How do you feel about Piracy and DRM

[Doggalina]

I was responding to your "intellectual property shouldn't be sellable" statement. I was just giving an example of it being "sellable."

EDIT: Whoa, I can't read.

 

[AltF4]

RDK:

My last post was referring to 1wing, not you. You just posted before I got a chance to.


By the way, I AM saying e that copies and adaptations should be allowed to be freely made. (In reference to your Spiderman example)

You know, in the Renaissance, using the ideas of others and adapting them was considered an art form by itself. All of the major artists of the time would take that which was made before them and try to improve upon it. It was done for the benefit of the art, as opposed to the benefit of the individual.

Imagine what the Renaissance would have been like if Leonardo Da vinci went around copyrighting and patenting his ideas and sued anyone who tried to use them. Would this have benefited society? Would this have encouraged the creation of new ideas? No. It would have served only to line Leonardo's pockets with gold. (or whatever currency they used back then)

 

[Doggalina]

You know, in the Renaissance, using the ideas of others and adapting them was considered an art form by itself. All of the major artists of the time would take that which was made before them and try to improve upon it. It was done for the benefit of the art, as opposed to the benefit of the individual.

Imagine what the Renaissance would have been like if Leonardo Da vinci went around copyrighting and patenting his ideas and sued anyone who tried to use them. Would this have benefited society? Would this have encouraged the creation of new ideas? No. It would have served only to line Leonardo's pockets with gold. (or whatever currency they used back then)

This still happens today. Just as the use of linear perspective was copied and improved upon (Leonardo didn't invent it, but the point still stands), so was the first person shooter and the comic book. Techniques and ideas will always be imitated and emulated. That has nothing to do with piracy. Piracy is more akin to somebody forging one of Da Vinci's painting, not somebody using chiaroscuro in their paintings.

Spoiler

Who would've known that I'd be using what I learned from AP Art History on Smashboards

 

[RDK]

I see it like people making you pay to experience something. Charging people to listen to music or watch a certian movie (which, BTW, I don't think is inherently wrong; you should benefit from the things you produce) is akin to charging someone to look at a painting or a drawing....multiple times.

My view on it is that if I really like the music artist or movie, I support it by buying the album or going to see the movie in theatres, simply because I like that person's work and would like to see more of it. I really only pirate movies because most movies nowadays suck and are a waste of time and money.

 

[Mic_128]

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.

Not really. "I"ve made this awesome idea! To prevent people using MY idea to make the product I am going to make, I shal get a patent on my idea!"

They then own their idea.

 

[RDK]

You can't physically "own" an idea.

So I guess anyone and everyone who "thinks" of that idea and shares it with someone else at some point in their lifetime is guilty of theft and should be prosectued accordingly.

 

[Sporkman]

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

This is why I don't like analogies, they make a mess of things. An analogy isn't made for depth, but for visualisation. AltF4 used the couch anaolgy to explain his point, he said what was needed to know. Nitpicking it is worthless because it's not the same.

The couch makers are more akin to the musicians than the record companies. They'd make new couches. The analogy fails here because the couch creators don't suddenly go to a venue where they make couches infront of a large group of people and then afterwards smash the tools used to make them and/or throw tools to the 'audience'.

Musicians will never be obsolete, but record companies could be, they aren't needed like they were. A fine example is The Arctic Monkeys. From zero to hero overnight, no record company yet they are selling out venues across the UK. Why? because they made their music available for free. Gave free cds to people at their concerts when starting out. Distribution. You don't need these companies to do it anymore.

 

[Oracle]

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.

Let's take a few steps back here. I got distracted and caught up in trying to be right and said a bunch of random bullsh*t. Then we got into how the patent and copyright system is bad and stuff that doesn't have a lot to do with the original topic. My bad.

My original point was that pirating is morally wrong because it makes people lose money, regardless of how little money is lost. That's the only point I want to make.

As for the whole "intellectual property" thing, I think that someone who comes up with the idea first should be able to "own" that idea, but only in some cases, such as plans for a machine and things like that. Why? Because without it, other people could steal the ideas and get credit for them.

 

[Frames]

My original point was that pirating is morally wrong because it makes people lose money, regardless of how little money is lost. That's the only point I want to make.

But if you think about it, it makes sense, nobody's losing money, they're just making less (hypothetically). If you consider everyone who has never bought an album as a "potential loss of sale" then there would be literally billons of pirates.

