you may have had to make an actual choice

*Creators of works aren't sure whether you're pirating for your personal use, or whether you'd buy it if you couldn't pirate. If this problem persists or even gets worse, they may decide to not create at all (worst-case hypothetical) fearing a massive pirate orgy. Well that actually sounds fun.

[geni]

Unless the CD has DRM.

Rather unlikely these days.

[Blackadder]

The other issue are viruses. Somebody could decide to put in a virus into downloaded software and music that has not been purchased. One that wiped your hard drive or something. That would be nasty.

I hope they do that one day. Teach all your thieves a lesson.

I think your excuses are rather pathetic. If you cannot afford software that you want then you have the option of going without something else in order to pay for it and so you are depriving the author of money and forcing people who do pay for the software to pay more for less.

I remember viruses as something that happened in the late eighties , early nineties when I used to share a floppy disk with a few games with my school buddies. As a result I sometimes had to format and reinstall the whole (MS-DOS) PC

I can't think of any harm a virus has ever done me to me in the last 15 years or so. Never lost any work, never got any malfunction.

As I mentioned before in my own surroundings I see a strong correlation between being rich and paying for software and entertainment. Give the student a job and he starts paying for it (a lot since those people often are heavy consumers)

[Fredrik]

So, you work for two weeks, you complete the project you've been assigned to do, and then your boss refuses to pay you for it. Hey, he has it, no harm no foul. You can make another one and get someone else to pay for it. No matter that that's twice the work for one return. If the next person agrees to pay you for it.

Thanks, but I prefer that people get paid for the hard work they do.
That argument couldn't be more incorrect. There's no significant extra work involved in the production of the second copy of a movie, and your boss promised to pay you before you did the work. When a person downloads a movie there's a good chance that he would have chosen to never see it if free downloads weren't available.

There are some good moral objections against illegal downloads, but that's not one of them. The best arguments I've seen are the ones posted by Dragoonster.

[Fronzel]

Rather unlikely these days.

I wouldn't know. I don't buy CD's. I stopped buying them when I noticed the Incredibles Soundtrack was more expensive then the Incredibles movie.

A quick googling shows Coldplay using it two years ago, EMI stopping it last year and my favorite example of Anti-Consumer practice, Sony's Rootkit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal). Where Sony installed a program that gave them admin rights so they could check to make sure your weren't stealing their IP.

Oh, I know my excuses are pathetic. I know it's wrong. But since I don't see the person hurt and that person never knew I hurt them, it just doesn't affect my conscious.

Ten Golden Rules of Video Game Piracy (http://www.destructoid.com/ten-golden-rules-of-videogame-piracy-100961.phtml).

I'd say 7 out of 10 would work for any case of digital theft.

I can't think of any harm a virus has ever done me to me in the last 15 years or so. Never lost any work, never got any malfunction.

My computer got syphilis the other day. I was surprised and impressed. A browser hijack that works on Firefox.

[Cain]

I find the moral problem very interesting.

If you can't afford to buy a movie, then by copying it you haven't harmed the seller. You haven't even stolen a 'potential' sale. In that case I don't think pirating is wrong. You gain something at no cost to anyone. How can that be wrong?

This is a compelling "no harm" argument. Here's a concrete example of a problem touched upon Dragoon's objections. Almost 25 years ago my father decided to try basic cable television. We had it for almost a month, he didn't think it was worth the price, so he called to cancel service. My father is sometimes absurdly cheap, and if he was 40 years younger, I imagine he would be a big-time Online Pirate (argg). After the cable was disconnected, my father called in again to complain. You see, he paid for thirty days, and they disconnected it three days too soon. The cable company reconnected us and then... forgot. So we/they received cable without paying for it for almost 20 years. The day of reckoning would eventually come because some guys were apparently working on the lines, realized my parents did not pay for service, and disconnected them. Now he pays.

The idea here is that while you can sincerely and truthfully argue that you would not pay for music, downloading a lot of music can change you. You might maintain that you can stop anytime, but I remember asking my father if he would pay for cable, and he always said "no." Preferences change over time, which can make your behavior more difficult to rationalize. Incomes also tend to rise, which takes away the "I'm poor" argument.

I used to download MP3s, but now I just make high quality rips of things I check out from the public library. I am a Netflix subscriber, so I never download movies. Seriously, it's $17.31 a month and you can get virtually anything. That costs less than a high speed connection, and it's probably less than what most people spend on soft drinks in a month. I don't download computer games anymore because my computer blows. And I think I'm probably one of the only men-under-30 on the planet with a high speed connection who does not download/view pornography.

If producers had full control over all content, as some of the anti-pirates seem to dream, then you could expect a helluva lot of price discrimination. Would that be "fair"? They might know that someone is willing to pay 18 dollars for an Aimee Mann album whereas someone else is only willing to pay one dollar.

There's nothing inherently wrong with piracy apart from the fact that it's a loaded term. The central rationale for copyright laws in the United States is utilitarian.

[fuelair]

That's more or less how I look at it. I used to pirate a lot of stuff, now; not so much. The only exception being music, and ebooks. The former because there is a lot of music that I like that is almost impossible to find legimiately, typically because it's out of print. The latter because they're typically not available legitimately at all, anywhere, ever (I do buy books I like, because I really like books, my house is full of them.) And, again, many of them are out of print and very difficult to obtain.

I used to pirate most of my software. I quit doing that. Now, if I can't afford it, I don't use it. The only exception to that is orphanware/abandonedware.

I do download a lot of anime, but that's mainly because I don't have any other way to get it. Most of the stuff I want to see is not available locally, and not available on Netflix. Some of it isn't available anywhere outside Japan, with no intention to ever make it available; so the only way I can see it is through fansubs.

Now, that said, I still copy and download a lot of stuff; but only on a trial basis. Music from artists I've never heard before, anime that I'm not familiar with, software that I don't for sure will do what I need it to do. If it turns out I like it, then I'll buy it, if it's available. If I don't like it, then I just delete it.

DRM is a serious annoyance to me, because it makes it ludicriously difficult, often impossible, to use what I've purchased, however is most convenient for me. I've refused to purchase things because of it. I won't buy DRM-ed music, because I refuse to allow myself to be locked into a single platform/device. My best example is Spore. The DRM on that is as bad as any virus. Many people I know purchased it, and it screwed up their computers in very bad ways. Many others purchased it, then downloaded and installed the cracked versions instead of the official ones. Many many more simply downloaded the cracked version, without paying for it. I refuse to do any of these. I don't simply download it, because I don't see that as ethical. I don't buy it, because I don't want to give my money to Sony as long as they insist on using virus-like DRM; and because there have been issues getting it to run on 64-bit systems. So, I'll just give it a miss entirely and stick with Dawn of War for now, which I did pay for.You have hit the big one for me: nothing (media - wise) should be allowed to become unavailable - if it does, THEN I do not find it in any way unethical to produce/provide copies. Keep it available (easy to do nowadays given available technology), no problem. AND I will buy nothing I cannot make a backup of unless there is a guarantee with it that they will provide a free backup (no prohibitive costs involved) if mine fails/crashes.

[geni]

You have hit the big one for me: nothing (media - wise) should be allowed to become unavailable - if it does, THEN I do not find it in any way unethical to produce/provide copies. Keep it available (easy to do nowadays given available technology), no problem.

Pretty much everything is available through the library of congress if you are in the US.


AND I will buy nothing I cannot make a backup of unless there is a guarantee with it that they will provide a free backup (no prohibitive costs involved) if mine fails/crashes.

Trying to make a backup of your BIOS must present something of a challange. Books must also be rather time consumeing.

[fuelair]

Pretty much everything is available through the library of congress if you are in the US.



Trying to make a backup of your BIOS must present something of a challange. Books must also be rather time consumeing.
If I knew what a BIOS was, I might be able to respond better. For argument's sake I will assume it is something a computer comes with when you buy it - and will assume (as has happened) that it is part of what gets recovered/replaced by the repair people if my computer gets whomped. I have, where necessary, Photo copied and photocopied books before (as well as magazines/etc.) I was fast and good at it - still have the equipment if needed. Less time to copy than to read - and I am a fast reader.

Since deposit of copies is no longer required and many items in LC are not freely accessible and they are way behind on cataloging and placement (at least as of a couple of years ago) LC is Not a great alternative.

[LibraryLady]

Looking again at my example, probably not a good analogy. But this is still theft. People work to put these things together and deserve remuneration for their work. If I see a best seller sitting on a shelf at a book store and steal it, it's much the same thing.

Don't steal.

[The Atheist]

If I see a best seller sitting on a shelf at a book store and steal it, it's much the same thing.

Don't steal.

It's not the same at all. The literary equivalent would be renting the book from the library and copying it.

[Hindmost]

I had a student that was very proud pirating software illegally. This same student planned on working for a software company. I asked to be informed what the company was in the future so I could steal the software ensuring the student would never get a raise.

Always put yourself in the author's position.

glenn

[Wildy]

Copying, that is, copying something you have already purchased, for your own use, that's legitimate.

Did you know that according to the RIAA, in the US it's illegal to rip music to put on an mp3 player (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use)?

Burning copies to share with Biff and Corky and Sam, that's illegal.

And it's more common then pirating things.

I pirate TV shows which, if they ever do come to Australia, it will be some time in the far distant future and then to be played late at night. But I do know it's wrong and will not try to justify it.

And if I remember correctly you also violated an order from the Supreme Court when you were downloading episodes of Underbelly.


Since we are admitting things, I'm actually rather good. I don't pirate that much music and stuff. I will download songs if I just want to listen to that song (going so far as to find a torrent for the album and just selecting the one song) but I keep my eye out for the albums in record shops.

I do download Top Gear from finalgear.com when they come out but that's because I don't want to see the edited version (where they cut out jokes) on SBS about a year after it aired.

[Gate2501]

There was a time (pre-napster), where I pirated virtually nothing. Every bit of the movies/music/software that I had in my possession, I paid for in full.

During this time, I spent roughly 15% of my income on movies/music/software.

Nowadays I pirate quite a bit. Do you know how much of my income I spend on movies/music/software?

About 15% of my income.

The rest of my money goes to my mortgage, and the bills. The only difference, is that now I have about 20x the amount of movies/music/software that I had prior to the P2P/piracy revolution.

The only real moral delimma for me, is deciding just *which* ones to buy with what little extra money I have at the end of the month.

It is not like I have all kinds of left-over disposable income sitting around, and am just pirating because I am a horrible person. I am pirating because I love to be entertained, and I cannot afford the amount of entertainment that I desire (which is a rather large amount I will admit). I think that in great part, this debate comes down to the haves, and the have-nots. Some people think that a person like me, a person with a low amount of disposable income, does not DESERVE to have as much entertainment as I routinely aquire due to piracy.

Some people like Geni (no offense to you), seem to have a dog in this fight, are obviously biased, and not up to be convinced either way. I have a dog in the fight as well... obviously. Convince me? I could change my mind, if you could show me how I am somehow hurting someone when I pirate copies of digital works, that I would NOT have purchased, and I am spending roughly the same exact percentage of my income on said works, that I did pre-piracy?

I understand that in torrenting I am also helping to *share* these works, and that is a sin I am willing to commit. If that makes me evil/bad/a criminal, then so be it.

EDIT: After some thinking, I have realized that piracy has totaly *shifted* the 15% or so that I do spend, away from music and movies, and over to "piracy proof" games like World of Warcraft... It seems to me like these companies should all try to create a product with monthly updates and/or multiplayer content that I cannot enjoy with a pirated copy. Adapt or die!

[TragicMonkey]

It's not the same at all. The literary equivalent would be renting the book from the library and copying it.

And then deleting your copy after you'd used it for two weeks.

[Damien Evans]

And then deleting your copy after you'd used it for two weeks.

So true.

[geni]

Some people like Geni (no offense to you), seem to have a dog in this fight, are obviously biased, and not up to be convinced either way.

I make no money from interlectial property if that is what you are suggesting.


I have a dog in the fight as well... obviously. Convince me? I could change my mind, if you could show me how I am somehow hurting someone when I pirate copies of digital works, that I would NOT have purchased, and I am spending roughly the same exact percentage of my income on said works, that I did pre-piracy?


Yeah absolute statements like that are not a good idea because the automatic counter arguments (basicaly that you are useing rescources that could be better used by others) are so trivial. Rephraseing your statement my be a good idea.

[Gate2501]

Yeah absolute statements like that are not a good idea because the automatic counter arguments (basicaly that you are useing rescources that could be better used by others) are so trivial. Rephraseing your statement my be a good idea.

What resources am I using that could be better used by others??? I simply don't get what you mean by that.

Are you suggesting that "others" would have found a better way to throw *more* of their total income at digital media than I have? I live on a pretty tight budget, and always have. My point is that my expenditure is the same now as it was PRE-PIRACY. The only argument that you can use against me would deal with the *type* of media that I purchase now with my money, being changed by what can and cannot be pirated.

So... Please clarify what you mean?

[King of the Americas]

One of the rights that copyright grants is the right of the artists to control the distribution of their work. By pirateing you are takeing that right away.

My 'beef' is with the industry's 'public' distribution of artist's work, and then still claiming rights to it.

IF the right to "Free Press", is indeed an individual one, then don't I have the right to create a piece of media, titled "EXACTLY What I've Seen & Heard Throughout My Lifetime", which would include every book, TV show, Movie and song I have ever encountered???

And even if that was a far reaching argument, how can you claim 'rights' to something that has been played within the public domain?

Why wouldn't I have the right to record songs or broadcasts displayed over the public airway?

Personally, I think the whole model isn't workable.

If 'I' were a performing artist such as a musician, I'd have EVERYTHING I played online and FREE for download. But the version wouldn't be perfect. To hear me play perfectly, you have to show up to a live 'private', rather expensive show. My 'fans' wouyld be willing to pay to hear me play my material as good as it could be played.

The way it is now, the CD's sound MUCH better than the live performances.

What kind of sense does that make???

Groups like Metallica are pissed because I am not going out to 'pay' for my 4 copy of Master of Puppets. Get bent Lars. You LOST a fan with your whinning.

If you are an artist who is all pissy about people downloading your stuff, without paying for it, then by all means:

STOP DISTRIBUTING PERFECT VERSIONS OF YOUR WORK!

INSTEAD- CHARGE PREMIUM AMOUNTS FOR "LIVE" CONCERTS THAT ARE PERFECT!

This way, everyone wins...

[geni]

What resources am I using that could be better used by others??? I simply don't get what you mean by that.


Bandwidth electricty take your pick.

[geni]

My 'beef' is with the industry's 'public' distribution of artist's work, and then still claiming rights to it.

That is standard common law contract stuff.


IF the right to "Free Press", is indeed an individual one, then don't I have the right to create a piece of media, titled "EXACTLY What I've Seen & Heard Throughout My Lifetime", which would include every book, TV show, Movie and song I have ever encountered???

Um no. "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] 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."

The right to a free press is generanly felt to be delt with through fair use.


And even if that was a far reaching argument, how can you claim 'rights' to something that has been played within the public domain?

Why wouldn't I have the right to record songs or broadcasts displayed over the public airway?


"The Congress shall have Power [. . .] 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."



Personally, I think the whole model isn't workable.


That remains to be seen. You would have throught the whole model of property rights was unworkable but there you go.



If 'I' were a performing artist such as a musician, I'd have EVERYTHING I played online and FREE for download. But the version wouldn't be perfect. To hear me play perfectly, you have to show up to a live 'private', rather expensive show. My 'fans' wouyld be willing to pay to hear me play my material as good as it could be played.

So someone records a live performance and edits it.


The way it is now, the CD's sound MUCH better than the live performances.

What kind of sense does that make???

CDs are normaly the best takes of a bit of music recorded until ideal considitions with further editing to improve them. It is simply imposible to match that under live conditions.


Groups like Metallica are pissed because I am not going out to 'pay' for my 4 copy of Master of Puppets. Get bent Lars. You LOST a fan with your whinning.

Your copy?

[King of the Americas]

That is standard common law contract stuff.



Um no. "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] 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."

The right to a free press is generanly felt to be delt with through fair use.



"The Congress shall have Power [. . .] 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."




That remains to be seen. You would have throught the whole model of property rights was unworkable but there you go.




So someone records a live performance and edits it.



CDs are normaly the best takes of a bit of music recorded until ideal considitions with further editing to improve them. It is simply imposible to match that under live conditions.



Your copy?


I think the applicable phrase from above is "securing for limited times"...once you play or say something "in public", 'you' have ended that time.

Private concerts could easily be managed, with a metal detector at the door. "Sorry no recording devices allowed."

I have bought and PAID for no less than "4" copies of Master of Puppets. 3 of which were stolen from me, by other Metallica fans, and the last was simply lost. I am NOT paying for yet another copy, and would have no problem morally speaking with downloading the whole album. If I'd have just downloaded it onto my computer, I'd still have it.

If 'I' played a concert, it WOULD sound 'better' than the stuff I had available for free downloads. I'd simply make sure of this by making the free version sound worse.

That said, I HAVE been to ONE concert that sounded really good, compared to others. They actually sounded a lot like their CD. I have however, found this to be the exception and not the rule.

[geni]

I think the applicable phrase from above is "securing for limited times"...once you play or say something "in public", 'you' have ended that time.

Nope the whole point is the rights exist after publication. Congress can chose any finite time peroid.


Private concerts could easily be managed, with a metal detector at the door. "Sorry no recording devices allowed."

Museams try that from time to time. Doesn't work. And of course there is that Ruth Snyder pic.



If 'I' played a concert, it WOULD sound 'better' than the stuff I had available for free downloads. I'd simply make sure of this by making the free version sound worse.

Which would rather reduce the chance of anyone likeing you music enough to go to a concert no?

[TragicMonkey]

I have bought and PAID for no less than "4" copies of Master of Puppets. 3 of which were stolen from me, by other Metallica fans, and the last was simply lost. I am NOT paying for yet another copy, and would have no problem morally speaking with downloading the whole album. If I'd have just downloaded it onto my computer, I'd still have it.

I see. If I have a possession that keeps getting stolen, the acceptable thing for me to do is steal it from somebody else? Because it's "unfair" to expect me to pay for it?

If you are careless of your possessions you don't deserve to keep them, and you certainly don't deserve a free pass to steal them from others to compensate for your own carelessness! And saying "oh, they can afford it" doesn't cut it. Ask the people you're stealing from. They disagree very strongly. Particularly the band you're talking about. I don't even follow music and even I've heard that about them. They're notorious for being anti-piracy.

It amazes me that people can have such an avidity to possess something and at the same time care nothing for property rights. The two go together.

[King of the Americas]

Nope the whole point is the rights exist after publication. Congress can chose any finite time peroid.



Museams try that from time to time. Doesn't work. And of course there is that Ruth Snyder pic.




Which would rather reduce the chance of anyone likeing you music enough to go to a concert no?


Congress doesn't 'own' my material... 'I' could void whatever finit time period they choose to afix to intellectual property rights, and that is what I am suggesting artists have done, whenever they 'play' or distribute their material into or onto the Public Domain.

A static filled version of a song, is still 'that' song. If you have a good song, people will want to hear it. If you heard a song, in a not so clearly fashion, over the radio that you still enjoyed, you might be oblidged to go out and purchase a better version of it.

With my model, EVERYONE would have access to 'versions' of the artist work, but they'd have to pay dearly to hear the artist play it perfectly.

FREE versions of your work, on the air, internet, and TV...if you had talent, people WOULD pay to hear you play.

[gumboot]

One of the rights that copyright grants is the right of the artists to control the distribution of their work. By pirateing you are takeing that right away.


Bingo.

Anti-piracy propaganda talks of "theft" but they're not helping their cause - illegal copying of intellectual property is not theft. It's a right violation. A right that is recognised by international law, making it more valuable and more important than, say, the mere domestic rights afforded to you in your own country's constitution/Bill of Rights/Whatever.

So when you breach copyright, no, you're not stealing anything from anyone. But what you are doing is violating another person's internationally recognised rights.

And on the subject, it's worth remembering that the specific details of copyright law do vary from country to country (although the right of the artist to commercially exploit their work is internationally recognised). In my country, for example, if you purchase a work, you have the legal right to make copies of that work for your own personal use. I buy a CD and don't want to carry the original around in my car? No problem, I'll make a copy. I want to listen to it on my MP3 player while I'm out going for morning jog? No problem, I can rip it to MP3. I want to stick a track on my phone to use as a ring tone? No worries.

I want to give my friend Johnny a copy? Nope, not allowed.

This is becoming an increasingly common approach, and I think it's only sensible and right (and I say that as an owner and creator of intellectual property). In this modern age there are multiple different formats, and no one should have to purchase the right to use the same creative work multiple times.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, you work for two weeks, you complete the project you've been assigned to do, and then your boss refuses to pay you for it. Hey, he has it, no harm no foul. You can make another one and get someone else to pay for it. No matter that that's twice the work for one return. If the next person agrees to pay you for it.
That is a really poor analogy.

The amount of work required to make a second copy of a song, movie, program, etc. is entirely negligible, nowhere close to "twice the work".

ETA: nm, see this has already been covered.

[WildCat]

Many groups do in fact give away their live recordings, or at least let you listen to it online: http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fcreator

Over 6,000 Grateful Dead shows* there! You can stream them on your computer! :D

eta: OK, not really. There's multiple versions of some shows.

[King of the Americas]

Bingo.

Anti-piracy propaganda talks of "theft" but they're not helping their cause - illegal copying of intellectual property is not theft. It's a right violation. A right that is recognised by international law, making it more valuable and more important than, say, the mere domestic rights afforded to you in your own country's constitution/Bill of Rights/Whatever.

So when you breach copyright, no, you're not stealing anything from anyone. But what you are doing is violating another person's internationally recognised rights.

And on the subject, it's worth remembering that the specific details of copyright law do vary from country to country (although the right of the artist to commercially exploit their work is internationally recognised). In my country, for example, if you purchase a work, you have the legal right to make copies of that work for your own personal use. I buy a CD and don't want to carry the original around in my car? No problem, I'll make a copy. I want to listen to it on my MP3 player while I'm out going for morning jog? No problem, I can rip it to MP3. I want to stick a track on my phone to use as a ring tone? No worries.

I want to give my friend Johnny a copy? Nope, not allowed.

This is becoming an increasingly common approach, and I think it's only sensible and right (and I say that as an owner and creator of intellectual property). In this modern age there are multiple different formats, and no one should have to purchase the right to use the same creative work multiple times.

When you GIVE AWAY versions of your music, via the airwaves, how can you still claim ownership?

Should anyone be surprised to find a baker who puts his wares out in the street for anyone to pick up, without any supervision around...penniless?

What we should do is treat music and movies like any other good or service.

Lower the supply, and the demand will rise.

Right now they have flooded the market, and are 'shocked' that the demand is dropping...?

This isn't rocket science, people.

Raise the demand for your work, by limiting the 'quality versions' of it, and people WILL show up to hear you play...

[gumboot]

My 'beef' is with the industry's 'public' distribution of artist's work, and then still claiming rights to it.

Whoever holds the right has the right to distribute it any way they wish. If they chose to distribute it "publicly" (I don't even know what you mean by that) it is entirely their choice to do so.

You seem to be suggesting they should only be allowed to exercise their right once?


