Piracy - Right or wrong?

[Tammuz]

What is your opinion on piracy? I'm divided on the issue.

At one hand, no company loses any property if I copy a product for myself. And free flow of movies, music and games is also in some sense a free flow of culture.

But on the other hand, without money, there will largely cease to be production of music, movies and games (especially of the latter two). Generally, products you pay for are much better than freeware products.

[DougP]

Movie, games and music are all making billions of dollars, and pirating doesnt seem to have caused these industries to crash. Besides, pirating lets people who might not be able to afford things to have them...seems fine to me.

[CanoeMan]

I like piracy. Something about the open water, salty winds, going wherever the sails take you... Not to mention the fun of swashbuckling, robbery and treasure hunting.

[Scifinerdgrl]

The industry has been losing money due to piracy. Claiming that you're only copying something you wouldn't buy is specious because obviously some people must be copying things they would otherwise buy. When you copy something without paying the person who owns the intellectual property rights, it's theft.

Very few musicians can make a living from live performance alone. Stealing from someone who's raking in millions may seem acceptable, but most of the big stars of today are the has-beens of tomorrow. They should be investing the excess for that day (although most aren't of course).

The companies that are losing money are becoming less and less inclined to invest in new artists. The result is that more artists are independent, in which case stealing is even more disastrous for the artists.

[WishboneDawn]

The industry has been losing money due to piracy.

I don't think I've seen a good case made for that yet. Because the music industry may be losing money and because some people are pirating does not mena that one causes the other.

[general_koffi]

The industry does lose money over piracy. This is undisputed. Out of all the people who pirate, at least some of them would actually buy some music/movies/games if piracy were impossible.

Whether anyone gives a shit about stinking rich people being slightly less stinking rich is another matter.

It would be self-desructive if too many people pirated, but there are apparently still enough idiots around who actually buy music.

[Beave]

It would be self-desructive if too many people pirated, but there are apparently still enough idiots around who actually buy music.

I still buy music and movies and I certainly don't consider myself to be an idiot. But like Tammuz is, I am also split on the issue. I download and share files all the time, but if it's something I like, like a good movie or cd, then I'll be sure to buy it. But if I download something and find out I don't like it, why the hell should I have to pay for it? I like to support artists who make good art and I don't feel I should have to pay for anything before I know that it's good or not.

[purple_kathryn]

eh wrong

it's like shoplifting but with less risk.

Which is probably why I do it.

[general_koffi]

I still buy music and movies and I certainly don't consider myself to be an idiot. But like Tammuz is, I am also split on the issue. I download and share files all the time, but if it's something I like, like a good movie or cd, then I'll be sure to buy it. But if I download something and find out I don't like it, why the hell should I have to pay for it? I like to support artists who make good art and I don't feel I should have to pay for anything before I know that it's good or not.

Hehe. Actually I buy real video games. But only because you need a real one to play online...

eh wrong

it's like shoplifting but with less risk.

Which is probably why I do it.

Not really. If you steal an iPod from a shop, that shop no longer has that iPod, and has to pay for it to be replaced.

Just like if you steal Jim's food he no longer has that food and has to either replace it or go hungry.

It would be an accurate analogy if there was an infinite supply of iPods in existence, and they cost nothing to replace. ;)

[Loren Pechtel]

If you pirate something you would have otherwise bought harm is done and it's wrong.

If you pirate something that you otherwise would have simply gone without I can't see that anyone has been harmed.

[Naruto]

I've pirated Lost episodes, a littlel music, porn, and Sony Vegas 6.0. The only thing I might have bought was Vegas.

I think pirating is wrong, but, miraculously, I don't care.

[EricK]

Isn't the effect of piracy factored into the cost of the goods? If so, we have a right (even a duty) to pirate a certain percentage of stuff to avoid being overcharged by the companies.

[MindRevolution]

Piracy has made me buy more albums than I otherwise would have. Everything I have ever downloaded and never bought is something I never would have bought in the first place.

Hell piracy is what made me download the song Mind Revolution. Which I loved, so I bought the whole album.

Piracy is simply a response to how people now want to get their music. With broadband internet and MP3 players, we want to get our music online, and it's been shown that people will pay for music online.

However the record companies insist on being dickwads and being openly hostile to their consumers. They could more or less snuff out piracy if they embraced the interet as being the new medium to deliver music instead of trying to shut it down all the time.

[Vermin8]

I don't think it's wrong. I also think it HELPS the music industry because people get exposed to music they wouldn't have bought without hearing it free. After all, the music industry has thrived throughout the last half of the 20th century due to a free source of music - radio.
The solution to piracy would be super cheap downloads (I'm curious as to how much profit there is in a $.99 song).

[Chris Porter]

I like piracy. Something about the open water, salty winds, going wherever the sails take you... Not to mention the fun of swashbuckling, robbery and treasure hunting.

I'm in it for the raping and looting, myself.

Other than that, I tend to think piracy is despicable.

[seebs]

The industry has been losing money due to piracy. Claiming that you're only copying something you wouldn't buy is specious because obviously some people must be copying things they would otherwise buy. When you copy something without paying the person who owns the intellectual property rights, it's theft.

Well, no. It's infringement.

Theft is the category of crimes in which you take something from someone and they no longer have it.

I do not have any evidence at all that anyone is actually losing money due to copyright infringement these days. I think there's compelling evidence that it has happened at some times in the past, but the only people who have done real apples-to-apples comparisons have found that giving away books and music increases sales of the specific things you are giving away dramatically.

Now, I don't think that answers the moral question -- but I think it does scuttle the "it hurts them" moral argument. We'd have to argue in terms of abstract moral rights.

[LoungeHead]

Piracy is righteous.

As long as you're not on selling it is moral. Copying music is no different from listening to it and singing or playing it yourself at a latter time. The difference being the file transfer is less efficient, and playback can sound terrible from some people.

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not have any evidence at all that anyone is actually losing money due to copyright infringement these days. I think there's compelling evidence that it has happened at some times in the past, but the only people who have done real apples-to-apples comparisons have found that giving away books and music increases sales of the specific things you are giving away dramatically.

No. Piracy benefits those with low sales volume. Piracy hurts those with high sales volume.

[Nanite]

I may be biased (in fact I know I am :devil3: ), because I'm on disability, so I have not much money but lots of free time, so I download games to keep me occupied. Once in a great while I'll actually buy one, for example if I want to try it multiplayer, etc. I also play everquest2, so I'll be buying the expansion for that when it comes out. I also download movies, music etc. Pretty much everything I download, I would have had to just go without, since I couldn't have afforded it. I think in my case at least, it's pretty much harmless, as I buy what I can when I can, but aside from that I pirate everything else.

I'm also of two minds about the whole copyright idea to begin with. On the one hand, people who create new stuff should of course be compensated for it, but on the other hand, every copyright is essentially a monopoly, and monopolies in capitalism = bad, right? I think it was much better when copyrights were quite a bit shorter, like patents still are. You get to be compensated for it for a while, then let everyone have it for free.

[Rushing Zephyr]

To be honest, in my case, piracy has actually enabled the industry to make more money than it ever would have.

Let me explain. When I was the ripe young age of 14 I didn't really give two flying fucks about music. I thought it inexplicably impossible that there was any music out there that could appeal to me. All I had ever heard of was self-righteous and pretentious crap anywhere from Celine Dion to Nelly to Britney Spears to Linkin Park. Crap crap crap.

But then when I was reading about artists people were listening to on a forum I frequent, I downloaded (illegally) songs I had never heard of. After all, power metal, progressive metal, and neoclassical metal are all ‘underground’ genres which few know about.

I liked what I heard. I proceeded to download music gaining an acquired taste in probably the most artistic of music. Soon I was buying albums of artists which I never would have touched had I not had the ability to download music.

I have to make this very clear: this is profit the industry would have never ever made otherwise.

The same is the case for programs like Photoshop and Maya. Never had I even dreamed of becoming a graphic artist. Now it’s what I aspire to be. I took a perceived illegal event and now have the ability to make something great with it. I can now go on to create unique and innovative graphics for companies to make a living.

Piracy is bettering me as a human. It’s putting money back into the market, almost like an investment. I see nothing wrong with piracy.

[MindRevolution]

You sound like me, although I got into black and death metal first and just recently have gotten into prog. Are you into Devin Townsend? After I illegally downloaded Earth Day and Canada, I went out and bought everything he's ever done including Strapping Young Lad, and listen to one all the time.

So there we go, that's over 10 albums right there I went out and bought because I first downloaded two songs illegally. Nice return there for Mr. Townsend.

[seebs]

No. Piracy benefits those with low sales volume. Piracy hurts those with high sales volume.

This strikes me as not entirely implausible, but I have seen no real evidence. The RIAA numbers were completely free of meaningful controls, so I don't think they tell me anything.

[Rushing Zephyr]

You sound like me, although I got into black and death metal first and just recently have gotten into prog. Are you into Devin Townsend? After I illegally downloaded Earth Day and Canada, I went out and bought everything he's ever done including Strapping Young Lad, and listen to one all the time.

So there we go, that's over 10 albums right there I went out and bought because I first downloaded two songs illegally. Nice return there for Mr. Townsend.

Oh man, Pain of Salvation sounds right up your alley. Definitely listen to "Beyond the Pale", "Ashes", and perhaps "The Perfect Element". The last one took me a little time to get used to because it abruptly changes from lighter to darker vocals a lot.

[I. C. Unicorns]

Piracy denies the owner of deciding how his or her property can be used. It is plain and simple unlawful.

