How do you feel about Piracy and DRM

[SkylerOcon]

This is considered wrong because record companies cried loud enough for everybody to hear them.

 

[AltF4]

1Wing:

"Pirating" media is not immoral, wrong, nor is it stealing.

Stealing is when you take something from someone and they no longer possess that which you stole. Stealing is wrong because it hurts the person you stole from. They are no longer in possession of that which you stole.

Tell me, what exactly is "stolen" if I copy a song from a friend.

Of course, the response is "you should have purchased that song, and you cost the record companies money in lost sales". To which I reply with my last post: I reject the notion of intellectual property entirely. You cannot own an idea, you cannot own information. I have stolen nothing from anyone because nothing has been lost. Only information has been gained by me.

Furthermore, it is entirely circular logic built upon an obsolete and outdated basis to suggest that the sharing of information is magically "stealing" from anyone. The fallacious assumption in making this argument that the "buying-and-selling of a product" model is the only possible solution. Which it is not. Let me elaborate...

Imagine if couches could be copied. You could go to your friend's house and easily and quickly make perfect copy of a couch for free. You could then use this couch for yourself, make modifications to your couch and make copies for your friends.

The couch making companies would cry for help! Clearly they are in trouble, they are being put out of business by all of this couch-copying! Why would anyone want to go to the store and pay $500 dollars for a couch when one can get one for free. The couch makers would band together and try to get couch copying outlawed! They would call it stealing, because every time you copied a couch, you could have been buying one from the store.

But this is not how the world works. When something becomes obsolete in the world, they go away. If couches could be copied, we wouldn't outlaw copying them just so the people making them wouldn't lose their jobs!We tell them to get new jobs!!!

What's important to note is that a world where couches can be copied is as a whole much better than the alternative. It serves society as a whole far more overall utility. it would be a positive thing for this to be possible, not a negative thing.


In order for file sharing to be stealing, someone must be hurt. If nobody is hurt by the act, then is it not wrong. End of story. The RIAA and MPAA are obsolete remnants of an old system that is not applicable today.

They need to do like everyone else who was made obsolete: Find a new job.





Information wants to be free. It has the natural tendency, dare I say need, to spread to as many minds as possible. And we are in the information age, we have built grand infrastructures to be able to share information on a wide scale.


Here is a bit of an essay you can find on the GNU website. It is written in specific reference to software, but you will find it applicable to all "intellectual property".

 

[Cashed]

Imagine if couches could be copied. You could go to your friend's house and easily and quickly make perfect copy of a couch for free. You could then use this couch for yourself, make modifications to your couch and make copies for your friends.

The couch making companies would cry for help! Clearly they are in trouble, they are being put out of business by all of this couch-copying! Why would anyone want to go to the store and pay $500 dollars for a couch when one can get one for free. The couch makers would band together and try to get couch copying outlawed! They would call it stealing, because every time you copied a couch, you could have been buying one from the store.

Picturing this scenario is freakin' gold.

 

[Frames]

Picturing this scenario is freakin' gold.

I could see it now...

"Yo, didja hear, the new Lay-Z-Boy got leaked a week early on couchtorrents.com!"

 

[Mic_128]

Stealing is just a means of gaining without losing anything. It may be parasitic, but in terms of morality, it isn't wrong at all.

Cool. I'll swing by later and steal your car.

EDIT: Wow.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/09/22/activision_suing_pirates_riaa_style-2.html

 

[Sporkman]

I'd like to say something, but AltF4 has said everything I would say only more eloquently and in less lines.

The way forward for businesses seems to be contractual methods. You can even see the games industry trying to adapt with EA's new "Play 4 Free" model fronted by battlefield: heroes.

As for a ronseal thread; Piracy, distributing a copyrighted item, is wrong. As is DRM in the form of Spore. Bioshock's was only slightly more tolerable as you got an install back when you uninstalled the game.

 

[AltF4]

As a follow up to what I posted earlier, I would like to further illustrate why file sharing is not stealing.

Someone asserts that file sharing is stealing by saying "You should have paid for the file from the record company (or other applicable company). By not doing so, you have caused them to lose a potential sale (your sale) and have in effect stolen money from them."


Compare these two situations:

1) You are at a friend's house and you ask for a copy of a song you think you will like. Your friend makes a copy of it for you. You listen to the song, and dislike it.

2) You are at a friend's house and you ask your friend's opinion about a song you think you will like, because you would like to purchase the song. Your friend assures you that the the song is terrible and you shouldn't buy it, so you do not.


In both situations, we have:
-The sharing of information between friends.
-A potential sale for the record company is lost.

They are exactly the same, and yet you would tell me that situation number one is stealing and number two is not? How absurd! You are asserting that making the record companies lose potential sales is equivalent to stealing. So we'd better go and arrest anyone who has ever given a bad review of a song to anyone! After all, they cost the record companies money in lost sales!

How utterly absurd.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Man, I steal all the **** I get on the computer. Why buy overpriced **** when I can get it for free?

 

[SkylerOcon]

To add to all of what AltF4 has said, CDs have become incredibly overpriced.