As for the whole "intellectual property" thing, I think that someone who comes up with the idea first should be able to "own" that idea, but only in some cases, such as plans for a machine and things like that. Why? Because without it, other people could steal the ideas and get credit for them.

This makes me think of Robert Kearns, the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and how he had to fight Ford and Chrysler for years to prove it was his design.

As far as owning ideas go, i think that as long as the idea is manifest in a tangible form, the creator has the right to claim ownership over that physical form of the idea.

 

[Red Exodus]

I really don't like the idea of DRM. If I have a problem with the game and I have to uninstall and reinstall I'm using up the limit and then once the limit is up I have to pay again? That's BS. Steam has no DRM and no bull**** to go through and if more services were like that I would happily buy stuff online but right now I'm doing without.

Also, I don't pirate games because I just can't bring myself to deal with the hassle, especially when it comes to multiplayer online games.

 

[AltF4]

Not really. "I"ve made this awesome idea! To prevent people using MY idea to make the product I am going to make, I shal get a patent on my idea!"

They then own their idea.

Well, now are we having a normative or a positive argument?

A patent on an idea is not even close to "ownership". Ownership is a concept we use to describe certain physical objects. When you try to apply that notion to ideas, it all breaks down. Things which are owned can be stolen. There is no way to steal an idea. It's literally impossible. If I come up with an idea, the only way for someone else to know it is for me to intentionally tell someone. Not until brain scanning, mind reading and erasing devices are invented can an idea ever be stolen. The term stealing is only used as propaganda to further demonize opponents of the RIAA and MPAA.

True ownership of an idea would enable it's "owner" all kinds of powers which do not exist under US law. That's because idea ownership does not exist in US law. Patents do and copyrights do, two things which are also entirely different in nature.



But none of that describes they things SHOULD be. Unless you're trying to insinuate that just because it's US law, it must be right?! (Note: This argument is actually used by the RIAA and MPAA)

Also, you seem to be under the delusion that patents are good for small businesses / inventors. This could not be further from the case. I have already described this at some length previously in this thread.





But here is something I have yet to bring up: The corrosive social effect copyrights have on us.

The MPAA and RIAA and others would like think that you are a criminal. They seem to think that it is immoral to share information, to help one's neighbor. They do this by systematically breaking down our freedoms and making the population accustomed to it. They would tell you that you are being a bad person by sharing information with your neighbor.

If there is one thing we need more of today it's good and charitable neighbors. And if there's one thing we need less of it's people suing other people.

My original point was that pirating is morally wrong because it makes people lose money, regardless of how little money is lost. That's the only point I want to make.

Very well then.

First off, the "people" who lose this money are the record companies. The actual artists see a nearly negligible amount of this money. So let's be clear about what we're talking. We are not making poor starving musicians lose money, it comes from the very deep pockets of the RIAA and MPAA. So don't come into this with any false pretenses of trying to protect musicians.

Let's again consider a hypothetical situation:

I receive a copy of a song from a friend. Who lost any money from this sharing? Did I simultaneously hack into the bank accounts of the RIAA and take money? No.

What we are talking about is POTENTIAL sales. Do you know what also hurts POTENTIAL sales? The weather, bad reviews, a better product, technological advancement, war, economic crisis, etc... Good luck on trying to get those made illegal. (Especially bad weather.)

It is utterly absurd to assert that sharing information should be made illegal on the basis that it lowers someone else's potential sales figures.

Surely there must also be something else?

 

[Oracle]

But if you think about it, it makes sense, nobody's losing money, they're just making less (hypothetically). If you consider everyone who has never bought an album as a "potential loss of sale" then there would be literally billons of pirates.

But the people who don't buy the albums don't have the music. Therefore, pirating is not loss of a potential sale, but loss of a sale. He's not going to buy the song, no matter what, because he already has it. The person who doesn't have the album may or may not buy it.

@ALTF4- Read above. Not potential, 100% certain loss of a sale.

 

[GoldShadow]

But the people who don't buy the albums don't have the music. Therefore, pirating is not loss of a potential sale, but loss of a sale. He's not going to buy the song, no matter what, because he already has it. The person who doesn't have the album may or may not buy it.

@ALTF4- Read above. Not potential, 100% certain loss of a sale.

