Spanish Judges Liken File Sharing to Lending Books

[Sion_Barzahd]

Wow i'm impressed. Very much so. Its not everyday that someone of any authority contains the common sense to see past the technophobia that seems to flood most governing bodies.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If you state that pirating games is not, in fact, loaning and is in fact stealing (which it's not, it's denying sales) and should be prohibited then you should be actively campaigning for the illegality of loaning. You cannot state that in one part of the industry certain rules should apply whilst in the other they should not.

Loaning a book is exactly like pirating. Here's an example:

A friend comes to your house, asks permission from you to borrow a book (or in this case, you state that anyone can loan a book without asking you), reads it then returns it to your library.

A pirate goes to a torrent site, asks the cracker for permission to download a game(in this case, the cracker states that anyone can download the game without asking) and does so. The pirate plays the game then deletes it, effectively getting rid of the information from his hard drive. He does not have the ability to play the game once he deletes it the same way someone who loans a book does not have the ability to read it once he returns it.

I've seen arguments stating that you cannot "loan books in the millions". This is false. A dedicated work force can easily create thousands of copies of books and give anyone the ability to loan them. The "million" mark depends a lot on the medium you reproduce the book in. You can either write it down on paper, but the ability to produce millions of copies will take a lot of manpower, copy the books using a typewriter which will take significantly less man power but still enough to fill in a decently sized deposit, or you can use a copy machine and make copies automatically.

Nothing has changed except for the medium through which we can produce copies of books. Gaming is exactly like book lending. You're simply copying the books in a digital medium which allows for a more faster ability to reproduce said book.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Whatever makes you feel good about it.

Good about what pray tell?

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.

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:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

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.

First off we already have brain to machine interfacing technology albeit very crude, this is the kind of technology that will eventually allow people to transmit thoughts (Telepathy.) humans have already used BMI's to control computers, this is not so far out of the realm of possibility that the scenario should not be considered when discussing who owns/has the right to alter representations of intellectual property. So you can try to be funny with talk of tinfoil hats but science has already made "technopathy [http://www.gizmag.com/go/3503/]" a reality.

The concept of copyright came into being long before we had digital computers. When people thought of the concept they may very well have been unable to conceive of representing information using electricity and pits on a silicone wafer, why then does copyright law extend to digital representations of information but magically stop when you start talking about the brain? Is it because we don't quite have the technology to transmit thoughts? Do you think that means that copyright law did not logically apply to certain uses of copy machines until someone said it did?

If you do declare that copyright does not extend to information stored inside the brains of individuals (Regardless of whether or not we can get at this information directly.) publishers would be entirely unable to even propose the draconian measures they apply to devices that we currently do have. In other words there is a giant loophole in the very premise of copyright that is being exposed by current technology. The loophole will only get bigger unless one either says that when an item is sold the producer loses the right to control what is done with that copy (Barring a few narrow exceptions.) which first-sale doctrine in the US already does, permit modification of the brain or other storage medium by the copyright holder, or in addition to option two, ban any technology that would cause the copyright holder to be unable to modify the storage medium.



The purpose of file-sharing is to share files, nothing more nothing less. If I go ahead and print out pages of a pdf I own to share with people that was purpose the purpose of printing the file. I'm pretty sure that was the purpose when my teachers gave us photocopies of book pages. If I go to a home and watch a film that person has already shared the film with me. He or she need not hand me the film to share it with me.

File-sharing supposedly adds an effect on the market that no one has been able to actually demonstrate ONCE. The GAO [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars] has already said that the numbers groups like the MPAA pull out are useless for any kind of analysis of the impact file sharing has because the methodologies used are suspect. So your magic secret option C which has the same effect as lending, or going to a movie night or a book reading, has to have as much impact as these analog methods of sharing... Which is to say the impact is entirely unquantified.

We have not seen the collapse of the software industry at large, VHS did not put an end to movie studios and Ebooks have not put an end to the book/periodical publishing industry though they are having issues with print media.

Taking a look at the definitions section of the link you provided I came across this little gem about copies

?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

That definition certainly does leave the door open for arguing that any device that directly interfaces with the brain and allows the sending and receiving of thoughts is subject to copyright law. Depending on how the exception for ideas is interpreted one could argue based on the definition of idea that a memory is not a thought until you remember it. (Keep in mind that you cannot hide your own thoughts from yourself, but you are capable of burying memories. A thought could be construed as the active information, whereas a memory would be entirely dormant until the act of recall occurs.)

What exactly is it about the storage medium known as the brain that would exempt it from various measures that restrict access to data that have been employed with Ebooks, games, and other types of software? Why wouldn't copyright holders be afforded the right to take back memories of an item after it was sold, while they are allowed to take back or destroy items that have been sold to customers when the medium is a hard drive or other device? It is as much an individual's property as his or her arm, leg, wristwatch, or car, is it not?