IF the right to "Free Press", is indeed an individual one, then don't I have the right to create a piece of media, titled "EXACTLY What I've Seen & Heard Throughout My Lifetime", which would include every book, TV show, Movie and song I have ever encountered???

This doesn't even make sense.


And even if that was a far reaching argument, how can you claim 'rights' to something that has been played within the public domain?

The holder of the rights to a work has the sole right to commercial exploit and distribute that work. How they distribute it is their business.

"Public Domain" refers to works that are not held under any exclusive right. By definition, you cannot claim rights to a work that is in the public domain. Or approaching from the other direction, if you hold the rights to a work it is not, by definition, in the public domain. Methinks you don't know what that term means.


Why wouldn't I have the right to record songs or broadcasts displayed over the public airway?

Because intellectual property rights are exclusive rights.


Personally, I think the whole model isn't workable.

It has been functioning very well for a very long time.



If 'I' were a performing artist such as a musician, I'd have EVERYTHING I played online and FREE for download.

It's funny how it's always the people who haven't actually created anything who want to be able to enjoy the hard work of others for free.


But the version wouldn't be perfect. To hear me play perfectly, you have to show up to a live 'private', rather expensive show. My 'fans' wouyld be willing to pay to hear me play my material as good as it could be played.

In other words you'd be an elitist prat who, I predict, would never build a successful fan base.



The way it is now, the CD's sound MUCH better than the live performances.

What kind of sense does that make???

Given that a band cannot perform live all over the world, and given that many of a band's fans cannot afford to go to live concerts even if they're lucky enough to have one in their city, it makes perfect sense, and you'd be stupid to do otherwise.


Groups like Metallica are pissed because I am not going out to 'pay' for my 4 copy of Master of Puppets. Get bent Lars. You LOST a fan with your whinning.

I suspect if you ever got the opportunity to talk to him personally he wouldn't be too concerned about you flogging a 4th copy of his album for free. In fact I suspect he'd give you a free signed copy himself or something.


If you are an artist who is all pissy about people downloading your stuff, without paying for it, then by all means:

STOP DISTRIBUTING PERFECT VERSIONS OF YOUR WORK!

INSTEAD- CHARGE PREMIUM AMOUNTS FOR "LIVE" CONCERTS THAT ARE PERFECT!

This way, everyone wins...

Your idea is phenomenally stupid. (By the way, copyright covers more than just music; your ingenious idea wouldn't apply to well to films or written works).

Just for interest, the British band Radiohead actually did what you suggested with their album Rainbows - they released a low quality version of their album through their website, and fans could choose any amount they wanted to pay for it. When the physical album was released sales outstripped the "sales" from the website. Why? No one wants to listen to a poor quality recording.

Releasing poor quality recordings is a brilliant way of ensuring your musical career tanks. Who on earth would pay huge money to go to an exclusive concert of an artist who sounds like crap?

[Gate2501]

Bandwidth electricty take your pick.

So your argument against my logic, is that the electricity used to power my PC, and the bandwidth that I am using to download these files, could be better used by someone else???

Using electricity to power an HPS ballast in your basement is not a crime, or in any way wrong. Growing Marijuana would be a crime, but the idea that "someone could have better used that electricity" that was used to power the lights, is an absurd argument that has little to do with the case in point. It is also subjective and based upon each individuals idea of what constitutes "better use". It is epic fail.

My point was simply that I do not spend any less on entertainment than I did before the advent of mass piracy. I just have waaaay more entertainment. If you want to say that this phenomenon takes money away from the music industry, and reallocates it to games like WoW, then you might have a point, but to say that I am poorly using my electricity and bandwidth based on your personal opinion of good use is lulzy.

[gumboot]

When you GIVE AWAY versions of your music, via the airwaves, how can you still claim ownership?

They don't give it away. You don't understand anything about how broadcast works, do you?



What we should do is treat music and movies like any other good or service.

Lower the supply, and the demand will rise.

You're displaying a phenomenally poor understanding of intellectual property or how these industries work.

[Gate2501]

Bingo.

Anti-piracy propaganda talks of "theft" but they're not helping their cause - illegal copying of intellectual property is not theft. It's a right violation. A right that is recognised by international law, making it more valuable and more important than, say, the mere domestic rights afforded to you in your own country's constitution/Bill of Rights/Whatever.

So when you breach copyright, no, you're not stealing anything from anyone. But what you are doing is violating another person's internationally recognised rights.


I agree with this statement completely. But lets make sure that we all don't start conflating copyrights with other, much more... important... rights.

Just because I violate international rights in downloading movies, I am not down to own slaves, or torture PoWs, ect.

Sorry, just preemptively striking the slippery slope.

[gumboot]

I'd like to remind people that copyright law is incredibly generous on the part of the artist. If I build a house, that house is mine, period. I am free to commercially exploit that work for the rest of my life, and after that my heirs can exclusively exploit it, and their heirs after them, and so on into eternity. No one can claim ownership of my house.

On the other hand, if I put my hard work into writing a book, yes I can exclusively exploit that work for the rest of my life, and for 50 years after I die my heirs can exploit it too, but after that we lose ownership of it, and anyone can exploit it as they see fit, regardless of what I might think.

So I hope you can appreciate how us creators of intellectual property might get a bit pissed off when people who have never created anything in their lives start saying we shouldn't even be allowed that brief time that the current laws give us.

Tell you what, why don't you go build a house, and I'll just start renting it out to someone the moment it's finished. How does that sound?

[Miss_Kitt]

I already put in my oar on a prior thread, but here it is:

It's a rationalization to say, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," especially when it's not the first or only exposure to a musical group, actor, director, TV show, etc. etc. What you really mean is, "I prefer to have this entertainment for free AND spend its cost on something else instead, like restaurant food." Before electronic media and the Web made stealing music and video easy, people made choices about how to spend their money, based upon their values.

The analogy I like to use is, If you could sneak into a theater and watch a concert--likely you won't get caught--would you? If you (or a close friend) were in the band, Would you be okay with people sneaking in to the concert?

If you say, Sure, no problem, then you simply don't think you should have to pay creators for having made things that you enjoy, and you're a freeloader. I devoutly hope you don't drive the cost for honest people so high (to cover the moneys not received by a fraction of the actual audience) that the artist has to give up their work and paint houses or teach piano in a grade school instead.

If you think that somehow listening in person is more of a violation of the artist's right for compensation, you need to re-examine your behavior. The reality is that an artist (and the company that puts out their work) need to get a certain amount of compensation to cover the costs of creation, and to make their time and effort investment worthwhile. If you are one of the audience, but aren't contributing to the compensation, then you are shifting your share of the compensation on to those who ARE willing to pay. You are, in effect, raising everyone else's cost.

Online piracy is sort of like having an entire section of Did-Not-Pay people at the concert. Yes, the artist will make some money from their performance -- but they are not getting the compensation they agreed to. They decided what they thought their work was worth, and you unilaterally decided that you want to not pay them. As such, you are engaging in fraud. Worse, you are banking on everyone else NOT acting like you do, or the artist will not continue to put out their work.

Rationalize away -- I hope you grow up some day. You are not entitled to whatever you want. You are not entitled to have as much entertainment as you want without having to do something to compensate the source of that entertainment; no amount of "well, I still spend money on some stuff" compensates the artists whose work you take without their agreement.

It is, in many senses, the "It's okay to shoplift from Wal-Mart" argument. Yes, merchants calculate a certain amount of theft into their expenses...does that make it right somehow? It's still the honest people paying more than they would otherwise have to, because of those who don't pay.

I realize that defending the rights of creators is almost impossible with people who have grown up in the "but it's easy to steal" era. But the fact that risk of getting caught is low doesn't change that it is just as wrong. Do you take cookies and coffee from "honor system" displays without paying?? To me, it's morally equivalent.

I have to go have a cup of coffee and listen to some paid-for music now, I'm quite saddened, as ever, by this discussion.

Feeling like a Digital Diogenes, MK

[gumboot]

I agree with this statement completely. But lets make sure that we all don't start conflating copyrights with other, much more... important... rights.

Just because I violate international rights in downloading movies, I am not down to own slaves, or torture PoWs, ect.

Sorry, just preemptively striking the slippery slope.



Quite. But owning slaves, torturing POWs, etc are all covered by international law too. I'd regard them as far more important. And I don't think the fact that you violate one right means you're happy to violate any right. I just want people to understand what copyright is really about.

[Gate2501]

Tell you what, why don't you go build a house, and I'll just start renting it out to someone the moment it's finished. How does that sound?

I understand your point in regard to the work involved, and then the use of that work, however a better analogy would be:


Tell you what, why don't you go build a house, and I'll just start making copies of that house with my alien house-copy ray, and sharing them with anyone that wants them. How does that sound?

Oh and don't forget that we all own machines that fit on a desk, and can contain thousands of these houses ;)

[geni]

So your argument against my logic, is that the electricity used to power my PC, and the bandwidth that I am using to download these files, could be better used by someone else???

Using electricity to power an HPS ballast in your basement is not a crime, or in any way wrong.

You've modified your argument. You argument was not that the action was wan't wrong or not a crime but that it harmed no one.

Are you actualy going to try and defend that argument? I'm aware the do know harm system of morality has significant emotional appeal but it has no place in rational theory.

[geni]

Just because I violate international rights in downloading movies, I am not down to own slaves, or torture PoWs, ect.

Neither of those would violate international treaties.

[gumboot]

I understand your point in regard to the work involved, and then the use of that work, however a better analogy would be:


Tell you what, why don't you go build a house, and I'll just start making copies of that house with my alien house-copy ray, and sharing them with anyone that wants them. How does that sound?

Oh and don't forget that we all own machines that fit on a desk, and can contain thousands of these houses ;)



Not really, that's not a good analogy at all. All you're doing is turning a house into intellectual property, which does nothing to clarify understanding. Indeed it's not just a bad analogy, it isn't an analogy at all.

Intellectual property is a renewable asset which can be exploited for financial gain indefinitely.

A house, likewise, is a renewable asset which can be exploited for financial gain indefinitely.

Copyright violation breaches the owner's right to exclusive exploitation of that asset.

So the only way you have an accurate analogy (without just converting a different asset into intellectual property, thus achieving nothing) is to take another example of an act that breaches an owner's right to exclusive exploitation of their asset.

The house-renting one is a perfect example. If I rent your house to other people, you haven't actually lost ownership of the house, so it's not theft. You can still financially exploit the house too, by renting it out to more people and cramming them in there. But what you have lost is exclusive right to exploitation because someone else is benefiting from your hard work.

[King of the Americas]

gumboot,

Admittedly, I DON'T know the definations and specific application of trademark or copywrite law.

But artists are pissed because people are 'stealing' their property.

My solution is to limit the amount of access potential theives would have to that property.

Stupid as it may be, you made my argument FOR me, on page 2.

*A group inspires sales for an album by offering a less than perfect version for FREE.

This is exactly kind of thing I was talking about.

STOP saturating the market with 'perfect' versions of your work, and then complain that to many people have it, without having paid you.

I always try to look at this from the creator's perspective.

If someone is stealing something I made, then I'd restrict access to it.

Claiming intellectual ownership of something isn't entirely different.

With ANY set of Laws, one must consider 'enforceability'. What good would it do toimake a law against wear red underware on Sunday, if there wasn't somone looking down everyone pants at church?

Who is going to come into my house to make sure I am not burning copies of movies and songs on my PC? File sharing isn't something that is going away. So IF artists want to continue making money, they are going to have to change their business model.

[Gate2501]

Rationalize away -- I hope you grow up some day. You are not entitled to whatever you want. You are not entitled to have as much entertainment as you want without having to do something to compensate the source of that entertainment; no amount of "well, I still spend money on some stuff" compensates the artists whose work you take without their agreement.


You can think me a liar if you like. I spend pretty much 100% of my disposeable income on digital media.

You can go ahead and brush aside my point as a rationalization for "stealing" which is an illogical analogy itself. As was pointed out earlier this is an issue of respecting copyRIGHTS not theft.

When you act like it is a direct analogy to physical theft, you look silly.

If anything, it is a personal rationalization for why I am "not a big jerk". You are free to think that I am a bad horrible man however. Enjoy.

[Gate2501]

Not really, that's not a good analogy at all. All you're doing is turning a house into intellectual property, which does nothing to clarify understanding. Indeed it's not just a bad analogy, it isn't an analogy at all.

Intellectual property is a renewable asset which can be exploited for financial gain indefinitely.

A house, likewise, is a renewable asset which can be exploited for financial gain indefinitely.

Copyright violation breaches the owner's right to exclusive exploitation of that asset.

So the only way you have an accurate analogy (without just converting a different asset into intellectual property, thus achieving nothing) is to take another example of an act that breaches an owner's right to exclusive exploitation of their asset.

The house-renting one is a perfect example. If I rent your house to other people, you haven't actually lost ownership of the house, so it's not theft. You can still financially exploit the house too, by renting it out to more people and cramming them in there. But what you have lost is exclusive right to exploitation because someone else is benefiting from your hard work.

Bah, ok, you are right, for some reason I wasn't thinking of the house being built for the sheer purposes of renting it. Forgive me.

I figured you were just trying to load up a "YOU ARE SO EVIL THAT YOU STEAL A HOUSE FROM A MAN AND HIS FAMILY(putting them out on the cold hard streets!)" type deal.

I will read more carefully and thoughtfully next time :p

[Gate2501]

You've modified your argument. You argument was not that the action was wan't wrong or not a crime but that it harmed no one.

Are you actualy going to try and defend that argument? I'm aware the do know harm system of morality has significant emotional appeal but it has no place in rational theory.

I am defending the idea that a subjective interpretation on your part as to what constitutes "good use" of my electricity and bandwidth, is the *harm* that you are talking about is a batty argument.

It is weak.

I even gave you a good strong argument for harm, and I realize that I was wrong in some way, because it does in fact harm the music creators, when I displace my spending dollars over to private server "membership" based games like WoW, that I cannot pirate.

I had never considered that until posting in this thread, so in this regard, you have broken through to me.

[geni]

Congress doesn't 'own' my material... 'I' could void whatever finit time period they choose to afix to intellectual property rights, and that is what I am suggesting artists have done, whenever they 'play' or distribute their material into or onto the Public Domain.

Um no. Under common law those right remain untill they specifiticaly release them.


With my model, EVERYONE would have access to 'versions' of the artist work, but they'd have to pay dearly to hear the artist play it perfectly.


You overestimate concert hall security.

[geni]

I am defending the idea that a subjective interpretation on your part as to what constitutes "good use" of my electricity and bandwidth, is the *harm* that you are talking about is a batty argument.

It is weak.

Again I didn't argue for good use. You are takeing a position based on doing no harm. This position is trivialy flawed (remeber every CPU cycle you use for listening to music is a CPU cycle not being used to research protien folding or find anti cancer candidates).

Remeber your statement "you could show me how I am somehow hurting someone when I pirate copies of digital works".

Many people want to use bandwidth. I'm sure it would benifit some of them to have a little more. Much the same applies to electricy and energy consumption. Posting to this forum present much the same problem which is why rational argument should generaly avoid absolute statements of that type.

[King of the Americas]

Um no. Under common law those right remain untill they specifiticaly release them.



You overestimate concert hall security.

I think you undervalue the worth of a quality LIVE performance, from a sincere "fan's" perspective.

[Gate2501]

Again I didn't argue for good use. You are takeing a position based on doing no harm. This position is trivialy flawed (remeber every CPU cycle you use for listening to music is a CPU cycle not being used to research protien folding or find anti cancer candidates).

Remeber your statement "you could show me how I am somehow hurting someone when I pirate copies of digital works".

Many people want to use bandwidth. I'm sure it would benifit some of them to have a little more. Much the same applies to electricy and energy consumption. Posting to this forum present much the same problem which is why rational argument should generaly avoid absolute statements of that type.

Right... I understand. I wasn't even sure what you were trying to say much of this time.

You were taking what I said to a literal extreme and nailing me with a "gotcha!", because technically, I am doing harm by not using those CPU cycles to help cure cancer.

Come on man... A bit ridiculous? See any similarities with grammar Nazism? Could it be that you are no better than Hitler!?

[geni]

Right... I understand. I wasn't even sure what you were trying to say much of this time.

You were taking what I said to a literal extreme and nailing me with a "gotcha!", because technically, I am doing harm by not using those CPU cycles to help cure cancer.

Come on man... A bit ridiculous?

Not really. It's an important step because it gets people away from moral absolutes where it is hard to make a dent because you are fighting emotion rather than logic.

[gumboot]

gumboot,

Admittedly, I DON'T know the definations and specific application of trademark or copywrite law.

But artists are pissed because people are 'stealing' their property.

They're not, though. Record companies and corporates frame the issue in those terms because it makes it easier for them to press their case. But they're stupid, and they're just making things more confusing. But what would you expect of corporates?



My solution is to limit the amount of access potential theives would have to that property.

The purpose of creating the property is to exploit it commercially by distributing it as widely as possible. Limiting access to it would simply drive the price up to the point that no one could afford it.



*A group inspires sales for an album by offering a less than perfect version for FREE.

They didn't. Radiohead is an enormously successful and popular band with a huge following. The free release of their album didn't increase demand for the decent quality album, all it did was piss off their fans and push demand to hurry up and release the real album.


This is exactly kind of thing I was talking about.

No it isn't. You must have missed the bit where Radiohead released their album as normal - precisely what you were saying bands shouldn't do.

It's simple - releasing a crappy version of their album didn't make Radiohead money. Releasing a good quality version did.


STOP saturating the market with 'perfect' versions of your work, and then complain that to many people have it, without having paid you.

Your argument is truly weird. Since when did bands "saturate" the market with their albums?


I always try to look at this from the creator's perspective.

I beg to differ.


If someone is stealing something I made, then I'd restrict access to it.

Like I said, you wouldn't ever become a successful artist with that sort of attitude.


With ANY set of Laws, one must consider 'enforceability'. What good would it do toimake a law against wear red underware on Sunday, if there wasn't somone looking down everyone pants at church?

Hence prosecutions against violators of copyright. In New Zealand there's new laws that have created greater cooperation between ISPs and authorities in combatting illegal downloading.


Who is going to come into my house to make sure I am not burning copies of movies and songs on my PC? File sharing isn't something that is going away. So IF artists want to continue making money, they are going to have to change their business model.

Actually you're quite wrong there. No one needs to come into your house. Your ISP can monitor your internet usage and shut down your bandwidth if you star illegal P2P sharing. And if that doesn't stop you, they can terminate your account and refer you to the authorities. And that's precisely what happens in my country.

[Gate2501]

Not really. It's an important step because it gets people away from moral absolutes where it is hard to make a dent because you are fighting emotion rather than logic.

Pfft you omitted my Godwin's law part.

Well, I didn't mean it outside of the context of the conversation. I was speaking about the creators/producers/distributors of the media that we are arguing about, not every man woman child and animal on planet earth.

Please... Please, do not say that some of those creators/producers/distributors have cancer that I could be helping to cure with my CPU cycles. :rolleyes:

As I have said multiple times now, I was wrong, because I realized that piracy definitely does displace the money that I do spend to "piracy-proof" games. So that does actually harm someone within the context of our discussion, and I will have to think about that in the future when I am spending my money.

The gotcha was silly.

[gumboot]

Right... I understand. I wasn't even sure what you were trying to say much of this time.

You were taking what I said to a literal extreme and nailing me with a "gotcha!", because technically, I am doing harm by not using those CPU cycles to help cure cancer.

Come on man... A bit ridiculous? See any similarities with grammar Nazism? Could it be that you are no better than Hitler!?


I tend to agree with you that geni's argument is a bit silly. I could dedicate all four of my CPUs to the effort of curing cancer but given my total ignorance of such matters I seriously doubt I would ever achieve anything.

However I can give one very real and measured example of how copyright violation is wasting resources.

New Zealand has a problem with a quite behind-the-times internet infrastructure by international standards. A company called Telecom is a major ISP, but also owns the telecommunications grid in our country.

Recently, Telecom did an experiment to assess the impact of P2P sharing on our internet traffic. What they did was gradually restrict the amount of bandwidth on the grid available for P2P traffic, and measure what sort of impact this had on other legitimate traffic, if any.

The hypothesis was that there would be an increase in other traffic speeds to a point, after which there would be a levelling and reductions in P2P traffic would have no further impact on other traffic. I think the notion was that during peak times P2P traffic could be restricted to this benchmark level.

The experiment produced unexpected results, however. There was no benchmark. No levelling point. As P2P traffic was squeezed out other traffic just got faster and faster and faster...

I believe they eventually turned P2P traffic off completely, at which point regular traffic still increased in speed one last time.

So, at least in my country, the illegal copying of protected material via P2P sharing (previous studies have conclusively demonstrated that P2P traffic is overwhelmingly illegal material) has a substantial and very real negative impact on what is a limited and in-demand resource.

[geni]

I tend to agree with you that geni's argument is a bit silly. I could dedicate all four of my CPUs to the effort of curing cancer but given my total ignorance of such matters I seriously doubt I would ever achieve anything.

Well cancer would be rather tricky since Find-a-drug has expired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home is still going however and may have some anti-cancer aplications. I think there is a JREF group.

[The Atheist]

Relevant court case if it hasn't already been posted. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10543641&pnum=0)

[Kopji]

I sort of rationalize it this way - don't whine when criminals use illegal download sites to hijack your bank accounts and steal your identity. After all they don't care either so it's all good. :|

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

So your argument against my logic, is that the electricity used to power my PC, and the bandwidth that I am using to download these files, could be better used by someone else???

Using electricity to power an HPS ballast in your basement is not a crime, or in any way wrong. Growing Marijuana would be a crime, but the idea that "someone could have better used that electricity" that was used to power the lights, is an absurd argument that has little to do with the case in point. It is also subjective and based upon each individuals idea of what constitutes "better use". It is epic fail.

My point was simply that I do not spend any less on entertainment than I did before the advent of mass piracy. I just have waaaay more entertainment. If you want to say that this phenomenon takes money away from the music industry, and reallocates it to games like WoW, then you might have a point, but to say that I am poorly using my electricity and bandwidth based on your personal opinion of good use is lulzy.


You know, when I was going through some rough financial times a few years back, I didn't feel that I deserved entertainment. One of the things I had to decide on was video games. I couldn't afford to buy XBox games, so I did without, and played my old games. I didn't go to the store and steal them. If things had been a bit worse, I might have had to do without television. I would have called Bell and told them to disconnect my service. I wouldn't have gone out and got an illegal card and pirated the signal.


No one should expect a free ride because of finances. Everyone seems to have a great excuse for why they steal. Just ask the residents of your local prison.

[Cygon]

I like the previous comparison of piracy to sneaking into a concert without paying the entry fee. I think it's pretty accurate except for that you are not taking away any seats or space that could have allowed one more paying guest to enter.

Also interesting is the argument that music, movies and games are luxury goods and in the olden days, you decided which luxury goods you would spent your excess money on and that was that - while today, the people comitting piracy take it for granted that they can enjoy more luxury than they would be able to afford.

At first, the concept doesn't sound so bad at all. People can pay for those luxury goods they like most and still enjoy all the rest. Meaning the artists get the same amount of money they would have received in the olden days but consumers can enjoy a better life.

Sadly, it stops working right there. What if you're saving up some money at the same time? Is it okay to only give only 10% of your income to artists and pirate the rest? How many people will pay at all if paying is perceived as a voluntary act?

