Uber Disgusted w/ This Issue: Piracy

[slimflem]

I'd actually say in the aspect of music, I've gone out and bought more CDs since I started downloading off napster/ irc/ bit torrent. If it's good, I'll support the artist.

Good, someone shares a reasonable view on this while others are this board pretend to be saints and Mr and Mrs Perfect. Some of the stuff that spews from the fingers onto this board is truly amazing!

The original poster said something to the affect of this board is a family site blah blah blah and this sort of immoral, evil, horrible, thing called downloading and p2p stuff should not be discussed here. Give me a break! Who do you think gets the most stuff from p2p sites and that evil bittorrent thing? Kids, teens, college folk. Pick your poision dude. Would you rather have your kid running the streets stealing cars and breaking into people's homes or downloading a digital copy of a song that has already been copied 1000's of times?

There are 2 types of people, those that live like sissies and believe it is completely wrong to download music from a sharing application or whatever and those that see nothing wrong with sampling something first and then buying it if you like it and want to support it.

And then there are thoses on here that say stupid things like "i downloaded some music once or twice, but it's still in my collection.". What kind of lame comment is that?

Say what you want and call me a crime supporter or whatever word of the day is in for labeling the "downloaders" as evil.

The people that claim to be moral saints with regards to "piracy" and software theft probably also support the Iraq War and think Republicans are the best and our country is being run by a great man. Come on, someone step up and say if you hate piracy but are a Republican and agree with the current American-occupation of Iraq.

Stop being evil people and stop downloading. Stop reading Internet web pages because there might be somethign there you thing is wrong and immoral. Keep your kids locked up. Teach them to be anal like the original poster and make sure you stop in the street when a funeral goes by.

 

[StarbucksSam]

Technically, Front Row isn't for sale, so there can be no theft or piracy.

Neither is my house. So you can just go ahead and take that while you're at it.

 

[CanadaRAM]

At this point, I would like to refer to my first post in this topic. Your analogy above is totally inconsistent with the two following principles: 1) there is no marginal cost (aka material cost) to the producer for downloading music, 2) there is no opportunity cost to the producer if you download music you weren't going to buy anyway.

The marginal cost is loss of opportunity (as oulined in my previous post)
The ability to control a market has value (otherwise companies would not spend money on advertising) and the loss of that control or exclusivity is a loss of value.

To explore your 2 principles: You make an absolutely beautiful drawing.
1) I take a photo of it and reproduce it on mugs, tshirts and sell it as a cover illustration to Rolling Stone for $50,000.
By your reasoning, you have had no marginal cost, therefore I have not violated your rights.
2) You exhibit your drawing in a theatre and charge people $10 to admire it. I reproduce the photo and give copies for free to all of my friends. They look at it and decide not to go to your exhibition. I tell you they wouldn't have gone to the theatre anyway. By your reason there is no opportunity cost, so I have not violated your rights.

In your analogy, there is a material cost to Rick because he no longer has a TV that he used to have.

There is a loss to the copyright holder because you have deprived them of the right to say how and under what terms the work is copied. Simple as that. You do NOT have to be able to measure a material cost in $ in order for there to be a cost.

Once again, given the two tenets outlined in my first post and repeated just above, please indicate to me who the victim is when I download an MP3 of "Summer Song" by Joe Satriani, and try to discern the degree of injury caused to that victim.

It is unneccessary to discern the degree of injury. If I slander you, or violate your human rights, or make threatening phone calls to you, or drive down the road while drunk, you do not have to prove a monetary loss on your part. The acts are unlawful as they stand.

And to answer in a different way, when another consumer has to pay an additional tax on blank media, or suffer with a CD that refuses to play because of an encryption scheme brought on by the manufacturers in the face of unauthorized duplication, or yet another small software developer goes out of business when only 10% of their product in use has actually been paid for, the cumulative effect of unauthorized copying injures us all.

 

[nbs2]

I may be asking questions of the wrong person sinc eyou did state that you're not a legal advisor, etc. But does this EULA for OS X contain EVERYTHING that is installed? BEcause, if you notice every time you download an update, or download a new full version (v.5, v.6, etc.) each piece of software has a EULA. That in itself would suggest to me that Frontrow indeed has its own EULA, but where? If not, then can it be assumed that it is free to use on OS X as long as OS X itself is a legal version?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm just asking honest questions try to bring this wayward topic back to order.