You're still missing the point. Here are 3 scenarios:

Scenario 1: The internet doesn't exist
Let's say I hear a song on my favorite TV show and think, "hey, I want this song for myself so I can listen to it at any time." There's no way I'm going to search for and buy the album it's on. I don't have any plan to buy the whole album; I just want this one song. But the internet doesn't exist, so there's no way of me getting this song. I say, "screw it, it's not worth the trouble or money."
The record company has lost zero money, because I never planned to buy the album in the first place.

Scenario 2: The internet doesn't exist, but a friend has the album
I hear a song on my favorite TV show and think, "hey, I want this song for myself so I can listen to it at any time." There's no way I'm going to search for and buy the album it's on. I don't have any plan to buy the whole album; I just want this one song. Fortunately, my good friend owns the cassette/CD that the song is on. The generous soul that he is, he makes a copy of it and gives it to me.
The record company has lost zero money, because I never planned to buy the album in the first place.

Scenario 3: The internet exists
I hear a song on my favorite TV show and think, "hey, I want this song for myself so I can listen to it at any time." There's no way I'm going to search for and buy the album it's on. I don't have any plan to buy the whole album; I just want this one song. The internet exists, so I go ahead and download it for free.
The record company has lost zero money, because I never planned to buy the album in the first place.

 

[AltF4]

1Wing:

The word potential merely means that it has yet to happen, it is in the future. Just like a person can be a "potential winner" of something.

And it is never 100% certain loss of sale. It is only a loss of sale if the person would have otherwise purchased the product. If a person receives a copy of copyrighted information from a friend, and they would not have purchased that information otherwise, then literally nobody is hurt even in the most indirect and obscure way.

 

[Oracle]

1Wing:

The word potential merely means that it has yet to happen, it is in the future. Just like a person can be a "potential winner" of something.

And it is never 100% certain loss of sale. It is only a loss of sale if the person would have otherwise purchased the product. If a person receives a copy of copyrighted information from a friend, and they would not have purchased that information otherwise, then literally nobody is hurt even in the most indirect and obscure way.

What I mean is that he should have paid for it, but he has it without paying anything.
Besides, no one would buy a song if they already have it.

I don't understand how if you already have the song for free, it's not 100% certainty of loss of a sale. And when people pirate, the money that the record company should have is less than the money that it does have. If one person steals a song, sure, that's a negligible loss. But when over 9000 people are pirating it, then thats a lot of money down the drain.

 

[Mic_128]

A patent on an idea is not even close to "ownership". Ownership is a concept we use to describe certain physical objects. When you try to apply that notion to ideas, it all breaks down. Things which are owned can be stolen. There is no way to steal an idea. It's literally impossible. If I come up with an idea, the only way for someone else to know it is for me to intentionally tell someone. Not until brain scanning, mind reading and erasing devices are invented can an idea ever be stolen.

Maybe I decide to break into someone's house, go through their notes and steal their idea. I don't even need to take the paper, I could easily just remember it or scribble a quick copy down. Ta-dah, idea stolen.

What about hacking other people's computers? Looking at other people's half-finished projects?

 

[RDK]

Then I would say that it's that person's fault for not properly protecting their ideas and letting it get "stolen" by somebody else before they could profit from it.

There's just no way to physically "own" an idea. Go back to what I said about how ridiculous it would be to punish someone accordingly for even thinking of somebody else's idea after it's already been "thought of".

 

[AltF4]

Maybe I decide to break into someone's house, go through their notes and steal their idea. I don't even need to take the paper, I could easily just remember it or scribble a quick copy down. Ta-dah, idea stolen.

What about hacking other people's computers? Looking at other people's half-finished projects?

Now we're getting off onto a tangent that is hardly relevant to the real topic.

In English, the phrase "stealing an idea" is used synonymously with "taking false credit for an idea". This is not the kind of stealing I am referring to. I am talking about stealing in the way that a car can be stolen.

So do copyrights discourage "stealing" of ideas in the manner of "talking false credit"? No. In fact, copyrights encourage stealing of ideas. I hope you do realize that there are entire corporations who do nothing but copyright and patent the ideas of others, and then collect royalties on their ideas. You do not have to be the originator of an idea to have a patent, you need only be the first one to apply for the patent!


But even then, every example you just gave was making a copy of someone's ideas. Not stealing them. No matter what, the ideas are in the inventor's head. Unless you have some memory erasing device, an idea cannot be stolen. Even if someone broke into my house and made a copy of my notes, no harm has come to me. The copying of my notes has not affected me in any way.

 

[TheSundanceKid]

 

[Sporkman]

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4967/communismux1.jpg

I love soviet imagery think it comes from Red Alert.