[Ice33]

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3431411

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) plans to begin filing copyright theft lawsuits Nov. 16 against users of peer-to-peer (P2P) networks who illegally trade movies over the file-swapping networks.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Idiots and suckers.

[BasketofPuppies]

I think everything should be free.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
I think everything should be free.

sure that makes a lot of sense

[Kilbey]

What is it with people and the false thinking that they have a right to break copyright and piracy laws?

You break a law, you pay.

Don't steal music. (or movies)

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
What is it with people and the false thinking that they have a right to break copyright and piracy laws?

You break a law, you pay.

Don't steal music. (or movies)

Because its stupefyingly easy, and people feel it isn't stealing because, well, it isn't. Too bad their parents hammered home stealing as bad but didn't mention that copying is against the law as well. Sort of.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
What is it with people and the false thinking that they have a right to break copyright and piracy laws?

You break a law, you pay.

Don't steal music. (or movies)

Catch me if you can.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by ambush:
Catch me if you can.

Quit following me around fanboy.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Quit following me around fanboy.

Quit thinking I'm following you, fanboy.

[MilkmanDan]

Maybe when the MPAA cleans up their own house.... seeing how movie leaks and whatnot often come from within the movie industry itself.

Otherwise, I mean, I have to use my broadband cable modem for something. Lord knows I'm not going to pay $8 for another bad 1970's TV show turned movie staring the latest teen idol craze/ rapper turned movie star written by some 21 year old whose only credits are letters in the Penthouse forums.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by ambush:
Quit thinking I'm following you, fanboy.

I said "stop". Mr. Originality.

[Link]

If I could pay to get any episode of any show, or movie I wanted -- I'd get what I wanted.

Of course, obviously there isn't a market for this sort of thing, and the MPAA is set to charge way more than it'd be worth.

Probably $4 an episode of a show I've seen 10 times. Which brings me to this:

Most people who pirate stuff are big fans of any given series, or musician. Chances are if you're pirating it, you've heard/seen it on tv/radio dozens of times, heard/seen the ads, etc etc.. why should you have to pay for something you've already paid for?

[His Dudeness]

All I download from Bittorrent is tv shows that I can't stay up late enough to watch. All the versions of CSI to be exact.
And I get all my music from iTunes, so I guess I'm safe from the Hollywood stormtroopers on that front.

[Eriamjh]

Hmmm. Downloading stuff you COULD see for free on TV isn't illegal in my book. I don't have to watch the commercials anyway.

Then I guess by that same rule, downloading music I COULD hear or record on the radio for free isn't illegal either. Others may disagree.

Interesting to see how this pans out.

[Y3a]

DUH!!! You have to be AN IDIOT to think that copying something YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR isn't stealing. maybe you or your parents were inarticulate when they explained right n wrong?

Perhaps if you look at it THIS WAY:

YOU created a great movie script, raised the bucks to get it to the screen, and now were ready to get your investment back and some profit that you can put into your NEXT BIG HIT, but wait, everybody already HAS A COPY of your movie. Nobody is gonna pay to see it, you are now BROKE!

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Hmmm. Downloading stuff you COULD see for free on TV isn't illegal in my book. I don't have to watch the commercials anyway.

Then I guess by that same rule, downloading music I COULD hear or record on the radio for free isn't illegal either. Others may disagree.

I would disagree. Stuff you see for free on TV is paid for by someone else. i.e. it's not free. Nobody pays for stuff you download.

[cpt kangarooski]

Y3a--

DUH!!! You have to be AN IDIOT to think that copying something YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR isn't stealing.

And yet, it still isn't stealing. It might be illegal -- and it might not be, it depends on what we're talking about -- but it still isn't stealing.

maybe you or your parents were inarticulate when they explained right n wrong?

What do right and wrong have to do with this? Many things that are neither right nor wrong are illegal, e.g. jaywalking, many building code violations, etc. This is one such thing.

Perhaps if you look at it THIS WAY:

YOU created a great movie script, raised the bucks to get it to the screen, and now were ready to get your investment back and some profit that you can put into your NEXT BIG HIT, but wait, everybody already HAS A COPY of your movie. Nobody is gonna pay to see it, you are now BROKE!

And that's interesting, but not very much so. The same result would have happened if the movie were simply a flop. So clearly artists are not guaranteed to make money or recoup their investments. In fact, they almost never do -- most artists receive no benefit from whatever copyrights they might hold. An astoundingly tiny minority makes a lot of money, but the odds of actually being one of them is akin to winning the lottery.

So there must be more to this whole copyright thing than merely trying to give money to artists. After all, if that was the point (it's not), we would just write checks or at least provide tax breaks to artists because of who they are.

You might want to think about why we actually have a copyright system, and try posting again.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I said "stop". Mr. Originality.

Punctuation goes inside the quotes.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by Y3a:
DUH!!! You have to be AN IDIOT to think that copying something YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR isn't stealing. maybe you or your parents were inarticulate when they explained right n wrong?