I would say that each general application has its own EULA. I don't know the ins and outs of IP law, but I would venture to say that Front Row is a Tiger interface for traditional media applications. As such, it would be covered in the Tiger EULA. But, how is it that Apple can distribute FR with the new iMacs when they have 10.4.2 like everybody else? I view it to be something that does not require justification. Apple is free to violate its EULA and modify 10.4.2 for those to whom it wishes. However, for someone to reverse engineer FR for use on a different machine, or make it available over a network/physical distribution, or enter into posession (and more importantly, do so knowingly) of a modification that has voilated the EULA is a whole other matter.

Actually in MD (if I remember the law right), Apple would have the right to cancel all Apple software licenses of any person who has violated an Apple EULA. I may be wrong there.

And remember folks, if something like this is drawing this much debate, it's sketchy. So contact a legal professional (and it really should be someone who knows IP law).

 

[TheMonarch]

Damn, and here I thought I was being loved...

PMs:

 

[Pixarian]

All this pirating is horrible. Somehow people have it in their heads that it doesn't hurt anyone. That could not be farther from the truth. Even worse they are stealing from the company they love so dearly, abusing the hard work of Apple and Co.

 

[amin]

I think that, though it is closed, this thread shows such a lack of integrity that it's really actually very upsetting.

I know that software pirating is very common, and I myself may have at some time done it, however, it really does bother me that so many people are openly admitting that they are basically committing a crime in a public thread. I know this is usually not tolerated on MacRumors, and while I'm not trying to take any shots at anyone specific, these kinds of things are usually a LOT more discreet. If someone wants to make a reference to some kind of piracy, they are very quiet about it and they use hypothetical language here.

This just sort of bothers me because I really have begun to respect copyrights - actually, I just got an invoice from iTunes for 18.81 - I could have stolen that music but I went and purchased it.

It is upsetting to me that such a discussion was not shut off a LOT earlier. The plug really should have been pulled. I also think there needs to be a general attitude on this board that software piracy is wrong, even if some or many people feel otherwise. Some people really destroyed their credibility and dignity in my eyes and some others are probably offended by it to.

I did not bring this up to start a huge flame war, I just feel that there are some ... issues that should really be addressed regarding this matter. You are entitled to your opinions about "sharing" or "piracy", whatever you want to call it, but this is a public family friendly venue and it's not fair to the people who do follow the rules to have this sort of nonchalant and passive crime advertised on the boards.

Up front, I will say that I don't pirate. Nevertheless, I found this thread start to be a bit lame, similar to a newly quit smoker chastising others who continue to smoke. You implied that you have pirated software in the past, which in my eyes is one step worse than pirating music. Two, your motivation still appears to be coming from the wrong place. What people are doing is not wrong because you just spent $18 and could still be pirating. Are you jealous, or do you think that what they are doing is wrong? Three, you are quick to dismiss others' credibility and dignity, whereas yours was preserved because you kept your activity hidden? Is it not possible that these others will come around as you have done and start paying for things? Whether it's piracy or anything else illegitimate, I find those that are more open to be more credible and dignified. Again, to be clear I am not writing in defense of piracy.

 

[andiwm2003]

*holds out copy of Les Mis to andiwm*

o.k. stealing food to stay alive is another issue. we talking here about luxury or fun stuff that gets stolen and the atitude about it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

YES! And furthermore, artists (esp. small-medium artists) make far more from touring and merch than they do from album sales. Especially small-medium artists signed to medium-large labels. The per album profit to the band is embarassingly small. Most of what you pay for is huge executive salaries and ludicrous amount of promotion.

To respond to others, I am a shareware author. I have seen 10s of thousands of downloads of my product go by with only a couple hundred registrations. I understand the frustrations associated with piracy, but I don't view those users as lost users. I refuse to believe that most people will steal a program that they like when they are capable of paying for it.

I am also an amateur musician. I'm not into music for the money. I don't believe that music can be a "job"...it just doesn't work that way. If you wouldn't do it for free, then you're not making good music. At best, you're making a commodity good.