-

Maybe a viable solution would be to simply reduce prices. Electronical distribution almost eliminates the cost otherwise involved with pressing CDs in large numbers from money payed ahead, shipping to subdistributors and redistributors that all want their share. The artist gives his work to the publisher, the publisher puts it on his server, done. All that's left ot do it balance the selling price versus artist payment and advertising costs.

Of course it's not as simple as I present it. I guess many people still are only comfortable with traditional forms of distribution (me too, if electronical distribution means getting a lously 256 kbit .wma with DRM applied). But I hope that's where we're heading to.

-

On the lighter side, it seems the RIAA's presence is entirely amiss in recent piracy cases. BBC reports "Pirates have seized a giant oil supertanker with more than 2 M barrels of oil near Somalia."

[Gate2501]

You know, when I was going through some rough financial times a few years back, I didn't feel that I deserved entertainment. One of the things I had to decide on was video games. I couldn't afford to buy XBox games, so I did without, and played my old games. I didn't go to the store and steal them. If things had been a bit worse, I might have had to do without television. I would have called Bell and told them to disconnect my service. I wouldn't have gone out and got an illegal card and pirated the signal.


No one should expect a free ride because of finances. Everyone seems to have a great excuse for why they steal. Just ask the residents of your local prison.

Oh boy.

Another analogy dealing with physical theft.

Who could have seen this coming?

The other 5 or 6 didn't deter me, but this new analogy linking digital piracy to physical theft has opened my eyes!

Thank you sir! You have saved me from a life of crime!

[Francesca R]

You have hit the big one for me: nothing (media - wise) should be allowed to become unavailable - if it does, THEN I do not find it in any way unethical to produce/provide copies.Why should media content be available?

So when you breach copyright, no, you're not stealing anything from anyone. But what you are doing is violating another person's internationally recognised rights.Seems a bit semantic. You are depriving the owner from capturing the value of the benefit you receive--because you capture it for free. The idea that "it's not 'theft'" seems to come from the observation that it (electronic media) is non-rivalrous. But that is only the case at the margin, because if creative content was non-excludable (everyone could instantly get it for free) then much of it would probably get competed away as the monetary value of consumption would all be retained by the consumer of it, reducing incentives to creators. At that point, free copying would have become rivalrous.

I'd like to remind people that copyright law is incredibly generous on the part of the artist. [ . . . ] if I put my hard work into writing a book, yes I can exclusively exploit that work for the rest of my life, and for 50 years after I die my heirs can exploit it too, but after that we lose ownership of it, and anyone can exploit it as they see fit, regardless of what I might think.However, this is not "generous" (altruistic) but dictated by societal expectations (which also evolve--increasingly people expect music to be available for free and in the limit, creators/industry/legislation can not fight this). Furthermore copyright expiration benefits future content-creators.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Oh boy.

Another analogy dealing with physical theft.

Who could have seen this coming?

The other 5 or 6 didn't deter me, but this new analogy linking digital piracy to physical theft has opened my eyes!

Thank you sir! You have saved me from a life of crime!



I'm glad you can make a huge moral distinction between shoplifting and piracy. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm sure that everyone who is sitting in prison for property crimes can come up with a similar rationalisation. "I'd never steal from poor people!", or "I only took that car because I had to get to the other side of town, and I'm too broke for a cab. I only damaged it a little bit, and the owner got it back later. The damage will be paid for by insurance. It's not like I took it and sold it."


How about insurance fraud? There's no physical theft involved. You paid into the system. The insurance company has lots of money. Why not make a false claim? Is that morally wrong?


I used to argue with co-workers all the time with regards to stealing programming for their televisions. I was told that it was a legal grey area because Parliament hadn't finalised legislation on the issue, essentially saying that since you can't go to prison for it, it was an okay thing to do. Well, you can't go to prison for screwing around on your spouse, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.


To me the issue is basically a moral one. You are getting for free what honest people are paying for. What if everyone thought like you? What reason would anyone have for creating anything for public consumption? If artists aren't compensated for creating, they'll likely still create, but that creativity will have to take a backseat to a day job to pay the bills, meaning less art available for everyone.

[PaKu]

I bought a legitimate copy in a legitimate store for the legitimate price, and it was a disaster, also on other computers. So I downloaded a very illigal, cracked copy and it worked like a charm.
Quote whaterver section you wish, I don't care.

[King of the Americas]

They're not, though. Record companies and corporates frame the issue in those terms because it makes it easier for them to press their case. But they're stupid, and they're just making things more confusing. But what would you expect of corporates?

The purpose of creating the property is to exploit it commercially by distributing it as widely as possible. Limiting access to it would simply drive the price up to the point that no one could afford it.

They didn't. Radiohead is an enormously successful and popular band with a huge following. The free release of their album didn't increase demand for the decent quality album, all it did was piss off their fans and push demand to hurry up and release the real album.

No it isn't. You must have missed the bit where Radiohead released their album as normal - precisely what you were saying bands shouldn't do.

It's simple - releasing a crappy version of their album didn't make Radiohead money. Releasing a good quality version did.

Your argument is truly weird. Since when did bands "saturate" the market with their albums?


I beg to differ.


Like I said, you wouldn't ever become a successful artist with that sort of attitude.


Hence prosecutions against violators of copyright. In New Zealand there's new laws that have created greater cooperation between ISPs and authorities in combatting illegal downloading.


Actually you're quite wrong there. No one needs to come into your house. Your ISP can monitor your internet usage and shut down your bandwidth if you star illegal P2P sharing. And if that doesn't stop you, they can terminate your account and refer you to the authorities. And that's precisely what happens in my country.

Firstly, in America, ISP's aren't law enforcement agencies. It simply isn't their job to monitor who is downloading what. Although, I am not sure what oversight began happening as a result of the Patriot Act.

My being successful as a performing artist would have EVERYTHING to do with my ability to please an audience. Good performers are appreciated by those who hear or see them. If a good musician were to upload less than perfect versions of their tunes on the web, people would listen to them. IF they were good enough, people would want to pay for better versions of the songs. And if they were great, people would pay a lot of money to show up and watch them perform.

My point about saturation is that you CAN access, hear, or download almost perfect versions of ANY song you wish...for FREE, in the current model of music distribution. I hold that this model is antiquated and has not kept up with technology. Why would ANYONE willingly pay for something, that is free for the having? In today's world, if a musician truly wants to limit who hears their stuff, then they are going to HAVE to limit their distribution to those who have PAID for it.

Radiohead IS an already popular group, so I don't really think we can glean anything from comparing what they did to what I am suggesting. That said, they released for FREE an entire album, people liked it so much so, that when a perfect copy hit the market, they bought it...which tells me that they weren't as pissed you you suggest. It would appear to me, that they were SO pleased with the music that they'd already heard, that they wanted an even better version, AND they were willing to pay for it! Parts of that scenerio are very similiar to my suggested distribution path.

Regardless of what you may think about me and my perspective, what 'I' see is artists and their producers complaing about people getting copiesof their music without paying for it. While I don't make music, or give performances, I am a creator. I make things out of wood, do a little rock sculpting, and I grow grapes and make wine. If someone was 'stealing' my products, I'd put a lock on the gate to my vineyard. It makes NO SENSE to me whatsoever to leave my stuff out in the street unattended, and then turn around and complain that people are getting them without paying.

My point being that if you don't want people to get your stuff for free, then stop putting it where they can get their hands on it...

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I bought a legitimate copy in a legitimate store for the legitimate price, and it was a disaster, also on other computers. So I downloaded a very illigal, cracked copy and it worked like a charm.
Quote whaterver section you wish, I don't care.



If you bought a new car that had problems, would you take it in for warranty service, or would you go back to the dealership and steal another one?

[gumboot]

Seems a bit semantic. You are depriving the owner from capturing the value of the benefit you receive--because you capture it for free. The idea that "it's not 'theft'" seems to come from the observation that it (electronic media) is non-rivalrous. But that is only the case at the margin, because if creative content was non-excludable (everyone could instantly get it for free) then much of it would probably get competed away as the monetary value of consumption would all be retained by the consumer of it, reducing incentives to creators. At that point, free copying would have become rivalrous.

It's not semantic at all. Theft is taking property off someone so that they no longer possess that property. When you illegally copy material you have not taken any property off someone, therefore it is not theft. Simple, really.


However, this is not "generous" (altruistic) but dictated by societal expectations (which also evolve--increasingly people expect music to be available for free and in the limit, creators/industry/legislation can not fight this). Furthermore copyright expiration benefits future content-creators.


I don't really agree with this. The trend with copyright law is to increase author control of their work, not to decrease it. Projecting the trend forward, eventually copyright would be permanent. I do agree on the point that society has a vested interest in moving works into the public domain (benefit to future creators is an obvious one), and I personally doubt you would ever get indefinite copyright, but the fact remains that copyright durations are getting longer.

Personally, as a creator of copyright material, I would want to see my work entered into the public domain upon my death, and my desire to do this would have nothing to do with social expectations and everything to do with my desire to "gift" my work to the human race as a collective whole. In my experience many creators of artistic works feel the same way.

Morally, I think I have a right (even if not recognised in law) to keep my work to myself and never let it enter the public domain. It's mine, and I should be able to do what I like with it. Were Shakespeare to abruptly turn up, and express outrage at the wanton reinterpretation and commercial exploitation of his hard work, would he be wrong to do so, or would he be completely justified? I can't say I'd be able to deny him the right to do so. (Having said that, I like to think he'd be happy with the situation).

So yes, I think it is an act of generosity that I want to share it with the world and not retain control over it forever. My issue is that too often, instead of society being grateful for the generosity of artists, they exploit the fact that we want to share our work. And never is that more clearly illustrated (and insulting) than with illegal copying

[The Atheist]

If you bought a new car that had problems, would you take it in for warranty service, or would you go back to the dealership and steal another one?

I must count the false analogies in this thread one day.

If I find a calculator big enough...

[gumboot]

Firstly, in America, ISP's aren't law enforcement agencies. It simply isn't their job to monitor who is downloading what.

In New Zealand every citizen and corporation has a legal responsibility to prevent others from committing crimes, and certainly not to provide assistance. Particularly when that crime is causing substantial harm to the functioning of essential infrastructure.



My being successful as a performing artist would have EVERYTHING to do with my ability to please an audience. Good performers are appreciated by those who hear or see them. If a good musician were to upload less than perfect versions of their tunes on the web, people would listen to them. IF they were good enough, people would want to pay for better versions of the songs. And if they were great, people would pay a lot of money to show up and watch them perform.

I'm aware of this, but if you released poor technical quality recordings, most people wouldn't actually think you were any good, because your music wouldn't sound good. So you'd never grow a fan base. Believe me, I have heard poor quality and high quality recordings of good music. It makes a substantial difference.


My point about saturation is that you CAN access, hear, or download almost perfect versions of ANY song you wish...for FREE, in the current model of music distribution.

It's kind of funny you actually mention this... I know quite a few sound engineers who despair that the prevalence of low quality MP3s (despite what you claim, most music available online is far from perfect quality, and a lot of it is quite bad) is proving harmful to the music industry because people's standards are dropping to abysmal levels so that good music isn't even appreciated any more.

This isn't new - my sound tutor at film school years ago noticed that many students couldn't even detect peaking sound because they were so used to listening to CDs of their favourite bands which consistently contained sound clipping.

And it's not unique to sound either. I have despaired at the impact reality TV has had on appreciation for quality cinema.





My point being that if you don't want people to get your stuff for free, then stop putting it where they can get their hands on it...


This is, of course, the artists dilemma. We create work to be seen and appreciated. We don't create it so we can lock it in a basement somewhere. People who illegally copy material are exploiting the artists desire to share their work, for their own benefit. The problem lies with the copier, not the artist, and it is the copier who should have to suffer, not the artist.

I think the best way to reduce copying is to move into encrypted digital distribution over the internet, and stop physical selling of media altogether. The major problem with physical media is you cannot easily update protection systems, so eventually your protection is cracked.

With purely data-based media, sent over internet, you can continuously update security measures so that the protection can't be cracked. Computer game manufacturers are already starting to realise this, and it's becoming increasingly common.

This has the added advantage of making distribution more flexible (you don't have to try find a shop that sells the obscure album you want and you can buy just the tracks you like) and could allow for a substantial decrease in prices (CD albums in New Zealand, for example, are quite expensive because they're pressed overseas - the cost of shipping them here is actually the biggest part of their expense).

[GodMark2]

Sorry, just have to correct you on this. They have indeed been challenged in court, and based on this case, they are enforceable contracts:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=961139

Carry on

Sorry, just have to correct you on ammend this.

Based on McKee (Michael) v. AT&T Corp.(2008)(pdf of court decision) (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/McKeevATT.pdf), portions of a EULA may be found "Unconscionable" (link to Groklaw article on decision) (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080831104451947).

AT&T's Consumer Services Agreement is substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable to the extent that it purports to waive the right to class actions, require confidentiality, shorten the Washington Consumer Protection Act statute of limitations, and limit availability of attorney fees.

For those of you not fluent in legaleese
unconscionable

adj. referring to a contract or bargain which is so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it. In a suit for breach of contract, a court will not enforce an unconscionable contract (award damages or order specific performance) against the person unfairly treated, on the theory that he/she was misled, lacked information or signed under duress or misunderstanding. It is similar to an "adhesion contract," in which one party has taken advantage of a person dealing from weakness.

In short: EULAs are legally a grey and murky area.

[geni]

Why should media content be available?

Becuase the alturnative is the risk of data loss. Given the potential damage data loss can do to our civilisation this is not acceptable. I do however have a rather relaxed defintion of available.



Furthermore copyright expiration benefits future content-creators.

Strangely no. Remeber copyright expiration means that every playright has to compete with zero royalties shakespeare (okey technicaly not since shakespeare predates copyright). Copyright expiration effectively means that there are a large number of authors out there who can undercut you.

[geni]

With purely data-based media, sent over internet, you can continuously update security measures so that the protection can't be cracked. Computer game manufacturers are already starting to realise this, and it's becoming increasingly common.

Not really. You can't stop someone downloading the inital version and cracking that.

Personaly I suspect it is imposible to build a true trusted client on an IBM PC. If this means that we end up with most media being mac and console only so be it.

[D'rok]

Sorry, just have to correct you on ammend this.

Based on McKee (Michael) v. AT&T Corp.(2008)(pdf of court decision) (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/McKeevATT.pdf), portions of a EULA may be found "Unconscionable" (link to Groklaw article on decision) (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080831104451947).



For those of you not fluent in legaleese


In short: EULAs are legally a grey and murky area.
Not really. On a really quick read, this case doesn't challenge the validity of EULA's in general. The issue was the validity of certain terms in this particular EULA. An EULA can still be a valid contract. It just can't violate contract law - same as any other contract.

[eirik]

In New Zealand every citizen and corporation has a legal responsibility to prevent others from committing crimes, and certainly not to provide assistance. Particularly when that crime is causing substantial harm to the functioning of essential infrastructure.

Civilized countries leave law enforcement to police, not to citizens. Analogy #1111: Would you like your mailman sorting out your mail as your letters may include quotes from poems or literature that is not "fair use" of copyrighted material? (No, but they do screen it for bomb. See the difference?)

And "essential infrastructure"? The last J-Lo album? Come on:)

This is, of course, the artists dilemma. We create work to be seen and appreciated. We don't create it so we can lock it in a basement somewhere. People who illegally copy material are exploiting the artists desire to share their work, for their own benefit.

I don't agree. I don't see how listening to music is "exploiting". I'm a musician myself, and freely distribute music on the net besides the traditional distribution channel.

I think the best way to reduce copying is to move into encrypted digital distribution over the internet, and stop physical selling of media altogether. The major problem with physical media is you cannot easily update protection systems, so eventually your protection is cracked.

I agree, and i think Steam has shown this. But the artist/distributor will have to fascilitate this. It is therefore the artists problem.

This has the added advantage of making distribution more flexible (you don't have to try find a shop that sells the obscure album you want and you can buy just the tracks you like) and could allow for a substantial decrease in prices (CD albums in New Zealand, for example, are quite expensive because they're pressed overseas - the cost of shipping them here is actually the biggest part of their expense).

We all agree that pirating is illegal. That's a moot point. The interesting part is the normative aspect, whether the action of copying others "mind work" is intrinsicaly immoral/unethical. (forget for one moment that it's illegal)

Most of you guys have probably heard it better from others, but the fact is that it was the catholic church who established the first copyright/immaterial property-set of rules, due to Gutenbergs invention. Anyone with equipment and know-how could now print bibles, not just the church. This was a huge problem to the church, as they would lose control over both information and market. They solved by a political alliance with the english king, who(for som silver pieces I'm sure) gave the church a monopoly to print and sell bibles in England.(by my poor memory, correct me if I'm wrong)

Think about it: how can anyone have a monopoly on words printed in a book? This is a dinosaur of a rule, and has NOTHiNG to do with moral, and more to do with money. "Intellectual property" is an abstract construction opportune to those who want to make money fast. The law is not needed to protect this interest. The concept is a threat to world progress, if one takes it to the extreme(E.G. the AIDS medicine problem).I have no problem with people making money, this is not an issue here. But you have to come up with a BETTER business idea than "intellectual property".

It all makes as much sense to me as to say I want copyright of me whispering softly in your ear, or my new and fantastic word "gggh".

And AFTER you're DEAD? Why? Because you need the money? Does the madness not end? (moaning)

It's also an accepted property law (in europe anyway) that you in some sense have to be able to protect your own interests/rights. This principle is valid when concidering the quality of rule and it's design. It should be enforcable. Claiming property rights to a song or whatever and not keeping it to yourself, is like claiming your rights to your urin, and pissing in the pasific.(analogy#1112, very very poor, I know...)

I do respect your point of view, though, and I can see how artists will be affected in the short term. But that doesn't change the fact that the current rules sucks, as it is an medivel corrupt (christian) abstract construction, criminalizes half the population, and have no basis in a modern business model, and simply does not work. And it is NOT stealing. Unless stealing is when you are throwing money after me in the street.

Just venting, as I clearly don't have many supprters here. (which actually surprises me)

[geni]

Civilized countries leave law enforcement to police, not to citizens.

Citizen's arrest is still just about a valid concept in the UK.


Analogy #1111: Would you like your mailman sorting out your mail as your letters may include quotes from poems or literature that is not "fair use" of copyrighted material? (No, but they do screen it for bomb. See the difference?)

Err UK law assumes that the postman does in fact read anything not in an envolope (it is relivant to libel law)


And "essential infrastructure"? The last J-Lo album? Come on:)


The resources used to transmit it yes.


I don't agree. I don't see how listening to music is "exploiting". I'm a musician myself, and freely distribute music on the net besides the traditional distribution channel.

Under what license?




Most of you guys have probably heard it better from others, but the fact is that it was the catholic church who established the first copyright/immaterial property-set of rules, due to Gutenbergs invention.


False. Book curses predate that. There are some imaterial rights on this tablet:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Commemorative_slab_from_ashur_temple.jpg (basicaly the tablet could be viewed as being under CC-BY-ND).

jewish curses on copying appear in the 17th century



Anyone with equipment and know-how could now print bibles, not just the church. This was a huge problem to the church, as they would lose control over both information and market. They solved by a political alliance with the english king, who(for som silver pieces I'm sure) gave the church a monopoly to print and sell bibles in England.(by my poor memory, correct me if I'm wrong)

Venice was giveing out monoplies as far back as 1492.

The only bible copyright or monopoly I'm aware of in the UK is the KJV.


Think about it: how can anyone have a monopoly on words printed in a book?


Because the state has the power to destory anyone else who prints it.


This is a dinosaur of a rule, and has NOTHiNG to do with moral, and more to do with money. "Intellectual property" is an abstract construction opportune to those who want to make money fast.

So are so called property rights.

And fast? You know nothing of the history of map makeing.


The law is not needed to protect this interest. The concept is a threat to world progress, if one takes it to the extreme(E.G. the AIDS medicine problem).I have no problem with people making money, this is not an issue here. But you have to come up with a BETTER business idea than "intellectual property".

There is no drug you can make that a team of competent chemists cannot reverse engineer within a week. Without patent law much of our drug development becomes unviable.



It all makes as much sense to me as to say I want copyright of me whispering softly in your ear, or my new and fantastic word "gggh".


First isn't a fixed form and the second runs into issues with de minimis.


And AFTER you're DEAD? Why? Because you need the money? Does the madness not end? (moaning)

Yeah the problem with that argument is that it is also part of the argument for a 100% rate of tax on inheritance.

In adition it is generaly accepted that giveing companies large comercial insentives to kill authors and the like is inadvisable.


It's also an accepted property law (in europe anyway) that you in some sense have to be able to protect your own interests/rights.


No it isn't. Modern high explosives are quite effective as are cruise missiles. The idea that your average person can meaningfuly protect property under such conditions is laughable.


I do respect your point of view, though, and I can see how artists will be affected in the short term. But that doesn't change the fact that the current rules sucks, as it is an medivel corrupt (christian) abstract construction,


Not christian. Vennice may have been nominaly christian but it's rule was pretty darn secular. The first real copyright was statute of anne and was again highly secular.


criminalizes half the population,


Err copyright is civil not criminal law.


and have no basis in a modern business model,


What was the turnover of microsoft last year? Or GSK?


and simply does not work. And it is NOT stealing.


It is violateing other people's legal rights.


Just venting, as I clearly don't have many supprters here. (which actually surprises me)

Venting? So you conceed you are unable to present a logical argument.

[gumboot]

Not really. You can't stop someone downloading the inital version and cracking that.


You can if the data uses an ongoing update process that requires constant re verification.

[geni]

You can if the data uses an ongoing update process that requires constant re verification.

Things like films, songs and books do not normaly require an update process.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I must count the false analogies in this thread one day.

If I find a calculator big enough...



Firstly, the claim was that a legally purchased item failed to work properly. As an example, from reading the back of the manual for Fallout 3, I see that the product has a 90 day warranty. If it fails, return it to point of purchase for replacement. Any software I've ever purchased has a similar warranty. Why this person did not follow this procedure, I cannot say.


Rather than do the proper thing and return the software, the person instead chose to steal the item by illegally downloading it. Semantics aside, taking something without paying is theft according to my moral compass. I understand that the stealing a car comparison is not perfect. But to me theft is theft. I know sticking a knife in someone's face and forcibly taking their wallet is different from sneaking a few dollars out of the petty cash box at work, and that shoplifting batteries from Wal-Mart is different than hot-wiring somebody's car, but they are all morally wrong to me. Software piracy, insurance fraud, welfare fraud, tax evasion, they are all different facets of the same crime: theft.


I'm not an artist, nor do I listen to music or watch movies, so this issue doesn't affect me personally. However, I view this as another good example of how many people are morally bankrupt, and it makes me angry. For example, a salesperson from an aftermarket manufacturer will come in to work at Christmas time, and will have some give-away item, like pens or hats. There will be enough for everyone, so he or she will set them in the coffee room, with instructions for people to help themselves. Of course, the first guy gets there and takes them all, despite the fact that he cannot possibly need or use twenty hats.


It makes me angry that we have to keep everything under lock and key at all times. We had a trailer at work for towing front-wheel drive cars. Somebody just took it one night. But I'm sure they had a good rationalisation as to why it wasn't stealing. There were ramps for that same trailer that were left unattended for a few minutes and disappeared. They're more or less useless without the trailer, but somebody wanted them badly enough to "download" them. We had some candies at work that were being sold on the honour system (for a charity, no less), and guess how that worked out?


