Uber Disgusted w/ This Issue: Piracy

[MmmPancakes]

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.

Shhhh be careful. They might come and get you.

I for one would like to welcome our Republican overlords to the forum.

I would also like to take this time to pronounce my eternal loyalty to our fine president and to The Party.

 

[applebum]

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.

Actually, I think that the idea of listening before buying is not much different today than it was years ago. It is simply that the opportunity for wrong doing has increased. For instance, in those dark days, if a friend had a disc or tape that I had been thinking of purchasing, I would borrow his and listen to it for a few days. If I liked it, I would go out and by a copy for myself. Either way I would give the friend's copy back to keep him from hunting me down and beating the crap out of me.

The same thing is true today. If I were to get on a P2P service and a "friend" had some music I had been thinking about purchasing, I would "borrow" it and listen. If I liked it, I would go buy it for myself and if I didn't, I would delete it. Only today, there is no enforcement to "give back the music" - the "friend" isn't coming after me, because he still has his music. Also, "friends" can now "loan" their music to millions of other people. So the real problem is the inability to ensure that previewing is only done for a very short time.

Those that truly download to peview, and then delete or buy, are really doing nothing different than has always been done. It is those that don't delete and don't buy that are committing immoral/illegal acts.

 

[OutThere]

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

Exactly...and you can't exactly claim cluelessness with the searching power on these forums, plus the fact that you can't exactly 'hide' posts.

 

[nbs2]

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?

Does the Wal-mart management know what you are doing? If so, they are legally obligated to inform the police. Whether they are actively facilitating or just turning a blind eye will go to the punishment they receive.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

It's a typical cover your #ss move that all forums have. It's not a magic shield. If users were posting cracked versions of Apple software left and right Arn holding up the member TOS would not make Apple Legal go away. If Napster can get shut down for providing a ways and means then I'm sure MR (or any other forum) could too.

And for your Wal-Mart/cocaine situation. Yes, if Wal-Mart knew people were using their stores to traffick drugs and they did nothing about it then they better bust out the lawyers.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

They are behind the times, and slowly changing. You can't expect any industry entrenched in decades of practicing business a certain way to completely change how it operates overnight.

And just because you think they are behind the times doesn't give you the right to take what isn't yours. I think GM is behind the times because they aren't embracing alternative fuels. Does that mean I should get a new Corvette for free?

And I really don't see P2P being the wave of the future. Things like iTMS, yes. P2P, no. Why do I say "no"? Because you can't make any money that way. Movies, albums, TV shows, software... all those things cost money to make. No one is going to spend $80 million dollars on a movie if they have no chance of making any of their money back.


Lethal

 

[OutThere]

They are behind the times, and slowly changing. You can't expect any industry entrenched in decades of practicing business a certain way to completely change how it operates overnight.

And just because you think they are behind the times doesn't give you the right to take what isn't yours. I think GM is behind the times because they aren't embracing alternative fuels. Does that mean I should get a new Corvette for free?

And I really don't see P2P being the wave of the future. Things like iTMS, yes. P2P, no. Why do I say "no"? Because you can't make any money that way. Movies, albums, TV shows, software... all those things cost money to make. No one is going to spend $80 million dollars on a movie if they have no chance of making any of their money back.


Lethal

Exactly...in our current capatalist world P2P will not last, there are too many people who need to make money, and no money can be made through file sharing the way we do it today. What I can see though, in the future, is the P2P concept being applied to legitimate file downloading purposes. What's to prevent the online movie downloading companies from employing their own form of BitTorrent for downloading their films, to take the strain off of their servers? In that case, P2P is the wave of the future...P2P as a catalyst for stealing intellectual property will not last.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion on IP that's not gonna change. I think intellectual property should have the same protections as physical property. If you spend $50,000 building a cabin in the woods then that should be your cabin. I should not have the right to kick you out of your cabin, declare it my cabin, and sell it to someone else. Just like if you spent $50,000 developing an original product or idea I should not have the right to take that product or idea from you and do what I will with it.

I assume we agree that if I walked into your house and took your TV that would be a crime. But if I walked into your house and took your plans for a new CPU that's faster, cheaper, runs cooler and and consumers less power than any CPU on the market and sold it as my own idea that shouldn't be a crime? Stealing a $500 TV should be a crime, but stealing a billion dollar idea should not?

Should M$ be able to take FCP, rebrand it to say "Movie Maker Pro" and sell it for $500? Should a book editor be able to take one of her clients' books, put her name on it and sell it as her own?

One reason I feel so strongly about IP is because *everything* starts out as IP. Everything starts out as an idea. Your computer, your chair, your car, your watch. They all started out as an idea. What's one reason why "generic" products are cheaper than "name brand" products? Because "generic" products don't have to R&D anything. They don't have to pay the costs associated w/the creation of a new idea. Just because an idea isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not worth anything.