Seriously, the KH2 soundtrack costs like fifty bucks. I saw that, and just went home and got a torrent of it.

 

[Bowser King]

To add to all of what AltF4 has said, CDs have become incredibly overpriced.

Seriously, the KH2 soundtrack costs like fifty bucks. I saw that, and just went home and got a torrent of it.

Agreed. As technology and prices keep rising the urge to get it free becomes stronger.

-Bowser King

 

[Crimson King]

If everyone just downloaded all the programs they wanted, what would be the incentive for the companies to produce anything? You'd have rogue programmers making stuff just for fun, and the occasional program that people "HAVE to pay for," but what then.

You say you can't own an idea, well, when companies start to realize that they make no money for the months and years of work they do, then they will stop doing the work. Simple as that.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Of course. And there will always be people who are to paranoid, don't like to, don't know how to, or just don't understand how any sort of file sharing works.

I think that file sharing won't get much worse than it is now. Companies won't really lose enough for any serious damage.

 

[Mic_128]

To add to all of what AltF4 has said, CDs have become incredibly overpriced.

More people downloading music = less sold.

Less sold = less profit.

Increased price = more profit!

Increased price also = more people downloading.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I wouldn't pirate if I didn't think that CDs were so expensive. I don't want to shell out 20 bucks for ten songs.

 

[Eor]

Thing is, CDs are luxuries. It's not something required to survive. While you may think they're overpriced, it doesn't provide a moral standing to take it for free.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

I wouldn't pirate if I didn't think that CDs were so expensive. I don't want to shell out 20 bucks for ten songs.

Don't buy your CD's at Barnes and Nobles or Borders then Seriously, they're so overpriced there, it isn't even funny.

I download music I've never heard before. If I liked it a lot, I'll go buy the CD. If it was alright, I may keep it a while and maybe pick up the CD if I were to see it coincidentally, I wouldn't go out searching for it. You can guess what I do if I hated the music.

The thing about CD's that downloaded music doesn't give, if you didn't like it or grow tired of it, you can sell it back for store credit. I do that all the time.

 

[AltF4]

If everyone just downloaded all the programs they wanted, what would be the incentive for the companies to produce anything? You'd have rogue programmers making stuff just for fun, and the occasional program that people "HAVE to pay for," but what then.

You say you can't own an idea, well, when companies start to realize that they make no money for the months and years of work they do, then they will stop doing the work. Simple as that.

This is exactly what is addressed in the GNU link I posted earlier. Which I will do again now:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html


The problem comes down to money. Essentially you are mirroring the concerns that the lawmakers had when they established patent and copyright laws: They believed that if one could not own their ideas and control them and sell them, then nobody would go to all the bother of coming up with good ideas.

It sounds reasonable on the surface.

But it makes several fatally flawed assumptions:
1) Ideas are capable of being bought and sold like products.
2) There is no incentive to producing an product except for monetary gain by selling it.
3) Adding a price tag to ideas will make their quality and quantity expand.

All of which are incorrect.

-I believe number one to be self evident. An idea is not a physical object, none of the traditional rules apply. But a further discussion on this is likely beyond the scope of this thread.

-Number two is becoming increasingly apparent across the board in all forms of media. One of the best examples I can give are Sun Microsystems and Red Hat. They both are developers of Open Source software. And they make a lot of money doing it.

What?! But I thought you couldn't make money if you give your product away for free?

That is the fallacy of assuming the old business model is the only possibility. Red Hat makes loads of money off of support contracts and training sessions. Anyone can download and use a copy of Red Hat Linux, but if you want the top notch support of the developers who made the OS, you have to pay. Because a support contract is a service, not a product. You cannot download or pirate a service.

Sun Microsystems makes lots of Open Source Software, but they are most famous possibly for Open Office and Java. Their business model is slightly different, but largely similar. I suggest everyone to look into them.

In the music industry, artists like Radiohead, Trent Reznor, and many others are proving that even when you give away music for free, people will pay for it anyway. Where assumption two fails here is assuming that capitalism is the natural human instinct, which it simply is not.

One of my favorite bands, Harvey Danger, put out their latest album online. They released the entirety of the album for free on the internet. In addition, however, you could pay for one if you so chose, order any number of special edition versions of the album and such. Guess what I did? I paid for it. Because I love the band. So much so that I was willing to pay for their album just to give them business. And I was not alone.

You see, the genius is in not selling the information of the music, not the actual data which cannot physically be owned. But instead selling a service, or selling a real product (physical product) related to the information.

-Lastly, the third assumption is just plain wrong. The GNU link above uses an analogy of Toll roads versus Free roads...

There are two kinds of roads: Toll roads and Free roads. It is undeniable that all else being equal, free roads are preferable to toll roads. The process of tolling is a burden on the usage of the road. It is a disincentive to using the road, it prevents lesser privileged people from using the road, and slows down the traffic on the road.

Once made, a road is better off being free. A road is devalued by adding toll booths. The only trouble to get around is that of how to pay for the road, which I previously addressed.