It's just me, me, me, nobody else matters, who cares about anyone else, I want it and that's what's important, so I'll just take it.


It makes me sick.

[quixotecoyote]

Firstly, the claim was that a legally purchased item failed to work properly. As an example, from reading the back of the manual for Fallout 3, I see that the product has a 90 day warranty. If it fails, return it to point of purchase for replacement. Any software I've ever purchased has a similar warranty. Why this person did not follow this procedure, I cannot say.

How do you think it would have helped?

(Yes I'm setting you up. Going to answer anyway?)

[gumboot]

Civilized countries leave law enforcement to police, not to citizens. Analogy #1111: Would you like your mailman sorting out your mail as your letters may include quotes from poems or literature that is not "fair use" of copyrighted material? (No, but they do screen it for bomb. See the difference?)

This is nonsense. In civilised countries, without the cooperation of citizens, there would be no law enforcement.


And "essential infrastructure"? The last J-Lo album? Come on:)

The essential infrastructure I am referring to would be the country's internet network.


I don't agree. I don't see how listening to music is "exploiting". I'm a musician myself, and freely distribute music on the net besides the traditional distribution channel.

The copying is the exploiting, not the listening.


I agree, and i think Steam has shown this. But the artist/distributor will have to fascilitate this. It is therefore the artists problem.

I agree. There was an article on our nightly news tonight about a New Zealander that has developed an internet service which attempts to address precisely this situation.


We all agree that pirating is illegal. That's a moot point. The interesting part is the normative aspect, whether the action of copying others "mind work" is intrinsicaly immoral/unethical. (forget for one moment that it's illegal)

I believe that using the property of another without that person's permission is immoral.


Most of you guys have probably heard it better from others, but the fact is that it was the catholic church who established the first copyright/immaterial property-set of rules, due to Gutenbergs invention. Anyone with equipment and know-how could now print bibles, not just the church. This was a huge problem to the church, as they would lose control over both information and market. They solved by a political alliance with the english king, who(for som silver pieces I'm sure) gave the church a monopoly to print and sell bibles in England.(by my poor memory, correct me if I'm wrong)

This is complete garbage, but thank you for playing. Monopolies on distribution of material were quite common during the late medieval period (as were monopolies of all sorts) however they were not necessarily specifically related to religion. I think you're thinking of Mary I who set up the Stationers and gave them a monopoly on all printing in order to try and stop the spread of Protestantism. However the first copyright law was enacted in Britain in 1710. Your Catholic/Gutenberg Bible theory is nonsensical given that England rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England 20 years before the Gutenberg Bible was printed. All of this happened several centuries before copyright law.

In fact, the main purpose of the Statute of Anne (1710) was to remove the Stationers' monopoly over printing and return control to authors of the work, so in fact copyright law was created to counter the actions of the Catholic Church, not to help it.


Think about it: how can anyone have a monopoly on words printed in a book?

They don't. They have a monopoly over the expression of their own ideas.


This is a dinosaur of a rule, and has NOTHiNG to do with moral, and more to do with money.

Financial exploitation is only part of the riddle. Copyright law ensures creators retain a variety of rights, including right of authorship.


The concept is a threat to world progress, if one takes it to the extreme(E.G. the AIDS medicine problem).

Copyright is only a narrow part of intellectual property rights. Don't confuse them. Medicine is not covered by copyright law.


It all makes as much sense to me as to say I want copyright of me whispering softly in your ear, or my new and fantastic word "gggh".

No it doesn't, because neither of these is the expression of an idea.


And AFTER you're DEAD? Why? Because you need the money? Does the madness not end? (moaning)

Because my descendants have as much right to inherit the fruits of my hard work as anyone else's.


It's also an accepted property law (in europe anyway) that you in some sense have to be able to protect your own interests/rights. This principle is valid when concidering the quality of rule and it's design. It should be enforcable. Claiming property rights to a song or whatever and not keeping it to yourself, is like claiming your rights to your urin, and pissing in the pasific.

This is nonsense. Copyright material is protected. That's what the laws do. You're basically arguing "people will ignore the laws that protect your work, so we should just get rid of them". I'm sure you can see how stupid that argument is.


I do respect your point of view, though, and I can see how artists will be affected in the short term. But that doesn't change the fact that the current rules sucks, as it is an medivel corrupt (christian) abstract construction

As I've demonstrated, this is false.


criminalizes half the population, and have no basis in a modern business model, and simply does not work.

Copyright breach isn't a criminal act, so no one is made a criminal by it. It does, of course, work. If you were to compare the misery of authors in England prior to 1710 and then compare it today you'd appreciate just how well it does work.

Digital media is merely a new technology which will force society to change its approach to copyright, which is happening.


And it is NOT stealing. Unless stealing is when you are throwing money after me in the street.

I've said repeatedly that it is not stealing, however I'm not sure what you mean by the "throwing money after me" comment.

[gumboot]

Things like films, songs and books do not normaly require an update process.


They do if you incorporate a constantly evolving security feature into the media which requires reverification, or incorporate a system by which the media will only work on whatever system it was initially created, making it impossible to copy it at all.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

How do you think it would have helped?

(Yes I'm setting you up. Going to answer anyway?)



I would think that you would take it back to the store and get another one. Yes, I understand that this is dependent on the software company and the retailer holding up their end of a legally binding contract. Why not at least make a token effort at following the rules?

[geni]

They do if you incorporate a constantly evolving security feature into the media which requires reverification,

Imposible. Once something is on a PC it can be frozen and worked on.


or incorporate a system by which the media will only work on whatever system it was initially created, making it impossible to copy it at all.

Better. Already exists to a large extent. Problem is that the mac market is rather limited. As long as the majority of people continue to use PCs the effectiveness of this aproach is going to suffer.

[gumboot]

Better. Already exists to a large extent. Problem is that the mac market is rather limited. As long as the majority of people continue to use PCs the effectiveness of this aproach is going to suffer.


I fail to see any reason why something that can be implemented on a mac cannot be implemented on a PC.

[gumboot]

I would think that you would take it back to the store and get another one. Yes, I understand that this is dependent on the software company and the retailer holding up their end of a legally binding contract. Why not at least make a token effort at following the rules?


Ironically in New Zealand a lot of retailers won't refund computer games or DVDs because of people buying them, taking them home and copying them, and then returning them for a refund.

[quixotecoyote]

I would think that you would take it back to the store and get another one. Yes, I understand that this is dependent on the software company and the retailer holding up their end of a legally binding contract. Why not at least make a token effort at following the rules?

Ok. I'm out of snark for the night.

People get cracked versions of the game because often the copyright protection on software either clashes with drivers/other software on the system and makes it not work right or refuses to install itself/activate after a system upgrade without spending hours on the phone chasing different tech people around in a rousing game of happy horse ****. Now I suspect Fallout 3 does this, but I know Spore is only good for a few installs (3?). Which means If you were like me and just juggled a series of computer and hard drive upgrades, you couldn't use it anymore normally.

In games with shoddy DRM/copy-protection, each copy has this. It's not a matter of the disc in the box being abnormal, but the software being normally unusable for some purposes.

In my case, I have several tools for defeating cd-checks that ensure discs are in the drive. I buy all my software legally, but if you remember when large hard drives became available, one of the key selling points was that you no longer needed to switch floppy disks while using an application, or even have them within reach. Now cds with copy protection come along and artificially limit that functionality.

I get around that when I can through copying an image of the cd to the hard drive and using virtual cd-drive software to emulate a cd-rom. Unfortunately, distributors don't like me doing that and are including provisions where the program refuses to run if it detects virtual drive software.

I'm not dedicated enough to learn the hexediting neccesary to escalate to the next level, so I just go download a hacked version from someone who is.

This is black and white to me in that I have legitimately paid for the use of the software, and they shouldn't have the right to stick their noses far enough into my business to make it a legal issue whether I do so with the disc in the drive or out of it.

[geni]

I fail to see any reason why something that can be implemented on a mac cannot be implemented on a PC.

PC hardware is seperate from PC software to a far greater extent. Apple are in a position to control both.

The upshot is that PCs will always have to allow non DRM supporting hardware and software.

Consider. I download the media onto my nice DRM supporting windows. I then kill the net connection reboot the system in debian copy the file and the media player and start trying to break the encryption. I can also use various tricks to see exactly what the program that plays the file is doing. A supriseing amount of the software to do this has legit or semi legit uses. PCs are not designed to prevent the user from finding out what the system is useing.

With a Mac you just have a hardware DRM chip set up so linux or non apple OSes cannot acess it. Technicaly still ways to break it but much much harder.

[Miss_Kitt]

You can think me a liar if you like. I spend pretty much 100% of my disposeable income on digital media.

You can go ahead and brush aside my point as a rationalization for "stealing" which is an illogical analogy itself. As was pointed out earlier this is an issue of respecting copyRIGHTS not theft.

When you act like it is a direct analogy to physical theft, you look silly.

If anything, it is a personal rationalization for why I am "not a big jerk". You are free to think that I am a bad horrible man however. Enjoy.

Dear Gate2501:

Nowhere did I call you a "liar" -- you can reread my post (I believe it's #85) if you would like. I said you were rationalizing, which is a way of looking at things from a particularly narrow and forced perspective so as to see things the way one wishes to. And nowhere did I call you a "big jerk" -- I do not use such language or ad hominem arguments, and I respectfully ask for a public apology to offset the public smear to my honor.

I did not see you dealing with the question I raised, so I'd like to restate it:

Using the "attending a concert without a ticket" analogy--not physical theft--what is going on is that the media pirate is violating the implied agreement between artist and audience: The artist has set the price he/she thinks is fair for the performance. If you agree, then pay it; if you don't, then don't think that you have a right to the performance. You are not holding up your side of the agreement, which is dishonest, whether you wish to call it "theft" or some other name.

That you spend your disposable income on some artists' output does not in any way change that the artists you are not paying are not having their right to control their own work respected, and are not being compensated for their work, by you.

The one aspect of physical theft that I drew a parallel to is this:
In order for the artist to be sufficiently compensated to remain in their chosen field, their total income received must reach a certain value. If 20% of the listeners choose to pirate the music, then the remaining 80% will have to pay a higher price each in order to meet that number. (For simplicity's sake, if the artist needs to make $60,000 from 10,000 CDs sold, the price paid must give $6 to the artist; if all 120,000 listeners actually paid, the price would only need $5 to the artist.) I pointed out that this is folded in to the retail price, just as retailers plan for a certain amount of "shrinkage" of stock due to theft in setting their prices. Please indicate how this is not a valid analogy.

I am concerned with the artist being able to control and be compensated for their work, which is just exactly what copyright is about. I'm not sure why you thought that wasn't my point?

Regards, MK

[Francesca R]

It's not semantic at all. Theft is taking property off someone so that they no longer possess that property. When you illegally copy material you have not taken any property off someone, therefore it is not theft. Simple, really.Simple and semantic though. So don't call it "theft" but do call it illegal copying, or "capturing for nothing the economic value of something produced by somebody else". At the margin that practice makes neglibible difference, yet if it was the universal norm, the market for creative content would fail (not vanish completely but decline significantly). I think you agree?

I don't really agree with this. The trend with copyright law is to increase author control of their work, not to decrease it.I think that is because it is reactive to a stronger trend the other way in public attitudes. The lobby for copyright law comes from the sell-side, not the buy-side. Yet ultimately it is the buy-side which will prevail as it has more power.

Projecting the trend forward, eventually copyright would be permanent.Possibly, but most likely in an environment when its enforcability and adherence is massively degraded relative to now.

I do agree on the point that society has a vested interest in moving works into the public domain (benefit to future creators is an obvious one)OK

Personally, as a creator of copyright material, I would want to see my work entered into the public domain upon my death, and my desire to do this would have nothing to do with social expectations and everything to do with my desire to "gift" my work to the human race as a collective whole. In my experience many creators of artistic works feel the same way.You can arrange that of course.

Morally, I think I have a right (even if not recognised in law) to keep my work to myself and never let it enter the public domain.I agree. Yet, individual morals don't necessarily prevail in the face of opposing societal preferences.

So yes, I think it is an act of generosity that I want to share it with the world and not retain control over it forever.Oh it can be generosity sure, and in that case the artist's interests are aligned completely with the audience's. But I suppose I mean (unjust/immoral as this sounds) that artist generosity is not required for this change to gradually take place

My issue is that too often, instead of society being grateful for the generosity of artists, they exploit the fact that we want to share our work. And never is that more clearly illustrated (and insulting) than with illegal copyingOf course, society is not a grateful bunch in the main. :)

[Francesca R]

Strangely no. Remeber copyright expiration means that every playright has to compete with zero royalties shakespeare (okey technicaly not since shakespeare predates copyright). Copyright expiration effectively means that there are a large number of authors out there who can undercut you.Well that's symmetrical. So result = more creative content, not less.

[PaKu]

I didn't steal the first one..
OK:
find the box
find the ticket
go back to the store
"it doesn't work"
"sorry bud, EULA, part 24,section 55 paragraph 33b4, goodbye"

nah, still don't care..

[gumboot]

PC hardware is seperate from PC software to a far greater extent. Apple are in a position to control both.

The upshot is that PCs will always have to allow non DRM supporting hardware and software.

Consider. I download the media onto my nice DRM supporting windows. I then kill the net connection reboot the system in debian copy the file and the media player and start trying to break the encryption. I can also use various tricks to see exactly what the program that plays the file is doing. A supriseing amount of the software to do this has legit or semi legit uses. PCs are not designed to prevent the user from finding out what the system is useing.

With a Mac you just have a hardware DRM chip set up so linux or non apple OSes cannot acess it. Technicaly still ways to break it but much much harder.



I'm thinking ahead, not currently. In the future when everyone is online everywhere at all times, you can control media use by essentially making all media streaming - or at least have media activated by a streamed activation process.

Essentially the easiest way to prevent copyright theft is to never let the listener actually gain possession of the material.

[PaKu]

Originally Posted by PaKu
I bought a legitimate copy in a legitimate store for the legitimate price, and it was a disaster, also on other computers. So I downloaded a very illigal, cracked copy and it worked like a charm.
Quote whaterver section you wish, I don't care.

Sir Robert:
If you bought a new car that had problems, would you take it in for warranty service, or would you go back to the dealership and steal another one?

(I did click on the quote message)

I'm getting in the habit of buying software, leave it on my shelf, downloading the cracked version en using that one. Those nice crackers :D usually strip off all the junk .
If those hard-working programmers :( keep trying to screw me I might feel entitled to leave out the buying part

[geni]

Well that's symmetrical. So result = more creative content, not less.

To an extent. Remeber if everything you want to use is protected by copyright you have to create. Upshot is that http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page probably has around a million original pics.

[geni]

I'm thinking ahead, not currently. In the future when everyone is online everywhere at all times, you can control media use by essentially making all media streaming - or at least have media activated by a streamed activation process.

Essentially the easiest way to prevent copyright theft is to never let the listener actually gain possession of the material.

Again we a PC you can't prevent that. There are ways around to record current streaming media. To prevent something from being aquired you need a trusted client of some form or another (and this is true for streaming media). I don't think it is posible to build a robust trusted client on a PC.

[eirik]

This is nonsense. In civilised countries, without the cooperation of citizens, there would be no law enforcement

Teh gumboot, a basic in a rule of law is that the police have a special status when it comes to law enforcement. They have a monopoly, with only small and well established exceptions. To refer to citizens arrest in a copyright infringement-discussion is a waste, geni. It has no relevance here .

We agree that all should help the police. But we also agree, I hope, that this argument has it's limit.

There is a big leap from cooperation with the police, to demanding that the internet provider must monitor it's customers. Appearantly, most legal systems in the EU have acknowledged this, and I couldn't be happier.


The essential infrastructure I am referring to would be the country's internet network

You're describing de facto terrorism. Do you not see the absurdity in your argument? Piracy isn't causing “substantial harm” to the functioning of that infrastructure. On the contrary, P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure.

Do you have any documented references where this has ever been an issue? “Oh no!! Piracy is stealing our band with!!”


The copying is the exploiting, not the listening.

You are right, but that is a semantic point. People copy music because they want to listen to it. You are pissed because you feel it's your inherent right to be compensated for copying. This is not necessarily so. And it is certainly not a moral question.

I believe that using the property of another without that person's permission is immoral.

That's a pretty dogmatic point of view. And it is not “property”, it is “immaterial property”.

Courtesy wiki: A “widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions. This philosophical difference was highlighted by the Sony vs Disney case regarding record-able CDs and tape. At the time, Disney was attempting to ban VHS-recording machines as illegal devices attempting to impinge on their copyright. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the sale of VHS recording machines, and in a later, similar suit by Disney the US Supreme Court allowed the sale of recordable CDs and Mini-Discs. This repeated failure to gain government support of their position is what led Disney to try new tactics and lobby for increasing the length of copyright protection and eventually Digital Rights Management.”

Your presenting your moral values in this argument is bordering on a moral absolutism. Surely we agree it's immoral to kill in certain situations. But to claim that copying is intrinsically immoral is not even worthy a debate.

This is complete garbage, but thank you for playing.
Well, thank you.

Monopolies on distribution of material were quite common during the late medieval period (as were monopolies of all sorts) however they were not necessarily specifically related to religion.

We are not talking about distributions of “materials”, we are talking about copying the 'immaterial', nor are we talking about monopolies in general, and certainly not christians one in spesific. That was a digression that may or may not be controversial.

I think you're thinking of Mary I who set up the Stationers and gave them a monopoly on all printing in order to try and stop the spread of Protestantism. However the first copyright law was enacted in Britain in 1710. Your Catholic/Gutenberg Bible theory is nonsensical given that England rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England 20 years before the Gutenberg Bible was printed. All of this happened several centuries before copyright law.

In fact, the main purpose of the Statute of Anne (1710) was to remove the Stationers' monopoly over printing and return control to authors of the work, so in fact copyright law was created to counter the actions of the Catholic Church, not to help it”

If I mixed up the protestant with the catholic church, I'm truly sorry for my religious insensitivity. But the legal literature(norwegian) and the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright states that the origin of the copyright institute is in fact attributed to Gutenbergs invention. They may be innacurate in the finer points, but that is knitpicking.

I was referring to the origin of copyright thinking as we know it today, not the institute itself, and this is naturally hard to pinpoint with precision. I don't see a big issue here. There is concensus that copyright thinking in the form we know it was introduced because of the printing press. Copying was simply not a big issue prior to this.

Wiki: “As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Charles II of England was concerned by the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing Act of 1662 by Act of Parliament,[1] which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationer's Company, essentially continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect”

Mark the last sentence.

They don't. They have a monopoly over the expression of their own ideas.

No. Wiki again: “Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed”. For very good reasons, for the ones interested in the subject.

Financial exploitation is only part of the riddle. Copyright law ensures creators retain a variety of rights, including right of authorship

I know this because I'm not completely ignorant. It does have it's upsides, as do many poor anachronistic ideas. It is a battle of legitimate interests. I don't think artists shouldn't get payed. I'm just saying this particular rule doesn't work in the real world. That's a fact, and you can moan and bitch about all you like, but that is strongly supported fact, hence this discussion.

Wiki again: “As with patents for physical objects, the granting of a copyright was ensured by governments to promote innovation and guarantee first-to-market protection for the owner of the copyright (historically, more likely the publisher than the creator). This government-sponsored monopoly thus provides innovation and general benefit to society as a whole, but allows for capitalistic pressures after the first-to-market advantage has been provided as a reward (and effort to cover R&D time for such works to be developed).

With the modern emergence of massive mass-media conglomerates however, the first-to-market advantage can be recouped within weeks instead of years”.

Copyright is only a narrow part of intellectual property rights. Don't confuse them. Medicine is not covered by copyright law.

I don't confuse them, I draw analogies based on the similarities. Patent and copyright is based on the same way of thinking(see above).

No it doesn't, because neither of these is the expression of an idea

Again, I know that. I was just illustrating the absurdity.

Because my descendants have as much right to inherit the fruits of my hard work as anyone else's.

Why? Does anyone else get payed after they die? It's not a house we're talking about. Stop pretending that we are.

Wiki: “Some critics claim copyright law protects corporate interests while criminalizing legitimate use. Of particular concern is the increasing mound of orphaned works.

Orphaned works are those that were protected for so long that the original artist is no longer alive, and although the work may now be in the public domain, is no longer available due to physical decay of the paper, film, or physical form due to aging and lack of maintenance. The fact remains that less than 1% of all artistic works created in the United States belong to Disney or other corporations who will maintain their art for commercial gain. The bulk of artistic works do NOT generate any appreciable income after 5 years and due to copyright restrictions provide no motivation for museums, clearing houses, or enthusiast organizations to maintain records of the owner or a copy of the work. These orphaned works may not provide commercial benefit to the artists anymore, however they are fundamental to the fabric of society. As the orphan works disappear, historians lose valuable documents that hold insights into the evolution of phrases, social structure, and even the original source of new forms of art and genres that develop from them. Orphaned works are seen as justifiable losses to modern copyright lobbyists, equating them to an old chair or other form of property that has served its purpose and even if no longer economically viable, the copyright should be maintained in principle. This argument avoids the ethical implications of society losing the very art that it solicited by guaranteeing first-to-market rights.”

This is nonsense. Copyright material is protected. That's what the laws do. You're basically arguing "people will ignore the laws that protect your work, so we should just get rid of them". I'm sure you can see how stupid that argument is

I know it is “protected” by law. I see the finer points in a normative legal discussion is lost on you. “it's wrong because it's illegal!!” I was referring to a perfectly valid argument. (“criminalizes half the population, and have no basis in a modern business model, and simply does not work)”.If a rule is of poor quality, society should off course get rid of it. That is a virtue in all civilized states. The law is not a bible.

BTW, I'm not saying people SHOULD break an existing law, that is a completely different issue.

As I've demonstrated, this is false.

I'm glad you feel that way:)

Copyright breach isn't a criminal act, so no one is made a criminal by it. It does, of course, work. If you were to compare the misery of authors in England prior to 1710 and then compare it today you'd appreciate just how well it does work

In Norway and in most EU countries it is both illegal by copyright law and criminalized. But why do you think it is a relevant relevant counter argument, even if som countries have not criminalized it? When half the population(speculation) is breaking the law, it deteriorates the respect for the legal system in general, regardless if it's criminalized or not.

And do you see a direct corrolation between the hungerstricken writers in 1710 and copyright law? Have you concidered alternatives to the copyright models and concluded that artist would starve to death? Wow, you must be sitting on tons of data and empirical evidence to suppport this. This is a bogus argument based on false and incomplete premises.

Digital media is merely a new technology which will force society to change its approach to copyright, which is happening

My point exactly. Then why are you arguing?

I've said repeatedly that it is not stealing, however I'm not sure what you mean by the "throwing money after me" comment.

I am sorry if I had you confused with others on the forum, I thought you referred to it as stealing. My mistake.

I am referring to the argument that you to a certain degree will have to be able to protect your own interests. Can you see the downsides to burdening society with heavy monitoring of citizens, expensive police investigations and using the limited rersources of the legal systems to protect your immaterial property rights, when the physical nature of a copy is as fluctuos as oxygen? And stop saying “it's the law”. That has nothing to do with the quality of the rule.