 

[Nuke_em_05]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Whatever makes you feel good about it.

Good about what pray tell?

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.

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:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

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.

First off we already have brain to machine interfacing technology albeit very crude, this is the kind of technology that will eventually allow people to transmit thoughts (Telepathy.) humans have already used BMI's to control computers, this is not so far out of the realm of possibility that the scenario should not be considered when discussing who owns/has the right to alter representations of intellectual property. So you can try to be funny with talk of tinfoil hats but science has already made "technopathy [http://www.gizmag.com/go/3503/]" a reality.

The concept of copyright came into being long before we had digital computers. When people thought of the concept they may very well have been unable to conceive of representing information using electricity and pits on a silicone wafer, why then does copyright law extend to digital representations of information but magically stop when you start talking about the brain? Is it because we don't quite have the technology to transmit thoughts? Do you think that means that copyright law did not logically apply to certain uses of copy machines until someone said it did?

If you do declare that copyright does not extend to information stored inside the brains of individuals (Regardless of whether or not we can get at this information directly.) publishers would be entirely unable to even propose the draconian measures they apply to devices that we currently do have. In other words there is a giant loophole in the very premise of copyright that is being exposed by current technology. The loophole will only get bigger unless one either says that when an item is sold the producer loses the right to control what is done with that copy (Barring a few narrow exceptions.) which first-sale doctrine in the US already does, permit modification of the brain or other storage medium by the copyright holder, or in addition to option two, ban any technology that would cause the copyright holder to be unable to modify the storage medium.



The purpose of file-sharing is to share files, nothing more nothing less. If I go ahead and print out pages of a pdf I own to share with people that was purpose the purpose of printing the file. I'm pretty sure that was the purpose when my teachers gave us photocopies of book pages. If I go to a home and watch a film that person has already shared the film with me. He or she need not hand me the film to share it with me.

File-sharing supposedly adds an effect on the market that no one has been able to actually demonstrate ONCE. The GAO [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars] has already said that the numbers groups like the MPAA pull out are useless for any kind of analysis of the impact file sharing has because the methodologies used are suspect. So your magic secret option C which has the same effect as lending, or going to a movie night or a book reading, has to have as much impact as these analog methods of sharing... Which is to say the impact is entirely unquantified.

We have not seen the collapse of the software industry at large, VHS did not put an end to movie studios and Ebooks have not put an end to the book/periodical publishing industry though they are having issues with print media.

Taking a look at the definitions section of the link you provided I came across this little gem about copies

?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

That definition certainly does leave the door open for arguing that any device that directly interfaces with the brain and allows the sending and receiving of thoughts is subject to copyright law. Depending on how the exception for ideas is interpreted one could argue based on the definition of idea that a memory is not a thought until you remember it. (Keep in mind that you cannot hide your own thoughts from yourself, but you are capable of burying memories. A thought could be construed as the active information, whereas a memory would be entirely dormant until the act of recall occurs.)

What exactly is it about the storage medium known as the brain that would exempt it from various measures that restrict access to data that have been employed with Ebooks, games, and other types of software? Why wouldn't copyright holders be afforded the right to take back memories of an item after it was sold, while they are allowed to take back or destroy items that have been sold to customers when the medium is a hard drive or other device? It is as much an individual's property as his or her arm, leg, wristwatch, or car, is it not?

I am aware that brain interfaces exist. The human brain, and its contents are covered, not by technological law, or copyright law, but human rights law; which tends to outweigh any other law. You can go coal on stone, carving on wood, ink on scroll, printing press, photocopier, digital scanning, and any other possible technology, but the human brain and human rights are a different class altogether. I know that puts a big hole in your "they own your brain" slippery slope conclusion, but that is fact.

I believe I have been careful to indicate that the specific type of file-sharing I am addressing is that of copyrighted materials. I apologize if you thought I meant the medium as a whole.

I get it, you don't believe you have to pay for copyrighted materials. You don't want to or you can't afford to. That's fine.

Just don't pretend that it is anything more than that.

With as much fervor as you have put in to justifying this, however; it indicates to me that you feel a need to defend it. You can't stand on just "I don't want to pay for it", or else you would. Instead you need it to mean something more. The more your rationalizations are stripped away, the further your delusions take new ones.

It is really a shame you are so insecure about your belief that you are entitled to everything. It must be hard coming up with so many fantastic excuses.

Your premise is that because there is no cost of materials, it should be free. That physical aspects, CDs, Books, Hard Disks etc. are only worth the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead to produce the medium on which the information you want is stored. The information itself, you believe, should be free.

The next time you are in an entertainment store, grab a CD, book, videogame, DVD, blu-ray, or e-book off the shelf, throw a quarter at the clerk to cover cost of materials, labor, and overhead of simply creating and stocking the physical CD and explain that that is all there is to pay for. See how far you get.