If you haven't gathered, I feel very strongly about this.

More people downloading music = less sold.

That is not even true. Pirates spend more money on music than ordinary users, despite the downloading. That incorrect assumption is just a poor attempt to demonize the people who believe that information wants to be free. (Free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.)

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140474/music-pirates-spend

 

[RelaxImAProfessional]

altf4 made A LOT of really really good points. I download all of my music. But I also buy A LOT of music. Way more then most, even more then people who I know ONLY buy music and dont download it. I even buy vinyl records from bands because a lot of the indie bands still release those to keep em alive.

free roads ftw.

 

[Sporkman]

More people downloading music = less sold.

Less sold = less profit.

Increased price = more profit!

Increased price also = more people downloading.

Come on now Mic. That's true given everything else remains constant. But you should know that an increase in price will cause a decrease in demand, meaning less sales which results in a negative effect on what you have coming in.

Increasing price due to less sales is a rookie mistake and doing so would show complete ignorance of basic economic laws.

The record industry buried it's head in the sand and is paying the price. It should lower it's prices untill it comes up with an effective new business model. Contract based preferably as that is the way of the future.

Does anybody remember when games weren't just a disc or two with a slip of paper pointing out the controls?

 

[Mic_128]

But you should know that an increase in price will cause a decrease in demand, meaning less sales which results in a negative effect on what you have coming in.

That's my point. I know of people who are sick of being abused with prices PS3 and 360 games are mostly standard at $120 bucks over here. They were already WAY overpriced here than anywhere else and for no reason. And now they're increasing prices, so many I know have had consoles chipped. (Or importing for the PS3)

 

[Sporkman]

That's my point. I know of people who are sick of being abused with prices PS3 and 360 games are mostly standard at $120 bucks over here. They were already WAY overpriced here than anywhere else and for no reason. And now they're increasing prices, so many I know have had consoles chipped. (Or importing for the PS3)

Then I missed the sarcasm and made a fool of myself

 

[RelaxImAProfessional]

**** 120 bucks for a game, you should rally and riot.

 

[Oracle]

1Wing:

"Pirating" media is not immoral, wrong, nor is it stealing.

Stealing is when you take something from someone and they no longer possess that which you stole. Stealing is wrong because it hurts the person you stole from. They are no longer in possession of that which you stole.

Tell me, what exactly is "stolen" if I copy a song from a friend.

Of course, the response is "you should have purchased that song, and you cost the record companies money in lost sales". To which I reply with my last post: I reject the notion of intellectual property entirely. You cannot own an idea, you cannot own information. I have stolen nothing from anyone because nothing has been lost. Only information has been gained by me.

Furthermore, it is entirely circular logic built upon an obsolete and outdated basis to suggest that the sharing of information is magically "stealing" from anyone. The fallacious assumption in making this argument that the "buying-and-selling of a product" model is the only possible solution. Which it is not. Let me elaborate...

Imagine if couches could be copied. You could go to your friend's house and easily and quickly make perfect copy of a couch for free. You could then use this couch for yourself, make modifications to your couch and make copies for your friends.

The couch making companies would cry for help! Clearly they are in trouble, they are being put out of business by all of this couch-copying! Why would anyone want to go to the store and pay $500 dollars for a couch when one can get one for free. The couch makers would band together and try to get couch copying outlawed! They would call it stealing, because every time you copied a couch, you could have been buying one from the store.

But this is not how the world works. When something becomes obsolete in the world, they go away. If couches could be copied, we wouldn't outlaw copying them just so the people making them wouldn't lose their jobs!We tell them to get new jobs!!!

What's important to note is that a world where couches can be copied is as a whole much better than the alternative. It serves society as a whole far more overall utility. it would be a positive thing for this to be possible, not a negative thing.


In order for file sharing to be stealing, someone must be hurt. If nobody is hurt by the act, then is it not wrong. End of story. The RIAA and MPAA are obsolete remnants of an old system that is not applicable today.

They need to do like everyone else who was made obsolete: Find a new job.





Information wants to be free. It has the natural tendency, dare I say need, to spread to as many minds as possible. And we are in the information age, we have built grand infrastructures to be able to share information on a wide scale.


Here is a bit of an essay you can find on the GNU website. It is written in specific reference to software, but you will find it applicable to all "intellectual property".

F*ck your logic, I'm Catholic!

Spoiler

/sarcasm

You're misinterpreting the definition of stealing. Just because they don't lose the information doesn't mean that they don't lose something, which is the money.


"Nobody is hurt" doesn't work because iTunes and all the bands and singers are hurt when you pirate a song. And telling them to "get new jobs" is really stupid. How would you like it if someone just decided that you couldn't teach (you are a teacher, right?) anymore because teaching is obsolete due to his logic. You would be out of a job for almost no reason. You would basically lose your source of money and fall back on hard times.

As a follow up to what I posted earlier, I would like to further illustrate why file sharing is not stealing.

Someone asserts that file sharing is stealing by saying "You should have paid for the file from the record company (or other applicable company). By not doing so, you have caused them to lose a potential sale (your sale) and have in effect stolen money from them."


