On the morality of copyright.

[cerebus23]

The whole problem is that games, books, music, movies cost money to make. They are not created out of thin air.

Games in fact can cost in the 10s of millions for a average game, while AAA titles can go in the 100 million range. Same for movies.

Now if everyone pirated everything than nothing would ever get made. Movies would not get made, musicians would not put out records, games would never get worked on or published.

Thing is that people that just dl and dl and never buy anything are more often called leeches in the actual scene than pirates. So there is a slight difference.

Now that is not to blame everying on leeches or pirates, the places where piracy dominates the markets is places where games cost a good chunk of a regions standard of living. These places a game might cost a few months wage, and if it came down to feeding your family or paying full price for a game for an escape from your fairly downtrodden life for a few hours which would you choose?

So in these areas piracy and i mean real piracy is rampant, you can go into many shops and buy games burned to dvd cause most people cannot afford high speed internet and stuff we take for granted. People sell them for a fraction of the cost of what the legit game would cost.

SOme companies have gotten smarter about this and companies like microsoft and blizzard do take into account standard of living on their software and combat piracy to a extent doing that.

But when it ocmes to filesharing and the like well it is a two edged sword. You get the people who will just dl stuff to dl it and never ever think about paying for anything. Then you get the people where if they really like something they will go and buy it.

Then you get the occasional happy story about some small time band or movie getting exposure because of torrents and the like and their album or movies sales go up. One guy that directed some movie actually wrote one torrent site to thank them, since his movie was privately funded and had no distribution, when it started making the rounds on torrent sites he started getting inquires on how to buy his movie. And was more than happy with the exposure that torrents got him and the word of mouth on torrent sites his movie got.

SO if your a small time anything with no name recognition filesharing can be a boon to you rather than a curse if you got something good out there. But if your major publisher or game maker or movie studio filesharing is almost always a curse since they have tons of money to get their product out there and distribute it and every dl is seen as stealing from their bottom line. Where i might argue that is only partially true since its is highly inplausable that everyone that dld something would have bothered to run out and buy it at all ever even if it could not be pirated. But there is no doubt that some of those dls do take from sales.

So the whole area of piracy and such is not strictly black and white there are shades of gray in there, but if your just dling stuff to dl it and you could well afford it if you wanted to then i think you can argue that you are in a morally bad place since you have disposable income you could support the people that make stuff.

 

[The Thief]

I tend to think of what's moral or not in the general sense of "If everyone acted this way how would it affect me." So if everyone pirated software and there was nobody left to pay the developers they couldn't and wouldn't make games, or at least not large budget games.

That's a good start. But realize that obviously the scenario isn't that simple. When you drive your car do you think "Hmm, what if everyone turned left. Man, that'd be terrible, I better keep going straight." The context of the action is a fundamental part of the action. I'm pretty sure, though this is a guess, that people are not 'all pirate' or 'all purchase'. This means it isn't something they just do, but rather a decision they are making. What conditions made them think it was okay to pirate? The question then becomes "If everyone thinks it is okay to pirate under these conditions..." and depending on the conditions might not be so bad. Maybe. Or maybe it just behooves the game company to remove the conditions.

It's rather complicated.

That is correct, which is why I only use that line of thinking in a general sense, and apply it to behaviors like pirating games, rather than a simple action like turning left. There are many scenarios in which an action which is generally thought of as immoral can be considered moral or neutral, but I can't think of any realistic scenario in which pirating a game, which is a luxury not a necessity, would not be considered immoral behavior (The one possible exception being you have already payed for a legal copy of the game you are pirating).

 

[incal11]

Its almost as if the pirates feel a bit shamed of them self's for pirating, so they attempt to make poor excuses to justify their acts and get rid of their guilt.

I'll see my excuses as "poor" when you prove them to be so here. I'd say it to your face, and I'll say it to the judge, I do not feel guilty.
Now, I dare you to come back and prove that my arguments are bad. come on, read my original post... no answer ?
I'm tired of flat brained noobs that can't think beyond the second degree.
You obviously don't value culture very much, you'd rather have your stale repetitive hit musics and madden games. My tastes are more varied, and I won't let culture be reduced to what you like.

The RCMP had a very different opinion when they finally arrived at my door. Took that to wake me up.
Grow up, at least admit you are a crook and then decide if being a crook is worth that song/game/etc.