Okay, now I'm really starting to ramble...


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

Actually, I think that the idea of listening before buying is not much different today than it was years ago. It is simply that the opportunity for wrong doing has increased. For instance, in those dark days, if a friend had a disc or tape that I had been thinking of purchasing, I would borrow his and listen to it for a few days. If I liked it, I would go out and by a copy for myself. Either way I would give the friend's copy back to keep him from hunting me down and beating the crap out of me.

And you can do exactly the same thing today. But people don't for a number of typically hollow reasons.

The same thing is true today. If I were to get on a P2P service and a "friend" had some music I had been thinking about purchasing, I would "borrow" it and listen. If I liked it, I would go buy it for myself and if I didn't, I would delete it. Only today, there is no enforcement to "give back the music" - the "friend" isn't coming after me, because he still has his music. Also, "friends" can now "loan" their music to millions of other people. So the real problem is the inability to ensure that previewing is only done for a very short time.

Those that truly download to peview, and then delete or buy, are really doing nothing different than has always been done. It is those that don't delete and don't buy that are committing immoral/illegal acts.

So aside from downloading your own copy (instead of borrowing one from a friend) from a stranger (instead of a friend), keeping it indefinitely (instead of returning it to your friend), and distributing it to more strangers (again, instead of returning the single copy to your friend) everything is the same?

We've gone from loaning a copy to a friend and expecting it back to mass distributing unlimited numbers of copies to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of strangers all over the world damn near instantly and at almost no cost to end users. And you think nothing has changed?

Even the benign sounding, "Hey, can I borrow that CD?" has changed from just "borrowing" to "borrowing and burn myself a copy."


Lethal

 

[applebum]

And you can do exactly the same thing today. But people don't for a number of typically hollow reasons.


So aside from downloading your own copy (instead of borrowing one from a friend) from a stranger (instead of a friend), keeping it indefinitely (instead of returning it to your friend), and distributing it to more strangers (again, instead of returning the single copy to your friend) everything is the same?

Actually, reread my post and you will se that I never said everything is the same. I said the idea is not much different -meaning the reason why someone might download a song from P2P and preview it is the same exact reason why I would borrow my friend's tape/disc - to avoid paying for it if I don't like it.

We've gone from loaning a copy to a friend and expecting it back to mass distributing unlimited numbers of copies to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of strangers all over the world damn near instantly and at almost no cost to end users. And you think nothing has changed?

Again, I never said nothing has changed, I actually said that the opportunity for wrongdoing had increased(changed) - meaning the scale to which music can be loaned and the lack of any enforcement to make sure the music is deleted or bought. Of course anyone who would mass distribute via P2P is doing something wrong. But this concept is not different than the guy at the dorm (in the mid 80s) who would loan his copy of Dire Straight's "Brothers in Arms" to anyone who wanted to make a tape of it. We didn't have discussions then about how wrong it was, or how the artist was losing money. Technology has made the scale much larger, and of course the artist and/or record company can be affected to a much greater degree.

My main point was that those specific people that download just to preview, they either delete or buy after previewing, are not the problem. It is those who distribute and those that download to avoid paying that are morally reprehensible.

This is one of the reasons I would love to see Apple do a cheap monthly rental plan. You could pay, download and preview as long as you wanted, and if you liked the music you could buy it. I have so much music in my shopping cart that I haven't bought simply because 30 seconds just doesn't give me enough to go on.

 

[savar]

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.

Yes, it has value. Its called oligopoly, collusion, or monopoly. In most cases, that type of behavior is illegal.

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.

You're about 100 miles off base here. In scenario #1, there is an opportunity cost because people would have ostensibly paid that money to me if it weren't for you. Also, the fact that you're making a profit off of what you have taken makes a completely different scenario than downloading music for personal enjoyment.

Likewise, in scenario #2, there is an opportunity cost. I'm not sure what you're implying about the definition of that term, but I use it in the literal, economic sense. I suffer the cost of foregone sales because you've stated that these people would otherwise have paid $10 if you weren't giving it to them for free.

Please note that my argument is explicit: if those two conditions are met, than the moral offense is necessarily very small.

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.

Now this is an interesting (and valid!) argument. You're saying that I have deprived the copyright holder of the freedom to determine how his intellectual property may be distributed. The cost is now non-economic, but I agree with you that it is still real.