It's up to the owner of the work to decide whether or not they want to give away their work for free. It's not up to the consumer to make that decision.

I love editing. And sometimes I work for free so I can gain more experience and get more exposure (or for a project that's really cool, but has no budget). But on jobs I do charge for I expect to get paid. *I* chose when I work for free and when I don't. My clients don't make that decision for me. If I work for deferred payment (which means I don't get paid up front, but I'll get paid if the project makes money) I don't care if it's a bean-counter at a studio doing some "creative accounting" or people pirating the movie, if people are screwing me outta money I will be slightly irritated.

I'm not lookin' to get rich, but I do need to generate at least enough income to pay rent, bills, and cover my operating costs. If I can't do that I can't edit for a living. Which means I'd have to get some sort of regular job and only edit as a hobby. And that would suck.

If Band X wants to give away their music for free, cool. If Band X wants people to pay for their music, cool. Not respecting Band X's choice, uncool. Especially if you consider yourself a fan of Band X.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

A strange way of thinking, but I download and try things before I buy. hell if i'm going to spend a lot of money (which is anything over £10 for a student without a job) then i'd like to know what im getting first. especially with less and less shops/online places giving out refunds for unwanted software.

If you don't have the money for it don't buy it. Not to long ago (in the dark days before the internet) cash strapped people did manage to thrive and survive. Not having $50 in your pocket shouldn't be a green light to take something w/o paying for it. Wait for it to hit the budget/used bin or d/l the demo. Read some reviewers. See if any of your friends have the game. If a nine year old in 1987 can manage the $40 a month he made mowing lawns enough to buy the video games, and albums he wanted I'm sure a college student can do that in 2005.

Before I went to a chinese restaurant I tried some samples of dim-sum in Costco. I liked it so much we went to a chinese restaurant a couple of days later.
I watch an advert for a show to help me decide if i should watch it. etc.

Did they give you a sample of dim-sum or a complete meal? When you went to the chinese restaurant did you try one of everything, for free of course, before deciding to eat there? There are plenty of places on line to find samples of music or see ads for music. And there are plenty of music stores that have listening stations so you can check out even more music before deciding to buy it. There's also the old stand buy of bumming a friend's CD (w/o burning a copy for yourself).

Isn't it your right as a consumer to take back goods that you don't like?

No, it's not (AFAIK). Stores set their return policies (which have to be in plain view for customers to see). Of course most stores offer some sort of return window because it attracts customers. But I've been in plenty of places that have "All Sales final" policies. Obviously if something is defective, or the store is scamming that's a different story. But if a store has a clearly posted "no returns" policy and you decide you shouldn't have bought that new TV tough luck.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

MR is a public forum. Apple could not shut it down because members post things that violate any issues simply because they used MR as the means to do so.

Giving Apple that right would be giving them the same right to rip out your voice box simply because you may use it to tell someone something that would violate one of their policies.

Now if the staff/owners of MR were posting that kind of thing, then yes...but MR is not responsible, and cannot be held accountable, for anything it's members say or do.

Not entirely true. If people posted links to warez and stuff like that MR becomes a distribution center. Every forum I've been to cracks down on any thread that has warez or cracks or anything else like that in it. Talking about it is one thing. Providing a place for distribution is quite another.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

We disagree, but along the same fault line, at least.

I would argue that the idea of intellectual property is a fallacy that locates itself within the western free-market system. It's the free market that's the problem!

Hypothetical situation. You create a killer software app. And being the good Mac user you hop over to Apple and pitch your app to them. Apple politely declines. 6 months later you are still shopping your app around and you see that Apple has released a new killer app. And it's the exact app you pitched to them. Apple is making money had over fist and you're out thousands of dollars in R&D money w/o absolutely no chance of selling your app now. Should you be able to talk Apple to court to get a cut of the profits, or is it just tough luck that someone stole your idea and is making bank off of it while you don't get jack?