Now arguments surround the practicality of copyright laws. My take on copyright laws is that the content producers have always depended upon the physical difficulty of producing and distributing pirated works and copyright laws were given lip service. Pirating a book is expensive, distributing pirated videotapes is expensive, taping a radio broadcast for music is exhausting. Content producers owned the distribution channels and were able to control the product they were selling. Piracy was a blip on the radar. Digital recording and networks have removed their control over the media because there is no physical limitations to data.

the DMCA is a rough law designed to let the media companies regain control of how their property is distributed. I can't argue with the need to protect property, but the law has problems. There is a need to drastically rewrite copyright laws because of the digital age.

[Streamwinner]

A gross amount of the money you pay for a CD goes to the slimy beurocratic fucks in the recording industry. Only a small fraction goes to the artist.

My solution? Pirate and then go see their shows or send them a check in the mail.

[LoneWolf]

They could more or less snuff out piracy if they embraced the interet as being the new medium to deliver music instead of trying to shut it down all the time.

I agree 100%. I buy amost all my songs off of iTunes now. The only time I resort to free P2P pirating is if I can't find the song on iTunes.

[Mat Wilder]

Very few musicians can make a living from live performance alone. Stealing from someone who's raking in millions may seem acceptable, but most of the big stars of today are the has-beens of tomorrow. They should be investing the excess for that day (although most aren't of course).

If I'm not mistaken, most artists actually make most of their money from performances, along with merchandise sold at the performances, and royalties from radio play. Album sales make up a relatively small percentage of their total income.

That said, I think it is criminal how large of a chunk the recording studios take from album sales. I envision a day when all artists will direct market themselves online, offering their tracks and and any album art for download at reduced prices compared to, say, iTunes. The artist would be taking in 100% of this profit, though, so they could afford to charge lower costs per song, because in the end they would take in more. Plus, then the consumer wouldn't have to pay for manufacturing the CD, and packaging. Blank CDs cost about 30 cents a piece, and you could print out any art on your home printer, if you really wanted to. If enough artists got together to start an online co-op, or something, it could happen.

[EricK]

Piracy denies the owner of deciding how his or her property can be used. It is plain and simple unlawful.


Are things which can be pirated property?

If I buy an album and copy it the hard disk of my PC, who owns the section of the hard disk on which that album resides? If it is still my property, then banning piracy would ban me from willingly exposing that section of the hard disk to the internet i.e. it is stopping an owner from deciding how his property can be used. If that section of the hard disk is suddenly not my property then can the "rightful" property owner come in and take it or erase it? If not, why not?

[Xrikcus]

If you pirate something that you otherwise would have simply gone without I can't see that anyone has been harmed.

This is why pirating Photoshop and expensive 3d rendering software isn't wrong, I suppose :)

I'm also not so sure that people lose money in real terms through piracy. By increasing availability you massively increase exposure and hence increase overall takeup of the product. This may not be true of mass piracy efforts whereby people feel it's a legitimate product and they're really just giving money to scammers (well, it may not be true at all, I just don't think it's clear cut). Maybe, Loren Pechtel, you are right, but as seebs says, figures from the industry are simply dishonest which makes it hard to make a clear assessment.

Now, one thing I think pushes the moral balance towards pirates is the addition of heavy DRM on music that actually restricts what one can do with what one has paid for, and those stupid "don't steal this DVD" adverts at the beginning of legitimate DVDs which just make me feel that the manufacturer is assuming that I haven't paid for it - and apart from anything else not being able to skip them is just taking the mickey.

[Dhaeron]

This is why pirating Photoshop and expensive 3d rendering software isn't wrong, I suppose :)
Well, it's also not wrong because most producers of expensive professional software don't mind hobbyists pirating it. They'd never buy it for hobby purposes anyway, and the one in fifty that makes a career out of it will sooner or later buy their product, not that of the competition. Same way windows became widely distributed.
I'm also not so sure that people lose money in real terms through piracy. By increasing availability you massively increase exposure and hence increase overall takeup of the product. This may not be true of mass piracy efforts whereby people feel it's a legitimate product and they're really just giving money to scammers (well, it may not be true at all, I just don't think it's clear cut). Maybe, Loren Pechtel, you are right, but as seebs says, figures from the industry are simply dishonest which makes it hard to make a clear assessment.
I am also not convinced that the industry lost any money because of private piracy. Commercial piracy is wrong obviously, and it's very easy to figure out how the money is lost and where it goes.
In the case of private piracy however i've not yet seen any good explanation where all those millions go the industry is allegedly losing. I don't think there's a trend of people spending less of their income, quite the reverse actually. A miniscule proportion might go to drive manufacturers but the rest can't very well manage. The most likely scenario imo is that people pre-piracy owned a hundred CDs they bought, and post piracy own 1000 pirated CDs and still buy 99 originals with the money that's left after buying a CD writer and some discs.
Now, one thing I think pushes the moral balance towards pirates is the addition of heavy DRM on music that actually restricts what one can do with what one has paid for, and those stupid "don't steal this DVD" adverts at the beginning of legitimate DVDs which just make me feel that the manufacturer is assuming that I haven't paid for it - and apart from anything else not being able to skip them is just taking the mickey.I fucking hate those. By now, i insist on testing a DVD in store and don't buy it if those are unskippable. I really want some of the stuff the fucking idiot who invented those must have been smoking. On my backups i remove the crap so i don't have to view it, but when i use the original i have to listen to some WW2 propaganda-style anti-piracy ad? It's as if they're trying to piss customers off on purpose.

[ModernHeretic]

Arrrr, the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me it was right.

[Loren Pechtel]

This strikes me as not entirely implausible, but I have seen no real evidence. The RIAA numbers were completely free of meaningful controls, so I don't think they tell me anything.

I've run into a study on this not too long ago. I forget where, though.

[MindRevolution]

This isn't 100% but I heard that the "millions" lost by the record companies includes the legal costs of suing everyone and their brother in their quest to make sure every last one of their consumers has at least been threated with a lawsuit.

[sateryn]

here's the problem as i see it - you're framing the question wrong.

everyone seems to ask whether PIRACY is wrong or not, and there are lots of moral arguments either way... but it's all totally pointless because as far as i'm concerned, what you're talking about ISN'T PIRACY.

if i own a cd, i can make a copy of that cd. i can then listen to the copy, and loan the cd itself to my friend. or, i can loan my friend the copy and keep the cd - that is LEGAL.
i can loan a copy to two of my friends, or three. this is also legal.

so whether i loan to 1 friend, 5, 100, or 10,000, it's still not 'piracy' - i didn't steal anything, and neither did any of the people that i loaned the media to.

it's idiotic to suggest you can dictate what people can do with their own property, provided no one is suffering physical harm from it.

[I. C. Unicorns]

it's idiotic to suggest you can dictate what people can do with their own property, provided no one is suffering physical harm from it.

Harm does not have to be physical, it can be financial. Neither argument is important because copyright is a legal right which may be defended regardless of gain or loss.

What you own is the polycarbonate disc and the right to listen to the music encoded by the data on that particular disc. By giving to another person a copy of the data or any other representation of the audio encoded by the data on that disc, you are violating the copyrights of the owner of the music.

A person is free to do whatever they wish with the disc, however they are not entitled to permanent right to listen to the music because they only have the right to listen to the music on that disc. Ruin it and buy another disc or listen to your one personal copy, either an analog dub or the digital copy. One no longer has a right to the copy if the original disc is transferred to another person.

[jaded_revenge]

I looked at this in economics.
Piracy is more of a grey market, its economys way of making more product for people who can't really afford to pay for the real thing. This is especially true in countries such as Mexico.
Companies are making all the wrong moves on piracy, chances are some of their bigger spending customers have pirated now and again. Look at what happened when Metallica labled their fans as pirates, many of their fans got into Metallica through pirating then bought legitimate copies, after the accusations their fans where quite irate.
Then there is the security. Look at what happened when that company Sony tried to put on that protection software on their cds. I'm having trouble using a legitimate game of half life 2 episode 1 due to steam at the moment. One might say "well if it wasn't for the pirates..." when in reality, such security mess ups make people more likely to turn to 'piracy'.

The entertainment industry made it big on technology. Before CDs, computers, Tvs, film and vinyl, the biggest names on Earth where most definetely not entertainers. Now they are the richest names on the planet. Technology has moved forward, if the entertainment industry try to keep a hold of it, it will break free.

It is a grey market, it must be understood, not restricted. Companies must look at how to take advantage of such a market, not how to close it down, it is impossible to stop, but not to benefit from.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Y'know, I doubt that we'd lose all culture if piracy ran rampant.

I think it'd be quite interesting to see actually. Lets let piracy run rampant. Think we'll no longer have artists and musicians? Think they'll stop making movies and art and novels and music?

I seriously doubt it. It'd just change the way the industry works and probably for the better.

[Nanite]

Then there is the security. Look at what happened when that company Sony tried to put on that protection software on their cds. I'm having trouble using a legitimate game of half life 2 episode 1 due to steam at the moment. One might say "well if it wasn't for the pirates..." when in reality, such security mess ups make people more likely to turn to 'piracy'.

Indeed, its actually kind of sad that as a non paying user I have less hassle because I use no cd loaders on any games I download, I have to since I don't have the CD. So the poor guy who actually pays for it has to mess with shuffling cds around, while I don't.... stupid.

[seebs]

Baen Books has done quite well giving books away.

FWIW, I generally run nearly all my games off CD images, which was VERY convenient during a system upgrade; I didn't have to go find 30 CDs, I just copied over the directory with all the images.

[JaronK]

Basically, the CD industry, like the turntable record and betamax industries before it, is going obsolete. That's the nature of business. When your product becomes so cheap and easy to produce that anyone can do so (which is essencially the issue here, when you're pirating you're just reproducing the original product on your computer), you can't sell it anymore, and that's the nature of buisiness.

