Downloading is a human right.

[Little Gray]

I was talking in general, mainly about the Video Game Pirating as this IS a Video Game Forum. Most people pirate because they don't care for the DRM, I was just saying that if they want the game, they should buy it and since it is theirs they can do whatever the hell they want to with it, whether it be downloading a version without DRM or something else entirely.

Wrong. Its been proven before that DRM has very little effect on those who pirate games. People download games because it is easier and often faster. There is also the fact that they can pick up a game they know little to nothing about and try it out at little to no cost.

 

[Longstreet]

Snip it.

On the first part, since you quoted me, i misinterpreted it as directed at me. Now that, that is out of the way, on to the rest.

What i actually tried to say was, the (quality of) contend created is usually not worth the money asked for. Therefore you will have less sales from the get go. As stated by people before. If you download a game you get a BETTER quality product than when you buy it. This includes factors like DRM, which ruins customer experience, making them dislike the company.

Also, i NEVER said i did not buy anything. I just came out of a match of legally bought BF 3. Me mentioning that was due to me misinterpreting you directing the "get of your lazy ass" at me.

The CD i agree is a personal issue, but if it happens to me, it has happened, and will happen to other products and people.

Well, guess that should clear things up here or there.

 

[Daverson]

If you're removing the right of the copyright holder to seek legal recompense against those who have chosen to use their work against their wishes, then you're effectively saying to them "you have no control over your work".

Then essentially no creator had any control over their work ever, because that's what we do all the time, legally.

In 1983, there was a lawsuit that eventually decided, that individuals have a right to record copies of complete television shows through VCR and Betamax. This was done against the wishes of Universal studios and many other publishers who feared that this will cause them financial harm by giving people more options to watch shows without buying an authorised copy.

Even earlier than that, copyright always had a limited length, first 25 years, slowly growing to 90 years, but there was always a point after which holders lost their right to enforce their wishes.

Not long ago, the EU declared that digital content's second-hand sales can't be stopped by the copyright holder.

Copyright had never been that kind of absolute "ownership" that you either have or you don't. It was always a set of regulations granted depending on how much of it was needed to make the production of art sufficently funded, without needlessly restricting individual access to culture with excessive control.

Recording from Television is an entirely different issue. Firstly, it is illegal in some cases, and the legality stems from the copyright holder choosing to broadcast the material to begin with. Comparing recording TV with piracy is like comparing driving on a public road with a car and smashing it with a pickaxe.

In almost every country copyright only expires a set number of years after the creators death (presumably there's an equivalent of this for corporations, but I can't be arsed finding out what it is). Which would be a relevant point to make... however, no one's pirating the complete works of Shakespeare, are they?

As for the EU, personal opinion time, they're a joke. An absolute mess of all the unwanted political opinions and political liabilities that parties rather wouldn't have in their own government. With such shining examples of tolerance and liberty, like Nick Griffin, or Marine Le Pen. Are you really going to trust the judgement of the group responsible for the bendy banana laws?

 

[Valkrex]

Piracy = stealing.


That's all there is to it. Don't care what a law says, if you take a product (or a copy of a product as the case may be with digital products) you are stealing and depriving the creator their hard earned profits.

Not quite.
Piracy is copyright violation. For example, say I went onto a torrent and downloaded the film The Wild Blue Yonder. Now then, I would have just committed piracy, copyright infringement. However, I rented that movie a while ago, and it was shit, so I'm certainly not considering buying it.
On the other hand, say I walked into a store, and stole the DVD on said film. I then would have committed theft. The store, and by extension, the creator, will have lost money because I deprived them of something worth money.

So no, piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. You are free to state your opinion, but the definition of theft is enshrined within the law, and it does not cover piracy.

Okay you got me there. In terms of legal definitions you are correct, but what I meant was that piracy is just as bad as theft, and therefore I consider it just as bad.

And yes I really could have worded my original post better.

 

[Antari]

If you're removing the right of the copyright holder to seek legal recompense against those who have chosen to use their work against their wishes, then you're effectively saying to them "you have no control over your work".

Then essentially no creator had any control over their work ever, because that's what we do all the time, legally.

In 1983, there was a lawsuit that eventually decided, that individuals have a right to record copies of complete television shows through VCR and Betamax. This was done against the wishes of Universal studios and many other publishers who feared that this will cause them financial harm by giving people more options to watch shows without buying an authorised copy.