Lethal


P.S. yes, it is currently a slow night at work.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Hypothetical situation. You create a killer software app. And being the good Mac user you hop over to Apple and pitch your app to them. Apple politely declines. 6 months later you are still shopping your app around and you see that Apple has released a new killer app. And it's the exact app you pitched to them. Apple is making money had over fist and you're out thousands of dollars in R&D money w/o absolutely no chance of selling your app now.

You've studied Microsoft Business Ethics 101, haven't you...

Before I went to a chinese restaurant I tried some samples of dim-sum in Costco. I liked it so much we went to a chinese restaurant a couple of days later.
I watch an advert for a show to help me decide if i should watch it. etc.

Thank you for making my point. Whose CHOICE was it to provide the samples? To produce the adverts? It was the seller's choice to selectively give something for free for advertising purposes. Unauthorized copying deprives the copyright holder of right to make this choice.

 

[mcarnes]

Lethal,

That was one hell of a rebuttal.

 

[leftbanke7]

You know, this touches on the thing that upsets me most about piracy in general. If it weren't for the rampant piracy that goes on, we wouldn't have software serial numbers, activation (yay XP ), DVD encryption, iTunes DRM, and the DMCA to prevent us from legally exercising our fair use rights. I mean, maybe companies would still dream this up without piracy, but that's doubtful; piracy is driving it. And it's only going to get worse. I'm sure HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will have much stronger encryption, and there's already significant work going on so that next generation content will refuse to play unless the display has authorization to view it. For honest consumers, it just means more headaches and less opportunity to legally exercise fair use.

Of course even without piracy, the companies involved all have no obligation to make it easy for us to exercise fair use. One of the anti-DRM complaints I see most often seems to assume that they somehow owe it to us to let us copy stuff we bought, but that's bogus. There's no obligation there, moral or otherwise. It's just that in the absence of piracy, it only makes good business sense to ensure things are open and easy to copy for fair use purposes (backups, content management a la iTunes, etc). The more flexible content will always sell better, all other things being equal.

Unfortunately piracy is only encouraging content providers to find new ways to lock things down in tighter and more difficult DRM. We lose.

Record/Movie companies may find better ways to encript their stuff but if it turns out that consumers have to jump through hoops to play the purchased item, the consumer will cease to purchase them and then the record companies are back at square one (losing revenue and trying to find something/one to shift the blame to).

 

[OutThere]

After reading most of what has been posted here it looks to me like there are two basic fronts:

-- The people who make artistic content (music, film, photography, art, etc. etc.) and either know someone who is living off of that, or have to live off of it themselves.

vs.

-- The people who enjoy the above art forms and feel like they should be able to sample and take what they want.


I've invested thousands of hours into film and photography, and while I don't have to live off of what I create, I live with and am surrounded by people who do in fact have to make a living off of the music they make or the films they work on. Now, I'll admit that back in the day I was not an angel about piracy, but the concept that people can think that they are entitled to the creative works of other people enrages me. There have been a lot of analogies in this post and I want to throw in a little idea of my own:

Downloading a song from the internet is equivalent, in essence, to not paying at the gas pump. It's easy to do, you can rationalize it by saying that you're fighting the super-rich providers, but in both cases you end up hurting a) the public, when they have to charge more and be more vigilant because so many people are running the pumps and b) the little guys...everyone that worked on it along the way, from the refinery technicians to the recording studio techies.

 

[StarbucksSam]

Up front, I will say that I don't pirate. Nevertheless, I found this thread start to be a bit lame, similar to a newly quit smoker chastising others who continue to smoke. You implied that you have pirated software in the past, which in my eyes is one step worse than pirating music. Two, your motivation still appears to be coming from the wrong place. What people are doing is not wrong because you just spent $18 and could still be pirating. Are you jealous, or do you think that what they are doing is wrong? Three, you are quick to dismiss others' credibility and dignity, whereas yours was preserved because you kept your activity hidden? Is it not possible that these others will come around as you have done and start paying for things? Whether it's piracy or anything else illegitimate, I find those that are more open to be more credible and dignified. Again, to be clear I am not writing in defense of piracy.