It's not like it hurts the artists at all. They don't, for the most part, make their money off records, as others have said. Records just help them fill concert halls, and piracy does the same thing.

JaronK

[seebs]

My understanding is that, for many artists, tours exist to promote sales of recorded music. I think it varies. The Grateful Dead were, as I understand it, rather unusual in making most of their money touring.

[Bomb#20]

If I'm not mistaken, most artists actually make most of their money from performances, along with merchandise sold at the performances, and royalties from radio play. Album sales make up a relatively small percentage of their total income.

That said, I think it is criminal how large of a chunk the recording studios take from album sales.
There's an interesting article here, http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html, by somebody who knows this subject up close and personal.

[Bomb#20]

On the one hand, people who create new stuff should of course be compensated for it, but on the other hand, every copyright is essentially a monopoly, and monopolies in capitalism = bad, right? I think it was much better when copyrights were quite a bit shorter, like patents still are. You get to be compensated for it for a while, then let everyone have it for free.
Right. That's how it's supposed to work -- there are two conflicting goods, competition and compensation, so there's a compromise. "The Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."

But in modern times Congress has gone far beyond this authorized power, granting copyrights that last so long they have no conceivable relation to giving people an incentive to create. They're simply granting a monopoly to whoever owns dead artists' copyrights, in order to enrich one segment of the public at the expense of another, because somebody paid Congress off. And in the process they're stifling the creation of derivative works and guaranteeing that a lot of our culture is forgotten, because it's in nobody's interest to pay through the nose to be allowed to perform old works, no matter how good they are.

If that weren't bad enough, Congress has repeatedly broken the law by extending existing copyrights retroactively, in blatant violation of the 5th Amendment provision against government takings without just compensation. But when John Paul Stevens pointed this out, he was voted down. As usual, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says; it means what five justices say it means.

[Loren Pechtel]

Indeed, its actually kind of sad that as a non paying user I have less hassle because I use no cd loaders on any games I download, I have to since I don't have the CD. So the poor guy who actually pays for it has to mess with shuffling cds around, while I don't.... stupid.

You can get no-CD cracks for legitimately owned games. It's usually the first thing I do after buying a game.

[EarlOfLade]

If I'd go to the movies based on trailers and pay premium for each movoe, I would have wasted a lot of money. I download a movie and most of the times, I never complete watching it. Most movies are not worth the price of a ticket.

[sateryn]

Harm does not have to be physical, it can be financial. Neither argument is important because copyright is a legal right which may be defended regardless of gain or loss.
are you suggesting that morals are derived from laws, and not the other way around?
there has to be a sound moral or ethical reason for a law to exist - using the fact that a law exists to justify it is basically saying that by making some law, you sanctify it as moral truth... which is complete BS.

What you own is the polycarbonate disc and the right to listen to the music encoded by the data on that particular disc. By giving to another person a copy of the data or any other representation of the audio encoded by the data on that disc, you are violating the copyrights of the owner of the music.
this is false, because loaning or giving a friend a copy of a tape isn't illegal - if it was, every teengager in the US would be in prison.

A person is free to do whatever they wish with the disc, however they are not entitled to permanent right to listen to the music because they only have the right to listen to the music on that disc. Ruin it and buy another disc or listen to your one personal copy, either an analog dub or the digital copy. One no longer has a right to the copy if the original disc is transferred to another person.
the law quite clearly states that duplication and distribution for profit is illegal, but it doesn't say anything about duplication and bumming to friends.

this whole internet 'piracy' thing is nothing more than a blatent redefinition of existing law on the part of an industry that is so utterly blinded by its own greed and pompous sense of superiority that it can't figure out it's flagging sales are due to a shitty product, so they're trying to find a scapegoat.

[Zarkonan]

I'm shocked (ok, not really) by the level of rationalization going on in this thread to justify wrong behavior.

Intellectual property is not some new-fangled, 21st century idea. Article 1, section 8, Congress has the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Protecting intellectual property through limited government sanctioned monopolies promotes art.

If I write a book, and anyone can copy it and sell it (pirate it) with no consequences, how can I make a living writing books? Pirates will swoop in and be able to print it without having all the expenses associated with creating the product. The same exact argument applies to music - any attempt to rationalize it with arguments that its not actually hurting them, they get their money from live concerts, etc. is pure bullshit.

[Zarkonan]

But in modern times Congress has gone far beyond this authorized power, granting copyrights that last so long they have no conceivable relation to giving people an incentive to create. They're simply granting a monopoly to whoever owns dead artists' copyrights, in order to enrich one segment of the public at the expense of another, because somebody paid Congress off. And in the process they're stifling the creation of derivative works and guaranteeing that a lot of our culture is forgotten, because it's in nobody's interest to pay through the nose to be allowed to perform old works, no matter how good they are.

If that weren't bad enough, Congress has repeatedly broken the law by extending existing copyrights retroactively, in blatant violation of the 5th Amendment provision against government takings without just compensation. But when John Paul Stevens pointed this out, he was voted down. As usual, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says; it means what five justices say it means. We can all thank Disney for this...

[Zarkonan]

this is false, because loaning or giving a friend a copy of a tape isn't illegal - if it was, every teengager in the US would be in prison.


Actually, you are the one who is wrong. You are allowed to give the actual physical copy to a friend, whether there is profit to you is irrelevant. You are not allowed to duplicate it and give it to a friend - using that same principle, you could duplicate it a thousand times and give it to a thousands friends. If you did it on a vast enough scale, I guarantee you would in fact be sued. The problem here is its a bunch of small time pirates - like yourself - that in total can have the effect of a large pirate distributor but are in effect very difficult to sue.

[general_koffi]

Think of the poor fat lawyers at the RIAA! THINK OF THEM! :p

Think of Lars Ulrich! He can only afford three mansions on two different continents!

[Zarkonan]

Think of the poor fat lawyers at the RIAA! THINK OF THEM! :p

Think of Lars Ulrich! He can only afford three mansions on two different continents!

Think of every small rock band that plays weddings and bars, every author who writes after work or writes instead of holding down a well paying job. :rolleyes:

You are attempting to back up your illegal activity with logic and reason, and you are failing.

[Damian]

Think of the poor fat lawyers at the RIAA! THINK OF THEM! :p

Think of Lars Ulrich! He can only afford three mansions on two different continents!

I love this argument. It's irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the violation of law authorized by the constitution.

If you want to protest, do it the same way vegetarians protest the unethical treatment of animals: stop eating meat.

[EricK]

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. You are allowed to give the actual physical copy to a friend, whether there is profit to you is irrelevant. You are not allowed to duplicate it and give it to a friend - using that same principle, you could duplicate it a thousand times and give it to a thousands friends. If you did it on a vast enough scale, I guarantee you would in fact be sued. The problem here is its a bunch of small time pirates - like yourself - that in total can have the effect of a large pirate distributor but are in effect very difficult to sue.

This is a ridiculous situation! I can buy a cd and give it to a friend. I can copy a cd. I can even buy a cd, copy it and give both to my friend. But I can't copy it and give just the copy to my friend!

Am I alllowed to lend a cd to my friend if I have already made a legal backup for myself? Suppose he is the sort of friend who often forgets to return what he borrows and I'm a generous sort of guy who doesn't mind that?

[seebs]

I'm shocked (ok, not really) by the level of rationalization going on in this thread to justify wrong behavior.

Intellectual property is not some new-fangled, 21st century idea. Article 1, section 8, Congress has the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Protecting intellectual property through limited government sanctioned monopolies promotes art.

If I write a book, and anyone can copy it and sell it (pirate it) with no consequences, how can I make a living writing books? Pirates will swoop in and be able to print it without having all the expenses associated with creating the product. The same exact argument applies to music - any attempt to rationalize it with arguments that its not actually hurting them, they get their money from live concerts, etc. is pure bullshit.

But how about the argument that, when creators intentionally waive some of their control, they make more money?

Look at the writings on the Baen Books Free Library. When War of Honor came out, in hardcover only, as the most recent book in a very popular series, it came with a CD containing non-DRM'd copies of every book in the series. Including the brand new hardcover.

On the CD, it said "the contents of this disc may be copied and shared, but not sold."

So, the very day of the release of the book, I sent a complete copy of the text to a guy on the internet. Free. Legally.

And yet, it's working great for them.

Now, there's no way anyone's convincing me that Baen Books makes all their money off concerts. Not a chance. No, they make their money on sales of books.

They have found that, even with popular books that are widely known in their field, making a free copy available seems to increase sales.

[Damian]

This is a ridiculous situation! I can buy a cd and give it to a friend. I can copy a cd. I can even buy a cd, copy it and give both to my friend. But I can't copy it and give just the copy to my friend!


Right. The spirit of the law is to prevent two independent copies of the product being enjoyed by separate individuals in exchange for the value of only one copy.


Am I alllowed to lend a cd to my friend if I have already made a legal backup for myself? Suppose he is the sort of friend who often forgets to return what he borrows and I'm a generous sort of guy who doesn't mind that?

That's picking nits, but if you know he's not going to give it back, you're technically breaking the law.

The reason why people get away with it is because it's not worth the hassle of pursuing damages, because any one individual occurrence has such low damages.

[Zarkonan]

This is a ridiculous situation! I can buy a cd and give it to a friend. I can copy a cd. I can even buy a cd, copy it and give both to my friend. But I can't copy it and give just the copy to my friend! Exactly! In the latter scenario, you are cheating the original author of compensation for the work that he did. In the other scenarios, you are not (since when you give both copies to your friend, you no longer possess the work yourself).


Am I alllowed to lend a cd to my friend if I have already made a legal backup for myself? Suppose he is the sort of friend who often forgets to return what he borrows and I'm a generous sort of guy who doesn't mind that? This would be technically illegal - you should not have given a copy to a friend, you ethically should only lend out the original.