Perhaps if you look at it THIS WAY:

YOU created a great movie script, raised the bucks to get it to the screen, and now were ready to get your investment back and some profit that you can put into your NEXT BIG HIT, but wait, everybody already HAS A COPY of your movie. Nobody is gonna pay to see it, you are now BROKE!

i am pretty sure that the actors and directors aren't losing the money. it is stupid because dvd sales and theater sales have not declined since movie pirating got big. i go see movies that i want to see, but forgive me for not paying 10 dollars to go see every little movie that looks remotely interesting. and usually if i watch it and like it then i buy it when it comes out. wait not usually, always. btw bittorrent takes up 1/3 of the internet's bandwidth

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Y3a--
And yet, it still isn't stealing. It might be illegal -- and it might not be, it depends on what we're talking about -- but it still isn't stealing.

I love how when accused of stealing, people say "Technically, it isn't stealing."

So what - you know what he meant. Don't nitpick. It is taking something for free that is supposed to be paid for. Whoever made it makes less money because people do this.

You don't call it stealing, fine, but it still isn't justified.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by hayesk:
I love how when accused of stealing, people say "Technically, it isn't stealing."

So what - you know what he meant. Don't nitpick. It is taking something for free that is supposed to be paid for. Whoever made it makes less money because people do this.

You don't call it stealing, fine, but it still isn't justified.

justified? no, but i definitely feel better about it when i watch cribs

[cpt kangarooski]

wataru--

Punctuation goes inside the quotes.

That depends on what the rules of grammar in your country are. IIRC, in England and many other commonwealth countries, it goes outside. In the US, it goes inside.

hayesk--

I love how when accused of stealing, people say "Technically, it isn't stealing."

And in this case, people are right. It isn't stealing. I never said it wasn't illegal. This is neverthless important because 1) I'm a bit pedantic, but chiefly 2) stealing is being used here not merely inaccurately, but pejoratively. I think this is inappropriate because matters pertaining to copyright are for the most part entirely amoral. It is not wrong to infringe on a copyright, but tarring it as stealing implies that it is.

It is taking something for free that is supposed to be paid for. Whoever made it makes less money because people do this.

So what? If I make a competing work and it is successful, then the person who made the work you refer to still makes less money. And yet no one has a problem with what I'm doing. And artists generally don't make money anyway in a fashion that would be impacted by copyright law or people's disregard for it.

So it's not merely a matter of money. Copyright is very nuanced, yet I've not once seen anyone from the 'it's stealing' crowd make that sort of claim based on a well-grounded understanding of copyright and its policy goals and rationales.

(Which isn't to say that the other camp is much better; I am often picky with them as well)

You don't call it stealing, fine, but it still isn't justified.

I don't entirely agree with that statement. To a large extent I think it's because just as copyrights are not morally superior to infringement, infringement is equally not morally superior to opposing infringement. Again, I liken it to jaywalking. The person who bans jaywalking isn't right, but it's not as though jaywalking is itself a righteous thing either.

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by hayesk:
I would disagree. Stuff you see for free on TV is paid for by someone else. i.e. it's not free. Nobody pays for stuff you download.

You are right. It is only on TV because someone paid for ME to see it (hopeing I would see their advertisement and thus buy their product). Therefore nothing on TV is really free. Nothing on the radio is free either.

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
And in this case, people are right. It isn't stealing. I never said it wasn't illegal. This is neverthless important because 1) I'm a bit pedantic, but chiefly 2) stealing is being used here not merely inaccurately, but pejoratively. I think this is inappropriate because matters pertaining to copyright are for the most part entirely amoral. It is not wrong to infringe on a copyright, but tarring it as stealing implies that it is.

It is taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's pretty damn close - the only difference is it is not a physical object. You are taking the right to view an artists work. That right should be decided by the person who produces the work, not the person who takes it.

So what? If I make a competing work and it is successful, then the person who made the work you refer to still makes less money. And yet no one has a problem with what I'm doing.

Of course not - you have permission to make your own competing work. But if this was your livelihood, and everyone copied your work and nobody paid you, then you'd be upset - and you should be. Don't even try to pretend that any artist should be ok with this.

Now if an artist produces something and wants to give it away for free, then that's great. But if an artist makes his/her living off of it, then they deserve the right to do so.

And artists generally don't make money anyway in a fashion that would be impacted by copyright law or people's disregard for it.

For that to be true, artists would have to be paid only a flat fee to produce the work, and not payment based on sales. We both know this is not the case.

So it's not merely a matter of money. Copyright is very nuanced, yet I've not once seen anyone from the 'it's stealing' crowd make that sort of claim based on a well-grounded understanding of copyright and its policy goals and rationales.

And how to you judge what is "based on a well-grounded understanding?"

I don't entirely agree with that statement. To a large extent I think it's because just as copyrights are not morally superior to infringement, infringement is equally not morally superior to opposing infringement.[/B]

You believe it is not moral to work hard to produce a product and expect to be remunerated for it? Is it only moral if it is a physical product?

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
You are right. It is only on TV because someone paid for ME to see it (hopeing I would see their advertisement and thus buy their product). Therefore nothing on TV is really free. Nothing on the radio is free either.

Agreed, they pay for you to see the broadcast. That does not translate to you have a lifetime license to view said content in any format in any time in the future. That's why it is legal for you tape that broadcast - you are capturing and viewing said broadcast, along with commercials that was paid for you.

