The makers of the site won the case, and now there's a precedent in Spain that it is legal to link to off site illegal downloads.Flying-Emu said:
Call it minor if you want, but it is definitely some degree of victory.
Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing to Lending Books
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Call it minor if you want, but it is definitely some degree of victory.
It is probably more important than you realize. If you follow the Judges' logic we would never have a debate about whether or not it is illegal to delete memories from a brain the moment we create thought digitizing/sharing technology. It would already be illegal to tell people that they cannot share thoughts with others, nor would it be legal to remotely alter the memories of any individual. Such logic sits above whatever technology comes into existence in the future. Which is how laws regarding technology should be thought of and written.Flying-Emu said:
Instead of contradicting ourselves by trying to hold different views on things that have the same effect we should look at the effect something has or does not have when making these types of decisions. We would be much better off if judges understood that software is nothing more than a series of mathematical equations and therefore should be ineligible for a patent (You can't patent forces of nature or mathematical formulas.) by itself. We would also be better off if they understood that digital representations of information have to exist on media that consumers quite clearly do own, and therefore as long as the transaction is akin to a sale, the customer owns the representation as much as they own the hard drive or other device it exists on. (Including their brains before some lawyer tries to get creative.)
I don't know if they fully understand the concept of file-sharing if they compare it to a library.
It would be like a library if the original on the host's computer was erased once transfered to the recipient.
File-sharing is more like photocopying the books and handing them out. Except it would use magic no-cost photocopying.
It is strange how so many are calling this a "logical choice" in support of file-sharing.
The premise of file-sharing copyrighted material is simply "I can't or don't want to pay for it, so I won't; but I'll consume it nonetheless."
There's nothing "logical" about that. It is simply avarice, entitlement, and narcissism.
Sure, you can make excuses like "it isn't a lost sale because I wouldn't have bought it anyway", or "they're overpriced". Those things may be true. It doesn't change the fact that you chose to do it. It doesn't change what that reflects of your character.
I guess if you don't care about that, good on you; just don't claim that there's anything noble about what you do.
It would be like a library if the original on the host's computer was erased once transfered to the recipient.
File-sharing is more like photocopying the books and handing them out. Except it would use magic no-cost photocopying.
It is strange how so many are calling this a "logical choice" in support of file-sharing.
The premise of file-sharing copyrighted material is simply "I can't or don't want to pay for it, so I won't; but I'll consume it nonetheless."
There's nothing "logical" about that. It is simply avarice, entitlement, and narcissism.
Sure, you can make excuses like "it isn't a lost sale because I wouldn't have bought it anyway", or "they're overpriced". Those things may be true. It doesn't change the fact that you chose to do it. It doesn't change what that reflects of your character.
I guess if you don't care about that, good on you; just don't claim that there's anything noble about what you do.
No they understood it, they just didn't apply some magic scale to the issue. What does it reflect of your character when you argue that digital representations of information need to be governed by different rules than physical representations such that every time a new information sharing technology is invented we need to have this silly debate again and again? Isn't it curious that no one really questions whether you own a printed book which is just one type of representation of the information? Yet somehow digital representations of the same information have this question of ownership surrounding them, even though everyone involved clearly does own the equivalent of the paper used to house the information?Nuke_em_05 said:
So now you have a situation where the content creator should clearly be allowed to erase the ink on a printed page as soon as they devise a mechanism to do so, because even though you own the paper the book is printed on, they own the information, and just like with digital representations of the same information. How is it possible to maintain that people own things like books (Because they own the paper they are printed on.) and at the same time claim that they do not own the pits on their hard drive or the wrinkles in their brains while at the same time saying that they own their hard drives and their brains?
It has never been about ownership of the medium.shadow skill said:
There are many things that go into the price of a printed book, the least of which is the cost of the paper it is printed on. You are not purchasing the materials, you are purchasing a right to the information. That is why it is illegal to photocopy copyrighted books and hand them out, or make a photocopy for yourself and hand the original off; even if you paid for the original and the photocopying. It is the basic premise of a Copyright.
icypenguin117 said:
Damn that is scary...not only is it scary, it is a violation of human rights. Your government should not be able to put you in jail without a trial. And up until the patriot act, our government couldn't do it either. When our generation comes to power, we need to sentence the geezers who passed these laws to life in prison.
Wha...that's...phenomenal. No matter one's beliefs on the matter, that they have formally acknowledged the comparison between libraries and torrent sites is an astounding one, that makes quite a lot of sense. Rather makes me think there's hope for freedom on the internet. What do publishers think of libraries, one wonders...