It's the ease of the duplication that makes this kind of piracy so seductive - but would you endorse someone buying a book, then photocopying it and handing it out to a bunch of friends? Is that fair to the author?

[Zarkonan]

But how about the argument that, when creators intentionally waive some of their control, they make more money?

Look at the writings on the Baen Books Free Library. When War of Honor came out, in hardcover only, as the most recent book in a very popular series, it came with a CD containing non-DRM'd copies of every book in the series. Including the brand new hardcover.

On the CD, it said "the contents of this disc may be copied and shared, but not sold."

So, the very day of the release of the book, I sent a complete copy of the text to a guy on the internet. Free. Legally.

And yet, it's working great for them.

Now, there's no way anyone's convincing me that Baen Books makes all their money off concerts. Not a chance. No, they make their money on sales of books.

They have found that, even with popular books that are widely known in their field, making a free copy available seems to increase sales.

That argument is fine, but it is the author's right to waive, not yours.

[Damian]

But how about the argument that, when creators intentionally waive some of their control, they make more money?

Look at the writings on the Baen Books Free Library. When War of Honor came out, in hardcover only, as the most recent book in a very popular series, it came with a CD containing non-DRM'd copies of every book in the series. Including the brand new hardcover.

On the CD, it said "the contents of this disc may be copied and shared, but not sold."

So, the very day of the release of the book, I sent a complete copy of the text to a guy on the internet. Free. Legally.

And yet, it's working great for them.

Now, there's no way anyone's convincing me that Baen Books makes all their money off concerts. Not a chance. No, they make their money on sales of books.

They have found that, even with popular books that are widely known in their field, making a free copy available seems to increase sales.

This one's painfully easy. It's a pain in the ass to read off a CD, so once you know you like it, you're going to buy the book. With music, though, the quality doesn't change much because of digital technology. There is very little difference between the purchased product and the pirated product.

[EricK]

Exactly! In the latter scenario, you are cheating the original author of compensation for the work that he did. In the other scenarios, you are not (since when you give both copies to your friend, you no longer possess the work yourself).

You aren't really cheating him out of anything. In all cases he has exactly the same amount of compensation. It is just in some of the scenarios you or your friend have slightly more or less than in others.

If one of the alternative scenarios was your friend buying the CD himself then you could argue that compared to that the author is being cheated, but why should you make that rash assumption?

This would be technically illegal - you should not have given a copy to a friend, you ethically should only lend out the original.

Fair enough. Assuming the copy is good enough though the end situations are to all intents and purposes identical.

It's the ease of the duplication that makes this kind of piracy so seductive - but would you endorse someone buying a book, then photocopying it and handing it out to a bunch of friends? Is that fair to the author?
I wouldn't do it myself because it would be an utter waste of my time. I would read it andd then lend it out (or give it away). But I wouldn't care if someone else did it.

Is there actually any evidence that more art (in the general sense) or better art is produced as a result of copyright? After all, art has always been produced but copyright is a relatively recent phenomenon. Piracy is on the increase yet the rate that music and films are produced shows no signs of slowing.

BTW I am really a disinterested party in all of this. I don't own any pirated software or films, and the only pirated music I have is on cassette which shows how long ago it happened.

[Damian]

You aren't really cheating him out of anything. In all cases he has exactly the same amount of compensation.

Don't you see the problem with this argument? Consumers received 2x, and the distributor received 1x. What the distributor received is not equivalent to how the market benefitted.

The argument that "consumer B would not have purchased the product if he could not have gotten it for free" is irrelevant. Either a) both distributor and consumer receive value; or b) neither receives value. Not c) consumer gets value, distributor doesn't, tough luck, the CEO of distrutor already owns a porsche.

[Zarkonan]

You aren't really cheating him out of anything. In all cases he has exactly the same amount of compensation. It is just in some of the scenarios you or your friend have slightly more or less than in others. If you are giving someone something for free that would otherwise have been purchased, you are taking away compensation from the author. If you can't undestand that simple principle, head to the CF ;) .

If one of the alternative scenarios was your friend buying the CD himself then you could argue that compared to that the author is being cheated, but why should you make that rash assumption? So its a rash assumption that someone who wants something might buy it if its not available for free? Come on now.


But I wouldn't care if someone else did it. You would if you had created the art, and even if you didn't still care, you shouldn't infringe on another's rights if they choose not to waive them.


Is there actually any evidence that more art (in the general sense) or better art is produced as a result of copyright? After all, art has always been produced but copyright is a relatively recent phenomenon. Piracy is on the increase yet the rate that music and films are produced shows no signs of slowing. Copyright dates to the 1700's in England (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html) . I don't consider that recent.

Whether providing protection to intellectual property advances the arts - well, I don't have numbers in front of me, they would be hard to show. Logically it follows that providing incentives to authors will increase the quantity. The US Constitution explicitly states that this is the purpose of the protections. :huh:

[general_koffi]

Think of every small rock band that plays weddings and bars, every author who writes after work or writes instead of holding down a well paying job.

You are attempting to back up your illegal activity with logic and reason, and you are failing.

Yes, because piracy of bands no one has ever heard of is absolutely rife.

If you want to protest, do it the same way vegetarians protest the unethical treatment of animals: stop eating meat.

If you mean don't buy music... I don't. ;)

Face it. No band has ever been driven to ruin through piracy. If they're a garage band, then no one knows they exist, ergo no one shares their music because hardly anyone actually has it.

If they're Metallica, then they don't get hurt by piracy. They have enough money.

Don't buy 600 Gibson guitars, a mansion on every continent, twenty Porsches, a Learjet, five Russian wives and an island in the South Pacific and then moan like a little bitch when I copy my friend's CD instead of paying $15 to the RIAA.

And if you *are* a garage band, you should be only too glad your name is getting out there at all.

[Damian]

Face it. No band has ever been driven to ruin through piracy.

Probably not, but that's not the only argument. I know it's cliche, but the recording industry is more than just the CEO and some rich guys. They are corporations with employees from CEOs to janitors.

Also, whether or not a band is "ruined" is not the issue. It's whether they realized losses because of piracy.

It's still a law with constitutional basis.

[Zarkonan]

Yes, because piracy of bands no one has ever heard of is absolutely rife.


So let me get this straight - you propose that one set of rules apply to rich artists and another set of rules apply to poor artists?

Would you also like to have different rules for musicians and writers? Because the average writer's salary is $60k (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/snapshots/25.html). - barely able to afford one home. I assume therefore you would want to protect them since they aren't mega-rich.

You, sir, have just been awarded the gold medal in cognitive dissonance. Congratulations.

:rolleyes:

[general_koffi]

They are corporations with employees from CEOs to janitors.

So's the frikken mafia...

It's still a law with constitutional basis.

Until 2003, there was a law in much of your country against two men having sex. :rolleyes:

Argumentum ad legality is a fallacy.

[seebs]

That argument is fine, but it is the author's right to waive, not yours.

I basically agree.

My point is just that, right now, the claim that they are being harmed is not supportable. We have a pure moral right under discussion, and not everyone agrees on either the moral or the legal right.

Try answering this question:

Is it legal for my spouse and I to both have, and both listen to, ripped copies of the same album that we legitimately bought?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this question is simply not known in our legal system. Unlike other groups of people, married people have a very odd state where they can both have full ownership of a single object, rather than each having partial ownership. (At least, that's what I've been told is the case in my home state.)

The question of what exactly the legal bounds are is deep and complicated. The question of the moral bounds is deep, complicated, and widely disputed.

However, we can at least rule out the argument that it's always wrong because it always hurts the artist; it is demonstrably false.

[seebs]

This one's painfully easy. It's a pain in the ass to read off a CD, so once you know you like it, you're going to buy the book. With music, though, the quality doesn't change much because of digital technology. There is very little difference between the purchased product and the pirated product.

Speak for yourself; I give strong preference to electronic copies of books, because they are much easier for me to read. (My PDA doesn't need to be held open to keep its place.)

[Zarkonan]

I basically agree.

My point is just that, right now, the claim that they are being harmed is not supportable. We have a pure moral right under discussion, and not everyone agrees on either the moral or the legal right.
Well, the MPAA and RIAA disagree with you on the level of harm, and do have some numbers to support their claims.


Try answering this question:

Is it legal for my spouse and I to both have, and both listen to, ripped copies of the same album that we legitimately bought?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this question is simply not known in our legal system. Unlike other groups of people, married people have a very odd state where they can both have full ownership of a single object, rather than each having partial ownership. (At least, that's what I've been told is the case in my home state.) I don't have an answer to that, Damian might know as he is a Patent Attorney and its all Federal law (so home state won't matter). It's an interesting legal question, but a fairly specific one that can be easily distinguished from a 17 year old downloading free shit off the internet.

[Damian]

So's the frikken mafia...


We weren't discussing the morality or ethics of corporations. There's an "ethics of eating" thread if you want to have that discussion. Your trite statment doesn't address the point of harm caused to all employees of that corporation.


Until 2003, there was a law in much of your country against two men having sex. :rolleyes:


Ironically, you just defeated your own argument. Our constitution was the basis for overturning that law, which was a state law. :wave:


Argumentum ad legality is a fallacy.

Not in this case it's not. There are no such things as moral absolutes or inherent rights. Discussing the issues in the context of government given rights is perfectly acceptable. In any given society, adherence to laws and structure can be discussed when discussing right and wrong.

[Damian]

Try answering this question:

Is it legal for my spouse and I to both have, and both listen to, ripped copies of the same album that we legitimately bought?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this question is simply not known in our legal system. Unlike other groups of people, married people have a very odd state where they can both have full ownership of a single object, rather than each having partial ownership. (At least, that's what I've been told is the case in my home state.)