Since we apparently all like hypotheticals here, let me pose one for you. Let's say I've painted an extraordinarily beautiful painting, and as the creator and holder of the IP rights, I decide I don't want anybody to be able to enjoy it on any terms but my own. So I declare that no reproductions will be permitted, and I refuse to sell the painting to a gallery or museum. No, instead, you have to come to my house when it is convenient for me and after a brief interview I will determine if you are worthy to view the painting. After you've seen it once, your name goes on a list and you're never allowed to see it again.

Let's say while I'm not looking, you snap a picture on your digicam, take it home, and make it the background on your computer. You didn't sell it to anybody, and I'm not losing money because I wasn't charging any money in the first place. All I've lost is the IP rights (i.e. "freedom") that you mention above.

If I find out about it, it is within my rights to file a civil suit against you and claim damages. Now my question to you and the others is, despite it being illegal to have snapped a photo and displayed it as your computer's wallpaper, is it terribly immoral?

Some people cannot distinguish legality from morality, and for those dim-witted people: I'll send you on your way. If you can accept the fact that those two are not the same, then tell me who is being immoral. Clearly the "thief" is denying the painter a certain type of freedom, but the painter is denying a freedom to the thief as well: fair use rights. For a painting's value lies mostly in its idea -- not in the actual cost of the paint and canvas.

If you think this example is asinine and far-fetched, its not. This is exactly what will likely happen with the next generation of DVDs. There will be so much DRM built into them that DVDs will even be able to reprogram your DVD player. Any type of viewing restrictions that the MPAA can invent will become plausible to enforce. (What, you want to watch this movie on Saturday night? Well we only licensed you to watch on weekdays...but we can always upgrade your license -- for a fee, of course.) The same thing will happen on Wintel computers in the next few years as well.

Sure, its technically legal for them to do it. And technically it will be illegal to try to circumvent it. But I still think the moral culpability lies mainly with the greedy greedy studios...I will not be made a slave to my belongings, and I will break the law in every way that is necessary to avoid that.

Also, in my example above, if you modify it so that the artists wants to charge money for copies of his painting, please keep in mind that my point still stands. If those two conditions are met -- you didn't steal something physical that has material worth and you didnt take anything you wouldn't have paid for anyways -- then the only injury to the artist is the denial of IP rights, which in my opinion are often bogus to begin with.

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.

The point is that some things are worse than others. Denying some arsehole his IP rights -- and not harming him economically, by the two tenets I keep trying to explain -- is certainly a much lesser offense than human rights violations or harassment.

Let me say it again: morality is relative. Even in ways people often don't consider. Murder is a heinous crime, for instance, but lets say you're president of the U.S. and you find out a plane has been hijacked and is headed towards a skyscraper. You have enough time to scramble fighter jets to shoot the plane down. What do you do? Murder 200 people in order to save 5000? Don't say yes if you believe morality is absolute: murder is murder, and crime is crime. Killing people is inexcusable. Following that logic, we should allow the terrorists to kill 5200 people. Even though far more people died, at least I didn't commit murder!

The reason why this thread has me so worked up is precisely because of the language so many people are using. Illegal, immoral, criminal, etc. These are all words which should be interpreted with an eye to the topic at hand. If you're truly "disgusted" by talk of distributing unreleased applications or downoading copyrighted music, then you have a weak constitution. Do you get disgusted on the highway, because you're the only person under the legal limit when everybody else is speeding?

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.

Once again, as has been repeated many times, you are really referring to a problem in governmental structure. Monied interests have an undue amount of influence on government, especially in the U.S., because people these days are so greedy.

The latter case is upsetting, but if people are using that software who wouldn't pay for it anyway then that affects the developer not one iota.

I'm not saying the model I've laid out is typical of most users. I'm just saying IF those two criteria are met than this is a relatively minor crime, a relatively minor moral offense, and something everybody else needs to get over.

FrontRow is an unreleased app that isn't available except for about $1500 bundled with an iMac. I didn't download it, but I certainly am not going to buy an iMac just to see what it does. I am also not going to steal an iMac from a store just to get FrontRow. In this case all I'm doing to Apple is denying them their IP rights.

 

[savar]

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.

Good God. No it isn't. It isn't equivalent at all.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Actually, reread my post and you will se that I never said everything is the same.

Sorry, misunderstood the tone of your post.

My main point was that those specific people that download just to preview, they either delete or buy after previewing, are not the problem. It is those who distribute and those that download to avoid paying that are morally reprehensible.

Unfortunately those that acquire songs via P2P vastly out number those that preview via P2P. Most people, honestly, I don't think they even think about it. They have the ability to do it so they do.

This is one of the reasons I would love to see Apple do a cheap monthly rental plan. You could pay, download and preview as long as you wanted, and if you liked the music you could buy it. I have so much music in my shopping cart that I haven't bought simply because 30 seconds just doesn't give me enough to go on.