Even earlier than that, copyright always had a limited length, first 25 years, slowly growing to 90 years, but there was always a point after which holders lost their right to enforce their wishes.

Not long ago, the EU declared that digital content's second-hand sales can't be stopped by the copyright holder.

Copyright had never been that kind of absolute "ownership" that you either have or you don't. It was always a set of regulations granted depending on how much of it was needed to make the production of art sufficently funded, without needlessly restricting individual access to culture with excessive control.

Recording from Television is an entirely different issue. Firstly, it is illegal in some cases, and the legality stems from the copyright holder choosing to broadcast the material to begin with. Comparing recording TV with piracy is like comparing driving on a public road with a car and smashing it with a pickaxe.

In almost every country copyright only expires a set number of years after the creators death (presumably there's an equivalent of this for corporations, but I can't be arsed finding out what it is). Which would be a relevant point to make... however, no one's pirating the complete works of Shakespeare, are they?

As for the EU, personal opinion time, they're a joke. An absolute mess of all the unwanted political opinions and political liabilities that parties rather wouldn't have in their own government. With such shining examples of tolerance and liberty, like Nick Griffin, or Marine Le Pen. Are you really going to trust the judgement of the group responsible for the bendy banana laws?

According to every major corporation out there, weather you copy a movie, music, pictures, sounds, or words. Its piracy. And it doesn't matter how you copied it either, VHS, PC, pencil (You know the FBI warning on DVD's?). So actually they are the exact same issue. Hell they are both covered under the same law! Who was your comment supposed to fool anyways?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Okay you got me there. In terms of legal definitions you are correct, but what I meant was that piracy is just as bad as theft, and therefore I consider it just as bad.

And yes I really could have worded my original post better.

Actually it's worse than theft, (if you go by economics) due to how and why information is valued.
Tangible products are limited by just that; tangibility. The risk is greater in creation, transportation and loss but for both parties (creator and recipient).

If the customer incurs loss, they have to return to supply for a new one (and 2nd hand goods of course, who are also part of Supply).

Information products in the digital age are ridiculously low-risk to replicate, but still require significant time and investment to create the original.
In this, nearly all the real risk is placed onto the original creator.

 

[Nielas]

Copyright had never been that kind of absolute "ownership" that you either have or you don't. It was always a set of regulations granted depending on how much of it was needed to make the production of art sufficently funded, without needlessly restricting individual access to culture with excessive control.

Copyright is really just a social contract. The government agrees to grant IP creators certain rights that they can then use to earn money. In return the creators agree to create IP and then distribute it to the public. If the government fails to protect the rights of creators, the creators will stop producing since they will concentrate their efforts on other ways of making money. On the other hand, giving the creators too much power can be detrimental to the public good and as such the government has the responsibility of limiting IP rights to those that are necessary.

 

[Jaeke]

Wanting compensation for my work in order to not only continue said work but to also provide a living for myself and family is also a right too.


In other words, people got to eat.

 

[Entitled]

Recording from Television is an entirely different issue. Firstly, it is illegal in some cases, and the legality stems from the copyright holder choosing to broadcast the material to begin with.

Yes, VCR recording is a different issue from downloading pirated content, but it's similar in a way that you claimed to be the problem with piracy.

Regardless of whether the publisher chose to broadcast the show on a given channel at a given time, the fact that privately copying it and ignoring the publisher's wishes is legal, means that your conclusion, that IP having limits means that IP holders have "no control", is incorrect.

In almost every country copyright only expires a set number of years after the creators death (presumably there's an equivalent of this for corporations, but I can't be arsed finding out what it is). Which would be a relevant point to make... however, no one's pirating the complete works of Shakespeare, are they?

Copyright length is 95 years after publication, regardless of the publisher's personhood. And whether the original creator is dead, has nothing to do with this. There are human creators who create works and they would love to bequeath to their heirs for an indefinite time, even for centuries (as they could do with actual property). There are companies that create and keep content with the hope that they could keep it as long as possible.

Bu they can't, because there is a limit on copyright. No one is pirating Shakespeare, because Shakespeare never had copyright to begin with, and so he never had a chance to grant it to a publisher. But if he would have, then that publisher's legal heirs would right now actively lose money from the fact that his copyright didn't last until today.