You won't, though. That's the "real world" with "real consequences"; where your ideals and justifications mean absolutely nothing. This is the anonymous internet, where there's no one to stop you from downloading copyrighted materials. It is theft, but hardly worth the title, it is coward's theft.

Like I said, do it if you really believe you deserve it, but don't pretend it is anything more than being a cheap coward.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Whatever makes you feel good about it.

Good about what pray tell?

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.

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:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

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.

First off we already have brain to machine interfacing technology albeit very crude, this is the kind of technology that will eventually allow people to transmit thoughts (Telepathy.) humans have already used BMI's to control computers, this is not so far out of the realm of possibility that the scenario should not be considered when discussing who owns/has the right to alter representations of intellectual property. So you can try to be funny with talk of tinfoil hats but science has already made "technopathy [http://www.gizmag.com/go/3503/]" a reality.

The concept of copyright came into being long before we had digital computers. When people thought of the concept they may very well have been unable to conceive of representing information using electricity and pits on a silicone wafer, why then does copyright law extend to digital representations of information but magically stop when you start talking about the brain? Is it because we don't quite have the technology to transmit thoughts? Do you think that means that copyright law did not logically apply to certain uses of copy machines until someone said it did?

If you do declare that copyright does not extend to information stored inside the brains of individuals (Regardless of whether or not we can get at this information directly.) publishers would be entirely unable to even propose the draconian measures they apply to devices that we currently do have. In other words there is a giant loophole in the very premise of copyright that is being exposed by current technology. The loophole will only get bigger unless one either says that when an item is sold the producer loses the right to control what is done with that copy (Barring a few narrow exceptions.) which first-sale doctrine in the US already does, permit modification of the brain or other storage medium by the copyright holder, or in addition to option two, ban any technology that would cause the copyright holder to be unable to modify the storage medium.



The purpose of file-sharing is to share files, nothing more nothing less. If I go ahead and print out pages of a pdf I own to share with people that was purpose the purpose of printing the file. I'm pretty sure that was the purpose when my teachers gave us photocopies of book pages. If I go to a home and watch a film that person has already shared the film with me. He or she need not hand me the film to share it with me.

File-sharing supposedly adds an effect on the market that no one has been able to actually demonstrate ONCE. The GAO [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars] has already said that the numbers groups like the MPAA pull out are useless for any kind of analysis of the impact file sharing has because the methodologies used are suspect. So your magic secret option C which has the same effect as lending, or going to a movie night or a book reading, has to have as much impact as these analog methods of sharing... Which is to say the impact is entirely unquantified.

We have not seen the collapse of the software industry at large, VHS did not put an end to movie studios and Ebooks have not put an end to the book/periodical publishing industry though they are having issues with print media.

Taking a look at the definitions section of the link you provided I came across this little gem about copies

?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

That definition certainly does leave the door open for arguing that any device that directly interfaces with the brain and allows the sending and receiving of thoughts is subject to copyright law. Depending on how the exception for ideas is interpreted one could argue based on the definition of idea that a memory is not a thought until you remember it. (Keep in mind that you cannot hide your own thoughts from yourself, but you are capable of burying memories. A thought could be construed as the active information, whereas a memory would be entirely dormant until the act of recall occurs.)

What exactly is it about the storage medium known as the brain that would exempt it from various measures that restrict access to data that have been employed with Ebooks, games, and other types of software? Why wouldn't copyright holders be afforded the right to take back memories of an item after it was sold, while they are allowed to take back or destroy items that have been sold to customers when the medium is a hard drive or other device? It is as much an individual's property as his or her arm, leg, wristwatch, or car, is it not?

I am aware that brain interfaces exist. The human brain, and its contents are covered, not by technological law, or copyright law, but human rights law; which tends to outweigh any other law. You can go coal on stone, carving on wood, ink on scroll, printing press, photocopier, digital scanning, and any other possible technology, but the human brain and human rights are a different class altogether. I know that puts a big hole in your "they own your brain" slippery slope conclusion, but that is fact.

I believe I have been careful to indicate that the specific type of file-sharing I am addressing is that of copyrighted materials. I apologize if you thought I meant the medium as a whole.

I get it, you don't believe you have to pay for copyrighted materials. You don't want to or you can't afford to. That's fine.

Just don't pretend that it is anything more than that.

With as much fervor as you have put in to justifying this, however; it indicates to me that you feel a need to defend it. You can't stand on just "I don't want to pay for it", or else you would. Instead you need it to mean something more. The more your rationalizations are stripped away, the further your delusions take new ones.

It is really a shame you are so insecure about your belief that you are entitled to everything. It must be hard coming up with so many fantastic excuses.

Your premise is that because there is no cost of materials, it should be free. That physical aspects, CDs, Books, Hard Disks etc. are only worth the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead to produce the medium on which the information you want is stored. The information itself, you believe, should be free.