Fine, I would appreaciate if instead of never answering, like most single track minds do on forums, you would make the effort of explaining what in my OP and in the links I gave is wrong. I am no trying to justify copyright violations, as far as I'm concerned it is already justified, and not even the autorities that might come at my door will change my mind. If they don't give me better arguments than "it's the law". Laws are not absolutes, they are made by human beings who are just as faillible as you.
You apparently think that copyrights are entirely justified, in regard of what I exposed, how are they justified exactly ?

You still raise a point, what differentiate games from services like phone lines ?
I would say that's because there are people who maintain and manage those lines that needs to be paid. Of course devs need to be paid too, and as I keep saying, that is why I do not pirate recent games.
Games that are not on a server are different from services in that there is no need to constantly "repair" them. The internet is a service, but the games travelling on it are more of a commodity.

I can't think of any realistic scenario in which pirating a game, which is a luxury not a necessity, would not be considered immoral behavior (The one possible exception being you have already payed for a legal copy of the game you are pirating).

Have a look at the first link I give in my OP when you have build up the patience, books were also treated as a luxury and still the "immoral behavior" going on in Germany at that time certainly didn't hurt. I ask, how do you explain that ?

if there are any potentially great artists out there they aren't very motivated, and I doubt they would make it far developing games with a lack of motivation.

You are right, there is tons of free material, but you miss that there are also tons of very talented artists thanks to that. There is no reasons it couldn't get even better if we were more free to share. However I do know that things can easily get a lot worse if we let ourselves be restricted by copyrights completely.
The motivation thing is a lie, that's why I urge you to read my first link.

If you're burning a copy of X game for a friend, that is very different from uploading a copy of X game so 200,000 strangers can download it.
Also, concerning long copyrights, I think it's only moral if the creator is no longer profiting from it.

On the last point we agree, but if you are going to share an old game with your friend, why not share it with anyone who might be interested ? It's sure to be good for the authors in some ways.

If you find a game you like, why wouldn't you reward the creators for it? Why would you not encourage them to do better, or do more?

But I do, not only do I prefer to pay for recent games, but I feel obligated to give money to the creators of any games that I think is great. I know I am not the only one or the "damage" caused by piracy would be undeniable

Think about it: We live in a funny world that demands that we make as much economic profit as possible, in every facet of our lives, and then we set rules that ensure that only the wealthy can profit from it (99% of the world's resources and capital is owned by less than half a percent of the world's population).
And yet at the same time, it was those rules that form the basis of our society to begin with (don't kill/steal/cheat, lest you undermine the entire point of social cooperation), and so we are stuck.

...and that's why these rules are amoral, anyone with a shred of independant though should not feel bound by them. At this point it is not social cooperation, but social exploitation, in truth we are stuck only if we believe ourselves to be.

If you copy something that you don't want and the supply is massive then it is worthless economically anyway. However, why the fuck are you downloading something you don't want in the first place

Myself I don't really understand what you're about, if I "pirate" it, it means I want it. data is infinitely duplicable, simple suply and demand logic cannot apply there.

 

[incal11]

Games in fact can cost in the 10s of millions for a average game, while AAA titles can go in the 100 million range. Same for movies.

Blockbusters cost millons too, and come on DVDs much cheaper than games, how is that ?

Now if everyone pirated everything than nothing would ever get made. Movies would not get made, musicians would not put out records, games would never get worked on or published.

Lies, read the first link in my OP.

But when it comes to filesharing and the like well it is a two edged sword. You get the people who will just dl stuff to dl it and never ever think about paying for anything. Then you get the people where if they really like something they will go and buy it.

The people who never pay for anything is a constant, unlike the ones who do pay, those are more likely to pay for something if they are exposed to more things they may like.

Then you get the occasional happy story about some small time band or movie getting exposure because of torrents and the like and their album or movies sales go up.

It's not occasional, many indy studios owe much of their fame to torrents, the impact for bigger studios is just not as visible.

there is no doubt that some of those dls do take from sales.

I have been thinking about that for very long, I have seen all the classic arguments already. You probably seen some too, but instead I am trying to move beyond that.
Of course I feel that "virtual losses" is a lie, you don't think so, and we may never agree.
I try to move beyond that, if Copyrights were made to restrict your cultural horizons, are they always justified? For now I don't question that you should pay for recent games.
Otherwise there is no gray area, it's the copyrights' shadow that makes you believe it's grey.

if your just dling stuff to dl it and you could well afford it if you wanted to then i think you can argue that you are in a morally bad place since you have disposable income you could support the people that make stuff.