Just a few months ago, Disney bought Star Wars, yet in 2072, they will lose it all, and then they will earn less money than they potentially could. Because copyright is not a property, it's a license that has it's limits.

This is just another example of the fact that copyright has it's limits, and that your statement that the law taking away one possible form of profitability from publishers is the same thing as them having "no control" at all, is very wrong.

As for the EU, personal opinion time, they're a joke. An absolute mess of all the unwanted political opinions and political liabilities that parties rather wouldn't have in their own government. With such shining examples of tolerance and liberty, like Nick Griffin, or Marine Le Pen. Are you really going to trust the judgement of the group responsible for the bendy banana laws?

That's interesting, so you say that you shouldn't be allowed to resell digital content that you bought?

 

[Entitled]

Wanting compensation for my work in order to not only continue said work but to also provide a living for myself and family is also a right too.


In other words, people got to eat.

*Wanting* compensation might be a right, but actually getting it, is most certainly not.

You can get paid for jobs that that there is a demand for.

But you can't just go out, dig holes in the ground, and then force every passerby to pay you for your hard work. And that's essentially what the current copyright system does.

Instead of letting artists to naturally figure out a business model where they get to directly profit from their work, it grants their publishers special monopolies over the market, and an authority to limit people's personal communication and data sharing, to create an artificial scarcity of information that could otherwise be accessible for everyone.

 

[Daverson]

Recording from Television is an entirely different issue. Firstly, it is illegal in some cases, and the legality stems from the copyright holder choosing to broadcast the material to begin with. Comparing recording TV with piracy is like comparing driving on a public road with a car and smashing it with a pickaxe.

According to every major corporation out there, weather you copy a movie, music, pictures, sounds, or words. Its piracy. And it doesn't matter how you copied it either, VHS, PC, pencil (You know the FBI warning on DVD's?). So actually they are the exact same issue. Hell they are both covered under the same law! Who was your comment supposed to fool anyways?

No one mentioned copying videos. That is piracy. We were talking about using a VCR recorder to record a TV show and watch it later. And while some corporations do consider this piracy, thankfully, they aren't the ones who write the laws. Except when they are, which kinda sucks. I don't support those people.

Copyright length is 95 years after publication, regardless of the publisher's personhood. And whether the original creator is dead, has nothing to do with this. There are human creators who create works and they would love to bequeath to their heirs for an indefinite time, even for centuries (as they could do with actual property). There are companies that create and keep content with the hope that they could keep it as long as possible.

The numbers differ in every different country. In the UK it's 70 years after the author's death, 50 years after the first publication for films and anonymous works, I assume there just isn't a law for video games yet, presumably they'll be treated similarly to films. (This trumps the US law in the UK, so when 2027 rolls around, the original cut of star wars will be public domain in the UK. Only 14 years until Han shoots first!)

Though, like I said, when we talk about piracy, we're almost always talking about contemporary stuff. I'm not against copyright expiration, I'm just saying that authors should be able to seek legal action against people who pirate their work. If you remove their right to do this, you're effectively making piracy legal. (The CPS sure as hell aren't going to prosecute someone for file-sharing)

That's interesting, so you say that you shouldn't be allowed to resell digital content that you bought?

I'm saying the EU have made a stupid decision with little understanding of the mechanics behind "reselling" digital content. (in fact, it would surprise me if they even knew what digital content is)

 

[Entitled]

No one mentioned copying videos. That is piracy. We were talking about using a VCR recorder to record a TV show and watch it later.

So when the TV broadcasting station has a copy of a movie, and then your VCR also ends up with a casette with the movie on it, that's not "copying" how exactly?

VCR recording is legal because it's a kind of data copying that's benefits obviously outweight it's financial harm, not because it's somehow "not copying therefore not piracy".

Though, like I said, when we talk about piracy, we're almost always talking about contemporary stuff. I'm not against copyright expiration, I'm just saying that authors should be able to seek legal action against people who pirate their work. If you remove their right to do this, you're effectively making piracy legal.

If piracy is legal, then it's obviously not piracy.

That's why no one pirates Shakespeare's works, or no one used to pirate TV shows with their VCR.