The next time you are in an entertainment store, grab a CD, book, videogame, DVD, blu-ray, or e-book off the shelf, throw a quarter at the clerk to cover cost of materials, labor, and overhead of simply creating and stocking the physical CD and explain that that is all there is to pay for. See how far you get.

You won't, though. That's the "real world" with "real consequences"; where your ideals and justifications mean absolutely nothing. This is the anonymous internet, where there's no one to stop you from downloading copyrighted materials. It is theft, but hardly worth the title, it is coward's theft.

Like I said, do it if you really believe you deserve it, but don't pretend it is anything more than being a cheap coward.

Oh come off it. I'm a coward because I don't believe that Amazon has the right to remove 1984 from peoples Kindle Ebook reader after they have paid for it? Even if the seller was not authorized by the copyright holder to sell the item? People paid good money for that book and Amazon came in and invaded their property (I'd love to see their EULA hold up in court when it comes to the topic of transfer of ownership.) and deleted their books, because they Amazon fucked up. But oh, how cowardly of me to think that copyright holders and retailers acting as their agents should not be able to remove or alter my or anyone else's property because they think that they can tell me exactly how I am allowed to enjoy their products after I have purchased them. I really like how you can so freely accuse others of being cowards yet you invent people's premises for them because you can't deal with their actual premise that copyright law was never intended to facilitate the violation of a purchaser's rights to their property. Especially not for some phantom injury that cannot even be properly quantified. You have yet to be able to tell me or anyone else why copyright holders should be allowed to alter property that does not actually belong to them. I don't care about "file sharing" the problem is that the enforcement of the copyright is now starting to violate my rights as an owner. Something that it was never supposed to do. I have a problem when I hear that paying customers can't even use the things they bought because the "protection" scheme is so broken that it makes the product unusable. I was lucky that I did not have a SATA DVD burner when I got The Witcher as the "protection" on that game had a way of breaking if you had such a DVD burner installed.

To CDprojekt's credit they fixed the problem and eventually removed the DRM entirely. I was considering getting a Kindle or similar type of device but why the hell should I if copyright holder can just go into my device and delete the item without informing me that they are doing so or giving me my money back or providing me with a substitute copy?

There is something seriously wrong with the situation if a company can demand that you be connected to the internet for a single player game and effectively tell you that you can only use the product if you are online even though they can't actually demonstrate how you not being connected to the internet causes them harm in any way.

Now they are trying to tell us all that they are somehow entitled to used game sales because those are "worse" than piracy. So they start coming up with schemes that go so far that they break giving away these items. These are the same types of companies that file "defensive" patents because they are afraid someone will patent something first and screw them over, since the patent office in the US is so stupid that they hand out patents for the application of a counter to software (Sony recently patented a type of demo that degrades over time.) something that every script-kiddie can figure out! (Which means that it does not meet the non-obvious criterion for a patent and never should have been granted in the first place. Not to mention the fact that shareware has been around forever.)

But yes, how dare I think that I shouldn't be fucked over by millionaires and billionaires who scream at one phantom or another every few years. Even while their revenues go up.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Whatever makes you feel good about it.

Good about what pray tell?

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.

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:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

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.

First off we already have brain to machine interfacing technology albeit very crude, this is the kind of technology that will eventually allow people to transmit thoughts (Telepathy.) humans have already used BMI's to control computers, this is not so far out of the realm of possibility that the scenario should not be considered when discussing who owns/has the right to alter representations of intellectual property. So you can try to be funny with talk of tinfoil hats but science has already made "technopathy [http://www.gizmag.com/go/3503/]" a reality.

The concept of copyright came into being long before we had digital computers. When people thought of the concept they may very well have been unable to conceive of representing information using electricity and pits on a silicone wafer, why then does copyright law extend to digital representations of information but magically stop when you start talking about the brain? Is it because we don't quite have the technology to transmit thoughts? Do you think that means that copyright law did not logically apply to certain uses of copy machines until someone said it did?

If you do declare that copyright does not extend to information stored inside the brains of individuals (Regardless of whether or not we can get at this information directly.) publishers would be entirely unable to even propose the draconian measures they apply to devices that we currently do have. In other words there is a giant loophole in the very premise of copyright that is being exposed by current technology. The loophole will only get bigger unless one either says that when an item is sold the producer loses the right to control what is done with that copy (Barring a few narrow exceptions.) which first-sale doctrine in the US already does, permit modification of the brain or other storage medium by the copyright holder, or in addition to option two, ban any technology that would cause the copyright holder to be unable to modify the storage medium.



The purpose of file-sharing is to share files, nothing more nothing less. If I go ahead and print out pages of a pdf I own to share with people that was purpose the purpose of printing the file. I'm pretty sure that was the purpose when my teachers gave us photocopies of book pages. If I go to a home and watch a film that person has already shared the film with me. He or she need not hand me the film to share it with me.