I think you have entirely misunderstood my point. It has nothing to do with JEALOUSY; I was upset by the fact that people are taking something that is not allowed and publicly discussing how they do it on these forums. There is something to be said for being discreet. I think software piracy is wrong; hence I don't do it. When I was 12 or 13, and "everyone was doing it", I had not yet developed the moral opinion that it was wrong to download music from limewire. Now, I know that it hurts the artist, and therefore no longer do it. It's not like smoking. Smokers know that smoking is bad for them when they go into it. My point was, if you are going to pirate software or other copyrighted materials, I don't think you should be doing it, BUT I can't stop you, BUT I want you to stop discussing how you do it on the board.

As far as my "software pirating" history goes, I can see where you might glean that I implied that - I am sorry - I did not word that well. I grouped music piracy with software piracy, but I never actually pirated programs, I simply pirated music.

Let me just repeat my point again, so we're clear:

Software or music piracy. I don't think you should be doing it, BUT I can't stop you, BUT I want you to stop discussing how you do it on the board.

 

[thedude110]

Hypothetical situation. You create a killer software app. And being the good Mac user you hop over to Apple and pitch your app to them. Apple politely declines. 6 months later you are still shopping your app around and you see that Apple has released a new killer app. And it's the exact app you pitched to them. Apple is making money had over fist and you're out thousands of dollars in R&D money w/o absolutely no chance of selling your app now. Should you be able to talk Apple to court to get a cut of the profits, or is it just tough luck that someone stole your idea and is making bank off of it while you don't get jack?


Lethal

Hi Lethal.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me exclusively, but I would argue the following.

As I've said throughout this thread, the problem here is not a definition of intellectual property within the western free-market -- the problem is that the western free-market is an essential corruption of the idea of intellectual property. In the hypothetical you suggest, why would I take Apple to court? To protect my profits? To get a piece of the pie? All that is "fine." I don't dispute that law as it is currently constructed would give me a case and a delusional sense of justification.

The question I'm asking is a larger question. I'm not willing to assume the free-market as a given truth, and I'm certainly not willing to assume capitalism in its contemporary manifestation as a truth. I see "intellectual property" as a border war between democracy (which promises equality -- including a free sharing of information for all) and capitalism (which needs inequality to function). I do think intellectual property is a sham, but I'm more interested in the way that the West has embraced file sharing in an essentially democratic way -- and how this has been a rare, en masse salvo against capitalism.

In other words, as a copyfighter, I see this debate as the first tension in what I foresee as America's essential intranational tension for the 21st century -- do we believe in equality for all, or do we beieve in a system that actively denies equality?

Capitalism and democracy will only sit side by side for so long.

 

[Diavilo1]

There are 2 types of people, those that live like sissies and believe it is completely wrong to download music from a sharing application or whatever and those that see nothing wrong with sampling something first and then buying it if you like it and want to support it.

Proud Sissy!

 

[Josh]

Not entirely true. If people posted links to warez and stuff like that MR becomes a distribution center. Every forum I've been to cracks down on any thread that has warez or cracks or anything else like that in it. Talking about it is one thing. Providing a place for distribution is quite another.


Lethal

I disagree. It is entirely true.

MR is obviously not a warez site. If the only mention of warez were from the members, then no - MR is still not accountable.

When users register, they are presented with a TOS they have to agree to before registering. Part of that TOS states that MR is not responsible for what the members post - and by registering, you agree to that.

The text is, verbatim:

Although the administrators and moderators of Mac Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Mac Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

The above removes any fault and accountibility on MR's part. The users can post whatever they like - child porn, pirated software, etc - and MR is not responsible for it. Sure, MR likes to keep the place clean so they surely won't allow it. But should a post be made, no one except its author is legally responsible for it.

 

[Sdashiki]

I still like my point that no one seems to care about, they just want to push their own "guilty" or whatever agenda. So here it is again:

The Record Industry
The Movie Industry

They are behind the times, p2p users are the wave of the future. Instead of trying to curtail the advances made in information propagation, figure out how to make money with it. Then perhaps they will stop going after and "punishing" the very people they are trying to get to give them money.

We are all pirates on a large and vast ocean with no police and no Corporate place to dock for many many miles.

 

[bankshot]

Record/Movie companies may find better ways to encript their stuff but if it turns out that consumers have to jump through hoops to play the purchased item, the consumer will cease to purchase them and then the record companies are back at square one (losing revenue and trying to find something/one to shift the blame to).