The advertisers did not pay for a DVD rip to be downloaded from the Internet. Now if you download a TV rip that you could have taped yourself (e.g. you already get that channel, but forgot to tape it) complete with commercials, I have no problem with that.

[Beewee]

Isn't this a great country? Suing solves all of the worlds problems just like capital punishment is a deterrent for violent crimes.
These people have got to get it though their heads that piracy is something everyone has to live with. It cannot be stopped, where there is a will there is a way...etc.

Now I'm not saying they should be expected to leave sharers alone, no more than we should leave murderers alone to do what they do best.
Capital Punishment serves to rid society of a dangerous person would cannot be rehabilitated. (Or that is the idea anyway)
But suing teenagers (their market group) isn't going to do much more than alienate the rest. They'll see them as the evil corporate bullies that they are.

Why not invest into better encryption for DVDs? You know, something that can't be broken by a 12 year old. Its child's play to rip a DVD (menus and all) and then burn it to a regular DVD. It worked great on VanHelsing...NOT that I would know..or anything.
I guess its just cheaper to sue kids than to have your R&D Team think of something that can't be defeated by a writing utensil.

Well, as for me, I have to...um...backu-I mean "move" my seasons of Stargate and Farscape.

Originally posted by Beewee:

Why not invest into better encryption for DVDs? You know, something that can't be broken by a 12 year old.

Yeah, cause that's working so well for CD copy protection.

Besides, that means everyone will have to replace their DVD players. How many people will do that when they get literally no improvement in picture quality.

[cpt kangarooski]

hayesk--

It is taking something that doesn't belong to you.

No, it is not a taking. A taking necessarily would require the original holder to be deprived of something. But he hasn't lost his rights.

Think of it like land: if you have a parcel of land, I don't take it from you merely by trespassing. Instead I am infringing on your right to exclude me from it. To take it, I'd presumably have to exclude you!

Copyright is the same deal. A copyright is not a right to a work itself, it is a right to exclude others from performing certain actions relating to a work, such as to reproduce it. If I reproduce it against your will, then I have infringed on your right to keep me out. But I have not taken your right away from you. You can still exclude others, and you can enforce your right to exclude me in the courts.

If it were taking, it wouldn't be called infringement by the law and the people who work with the law.

You are taking the right to view an artists work.

Of course, that is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Even under the current legal regime, the mere possession of a copyright is not enough to prevent people from viewing a work.

That right should be decided by the person who produces the work, not the person who takes it.

Why?

Of course not - you have permission to make your own competing work.

Permission? Permission from whom, pray tell? I find this a very important question, since I didn't know that an external authority was in control of whether or not I could create competing works by and large.

But if this was your livelihood, and everyone copied your work and nobody paid you, then you'd be upset - and you should be. Don't even try to pretend that any artist should be ok with this.

No need to pretend. I am an artist, and until I went back to law school to study copyright law in particular, I made my living entirely as an artist. (Currently I'm still in school, working on my LL.M., having gotten my JD)

As it happens I am very upset that people don't pay me now. In particular I am upset at you. I feel that you owe me a living. So pay up, buttercup. Or is there some reason why my anger, however heartfelt, might be irrelevant as to whether or not you ought to be giving me money?

Now if an artist produces something and wants to give it away for free, then that's great. But if an artist makes his/her living off of it, then they deserve the right to do so.

No they do not. No one deserves the right to make a living in any way they choose. Society generally determines whether some forms of making money are not acceptable, or are acceptable, and dictates the rules to those involved.

For that to be true, artists would have to be paid only a flat fee to produce the work, and not payment based on sales. We both know this is not the case.

No, it is the case. Most artists don't get royalties from copyrights. Hell, an enormous number of artists never get paid at all. You have a very strange, romantic, and inaccurate view of what an artist is. It isn't what the law considers an author to be, I can tell you that.

And how to you judge what is "based on a well-grounded understanding?"

Well, there are numerous historical documents discussing the purpose and origins of copyright law since its inception in 1710, and parallel branches of law such as patents on useful inventions. There is the law, of course, both the current law, foundational law it is based upon, and prior laws. Also the case law. And plenty of academic writings on the subject.

These are all handy shortcuts that can be used in order to arrive at the correct understanding of what copyright law is, and why it is what it is. Careful thought about the idea of surrendering one's natural right of free speech to a limited extent to an author of a work also might yield the right answer. If you're going to go that route, I would provide one hint, which is to consider why the **** anyone would ever give up their highly valuable rights. It does happen, but it doesn't happen for no reason.

You believe it is not moral to work hard to produce a product and expect to be remunerated for it? Is it only moral if it is a physical product?

No, as it happens the law of personal and real property is also of a utilitarian nature, just like copyright is, but they've been around for a long time and have organically evolved, and originated before anyone seriously examined them, or at least did so correctly. (e.g. people used to think that property law derived through kings from God and other similar nonsense)

Whether things are rivalrous or not is an important factor, though not really a moral one, IMO.

And of course, it is immoral to compel people to labor. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about what happens AFTER people have labored and produced something which is distinct from that labor.

That's why it is legal for you tape that broadcast - you are capturing and viewing said broadcast, along with commercials that was paid for you.

That's a factor, I guess, but it's not the actual reason.