File-sharing supposedly adds an effect on the market that no one has been able to actually demonstrate ONCE. The GAO [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars] has already said that the numbers groups like the MPAA pull out are useless for any kind of analysis of the impact file sharing has because the methodologies used are suspect. So your magic secret option C which has the same effect as lending, or going to a movie night or a book reading, has to have as much impact as these analog methods of sharing... Which is to say the impact is entirely unquantified.

We have not seen the collapse of the software industry at large, VHS did not put an end to movie studios and Ebooks have not put an end to the book/periodical publishing industry though they are having issues with print media.

Taking a look at the definitions section of the link you provided I came across this little gem about copies

?Copies? are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ?copies? includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

That definition certainly does leave the door open for arguing that any device that directly interfaces with the brain and allows the sending and receiving of thoughts is subject to copyright law. Depending on how the exception for ideas is interpreted one could argue based on the definition of idea that a memory is not a thought until you remember it. (Keep in mind that you cannot hide your own thoughts from yourself, but you are capable of burying memories. A thought could be construed as the active information, whereas a memory would be entirely dormant until the act of recall occurs.)

What exactly is it about the storage medium known as the brain that would exempt it from various measures that restrict access to data that have been employed with Ebooks, games, and other types of software? Why wouldn't copyright holders be afforded the right to take back memories of an item after it was sold, while they are allowed to take back or destroy items that have been sold to customers when the medium is a hard drive or other device? It is as much an individual's property as his or her arm, leg, wristwatch, or car, is it not?

I am aware that brain interfaces exist. The human brain, and its contents are covered, not by technological law, or copyright law, but human rights law; which tends to outweigh any other law. You can go coal on stone, carving on wood, ink on scroll, printing press, photocopier, digital scanning, and any other possible technology, but the human brain and human rights are a different class altogether. I know that puts a big hole in your "they own your brain" slippery slope conclusion, but that is fact.

I believe I have been careful to indicate that the specific type of file-sharing I am addressing is that of copyrighted materials. I apologize if you thought I meant the medium as a whole.

I get it, you don't believe you have to pay for copyrighted materials. You don't want to or you can't afford to. That's fine.

Just don't pretend that it is anything more than that.

With as much fervor as you have put in to justifying this, however; it indicates to me that you feel a need to defend it. You can't stand on just "I don't want to pay for it", or else you would. Instead you need it to mean something more. The more your rationalizations are stripped away, the further your delusions take new ones.

It is really a shame you are so insecure about your belief that you are entitled to everything. It must be hard coming up with so many fantastic excuses.

Your premise is that because there is no cost of materials, it should be free. That physical aspects, CDs, Books, Hard Disks etc. are only worth the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead to produce the medium on which the information you want is stored. The information itself, you believe, should be free.

The next time you are in an entertainment store, grab a CD, book, videogame, DVD, blu-ray, or e-book off the shelf, throw a quarter at the clerk to cover cost of materials, labor, and overhead of simply creating and stocking the physical CD and explain that that is all there is to pay for. See how far you get.

You won't, though. That's the "real world" with "real consequences"; where your ideals and justifications mean absolutely nothing. This is the anonymous internet, where there's no one to stop you from downloading copyrighted materials. It is theft, but hardly worth the title, it is coward's theft.

Like I said, do it if you really believe you deserve it, but don't pretend it is anything more than being a cheap coward.

Oh come off it. I'm a coward because I don't believe that Amazon has the right to remove 1984 from peoples Kindle Ebook reader after they have paid for it? Even if the seller was not authorized by the copyright holder to sell the item? People paid good money for that book and Amazon came in and invaded their property (I'd love to see their EULA hold up in court when it comes to the topic of transfer of ownership.) and deleted their books, because they Amazon fucked up. But oh, how cowardly of me to think that copyright holders and retailers acting as their agents should not be able to remove or alter my or anyone else's property because they think that they can tell me exactly how I am allowed to enjoy their products after I have purchased them. I really like how you can so freely accuse others of being cowards yet you invent people's premises for them because you can't deal with their actual premise that copyright law was never intended to facilitate the violation of a purchaser's rights to their property. Especially not for some phantom injury that cannot even be properly quantified. You have yet to be able to tell me or anyone else why copyright holders should be allowed to alter property that does not actually belong to them. I don't care about "file sharing" the problem is that the enforcement of the copyright is now starting to violate my rights as an owner. Something that it was never supposed to do. I have a problem when I hear that paying customers can't even use the things they bought because the "protection" scheme is so broken that it makes the product unusable. I was lucky that I did not have a SATA DVD burner when I got The Witcher as the "protection" on that game had a way of breaking if you had such a DVD burner installed.

To CDprojekt's credit they fixed the problem and eventually removed the DRM entirely. I was considering getting a Kindle or similar type of device but why the hell should I if copyright holder can just go into my device and delete the item without informing me that they are doing so or giving me my money back or providing me with a substitute copy?