You pretty much answered your own question. In this context, as well as in others, a married couple is considered a single entity. Further, when you purchase a product, you agree to it's licensing restrictions, and i'm pretty sure standard things like cds are per household. Things that aren't may include additional notations like "limited license." For example, a lot of software for business use is limited license, and each purchased copy is licensed for only one machine.



However, we can at least rule out the argument that it's always wrong because it always hurts the artist; it is demonstrably false.

Agreed, but i don't think anyone's arguing absolutes on this side of the argument, but I typically see lots of absolutes on the other side.

[general_koffi]

So let me get this straight - you propose that one set of rules apply to rich artists and another set of rules apply to poor artists?

No, the law should be the same. Illegal to sell someone else's work for profit - not illegal to distribute it or obtain it where money isn't involved.

However, highly succesful artists won't feel a thing. And not-so-succesful artists don't get pirated.

[Damian]

Speak for yourself; I give strong preference to electronic copies of books, because they are much easier for me to read. (My PDA doesn't need to be held open to keep its place.)

That is you, of course. Obviously it doesn't hold for the majority, or else sales of books wouldn't increase if they could just get it for free on cd. You can't ignore the distinction between books and digital media.

[general_koffi]

We weren't discussing the morality or ethics of corporations. There's an "ethics of eating" thread if you want to have that discussion. Your trite statment doesn't address the point of harm caused to all employees of that corporation.

My modestly concealed point was addressing the fact that the welfare of employees of a corrupt institution is largely irrelevant.

"We can't shut down the Nazi war machine. They employee people with families!"

You will please excuse the hyperbole.

Ironically, you just defeated your own argument. Our constitution was the basis for overturning that law, which was a state law.

Fine then, your constitution banned alcohol for over a decade.

Look, just because a law isn't unconstitutional, it does not mean that it is isn't a bad law.

Until it was thrown out the window, the constitution of my country enshrined Apartheid. Beat that.

There are no such things as moral absolutes or inherent rights.

I agree. But there is a fairly solid moral constant most people can agree on... If it hurts someone, it is probably wrong. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then it cannot be wrong.

Who does piracy hurt? The millionaires, or the bands who don't have their stuff pirated because they're too obscure?

[Damian]

My modestly concealed point was addressing the fact that the welfare of employees of a corrupt institution is largely irrelevant.

"We can't shut down the Nazi war machine. They employee people with families!"

You will please excuse the hyperbole.


Godwin's law, I win!


Fine then, your constitution banned alcohol for over a decade.


...because our Constitution is self-correcting. Protecting intellectual property has been part of it since its inception. When we correct it and/or find a better way, I won't complain.


Look, just because a law isn't unconstitutional, it does not mean that it is isn't a bad law.


True, but rationalizing breaking a law just because one is too cheap to pay 99 cents on itunes and can get away with it isn't necessarily "right" just because the product, which is not a necessity of any kind, is priced more than you think it should be.


Until it was thrown out the window, the constitution of my country enshrined Apartheid. Beat that.


There was this slavery issue...



I agree. But there is a fairly solid moral constant most people can agree on... If it hurts someone, it is probably wrong. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then it cannot be wrong.


But the inconstant is the definition of "hurt." In this country and in many others, financial harm is absolutely recognized. It doesn't matter whether the person suffering the harm is worth 2 million or 2 dollars.


Who does piracy hurt? The millionaires, or the bands who don't have their stuff pirated because they're too obscure?

I gave an explanation, but you dismissed it because you believe the recording industry is inherently corrupt and therefore all of its employees and beneficiaries are exempt from consideration, so there's nothing else I can say.

[seebs]

If you are giving someone something for free that would otherwise have been purchased, you are taking away compensation from the author. If you can't undestand that simple principle, head to the CF ;) .

But it's quite possible that it wouldn't have been purchased, in which case, no one is losing compensation.

The tricky part is figuring out which is which. The record industry's approach, of assuming everyone would have paid full price for everything they have ever heard, is perhaps not the most accurate.

So its a rash assumption that someone who wants something might buy it if its not available for free? Come on now.

No, it's a rash assumption that they would certainly buy it.

You can't take "I might buy your CD" to the bank.

Copyright dates to the 1700's in England (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html) . I don't consider that recent.

In the context of morality, I do; it dates back precisely to widespread availability of presses. It was a response to a technological innovation; no one has yet established that it was the right response.

Whether providing protection to intellectual property advances the arts - well, I don't have numbers in front of me, they would be hard to show. Logically it follows that providing incentives to authors will increase the quantity. The US Constitution explicitly states that this is the purpose of the protections. :huh:

Yes. Which, it turns out, means that the question of advancement is more important than the question of the law; the law is by design subordinate to the question of what genuinely advances the arts and sciences.

[seebs]

Well, the MPAA and RIAA disagree with you on the level of harm, and do have some numbers to support their claims.

Their numbers are willfully deceptive, and I do not believe them.

All the people I've seen who have actually done the experiment and kept meaningful records have shown substantial increases in sales from making things available for free.

The RIAA is not doing apples-to-apples comparisons, and furthermore, might be seen as having a very strong bias in their reporting.

Janis Ian and Baen Books are both in the business of selling content, and both have detailed numbers showing that they will sell more content if they give stuff away.

I don't have an answer to that, Damian might know as he is a Patent Attorney and its all Federal law (so home state won't matter). It's an interesting legal question, but a fairly specific one that can be easily distinguished from a 17 year old downloading free shit off the internet.

It is, but it highlights one of the problematic areas; we don't know what exactly is or isn't fair use. Given that tapes and music CDs have a royalty to the RIAA in them that is charged on the basis of the assumption that they will be used to copy music, it seems to me that it is ludicrous to claim that it's unethical to copy music on them; the royalty has been paid.

[seebs]

That is you, of course. Obviously it doesn't hold for the majority, or else sales of books wouldn't increase if they could just get it for free on cd. You can't ignore the distinction between books and digital media.

I don't think the assumption holds. Jim Baen (R.I.P.) said in email to me once that the reason he does this isn't that he thinks people want paper; it's that by and large, his customers aren't thieves. And, sure enough, they get lots of sales of their electronic books, even though they use no DRM. Why? Because if someone sends me a book and says "check this out", and I like it, the obvious response is for me to go buy everything by that author I can get my grubby little e-paws on.

In the end, most of us are fine with paying artists for their work. Systems like Baen's work just fine, and don't depend solely on a preference for paper.

[general_koffi]

I gave an explanation, but you dismissed it because you believe the recording industry is inherently corrupt and therefore all of its employees and beneficiaries are exempt from consideration, so there's nothing else I can say.

Oh, okay. The RIAA is hurt. You acknowledge, then, that the artists aren't harmed in the slightest?

Look, publishers are necessary, I'll admit. They are necessary because legal sales of music/whatever are necessary, otherwise the whole system collapses. That's not a worry, or course, because piracy doesn't work unless quite a few people obtain the data to begin with.

But what the RIAA and their kin are doing is this... They are suing people for not buying their product, because those people can get it for free somewhere else.

Imagine a company which distributes plant seeds. They'll sell you the seed, you can plant the tree and you can eat the apples which grow from it.

But God forbid you give the seeds from the apples you grow to someone else! God forbid you let someone else eat from your tree! They have to buy their own damn seed from the seed distribution company!

[EricK]

If you are giving someone something for free that would otherwise have been purchased, you are taking away compensation from the author. If you can't undestand that simple principle, head to the CF ;) .

It is the "that otherwise would be purchased" that I dispute.

So its a rash assumption that someone who wants something might buy it if its not available for free? Come on now.
And I dispute it here too. Whatever the obviousness of your argument, the real world seems to show that people still buy music and films. Even people who illegally copy music and films still spend money on music and films which they could get for free. So the evidence seems to be that people mainly pirate stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy. This is ignoring the other evidence which suggests that people who pirate a wide range of stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy end up buying stuff they wouldn't have otherwise bought but for their exposure to it via piracy.

If you have evidence to the contrary then I would be interested to see it.

You would if you had created the art, and even if you didn't still care, you shouldn't infringe on another's rights if they choose not to waive them.
These are rather peculair rights though. Suppose my friend hires an interior designer to help her decorate her house. When it's finished, I go round look at what is done and do my house up exactly the same way. Is this illegal? If not, what is the difference?

Copyright dates to the 1700's in England (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html) . I don't consider that recent.

It is compared to the dawn of art. And was their a blossoming of creativity after this or not? If the evidence doesn't show this then any arguments that copyright are necessary to allow art to flourish are dubious.

Whether providing protection to intellectual property advances the arts - well, I don't have numbers in front of me, they would be hard to show.
Exactly. And yet it is treated as if it were an obvious truth.

Logically it follows that providing incentives to authors will increase the quantity. The US Constitution explicitly states that this is the purpose of the protections. :huh:
When it comes to being touched by the muse, I'm not sure incentives come into it. The US constitution can state what it likes, that will not affect reality one way or the other!

[Damian]

I don't think the assumption holds. Jim Baen (R.I.P.) said in email to me once that the reason he does this isn't that he thinks people want paper; it's that by and large, his customers aren't thieves. And, sure enough, they get lots of sales of their electronic books, even though they use no DRM. Why? Because if someone sends me a book and says "check this out", and I like it, the obvious response is for me to go buy everything by that author I can get my grubby little e-paws on.

In the end, most of us are fine with paying artists for their work. Systems like Baen's work just fine, and don't depend solely on a preference for paper.

Well, i don't think i was asserting that it's "solely" on a preference for paper. I was pointing out one distinction.

I think it's pretty easy to acknowledge other distinctions in the target consumer. You yourself noted "his consumers aren't thieves." I think there are different consumers buying his books than there are pirating video games and music, for example.