Beewee--

Why not invest into better encryption for DVDs? You know, something that can't be broken by a 12 year old.

Because then existing DVD players could not play the new DVDs. This would so piss off so many people.

And also because it wouldn't help. Where the ciphertext is trivially available, and the plaintext is trivially available, and the decryption mechanism is trivially available, a successful exploit is inevitable.

Especially because an attacker will cheat, and attack the weakest link. If the cipher becomes too difficult to attack, the plaintext will be acquired by some other means. And when you can get the plaintext, you win.

[Link]

If I like something enough, I buy it and enjoy the **(@#$& out of it -- 99% of the time (because I'm a jazz addict), these songs happen to be published by RATHER SMALL publishers, ala the actual musicians make money!

That's great! In those cases I buy the CD off wherever I can get it and am really happy to have it This happens about 50% of the time I get a song..

The other 50% of the time, I can find it on iTMS, a lot of n-coded stuff is finally up there.

[His Dudeness]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Agreed, they pay for you to see the broadcast. That does not translate to you have a lifetime license to view said content in any format in any time in the future. That's why it is legal for you tape that broadcast - you are capturing and viewing said broadcast, along with commercials that was paid for you.

The advertisers did not pay for a DVD rip to be downloaded from the Internet. Now if you download a TV rip that you could have taped yourself (e.g. you already get that channel, but forgot to tape it) complete with commercials, I have no problem with that.

I've never seen commercials before. I must be missing out on something that someone wants me to see. They paid for the commercials. But I could get up and go take a piss during a commercial break and what then? Be sued because I refuse to watch commercials when they are broadcast?

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:

No, it is not a taking. A taking necessarily would require the original holder to be deprived of something. But he hasn't lost his rights.

Fair enough, it's not "taking." So what? You know my point. Stop playing dumb. It's ripping off the artist, regardless.

But let's talk about your land analogy. Suppose I spent money and time maintaining that land for renting out to campers, and you came along and pitched a tent. Do you think it's ok to do so without paying? Why? You didn't spend the money to maintain it. You weren't out there every week mowing the lawn. Why do you think it's ok to use it for free?

Copyright is the same deal. A copyright is not a right to a work itself, it is a right to exclude others from performing certain actions relating to a work, such as to reproduce it.
[snip]

If it were taking, it wouldn't be called infringement by the law and the people who work with the law.

Fair enough. But you still ripped someone off. An artist made the work to make a living. He makes less of a living when people, collectively "infringe" on his copyright. He's getting screwed nonetheless.

Why?

Can you even type that with a straight face? Because the artist puts up the investment, the time, effort, the intellectual and creative ability to make the thing for others to enjoy. It only makes sense that the artist should decide how to get remunerated.

Do you think that the person who stea-- excuse me- infringes should decide?

Why should anyone but the artist decide?

Permission? Permission from whom, pray tell? I find this a very important question, since I didn't know that an external authority was in control of whether or not I could create competing works by and large.

Stop playing dumb. That was my point. You make it, you do not need permission.

As it happens I am very upset that people don't pay me now. In particular I am upset at you. I feel that you owe me a living. So pay up, buttercup. Or is there some reason why my anger, however heartfelt, might be irrelevant as to whether or not you ought to be giving me money?

Hey, if you produce a work of art, software, or whatever, and copyright it, and I use that work without your permission or remunerating you for it, then yes, I owe you money. What is this work you are talking about?

No they do not. No one deserves the right to make a living in any way they choose. Society generally determines whether some forms of making money are not acceptable, or are acceptable, and dictates the rules to those involved.

Yes, and the society we live in has determined that it is acceptible. Not legally, but morally.

No, it is the case. Most artists don't get royalties from copyrights. Hell, an enormous number of artists never get paid at all. You have a very strange, romantic, and inaccurate view of what an artist is. It isn't what the law considers an author to be, I can tell you that.

You can tell me that, but all that means is they got ripped off or they didn't want remuneration. Anyone who makes a work that offers a commercial sale, can decide how they want to be remunerated. They decide based on how much people will pay, and how many people will buy it. It may come down to a single fee, it may be a royalty, but it is based on consumption of the work. Software developers price based on who will buy, how much it costs to produce, etc. TV producers decide on how much it will cost to produce, how many will view it, and what going ad rates are. Movies - same thing. Musicians, same thing. Even though most of these sign the rights to their producers, it all comes into play.

I'm not sure what kind of artist you are thinking of that doesn't do that.

[historical stuff snipped]

All irrelevant. It's not just "after" the work is produced. Often, it is facilitating the work itself.

It all comes down to this: people other than the consumer put up money, time, skill, creativity, itellectual thought, etc. into making a product. Why is it assumed that you can take the culmination of all of that for free against their wishes, with no guilt or obligation? Is that not taking advantage and extremely selfish.

But you didn't really say what you believe the point of copyright law is. What do you think it is, if it is not to protect the holders from being taken advantage of?

[Beewee]

I would feel a lot more sympathy toward these people if it wasn't a big corporation filing all of these lawsuits. Or if it wasn't artists like Metallica. Both b*tching about the $100,000 - 200,000K they lost when they make literally millions.

Maybe Piracy is a way of people saying..."Lower your prices."