That is why I do not feel guilty, I give to those who made a great work.

 

[Kagim]

Blockbusters cost millons too, and come on DVDs much cheaper than games, how is that ?

Movies get back much of its money through advertising both pre and post production. Then theaters who play the movies both have to pay for the movie itself, which is expensive, then pay royalties off every showing. Movies theaters actually lose money of many showings unless the movie is really popular. You ever wonder why a small pop costs five bucks?

By the time a movie hits the shelves even a total flop has broken even in many cases. Video games hit the shelves 10+million in the hole. Very few do ad spots. I have yet to see very many games with ads directly in the game. I know they are out there i just haven't seen them.

Movies sell for a quarter of video games because they don't need to pay back any investors. Games do.

 

[incal11]

1. Reviews, demos, and millions of videos online to show what game is about.

Not as good as playing them yourself though, at least the beginning of the game. Many times I deleted something it didn't like just after starting it. Demos tend to show you something unfinished and incomplete, most recent demos outright try to trick you into buying something that may not be that good.

2. Funny how in a world where gamers expect publishers to take tens of million dollar risks gamers are not willing to take a $60-$100(depending on where you live) risk even when they have almost limitless sources of reference to decide if they like a game.

For most of the world's population you have to understand those prices are still too high.

They have a right to charge money for the products and services they provide.

Personally I do not question that author and services need to be paid. What this thread is really about is how right can copyrights be ? when they have been made for the profits of a few and the detriments of everyone's culture (see first link in my OP).

Publisher put up a lot of money to make said game. You might not be directly causing a loss of money but said avenue (illegal file sharing) is causing a loss. The loss of potential money is still a loss.

In regard of my arguments, is it a loss from something they earned in the first place ? I mean, knowing copyrights are there to make you concentrate on just a few products.

You do not have the right to take what someone else has created for free unless they give permission for you to take said action.

Someone else's work should always be credited, and never used in a way that would be detrimental to it's original author. Beyond that there is a point where it should fall into the public domain and thus be free. That point should not be a minimum of 50 years after the death of the author.

A creator of any work or service has the right to protect said work or service. If i write a novel, film a movie, make a game its my right to decide how to distribute said product. Not some kid in a basement somewhere who thinks they deserve everything for free.

I don't only think I have a right to it, I have reasons to think so, please read my first post.

As well when talking about 'the morality of it' there is none. Its the morale equivalent of taking a object of equal value off a shelf.

Sharing is not stealing, at worst it's never paying for something you liked that is rude.

When indie developers decided to let people choose how much to pay for there games, as low as a penny, and all proceeds would either go to charity or straight to the developer and people STILL ripped it

and the indie developers still made large profits that surprised everyone, we all knew there are some rotten people, and always will be. It remains they made larger profits than expected, and that's the only relevant fact.

So because most people are willing to pay for a game that gives other people the right to get it for free?

For older games at least it should be a right.

That's like the bullshit defense "It's alright to download a game as long as your not interested in it!"

I never said that, though I would say that if you get data that you never used it is just as if you never had it. Maybe there are some who download for downloading's sake, I can't say I approve of that.

Which essentially means FANS and SUPPORTERS who are far more likely to appreciate and enjoy a game deserve it LESS then people who don't give a shit.

I lost you there. Maybe you mean that a true fan pays for what he likes, I never said the contrary, in fact it's what I wish to encourage. If you share something with a million people and if it's actually good, it can only gain support.

 

[incal11]

say what must be said.

XD I apreciate the support, but don't get banned because of me.
Try to tone down your words, outright insults don't work to convince someone, even if you are right.

Movies get back much of its money through advertising both pre and post production. Then theaters who play the movies both have to pay for the movie itself, which is expensive, then pay royalties off every showing. Movies theaters actually lose money of many showings unless the movie is really popular. You ever wonder why a small pop costs five bucks?