[Damian]

Oh, okay. The RIAA is hurt. You acknowledge, then, that the artists aren't harmed in the slightest?


No, i didn't acknowledge that at all. See my point regarding economic harm. There are also more subtle arguments tha could be made regarding the success of the recording industry being tied to its ability to support (e.g. take on risk of) and produce lesser known or "new" talent.


Look, publishers are necessary, I'll admit. They are necessary because legal sales of music/whatever are necessary, otherwise the whole system collapses. That's not a worry, or course, because piracy doesn't work unless quite a few people obtain the data to begin with.

But what the RIAA and their kin are doing is this... They are suing people for not buying their product, because those people can get it for free somewhere else.


The sue as a deterrent though, not to recover, and it is their right to do so. That does not make them corrupt.


Imagine a company which distributes plant seeds. They'll sell you the seed, you can plant the tree and you can eat the apples which grow from it.

But God forbid you give the seeds from the apples you grow to someone else! God forbid you let someone else eat from your tree! They have to buy their own damn seed from the seed distribution company!

That's not the same. That's like the intelligent design Coke can argument, and for the same reason (although inverse).

[general_koffi]

No, i didn't acknowledge that at all. See my point regarding economic harm. There are also more subtle arguments tha could be made regarding the success of the recording industry being tied to its ability to support (e.g. take on risk of) and produce lesser known or "new" talent.

Sure. But piracy does not present a credible risk to bands starting out. A band which is high-risk is one which no one has heard of. They have not been pirated (for obvious reasons), and they won't be pirated until they have succeeded. Until they have succeeded. A band has to succeed before people will start pirating their stuff in any significant quantities. A band which has succeeded is not a risk for the publisher...

That's not the same. That's like the intelligent design Coke can argument, and for the same reason (although inverse).

Uh. What?

[seebs]

Well, i don't think i was asserting that it's "solely" on a preference for paper. I was pointing out one distinction.

I think it's pretty easy to acknowledge other distinctions in the target consumer. You yourself noted "his consumers aren't thieves." I think there are different consumers buying his books than there are pirating video games and music, for example.

Could be.

That said, most of the people I know will pay for a product they like if they are exposed to it for free, even if they are technically able to continue using it free.

The exceptions are cases where there really wouldn't be a sale otherwise no matter what. I gave an art program to my roommate. (I no longer have it, so this is a legitimate thing to do, as I understand it.) Would my roommate have otherwise bought it? No. My roommate would otherwise still be using Corel PhotoPAINT *8*, complete with printer dialogs showing up in garbled unicode because it's not compatible with XP, because my roommate HAS NO MONEY.

So, even if my roommate just "stole" a copy, they still haven't had their sales harmed. (As is, they DID get a sale for that license, and only one person is using it.)

Is absolutely every case like that? No. However, when you have teenagers who have a pirated collection of 1,000 games, every one of them obtained within a week of its commercial release when it still went for $49.99, there is no way you're convincing me that the real loss to the publishers, retail stores, and so on, is anywhere near $49,990. Realistically, I could easily believe that, if there were no warez copies available, some of those kids would have $500 in purchased games, but most wouldn't.

[Damian]

Sure. But piracy does not present a credible risk to bands starting out. A band which is high-risk is one which no one has heard of. They have not been pirated (for obvious reasons), and they won't be pirated until they have succeeded. Until they have succeeded. A band has to succeed before people will start pirating their stuff in any significant quantities. A band which has succeeded is not a risk for the publisher...


We're talking indirect risk, not direct. If the recording industry feels they won't make an adequate return (in cd sales) for an artist, they will not take a risk on them and that artist may never even get a chance to succeed. The producer is not going to be as likely to take risks if the market as a whole (e.g. cd sales) is shaky. It doesn't matter if the piracy risk for a particular band is low if the industry lacks confidence in the entire market.



Uh. What?


Naturally occuring items vs. items designed and created by man. Distinction.

[finix]

Sure. But piracy does not present a credible risk to bands starting out. A band which is high-risk is one which no one has heard of. They have not been pirated (for obvious reasons), and they won't be pirated until they have succeeded. Until they have succeeded. A band has to succeed before people will start pirating their stuff in any significant quantities. A band which has succeeded is not a risk for the publisher...


I guess he means they need to make more profit to compensate for losses due to 'lesser known or "new" talent'.

Although I don't see that major labels are doing anything but produce either safe bets with track record or re-release the same momentary hip shit over and over.

[Damian]

Is absolutely every case like that? No. However, when you have teenagers who have a pirated collection of 1,000 games, every one of them obtained within a week of its commercial release when it still went for $49.99, there is no way you're convincing me that the real loss to the publishers, retail stores, and so on, is anywhere near $49,990. Realistically, I could easily believe that, if there were no warez copies available, some of those kids would have $500 in purchased games, but most wouldn't.

I agree with the rest of your post, more or less, so i won't comment. But...

Of course the real loss isn't just simply (cost x n). It is, however, economic loss, because that number includes expected profits as well as manufacturing/publishing/etc costs.

The gaming industry is a good example because of how horribly it's been doing lately. Publishers and game studios, generally, are not doing that well, and it's becoming harder and harder for the majority of games to actually make money. I think it's a lot harder to rationalize and write off any harm in the same manner people do with the recording industry.

[baron greenback]

All the whining about "it's stealing because you would have bought the music otherwise" smacks of entitlement.

This is the truth:

The music industry does not deserve my money.

Actually, no one deserves my money. That's why it's my money. I deserve my money, no one else. There is literally nothing anyone in the world can do for the populace as a whole that would make them deserve my money.

Someone doing something for me, specifically, after I agreed to pay them, deserves my money.

There are only three entities, other than myself, whose money I, in turn, deserve. One of them is my employer, one of them owes me seventy bucks, and the last owes me sixty bucks. On payday, that list should be lowered to one entity.

It used to be that when I sold someone something to someone, it was theirs to do with as they pleased. If someone commited a crime with something, it was their responsibility. If the thing broke, I could just give them another one or a refund. I could keep industry secrets, of course (like, say, the recipe for coca-cola). That's understandable.

Burning music to CD is hardly an industry secret, of course.

Now, if I sell something to someone, I get to keep "intellectual rights", spell out exactly what the other person is and is not allowed to do with what they thought was theirs, offer the right to do whatever it is they please with what I sold them under an "enterprise license" for over ten thousand dollars a unit, I can be held accountable if something goes wrong with it (which is probably where the money is being lost), that refund or a new one now also comes with an out-of-court settlement, and now, now, I can hold other people accountable when my industry secrets are leaked, and other people figure out how to provide what I was the only guy providing.

To be honest, if the entire CD/DVD industry collapsed tomorrow, and all music was relegated to public radio, podcasts, and live shows, I would not have a problem. I don't even download music anymore. Everyone else has more than enough, and they're more than happy to bring it over and play it.

And, of course, I listen to the radio.

Downloading music's too much work anyway. And it's not like bands are putting out music worth listening to anymore.

[baron greenback]

..

[Collden]

Appealing to the constitution seems a pretty thin argument against uncontrolled file sharing, it's bad because it says so in this grand old document?

[Ryzo]

Not in this case it's not. There are no such things as moral absolutes or inherent rights. Discussing the issues in the context of government given rights is perfectly acceptable. In any given society, adherence to laws and structure can be discussed when discussing right and wrong.
Are you implying that it is permissible to pirate in Canada where it is legal, but impermissible to pirate in the US because it is illegal?

[seebs]

I agree with the rest of your post, more or less, so i won't comment. But...

Of course the real loss isn't just simply (cost x n). It is, however, economic loss, because that number includes expected profits as well as manufacturing/publishing/etc costs.

Well, yes, but my point is, the "expected profits" that are lost when a kid picks up $50k (retail price) of "warez" is nowhere NEAR $50k.

I mean, apart from the lack of materials costs, just imagine that the "real" profit per copy of a game sold is $20, including everything. So, in theory, if I am persuaded to buy your game, you make $20. (Gross oversimplification, yes.)

If I decide that, rather than buying one game, I am going to download 50 from warez sites, the lost profit isn't $1,000; it's $20.

The gaming industry is a good example because of how horribly it's been doing lately. Publishers and game studios, generally, are not doing that well, and it's becoming harder and harder for the majority of games to actually make money. I think it's a lot harder to rationalize and write off any harm in the same manner people do with the recording industry.

I only partially agree. I do agree that the game industry suffers. I do not think, however, that all that much of this suffering is due to warez. It's an intensely competitive market in which a lot of what's produced is utter crap. The ever more egregious copy-protection systems and return policies have combined to make a system where I refuse to buy games that I think I will "probably" enjoy; I will only buy a game if I have very solid information about it.

I bought just about every Heroes of Might & Magic game. I have Mac and PC versions of I and II, and the only reason I don't have a Mac version of III is that I was very unhappy to find that they omitted the campaign editor. I have every expansion pack ever released.

I didn't buy HOMM V, because I have no expectation that I would be able to get it to run on my system, because they won't tell me which copy-protection scheme they used.

Oblivion and Galactic Civilizations II both came with no copy protection, and I bought them anyway, because I love having a game that I can just play without jumping through hoops.

At this point, I think there's real evidence that a great deal of harm is being done to the industry by the anti-warez hysteria. The DRM companies are hardly blameless; one of them made a point of ostentatiously linking to warez copies of GalCiv II, as though their copy protection scheme would have had any effect at all.

But really... Consider RTS games. I like about one in ten of them, maybe. How many are there? How much money are they putting into gloriously elaborate cut scenes that I never watch? The production values are huge, but are they really offering anything I can't get from something I already have? The only RTS I've bought in the last year or so is the recent update to WH40K, and that just because I really like the company and want to support them; it's not as if I wasn't plenty happy with the one I already had.