Oh, absolutely. They will make sure that the stuff plays seamlessly. Otherwise it'll never sell, you're absolutely right. It's legitimate copying (backups, managing via computer, etc) that will be next to impossible.

I think the majority of consumers won't care about this in the case of movies, because 99% of them don't ever make copies. Just pop it in the player and play. They'll buy the stuff up just like they bought first-generation DVD, and never be the wiser, because it'll just work on their new players and TVs. Those of us who want to control our own experience more closely won't have that option.

The case of music is a little tougher for the industry. With no copy protection on standard CDs, mainstream consumers are starting to get used to using iTunes, etc, and transferring their music to iPods. While I'm guessing a majority still don't import music into the computer (and therefore the few copy-protected discs out there have still sold well), the number who do is rapidly growing. The market is on the verge of being savvy enough to reject future copy protection measures in music, unless it's a DRM scheme like Fairplay that makes it reasonably easy to exercise fair use.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out over the next decade or two.

 

[nbs2]

Couple of points that needs to be cleared up. Yes, the forum is not responsible for the contents of what the authors state in their posts. However, the posting illegal materials is something else. A person has a first amendment right (within limits) to speech. and since the server is hosted in the US, that right can arguably be extended to all who post in the forum. Distribution of illegal material is not a constitutionally protected act and facilitating that distribution is encompassed by an accomplice charge. Facilitating is a touchy issue, and that's why MR and vB and Jelsoft have to be careful.

As for the EULA, Apple has an EULA for each software package, and whether FR is part of Tiger (which I believe), iTunes, DVD player or iPhoto is irrelevant. Tiger and DVD player are encompassed in the Tiger EULA, iTunes has its own and iPhoto is part of the iLife EULA (iTunes is available independently, so it needs its own EULA). So, regardless of the moral reasons for pirating FR or not, it is a violation of your agreement with Apple. Apple has the right to revoke the applicable licence (here, it would be for Tiger). For those of you pirating music and listening to it with iTunes and iPods, you could arguably be violating the EULA of the respective software, again risking revocation of the licenses (in addition to the license to the music). If you rip your music for illegal distribution, you risk violating the EULA for that piece of software and losing the license to the software and music. And since you used your OS to run the program that violated, you run the risk of losing that licence.

The point is, whatever your reason for stealing software or music, there are moral, ethical and legal risks. If you are aware of them, and still choose to pirate, so be it. Just know that there is a cycle. Pirating justifies the higher prices that you use to justify pirating (which in turn justifies higher prices, etc.). Does every store need to pass shoplifting costs to the consumer? No, but they all do. Oh, and as for those who would not have listened anyway and believe there is no less media available? Companies don't care. They see justification and that is all that they need for higher prices and more restrictions. And that is what bothers me and justifies referring to pirates as ungrateful pissants. I don't believe in the huge civil cases that record companies go after. I believe that justice calls for an equal penalty. That which the indiviual claims as their own IP ought to be distributed for public use without compensation, with no respect for ownership.

 

[Josh]

Couple of points that needs to be cleared up. Yes, the forum is not responsible for the contents of what the authors state in their posts. However, the posting illegal materials is something else. A person has a first amendment right (within limits) to speech. and since the server is hosted in the US, that right can arguably be extended to all who post in the forum. Distribution of illegal material is not a constitutionally protected act and facilitating that distribution is encompassed by an accomplice charge. Facilitating is a touchy issue, and that's why MR and vB and Jelsoft have to be careful.

So for example...if I met someone inside Wal-Mart, and sold them an ounce of cocaine in the electronics department, would Wal-Mart be responsible for, and therefore face the consequences of, my actions? Would they be in trouble for allowing me to do that, or even for drug trafficking?

 

[StarbucksSam]

So for example...if I met someone inside Wal-Mart, and sold them an ounce of cocaine in the electronics department, would Wal-Mart be responsible for, and therefore face the consequences of, my actions? Would they be in trouble for allowing me to do that, or even for drug trafficking?

Yes and no. If they knew that you were doing it, and they were allowing it, yes. If they were clueless, no.