That's an illustration of how Hollywood and the theaters are wrong. There was a time where a ticket cost a few cents. How did it change ?
Well, now movie producers and the like need money so they can snort cocaine while surrounded with whores in their gigantic villas.
That's not to say they don't deserve to be rich for bringing entertainment to the masses, but they are clearly being greedy. Don't get me wrong though, I don't pirate recent movies either. The over restrictive copyrights they use is a side of this problem.

Movies sell for a quarter of video games because they don't need to pay back any investors. Games do.

They are doing it wrong, read the first link in my original post.

I think it's preposterous, yet understandable given the societal mindset most of us have grown up in, to think that now that we have the internet, a tool that allows us to distribute art at a scale never before achieved in human history. It can spread faster, to a wider audience, and for an extremely low cost.

Theoretically, with this new technology, with more availability and much cheaper production cost, we should see the market grow rapidly why prices skydive. The problem is, thats not fucking happening, and I think the industry's grasp on copyright law is mostly responsible for this. Instead of being having to adapt and innovate, the industry has pushed for more and more control so they don't have to at the cost of the consumer.

Well, the internet is a tool to distribute not only art but knowledge too, it was originally created for that !
Indeed, the reason changes are not happening very fast is because of the restrictive copyrights being enforced.

What annoys me, more than anything, is not the diverse opinions regarding ownership, public domain, copyright, etc. But rather the people who think it is a simple issue and never try to understand the immense complications.(...)
I think as games become less and less an 'all or nothing' proposition( "You either buy the 60 dollar version or you don't get it legally") it will eventually fade away into the true area of pure stealing. At some point people who just like to take things cuz they don't wanna pay will be the only ones left, and much more easily excised.

That was very interesting, thank you for the input.
When we get right down to it, the option to "pay what you want" some indie studios gave may be the best solution.
That, and mmorpgs that entice you with microtransactions.

 

[The Rockerfly]

If you copy something that you don't want and the supply is massive then it is worthless economically anyway. However, why the fuck are you downloading something you don't want in the first place

Myself I don't really understand what you're about, if I "pirate" it, it means I want it. data is infinitely duplicable, simple suply and demand logic cannot apply there.

No it can, if you download something, you want it. Can anyone supply it? If yes then you're stealing , very simple to me

However economics isn't the best place for morals

 

[incal11]

No it can, if you download something, you want it. Can anyone supply it? If yes then you're stealing , very simple to me
However economics isn't the best place for morals

Because something is amoral we shouldn't even try to question it ?
No, simple economics can't apply, and here wanting it or not isn't the real problem. something that is infinitely duplicable has no unitary value, it's an idea, the rest is just packaging. Economics are not often made by moral people, but if you know they are not why do you feel obliged to bend over so strongly for them ? Because it's the law ?
The law is made by faillible humans like you, and copyrights were literally made, it is a fact, to rip off the likes of you with no consideration for your intellectual development. Had you more education on the matter, your view of the world wouldn't be so simple, in short maybe you were held back by copyrights.
Because they are strong and you're weak ?
Stand up to them, you are not alone, and they can be beaten as they have been beaten before, or we would still be living in a feudal society.
Ideas are to be shared as often as possible for culture to flourish, please do read the first link in my original post for a good example. It would truly be a tragedy if everyone was to give up like you.

 

[Kagim]

Spoiler

Not as good as playing them yourself though, at least the beginning of the game. Many times I deleted something it didn't like just after starting it. Demos tend to show you something unfinished and incomplete, most recent demos outright try to trick you into buying something that may not be that good.

1. There are enough demos, screen shots and INDEPENDENT reviews as well as online videos out there to make an informed decision. There are hundreds of sources that make a living reviewing video games in great detail. Your stretching.

For most of the world's population you have to understand those prices are still too high.

1. Just because you can't afford something that doesn't mean your entitled to it. That's pretty poor logic. I'm sorry, video games, movies, and music are not necessities. Until soup kitchen start handing out Ipods and Copies of Avatar for the PsP that doesn't fly with me.

2. You completely missed my point. Gamers ***** incessantly that publishers are rich greedy bastards that don't take risks for fear of losing their precious money. Yet at the same time they are afraid of taking any risks with there own personal money. It's all good when its someone elses money on the line. Yet when it comes to a gamers own money suddenly taking zero risk isn't so greedy anymore. That my friends, is hypocrisy, which is what i was trying to point out.

3. Wait. If companies are making so much money hand over fist yet MOST of the world can't afford the games.... Hmm, does that the minority of the world is just buying many many copies of the same game?

