Today's Piracy report

[Gindil]

*Rummages around in thoughts*

*Picks up a thought but tosses it away*

*smiles*

So today's article is a little more difficult. I certainly can't run out of material but I was debating on two different things. Should we talk about Shining Force, where you can see about a game through Escapist, or should there be a new game?

Should it be a game and not a remix(er)? I figured if it's just me talking maybe someone else wants a chance to discuss a game, movie, or music that isn't necessarily legal in this country.

So how about it Escapist? This week is all about you.

 

[Gigano]

Obviously copyright laws could use some adjustments, notably in the areas of the right to citation, non-commercial use for artistic purposes (fanmade videos etc.), requirement of a (present or future) release on the market covered, and proportional sanctioning.

On the other hand, there need to be protection so that developers have some control over what their IP is (not mis)used for, and so they can gain the reasonable rate of return that's a prerequisite for them staying in business.

The first video in the OP I believe should be able to be created legally; it's a separate creation that doesn't degrade or rob market shares from the two individual songs, but rather promote them. It should fall under the right to citation or "fair use".

The fan made game mentioned in the second I'm none too keen on though. Apart from it taking control of what elements the storyline should deal with - and the franchise be associated with - away from the writers, it's a competing "product", non-commercial as it might be, since it offers the same gameplay experiences for free. It may promote the official series to some degree, but it's also able to substitute it.

 

[GiantRaven]

Apologies for not replying to this sooner but I only just noticed it. Thank you for the other examples, they were interesting and help to show other viable options for music development. I never doubted they were there but I just wasn't sure what they were.

STUFF ABOUT SPOTIFY

Actually I have a premium spotify account. It's great. For a mere £10 a month I can have access to a much music as I want. I agree that it's a fantastic method of music delivery that, in conjunction with last.fm allows you to find new music quick and easily. Why pirate music when you have such a vast, cheap option in front of you (although I didn't know it wasn't available in the US).

After looking into so called piracy, I really come to one main conclusion. The fact of the matter is that copyright law actually hurts the industry far more than the individual players know. If I download a song, am I hurting Dolly Parton, who made her success through the deals with the industry? With anything, I find a good band, I've been sharing them. Something I'd like to reiterate here. The smaller bands are getting bigger, they're just doing it without the labels.

This still makes the assumption that the only people who deserve to make money from a music product is the artist, which simply isn't true in the current form of music delivery. It doesn't matter that you aren't hurting Dolly Parton, it matters that you are taking a product from someone for free, when they are providing it in exchange for money. The system might be completely borked but that doesn't mean a person is right for acquiring music for free. Spotify, last.fm and others (as you have previously mentioned) are perfectly valid options for getting music whilst still paying a (lower) cost.

If I hear a song and tape it, is it killing the industry? How about the radio? Through each generation of music, we have hit a snag that we've come through. With all the research above, I'm sure that the people will adapt. The industry has to change in order to remain relevant.

I agree, there need to be changes. But the changes shouldn't be 'nobody deserves to get paid for making and distributing their music', which is what piracy promotes to me.

 

[Event_Horizon]

The piracy/copyright argument is pretty black and white if you look at it through personal/intellectual property laws.

When an artist/musician/writer creates something, it is immediately protected under property rights, meaning they have ownership of such and can choose in any way they feel to distribute it, or not if they choose that too. If an artist doesn't want their work in a mashup, and they hold property rights, then mashup is therefore illegal, and they have every right as owner to get it taken down. You may not like it, but if you were the artist and someone changed your work without permission, you would feel differently.

The fact of the matter is the person who has ownership of something has the rights to do whatever they like with their own creation. If they wish to distribute it freely to the internet, they have the right to do so, and any free distribution is not actual piracy because the owner gave expressed permission to do so.