Compare these two situations:

1) You are at a friend's house and you ask for a copy of a song you think you will like. Your friend makes a copy of it for you. You listen to the song, and dislike it.

2) You are at a friend's house and you ask your friend's opinion about a song you think you will like, because you would like to purchase the song. Your friend assures you that the the song is terrible and you shouldn't buy it, so you do not.


In both situations, we have:
-The sharing of information between friends.
-A potential sale for the record company is lost.

They are exactly the same, and yet you would tell me that situation number one is stealing and number two is not? How absurd! You are asserting that making the record companies lose potential sales is equivalent to stealing. So we'd better go and arrest anyone who has ever given a bad review of a song to anyone! After all, they cost the record companies money in lost sales!

How utterly absurd.

**** you're seemingly wrong but really correct logic!

I see your point: that media should be distributed for free because it is information, and that's how information works. I think we all would like that, but it just goes to show what people are willing to do for money. Selling the most basic of all things: information.
To be blunt: It's not going to change in a long, long time. Unless we get more people like you in high govt. positions.
ALT F4 FOR SENATOR!

Spoiler

I wish I was in the debate hall so I could debate like this all the time

 

[Sporkman]

F*ck your logic, I'm Catholic!

Spoiler

/sarcasm

You're misinterpreting the definition of stealing. Just because they don't lose the information doesn't mean that they don't lose something, which is the money.


"Nobody is hurt" doesn't work because iTunes and all the bands and singers are hurt when you pirate a song. And telling them to "get new jobs" is really stupid. How would you like it if someone just decided that you couldn't teach (you are a teacher, right?) anymore because teaching is obsolete due to his logic. You would be out of a job for almost no reason. You would basically lose your source of money and fall back on hard times.

**** you're seemingly wrong but really correct logic!

I see your point: that media should be distributed for free because it is information, and that's how information works. I think we all would like that, but it just goes to show what people are willing to do for money. Selling the most basic of all things: information.
To be blunt: It's not going to change in a long, long time. Unless we get more people like you in high govt. positions.
ALT F4 FOR SENATOR!

Spoiler

I wish I was in the debate hall so I could debate like this all the time

His definition of stealing is correct. Think about it, the only loss is that of a potential sale. I buy what I would've bought, and I dont buy what I wouldn't have bought, but I might download it, incase I like it. That way I've gained something which increases my happiness, and nobody has lost anything. Infact they could still gain, if it were music, I may be inclined to tell my friends about this great band I'm listening to, or buy tickets to go see them live. Record companies don't gain much from this sure, but we've already discussed their obsolete business model, which they refused to change. People will tell you not to take things for granted, and this is a pretty good example of what happens when you do.

Teaching is a service (and also compulsory by law, at least it is here) and therefore doesn't provide the same analogy. You get an experience, you make friends, you get support. If you had the option of paying to go to a school or trying to teach yourself via say the internet, you can bet alot of people would pay for the school. Your analogy doesn't work in other ways aswell, almost every analogy is flawed. I'm sure you've seen the "You wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy ad at the cinema or on a dvd, but it's not the same. No, I wouldn't steal a car. But if I could download one you can surefire bet I would.

This might be a mess but im out of time so I might touch it up/finish later on.

EDIT: Too lazy to read what I've written. Probably says something.

If you wan't to join the debate hall all you have to do is PM either Crimson King (CK) or Evil Eye (EE). I think there is somebody else now aswell but I'm not sure who it is.

 

[Mic_128]

I think that you guys should read this.

http://penny-arcade.com/2008/9/24/

Yes, it's Penny Arcade, and no it's not a joke. It's a serious post that I think it worth a good read.

For those too lazy, here's the last two paragraphs which I think make some really good points.

Personally, I think a good starting point is a system like Steam, Valve’s digital distribution and security system. The software was horribly broken when it came kicking and screaming to life during the abortive launch of Half-Life 2. But over the years Valve plugged away at the software, turning it into something that has at least a kernel of gamer interest at its heart.

Developers and publishers have the right to protect their interests, to ask that I pay for what I play. But don’t we have the right to own what we’ve purchased? To do what we want with it? Are we buying games, or renting them? The industry needs to meet us halfway. This is a problem that hurts everyone, both in its repercussions and its current solutions.

 

[Sporkman]

To put it bluntly. Where there is a lock, someone will make a key. I understand what developers and publisher's (more so) want but it's wrong to limit every single one of your buyers in a bid to stop a very few who will try and pirate the game.

Steam, I feel, is the best at the moment. That said I feel DRM is more of an experiment, checking if this policy is viable, how effective? etc. and won't be around for too much long, certaintly not in this form.

 

[AltF4]

Okay, it seems that a lot of you are confused about the entire subject. Allow me to dispel a few common myths:

Disclaimer: The following refers explicitly to US law. Every country in the world handles copyright, trademark, and patent laws differently. I am not knowledgeable about every law in the entire world, so this will pertain only to the United States.