Applie enough st00pid rules in a society, and we will eventuelly end up with a lack of respect of the law in general. This is a valid and important argument when constructing rules, which both the courts and the parliaments always consider.

[eirik]

I'll have to add a final point: I think the tone in this debate is unecessary confrontational(maybe myself included). The argumentative power of politeness is underestimated. Most people here are sincere and open minded, but don't chop each others neck of for minor factual mistakes, pointing them out should be sufficient and helpful.

[geni]

Teh gumboot, a basic in a rule of law is that the police have a special status when it comes to law enforcement. They have a monopoly, with only small and well established exceptions. To refer to citizens arrest in a copyright infringement-discussion is a waste, geni. It has no relevance here .


Neither does goverment law enforcement. Copyright is civil law.



There is a big leap from cooperation with the police, to demanding that the internet provider must monitor it's customers. Appearantly, most legal systems in the EU have acknowledged this, and I couldn't be happier.



France seems to think otherwise and most of the other legal systems I've been paying attention to have been working overtime to avoid the issue.



You're describing de facto terrorism. Do you not see the absurdity in your argument? Piracy isn't causing “substantial harm” to the functioning of that infrastructure. On the contrary, P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure.

Evidences?


You are right, but that is a semantic point. People copy music because they want to listen to it. You are pissed because you feel it's your inherent right to be compensated for copying. This is not necessarily so. And it is certainly not a moral question.

You say that but then people tend to view property rights as a)inherent and b) a moral issue.


That's a pretty dogmatic point of view. And it is not “property”, it is “immaterial property”.

Courtesy wiki: A “widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions. This philosophical difference was highlighted by the Sony vs Disney case regarding record-able CDs and tape. At the time, Disney was attempting to ban VHS-recording machines as illegal devices attempting to impinge on their copyright. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the sale of VHS recording machines, and in a later, similar suit by Disney the US Supreme Court allowed the sale of recordable CDs and Mini-Discs. This repeated failure to gain government support of their position is what led Disney to try new tactics and lobby for increasing the length of copyright protection and eventually Digital Rights Management.”

Rather a lot of money these days is simply number on a computer screen. Nothing material about it. Yap was rather ahead of us in this respect.


Your presenting your moral values in this argument is bordering on a moral absolutism. Surely we agree it's immoral to kill in certain situations. But to claim that copying is intrinsically immoral is not even worthy a debate.


Depends on which moral system you are useing.



We are not talking about distributions of “materials”, we are talking about copying the 'immaterial', nor are we talking about monopolies in general, and certainly not christians one in spesific. That was a digression that may or may not be controversial.

you brought up the history of copyright.



If I mixed up the protestant with the catholic church, I'm truly sorry for my religious insensitivity. But the legal literature(norwegian) and the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright states that the origin of the copyright institute is in fact attributed to Gutenbergs invention. They may be innacurate in the finer points, but that is knitpicking.


Problem is that it still isn't copyright. Remeber the KJV isn't protected by copyright but rather by monopoly.


I was referring to the origin of copyright thinking as we know it today, not the institute itself, and this is naturally hard to pinpoint with precision. I don't see a big issue here. There is concensus that copyright thinking in the form we know it was introduced because of the printing press. Copying was simply not a big issue prior to this.

Protecting IP however was. We've run across encrypted glaze recipies.



Wiki: “As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Charles II of England was concerned by the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing Act of 1662 by Act of Parliament,[1] which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationer's Company, essentially continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect”

Not bibles and vennice predates by rather a lot.


No. Wiki again: “Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed”. For very good reasons, for the ones interested in the subject.


"Expression of their own ideas" should probably be considered a signle lump in that sentence


I know this because I'm not completely ignorant. It does have it's upsides, as do many poor anachronistic ideas. It is a battle of legitimate interests. I don't think artists shouldn't get payed. I'm just saying this particular rule doesn't work in the real world. That's a fact, and you can moan and bitch about all you like, but that is strongly supported fact, hence this discussion.


Propert rights don't work in the real world.


Wiki again: “As with patents for physical objects, the granting of a copyright was ensured by governments to promote innovation and guarantee first-to-market protection for the owner of the copyright (historically, more likely the publisher than the creator). This government-sponsored monopoly thus provides innovation and general benefit to society as a whole, but allows for capitalistic pressures after the first-to-market advantage has been provided as a reward (and effort to cover R&D time for such works to be developed).

With the modern emergence of massive mass-media conglomerates however, the first-to-market advantage can be recouped within weeks instead of years”.

Not always. Films can take rather longer. Books longer still.



I don't confuse them, I draw analogies based on the similarities. Patent and copyright is based on the same way of thinking(see above).


Nope. Copyright allows for independent invention. Patent does not.


Again, I know that. I was just illustrating the absurdity.


By attacking a strawman? okeeeey.


Why? Does anyone else get payed after they die? It's not a house we're talking about. Stop pretending that we are.


Certianly. What do you think trust funds are?


Wiki:


There are various proposals underway to deal with the orphan works issues. Personaly I detest most of them but eh.


I know it is “protected” by law. I see the finer points in a normative legal discussion is lost on you. “it's wrong because it's illegal!!” I was referring to a perfectly valid argument. (“criminalizes half the population,

Are you suggesting we should repeal all traffic laws?



and have no basis in a modern business model, and simply does not work)”


Microsoft made a bit over 17 billion last year.



In Norway and in most EU countries it is both illegal by copyright law and criminalized.

Most?


But why do you think it is a relevant relevant counter argument, even if som countries have not criminalized it?

Some? Common law regards copyright as a civil matter. All of britian's former colonies tend to be common law based. That is rather a lot of countries. Through in the various contries with US based legal systems and that is rather a large some.



And do you see a direct corrolation between the hungerstricken writers in 1710 and copyright law? Have you concidered alternatives to the copyright models and concluded that artist would starve to death? Wow, you must be sitting on tons of data and empirical evidence to suppport this. This is a bogus argument based on false and incomplete premises.

Compare books published pre and post copyright.



I am referring to the argument that you to a certain degree will have to be able to protect your own interests.

Your problem there is that the big copyright holders probably can. Only the law prevents them from doing so.


Can you see the downsides to burdening society with heavy monitoring of citizens, expensive police investigations and using the limited rersources of the legal systems to protect your immaterial property rights, when the physical nature of a copy is as fluctuos as oxygen?

Given the value of IP to the avergae first world economy cost is unlikely to help your case.

[eirik]

Neither does goverment law enforcement. Copyright is civil law.

No, breach of copyright is also criminalized in many countries, e.g Sweden, Norway, Denmark. That's the ones I know without further research. But you are right in that many countries have not criminalized this. (I'll take your word for it).

But it doesn't change that you cannot uncritically allow private enforcers invading other peoples life, and violating their civil rights to a sphere of privacy. (that is my field of law) Policing is still the polices business.

An exempt from a norwegian article on the subject: KOMMENTARER TIL HØRINGSNOTAT OM
ENDRING AV STRAFFELOVEN § 262
EFN (Elektronisk Forpost Norge)
Oslo, 25. april 2000”

I'll try to translate, as I think they present the arguments in a structured and convincing way:

(Comments on a hearing on penal law §262)

“Firstly, the freedom to play andd experiment with others imatterial property is a basic premise for learning, art, education and development.

Secondly, the right to privacy is in itself an important principle. One should try to avoid rules that, if they are to be obeyed and enforced, to an unreasonable extent violates the right to a private sphere.

Equally important as protecting the right to privacy, is that public presentation, distribution and commercial exploit must be protected.

One should as a guiding principle be extremely careful with laying restrtictions on access to knowledge. It's a slippery slope.
(...)
Possibilities for reverse engineering is also important for healthy competition and diversity, and to obstruct monopolies to form”

These are legitimate and sound arguments. I don't understand why you claim otherwise. We might reach a different conclusion weighing the arguments, but I don't appreciate

“You're describing de facto terrorism. Do you not see the absurdity in your argument? Piracy isn't causing “substantial harm” to the functioning of that infrastructure. On the contrary, P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure”.

Evidences?

Evidence of what? Your statement? Or the fact that you are describing terrorism? Deliberately causing substantial harm to essential infrastructure: In Norway, that's the legal definition of terrorism. And I think many would actually agree that this is a good functioning definition. Look it up, or take my word for it.

You say that but then people tend to view property rights as a)inherent and b) a moral issue.

(Again with the property rights) And that stops any sensible discussion on the subject. You have a few interesting points, but I'm sorry to see them drowning in meaningless refutals, most of them of semantic nature. Good luck.

[The Atheist]

Teh gumboot, a basic in a rule of law is that the police have a special status when it comes to law enforcement. They have a monopoly, with only small and well established exceptions. To refer to citizens arrest in a copyright infringement-discussion is a waste, geni. It has no relevance here.

What an outstanding [series] of posts you're putting together here.

:bigclap




Only comment I'd like to add is that I have a sneaky feeling the laws - in this country, which is also gumboot's - is that citizens' arrests are not quite as simple as seeing someone breaking the law and going and grabbing & holding them until the cops arrive. Without a fairly serious crime having been committed, the arresting person would almost certainly be subject to assault and even kidnap charges.

[/end irrelevant derail]

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Ironically in New Zealand a lot of retailers won't refund computer games or DVDs because of people buying them, taking them home and copying them, and then returning them for a refund.



Another good example of how corrupt, dishonest, morally bankrupt individuals ruin things for the few honest people out there.


I think that the problem could be solved by only exchanging a faulty disc, rather than refunding the purchase price.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Ok. I'm out of snark for the night.

People get cracked versions of the game because often the copyright protection on software either clashes with drivers/other software on the system and makes it not work right or refuses to install itself/activate after a system upgrade without spending hours on the phone chasing different tech people around in a rousing game of happy horse ****. Now I suspect Fallout 3 does this, but I know Spore is only good for a few installs (3?). Which means If you were like me and just juggled a series of computer and hard drive upgrades, you couldn't use it anymore normally.

In games with shoddy DRM/copy-protection, each copy has this. It's not a matter of the disc in the box being abnormal, but the software being normally unusable for some purposes.

In my case, I have several tools for defeating cd-checks that ensure discs are in the drive. I buy all my software legally, but if you remember when large hard drives became available, one of the key selling points was that you no longer needed to switch floppy disks while using an application, or even have them within reach. Now cds with copy protection come along and artificially limit that functionality.

I get around that when I can through copying an image of the cd to the hard drive and using virtual cd-drive software to emulate a cd-rom. Unfortunately, distributors don't like me doing that and are including provisions where the program refuses to run if it detects virtual drive software.

I'm not dedicated enough to learn the hexediting neccesary to escalate to the next level, so I just go download a hacked version from someone who is.

This is black and white to me in that I have legitimately paid for the use of the software, and they shouldn't have the right to stick their noses far enough into my business to make it a legal issue whether I do so with the disc in the drive or out of it.



I was thinking more along the lines of you buy a game for a console, it gives you an error message (disc is unreadable) when you try to run it, you take it back, they give you another one, you go home and enjoy the game, everybody is happy. Everything you wrote makes no sense to me, as I don't have the technical knowledge about computers to decipher it. I will assume that what you say is true. I will therefore admit that in the case you described that you have a legitimate complaint, and that you have made a good faith effort to follow the rules. There are some cases where it is more than a cheap bastard wanting something for nothing. The problem is that I see so much selfishness and greed that I tend to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

[geni]

No, breach of copyright is also criminalized in many countries, e.g Sweden, Norway, Denmark. That's the ones I know without further research.

Your adoption of a napolonic code based system of law is not my problem.


But it doesn't change that you cannot uncritically allow private enforcers invading other peoples life, and violating their civil rights to a sphere of privacy. (that is my field of law) Policing is still the polices business.


Claim not consistant "It's also an accepted property law (in europe anyway) that you in some sense have to be able to protect your own interests/rights."

You can take one position or the other not both.


An exempt from a norwegian article on the subject: KOMMENTARER TIL

“Firstly, the freedom to play andd experiment with others imatterial property is a basic premise for learning, art, education and development.

Secondly, the right to privacy is in itself an important principle. One should try to avoid rules that, if they are to be obeyed and enforced, to an unreasonable extent violates the right to a private sphere.

Equally important as protecting the right to privacy, is that public presentation, distribution and commercial exploit must be protected.

One should as a guiding principle be extremely careful with laying restrtictions on access to knowledge. It's a slippery slope.
(...)
Possibilities for reverse engineering is also important for healthy competition and diversity, and to obstruct monopolies to form”


All these points are adressed by current isreali law.

Still for a more international perspective "Firstly, the freedom to play and experiment with others imatterial property is a basic premise for learning, art, education and development."

Depending on the legal system this is covered by fair dealing, fair use, right of quotation, right of citation or a bunch of rather more specific clauses (see dutch or south korean law)

"Secondly, the right to privacy is in itself an important principle. One should try to avoid rules that, if they are to be obeyed and enforced, to an unreasonable extent violates the right to a private sphere."

Unless you are acessing the web through multiple proxies useing hard encryption there is a reasonable case for argueing that the in plane view doctrain kicks in.

"One should as a guiding principle be extremely careful with laying restrtictions on access to knowledge. It's a slippery slope."

most countries have a public libiary service.

"Possibilities for reverse engineering is also important for healthy competition and diversity, and to obstruct monopolies to form"

Not true. Reverse engineering limits diversity. Without it people do the same thing in different ways. This has significant benifits.


These are legitimate and sound arguments. I don't understand why you claim otherwise. We might reach a different conclusion weighing the arguments, but I don't appreciate

None of them cause problems for copyright law.



Evidence of what? Your statement?


"P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure"

Prove it.


Or the fact that you are describing terrorism? Deliberately causing substantial harm to essential infrastructure: In Norway, that's the legal definition of terrorism.

You've just described critial mass bike rides as terrorism.


(Again with the property rights) And that stops any sensible discussion on the subject. You have a few interesting points, but I'm sorry to see them drowning in meaningless refutals, most of them of semantic nature. Good luck.

Why because you belive property rights to be somehow different from other rights? Okey how about mineral extraction rights?

[Gate2501]

The way that some of you are talking about Macs as some "controllable" platform sounds horrible to me...

It sounds like you want to turn a powerful tool, into some kind of ultra restricted content delivery platform, wherein the user of said machine hasn't got much power to do what he/she wants. That seems like a distinct step backwards, in the name of shutting down piracy.

It is exactly the same as putting all manner of draconian copy protection on video game discs. It doesn't hurt me(the Dbag pirate) one bit. It hurts Joe Normal, who bought spore, and has to play musical DVDs every time he wants to play it.

It is the wrong direction, but all of you hard liners can't see the bigger picture. You are punishing your paying customers. You are doing nothing to me. You might even drive some of them over to my way of thinking!

[geni]

The way that some of you are talking about Macs as some "controllable" platform sounds horrible to me...

It sounds like you want to turn a powerful tool, into some kind of ultra restricted content delivery platform, wherein the user of said machine hasn't got much power to do what he/she wants. That seems like a distinct step backwards, in the name of shutting down piracy.

And yet the macbook sells.

As do game consoles.

There is a considerable demand for systems that do fewer thing but do them well.


It is exactly the same as putting all manner of draconian copy protection on video game discs. It doesn't hurt me(the Dbag pirate) one bit. It hurts Joe Normal, who bought spore, and has to play musical DVDs every time he wants to play it.

It is the wrong direction, but all of you hard liners can't see the bigger picture. You are punishing your paying customers. You are doing nothing to me. You might even drive some of them over to my way of thinking!

Ah the old DRM causeing copyright violatations argument. Well did you know that every banknote in your pocket contains a form of DRM (and no we don't know exactly how it works)? Did that stop you from useing banknotes?

[luchog]

They do if you incorporate a constantly evolving security feature into the media which requires reverification, or incorporate a system by which the media will only work on whatever system it was initially created, making it impossible to copy it at all.
Been tried, failed. All that is necessary is to divorce the content from the DRM protecting it. If someone can come up with a way to lock down content, then someone can come up with a way to break that lock.

Ultimately, it's a losing battle. The only difference between fully protected content and pirated content is time. Content management cannot ever be perfect.

Plus, you encounter the problem that the more difficult you make it to access the content illegally, the more difficult you make it to access the content legally. By creating this level of protection, you are greatly restricting your own market.

It's an interesting historical fact that the effort that broke the CSS anti-pirate scheme that protect commercial DVD video content was not spearheaded by pirates trying to steal the content; it was spearheaded by people who had purchased the DVDs legally, but were unable to use them on their platform of choice due to the lack of legal support for said platform (Linux-based computers). Piracy was originally a side effect.

Likewise, restriction schemes based on region-coding and locking were similarly broken by people who wished to view legally-purchased content in regions it had not been originally intended for. I own multiple DVDs which have never been released in my region, but which were purchased perfectly legally from international retailers, and for which I needed a region-unlocked player to enable me to view.

A more recent example is Maxis/EA's Spore. The SecuROM DRM involved has made it so difficult to use legally, due to the various unrelated problems that the DRM software causes on many computers; that a substantial number of people who have purchased the game legally have not installed it, but instead downloaded and installed an illegally DRM-removed version instead. The end result is that rather than protecting their content, this situation has resulted in Spore having more illegal downloads than any other game.

[luchog]

Ah the old DRM causeing copyright violatations argument. Well did you know that every banknote in your pocket contains a form of DRM (and no we don't know exactly how it works)? Did that stop you from useing banknotes?
Erm, no, not DRM, since it's not digital, it's a physical product.

It does have copy protection, yes. But copy protection for banknotes does not signficantly increase difficulty or limitations on use of the banknotes for their intended purpose. The same cannot be said about DRM, and it's precisely that limitation and difficulty which has resulted in the substantial backlash against it, even from legitimate, legal consumers.

[luchog]

but I know Spore is only good for a few installs (3?). Which means If you were like me and just juggled a series of computer and hard drive upgrades, you couldn't use it anymore normally.
Because of the problems and the resulting outcry; the DRM was updated to allow for 5 installs, and a simpler process for de/re-registration was created. There are many who feel that this is still too restrictive for legally-owned products. There is also the issue that the DRM itself is equivalent to a virus (rootkit), with the potential for maliciously exploitable bugs; and is known to potentially cause conflicts with other software.

[luchog]

With a Mac you just have a hardware DRM chip set up so linux or non apple OSes cannot acess it. Technicaly still ways to break it but much much harder.
Except that it wasn't that difficult, and has already been broken.

[luchog]

[QUOTE=Miss_Kitt;4214114]Using the "attending a concert without a ticket" analogy--not physical theft--what is going on is that the media pirate is violating the implied agreement between artist and audience: The artist has set the price he/she thinks is fair for the performance. If you agree, then pay it; if you don't, then don't think that you have a right to the performance. You are not holding up your side of the agreement, which is dishonest, whether you wish to call it "theft" or some other name. /QUOTE]

Except that this is still not a completely valid analogy, since attending a concert without a ticket still requires a physical presence, and therefore displaces a legal, ticket-holding attendee who could have used the space that you are now taking up.

That's the problem with equating digital copying with theft. It doesn't remove anything from the producer, it doesn't displace legal users, and it doesn't prevent the use of the product by anyone else. It is unethical in a purely abstract sense, there is absolutely no material component (if one assumes that the pirates would not otherwise purchase the product). The only issue is the validity of the abstraction.

Incidentally, this is not a new problem. Just look up the history of "Tin Pan Alley" music and unlicensed performance.

[geni]

Erm, no, not DRM, since it's not digital, it's a physical product.

So is a DVD. See what happens if you try and scan a banknote into photoshop.

[geni]

Except that it wasn't that difficult, and has already been broken.

X-box moding? Hasn't been that much of a problem.

[luchog]

Your adoption of a napolonic code based system of law is not my problem.

There is also Chinese law, which is dramatically different. There are many different philosophies and approaches to intellectual property law. Who decides which ones are superior, based on what criteria?

Depending on the legal system this is covered by fair dealing, fair use, right of quotation, right of citation or a bunch of rather more specific clauses (see dutch or south korean law)

The problem is that recent laws and conventions have greatly gutted "fair use" provisions; and case law on "fair use" has never been consistent. On top of that, DRM effectively eliminates the ability to apply many "fair use" protected principles, by criminalizing the implementation of such.

"One should as a guiding principle be extremely careful with laying restrtictions on access to knowledge. It's a slippery slope."

most countries have a public libiary service.

Which are also limited by copyright and DRM provisions from providing access to many types of media.

You've just described critial mass bike rides as terrorism.

Are you familiar with the actions of Critical Mass riders? There have been many incidents, including one very recently in my city, where massholes have engaged in activities that begin to qualify as terrorism.

Why because you belive property rights to be somehow different from other rights? Okey how about mineral extraction rights?
Despite your refusal to see it, there is a critical, fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property, and the laws covering each need to reflect this difference.

[Gate2501]

Ah the old DRM causeing copyright violatations argument. Well did you know that every banknote in your pocket contains a form of DRM (and no we don't know exactly how it works)? Did that stop you from useing banknotes?

This is a totally absurd analogy.

The SecuROM on spore has been notorious for the misery it has caused legitimate buyers of the game. They have the product, they purchased the product, and now they have to jump through flaming hoops to use the product legally, when an illegal user(like me) just downloads a cracked version for free and has NONE of these problems.

How does this fit your banknote analogy???

Lets take the case of a man who copies a bunch of dollar bills(illegal cracked spore), and someone that has legitimate dollar bills(store bought copy of spore). How does this ARM(analog rights management lolol), on the dollar bill, harm the user that earned his dollars legitimately?

Oh wait... It doesn't. The analogy is whack.

My point: Making ultra-restrictive and draconian countermeasures against piracy, usually ends up harming your actual customers MUCH more than those who crack and pirate the data.

[luchog]

And yet the macbook sells.

But not nearly as well as WinTel platforms. They currently have barely over a 10% share of the worldwide personal computer retail market, and 20% of the US market. This is up dramatically from the previous year, and has been attributed mainly to dissatisfaction with Windows Vista, combined with a hugely effective marketting campaign that takes advantage of that dissatisfaction. Vista has many of the same DRM issues as the Mac.

As do game consoles.

Which are expected to be limited, highly specialized platforms. This is purely an apples and oranges comparison; and you could say exactly the same thing about DVD players and iPods. It's meaningless.

There is a considerable demand for systems that do fewer thing but do them well.

This is true for specialized applications; not for computers. And in fact, it's increasingly less true. Platform convergence is increasing as a major market factor, as witnessed in the mobile phone/device market, and the inclusion of web-browser software and high-definition video playing ability in newer gaming platforms. Up until very recently, the Sony Playstation 3 game console was considered by nearly the entire industry to be the best Blu-Ray video player on the market, beating out pretty much every other specialized, dedicated player available. Actually AFAIK, this may still be true.

[geni]

There is also Chinese law, which is dramatically different. There are many different philosophies and approaches to intellectual property law. Who decides which ones are superior, based on what criteria?

Well historicaly force of arms has been the decideing factor. Personaly I tend to view elements of continetal european law (moral rights say) as highly problematical.


The problem is that recent laws and conventions have greatly gutted "fair use" provisions;

False see Isreal.


and case law on "fair use" has never been consistent.