Personally I do not question that author and services need to be paid. What this thread is really about is how right can copyrights be ? when they have been made for the profits of a few and the detriments of everyone's culture (see first link in my OP).

1. Copyrights were made to protect a dead authors IP from there relatives.

2. Publishers need to be paid to. They put up millions of capital to fund X project. They deserve to get there money back and then some. If a creator of an IP does not like this they can simply CHOOSE not to enter into said agreement.

That seems to be what so many people miss. X creator took the easy route and took a loan from Y company. Y company has certain terms and conditions that X has to agree to. Just because you think it's unfair doesn't mean Y should be punished. Everyone is so quick to castrate Y company for upholding copyright laws when its X who agreed to trade the rights to there IP for cold hard cash.

Also bare in mind that most really old products, such as Nes and Atari, people are not exactly sending in the troops to stop people from taking said properties off the net. Currently a site could barely last a month trying to hand out copies of MW2 off there site directly. yet there are literally hundreds of site where you could nab Nes and Snes games. Even with the online marketplace Nintendo does shit all to stop them.

3. Not being able to play the original Zelda isn't destroying anyone's culture. The sky is not falling. I assure you, it is only an acorn.

In regard of my arguments, is it a loss from something they earned in the first place ? I mean, knowing copyrights are there to make you concentrate on just a few products.

1.They put up the capital, they deserve the money. That's like saying my dad doesn't earn the money he gets from selling groceries because he merely purchased them for sale, not grew them himself.

Someone else's work should always be credited, and never used in a way that would be detrimental to it's original author. Beyond that there is a point where it should fall into the public domain and thus be free. That point should not be a minimum of 50 years after the death of the author.

1. Even if it was one year your arguing over works that are technically owned by companies. So even if it was three weeks you would still be waiting until Nintendo or Sony died before you could grab there games for free. That's also considering nobody buys the rights to them before they enter that period.

2. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the people who sell there products to companies in the first place.

3. This also implies that random strangers have more of a right to my works then my own grand children.

No.

I don't only think I have a right to it, I have reasons to think so, please read my first post.

1.My point is if i want to sell my works to a company who wishes to use my work well after my death that's my right. Just because its inconvenient to you doesn't mean it isn't inconvenient to me. No one is that naive or stupid. Entering into a contract with a publisher or label or film production company gives them a fair bit of rights to your work, especially when your starting out. Its a choice people make, and its the choice of creators to make.

Just because you, the consumer, thinks it sucks for you well, that's life. You not what sends a strong message? Not buying, not downloading. Not touching. That sends a message. If you don't like it, don't come in contact with it. At all.

Sharing is not stealing, at worst it's never paying for something you liked that is rude.

1. Didn't say stealing. I said taking.

2. It's realyl easy to share when it's not your shit your sharing isn't it?

3. Also, i call sharing my IP that i didn't give you permission to share detrimental to me. In that it would piss me off and make me feel violated if people were spreading my work without my permission.

and the indie developers still made large profits that surprised everyone, we all knew there are some rotten people, and always will be. It remains they made larger profits than expected,

1. Except the point i was trying to get across was for all the people screaming "Games are to expensive!" "Games are only feeding them greedy companies" it was overtly proven that for all the pretty words people say lots of it is bullshit. No matter how much X person on the internet says these things there is no way to call them on it, and they know that.

2. If i expect a kid to only make $20 off the lemonade stand and they make $30 have they made more then i thought they would? Does this make them rolling in the fat cash? No.

3. Seeing as how most people gave themselves a nice 50% discount on the retail price of the games Can you really see that working on AAA games. Of the $60 Publishers get roughly $28. Now imagine if people started giving themselves that nice 50% discount on top of all the people snatching it for free. You think games are bland now? Imagine it in a world where not a single publisher will touch video games.

and that's the only relevant fact.

1. Just because it's the only fact you like doesn't mean it is the only relevant one.

For older games at least it should be a right.

1. Unless the current copyright holder has made that choice, no. Once again that copyright holder has put up a lot of money for said product. They have a right to distribute it as they wish.

2. Once again, you do not have the right to tell how other people should use there IP's.

I never said that, though I would say that if you get data that you never used it is just as if you never had it. Maybe there are some who download for downloading's sake, I can't say I approve of that.