Myth 1: "Intellectual Property"

Fact: There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" in US law. The term is a phrase used to confuse you. It seems to imply that someone can "own an idea", as if a piece of intellect can be someone's property. Not only is this impossible from a practical standpoint, but it is unsubstantiated in US law.

"Intellectual Property" is a term that is meant to incorporate three very different things which cannot be incorporated: Copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

There is no circumstance where a person or entity can "own an idea". The term "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer used for the sole purpose of confusing the subject, and into making you think that holders of patents or copyrights have some special power that they do not have.


Myth 2: Patents and copyrights are a part of American Society, and were desired by the founding fathers.

Fact: When the constitution was being written, an article was to be written establishing patent laws. But this was struck down. Instead what was written was:

"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 constitution specifically lists patent law as an option. It was not made mandatory, but instead reserved the government the power to establish it if it would benefit the progression of scientific advancement.


Myth 3: Patents and Copyrights exist to protect the inventors and authors of ideas.

Fact: Patents and copyrights exist for the sole explicit purpose of promoting the progress of scientific advancement. Period.

They do not exist to make sure that inventors or authors get rich.


Myth 4: Patents are good for the small business, or the lone inventor.

Fact: Patents serve only the interest of the very large corporations. This should be obvious because the ones who are telling you that patents are good for small business are the super large companies!

When Microsoft tells you that it is trying to protect small businesses, you know they're lying.

You see, anytime a product is made, it contains many ideas. Any useful and new product will be suitably complex to contain hundreds or thousands of ideas. Each of which are capable of being patented. And are... by the mega corporations

But the large companies do what's called "cross licensing" with each other. That means that when IBM makes a product, they will necessarily step on top of some patents held by Lockheed Martin. They get an agreement with each other to allow each other to use their respective patents.

Now what happens if a small business makes a great new product? This product contains one or two really new ideas which are very good. But it also will contain many ideas which are not new, and are patented by the mega corporations. IBM will look at this product and say "Well, that sure is a nice new idea. But you're stepping on our patents. We will not allow you to sell that product."

The small business does not have a large collection of patents as a bargaining chip, and cannot cross-license with the mega corporation. So they are stuck to either give up, or sell their patent to the mega-corporation, thus enhancing their ability to bully small businesses in the future.


Myth 5: Copyrights promote the progression of new ideas.

Fact: This is the fallacy of assuming that capitalism is applicable to all areas. At the heart of this reasoning is the spirit of competition. What copyrights do is provide an incentive:

"Come up with a good idea, and we'll give you a monopoly on using that idea".

Coming up with ideas is then a race. Whoever wins the race gets the prize of a copyright.

And this works, in certain isolated situations. Competition can be a good incentive as long as the participants remember why there is a race in the first place. The point is not the finish, but the process of running itself. In the case of ideas, what we want is the progression of knowledge. The copyright is then a "necessary evil", a carrot that is dangled in front of inventors in order to get them to run.

But what happens in a race when there are no rules? Nobody races at all! As soon as the race begins, everyone gets into a fist fight. The winner of the fight then walks to a finish. Nobody winds up running at all, and it was the process of running that we wanted!

So why don't we just make sure that there are rules? Good question. But the mega corporations are the ones who make the laws. All you have to do is pay the right lawmaker's, and you can make whatever law you want.


Myth 6: Copyrights are a "necessary evil" but are temporary.

Fact: The constitution specifically states that copyrights must be limited in duration. But the large publishing companies do not want this to be the case. They are still making money off of old works they hold copyrights on, and do not want them to go away.

But they are unable to actually make copyrights infinite in extent. So what do they do?

They just keep extending the length of copyrights indefinitely. Every 20 years, you see the length of copyrights extend by another 20 years. And so copyrights never run out, they are just perpetually extended.

Copyrights are extended not to "increase the amount of ideas created" but rather so that large publishing companies can keep their monopolies on ideas long long ago.

Try looking up the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". It's absurd. The copyright duration was increased by 20 years, just so as to extend Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse, which would have expired.

Does that "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? No. What it does is line the pockets of the companies and the corrupt politicians who passed the law.

 

[Oracle]

His definition of stealing is correct. Think about it, the only loss is that of a potential sale. I buy what I would've bought, and I dont buy what I wouldn't have bought, but I might download it, incase I like it. That way I've gained something which increases my happiness, and nobody has lost anything. Infact they could still gain, if it were music, I may be inclined to tell my friends about this great band I'm listening to, or buy tickets to go see them live. Record companies don't gain much from this sure, but we've already discussed their obsolete business model, which they refused to change. People will tell you not to take things for granted, and this is a pretty good example of what happens when you do.

Teaching is a service (and also compulsory by law, at least it is here) and therefore doesn't provide the same analogy. You get an experience, you make friends, you get support. If you had the option of paying to go to a school or trying to teach yourself via say the internet, you can bet alot of people would pay for the school. Your analogy doesn't work in other ways aswell, almost every analogy is flawed. I'm sure you've seen the "You wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy ad at the cinema or on a dvd, but it's not the same. No, I wouldn't steal a car. But if I could download one you can surefire bet I would.