Also, do not underestimate the impact MMOs are having on other games. I used to buy at least one or two video games a month, pretty much no matter what. Now everything I consider buying has to pass the test "would I enjoy this as much as three months of WoW", and most of them don't make it.

So, while there's tons of warez out there, I don't think the warez are having nearly the affect alleged by the industry people. Are they having some effect? Certainly. But I don't think they are responsible for the huge overspending on pointless fluff and the militant opposition to new ideas that seems to radiate from the industry.

It's still possible to do more of the same, and do well at it. GalCiv II really is that good, especially when compared to trash like MOO3. But it's a much more competitive market; MOO2 had virtually nothing to compete with, but MOO3 had to compete with GalCiv and Space Empires IV, and any future release has to somehow convince people it's better than GalCiv 2.

Yeah, the games industry is suffering. But I don't think it's pirates that made Daikatana fail.

[Damian]

Are you implying that it is permissible to pirate in Canada where it is legal, but impermissible to pirate in the US because it is illegal?

If it's not illegal, then it's not pirating, is it? :)

So, to a certain extent, yes. In some contexts, countries are required to give deference to others' IP systems, but not all (through treaties and such). But I certainly wouldn't expect Canada's drinking age to conform to ours, for example.

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a ridiculous situation! I can buy a cd and give it to a friend. I can copy a cd. I can even buy a cd, copy it and give both to my friend. But I can't copy it and give just the copy to my friend!

Am I alllowed to lend a cd to my friend if I have already made a legal backup for myself? Suppose he is the sort of friend who often forgets to return what he borrows and I'm a generous sort of guy who doesn't mind that?

So long as all copies are in the hands of the same person they are just backups. When they are spread between people so they can be used by multiple people then they get into the realm of piracy.

The basic issue is one buyer = one user at a time.

[blastula]

Technically, piracy is stealing. But if you're only doing it to sample a song or two from an artist, then I think it's fine. It's when you download whole albums or movies that you cross a line. Bittorent makes it so easy now and so very tempting.

I confess I occasionally downloaded episodes of HBO shows.

I should be whipped.

[Loren Pechtel]

Their numbers are willfully deceptive, and I do not believe them.

All the people I've seen who have actually done the experiment and kept meaningful records have shown substantial increases in sales from making things available for free.

The RIAA is not doing apples-to-apples comparisons, and furthermore, might be seen as having a very strong bias in their reporting.

Janis Ian and Baen Books are both in the business of selling content, and both have detailed numbers showing that they will sell more content if they give stuff away.

Something to keep in mind about the Baen free library--it normally has only the first book or two of a series. The only situation I'm aware of where they have given away copies of later works are those CD's in some of the books--and those CD's are only in the first release of a new work. Go buy War of Honor now and you't won't find a CD in it.

[Loren Pechtel]

But really... Consider RTS games. I like about one in ten of them, maybe. How many are there? How much money are they putting into gloriously elaborate cut scenes that I never watch? The production values are huge, but are they really offering anything I can't get from something I already have? The only RTS I've bought in the last year or so is the recent update to WH40K, and that just because I really like the company and want to support them; it's not as if I wasn't plenty happy with the one I already had.

Yeah--they blame piracy for declining sales when the real reason is they release crap. For many years now my policy has been to never buy something when it first came out, I wait and see what people say about it. Generally that ends up being that I don't buy it because there are too many gripes.

Lots and lots of eye candy, serious deficiencies in the core game. If you want my $ you'll need to move some of that budget from eye candy to gameplay. It's that eye candy looks nice to reviewers and they generally don't play enough to see the deficiencies. I had a real example of this many years ago with the Diablo II expansion pack. Some gaming magazine had a walkthrough. It prompted me to write in griping about the fact that the writer obviously hadn't actually done it at all as his recommended strategy was specifically prohibited by the game at that point as he would have found out instantly had he ever actually tried it. No response from the magazine, but the portion of my comments not critical of the reviewer showed up in a later issue.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't think the assumption holds. Jim Baen (R.I.P.) said in email to me once that the reason he does this isn't that he thinks people want paper; it's that by and large, his customers aren't thieves. And, sure enough, they get lots of sales of their electronic books, even though they use no DRM. Why? Because if someone sends me a book and says "check this out", and I like it, the obvious response is for me to go buy everything by that author I can get my grubby little e-paws on.

In the end, most of us are fine with paying artists for their work. Systems like Baen's work just fine, and don't depend solely on a preference for paper.

As a point of interest, the higher ups in DC comics have come out to say they believe downloading comics helps rather then hurts sales. Their reasoning is that those that download either would never buy comics in the first place and those that do buy comics still will because we're collector's at heart who would rather have a paper copy. They've also said they believe it introduces people to comics who then go on to buy. It's certainly reintroduced me and spurred me to spend money.

another medium benefitting from illeagal downloads.

[WishboneDawn]

Yeah--they blame piracy for declining sales when the real reason is they release crap. For many years now my policy has been to never buy something when it first came out, I wait and see what people say about it. Generally that ends up being that I don't buy it because there are too many gripes.

Agreed. We buy from the bargain bin so if a game sucks it's no big loss. For newer games I download first and buy later. I'm not dropping $70 on a piece of crap.

[seebs]

Something to keep in mind about the Baen free library--it normally has only the first book or two of a series. The only situation I'm aware of where they have given away copies of later works are those CD's in some of the books--and those CD's are only in the first release of a new work. Go buy War of Honor now and you't won't find a CD in it.

That may well be, but note that I have copies of the whole series that I have been given permission to copy and share freely. So the copies stay permitted, even when they don't happen to be giving away a given one.

It works pretty well. I'm a big fan, certainly. The utterly trivial task of mailing someone a copy of a book was a world-shaking experience, because I'd never expected that I would ever in my life be permitted by a major commercial publisher to just freely send someone a copy of a book currently out in hardcover.

As another interesting case, I'm told some textbook publishers have chosen to make whole books available online.

[Dhaeron]

Technically, piracy is stealing.
Bullshit.
Techincally, piracy is violation of copyrights. If you talk about technicalities, get them right.

[Damian]

Bullshit.
Techincally, piracy is violation of copyrights. If you talk about technicalities, get them right.

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stEl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto·len /'stO-l&n/; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

Technically, you should read a dictionary instead of letting your bias get in the way of your objectivity.

Copyright is intellectual property. Violating intellectual property law is taking intellectual property.

[Jaggers]

Technically, you should read a dictionary instead of letting your bias get in the way of your objectivity.

Copyright is intellectual property. Violating intellectual property law is taking intellectual property.Technically, you should actually look at what the law says since we're dealing with legal terminology. Copying material in violation of a copyright is copyright infringement. Period. No court on the planet is going to charge or convict you for stealing if you download music because it's simply not stealing. You have to deprive someone of the use and enjoyment of their property for it to be theft, which copying simply doesn't do. :banghead:

[Jaggers]

Ironically, you just defeated your own argument. Our constitution was the basis for overturning that law, which was a state law. :wave: Uh no. Until overturned, sodomy laws were perfectly valid enforceable laws. A pretty good argument can be made that copyright law, as it is on the books today, violates the spirit and intent of the Constitutional mandate given by the Constitution for Congress to enact copyright laws. Keep in mind the notion of limited Constitutional authority---The only reason Congress has any right to enact copyright laws is because the Constitution explicitly gives them that authority. And the laws on the books today have effectively made copyright inifinte in duration, in violation of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[Damian]

Technically, you should actually look at what the law says since we're dealing with legal terminology. Copying material in violation of a copyright is copyright infringement. Period. No court on the planet is going to charge or convict you for stealing if you download music because it's simply not stealing. You have to deprive someone of the use and enjoyment of their property for it to be theft, which copying simply doesn't do. :banghead:

You're equivocating the lay "stealing" with the legal term "theft." When he said "technically," i don't think he meant it was analogous to the legal definition of stealing.

Here, though, according to the general definition that I provided, you are depriving them of their property (intellectual property; copyright is owneship of a right to copy). It is, in a general sense, stealing. It's subtle, so I understand why it's so difficult to see through one's own bias in this context.

[Damian]

Uh no. Until overturned, sodomy laws were perfectly valid enforceable laws.


They were state laws. We were discussing a constitutional basis, and laws supported by the constitution. Sodomy laws were not. You never would have seen me arguing that one shouldn't commit sodomy because the state law said so.


A pretty good argument can be made that copyright law, as it is on the books today, violates the spirit and intent of the Constitutional mandate given by the Constitution for Congress to enact copyright laws. Keep in mind the notion of limited Constitutional authority---The only reason Congress has any right to enact copyright laws is because the Constitution explicitly gives them that authority. And the laws on the books today have effectively made copyright inifinte in duration, in violation of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

Except no one is arguing that they should be absolute, only that there is constitutional basis.

[Zarkonan]

Many of you seem to be laboring under three faulty premises for your arguments that pirating is ok:

1. Pirating music actually increases sales - even if it does, it will only be in some cases, and even if it does that is not reason to impose the decision to waive intellectual property rights on others. If the individual artist grants you permission to copy and distribute, that's fine, but you can't use this reasoning as part of an argument to sanction all pirating.

2. Pirating doesn't harm musicians - please cite an objective source to back this point up. The whole claim is based on some dream that you only pirate stuff you wouldn't normally buy. This is ridiculous. It may be true some of the time, but in order to make that argument, I challenge you to cite some sort of back up.

3. You all fail to address how your views on pirating would affect other industries - writers and game developers. Graphic designers. You rationalize stealing from musicians, but I would love to know how you rationalize stealing from Relic Entertainment or Black Isle Studios when it was active or Cavedog when it was alive. Tell me with a straight face you aren't fucking those guys over.