The point I'm trying to make with all these examples of the limits of copyright, is that it's pointless to panic about the possibility of IP holder rights being "abolished", because that is not what this thread is about, but about adding one more limit to their extent, along with Fair Use rights, and Public Domain rights, etc, personal access rights are also getting treated as a subject outside copyright.

And that's not the same thing as piracy being legal, or arists having no rights at all, it's just a matter of shifing the border between where legitimate access ends and piracy begins, against the direction of the latter.

A generation from now, people will still argue about piracy, for example about whether or not fanfiction writing is piracy, or about how much text you are allowed to quote from others in your commercially sold book, while it will be taken for granted that getting access to the basic works themselves is a default feature of the Internet and a part of Rair Use, and people will treat it as much of a self-evident right as right now copyright is.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

There is plenty of other ways to get paid. Like donations. Or collecting the money first, Kickstarter style. And there is probably other possible schemes too.

The internet, destroying the most basic principle of humans and economics, day by day

Selling information as though it were a product does a pretty good job of destroying economics all by itself.

Open up a foundation level economics textbook and look at what it says the subject of economics is about.

I'd be very surprised if you could find a textbook that didn't state something equivalent to "The study of the efficient distribution of limited resources."

The emphasis of LIMITED is important. Because an unlimited resource doesn't need to be distributed efficiently. You can't really run out of it, so who cares how it gets used?

So how does this relate to information, and all the stuff we like to call 'IP'?

Well, all of this stuff is so easy to duplicate that for all practical intents and purposes it is an unlimited resource.

Unlimited resources fundamentally break economics as a subject. Economics is unnessesary as a subject when dealing exclusively with unlimited resources, but the interaction of limited and unlimited resources is to render the unlimited resource basically without value.

The whole reason we have such a huge problem is a direct result of the concept of 'IP' basically breaking the entire economic system.

Copyright and similar laws don't fix this. They merely shift the problem from one area (artists can't survive off their work because compared to other items it has no economic value) to another. (the value of 'IP' is completely out of relation to anything of meaning, and distorts the entire economy as a result.)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Again, we're talking about artists. You're talking about a trader of some sort. Artists have not always produced art in return for material benefits and it is not outrageous to claim that the greatest artistic works in history were produced without any returns, nor the intention of any. It need not even be mentioned that artists who do their "work" for the money and find no reward in the production itself, are generally useless.

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" and therefore deserving of payment for services.

oh thats grat! fantastic....you celebrate the beauty of art AND get shit for free! everyone wins!/sarcasm

if somone puts out a game/book/painting is it so fucking hard to pay for it? can you not bring yourself to pay the admission fee to enter an art museum/gallery?

not having money or time hinders ones ability to do art...that and being able to eat is nice

It is indeed, but that has nothing to do with what I said or what we were discussing. (Actually discussing, not what some people thought we were discussing)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

There's nothing modern about that. It's fine if you find it distasteful, but your statement is closer to novelty than the one you are commenting on.

You're wrong. Being an artist does not include the notion of being compensated for provision of services - that's a function of the prevailing economic attitudes of the day. Only a modern man could come up with such an opinion. Maybe the proof is in my inbox which is somehow full of such opinions.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

You don't seem to realize that when you make a world where art and entertainment are given no worth, then any art or entertainment we get will be worthless.

And you don't seem to realize that artistic worth goes beyond monetary value.

I won't reply to the rest of your post because this one (incorrect) sentence underlies the attitude of the whole thing. But think about this - Van Gogh barely sold anything during his life. His paintings were given no worth. Was his art worthless?

 

[ShadowStar42]

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

There's nothing modern about that. It's fine if you find it distasteful, but your statement is closer to novelty than the one you are commenting on.

You're wrong. Being an artist does not include the notion of being compensated for provision of services - that's a function of the prevailing economic attitudes of the day. Only a modern man could come up with such an opinion. Maybe the proof is in my inbox which is somehow full of such opinions.

It is true that being an artist doesn't require compensation, but being a professional artist does. Most of histories most memorable artists, and arguably it's greatest artists, have always been professional and have created their works for compensation. Shakespeare, Monet, Pollack and the Ninja Turtles were all professional artists. Could you please list us these vaunted, artists who neither seek nor expect compensation for their work?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

"People still deserve to be paid for their work".

I assumed you were talking about the kind of people who are called artists.