There is something seriously wrong with the situation if a company can demand that you be connected to the internet for a single player game and effectively tell you that you can only use the product if you are online even though they can't actually demonstrate how you not being connected to the internet causes them harm in any way.

Now they are trying to tell us all that they are somehow entitled to used game sales because those are "worse" than piracy. So they start coming up with schemes that go so far that they break giving away these items. These are the same types of companies that file "defensive" patents because they are afraid someone will patent something first and screw them over, since the patent office in the US is so stupid that they hand out patents for the application of a counter to software (Sony recently patented a type of demo that degrades over time.) something that every script-kiddie can figure out! (Which means that it does not meet the non-obvious criterion for a patent and never should have been granted in the first place. Not to mention the fact that shareware has been around forever.)

But yes, how dare I think that I shouldn't be fucked over by millionaires and billionaires who scream at one phantom or another every few years. Even while their revenues go up.

Now I know that you are a troll. The premise here was very specifically "File-sharing is the same as a library". From there, you are now asking me to justify the actions of Amazon and DRM.

*Yawn*

Well, it's past my bedtime, and you have bored me with reading all of your crazy. I'm done.

 

[shadow skill]

That was the reasoning the judges in the case used. I agree with that premise and I am asking anyone to explain what actually makes file-sharing different from reading something in a library given the fact that your memories of the item read or viewed or otherwise experienced are in fact a copy of that information by definition. No one has been able to explain why the enforcement of copyright can only be applied to storage systems that are not a part of the human body, or why a copyright holder should not be granted the power to manipulate memories in order to protect their copyright. My contention is that copyright is not enforceable if it violates my rights to my own property. I've been asking for a justification for actions like the ones Amazon took from the beginning. But you can only respond with name calling and insults while pretending that I was only talking about the equality of file-sharing and libraries. You've called me a cheap coward, crazy and a troll yet you have not actually responded to my arguments.

Every one of the arguments that try to differentiate file-sharing from using the library come down to a difference in the number of people. This is unsatisfactory because it is like trying to argue that murder does not occur until you kill three people as opposed to just one.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

As someone who plans on making his living writing, performing and selling music...

excellent. Its about time someone of authority realized that there is nothing wrong with sharing files that you bought with people on the internet. The way I look at it is this:

If someone buys a copy of an album I've produced, that is now theirs. On a more personal philosophical note, I would say that as soon as its created it belongs to everybody- but I'll keep this limited to the capitalist market that currently exists. As that bought copy is now theirs, they should be able to do what they want with it. This means that if they want to put it up on the internet for others to access it- that is fine. If they want to put clips from a terrible anime over it on youtube, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it, but that's fine by me. If they want to resell the copy they bought, after burning themself a copy, that's fine too.

As for selling digitally reproduced copies, I don't think that should be allowed as if somebody is going to pay for music (or another media) it should be from the person who put the work into creating it. However, if someone wants to get it for free, and someone else who has it wants to allow them to use it for free, that should be allowed. Technologies change and people can do new things with them, people need to accept that, and stop trying to control the uncontrollable with lawsuits and greed.

 

[shadow skill]

As someone who plans on making his living writing, performing and selling music...

excellent. Its about time someone of authority realized that there is nothing wrong with sharing files that you bought with people on the internet. The way I look at it is this:

If someone buys a copy of an album I've produced, that is now theirs. On a more personal philosophical note, I would say that as soon as its created it belongs to everybody- but I'll keep this limited to the capitalist market that currently exists. As that bought copy is now theirs, they should be able to do what they want with it. This means that if they want to put it up on the internet for others to access it- that is fine. If they want to put clips from a terrible anime over it on youtube, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it, but that's fine by me. If they want to resell the copy they bought, after burning themself a copy, that's fine too.

As for selling digitally reproduced copies, I don't think that should be allowed as if somebody is going to pay for music (or another media) it should be from the person who put the work into creating it. However, if someone wants to get it for free, and someone else who has it wants to allow them to use it for free, that should be allowed. Technologies change and people can do new things with them, people need to accept that, and stop trying to control the uncontrollable with lawsuits and greed.

Well the internet and file-sharing mechanisms of all kinds certainly do provide artists and other professionals a means to not get screwed by big content. They hate that. I say if you are an artist you should be putting your stuff out on the internet and include a donation box. I think people would be surprised at how much they get. (Just look at these pay what you will type sales.)

 

[Undeadpope]

I say,This thread has become quite the war-zone.

Tea anybody?

 

[BanZeus]

...

piracy harms the decent worker, the coder or the graphical designer, that make the games. when theres no profit making games or computer tools, why should companies bother making these? we will be stuck with MMOs, or monthly payed games (thats a ***** to pirate and get the full experience). consoles are generally doing fine, but they will suffer once the pc market has been drained.