I hear the argument that copying something doesn't remove a physical item, so it is not stealing; but it is. Had you built a prototype of a new car, and someone else had some magical device that could replicate it perfectly, they would still be infringing on your rights if you did not give permission. In the same scenario, if you have them permission to copy your prototype on the condition that they give you credit (like a creative commons licence) then they would have to follow that agreement or have legal action taken against them. If you wanted to sell the copy to them, you could do that too. If you wanted to just have him copy it for free, that would also be your right. The other person however cannot choose what to do with your creation because it is YOUR creation - your property. It belongs to you. The whole issue that everyone I've read seems to miss is that it comes down to the fact that the rights of the creator are protected by law. Those laws you might disagree with now, but if it was your creation, those same rights would be extended to you, and if someone abused your creation, you would feel differently.

 

[Gindil]

STUFF ABOUT SPOTIFY

Actually I have a premium spotify account. It's great. For a mere £10 a month I can have access to a much music as I want. I agree that it's a fantastic method of music delivery that, in conjunction with last.fm allows you to find new music quick and easily. Why pirate music when you have such a vast, cheap option in front of you (although I didn't know it wasn't available in the US).

Exactly. Glad you like it. I still want to try that thing legally without being labeled a pirate. Let's not forget that most people find things mainly because it's more convenient. Spotify is just the new Napster IMO.

After looking into so called piracy, I really come to one main conclusion. The fact of the matter is that copyright law actually hurts the industry far more than the individual players know. If I download a song, am I hurting Dolly Parton, who made her success through the deals with the industry? With anything, I find a good band, I've been sharing them. Something I'd like to reiterate here. The smaller bands are getting bigger, they're just doing it without the labels.

This still makes the assumption that the only people who deserve to make money from a music product is the artist, which simply isn't true in the current form of music delivery. It doesn't matter that you aren't hurting Dolly Parton, it matters that you are taking a product from someone for free, when they are providing it in exchange for money. The system might be completely borked but that doesn't mean a person is right for acquiring music for free. Spotify, last.fm and others (as you have previously mentioned) are perfectly valid options for getting music whilst still paying a (lower) cost. [/quote]

I'm finding it harder to view this from a morality stand point because it still doesn't make sense. It's an economics thing... Why does Apple charge $1 per song and make money when people could go to the Pirate Bay and download that same song for free? It's about what they value out of that song. Yes, Apple gives %30 to the artist, but I'm sure there are artists that cut this middleman. Two examples are currently Kevin Smith (Movies) that decided to tour with his $4mil movie and Amanda Palmer who is discussing doing concerts at her fan's home. I have to think there's different values to the music involved and what people can charge for is access to what their fans want and come out ahead.

Example for the game industry would be lunch for the highest kill count in Call of Duty, or the best donators get to go to the headquarters of EA or something. I have to think that you use the free stuff to incentivize people to pay for other items. That makes sense. When you focus on making "pirates" evil criminal overlords, you must be doing something wrong.

If I hear a song and tape it, is it killing the industry? How about the radio? Through each generation of music, we have hit a snag that we've come through. With all the research above, I'm sure that the people will adapt. The industry has to change in order to remain relevant.

I agree, there need to be changes. But the changes shouldn't be 'nobody deserves to get paid for making and distributing their music', which is what piracy promotes to me.[/quote]

On the contrary, that isn't what piracy is promoting. While I can go on and on about how there's shady underworlds of corporate business screwing over artists, musicians, and young directors, I'm more to believe that the old ways are inefficient. If you talk about piracy, it's the same as word of mouth. People talk about what's good or bad about the things they enjoy, even pirates. Artists should focus on making those "pirates" into fans and finding ways to support them. Some can spread the word on mods in a game, the talent of an artist, or new ways to use the artists back catalogue (remix). Others could focus on financial support or new ways to promote an artist (say networking). What piracy is, is a tool to use. If you view it as negative, I would believe you're limiting yourself. Use it for what you need it for and I think the pros surely outweigh the cons of what it does.

 

[GiantRaven]

Exactly. Glad you like it. I still want to try that thing legally without being labeled a pirate. Let's not forget that most people find things mainly because it's more convenient. Spotify is just the new Napster IMO.