I guess the lesson here kids is become a lawyer, that's where the money is in this country. Even if they don't get much from these kids they still have to pay their legal fees.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by hayesk:
the artist puts up the investment, the time, effort, the intellectual and creative ability to make the thing for others to enjoy. It only makes sense that the artist should decide how to get remunerated.

I can't say that my heart aches for musical artists who charge $70+ dollars for a concert ticket, come to the gig 45 minutes late, and then leave after playing 2 or 3 songs because "The crowd sucked."
Many musical artists these days don't even write their own lyrics, so that pretty much rules out "creative and intellectual ability"

I'll agree that if you market something you should be compensated in some way shape or form, but I draw the line when it comes to giving these "visionaries" the power to walk all over their consumer base.

"I make something you like, therefore I can charge you whatever the hell I want for it."

I know that you happen to be a software developer, which is probably one of the reasons you're so passionate about this subject. As cynical as this will sound, answer me this question: "Why should I care." I don't personally know the people who make the music, the software, the games, movies, etc. And my lack of knowledge about them and what they're all about makes me apathetic. On the flip side, they don't know me, nor do they care. I'm a customer to them, a number, a sales statistic. Just tell me why I should care whether Adobe doesn't get $170 (or whatever it is) for Color Suite, or Acrobat. Something besides "because it's agaisnt the law"

This isn't a justification, it's an explanation. It's the one reason why most pirates pirate, or "plunder." "They have something I want, I either don't have the money to pay for it, or feel from my perspective they are greatly over charging me. I have the means to acquire what I want without having to pay, so logically, why the hell shouldn't I do it?"

Originally posted by Beewee:
I would feel a lot more sympathy toward these people if it wasn't a big corporation filing all of these lawsuits. Or if it wasn't artists like Metallica. Both b*tching about the $100,000 - 200,000K they lost when they make literally millions.

I can definitely understand how people feel this way, but it is a tad hypocritical.

How big does a company be (in terms of income) in order for it to be ok to take their stuff? Who gets to decide the dollar amount? Why?
What if a company makes $1 less than that arbitrary threshhold? Is it ok then? Is it ok to copy one thing from them, but not two? Who gets to copy from them? You or someone else? Should that be based on income?

I hope you see what I'm getting at. Copying from a little guy is no different than copying from a big guy.

Originally posted by UR-20:

I can't say that my heart aches for musical artists who charge $70+ dollars for a concert ticket, come to the gig 45 minutes late, and then leave after playing 2 or 3 songs because "The crowd sucked."
[/b]

I agree - you got ripped off. You should feel ripped off - they owe you a refund.

Many musical artists these days don't even write their own lyrics, so that pretty much rules out "creative and intellectual ability"

Well, if you want to listen to them, then they have something worth getting. Whether it be singing ability, performing ability, etc. And often, the writer gets royalties too. So if it's worth getting, then they should be remunerated.

I'll agree that if you market something you should be compensated in some way shape or form, but I draw the line when it comes to giving these "visionaries" the power to walk all over their consumer base.

Nobody has that power. The consumer has the power to abstain from whatever product they are selling.

"I make something you like, therefore I can charge you whatever the hell I want for it."

Again, abstain. Don't copy, don't listen, don't watch, whatever. That sends a much more powerful message. If you copy, the only message that is sent is "I'm a pirate." Look at how the RIAA is labelling everyone as pirates. If these people didn't buy the CDs *and* didn't download the MP3s, they would really take notice.

I know that you happen to be a software developer, which is probably one of the reasons you're so passionate about this subject. As cynical as this will sound, answer me this question: "Why should I care." I don't personally know the people who make the music, the software, the games, movies, etc. And my lack of knowledge about them and what they're all about makes me apathetic. On the flip side, they don't know me, nor do they care. I'm a customer to them, a number, a sales statistic. Just tell me why I should care whether Adobe doesn't get $170 (or whatever it is) for Color Suite, or Acrobat. Something besides "because it's agaisnt the law"

FYI, right now I am only a part-time software developer. I have lots of ideas for products, but quitting my full time job to take that risk to develop them is not an option right now. Hopefully in the near future.

Anyway, it is wrong, because if you think it's ok, then you send the message to others that it's ok. If everyone downloads the CD of your favourite band, they get no money, and stop putting out albums. You have then been negatively affected - you get no more albums from your favourite band. Or Adobe stops developing Photoshop, or whatever.

Now I know it's unlikely that everyone will pirate a CD. But how many bands never get a chance to put out a second album because their record label don't think sales will be high enough? How many software products don't get produced because the developer can't afford to produce it?

Also, take all of your friends and relatives. What do they all do for a living? What do their parents do? Do none of them have employment related to the selling and/or distribution of goods that can be copied? Even if it is a clerk in a store - that person could be laid off if sales of such products drop low enough.

I've seen several video stores go out of business. Now I know a lot of it is from DVD sales instead of rentals, but I know people who have stopped renting or buying, and download every movie they want to see.

This isn't a justification, it's an explanation. It's the one reason why most pirates pirate, or "plunder." "They have something I want, I either don't have the money to pay for it, or feel from my perspective they are greatly over charging me. I have the means to acquire what I want without having to pay, so logically, why the hell shouldn't I do it?"