[Jaggers]

You're equivocating the lay "stealing" with the legal term "theft." When he said "technically," i don't think he meant it was analogous to the legal definition of stealing.

Here, though, according to the general definition that I provided, you are depriving them of their property (intellectual property; copyright is owneship of a right to copy). It is, in a general sense, stealing. It's subtle, so I understand why it's so difficult to see through one's own bias in this context.:rolleyes: That's ironic. I'm the one equivocating? All you're doing is troping on the concept of "stealing" to demonize a particular activity that is not in fact stealing. You want to link in people's mind all the negative ideas and moral judgments associated with stealing to copyright infringement. That is the very definition of equivocation. I've seen this many times before in these type of discussions.

And no, a copyright infringer is not depriving the copyright holder of any use or enjoyment of his copyright. He is still free to make all the copies he wants and sell them. The copyright infringer has not in any way restrained this right. I'm not inclined to look it up, but there is a court case out there (I believe from SCOTA, not sure) that explicitly rejects the application of criminal theft laws to copyright infringement.

[Jaggers]

They were state laws. We were discussing a constitutional basis, and laws supported by the constitution. Sodomy laws were not. You never would have seen me arguing that one shouldn't commit sodomy because the state law said so.

Except no one is arguing that they should be absolute, only that there is constitutional basis.And you're missing the point. Whether they were state laws, or Federal laws, or Constitutional laws doesn't matter a wit in this discussion. The sodomy law analogy is a reductio ad absurdum. "Surely, you wouldn't say that an activity's moral status in any way turns on its legal status. You wouldn't say sodomy was immoral just because there were sodomy laws that made it illegal, would you?" The fact that sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in no way changes the moral status of any sodomy that occurred before the law changed. Likewise, the moral status of any current copyirght infringement is in no way impacted by any future change in its legal status that could result by way of a legal argument such as the one I sketched just now.

[Damian]

:rolleyes: That's ironic. I'm the one equivocating? All you're doing is troping on the concept of "stealing" to demonize a particular activity that is not in fact stealing.


I'm not demonizing. I'm just drawing a parallel to another activity.



You want to link in people's mind all the negative ideas and moral judgments associated with stealing to copyright infringement.


No I don't. I'm just using simple language and concepts to demonstrate that depriving someone of property includes physical property and intangible property defined by our laws. Ever hear of identify theft? Right of publicity? All intangible property that can be stolen.


That is the very definition of equivocation. I've seen this many times before in these type of discussions.


No, this is:

"It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.

For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."

Nowhere am I asserting that the same term having two different definitions means the same thing in two different contexts. I'm not asserting that the legal "theft" and the lay "theft" are the same. You are. Instead, I'm saying that copyright violation can be construed as theft. Indeed, just the opposite of equivocation, actually.



And no, a copyright infringer is not depriving the copyright holder of any use or enjoyment of his copyright. He is still free to make all the copies he wants and sell them.


Wrong. Experience and knowledge of intellectual property would provide you with the knowledge the most fundamental right of intellectual property law is the right to exclude others. This is the property right that you are depriving a copyright holder of. It's intangible, but it's there.


The copyright infringer has not in any way restrained this right.


See above.



I'm not inclined to look it up, but there is a court case out there (I believe from SCOTA, not sure) that explicitly rejects the application of criminal theft laws to copyright infringement.

Irrelevant, because I'm not maintaining that it's equivalent to criminal theft laws, merely that falls under the dictionary definition of stealing. And it does.

There's a reason why it's legally designated "property."

[Damian]

And you're missing the point. Whether they were state laws, or Federal laws, or Constitutional laws doesn't matter a wit in this discussion. The sodomy law analogy is a reductio ad absurdum. "Surely, you wouldn't say that an activity's moral status in any way turns on its legal status. You wouldn't say sodomy was immoral just because there were sodomy laws that made it illegal, would you?" The fact that sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in no way changes the moral status of any sodomy that occurred before the law changed. Likewise, the moral status of any current copyirght infringement is in no way impacted by any future change in its legal status that could result by way of a legal argument such as the one I sketched just now.

No, you are.

"There are no such things as moral absolutes or inherent rights. Discussing the issues in the context of government given rights is perfectly acceptable. In any given society, adherence to laws and structure can be discussed when discussing right and wrong."

I'm not claiming that existence of a law is definitive proof of the immorality of something. It was brought up as a proof of a right. Since all rights are granted by the government, then right to IP is a valid right. Depriving someone of a valid right is arguably wrong. The sodomy analogy is not remotely relevant.

[Perm]

Being able to download "pirated" music has caused me to focus my disposable income to music I like. Whereas in the early 90s I would have purchased something I thought was going to be good, I now listen to it and make sure it's good, then purchase.

[Damian]

Being able to download "pirated" music has caused me to focus my disposable income to music I like. Whereas in the early 90s I would have purchased something I thought was going to be good, I now listen to it and make sure it's good, then purchase.

This is the ideal situation. The laws need to be adapted to the digital age to allow for this, at the very least.

[Damian]

Being able to download "pirated" music has caused me to focus my disposable income to music I like. Whereas in the early 90s I would have purchased something I thought was going to be good, I now listen to it and make sure it's good, then purchase.

This is the ideal situation. The laws need to be adapted to the digital age to allow for this, at the very least.

[Dhaeron]

<snip>Technically, you should read a dictionary instead of letting your bias get in the way of your objectivity.

Copyright is intellectual property. Violating intellectual property law is taking intellectual property.
If we take the legal techincally, it's a violation of copyright because pretty much all legal systems in the world say so (i don't know of any that do not). Not theft, period. I'm not even going to argue about that. If you want to know what the law is, look at the law, not at a dictionary.
If we want to analyze why it's not equivalent to theft that's also easy.
a) "Piracy" does not reduce the property of the victim.
b) "Piracy" is not done to something physcial (yes this is important.)
"Piracy" is the act of using something without permission, where the intellectual property owner is the one to grant permission or not. As opposed to stealing wich is the taking of someone else's property without permission. The first is a violation of anothers rights, the second is a property crime. IF you really want to compare "piracy" to another crime, compare it to sneaking into a cinema without paying, not to shoplifting.

[Loren Pechtel]

The best solution I have seen on making things downloadable:

Look at Baen's site. You can find the first quarter of what I believe is all of their new (and this goes back as far as they have been doing this, they don't take the old stuff down) books have the first quarter of the book available for free on-line. You can check out any book and see if you like it or not.

[Damian]

If we take the legal techincally, it's a violation of copyright because pretty much all legal systems in the world say so (i don't know of any that do not). Not theft, period. I'm not even going to argue about that. If you want to know what the law is, look at the law, not at a dictionary.
If we want to analyze why it's not equivalent to theft that's also easy.
a) "Piracy" does not reduce the property of the victim.
b) "Piracy" is not done to something physcial (yes this is important.)
"Piracy" is the act of using something without permission, where the intellectual property owner is the one to grant permission or not. As opposed to stealing wich is the taking of someone else's property without permission. The first is a violation of anothers rights, the second is a property crime. IF you really want to compare "piracy" to another crime, compare it to sneaking into a cinema without paying, not to shoplifting.

Piracy is the act of robbery on the high seas.

[Yggdrasill]

Right and wrong has little importance in the matter, freely available media is the future, and record companies et al. have two options:

1. Adapt
2. Cease to be

The harder the record companies fight piracy, the less useful their product becomes, and the more likely people are inclined to pirate it.

From Sony using rootkits, to CDs not working in many CD players, the record companies have to date only shot themselves in the foot. Consumers aren't enemies, but if record companies treat them as such, they will be.

[Collden]

Many of you seem to be laboring under three faulty premises for your arguments that pirating is ok:

1. Pirating music actually increases sales - even if it does, it will only be in some cases, and even if it does that is not reason to impose the decision to waive intellectual property rights on others. If the individual artist grants you permission to copy and distribute, that's fine, but you can't use this reasoning as part of an argument to sanction all pirating.

2. Pirating doesn't harm musicians - please cite an objective source to back this point up. The whole claim is based on some dream that you only pirate stuff you wouldn't normally buy. This is ridiculous. It may be true some of the time, but in order to make that argument, I challenge you to cite some sort of back up.

3. You all fail to address how your views on pirating would affect other industries - writers and game developers. Graphic designers. You rationalize stealing from musicians, but I would love to know how you rationalize stealing from Relic Entertainment or Black Isle Studios when it was active or Cavedog when it was alive. Tell me with a straight face you aren't fucking those guys over.

Actually, the anti-sharing wing is the one making positive claims about the impact of unauthorized file sharing on the media industry without any objective studies to prove it, whereas there are several statistical university studies (http://w1.nada.kth.se/media/Research/MusicLessons/Reports/MusicLessons-DL4.pdf.,.http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf) reaching the conclusion that it is not correlated with the decline in sales. The burden of proof is on the anti-piracy folks, especially since their current course of action - to attempt to throttle the unauthorized file sharing rather than work with it - is far from the path of least resistance for anyone.

Looking back at the history of unauthorized spread of "intellectual property", I don't think anyone can argue that there hasn't been a consistent trend of increased public control and "free spread" of released intellectual property, starting with the phonograph and radio, going on with magnetic tapes, VCR's, CD's, etc. In the long run, did the media industry ever suffer from this trend of consumers getting more for free as copying and distribution of media became better, faster and cheaper? They did intensly object to every one of these technological developments that, when contrasted against the business model of that time, would reduce their control of their products for the benefit of their consumers, but then they adapted to the new situation, found new market niches and invented new business models, while the obsolete system and everyone that stubbornly stuck with it rightfully perished.