I reject the idea that this hurts the workers. Programmers and artists don't generally work on games for rewards to be payed later (if the game sells as expected). Nor does programmer #3 get a $0.05 check in the mail every time a copy of the game is sold. He's been payed for his work already.

Painting has never been profitable; yet people still put brush to canvas. When there is no profit in selling recordings, people who love music will still play guitar and sing. If making games stopped being profitable, and I'm not seeing that happening despite 30+ years of "piracy", you wouldn't stop seeing new games.

Besides, an industry [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0] doesn't need copyright protection to survive.

Consoles will only suffer if having people buy last year's game with a new coat of paint is part of their business plan.

...

but one good thing (from the developers point of view) might come from pirating: quality. as you said, they need a broad market to earn back the costs, thereby instead of getting 300+ games a year where only 20 shine, we get 10 awesome games per year. i dont disslike that model, but it clearly set boundaries to creativity. ofc it wont stop creative game designing, hell, ive even made 3 games without any form of profit

I agree 100%. (Incidentally, are your games available somewhere?)

piracy cant be stopped, but even if you support piracy (like i do to a certain degree), you must admit that piracy brings alot of problems. the discussion is merely "the lesser of two evils": a world with piracy, and a world without.

The biggest problem I've seen stem from piracy is the draconian DRM companies impose on their loyal paying customers. That shit is the equivalent of punching your wife in the face because your friend's wife cheated on him, and then saying "Look what you made me do."

 

[BanZeus]

as for the"painting isnt profitable" part: yes it is. lucky artists usually get support either from the masses or one charitable organisation/fellow. as an amateur artist (drawing mostly, some painting) i wouldve loved that, but sadly my talent cant compete with the proffesionals. i dont do it for profit, but i would love if someone paid me for my work.

This is getting pretty off-topic but...

Name people who got rich in film, television and music.

Now name one person who got rich by painting. Ever.

Sure, a lot of people make a living by painting, some even make a pretty good living. But if painting was truly profitable, wouldn't there be a "Warner Brothers" or an "EMI" for painters?
Why isn't there? Because a company can't artificially inflate the value.

The Mona Lisa is valuable because it's unique. You can make forgeries and prints, you can take pictures of it: but there will always be only 1 Mona Lisa. If you could make a perfect replica and churn them out in a factory the value would plummet. This actually becomes an argument in favor of copyright protection if, for instance, you believe the copyright holder is actually entitled to make a profit off the fruit of other people's labor.

 

[shadow skill]

I reject the idea that this hurts the workers. Programmers and artists don't generally work on games for rewards to be payed later (if the game sells as expected). Nor does programmer #3 get a $0.05 check in the mail every time a copy of the game is sold. He's been payed for his work already.

Painting has never been profitable; yet people still put brush to canvas. When there is no profit in selling recordings, people who love music will still play guitar and sing. If making games stopped being profitable, and I'm not seeing that happening despite 30+ years of "piracy", you wouldn't stop seeing new games.

Besides, an industry [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0] doesn't need copyright protection to survive.

Consoles will only suffer if having people buy last year's game with a new coat of paint is part of their business plan.

ofc a programmer or artist dont get any form of reward or bonus if they make the best game ever, but with fewer games on the market they get less job opportunities. we might say its a good thing only the skilled programmers and artist cut through, natural selection and all, but its still loss of workspace. more unemployed = more trouble for society.

as for the"painting isnt profitable" part: yes it is. lucky artists usually get support either from the masses or one charitable organisation/fellow. as an amateur artist (drawing mostly, some painting) i wouldve loved that, but sadly my talent cant compete with the proffesionals. i dont do it for profit, but i would love if someone paid me for my work.

graphical artist have had a huge market since gaming came along. less games being made = less jobs for artist = more artist gotta work at mcdonalds (no offense to those that work there, just saying an artist generally wouldnt like that line of work ) instead of making money from their true talent.

I agree 100%. (Incidentally, are your games available somewhere?)

sadly no, were on my old computer which is trashed, though i could go to my old high school and see if one of em still is on the hardrives (installed it on EVERY computer! people loved that game great way to publish it)

The biggest problem I've seen stem from piracy is the draconian DRM companies impose on their loyal paying customers. That shit is the equivalent of punching your wife in the face because your friend's wife cheated on him, and then saying "Look what you made me do."

nice analogy! worst ive seen till now is indie-developers not bothering to make more games cause they aint got time if its not profitable (NOT referring to world of goo). even though they love making games and dont really care about the money, they need to buy food. instead of living of games, they take mundane jobs and (very slowly) work on their games. as i said, i dont mind piracy atm, but i fear the direction its moving.

I happen to work as a developer (I do database work, I'm not a game programmer.), if you can do the kind of low-level programming that it takes to actually make a game work well especially on consoles your skills can be readily adapted to making other types of software. There is definitely a market out there for people who can write programs for embedded systems, you really need to have experience doing low-level programming to do well in those environments. Anyone working as a game programmer would be wise to look into doing other kinds of work using the same set of skills, before the layoff comes. The same is true for graphic artists.