I understand what you are getting at but I disagree. Very few people that I have seen pirate cannot afford the purchase - they use the "I don't have the money to pay for it" excuse. I've seen people go out to dinner four nights a week but claim they can't afford a $15 CD from their favourite band. I've seen university students who will spend $100 a weekend on beer and pizza but claim they can't buy a $50 computer game they spend hours each week playing. If they stay home for just one night, they can afford the product they want. People pirate Photoshop because it's so expensive. PS Elements is only $90. GiMP (I know, not nearly as good) is free. Maya has a free full-features learning edition. OpenOffice is free. The list goes on.

It's not about affordability for most pirates, it's about false justifications.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by hayesk:

Again, abstain. Don't copy, don't listen, don't watch, whatever. That sends a much more powerful message. If you copy, the only message that is sent is "I'm a pirate." Look at how the RIAA is labelling everyone as pirates. If these people didn't buy the CDs *and* didn't download the MP3s, they would really take notice.

Anyway, it is wrong, because if you think it's ok, then you send the message to others that it's ok. If everyone downloads the CD of your favourite band, they get no money, and stop putting out albums. You have then been negatively affected - you get no more albums from your favourite band. Or Adobe stops developing Photoshop, or whatever.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Could happen but highly unlikely. The big bands will always have the marketing power to over come piracy. The smaller fish will flounder...as that is the way of a capitalist society.
Human beings operate on a moto of: "Get as much as I can as quickly as I can." The only thing that stops that drive is fear. Fear of being caught, fear of jail time, fear of fines.
Unfortunately (for RIAA and MPAA) the internet is too vast to police. You are dealing with thousands of people from hundreds of countries. Laws differ, IP logs are overwritten and before they know it they don't know where to start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know it's unlikely that everyone will pirate a CD. But how many bands never get a chance to put out a second album because their record label don't think sales will be high enough? How many software products don't get produced because the developer can't afford to produce it?

Also, take all of your friends and relatives. What do they all do for a living? What do their parents do? Do none of them have employment related to the selling and/or distribution of goods that can be copied? Even if it is a clerk in a store - that person could be laid off if sales of such products drop low enough.
------------------------------------------------
Piracy does not have that much of a ripple effect. You are talking karma now.
I was once gainfully employed at K-Mart as a clerk. I then quit after a while because I wasn't getting enough hours (nobody was) was it because of piracy? No it was shody management and incompetant business strategy, hell it was Martha Stewart getting arrested. Anyone of those things can explain it, piracy is a drop in the bucket and a fly on the wall compared to what other things could go wrong in the business world.
----------------------------------------------

I've seen several video stores go out of business. Now I know a lot of it is from DVD sales instead of rentals, but I know people who have stopped renting or buying, and download every movie they want to see.

------------------------------------------------------------
That is an incomplete corralation, you don't have all the data. It's similar to saying "Crimes of rape rise greatly when icecream is selling well." When the real reason is that its the summer time, so both natually go up together.
------------------------------------------------------------

I understand what you are getting at but I disagree. Very few people that I have seen pirate cannot afford the purchase - they use the "I don't have the money to pay for it" excuse. I've seen people go out to dinner four nights a week but claim they can't afford a $15 CD from their favourite band. I've seen university students who will spend $100 a weekend on beer and pizza but claim they can't buy a $50 computer game they spend hours each week playing. If they stay home for just one night, they can afford the product they want. People pirate Photoshop because it's so expensive. PS Elements is only $90. GiMP (I know, not nearly as good) is free. Maya has a free full-features learning edition. OpenOffice is free. The list goes on.

It's not about affordability for most pirates, it's about false justifications.
--------------------------------
Final Cut is $1000.00, Motion is another $300.00. Hell Shake is $3K!
Even the lower end Final Cut express is $300.00. Not having money isn't an excuse, its a reason. It doesn't justify it but as a person who actually doesn't have enough movie to buy the software I use, I take offense to the accusation that most pirates are in a state of denial. I wonder how many features were stripped away from your $100 program considering a full version of CS is $1,000 or more.

If they want people to stop pirating they are going to have to send a message to the public other than "Tough luck" The whole "do without" will never work. Its far too easy to get what you want with a very marginal risk of being prosecuted. As far as pirates go, I say good on em, keep it up!

[MacMan4000]

the way i see it its just the same as taping a movie off HBO, only worse quality... So its legal!
23 movies and counting...

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by MacMan4000:
the way i see it its just the same as taping a movie off HBO, only worse quality... So its legal!
23 movies and counting...

That wouldn't be so bad if you were a HBO subscriber and the movie had actually been show on HBO.

I don't think this is what the MPAA is focusing on though.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
That wouldn't be so bad if you were a HBO subscriber and the movie had actually been show on HBO.

I don't think this is what the MPAA is focusing on though.

relax we're just sharing DVDRips at near-DVD quality.

it's all about sharing man.

35% of internet traffic.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by ambush:
relax we're just sharing DVDRips at near-DVD quality.

it's all about sharing man.

35% of internet traffic.

Quit following me around.

Criminal activity disgusts me. As it should all law abiding individuals. It'as sad that there are few of them around.

and 35% of traffic represents a small number of people as they are hoggin all the bandwidth. Another reason to arrest and stop them.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
That wouldn't be so bad if you were a HBO subscriber and the movie had actually been show on HBO.