Well that tends to be the effect of caselaw. Shiria law tends not to do caselaw to the same extent if you want to give that a go. Me I prefer systems that don't look like some wierd 1950s british/swiss law hybrid (saudi statue law makes it hard to tell if it is posible for a photograph to recive copyright protection.


On top of that, DRM effectively eliminates the ability to apply many "fair use" protected principles, by criminalizing the implementation of such.

Only under US law.


Which are also limited by copyright and DRM provisions from providing access to many types of media.

Both libiary of congress and british library can pretty much get copies of whatever they want.


Are you familiar with the actions of Critical Mass riders? There have been many incidents, including one very recently in my city, where massholes have engaged in activities that begin to qualify as terrorism.


Are you familiar with the UK? Terrorists blew up bits of the country quite frequently for much of the last century (actualty we haven't had a bombing since may and that was a bit of a failure). Critical Mass's activities don't really rate that highly.


Despite your refusal to see it, there is a critical, fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property, and the laws covering each need to reflect this difference.

I'm not talking about the type of property but the rights attached to it.

[luchog]

So is a DVD. See what happens if you try and scan a banknote into photoshop.
Nope, you're wrong again. The DVD is merely a content delivery system. The product is the movie digitally encoded on the DVD. It can be delivered through any number of different methods, including streaming, without any alteration to the content.

By contrast, the banknote itself is the content. Or rather, a tangible symbolic representation of the content, inseperable from it, which is lost when the physical representation is destroyed.

Oh, and Photoshop is another red herring. There is nothing in the banknote that prevents it being scanned into any image manipulation software. Photoshop has code that recognizes the banknote and prevents it from being reproduced. There are other legally available image manipulation applications that do not contain that code, and which can be used to reproduce banknotes. (The only reason that this doesn't happen, is that it is extremely difficult to reproduce the physical product in a way that is not easily distinguishable from a legitimate copy. This is not a problem with digital content.)

[geni]

Lets take the case of a man who copies a bunch of dollar bills(illegal cracked spore), and someone that has legitimate dollar bills(store bought copy of spore). How does this ARM(analog rights management lolol), on the dollar bill, harm the user that earned his dollars legitimately?


It's firmly digital. The point it that you have no problem with DRM per se (even though in the case of US banknotes it is protecting an item that isn't protected by copyright) only bad implementations of it.

[geni]

There is nothing in the banknote that prevents it being scanned into any image manipulation software. Photoshop has code that recognizes the banknote and prevents it from being reproduced. There are other legally available image manipulation applications that do not contain that code, and which can be used to reproduce banknotes.

And this in on way differs from any other form of DRM. Well assumeing you live outside the US anyway.

[luchog]

False see Isreal.

Last I checked, Israeli law is only used in Israel. I suggest you look up the effect that the DMCA and anti-DRM-breaking laws have had on fair use in the rest of the world.

Only under US law.

Nope, it applies to EU signatories as well.

Both libiary of congress and british library can pretty much get copies of whatever they want.

But their patrons are not legally allowed to install and use DRM protected software, or DRM protected music, without purchasing a license. You are wrong again.

Are you familiar with the UK? Terrorists blew up bits of the country quite frequently for much of the last century (actualty we haven't had a bombing since may and that was a bit of a failure). Critical Mass's activities don't really rate that highly.

Look up the definition of "terrorism", then read my reply again, paying attention to all the words in it, not just the ones you want to bother with.

I'm not talking about the type of property but the rights attached to it.
Which, if you'd been paying attention, I noted needed to reasonably reflect the type of the property in question.

[luchog]

And this in on way differs from any other form of DRM. Well assumeing you live outside the US anyway.
I'm not sure you're understanding the fundametal difference between reproducing physical objects, and reproducing digital data.

[Gate2501]

It's firmly digital. The point it that you have no problem with DRM per se (even though in the case of US banknotes it is protecting an item that isn't protected by copyright) only bad implementations of it.

What semantic game are you going to engage in, to show that anti-counterfeiting measures on physical money, qualify as Digital Rights Management? More importantly, what "Digital Rights" are being "Managed" by these countermenasures? Are they "Digital" rights at all when it comes to currency???

[geni]

But not nearly as well as WinTel platforms. They currently have barely over a 10% share of the worldwide personal computer retail market, and 20% of the US market. This is up dramatically from the previous year, and has been attributed mainly to dissatisfaction with Windows Vista, combined with a hugely effective marketting campaign that takes advantage of that dissatisfaction. Vista has many of the same DRM issues as the Mac.

Many but not all. And they are less hard to get around. People are prepared to accept computers that are not built PC style. Most people don't need or even particulary want the massive degree of felixibility offered by PCs (if they did dell would have had a much harder time of things).


Which are expected to be limited, highly specialized platforms. This is purely an apples and oranges comparison; and you could say exactly the same thing about DVD players and iPods. It's meaningless.


No it isn't Game designers appear to be switching to consels because they are harder to pirate from. No reason to think that in time other industries will not take the same aproach.

[geni]

What semantic game are you going to engage in, to show that anti-counterfeiting measures on physical money, qualify as Digital Rights Management? More importantly, what "Digital Rights" are being "Managed" by these countermenasures? Are they "Digital" rights at all when it comes to currency???

Yup for example UK currency is under copyright which rather limits who can legaly make digitial copies of it without violateing copyright.

[Gate2501]

Yup for example UK currency is under copyright which rather limits who can legaly make digitial copies of it without violateing copyright.

Who can make DIGITAL copies of PHYSICAL bank notes??? Are you talking about the digital data that represents a scan of a physical piece of currency? A scan that would be totally unuseable in any way unless you were to use it to PHYSICALLY print out a copy???

I think that you can see how you are playing semantics games once again.

Your analogy linking physical currency and anti-counterfeiting countermeasures to DRM was silly. Just admit it(or don't) and move on.

[geni]

Last I checked, Israeli law is only used in Israel. I suggest you look up the effect that the DMCA and anti-DRM-breaking laws have had on fair use in the rest of the world.

Fair use only exists in three countries. US, Isreal and the Philippines. Only the US has DRM provisions. Isreali law is important since it is the most recent significant copyright update to enter into law which gives us some idea what dirrection the law may be moveing. The Gowers Review was also pretty liberal but eh I suspect that has died.


Nope, it applies to EU signatories as well.


Nope not appeared in UK law. Oh there were plans to include it in EU but well they went much the way of plays to reform the common agricultural policy. Clashed with a few too many nation's private interests see.


But their patrons are not legally allowed to install and use DRM protected software, or DRM protected music, without purchasing a license. You are wrong again.

Again your DRM laws do not apply to the UK. I doubt the LOC would have many problems with running the software or playing the music onsite.


Look up the definition of "terrorism", then read my reply again, paying attention to all the words in it, not just the ones you want to bother with.

There is no agreeded defintion.



Which, if you'd been paying attention, I noted needed to reasonably reflect the type of the property in question.

Meaningless unless you can show that one does in a way the other does not.

[geni]

Who can make DIGITAL copies of PHYSICAL bank notes??? Are you talking about the digital data that represents a scan of a physical piece of currency? A scan that would be totally unuseable in any way unless you were to use it to PHYSICALLY print out a copy???

You are being rather unimaginative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_Series_(banknotes)

There are also various artworks that make use of banknotes.


Your analogy linking physical currency and anti-counterfeiting countermeasures to DRM was silly. Just admit it(or don't) and move on.

So you don't think the EURion constellation is DRM? How would you desicribe it then?

[Gate2501]

You are being rather unimaginative


No, you are being totally absurd, and overly imaginative, and drawing conclusions based on semantics, that somehow, in some wacky way, could apply the management of "Digital Rights" to physical bank notes.

You are acting a fool. And you look desperate at this point.

All of this because you have the inability to admit that you made a bad analogy. Tsk tsk.

[Gate2501]

So you don't think the EURion constellation is DRM? How would you desicribe it then?

No, it PLAINLY does not make the money, the bank notes, as you originally said, have DIGITAL RIGHTS to MANAGE. It is a computer program that helps protect the note from being counterfeited. It is a digital tool that helps enforce the copy rights to a physical item, this DOES NOT mean that the physical item then has "Digital Rights" to manage.

Its semantics twister, and you are a goofball.

[Lithrael]

It's so tough for me to figure out the point of the tortured analogies people use to call copyright infringement, theft and/or immoral.

Derivative works should be just as much theft and as immoral as piracy by the standards I'm seeing described here. I don't buy licensed sci-fi TV tie in novels because I like fan fiction better. A clear case of copyright infringement taking money from the pockets of the intellectual property's creators. So fans writing stories about Doctor Who and posting them online is immoral. Got it.

[Gate2501]

It's so tough for me to figure out the point of the tortured analogies people use to call copyright infringement, theft and/or immoral.

Derivative works should be just as much theft and as immoral as piracy by the standards I'm seeing described here. I don't buy licensed sci-fi TV tie in novels because I like fan fiction better. A clear case of copyright infringement taking money from the pockets of the intellectual property's creators. So fans writing stories about Doctor Who and posting them online is immoral. Got it.

Well, even I see it as somewhat immoral, I just don't think it is on the same level as physical theft. Others here think that it is, and I would imagine that some even think that it is more immoral. This is an opinion on morality, totally subjective.

The problem comes when everyone starts using crazy analogies about Grand Theft Auto (not the game lol), and shoplifiting at Wal-Mart.

[geni]

No, you are being totally absurd, and overly imaginative, and drawing conclusions based on semantics, that somehow, in some wacky way, could apply the management of "Digital Rights" to physical bank notes.

You are acting a fool. And you look desperate at this point.

All of this because you have the inability to admit that you made a bad analogy. Tsk tsk.

Rather than attempt to counter a position you have clearly too much emotional investment in I think a different root may be required.

Under US law DRM is enforced through the DMCA. Okey basic stuff. The section in question applies to "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (protected under this title basically means every copyrighted work in the US). Now you might try and argue over the word effective but since it is generally thought that DVD encryption qualifies even though it proved to be mildly less effective than putting a picture of a kitten with "please don't pirate this DVD" written across it in every box I tend to suspect that "effectively" going to be interpreted pretty broadly.

[Lithrael]

(re: sharing fan fiction)

Well, even I see it as somewhat immoral, I just don't think it is on the same level as physical theft. Others here think that it is, and I would imagine that some even think that it is more immoral. This is an opinion on morality, totally subjective.

Yeah, I'd agree too that fan fiction isn't defensible in a by-the-book way. It is very straightforwardly providing stuff for free that is directly based on the hard work of others, and those others are selling stuff they want to be paid for.

But I cannot seem to figure out how to actually feel bad about it. And while I am not interested in the works of Anne Rice or Anne McCaffrey anyways, I can't NOT feel like they are twonks for demanding that no one create derivative works based on their intellectual property. Even though I do fully recognise it is their right to do so.

[geni]

But I cannot seem to figure out how to actually feel bad about it. And while I am not interested in the works of Anne Rice or Anne McCaffrey anyways, I can't NOT feel like they are twonks for demanding that no one create derivative works based on their intellectual property. Even though I do fully recognise it is their right to do so.

Probably that when you have spent years building characters you don't want to see them savaged by low quality fan fic. Throw in how involved authors can become with their characters and it is not that unreasonable that again they would want to protect them.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I didn't steal the first one..
OK:
find the box
find the ticket
go back to the store
"it doesn't work"
"sorry bud, EULA, part 24,section 55 paragraph 33b4, goodbye"

nah, still don't care..


I have considered this issue, and re-examined the situation you described, thanks to another poster. I can admit when I am wrong. In this case, I am wrong. While I feel strongly that taking something without paying is morally wrong, and I condemn those who illegally download software, music, and so on simply because they want to get something for free, I didn't consider all of the situations that can arise. You made a good faith effort to legally purchase something, and when the product was found to be defective, you made a good faith effort to make a legitimate warranty claim. When the software company refused to help you, you took steps to reclaim your loss. This is, I think, morally justified. It's a case of violating the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.


I called you a thief earlier, and that was uncalled for. I apologise. Sometimes it's hard to see other people when I'm way up here on my high horse.

[Gate2501]

Rather than attempt to counter a position you have clearly too much emotional investment in I think a different root may be required.

Under US law DRM is enforced through the DMCA. Okey basic stuff. The section in question applies to "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (protected under this title basically means every copyrighted work in the US). Now you might try and argue over the word effective but since it is generally thought that DVD encryption qualifies even though it proved to be mildly less effective than putting a picture of a kitten with "please don't pirate this DVD" written across it in every box I tend to suspect that "effectively" going to be interpreted pretty broadly.

Don't mistake my admittedly /b/ posting style as being "emotional".

I try to stay within the rules of this forum, but sometimes you see me tossing about insults and allegations of epic fail. That said...

You are still desperately trying (with semantics) to prove that real life, physical bank notes, have Digital Rights that are Managed by the anti-counterfeiting measures built into them. Seriously, just let this one go. You lost this mini debate, and are grasping at straws.

Physical bank notes do not have a DRM built into them because you can use a computer program to check them for irregularities. Sorry dude.

The software that checks them could have DRM, but I highly doubt that it does ;)

[geni]

You are still desperately trying (with semantics) to prove that real life, physical bank notes, have Digital Rights that are Managed by the anti-counterfeiting measures built into them.

You've put the break in the wrong place.

There is no such thing as digital rights seperate from any other rights (well outside EFF manifestos anyway).

So the phrase would better scan as Digital (and EURion constellation is digital while technicaly it would be posible to build an analoge setup that did much the same no one has ever done it). Rights Management while US notes are PD english & welsh ones are not. Thus amoung other functions the EURion constellation manages their rights.




Seriously, just let this one go. You lost this mini debate, and are grasping at straws.

Argument by repitition of claims of victory is a logical fallacy.


Physical bank notes do not have a DRM built into them because you can use a computer program to check them for irregularities. Sorry dude.


Just because you can use a program to do X with a file doesn't mean it doesn't have DRM. Indeed thats kinda the point. Management means allowing people to do what you want them to be able to do.

[Gate2501]

Geni.

Physical bank notes do not have DRM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

The very first line.

Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term that refers to access control technologies used by hardware manufacturers, publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices.

I keep declaring victory, because you lost.

[geni]

Geni.

Physical bank notes do not have DRM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

The very first line.

Is slightly uncited. Still since you accept that defintion. Well most people accept that computers (and these days xerox photocopiers) are digital devices.

While various items refered to as analogue computers have been built they were more calculators.

In this case the EURion constellation is designed to limit the digital device known as a xerox photocopier. It is also likely used as part of the system designed to limit the digital device known as a PC running adobe photoshop.

So by the defintion of DRM that you accept it is DRM.

[Gate2501]

Is slightly uncited. Still since you accept that defintion. Well most people accept that computers (and these days xerox photocopiers) are digital devices.

While various items refered to as analogue computers have been built they were more calculators.

In this case the EURion constellation is designed to limit the digital device known as a xerox photocopier. It is also likely used as part of the system designed to limit the digital device known as a PC running adobe photoshop.

So by the defintion of DRM that you accept it is DRM.

You know what. I give up.

The dollar bill has DRM everyone. Who'da thunk it?

[eirik]

Your adoption of a napolonic code based system of law is not my problem.
You inquired. Problem?..try to stay polite. Scandinavian law is inspired by Code Civil, the german Burgerliche Gezetsbuch (probably spelled this wrong..), american law and of course the english law. There is nothing material that distinguishes common law copyright thinking and continental law. That's at best coincidental. Copyright exists in both “systems”.

”But it doesn't change that you cannot uncritically allow private enforcers invading other peoples life, and violating their civil rights to a sphere of privacy. (that is my field of law) Policing is still the polices business”

Claim not consistant "It's also an accepted property law (in europe anyway) that you in some sense have to be able to protect your own interests/rights."

You can take one position or the other not both.

Why don't you ask me why I take both positions, instead of postulating I'm wrong? That way you would not be wrong in such an arrogant way.

They are off course not mutually excluding.

You have to be able to protect your interests in some sense /to some degree, and you have to do it 'legally'. I thought this was obvious, but my fault for not underlining this 'vital' information. I thought my posts were long enough already. I noted the “missile example” from someone. Glad I could clear that up not.

All these points are adressed by current isreali law

Every copyright law adresses these issues, I hope. It is just a difference in how one weighs the opposing legitimate arguments. It seems the times are shifting.

Still for a more international perspective "Firstly, the freedom to play and experiment with others imatterial property is a basic premise for learning, art, education and development."

Depending on the legal system this is covered by fair dealing, fair use, right of quotation, right of citation or a bunch of rather more specific clauses (see dutch or south korean law)

I think the comparative method is much fun, but see the above comment,

"Secondly, the right to privacy is in itself an important principle. One should try to avoid rules that, if they are to be obeyed and enforced, to an unreasonable extent violates the right to a private sphere."

Unless you are acessing the web through multiple proxies useing hard encryption there is a reasonable case for argueing that the in plane view doctrain kicks in.

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. Try to understand this argument please, it is a vital counter argument to a strong copyright law. It would add to your credibility.

"Possibilities for reverse engineering is also important for healthy competition and diversity, and to obstruct monopolies to form"
Not true. Reverse engineering limits diversity. Without it people do the same thing in different ways. This has significant benifits.

This is at best a controversial conclusion. Possibilities for reverse engineering CAN in the extreme limit diversity. But you state it as it is a general well known fact. That is pure speculations.

"P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure"

Prove it.

I think people can judge this one on their own.

You've just described critial mass bike rides as terrorism.

Huh? Are bike rides deliberately causing substatial harm to essential infrastructure? (rethorical question, please, do not take this further)

Why because you belive property rights to be somehow different from other rights? Okey how about mineral extraction rights?

Yes.

They are different abstract ideas with different attributes and different functions. See the cited wiki on this particular question. I have not formed a strong opinion on mineral extraction rights, I'm not very familiar with the subject.

[gumboot]

Teh gumboot, a basic in a rule of law is that the police have a special status when it comes to law enforcement. They have a monopoly, with only small and well established exceptions. To refer to citizens arrest in a copyright infringement-discussion is a waste, geni. It has no relevance here .

I agree on citizens arrest - it is irrelevant. I'm not talking about law enforcement, I'm talking about crime prevention. Citizens take measures to prevent crime on a daily basis, and it is well established in law in most countries that knowingly facilitating illegal activities is itself illegal. Letting internet customers illegal download material is functionally no different to allowing tenants to run a drug lab out of your house.


We agree that all should help the police. But we also agree, I hope, that this argument has it's limit.

Absolutely.


There is a big leap from cooperation with the police, to demanding that the internet provider must monitor it's customers.

ISP's already monitor their customers. All the law change does is requires them to act on illegal activity instead of ignoring it.


You're describing de facto terrorism.

No I'm not. It is funny though that you mention terrorism because copyright piracy is a major source of funding for terrorism (not the free download kind of piracy, the selling of illegal copies variety).



Piracy isn't causing “substantial harm” to the functioning of that infrastructure. On the contrary, P2P is a phenomenal system that in fact have improved the infrastructure.

Do you have any documented references where this has ever been an issue? “Oh no!! Piracy is stealing our band with!!”

If you were following this thread you'd know that I've already mentioned comprehensive testing conducted by the operator of New Zealand's telecommunications network which confirms that P2P sharing is having a substantial detrimental affect on the infrastructure. Indeed it was the results of this testing which resulted in the new laws being put into effect.



You are right, but that is a semantic point. People copy music because they want to listen to it. You are pissed because you feel it's your inherent right to be compensated for copying.

No, I'm not pissed about anything and I disagree. I believe an artist has a legal (not inherent) right to have a monopoly on the copying of their work.


This is not necessarily so.

It is necessarily so. Hence why the act is illegal.


And it is certainly not a moral question.

You could make an argument that all questions of law are moral questions.


That's a pretty dogmatic point of view. And it is not “property”, it is “immaterial property”.

Copyright only covers material things. You cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of it. Yes, it is property. Please brush up on international copyright law because you don't seem overly familiar with it.



Courtesy wiki: A “widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property.

I studied copyright law at a tertiary level as part of my studies. I don't need wikipedia's opinion on the matter.


Your presenting your moral values in this argument is bordering on a moral absolutism.

What moral values? This discussion is about the law, not my morals.


But to claim that copying is intrinsically immoral is not even worthy a debate.

Who ever said it was? If we want to talk morals, I'd argue it's intrinsically immoral to violate another person's rights. How about you?



We are not talking about distributions of “materials”,

Yes we are.


we are talking about copying the 'immaterial'

No we aren't. Copyright cannot cover the "immaterial" (ideas). It can only cover the "material" (expression of ideas).


nor are we talking about monopolies in general, and certainly not christians one in spesific. That was a digression that may or may not be controversial.

If you don't want to discuss the monopolies of medieval society don't bring them up.


If I mixed up the protestant with the catholic church, I'm truly sorry for my religious insensitivity. But the legal literature(norwegian) and the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright states that the origin of the copyright institute is in fact attributed to Gutenbergs invention. They may be innacurate in the finer points, but that is knitpicking.

I would call two centuries a bit more than "finer points".



I was referring to the origin of copyright thinking as we know it today, not the institute itself, and this is naturally hard to pinpoint with precision.

No it isn't. Statue of Anne, 1710. If you want more precise pinpointing, it was enacted into law on April 10, 1710. I'm not sure what time.


I don't see a big issue here. There is concensus that copyright thinking in the form we know it was introduced because of the printing press. Copying was simply not a big issue prior to this.

No it wasn't. It was introduced to remove the stranglehold printers had over authors' works. The stranglehold was what resulted from the invention of the printing press.


Wiki: “As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Charles II of England was concerned by the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing Act of 1662 by Act of Parliament,[1] which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationer's Company, essentially continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect”

Mark the last sentence.


With all due respect, I think you need to mark the entire article. I've highlighted some issues with the above which you're ignoring.

The above segments begins by explaining that copyright law came about as a reaction against printer monopolies at the beginning of the 18th Century (in other words, it's referring to the Statute of Anne).

The article then proceeds to cite an earlier Act passed 40 years earlier which was an early attempt to address printing problems, but which resulted in merely formalising the monopolies which already existed.

So, let me reiterate, so that you comprehend it this time.

1) Monopolies on various activities were commonplace in medieval times.
2) The invention of the printing press opened up a new area of monopoly - mass copying of material.
3) Laws were passed to regulate printing to control it.
4) These laws gave a monopoly on printing to printers.
5) These monopolies were harmful to the rights of those that created the works
6) Modern copyright law was created to reestablish and protect the rights of the creators of works, and break the printer's monopoly

That is the sequence of events that led to copyright law.


No. Wiki again: “Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed”. For very good reasons, for the ones interested in the subject.

Er... that's exactly what I said.


I don't think artists shouldn't get payed.

Copyright law is not about artists getting paid.


I'm just saying this particular rule doesn't work in the real world.

It works pretty well.


I don't confuse them, I draw analogies based on the similarities. Patent and copyright is based on the same way of thinking(see above).

You were arguing about a medical company maintaining control over a vital life-saving drug. I totally disagree with that sort of behaviour. Artistic work, however, is a commodity, and does not offer vital life-saving features which might need to be freely distributed.


Again, I know that. I was just illustrating the absurdity.

Except you're not. You cannot illustrate the absurdity of copyright law by citing something that cannot be protected by copyright and then arguing "it would be absurd to copyright this". I agree, it would be absurd to copyright it. That's why you can't.