These people, like myself, are skilled workers. Someone, somewhere needs these skills in some capacity. We have to be willing to self market and try to position ourselves in places that will look good to potential clients or businesses.

 

[reachforthesky]

File sharing is not the same as book lending. "File sharing" for one is actually "file copying". It would be more akin to making your own printing press and selling other works for cheaper, which is illegal. I'm honestly surprised that these judges are getting so much praise because of their ignorance of the way technology works..

 

[shadow skill]

File sharing is not the same as book lending. "File sharing" for one is actually "file copying". It would be more akin to making your own printing press and selling other works for cheaper, which is illegal. I'm honestly surprised that these judges are getting so much praise because of their ignorance of the way technology works..

They aren't selling this stuff though. So how can file-sharing be more like making a printing press and selling the items?

 

[reachforthesky]

File sharing is not the same as book lending. "File sharing" for one is actually "file copying". It would be more akin to making your own printing press and selling other works for cheaper, which is illegal. I'm honestly surprised that these judges are getting so much praise because of their ignorance of the way technology works..

They aren't selling this stuff though. So how can file-sharing be more like making a printing press and selling the items?

whether they profit from it or not, the effect is the same, if not multiplied. The books are being distributed to thousands of people, without the artist getting paid for it.

edit: and while they aren't selling the books, they still undeservedly make money off of ads.

 

[shadow skill]

File sharing is not the same as book lending. "File sharing" for one is actually "file copying". It would be more akin to making your own printing press and selling other works for cheaper, which is illegal. I'm honestly surprised that these judges are getting so much praise because of their ignorance of the way technology works..

They aren't selling this stuff though. So how can file-sharing be more like making a printing press and selling the items?

whether they profit from it or not, the effect is the same, if not multiplied. The books are being distributed to thousands of people, without the artist getting paid for it.

edit: and while they aren't selling the books, they still undeservedly make money off of ads.

How are they undeservedly making money off of ads that have nothing to do with the items they list or share? I take it that someone who sells their old books is undeservedly making money off those items as well? If I have a private collection and I rent ad space for the place that houses my collection why the heck should I be paying the authors of the items in my collection when the ads don't necessarily have anything to do with their work?

Let's look at things that have the same effect shall we:
Lending anything has the same effect of the copyright holder not being paid while someone other than the person who purchased the item experiences the item and generates memories of the item, either whole or in part. There are close to seven billion people on the Earth right now, millions of people lend books and movies to each other through analog means every day.

People have private libraries and invite people to view the items they have collected or trade with them. Again thousands if not millions of people do this every day.

When you reduce these things to their effects you run smack into the problem that we have been doing this since before we thought of copyright. Applying copyright law the way it is currently written to file-sharing of the digital variety requires one to find a way of differentiating between the digital and analog varieties. Therein lies the problem. If you read the way that "copy" is defined in the U.S. construction of copyright law an implicit copy is created even under accepted analog situations. There is a fundamental contradiction introduced almost immediately, not because the definition is in any way flawed, rather it is because the definition is absolutely perfect.

The definition is such that it covers existing mechanisms for copying and reading information as well as any future device. The human brain is inherently capable of creating copies of information. It is the capacity of the human brain to store memories that gives us the generic term "memory" for artificial devices. The only major thing missing at this point and time is a way of transmitting and deleting memories from the brain in an accurate manner. Once those things are available the question with respect to copyright is whether or not an individual "owns" his or her memories.

If the answer is yes then a copyright holder cannot be granted the right to delete a person's memories, nor can they be granted the right to control with whom people share their memories with. If the answer is no, then the only option is to institute some type of thought control.

At this time we are dealing with artificial objects that are not directly integrated with our bodies but the problem is the same. The media that these copies find themselves on is often times not owned in anyway by the copyright holder, and is instead owned by an entirely unrelated individual. How can one own the storage medium while simultaneously not owning the data that exists on it after you have paid the fee to receive the data, and are not under any obligation to pay a recurring fee?

The methods of enforcing copyright law are now running head first into property law and the very concept of ownership. If the copyright holder can arbitrarily delete contents from people's hard drives in order to defend their copyright then consumers can't be said to own anything up to and including the memories that exist in their brains. There would be no logical(Note that I did not say legal. There is a difference.) reason why a publisher couldn't have a repoman come and take your stuff since it isn't "owned" by you. They can dictate to retailers what they will charge for a given item, and where, when, and how people can access the item. They can tell you and I that we are not allowed to have our friend jack in the room while we are playing Call of Duty, or reading the latest hit author.

The publishers are already trying to get laws passed that would require people to install spyware on their computers. http://www.dga.org/news/pr-images/2010/Joint-submission-re-IPEC.pdf

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/entertainment-industrys-dystopia-future