1. I never said you did. I said that the statements are equivalent. That just because a company makes a lot of money in the long run it doesn't mean it's okay. My dad's store brings in more the na modest some. Does that mean it's alright to take a dime from him? No.

I lost you there. Maybe you mean that a true fan pays for what he likes, I never said the contrary, in fact it's what I wish to encourage. If you share something with a million people and if it's actually good, it can only gain support.

1. Because its a continuation of what i was already saying. That because the loyal fans make the company enough money its alright for the non loyal ones to have it for free. No. It's not.

That's an illustration of how Hollywood and the theaters are wrong. There was a time where a ticket cost a few cents. How did it change.

1. Movies used to be something for the rich. Then it became something for the poor. Over the last what, two decades? The rise in cost largely comes from inflation. You do realize in the times where a trip to the movies was 3-5 bucks that was roughly the same as movies being 10-11 now right? Lets also no forget a movie costs way the hell more then it did in the past and employees many many many more people then they ever have.

Well, now movie producers and the like need money so they can snort cocaine while surrounded with whores in their gigantic villas.

1.Yes, inbetween putting up millions upon millions of dollars in capital to fund peoples movies. Sorry, they put up the cash, everyone beneath them gets paid nowhere NEAR a shy amount. Want to know why the cost of movies are so high? The lowest grunt on a set makes triple my paycheck.

That's not to say they don't deserve to be rich for bringing entertainment to the masses, but they are clearly being greedy.

1.Why? Because they make more money then you? Why is it greedy? If i put up 50, 100, 200 Million dollars it's greedy for me to want that money back and then some? No. What IS not greedy then Hmm?

2. Also note, its all that extra money that gets put into the next movie. Not to mention most movie companies use there extra funds to fun there independent branch companies. You know, the ones that help make all those small times movies that without would barely get past a film festival? Many big name bran companies have off shoot indie film companies.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't pirate recent movies either. The over restrictive copyrights they use is a side of this problem.

1. You right, having to pay Ten bucks for three movies over ten years old at HMV is just Hideously over priced. How can that stand... 3.33 a movie... How dare they...

Its getting long

 

[The Rockerfly]

Because something is amoral we shouldn't even try to question it ?
No, simple economics can't apply, and here wanting it or not isn't the real problem. something that is infinitely duplicable has no unitary value, it's an idea, the rest is just packaging. Economics are not often made by moral people, but if you know they are not why do you feel obliged to bend over so strongly for them ? Because it's the law ?
The law is made by faillible humans like you, and copyrights were literally made, it is a fact, to rip off the likes of you with no consideration for your intellectual development. Had you more education on the matter, your view of the world wouldn't be so simple, in short maybe you were held back by copyrights.
Because they are strong and you're weak ?
Stand up to them, you are not alone, and they can be beaten as they have been beaten before, or we would still be living in a feudal society.
Ideas are to be shared as often as possible for culture to flourish, please do read the first link in my original post for a good example. It would truly be a tragedy if everyone was to give up like you.

Hmm I disagree, someone input hours into this idea, money for the software, workers and equipment.
Whenever someone says something is illegal, I just remember that slavery used to be legal, I never said I completely obey the law *shifty eyes*
Ideas are meant to be shared, however these are not just ideas, they have hours in them. DO you see what I mean?
What's wrong with having a simple economic view on things?

 

[incal11]

someone input hours into this idea, money for the software, workers and equipment.
Whenever someone says something is illegal, I just remember that slavery used to be legal, I never said I completely obey the law *shifty eyes*
Ideas are meant to be shared, however these are not just ideas, they have hours in them. DO you see what I mean?
What's wrong with having a simple economic view on things?

Of course I know what you mean, had you read my whole OP you'd know that. I don't pirate recent works, but anything older than, say, 10 years (this can be discussed) should fall into the public domain, for everyone's sake.
The first article I linked to also expose how authors in copyright-less Germany turned up better profits that famous authors in England.

Slavery used to be legal, it didn't stop being so because of people just accepting the fact.
A simple economic view prevents you from seeing the whole issue, generally it makes you justify an amoral position while refusing to hear different opinions.

At least I'm happy to see you understand ideas are to be shared (sooner or later at least).

 

[SimuLord]

I think "life + 70" is absurd, because assuming I live to the 72.5 years I'd expect to live based on my LE at birth, that means anything I created wouldn't go public domain until 2120. C'mon. That's just ridiculous.