I don't think this is what the MPAA is focusing on though.

I don't have HBO, but I helped a friend steal it one time... its pretty easy really.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Quit following me around.

Criminal activity disgusts me. As it should all law abiding individuals. It'as sad that there are few of them around.

and 35% of traffic represents a small number of people as they are hoggin all the bandwidth. Another reason to arrest and stop them.

There isn't anything criminal about it. I pirated a certain piece of software, software that I cannot afford in the foreseeable future and that I need right now. In those terms no one is losing anything at all. The company would never have gotten my money anyway. For me that isn't an excuse. I could care less about the morals of stealing and so on. Fact is if you don't secure your product it will be stolen, be it physical or digital. Furthermore you can never stop it completely but you can make it hard enough to deter most people. Prosecuting only drives the rest of them further underground and pushes them to develop more.

"Hoggin all the bandwidth" Ah thats funny.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Quit following me around.

Criminal activity disgusts me. As it should all law abiding individuals. It'as sad that there are few of them around.

and 35% of traffic represents a small number of people as they are hoggin all the bandwidth. Another reason to arrest and stop them.

"a few'.... you must be living in an opium pipe dream, boy.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by ambush:
"a few'.... you must be living in an opium pipe dream, boy.

Actually "are few" is correct and distinct from "a few".

If you consider downloading music criminal activity then I'd say there are fewer "law abiding" citizens than not.

Quit picking on opiates.

[cpt kangarooski]

hayesk--

Fair enough, it's not "taking." So what? You know my point. Stop playing dumb. It's ripping off the artist, regardless.

Copyright holder, not artist (they may be one and the same, but it's not necessarily so).

At any rate, I don't care a great deal about the impact on the artist. I'm more concerned about the indirect impact on everyone else, and the dangers of lawlessness generally.

But let's talk about your land analogy. Suppose I spent money and time maintaining that land for renting out to campers, and you came along and pitched a tent. Do you think it's ok to do so without paying? Why? You didn't spend the money to maintain it. You weren't out there every week mowing the lawn. Why do you think it's ok to use it for free?

I think that it is illegal, but I don't think that it is immoral. I also think that under the right circumstances it's perfectly fine, e.g. adverse possession.

At any rate, I'm curious as to why you're now asking me whether I think copyright infringement is acceptable generally (or presumably in specific cases). I think this is a new twist in the conversation.

Fair enough. But you still ripped someone off. An artist made the work to make a living. He makes less of a living when people, collectively "infringe" on his copyright. He's getting screwed nonetheless.

No need to put "infringe" in quotes. That's the actual factual word for it. See, e.g. 17 USC 501.

At any rate, lots of things, such as the aforementioned competition, can result in the author making less of a living. Clearly the mere fact that something might cause a downturn in an author's fortunes isn't enough to make it bad enough for us. The reason that we have copyrights is because it's believed to satisfy the public good. Infringers jeopardize this -- that's why we're down on them. Someone that might harm artists without jeopardizing this, OTOH, are fine.

Can you even type that with a straight face? Because the artist puts up the investment, the time, effort, the intellectual and creative ability to make the thing for others to enjoy. It only makes sense that the artist should decide how to get remunerated.

Do you think that the person who stea-- excuse me- infringes should decide?

Why should anyone but the artist decide?

Oh, I'm deadly serious. While the copyright holder might be permitted to set various details, the overarching decision of whether he can effectively demand payment at all, and within what boundaries, is up to the public.

You can tell me that, but all that means is they got ripped off or they didn't want remuneration. Anyone who makes a work that offers a commercial sale, can decide how they want to be remunerated. They decide based on how much people will pay, and how many people will buy it. It may come down to a single fee, it may be a royalty, but it is based on consumption of the work. Software developers price based on who will buy, how much it costs to produce, etc. TV producers decide on how much it will cost to produce, how many will view it, and what going ad rates are. Movies - same thing. Musicians, same thing. Even though most of these sign the rights to their producers, it all comes into play.

I'm not sure what kind of artist you are thinking of that doesn't do that.

Employees. Works created by employees within the scope of their employment are considered to be created by the employer, not the mere person who does the work. That person, who had to actually write, or whatever, never gets any rights in the work at all as a matter of law.

It all comes down to this: people other than the consumer put up money, time, skill, creativity, itellectual thought, etc. into making a product. Why is it assumed that you can take the culmination of all of that for free against their wishes, with no guilt or obligation? Is that not taking advantage and extremely selfish.

Because that's always been the case, and it is sensible that it is so.

For example, good old Will Shakespeare put a great deal of the resources you list into writing his plays. And I, and pretty much everyone else, do whatever we want with those plays and don't pay a penny to the bard. He liked money, so we can safely assume he'd be upset about this.

But since it is the public that basically determines whether there will be copyright, and if so what it will consist of, how long it lasts, etc., that's where the ultimate decision lies.

Artists are greedy. They want to be paid for their work, and typically want to hold a monopoly over it so that they cannot be undercut.

Why then should the rest of the world be any less greedy? We want the work for free, and we want to do whatever we want with regards to it.