You are not purchasing a right to the information, if the transaction is akin to a sale. If you are not paying a monthly fee and the terms of the contract if any transfer ownership of that representation upon sale then you do own that representation. Furthermore if you were indeed merely purchasing a right to the information embodied by a given representation it could be argued that you do not in fact own your own thoughts as they pertain to any product. Your ability to remember information being equivalent to creating a copy of said information; must then be subject to the rules of copyright the instant the ability to regulate thoughts becomes feasible.Nuke_em_05 said:
The moment you claim that someone may own representations of information you run into the problem of ownership of storage mediums. You can't claim that you own the specific representation of some information (copy of given item), and therefore have the right to control that representation without arguing in essence that people do not own the storage mediums these representations exist on, because altering the representation requires one to alter the storage medium physically!
I wouldn't take a game/cd off a shelf in a store and walk out the door without paying, and I wouldn't do it online either. Call it stupidity or what it's just how I was brought up and how I feel what is right.
There will come a point where some companies/artists will end up not making a profit because of piracy and they will simply shut up shop. No matter how nice it is to say "they should be doing it for the pleasure not the money" this is the real world and if a person/company doesn't make enough money to live comfortably then they will go and do something else.
Granted this won't effect the huge companies, but in the end piracy will have pushed out the smaller companies/artists and we will be left with huge companies pumping out cheap rubbish which costs little to make, and probably filled with product placements simply because they will not make enough money if they spend effort/time on their work.
It's all about internet anonimity. On the internet buying something expensive with a credit card is easy, go and buy the same thing in a shop and that huge wad of cash in your hand makes you think twice.
Go onto a forum and spout out high and mighty opinions, do the same in a bar/pub and you will realise you will get thumped in the mouth and you will talk about the weather/sport instead.
Go online and make a few mouse clicks and you have the new Lady Gaga album for free, go to the local CD store and your high and mighty ideals of 'this should be free!' will vanish as soon as you turn to face the open door with your unpaid version of the CD.
Internet anonimity, it makes us all fearless warriors.
There will come a point where some companies/artists will end up not making a profit because of piracy and they will simply shut up shop. No matter how nice it is to say "they should be doing it for the pleasure not the money" this is the real world and if a person/company doesn't make enough money to live comfortably then they will go and do something else.
Granted this won't effect the huge companies, but in the end piracy will have pushed out the smaller companies/artists and we will be left with huge companies pumping out cheap rubbish which costs little to make, and probably filled with product placements simply because they will not make enough money if they spend effort/time on their work.
It's all about internet anonimity. On the internet buying something expensive with a credit card is easy, go and buy the same thing in a shop and that huge wad of cash in your hand makes you think twice.
Go onto a forum and spout out high and mighty opinions, do the same in a bar/pub and you will realise you will get thumped in the mouth and you will talk about the weather/sport instead.
Go online and make a few mouse clicks and you have the new Lady Gaga album for free, go to the local CD store and your high and mighty ideals of 'this should be free!' will vanish as soon as you turn to face the open door with your unpaid version of the CD.
Internet anonimity, it makes us all fearless warriors.
Look into the first five pages inside the cover of any book printed in the last three decades at least, and you will find the printed equivalent of a ToS/EULA. This idea isn't new. I know you want to think so because it applies to something you feel entitled to, but it isn't.shadow skill said:
The line goes something like this usually:
"No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher"
Copyright law has upheld the spirit of this idea since 1790 in the United States.
The only thing that has changed with file-sharing is the medium. Which only makes the law easier to break and harder to enforce. That doesn't make the law any less valid.
And those lines don't supersede the laws in the state you live in, nor do they supersede what is called fair use. We have first sale doctrine precisely because some publisher decided that they had the right to dictate how much their product could be sold for. The court said correctly that they did not have the right to tell anyone how much they could sell an item for. People always go on and on about entitlement, yet they can never accurately explain why content creators should be entitled to alter something that they do not own without permission. The fact of the matter is that they do not own the storage mediums in most cases, and the nature of the transaction is that of a sale as well. Why should publishers have the right to alter a product that they have already sold to the customer thereby transferring ownership in the process most of the time, that exists on a storage medium that they have no claim to whatsoever?Nuke_em_05 said:
Do you think that copyright law was intended to be used to violate property rights by allowing publishers to forcibly modify storage media? Do you think it was intended to allow entities to exercise thought control by deleting information in the brain when that becomes possible? Do you think that, that line you quoted was ever intended to extend to your ability to think about a given product? Do you think that you are committing a crime when you memorize a song? Every memory you have is by definition a reproduction of information, do you think you need permission to remember a song's lyrics or a movie's lines? If you speak the words of a song are you not reproducing the content? If yes, should the publisher be able to stop you from speaking the words to a song since that has not been expressly authorized by them in writing?