Why? Does anyone else get payed after they die?

Most people can bequeath the product of their life's work to their descendants so that their descendants can benefit from that work. Why should artistic works be treated any differently?


It's not a house we're talking about. Stop pretending that we are.

I'm not. But both are financially exploitable assets, earned by one person, that can be bequeathed to another person who can continue to earn money off them. You seem intent on treating artistic works as somehow different to other assets. Why? What is the difference between someone designing and then building a house, and someone thinking up and then writing down a story?


Wiki: “Some critics claim copyright law protects corporate interests while criminalizing legitimate use. Of particular concern is the increasing mound of orphaned works.

I tend to share the concern of others regarding corporate use of copyright. Copyright law was created to protect artists from distributors. Now distributors once again possess the monopoly through sheer hold on market share. I would like to see some more robust protection for artists against corporate distributors.

The question of orphaned works is an interesting one. however the problem I have with it, and which seems to lie at the root of copyright infringement, is that society has this attitude that they are somehow entitled to the work of artists. Why?

The work belongs to the artist, and if they want their work preserved it is up to them to take measures to do so. Likewise, if the artist does not want their work preserved what right does society have to attempt to force its preservation.

I do not believe that society has any entitlement to possession or ownership of creative works.


I know it is “protected” by law.

So why did you say it wasn't protected?


I was referring to a perfectly valid argument. (“criminalizes half the population, and have no basis in a modern business model, and simply does not work)”.

It does work (compare authors now with authors during the 17th Century for a stark illustration) and I think making copyright infringement a criminal act is plain stupid. I also think the enormous fines they give out in the USA is stupid. In New Zealand the maximum punishment for copyright breach is destruction of the illegal copy and reimbursement for the market value of the product. (Selling illegal copies is another story).


If a rule is of poor quality, society should off course get rid of it. That is a virtue in all civilized states. The law is not a bible.

I agree. But if the principles of a law are sound and effective, but new technology has rendered them obsolete, the obvious thing to do is amend the laws and update them, not abandon the principles all together.



In Norway and in most EU countries it is both illegal by copyright law and criminalized.

This is silly.


But why do you think it is a relevant relevant counter argument, even if som countries have not criminalized it? When half the population(speculation) is breaking the law, it deteriorates the respect for the legal system in general, regardless if it's criminalized or not.

I suspect well over half of New Zealanders break the law every time they get in a car. In fact I'd estimate something like 90% of us speed. Despite this I don't think removing speed limits will improve our respect for the law.



And do you see a direct corrolation between the hungerstricken writers in 1710 and copyright law?

Yes. Copyright law was enacted to help them be less hungerstricken.


Have you concidered alternatives to the copyright models and concluded that artist would starve to death?

No, and I'd appreciate not being bombarded by strawmen. Copyright Law is not a "model" it's a basic protection. And I can firmly guarantee you that if artists could not control use of their work, artists could not make a living from being artists. This is obvious. It was demonstrated with Radiohead's release of In Rainbows - over half of all customers elected to pay nothing for the album.



My point exactly. Then why are you arguing?

You've been arguing against the principles of copyright law. I believe those principles are sound.


I am sorry if I had you confused with others on the forum, I thought you referred to it as stealing. My mistake.

No worries. It can be hard to follow discussions in this forum with so many different variations of position. :D


I am referring to the argument that you to a certain degree will have to be able to protect your own interests.

I agree. I think artists and distributors of copyright material have a vested interest in seeking ways to protect digital copyright material.


Can you see the downsides to burdening society with heavy monitoring of citizens

The sort of "monitoring" I've talked about is relatively simple (in fact it's automated) and is of substantial benefit to society.


expensive police investigations

One of the advantages of having ISPs monitoring and controlling the usage of their customers is it reduces the need for police investigations into copyright breaches.


and using the limited rersources of the legal systems to protect your immaterial property rights, when the physical nature of a copy is as fluctuos as oxygen?

I can assure you, having had to move the contents of my bookcase on countless occasions, there's nothing "immaterial" or "fluctuos" about by intellectual property. You do seem, however, to be arguing that my rights, as a creator, aren't very important. This again, is the crux of my issue. I think the principles of copyright law are sound and reasonable. You obviously do not. I've noted it's usually those that haven't created their own work that think this way. Funnily enough, this pattern is pretty common when it comes to rights.


Applie enough st00pid rules in a society, and we will eventuelly end up with a lack of respect of the law in general. This is a valid and important argument when constructing rules, which both the courts and the parliaments always consider.

You've yet to make even the most feeble case that copyright law is "st00pid".

[gumboot]

Only comment I'd like to add is that I have a sneaky feeling the laws - in this country, which is also gumboot's - is that citizens' arrests are not quite as simple as seeing someone breaking the law and going and grabbing & holding them until the cops arrive. Without a fairly serious crime having been committed, the arresting person would almost certainly be subject to assault and even kidnap charges.



I just had this image of receive an email from my ISP:

to: gumboot@isp.co.nz
from: police@isp.co.nz

subject: citizen's e-rrest

Dear Gumboot,

We have recently detected illegal internet traffic via your username. In response to this illegal activity, ISP Corp. is placing you under Citizen's E-rrest. An E-police officer has been notified and will e-rrive shortly to bring you into e-custody.

You have the e-right to e-rain silent, however anything you e-say may be used against you as e-vidence in a court of e-law. You have the e-right to an e-ttorny. If you cannot e-fford an e-ttorny, one will be provided for you.

Do not attempt to e-flee. We are authorised under New Zealand e-law to use reasonable e-force in order to e-tain you until such time as e-police officers e-rrive.

If you understand these e-rights as they have been issued to you, please reply to this e-mail.

Regards,

John Humberdink-smith
Customer Monitoring Officer,
ISP Corp

[The Atheist]

I just had this image of receive an email from my ISP:

Holy crap!

Do you have to whip yourself as well, or will virtual flagellation be ok?

[eirik]

Gumboot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripS

"You do seem, however, to be arguing that my rights, as a creator, aren't very important. This again, is the crux of my issue. I think the principles of copyright law are sound and reasonable. You obviously do not. I've noted it's usually those that haven't created their own work that think this way. Funnily enough, this pattern is pretty common when it comes to rights."

I'm not sure what you mean "respect your rights". I disagree that there should be such a right(in the current form).

What you want, Baby, I got
What you need
Do you know I got it?
All I'm askin'
Is for a little respect when you come home (just a little bit)

By respect, do you mean I should agree with you? This all seems strangely familiar. Is that some kind of mentalist mind trick?

Is not a inherent human right getting paid for having a a sensitive pony tail and dexing the ladies with a nylon guitar.(bad joke, I know, just forget it. I love acostic guitars, honest!!)

It's just that many creators kinda lose their perspective in these discussions. The violations of a right to privacy, the rule of law and just a sense of practibility all comes second to the artists "inherent" right to get paid for "copying".It is an arbitrary construction, and many people more talented than me are working on alternative models which may or may not be effectuated some day.

I bet if we're having this conversation in 5 years, we would agree in retrospect that the the privacy/information(i'm not familiar with the English/common law term) laws of today(e.g. human rights) are on a collision course with copyright and immaterial law.

And the five minutes are up

[geni]

You inquired. Problem?..try to stay polite. Scandinavian law is inspired by Code Civil, the german Burgerliche Gezetsbuch (probably spelled this wrong..), american law and of course the english law. There is nothing material that distinguishes common law copyright thinking and continental law. That's at best coincidental. Copyright exists in both “systems”.

The way they deal with copyright and matters around it (moral rights for example) is very different.


Why don't you ask me why I take both positions, instead of postulating I'm wrong? That way you would not be wrong in such an arrogant way.

They are off course not mutually excluding.

You have to be able to protect your interests in some sense /to some degree, and you have to do it 'legally'. I thought this was obvious, but my fault for not underlining this 'vital' information. I thought my posts were long enough already. I noted the “missile example” from someone. Glad I could clear that up not.

Current legal systems tend to limit the amount of foce you can use to protect property makeing meaningful protection of property imposible.


I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. Try to understand this argument please, it is a vital counter argument to a strong copyright law. It would add to your credibility.

Most legal systems accept that you can only have an expectation of privacy under certian conditions. Given how internet protocols work it is highly questionable if that applies to standard internet transactions.


This is at best a controversial conclusion. Possibilities for reverse engineering CAN in the extreme limit diversity. But you state it as it is a general well known fact. That is pure speculations.

Software is the obvious example. Linux and windows may do the same thing but in very different ways. It is one of the argunments against software patents.


I think people can judge this one on their own.


So you can't present any evidence of improved infrastructure due to p2p


Huh? Are bike rides deliberately causing substatial harm to essential infrastructure? (rethorical question, please, do not take this further)


Knocking out part of the road network would probably qualify yes.


Yes.

They are different abstract ideas with different attributes and different functions. See the cited wiki on this particular question. I have not formed a strong opinion on mineral extraction rights, I'm not very familiar with the subject.

The ideas are ultimately exactly the same. The idea that there is a social contract to allow people to own things beyond what they have the firepower to defend.

[gumboot]

Gumboot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripS

That link doesn't work.



I'm not sure what you mean "respect your rights". I disagree that there should be such a right(in the current form).

Yes, I know. As I said, this is quite common. A lot of whites didn't want blacks to have rights either. Men didn't want women to have rights. And so on.

I'm still waiting for an argument as to why creators of works shouldn't have rights.


By respect, do you mean I should agree with you? This all seems strangely familiar. Is that some kind of mentalist mind trick?

Respecting a person's rights means not infringing them.


Is not a inherent human right getting paid for having a a sensitive pony tail and dexing the ladies with a nylon guitar.

At the risk of repeating myself (again) you don't appear to even understand what rights are protected by copyright law.


It's just that many creators kinda lose their perspective in these discussions. The violations of a right to privacy, the rule of law and just a sense of practibility all comes second to the artists "inherent" right to get paid for "copying".

See above. You don't understand copyright law, or the rights it establishes. How can you hope to discuss a topic you're ignorant of? I don't mean that as an attack on you, I mean it quite seriously. Copyright law does not include an "inherent" right to get paid for "copying".


It is an arbitrary construction, and many people more talented than me are working on alternative models which may or may not be effectuated some day.

Almost all rights are an arbitrary construction. You're wrong about "alternative models" though. There are people seriously investing efforts in developing different distribution models, but no one of relevance is seriously advocating ditching the rights established by existing copyright law.



I bet if we're having this conversation in 5 years, we would agree in retrospect that the the privacy/information(i'm not familiar with the English/common law term) laws of today(e.g. human rights) are on a collision course with copyright and immaterial law.

Please stop going on about "immaterial". All you're doing is highlighting your woeful ignorance of copyright law. And no, I don't think we would agree in retrospect.

Remember how my country has enacted new laws to deal with illegal downloading? We also have one of the most robust privacy laws in the world. If anything, it's too restrictive. Guess what? The anti-piracy laws don't conflict with the Privacy Act.

[joobie]

Private concerts could easily be managed, with a metal detector at the door. "Sorry no recording devices allowed."

metal detectors have not stopped people from recording concerts any more than the silly signs saying "no recording devices allowed" have.

[luchog]

No it isn't Game designers appear to be switching to consels because they are harder to pirate from. No reason to think that in time other industries will not take the same aproach.
No, they're not. There is no great "switch" to consoles. Many of the most popular games are still for the PC only, particularly MMORPGs. An increasing number of developers are developing for the console, because of three factors: the market base, the quality of hardware, and the hardware standardization and simplicity. The console game market has been steadily growing since the NES launched, and constitutes a larger share of the market than PC gamers. For much of it's history, console gaming hardware has lagged well behind PC hardware for capability and storage. With the new generation of high-powered consoles that include substantial hard drives, that has changed, and console gaming is more or less on a par with PC gaming. Hardware standardization is a huge issue with gaming, and most PC games have to be developed to handle a wide range of hardware, with increasingly limited hardware specifications. It's much easier to develop games when you don't have to worry about the range of hardware your customer base uses, or potential driver issues from a plethora of different manufacturers. Furthermore, the controller capabilities are a crucial issue for many games. Games like Wii Sports are simply not implementable on the PC; because of the lack of controller hardware capable of the sort of controller performace needed. In the past, manufacturers have attempted to remedy this situation by bundling proprietary controllers with their products; but found that it was rarely economically advantageous to do so. Specifying specific controllers has worked marginally better, but still limits the potential market too much.

DRM is a distant fouth issue, at best. Console DRM is cracked almost as quickly as PC DRM, and with the widespread use of hard drives in consoles, pirating games has become dramatically easier, closely approaching the ease of piracy on the PC.

[luchog]

Fair use only exists in three countries. US, Isreal and the Philippines. Only the US has DRM provisions.

Wrong again. Most contries have analogous legislation, with varying degrees of permissiveness and protection. Fair use type provisions are codified into several different copyright conventions.

Nope not appeared in UK law. Oh there were plans to include it in EU but well they went much the way of plays to reform the common agricultural policy. Clashed with a few too many nation's private interests see.

It may not be directly codified into regular law, but most of the EU are signatories.

Again your DRM laws do not apply to the UK. I doubt the LOC would have many problems with running the software or playing the music onsite.

Wrong. UK restrictions on time and space shifting are actually more strict than those in the US in many respects.

There is no agreeded defintion.

Are those goalposts heavy?

Meaningless unless you can show that one does in a way the other does not.
If you are unable to see the difference between reproduction of a tangible, physical asset, with it's symbolic value inseperably attached, and the way that counterfeit reproduction of currency affects and undermines the entire foundation of the monetary system, and reproduction of digital media that has no directly quantifiable effect on the market (the actual effect of digital piracy on the market is still hotly debated), then I see no possibility for further discussion. It's not a valid analogy, and your refusal to acknowledge that is rendering any useful debate on the issue impossible.

[luchog]

YHuh? Are bike rides deliberately causing substatial harm to essential infrastructure? (rethorical question, please, do not take this further)
Actually, it does need to be explained, since Geni is once again distorting the issue.

Terrorism is the attempt by a small minority, often marginalized or perceived as such, to influence government policy or create social change favourable to said minority, through actions intended to create intimidation and fear in the majority, by the use of high-profile violent attacks on highly visible and/or symbolic targets.

The actions of some Critical Mass bicycling advocacy groups, colloquially referred to as "massholes", have escalated to the point where they have begun to approach qualifying as terrorism. Intimidation of drivers and law enforcement officials is increasing, and several groups have staged violent attacks on drivers in an attempt to create symbolic martyrs and scapegoats to aid their cause.

[luchog]

No I'm not. It is funny though that you mention terrorism because copyright piracy is a major source of funding for terrorism (not the free download kind of piracy, the selling of illegal copies variety).
Technically, I think the majority of this would qualify as counterfeiting, rather than pure piracy. But I might be wrong on that.

[gumboot]

DRM is a distant fouth issue, at best. Console DRM is cracked almost as quickly as PC DRM, and with the widespread use of hard drives in consoles, pirating games has become dramatically easier, closely approaching the ease of piracy on the PC.



The PS3 hasn't been cracked, and there is talk it may be uncrackable (compare how quickly other consoles have been cracked).

I was talking to a friend last night about Fable II - the game was released with some pretty substantial bugs which have to be fixed via an update. If you have been banned from XBOX Live for having a cracked machine you cannot get these updates.

I suggested that maybe game manufacturers are intentionally releasing incomplete games to force download updates which enables them to only allow gameplay by legitimate owners.

[gumboot]

Technically, I think the majority of this would qualify as counterfeiting, rather than pure piracy. But I might be wrong on that.


Copyright infringement has been referred to as piracy since the early 17th Century. The Stationer's Company (which had a Royal Charter giving it a monopoly on publication) labelled violators of the charter as pirates as early as 1603.

I don't think copyright infringement is counterfeiting because the copy is actually the same as the original work whereas with counterfeiting you create your own work and claim it is the original.

I suppose you could argue that large scale copyright operations that make copies of DVDs and then package them in cases that try to make them look like legitimate copies, you could argue that is counterfeiting, however the counterfeiting and the copyright infringement would be two separate acts.

Actually, that reminds me of an amusing story...

I had a flatmate once who, to my disgust, routinely bought cheap illegal DVDs from Asia. One day he received the Alien quadrilogy in a boxed set. It looked pretty good, until you actually read the blurb on the back of the box with the plot synopsis.

'Hrm, that's weird,' I thought. 'That plot isn't any of the Alien films, but it is familiar.' And yes, it was familiar. It was the plot for Die Hard!

Amused, I read on. Where they have the list of key filmmakers on the back of the case (like they'll have on the bottom of film posters) a close inspection revealed it was a random collection of words and actors with no coherent meaning.

I now turned to opening up the box set which was one of those cardboard folding types. Immediately I am confronted by a neat poster that looks good at first glance until I realise it's a poster for an entirely different film, and they've just put Sigourney Weaver's face over one of the actors (oddly, keeping the other actor who didn't appear in any of the Alien films). Opening up further, I'm confronted with another picture of an actor from a different sci-fi film, who likewise does not appear in any of the Alien films.

It was truly weird.

[luchog]

Copyright infringement has been referred to as piracy since the early 17th Century. The Stationer's Company (which had a Royal Charter giving it a monopoly on publication) labelled violators of the charter as pirates as early as 1603.

Not what I was talking about.
I suppose you could argue that large scale copyright operations that make copies of DVDs and then package them in cases that try to make them look like legitimate copies, you could argue that is counterfeiting, however the counterfeiting and the copyright infringement would be two separate acts.

That is, in fact counterfeiting; and that is how the law defines it. My point was that it's the act of counterfeiting -- not merely the piracy, but actually attempting to pass the pirated material off as original, legitimate products -- that is most likely to be engaged in as a funding source for terrorism.

Of course, that ignores the fact that it's not really that significant a source of funding. All law enforcement documentation that I've encountered so far show that the biggest sources of indirect funding for terrorist groups are the underground drug trade and bogus charities.

[luchog]

The PS3 hasn't been cracked, and there is talk it may be uncrackable (compare how quickly other consoles have been cracked).

Not true. It is certainly proving more difficult, but it has been at least partly circumvented; and the PSN store DRM has been cracked. Claims that it's "uncrackable" are nonsense. If a human can think it up, a human can find a way to circumvent it. Nearly ever new DRM scheme is touted as being "uncrackable" until someone finally breaks it.

I was talking to a friend last night about Fable II - the game was released with some pretty substantial bugs which have to be fixed via an update. If you have been banned from XBOX Live for having a cracked machine you cannot get these updates.

Yes, but there're workarounds for this already; such as switchable mod chips.

I suggested that maybe game manufacturers are intentionally releasing incomplete games to force download updates which enables them to only allow gameplay by legitimate owners.
Unfortunately for them, it doesn't work.

[geni]

If a human can think it up, a human can find a way to circumvent it.

One time pads are unbreakable even in theory. Properly implemented RSA with large enough key values very probably is and quantum cryptography is unbreakable pending a fairly hefty rewrite of our understanding of quantum physics

[rjh01]

One time pads can be broken. Method - Capture a one time pad. Then you can read anything that is coded using that pad.

[geni]

Wrong again. Most contries have analogous legislation, with varying degrees of permissiveness and protection. Fair use type provisions are codified into several different copyright conventions.

If you had followed this thread you would realise I was well aware of the various provisions in other legal systems. However refureing to these as fair use is highly misleading. If you had wanted to talk about the standards agreed by say the Berne convention the term it uses is "fair practice".


It may not be directly codified into regular law, but most of the EU are signatories.

There is no such thing as irregular law within the UK legal system. There is statute law (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250249) and caselaw.


Wrong. UK restrictions on time and space shifting are actually more strict than those in the US in many respects.


We are talking about libraries. Time shifting isn't relivant. Under the "The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989" libraries can copy whatever they like although there are conditions on what they can do with the resulting copies.

[geni]

One time pads can be broken. Method - Capture a one time pad. Then you can read anything that is coded using that pad.

No the code remains unbroken. They key however yes can suffer from distribution issues.

Of course key distribution issues render the classic one time pad useless outside some rather limited areas.

[PaKu]

I have considered this issue, and re-examined the situation you described, thanks to another poster. I can admit when I am wrong. In this case, I am wrong. While I feel strongly that taking something without paying is morally wrong, and I condemn those who illegally download software, music, and so on simply because they want to get something for free, I didn't consider all of the situations that can arise. You made a good faith effort to legally purchase something, and when the product was found to be defective, you made a good faith effort to make a legitimate warranty claim. When the software company refused to help you, you took steps to reclaim your loss. This is, I think, morally justified. It's a case of violating the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.


I called you a thief earlier, and that was uncalled for. I apologise. Sometimes it's hard to see other people when I'm way up here on my high horse.
that's OK, people tend to get rather emotional (buyers and sellers alike)
to me, there are so many excuses and neccesities AND actions against that, it turned into a vast grey area.. it evens out. So I come to my very own principle: like it, buy it; doesn't work, got screwed? Take action. And wait intull the industry comes to its sensens

[Morrigan]

I had a student that was very proud pirating software illegally. This same student planned on working for a software company. I asked to be informed what the company was in the future so I could steal the software ensuring the student would never get a raise.

Always put yourself in the author's position.

You should be aware that your stealing of the software would have little to zero impact on the programmer's salary.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

I don't pirate things online. First of all, I can't. I have a dial-up connection. I can't even watch Youtube. But I probably wouldn't anyway.

But I did take all my LPs, including 45s, and burned them to .wav files & then converted the .wavs to mp3. And I convert my CDs to mp3 and put them on my mp3 player. Technically that is piracy since I have now created up to 3 different versions of each album without re-buying it. I suppose the same thing applied when I used to make tapes of my records, but I never thought about it. And I don't feel particularly guilty about it.

This isn't stealing though. If you are using them for you're own use, to listen in the car and so on, that's fine..

I'm a song writer and a record producer. Down loading music from the internet without paying is stealing. End of story. If the argument is that you would not be able to afford it otherwise, then I guess you don't get to hear it. Do you..

" Yeah, I grabbed the bottle of Whiskey on the way out the door without paying"--"Then you stole it!"--" No, No I didn't, I couldn't afford it, and I wouldn't be drinking it had it not simply been there in plain sight."

Right.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

You should be aware that your stealing of the software would have little to zero impact on the programmer's salary.

In the case of Audio software, this is simply false. This I know to be a fact of life.. These people have lost HUGE sum's of money over the last 10 years. Amazingly, for a while there, some serious money making recording studios were "just trying out" their software. The numbers are amazing..

Ivan............................

[quixotecoyote]

" Yeah, I grabbed the bottle of Whiskey on the way out the door without paying"--"Then you stole it!"--" No, No I didn't, I couldn't afford it, and I wouldn't be drinking it had it not simply been there in plain sight."



"Yet the whiskey is still on the shelf! What dark magik is this, thou villainous robber?"

[gumboot]

Down loading music from the internet without paying is stealing. End of story.


No it isn't. It's copyright infringement and possession of an unlawful copy.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

"Yet the whiskey is still on the shelf! What dark magik is this, thou villainous robber?"

Point taken..However, we could look at it this way.

If the whiskey could be magically poured into another container while still leaving the original amount behind, there by "cloning" the liquid goodness, there would be no need for anyone to buy it. They would stop making it. There would be no reason to do the work. Work is how we collect money.