This might be a mess but im out of time so I might touch it up/finish later on.

The teaching analogy basically said "how would you feel if your job was terminated"
And don't give me this "I would move on because I was obselete" bullsh*t. Basically, by pirating, we cause pepole to lose money. It's that simple.

And in regards to the "I can steal it because it doesn't make them lose money, it makes them lose a potential sale". Thats basically the same as stealing a car (but only regarding to this point). They already paid for the car, so owning it doesn't get them money. You stealing it gives you a car and makes them lose a potential sale. They don't immediately lose money from the loss of a car.

However, you are extremely right in that the companies need to evolve. Valve got it right with steam. I think it might be able to work (eventually) to download content onto consoles rather than to go out and purchase games written on hardware readable by a computer, and therefore, easily stealable.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'm printing what AltF4 just said out and am going to show it to a few people I know. They'll be pleased about that...

 

[Frames]

i dunno, the way i feel about pirating is mixed to say the least.

on the one hand, people spend their whole lives trying to become a musician and then suffer because people pirate media. yes the concept of a "potential sale" is flawed and should not be reason to take legal action against anyone, but the fact is people like the fact that they get paid for doing something they love, and if everybody in the world downloaded the same new album, hypothetically speaking, and created enough of an impact so that nobody bought the album then they would suffer greatly. piracy has never actually made that much of an impact to cause any real problem, and it probably never will, record companies will still make albums, artists will still make millions irregardless, but the fact that hypothetically pirates have the power to essentially destroy the industry if millions and millions of them worked together is somewhat frightening to say the least

also i don't like that "couch" scenario altf4 posted because to simply brush off the couch makers and say "get a new job" is ridiculous, especially if people spend their whole lives doing the same thing. if a guy works in a couch factory for 20 years and he relies on that to support his family, what is he supposed to do when all of the sudden his job is eliminated? cutting jobs doesn't create opportunities for new ones, it's like outsourcing, if you sent that same couch factory to singapore, all the people who worked for them now have to get a new job

if everybody can get couches for free it would eliminate the demand for store-bought couches, but people aren't like machines, if someone becomes "obsolete" suddenly they have to worry about how they're going to maintain their way of life, they can't just pick up a new job like that, the more stuff that becomes free the less demand there will be for that product

yes people still support artists, but if you could get a 500 dollar couch for free would you support the couch industry? who would?

went off on a tangent there....

basically i don't think pirating is stealing, it IS just a potential loss, saying it's stealing is like saying that if 20 million people buy the new r.kelly album but 300 million decide not to cause they think r.kelly pissed on a girl and therefore do not support him, but 40 million of those people got it anyway because they pirated it

and it really doesn't have much of an impact financially but applying that concept to real world items is unrealistic, and saying that companies like RIAA are "obsolete" and somehow magically find a new job is unrealistic

the riaa may be in a the business of restricting information, a concept that is flawed, however they are still a business and eliminating them does not help stop piracy, even if information SHOULD be free, at what extent should it be where jobs are at stake?

i personally have no qualms about piracy; as a member of several high-profile trackers dedicated to pirating various forms of media, i feel like piracy will never become enough of an issue to warrant any serious action; i just think that because of the potential it has one can't just dismiss it and tell the companies to basically get over it and do something else



tl;dr
piracy isn't stealing because it's pretty much like never buying it in the first place, but if everybody stops buying then jobs get eliminated and people suffer, piracy will never have enough of an impact because people will support their artists enough for them to get plenty of cash all i'm saying is until the point where piracy affects people, where it's THAT much of a problem, then it's fine, but the fact that it has such a scary potential is a problem

 

[AltF4]

...but the fact is people like the fact that they get paid for doing something they love, and if everybody in the world downloaded the same new album, hypothetically speaking, and created enough of an impact so that nobody bought the album then they would suffer greatly...

You are under the delusion that we as a society are under some kind of moral obligation to support the record companies. Clearly their propaganda and lies have worked on you.


Myth: The music industry will fall apart if downloading songs were legal.

Fact: You seem to be confusing the record companies with "the music industry" as a whole. They are not even close to the same thing. The MUSICIANS themselves (except for the already established mega-stars) make virtually no money from record sales. All of that money is kept by the record companies.

If open filesharing were legalized, the musicians would not lose a significant amount of income, who largely rely on concerts for money.

For most of the history of music, there has been no such thing as copyrights nor patents. And guess what: we got by just fine. Unless you seem to think that nothing ever came out the Renaissance.


You are also forgetting that technology today has enabled artists to share their ideas in so many new exciting ways. Why, there are TONS of bands who get a successful start entirely from Myspace, giving their songs out for free. Who then go on to make money at concerts.

also i don't like that "couch" scenario altf4 posted because to simply brush off the couch makers and say "get a new job" is ridiculous, especially if people spend their whole lives doing the same thing. if a guy works in a couch factory for 20 years and he relies on that to support his family, what is he supposed to do when all of the sudden his job is eliminated? cutting jobs doesn't create opportunities for new ones, it's like outsourcing, if you sent that same couch factory to singapore, all the people who worked for them now have to get a new job

"Get a new job" is exactly what happens to people when they become obsolete. Do you think we should ban robots, because they made so many factory workers obsolete? Or that we should ban cars because they put the stagecoach makers out of business?