Copyright law was not and is not intended to destroy the concept of ownership. The way it is being used however with respect to digital media in particular is a direct attack on the concept of ownership, because enforcing it requires one to violate the idea of ownership both implicitly and explicitly.
Well, you certainly aren't convincing me. You must be trying to convince yourself.shadow skill said:
Whatever makes you feel good about it.
Well the difference if you want to look really hard for one is that the content providers cannot see you do this with your family and friends. They could easily argue that so many people share games and other things in the way you describe therefore legal steps should be taken to prevent it, as such sharing violates their copyright because the second or third person who receives the item has not paid for it. The "copy" of the information exists in your brain, so you still retain the book or movie even after you have lent or given it away to someone else.Mornelithe said:
Given the above logic, the amount of lost revenue is incalculable....Of course I get the feeling that such logic would not hold up in court because of the fact that remedying the "problem" would require thought control.
Caution, that post almost makes you look a troll; as what you have so vehemently been defending this entire thread is file-sharing copyrighted material. Such a need to justify it would indicate you either participate, or simply are arguing for the sake of argument without any true interest of your own. The former wouldn't be trolling, but your question would seem unnecessary. The latter would be outright trolling.shadow skill said:
Of course, I suppose I am "feeding the toll" in either case, but it is interesting to see how deep your delusions run.
Many of your arguments hinge on this "file-sharing is just like a library or lending a copy to your friend" idea. In a library or lending a book to your friend, there remains only one licensed copy; two people cannot simultaneously consume the same content. In file-sharing, an infinite amount of people share multiple, unlicensed copies, to be consumed simultaneously.
You also have a strong misconception as to the purpose of Copyright. Plagiarism is a factor, yes. It ensures that credit is granted where credit is due. It is subsection A of section 106 in Chapter 1 of title IV of the United States code. The parent section, 106; is the copy portion; wherein the author has the right to the copies of their work. This ensures that the author can recoup cost, and gain profit, from the distribution of their work for certain period of time before it enters public domain.
This "fair use" that you seem so fond of is the next section of that chapter. There are four factors to determine "fair use" in that section:
So,
1. The purpose of the use of file-sharing copyrighted materials is to not pay for copyrighted materials.
2. The nature of the work varies, but as we are having this discussion on a gaming forum, it would most likely be entertainment.
3. File-sharing includes the copyrighted work as a whole.
4. This is where you want make the distinction that "file-shared != lost sale". However, notice the word "potential" in there. There is no potential market or value of the material on someone who doesn't want to consume it at all. If someone does want to consume it, there is a potential market and value. They could choose to purchase it, or choose not to purchase it. File-sharing adds "secret option C", which allows them to consume it without purchasing it. This is an effect on the potential market and value of the copyrighted work.
[a href='http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html']For your review.[/a] Though libraries and the law could be different in different countries, and must be in Spain.
You also seem fond of the slippery slope, implying that if it applies to whatever medium, a person's brain is included. Fortunately, copyright law does not extend to the human brain. However, if you are that concerned, I hear tin-foil hats are quite effective against such subliminal intrusions.
The "real" version of Fallout I bought tended to freeze my PS3 every 2 hours or so. The "pirated" version I played on PC (the reason I went out and bought it, I might add) ran with considerably fewer problems. Which of these would you say is of lesser quality?Haakong said:
I don't consider freezing my system 'value added' and it certainly wasn't listed on the back of the box as a PS3 exclusive feature: so was the one I payed for worth the money? Totally, I still love the game.
But did I get the quality I payed for? No.
I find it immensely inconvenient to have to work to get money which I can then trade for games. Especially when I can download most of those games for free.Haakong said:
So, given that both of those already apply to games I've payed for in the past, I think we already have a problem.Haakong said:
I understand that people who make games need to eat too, but they're the ones who chose a job making something that lasts indefinitely, can't be used up and can be replicated again and again with minimal effort. Any attempt at setting artificial limits on any of those is going to be met with resistance from somewhere.
That said, this argument has been going on in some form for over 30 years and the sky hasn't fallen yet. I don't know of a single failed software company that was "pirated" to death, if nobody wants to buy your game it's not because they can get it for free, it's not even necessarily because it's bad. It's probably because your target market isn't broad enough to make enough sales to recover the costs.
Yes but you cant give one copy of a book to thousands of people, and put industries out of business.