That said, I've created work. I've had work published. I've been paid for creative work. And the idea that someone would steal the product of my work without giving me credit or my fair share just makes me think "what the fuck is wrong with you, punk?"

So copyright's broken. Way too pro-business, and this is speaking as a published writer. But c'mon, guys. Piracy hurts people who work hard for your entertainment. Stop it.

 

[IxionIndustries]

"Something is only original if the thing you are copying off of has been forgotten."
-Me, myself, and I.

I find copyright laws to be retarded as hell, because they tend to impede progress, as with quite a few other morals. Some of our greatest inventions have come about because someone took another's design, and improved upon it.

Now, I can understand wanting to make a profit, but deliberately stating that something is the number one, purest original product when it's not is ridiculous.

This is one of the reasons I hate avid Lady Gaga fans who scream that she's so creative, when she is simply running the routines of several other stars who aren't even fucking dead yet, and why I found the fact that James Cameron said Avatar was not a rip-off downright fucking hilarious.

Anyways, it's still a very tricky thing. You've got the people wanting it all shared and such on on hand, and then the businesses who want to make a profit on the other, and then the pirates, the indie companies, and many other factors on the fingers.

Either way, it's a societal standard or what-not, and bitching about the morality isn't going to do much.

 

[Der Kommissar]

file sharing copyrighted works is wrong, if you own the copyright that is fine, if you dont, dont do it. end of story. goodnight.

also reported this thread for supporting illegal file sharing. enjoy.

I don't know. Perhaps I should report this post for attempting to inhibit discourse.

 

[zhoominator]

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Yes, and how is it wrong exactly ? Being forced (tricked) to concentrate on a relatively small number of work, like you most probably are, is akin to being locked in a small grey room since your birth. would you get more creative living like that?

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

What is selfish and greedy is copyright itself, as it is now, and the way it has been implanted into our culture.

I heavily disagree. So your pretty much arguing that sharing should be not only a basic human right, but that people who put money, effort and work into something should be forced to share their hard work with people like you who believe they deserve it for doing sod all.

You are correct, that getting rid of copyright would lead to the rise of more artists, but let creativity loose? Are you thick? It does exactly the opposite.

Imagine J K Rowling made the first Harry Potter book in a world without copyright. A richer book publisher could get somebody to right an unofficial sequel using the same characters and make way more money just because they have better resources and sweep the rug from under her.

Copyright may be about greed, but why shouldn't people allowed to be greedy when it comes to what they make? Or no, you think your morality should be forced on others and make sure that the rich companies gain the monopoly on everything by giving them free reign to rip off all the best tech and things from smaller companies and being able to sell it for cheaper because they already have the resources to make things more cheaply and on a bigger scale.

You forget that copyright is used to protect smaller companies from the big corporate giants too and removing copyright will up the prices on everything non-downloadable significantly. But I suppose you just want to play your precious NES roms.

If somebody makes something, I think they should have every right to decide who can and can't use it. You may disagree, but I think it is wrong to force people to give people something they don't want to (just like the business version of rape really, maybe you think rape should be legal too under the same principle?).

 

[The Rockerfly]

Of course I know what you mean, had you read my whole OP you'd know that. I don't pirate recent works, but anything older than, say, 10 years (this can be discussed) should fall into the public domain, for everyone's sake.
The first article I linked to also expose how authors in copyright-less Germany turned up better profits that famous authors in England.

Slavery used to be legal, it didn't stop being so because of people just accepting the fact.
A simple economic view prevents you from seeing the whole issue, generally it makes you justify an amoral position while refusing to hear different opinions.

At least I'm happy to see you understand ideas are to be shared (sooner or later at least).

What I wish you could do is pirate something, then send the developers money directly so there is literally no middle man. They wouldn't even have to pay for servers. I hate paying for the middle man in media, that's what sometimes makes me want to torrent

I get the feeling though that having a copyright on it doesn't directly lower sales. That doesn't make sense.

It's taking a sale off of someone who has spent time, effort and money on creating a medium for you. I personally believe as long as you aren't effecting anyone, it should be legal. It's taking a sale off of the developer. However if there is no one selling the product any more than yeah fuck it go ahead and torrent it.

It is still stealing, whatever way you look at it