In the same vein, I'm still surprised if I go to a bands site and they don't have some songs you can d/l or at least stream.

Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

EDIT: I haven't really been paying attention to you and CanadaRAM's back-and-forth so sorry if I bring up something that was previously mentioned.

Sure, its technically legal for them to do it. And technically it will be illegal to try to circumvent it. But I still think the moral culpability lies mainly with the greedy greedy studios...I will not be made a slave to my belongings, and I will break the law in every way that is necessary to avoid that.

On this note, I'm dismayed that courts have ruled in favor of the DMCA and against 20 years of precedent in favor of the consumer. Both consumers and creators have rights and unfortunately there are greedy people in both camps that pretty much make it miserable for everyone.

The reason why this thread has me so worked up is precisely because of the language so many people are using. Illegal, immoral, criminal, etc. These are all words which should be interpreted with an eye to the topic at hand. If you're truly "disgusted" by talk of distributing unreleased applications or downoading copyrighted music, then you have a weak constitution. Do you get disgusted on the highway, because you're the only person under the legal limit when everybody else is speeding?

Yes, there are many things worse than unauthorized mass distribution of someone else's property, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored until all "greater crime" is vanquished. I mean, dealing coke is worse than ripping off Xbox games from Best Buy. But that doesn't mean we should ignore thieves until we win the war on drugs.

One reason this subject gets under my skin so much is because of some people attempting to justify that you shouldn't respect other people and you shouldn't respect other people's property. And, IMO, it's that kind of lack of respect that is a root cause for lots of other problems.

Of course, I'll return a lost wallet (w/o taking anything) to it's rightful owner so maybe I'm just too "old fashioned"...


Lethal

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Two thoughts.

How far do intellectual property rights go? Can I describe a movie to a friend? What if I do want to talk about fight club...

the second thought.

"Would you give a man a foot massage?"

 

[stonyc]

What if I do want to talk about fight club...

Rule #1: You do NOT talk about Fight Club.

 

[savar]

Good News

I read the following at the Economist. I think it states what I have been trying to say. You'll need an active Economist subscription to read it. I would post a PDF but that would be stealing, and stealing is stealing and crime is crime and in between extremes there is only black and white.

I would summarize it briefly but that would be denying the magazine and author of the article their respective IP rights.

Article

 

[Koodauw]

Don't you EVER tell me that copying music is a victimless crime.

Having to pay an extra $250 a year does not make you a victim. Its your choice to buy the damn things anyways.

Everyones on their high horse as of late geez.

And yes, it is a victimless crime.

 

[0098386]

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.

Well its my personal belief that humans have a right to try things before putting down money. I dont go into a TV shop, read the specs without looking at the thing or seeing it display an image, i sit down, have a chat with the sales rep guy, flick through some channels seeing which TV's display the best images for real life, cartoons, multimedia etc...
If that belief is wrong to the rest of the world then fair play, but I'll carry on doing what I'm doing. Trying software; if i like it I'll buy it. I don't I'll remove it from my system. If I like it and I cant afford it then I'll remove it and wait till I have enough money.

jesus you're trying to make me out to be some sort of rapist. the software companies like me; they get my money. Isn't that the end? of course not, i should be crucified for even suggesting I test something that will take a huge chunk out of my student loan!

 

[0098386]

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.

I wish you read what I said properly. I DO have the money. I have a student loan and 2 very nice parents. I just dont want to buy something that I find out I don't like and I cant take back. I have NEVER said I don't pay for software I keep. I shelled out for real versions of Photoshop and Macromedia suite. if you want to get preachy go find the 75% of Photoshop users who haven't paid for it.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

I wish you read what I said properly. I DO have the money. I have a student loan and 2 very nice parents. I just dont want to buy something that I find out I don't like and I cant take back. I have NEVER said I don't pay for software I keep. I shelled out for real versions of Photoshop and Macromedia suite. if you want to get preachy go find the 75% of Photoshop users who haven't paid for it.

*Walks into restaurant kitchen*
*Samples a few bites of a few platters*
"I just don't want to buy something that I find out I don't like and I can't take back."

Now, I know that some restaurants will let you take food back. So it's not a complete analogy. And, I do realize that the restaurants take economic loss from you sampling food; Although economically, the software/music companies have less to lose (and arguably, more to gain) if people try-then-buy as compared to try-and-buy at a restaurant, morally you're still taking something that's not yours, and justifying it by saying that it's fair for the customer.

If you always pay for your software, that's good; although I still think it's bad to "try" it first by pirating it (alot of software have free trial versions now, like many of the adobe and macromedia products). But I think that many people aren't even doing "try-before-you-buy." It's more like downloading it, trying it, and then saying they'll buy it someday when they get the money - aka, never or until they win the lottery.