I hope not.

The nation's unemployment level from 1900 and 2000 are just the same. You know what that means?

They found new jobs.

yes people still support artists, but if you could get a 500 dollar couch for free would you support the couch industry? who would?

This embodies the heart of the problem with record companies. They expect us to pay $20 or more for a single CD. It's utterly outrageous. I won't pay it.

But I WOULD pay, just less. Lots of people will buy music, even when given the option to get it free, for a REASONABLE price.

the riaa may be in a the business of restricting information, a concept that is flawed, however they are still a business and eliminating them does not help stop piracy, even if information SHOULD be free, at what extent should it be where jobs are at stake?

They sure have suckered you in. You're willing to give up your freedom and give the RIAA money just so that they won't lose their job?! How absurd.

 

[Mic_128]

Myth 1: "Intellectual Property"

Fact: There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" in US law. The term is a phrase used to confuse you. It seems to imply that someone can "own an idea", as if a piece of intellect can be someone's property. Not only is this impossible from a practical standpoint, but it is unsubstantiated in US law.

Are you saying that if someone writes a song, paints a painting, comes up with an idea/invention, they don't actually own it? >.>

 

[AltF4]

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying, Mic.

Well, "it" of course being the idea of that which they created, not the physical object. A painter certainly owns the actual painting that they made. Physical objects can be owned, information cannot. There is no US law which gives people "ownership over an idea". There are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. They are often lumped together and called "intellectual property", but this is misleading at best. Copyrights and patents share almost nothing in common, lumping them together serves only to confuse the subject.



The next question you will ask is undoubtedly "... but without copyright law, nobody will make any music / art!". Which is nonsense that I have already addressed previously.

 

[Oracle]

You are under the delusion that we as a society are under some kind of moral obligation to support the record companies. Clearly their propaganda and lies have worked on you.


Myth: The music industry will fall apart if downloading songs were legal.

Fact: You seem to be confusing the record companies with "the music industry" as a whole. They are not even close to the same thing. The MUSICIANS themselves (except for the already established mega-stars) make virtually no money from record sales. All of that money is kept by the record companies.

If open filesharing were legalized, the musicians would not lose a significant amount of income, who largely rely on concerts for money.

For most of the history of music, there has been no such thing as copyrights nor patents. And guess what: we got by just fine. Unless you seem to think that nothing ever came out the Renaissance.


You are also forgetting that technology today has enabled artists to share their ideas in so many new exciting ways. Why, there are TONS of bands who get a successful start entirely from Myspace, giving their songs out for free. Who then go on to make money at concerts.




"Get a new job" is exactly what happens to people when they become obsolete. Do you think we should ban robots, because they made so many factory workers obsolete? Or that we should ban cars because they put the stagecoach makers out of business?

I hope not.

The nation's unemployment level from 1900 and 2000 are just the same. You know what that means?

They found new jobs.



This embodies the heart of the problem with record companies. They expect us to pay $20 or more for a single CD. It's utterly outrageous. I won't pay it.

But I WOULD pay, just less. Lots of people will buy music, even when given the option to get it free, for a REASONABLE price.



They sure have suckered you in. You're willing to give up your freedom and give the RIAA money just so that they won't lose their job?! How absurd.

If it puts lots of people out of jobs, we should not do it, unless there is a way to make the music industry slowly die, so the members have time to realize that they are obsolete, instead of saying "you suck go away".

Does anyone really buy CD's anymore, anyways? Seriously.

Musicians make some money from selling songs, just not all of it. We are still denying them money, regardless of how little.

Wow, with the exception of the stage legality discussion, this is the first thread I've seen mic post in that hasn't gotten locked.

 

[AltF4]

How absurd, 1wing. There is no "warning period" for losing one's job.

If my job became obsolete tomorrow, guess what would happen? I would be fired tomorrow. That is how things work. And I assure you, I would find a new job.



But about your second argument, I will not continue to debate with someone who ignores points I've already made. You attempt to blur the issue by saying things like "We are still denying them money", in essence calling file sharing stealing without actually saying the word. Furthermore, you continue to spout monetary incentives as the sole reason for continuing with copyright law, but have yet to actually address any of my arguments refuting this point.

Your problem is that you are not seeing this in context. You are under the delusion that musicians need to be paid millions of dollars, or no music will exist. This is absurd. Music will exist even if nobody were ever paid for it. Because people love music, and they will continue to make it.

The US's median household income is approximately $45,000 per year. A world where copyrights don't exist can still easily pay musicians more than this amount. There is no monetary necessity for music to thrive.

 

[Oracle]

How absurd, 1wing. There is no "warning period" for losing one's job.