There is a cultural problem arising from all this as well. This may not matter to some. I've gotten mixed results when asking people about this. Writers and Producers of content need to make money. If we don't, we will stop spending all these hours writing because we will be doing something else for money. This is already happening. We have found three places on the net selling our latest record without paying us. I know several studios that have gone out of business and the accounting certainly points toward a lack of revenue directly related to a reduction in artist record sales, with NO indication that the music is any less popular in some cases. Hmm.

It's stealing. The fact that a copy remains after the theft is meaningless in this case. The nature of the product is such that stealing it wont represent the disappearance or displacement or simple geographical "shift" of an "object". This is the nature of intellectual property.

Music is all I do, and making money at it is now harder than ever before. Playing live is different. We get our money half down and the balance before we play. It's hard to steal a live performance. sure, one can record it, but one can NOT steal the experience it's self.

You want fries with that?:eek: I would hate to find myself saying this for a living.

Ivan...................

[Ivan The Song Boy]

No it isn't. It's copyright infringement and possession of an unlawful copy.


Yes I'm painfully aware of the copyright laws. Judges have in fact decided that when this happens, it is stealing.. An infringement was the method used, I suppose.

Call it what ever you need to, I guess, but I don't get the money. The music is mine. If you take a copy of it without paying me, it's wrong both legally and in my opinion, morally.


If you made money as a song writer {at least part of your money, hey, I'm no big deal. Trust me }, This would be breaking your heart right about now.

It's worth pointing out and in fact has been, that the Recording industry has run it's self into the ground. They could have been way out in front of this problem. Talk about a total lack of imagination. Sad stuff.

Ivan.....................

[gumboot]

Yes I'm painfully aware of the copyright laws. Judges have in fact decided that when this happens, it is stealing..

Evidence?



Call it what ever you need to, I guess, but I don't get the money. The music is mine. If you take a copy of it without paying me, it's wrong both legally and in my opinion, morally.


If you made money as a song writer {at least part of your money, hey, I'm no big deal. Trust me }, This would be breaking your heart right about now.


If you had been following this thread you would know that I am an owner of intellectual property and in favour of copyright law. However those who tell the public they shouldn't breach copyright because it is theft are not helping the cause, they're harming it by spreading misinformation.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Gumboot,

I admit I have not read the entire thread. My apologies. This subject triggered a knee jerk of sorts on my part. I'll read the whole thing before I comment further, and then perhaps I'll have a thing or two to say about the spreading of misinformation.

It's important for people to understand precisely what they're doing when they download without paying.

Ivan....................

[geni]

It's important for people to understand precisely what they're doing when they download without paying.

Given the amount of national and international copyright law people would have to know to answer that I generaly go for violation of copyright although that isn't true in all cases.

[quixotecoyote]

If the whiskey could be magically poured into another container while still leaving the original amount behind, there by "cloning" the liquid goodness, there would be no need for anyone to buy it. They would stop making it. There would be no reason to do the work. Work is how we collect money.

This is why you need to be careful with analogies. What you've just described is a way to solve the worlds water shortages destroyed for the benefit of an unjustified (at least in your argument) profit. Yes, work is how you collect money, but destroying a solution to a global problem doesn't seem to be a valid business model. Nor does there seem to be a reason why we would even WANT people to keep making it if we already had an unlimited supply.


It's stealing. The fact that a copy remains after the theft is meaningless in this case. The nature of the product is such that stealing it wont represent the disappearance or displacement or simple geographical "shift" of an "object".

That's pretty close to the definition of theft.

1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Theft involves taking, embezzleing, or burgling something, and once you do that, it isn't there anymore. If it is, it isn't theft. It's something else. It can still be wrong, but it isn't theft. Trying to force IP violations into the definition of theft just makes you look like you can't find a real argument.

[shadron]

You should be aware that your stealing of the software would have little to zero impact on the programmer's salary.

True enough, but I think a case could be made for the programmer not being the "author" of he software, but rather the company who is investing in he programmer's time. They are the ones at risk if the product doesn't sell; the programmer got his part, presumably.

Commonly an author is considered to be a person whose time is at risk in the final sale; most are essentially free-lancers under contract to the publisher, and paid a direct portion of the sales. The programmer of which you speak is an employee who is not at risk in the sale; he presumably was paid a salary upon coding. His fuure income may be at risk, but that's not the question here. That money will be out the game company (and its owners/investors) if the game fails in the retail arena.

[Francesca R]

Something I mentioned before, my impression is that while the act of copying music remains illegal, it is increasingly becoming a social norm. That is, growing numbers of people simply do not regard it as sufficiently immoral to desist from doing it, or to condemn the practice generally. Although you can philosophically agrue against this a lot--people increasingly expect music to be available for free download. Like they expect TV programming to be available for free (except in the UK).

My view is that extant legislation will untimately be no protection against this and will get changed.

What that means is that the business model for music as creative content will probably have to adapt, and it could have consequences for the amount and the nature of content. At one extreme, the production of music will downshift and migrate to other means of distribution/commission. At the other, those in the supply chain just have to devise other ways of getting paid ("Now here's Coldplay with: 'Viva la Vida, the Hovis version: Baking bread since 1886'")

[Morrigan]

In the case of Audio software, this is simply false. This I know to be a fact of life.. These people have lost HUGE sum's of money over the last 10 years. Amazingly, for a while there, some serious money making recording studios were "just trying out" their software. The numbers are amazing..

Ivan............................

Are you serious? I never worked in audio software, but you know of salaried programmers who were denied a raise specifically because the product got pirated too much to the company's liking? That sucks.

True enough, but I think a case could be made for the programmer not being the "author" of he software, but rather the company who is investing in he programmer's time. They are the ones at risk if the product doesn't sell; the programmer got his part, presumably.

Commonly an author is considered to be a person whose time is at risk in the final sale; most are essentially free-lancers under contract to the publisher, and paid a direct portion of the sales. The programmer of which you speak is an employee who is not at risk in the sale; he presumably was paid a salary upon coding. His fuure income may be at risk, but that's not the question here. That money will be out the game company (and its owners/investors) if the game fails in the retail arena.
Yes, that's what I am talking about. The programmer is generally a salaried employee, and unless the overblown piracy causes the company to be extremely financially strained to the point that they can still afford to go on but cannot afford raises (a scenario I find a bit unlikely -- especially since it's not that easy to establish a direct causal link between financial loss and piracy) , he will not be denied a raise that is due to him. If he's not salaried, but contractual, which is also very frequent, then he'll be paid for his work upon completion of the contract and thus the product sales (or lack thereof) will have no impact on his pay.

[luchog]

One time pads are unbreakable even in theory. Properly implemented RSA with large enough key values very probably is and quantum cryptography is unbreakable pending a fairly hefty rewrite of our understanding of quantum physics
One-time pads are useless for all but a very very small segment of cryptographic communication; and completely and totally irrelevant to a discussion on DRM. Quantum cryptography is extremely expensive to implement; and is still completely irrelevant for DRM use.

Please try to stick with the actual subject, instead of meaningless digressions.

[luchog]

We are talking about libraries. Time shifting isn't relivant. Under the "The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989" libraries can copy whatever they like although there are conditions on what they can do with the resulting copies.
This doesn't apply to software; nor does it make it possible to "lend" software to patrons.

[luchog]

If the whiskey could be magically poured into another container while still leaving the original amount behind, there by "cloning" the liquid goodness, there would be no need for anyone to buy it. They would stop making it. There would be no reason to do the work. Work is how we collect money.

Not true. In fact, in the case of winemaking and beer brewing, there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the US who engage in these activities strictly as a hobby. Many, if not most, of the brewmasters in American microbreweries got their start in homebrewing; and pursuit it purely for the enjoyment of the hobby.

The only reason that that situation does not exist with home distilling is because it's prohibited in the US. However, that doesn't stop a substantial number of people from pursuing it anyway. I personally know at least two illicit home distillers. When absinthe was banned throughout Europe, many craft distillers in the Jura Alps continued to distill it on a small scale as a family tradition; and today Jura "la bleue" style absinthes are considered among the best in the world.

Musicians and artists have been creating throughout history, whereas copyright is a modern invention. There are hundreds of thousands of musicians making their music available directly through the Internet; and millions of artists who make their work available online as well, typically through art communities like DeviantArt. The vast majority of it is complete crap; but the same could be said about the mainstream commercial stuff as well.

The only thing that copyright protection has done is given musicians, artists, and writers the chance to make a reasonable living from their work, instead of working day jobs to support their artistic endeavours.

[Policenaut]

DRM on pc games has gone overboard. You know it's bad when the pirated version works better than the real version. Most gamers who buy games at the very least use illegal patches or no-cd cracks and at worst also have to download the pirated version because their real version just won't install properly. Certain companies know where gaming is going and how to sell games. Blizzard and Valve come to mind.

I like Titan Quest but their cop out of piracy killing their company (Iron Lore) was bs. The game was buggy as all hell when it was released. And lets not forget it was a Diablo clone. A very good one but basically a copy of a better game in an almost dead genre. A lot of people who use pcs don't even know what to expect with pc games anymore. The required specs seem like they are throwing a bunch of darts at a board with numbers on it. Hey Crysis. Imagine that. You make a game that only someone with a super computer can play and you wonder why it didn't sell well. It must have been evil piracy. You want to push a system to its limits? Stick to a console where people don't have to run benchmark programs to figure out if it will run on their system. Either that or don't complain when you don't sell as many copies as you think you should sell. We don't all have a skulltrail with quad sli.

pc rant over

[osmosis]

I'll jump in here..

I am a prolific pirate. Name just about any movie, software or music and I have (or had) a pirated copy of it.

But I also have an impressive collection of legitimately-purchased DVDs and CDs, and if not for piracy I likely wouldn't have purchased over half of it.

It's called try-before-you-buy. I download something, and if it turns out to be something of quality that I would like to hang on to, then I buy it.

This kind of "piracy" actually works in favor of the artist. S/he gets paid by me when otherwise s/he would not.

[geni]

This doesn't apply to software; nor does it make it possible to "lend" software to patrons.

However it does apply to music and I doubt they would have a problem getting it changed to allow software if they felt there was a need.

I fail to see the relivance of lending to the topic in question

[geni]

DRM on pc games has gone overboard. You know it's bad when the pirated version works better than the real version. Most gamers who buy games at the very least use illegal patches or no-cd cracks and at worst also have to download the pirated version because their real version just won't install properly. Certain companies know where gaming is going and how to sell games. Blizzard and Valve come to mind.


Valve have DRM built in very heavily. So your problem appears not to be DRM going too far but it being implemented badly.

[geni]

I'll jump in here..

I am a prolific pirate. Name just about any movie, software or music and I have (or had) a pirated copy of it.

GIMP, ur-quan masters, Inkscape. Actualy it is posible to pirate those (for a very non standard version of pirate) but I rather doubt you actualy have.


It's called try-before-you-buy. I download something, and if it turns out to be something of quality that I would like to hang on to, then I buy it.


No try before you buy involves the artist's consent on some level.


This kind of "piracy" actually works in favor of the artist. S/he gets paid by me when otherwise s/he would not.

Prove it.

[geni]

Not true. In fact, in the case of winemaking and beer brewing, there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the US who engage in these activities strictly as a hobby. Many, if not most, of the brewmasters in American microbreweries got their start in homebrewing; and pursuit it purely for the enjoyment of the hobby.

The fact that it results in a drink far cheaper than it's shop purchased equivs is I supose you would argue a non factor?


Musicians and artists have been creating throughout history, whereas copyright is a modern invention. There are hundreds of thousands of musicians making their music available directly through the Internet; and millions of artists who make their work available online as well, typically through art communities like DeviantArt.


Now try publishing that stuff in a book without paying them.

To take a case where we can measure how much people are prepared to give up their copyright more directly what percentage of flickr photos are under a CC license of any type (low) and what percentage are under a free (useing the debian defintion) CC license (lower).


The vast majority of it is complete crap; but the same could be said about the mainstream commercial stuff as well.

Youtube download figures suggest otherwise.

[osmosis]

No try before you buy involves the artist's consent on some level.

Since when? I didn't say my activities are legally sanctioned, I said I prefer to know what I'm buying before I buy it.


Prove it.

Prove what? Prove that I have spent money I otherwise would not have spent? I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it :rolleyes:

[geni]

Since when?

Since various comercial operations have been offering the option on occasion


I didn't say my activities are legally sanctioned, I said I prefer to know what I'm buying before I buy it.

There are various ways of doing that. Your local libiary for example.


Prove what? Prove that I have spent money I otherwise would not have spent? I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it :rolleyes:

Your words is worth nothing in this case because you have no way yourself od knowing if your claim is true.

[Policenaut]

Valve have DRM built in very heavily. So your problem appears not to be DRM going too far but it being implemented badly.

Somewhat. Valve's DRM doesn't interfere with its own games which is why no one complains about it. You can even play all your Steam games on any computer. The draconian DRM recently being employed by other companies (like limited installs) really turned off consumers. Some companies know that DRM won't help them sell more games which is why Sins of a Solar Empire had no protection whatsoever. They knew it was a niche game that wouldn't sell well anyway so why inconvenience the legitimate buyers by having them jump through hoops to get the game installed? Some DRM is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause problems installing or within the game or limit your own use of what you just bought. There will always be hackers though. You can't get rid of that. But Blizzard has shown that millions of people will buy a game if it is good enough (and accessible to people with old/bad computers). I think a bigger problem with these companies is that they hype up games nonstop like Assassins Creed and then it comes out and it's garbage. This causes an untold number of lost sales. Who knows exactly how much but then again there is no way to know exactly how many sales are lost by pirates either.

[quixotecoyote]

GIMP, ur-quan masters, Inkscape. .


A complete aside, but there's a freeware version of SC2 out now built from materials released by the copyright holder

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/.

[geni]

A complete aside, but there's a freeware version of SC2 out now built from materials released by the copyright holder

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/.

However the game art is under an NC license.

[quixotecoyote]

However the game art is under an NC license.

Seems to be released under a creative commons license (http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/The_Ur-Quan_Masters_Project_FAQ#Under_what_license_is_the _game_released.3F)

[geni]

Seems to be released under a creative commons license (http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/The_Ur-Quan_Masters_Project_FAQ#Under_what_license_is_the _game_released.3F)

Yes CC-BY-SA-NC so an NC license. Not all CC licences are created equal and CC-BY-SA-NC is non-free (by Debian, FSF and Definition of Free Cultural Works standards).

[Jaxe]

One of the rights that copyright grants is the right of the artists to control the distribution of their work. By pirateing you are takeing that right away.
Copyright is a limitation on the rights of ownership, it limits what you are allowed to do with a piece of information that you have bought.

Not as you claim the other way around. Todays copyright laws have been a continuous result of lobbying that's been going on for a long long time and over time limits the right of ownership more and more.

It's an old thread, i know, but i figured it suited my interest of the Pirate Bay trial that's soon going to take place. (maybe that should be a thread of its own?)

[geni]

Copyright is a limitation on the rights of ownership, it limits what you are allowed to do with a piece of information that you have bought.

No. You can't copyright facts. It doesn't even limit what you can do with a given presentation of facts you have outright purchased the rights to it's just most people don't do that.


Not as you claim the other way around. Todays copyright laws have been a continuous result of lobbying that's been going on for a long long time and over time limits the right of ownership more and more.

False see the latest lot of copyright laws in Israel.


It's an old thread, i know, but i figured it suited my interest of the Pirate Bay trial that's soon going to take place. (maybe that should be a thread of its own?)

That is a somewhat seperate issue related to some issues around the edge of the law not the core principles of copyright itself.

[Jaxe]

No. You can't copyright facts. It doesn't even limit what you can do with a given presentation of facts you have outright purchased the rights to it's just most people don't do that.
I never claimed that, Intellectual property refers to the ownership of information, although you never can tell with what the future copyright laws will include.

False see the latest lot of copyright laws in Israel.
I disagree Israel was preassured into changing them by the international community and trade agreements. Not that they didn't need to change with the times, they did, but that is also the case here and now. Point is, we're at a junction where production of copies has reached a cost of 0, which has enormous implications for the IP industry, if they didnt lobby they'd be braindead.

That is a somewhat seperate issue related to some issues around the edge of the law not the core principles of copyright itself.
Certaintly, but it will be of huge consequence to the discussion of future business models regarding IP.

[geni]

I never claimed that, Intellectual property refers to the ownership of information, although you never can tell with what the future copyright laws will include.

"limits what you are allowed to do with a piece of information"

That was your claim. That isn't true. What it does is limit what you can do with a given presentation of a bit of information if you have not purchased the rights to that particular presentation/


I disagree Israel was preassured into changing them by the international community and trade agreements. Not that they didn't need to change with the times, they did, but that is also the case here and now. Point is, we're at a junction where production of copies has reached a cost of 0, which has enormous implications for the IP industry, if they didnt lobby they'd be braindead.

The last change to isreali copyright law made it rather more liberal. And if you think the cost of makeing copies has reached zero you are effectively claiming to have cracked perpetial motion.


Certaintly, but it will be of huge consequence to the discussion of future business models regarding IP.

Not really. First the law can simply change and secondly copyright holders are already shifting to getting enforcement through ISPs.

[Jaxe]

"limits what you are allowed to do with a piece of information"

That was your claim. That isn't true. What it does is limit what you can do with a given presentation of a bit of information if you have not purchased the rights to that particular presentation.
If that was true then i would be allowed to present and distribute the same information with a different kind of presentation, which clearly isn't the case.

The last change to isreali copyright law made it rather more liberal.Yes, the previous problem being that most of the material belonged to the state, which was indeed a problem.

And if you think the cost of makeing copies has reached zero you are effectively claiming to have cracked perpetial motion.Ok i set myself up for that one, so it's reached a cost of near 0, point being both production, copying and distribution can be done (and is being done) by anyone with the talent, knowhow and equipment.

Not really. First the law can simply change and secondly copyright holders are already shifting to getting enforcement through ISPs.
First off, "the law can simply change", yes, that is exactly my point, now the interesting part is which way are we going to take, because enforcing copyright laws (as they work today) is clearly not the only option and requires quite extensive limitations of every individuals personal integrity.

Which is directly linked to the other point you made which is that "copyright holders are already shifting to getting enforcement through ISPs". Which ofcourse would be the result of extensive lobbying on the copyright holders part.

[geni]

If that was true then i would be allowed to present and distribute the same information with a different kind of presentation, which clearly isn't the case.

Err it is the case. How do you think it is posible that there is more than one organic chemistry textbook?


Yes, the previous problem being that most of the material belonged to the state, which was indeed a problem.

Not so. The significant shift was from a fair dealing system to something closer to fair use. The crown copyright equiv to PD was somewhat secondary.


First off, "the law can simply change", yes, that is exactly my point, now the interesting part is which way are we going to take, because enforcing copyright laws (as they work today) is clearly not the only option and requires quite extensive limitations of every individuals personal integrity.


integrity?

[Jaxe]

Err it is the case. How do you think it is posible that there is more than one organic chemistry textbook?
Because someone bought the right to publish it, but anyone who buys the book is limited by the copyright laws.
How about derivative work? I am not allowed to paint a portrait of a photograph i've purchased (unless its fair use).

Not so. The significant shift was from a fair dealing system to something closer to fair use. The crown copyright equiv to PD was somewhat secondary. Fair use differs from country to country and is generally a good idea, balancing the copyright. It was still imposed on the Israeli through trade agreements and international preassure. I fail to see where this would have anything to do with how lobbyists are affecting the copyright laws?

integrity?In order to police copyright infringements on the internet more and more intrusive laws will have to be passed allowing for constant survailance of everything you do on the net.

*ETA*
This is ofcourse not limited to the copytight industry, the orwellian laws are the product of many different reasons, most often for our own good.

[geni]

Because someone bought the right to publish it, but anyone who buys the book is limited by the copyright laws.

I meant there are different organic chemistry text books.


How about derivative work? I am not allowed to paint a portrait of a photograph i've purchased (unless its fair use).


In that case you are makeing a derivative of the presentation.

However while there have been a lot of photos of the ship in this photo I am still free to take and publish this photo:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Warrior_(1860)2008.jpg


Fair use differs from country to country and is generally a good idea, balancing the copyright. It was still imposed on the Israeli through trade agreements and international preassure. I fail to see where this would have anything to do with how lobbyists are affecting the copyright laws?


It made isreali law more liberal (incerdentaly only 3 countries have fair use). You claimed that the changes over time "limits the right of ownership more and more".


In order to police copyright infringements on the internet more and more intrusive laws will have to be passed allowing for constant survailance of everything you do on the net.

You think the current situation is otherwise? The law isn't important. ISPs will already record everything you do on the net.

[Jaxe]

I meant there are different organic chemistry text books.
And i'm refering to the Intelectual Property, not physical products.

In that case you are makeing a derivative of the presentation.Still, it isnt the presentation, and thus a limitation of what i'm allowed to do, eventhough i own the picture...

However while there have been a lot of photos of the ship in this photo I am still free to take and publish this photo:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Warrior_(1860)2008.jpg
Yes, because it specificly states that is the case. If i acquire that picture i will have different limitations of what i'm allowed to do with it than a photo where nothing is said.

It made isreali law more liberal (incerdentaly only 3 countries have fair use). You claimed that the changes over time "limits the right of ownership more and more".Acording to Wikipedia it's 4, but that's irrelevant. The other one is a booboo, i admit, it's should to be 'lobbyists atempt to limit...'. They have failed at key points (phonographs, radio, tape recorder, VHS comes to mind).

You think the current situation is otherwise? The law isn't important. ISPs will already record everything you do on the net.
That is far from true, it takes alot of additional (very expensive) equipment that is not required for an ISP and since there is no reason for them to record everything it would be a very illogical thing to install all that, if word got out that a provider was logging everything the customers would most likely flee to another ISP. Not to mention that in most countries (all? i really cant think of any where it's not.) that is currently illegal.

But this is all old news, the only difference i believe is your perspective of the copyright being a copyright holder right to control the distribution, while i hold the perspective that it's a limitation on what i am personally allowed to do with something i have purchased or in any other way gained ownership of.

I'm more interested in knowing what's going on with the Pirate Bay trial, i've had a hard time finding information about it.

[geni]

And i'm refering to the Intelectual Property, not physical products.

Doesn't make any difference.

[qutoe]
Still, it isnt the presentation, and thus a limitation of what i'm allowed to do, eventhough i own the picture...[/quote]

You are not makeing sense.


Yes, because it specificly states that is the case. If i acquire that picture i will have different limitations of what i'm allowed to do with it than a photo where nothing is said.


Again you are not makeing sense.



That is far from true, it takes alot of additional (very expensive) equipment that is not required for an ISP and since there is no reason for them to record everything it would be a very illogical thing to install all that, if word got out that a provider was logging everything the customers would most likely flee to another ISP.

They don't. And in terms of kit required the only cost is storage.


Not to mention that in most countries (all? i really cant think of any where it's not.) that is currently illegal.

Not illegal in any. Read your agreement with your ISP.


But this is all old news, the only difference i believe is your perspective of the copyright being a copyright holder right to control the distribution, while i hold the perspective that it's a limitation on what i am personally allowed to do with something i have purchased or in any other way gained ownership of.


You've purchased certian rights and you are free to do whatever you like with those rights (includeing transfering them to a third party). You haven't purchased the right to create new copies of the work.