A compromise can be worked out, but since it's the latter party that gets to decide, it's the one that will benefit the most. Any benefit the artist might enjoy is little more than a carrot used to get him to do what we want.

But you didn't really say what you believe the point of copyright law is. What do you think it is, if it is not to protect the holders from being taken advantage of?

To promote the progress of science, just as it says in the Constitution. To promote public learning, just as it says in the Statute of Anne. For the benefit of society, just as Thomas Jefferson said (with regards to the patent system, but it's equally applicable here).

If the best way to accomplish those things is to protect copyright holders, to even have copyright, then I'm for those things. And if the best way to accomplish those things is to not protect copyright holders, or even abolish copyright, then I'm for those things.

Copyright is not an goal in itself. It's just a means to an end.

[MilkmanDan]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Quit following me around.

Criminal activity disgusts me. As it should all law abiding individuals. It'as sad that there are few of them around.

and 35% of traffic represents a small number of people as they are hoggin all the bandwidth. Another reason to arrest and stop them.

Does anyone realize that SPAM and Worms account for about another 30ish% of all internet traffic? Talk about an even smaller group of people hogging all the bandwith.

My father once gave a friend of mine a talking to about software piracy when I was in 6th grade. Now he keeps asking me for software, seeing he has to buy new versions of everything for his new eMac.

How fun is that?

Internet traffic report: http://www.internettrafficreport.com/main.htm

Originally posted by Beewee:
That is an incomplete corralation, you don't have all the data. It's similar to saying "Crimes of rape rise greatly when icecream is selling well." When the real reason is that its the summer time, so both natually go up together.

I'm not attempting to prove a specific example. I'm illustrating a scenario where piracy can affect people.

Final Cut is $1000.00, Motion is another $300.00. Hell Shake is $3K!
Even the lower end Final Cut express is $300.00. Not having money isn't an excuse, its a reason. It doesn't justify it but as a person who actually doesn't have enough movie to buy the software I use, I take offense to the accusation that most pirates are in a state of denial. I wonder how many features were stripped away from your $100 program considering a full version of CS is $1,000 or more.

Who cares what was stripped out? Do you think you have a right to this software? You don't have a right to have a copy of CS, Shake, or Final Cut? Can't afford it. Too bad. Such is life. What if they put hardware dongles on all of that software. Would you protest because you couldn't copy it? Probably not. So just because it's easy to copy, means you think you can without guilt.

This sounds familiar. Did we have this discussion before?

If they want people to stop pirating they are going to have to send a message to the public other than "Tough luck" The whole "do without" will never work. Its far too easy to get what you want with a very marginal risk of being prosecuted. As far as pirates go, I say good on em, keep it up!

Why do you say "good on em"?

What should they do if they don't want you taking their stuff? In a small market or a large developer requirements, lowering prices is not an option. Besides, cheap software is pirated too - so it isn't the price that's the problem.

[demograph68]

If they waste my time with those ads before the movie then I should take it back. 10 minutes of ads means 10 minutes of a pirated movie. (Not counting the thousands of product placements) Anyways, if you really want to pirate a movie, just rent and rip a movie, or go to the library.

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
hayesk--
Copyright holder, not artist (they may be one and the same, but it's not necessarily so).

No, but it's the creator's decision to give the copyright to someone.

At any rate, I don't care a great deal about the impact on the artist. I'm more concerned about the indirect impact on everyone else, and the dangers of lawlessness generally.
[snip]
I think that it is illegal, but I don't think that it is immoral. I also think that under the right circumstances it's perfectly fine, e.g. adverse possession.

Explain. If the artist spends his money, time, and effort into creating something with the expectation of earning a living that is communicated to the public ahead of time, you think it's not immoral to deprive him of that living.

At any rate, I'm curious as to why you're now asking me whether I think copyright infringement is acceptable generally (or presumably in specific cases). I think this is a new twist in the conversation.

I'm not sure myself.

Oh, I'm deadly serious. While the copyright holder might be permitted to set various details, the overarching decision of whether he can effectively demand payment at all, and within what boundaries, is up to the public.

Yes - and the way the public decides is by refusing the work, not by taking the work anyway.

Employees. Works created by employees within the scope of their employment are considered to be created by the employer, not the mere person who does the work. That person, who had to actually write, or whatever, never gets any rights in the work at all as a matter of law.

Employees give their employee the right - they decide to work there knowing the implications. Their salary, working hours, deadlines, are all based on the consumption of the work.

For example, good old Will Shakespeare put a great deal of the resources you list into writing his plays. And I, and pretty much everyone else, do whatever we want with those plays and don't pay a penny to the bard. He liked money, so we can safely assume he'd be upset about this.

He's dead. He's been long dead. I don't believe a copyright should persist after the death of the owner.

To promote the progress of science, just as it says in the Constitution. To promote public learning, just as it says in the Statute of Anne. For the benefit of society, just as Thomas Jefferson said (with regards to the patent system, but it's equally applicable here).

If the best way to accomplish those things is to protect copyright holders, to even have copyright, then I'm for those things.

Yes, and I would have thought you would have made the connection. The best way to protect the availability music, software, movies that we all want to consume is to protect the copyright holders. Without that protection, there wouldn't be as much of the works available that we want to consume.

[the_glassman]