If my job became obsolete tomorrow, guess what would happen? I would be fired tomorrow. That is how things work. And I assure you, I would find a new job.
By warning period, I mean that one would be able to tell from the media, i.e. observing that the companies are going downhill due to piracy, observing the media report this stuff, etc.
I think it would be in the news if selling CD's was becoming obsolete and the record companies would probably shut down.
Besides, not everyone can find a new job, especially people who trained all their life for their job.



But about your second argument, I will not continue to debate with someone who ignores points I've already made. You attempt to blur the issue by saying things like "We are still denying them money", in essence calling file sharing stealing without actually saying the word. Furthermore, you continue to spout monetary incentives as the sole reason for continuing with copyright law, but have yet to actually address any of my arguments refuting this point.You are ignoring the fact that they are losing money and pretending that they aren't, trying to justify your actions with "they don't lose much money, they get most of it from concerts, etc."
I'm not saying that it's all that important, but it does exist.

Your problem is that you are not seeing this in context. You are under the delusion that musicians need to be paid millions of dollars, or no music will exist. This is absurd. Music will exist even if nobody were ever paid for it. Because people love music, and they will continue to make it.

The US's median household income is approximately $45,000 per year. A world where copyrights don't exist can still easily pay musicians more than this amount. There is no monetary necessity for music to thrive.
I could care less if the musicians are no longer millionaires. What about the people who are put out of a job?

What you don't see is that the way things currently are is fine compared to what you want. The way things currently are= people have lots of jobs, which stimulates the economy, and we can still get our music (albeit for a fee)
If things were to go the way that you wanted to, then all of the companies that sold music would eventually die, so we would have a crapload of people out of jobs, chances are with not enough jobs to support them all, the musician's making less money, and the only people who benefit are us, because we couldn't stand to pay a measly $1 for a song.

The way things are benefits the most people. It's as simple as that.

I get that information should not be sold. Which is true. But that really doesn't matter, because in the worlds current state, it would be bad if information were suddenly completely free.

Spoiler

I'm sorry if I come off a bit condescending, i'm a little mad at other things right now and that may have influenced some of my arguments.

 

[RDK]

The hell are you talking about?

The information you're referencing is free in today's world (or at least you can obtain it for free). Where do you think pirates get their goods from?

Point being, piracy isn't destroying any industry. The amount of money lost because people decide to pirate music, movies, or games is negligible when compared to how much money Hollywood squeezes out of the public when they go and pay $12 matinee (not including outrageously-priced pop and popcorn) to watch a POS movie.

And Crimson, I tend to agree with you on just about everything in the political and economic spectrum, but piracy is where my Libertarianism stops. "Intellectual property" or "information" is not something that should considered sellable.

My main beef is with people who think it's still wrong to download TV show episodes or movies after you've already seen them or after they've aired. It's the exact same as if I would have recorded something on TV, or if I had super-human memory.

 

[AltF4]

First: Don't reply to someone with comments inside the quotes. It is very difficult to reply to you when you do that. Separate out what you say by putting [/quote]'s in like I did for you.

Second: Don't put words in my mouth. There are two meanings to the word "free" in English. The first refers to price. Something can be "free of charge". The other meaning has no good synonym in English, unfortunately. It's free as in freedom.

When I say that information wants to be free, I am not referring to price, but to freedom. GNU puts this distinction as "Free like free speech, not like free beer".

It is okay to sell information. In fact, that is exactly what I do for a living. I am a Computer Security specialist. I make a living by providing information to those who employ me. All of that information is publicly available online, free of charge. So why would someone pay me when they can get it at no price on the internet?

Because I do not sell my information as a product, but as a service. My service offers what the information online cannot, including personal instruction and education, and personal adaptation and condensation of the information. And this is what the record companies fail to do. I gladly give any and all information out, free of charge, all the time. Go and read my Math thread here in the Pool Room. Doing so does not hurt my income because I am not in the business of selling information as a product, but rather selling a service.


What is morally wrong is not the selling of information (making information not free in price) but the restricting of the information (making it not free as in freedom).


But I think we're done here. You just continue to make assertions I have already countered, without ever even addressing my points. You now try to claim that society is better off with copyright laws, which I have already addressed. But rather than trying to make counterarguments to mine, you simply act like what you say is truth.

 

[Doggalina]

"Intellectual property" or "information" is not something that should considered sellable.

Although AltF4 already addressed this, I'd like to add something.

If IPs aren't sellable, then I should be able to make a movie adaptation of any comic book I want for profit. The people who created the comic shouldn't get any money for it.

Of course, that's not how things work.

 

[RDK]

Although AltF4 already addressed this, I'd like to add something.

If IPs aren't sellable, then I should be able to make a movie adaptation of any comic book I want for profit. The people who created the comic shouldn't get any money for it.

Of course, that's not how things work.

Taking someone's idea and profiting from it is completely different than simply experiencing someone else's "intellectual property".

I'm not saying that people should all of a sudden go out and make movies with Spiderman in them and get millions of dollars for doing so without asking or paying for the rights to Spiderman; I'm simply saying it's wrong for people to put something out into public domain and then demand that people pay for it when it's already basically free (or can be obtained freely).

Edit:

Alt, are you talking to me, or 1winged@ngel?