I'm confused. There isn't any way to illegally use Spotify and comparing it to a file-sharing site (illegal distribution) is in no way valid in my eyes. How would you say the two are similar? With one you are getting the music for free (when, for all intents and purposes, you would be expected to pay for it elsewhere) and the other, you are paying for an alternate form of music distribution.

I'm finding it harder to view this from a morality stand point because it still doesn't make sense. It's an economics thing... Why does Apple charge $1 per song and make money when people could go to the Pirate Bay and download that same song for free? It's about what they value out of that song.

A consumer can't decide the value of a song. I don't go around supermarkets and steal products because I feel they are too expensive, why does this apply to music?

Yes, Apple gives %30 to the artist, but I'm sure there are artists that cut this middleman. Two examples are currently Kevin Smith (Movies) that decided to tour with his $4mil movie and Amanda Palmer who is discussing doing concerts at her fan's home. I have to think there's different values to the music involved and what people can charge for is access to what their fans want and come out ahead.

But these are two completely different concepts. If someone releases something for free then yes, by all means, download it or whatever. But why is it still ok to pirate music when you many different avenues of paying for it legally?

When you focus on making "pirates" evil criminal overlords, you must be doing something wrong.

Am I really doing that? Or am I merely trying to suggest that you can't take the moral high ground when illegally downloading something. I couldn't give a shit if a person actually downloads something. It just really riles me up when they pretend that it isn't a bad thing to do. I've never seen an adequate argument as to why I shouldn't think that.

If you talk about piracy, it's the same as word of mouth. People talk about what's good or bad about the things they enjoy, even pirates.

Piracy is in no way the same to word of mouth. That doesn't even vaguely make sense. Sure, you can tell other people about bands you have found but how does that suddenly make piracy morally ok? Word of mouth can also arise out of people...oh, I don't know, finding bands and purchasing their music and then telling other people about them. The entire concept of piracy = word of mouth is completely flawed.

Artists should focus on making those "pirates" into fans and finding ways to support them. Some can spread the word on mods in a game, the talent of an artist, or new ways to use the artists back catalogue (remix).

I agree, there need to be more avenues of profit for the artist in the music industry.

You have spoken a lot about ideas and concepts that could arise out of pirating an artist's music, but there are many other ways of discovering music in a legitimate manner. I don't see how the ideas you have put forth apply only to piracy and I don't see how it moves towards making it a good moral standpoint.

The bottom line is that you are getting a product for free, when you would have to pay for it elsewhere. Now just take that one sentence and tell me; why is it ok to act like that isn't a bad thing to do?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Exactly. Glad you like it. I still want to try that thing legally without being labeled a pirate. Let's not forget that most people find things mainly because it's more convenient. Spotify is just the new Napster IMO.

I'm confused. There isn't any way to illegally use Spotify and comparing it to a file-sharing site (illegal distribution) is in no way valid in my eyes. How would you say the two are similar? With one you are getting the music for free (when, for all intents and purposes, you would be expected to pay for it elsewhere) and the other, you are paying for an alternate form of music distribution.

I'm finding it harder to view this from a morality stand point because it still doesn't make sense. It's an economics thing... Why does Apple charge $1 per song and make money when people could go to the Pirate Bay and download that same song for free? It's about what they value out of that song.

A consumer can't decide the value of a song. I don't go around supermarkets and steal products because I feel they are too expensive, why does this apply to music?

Yes, Apple gives %30 to the artist, but I'm sure there are artists that cut this middleman. Two examples are currently Kevin Smith (Movies) that decided to tour with his $4mil movie and Amanda Palmer who is discussing doing concerts at her fan's home. I have to think there's different values to the music involved and what people can charge for is access to what their fans want and come out ahead.

But these are two completely different concepts. If someone releases something for free then yes, by all means, download it or whatever. But why is it still ok to pirate music when you many different avenues of paying for it legally?

When you focus on making "pirates" evil criminal overlords, you must be doing something wrong.

Am I really doing that? Or am I merely trying to suggest that you can't take the moral high ground when illegally downloading something. I couldn't give a shit if a person actually downloads something. It just really riles me up when they pretend that it isn't a bad thing to do. I've never seen an adequate argument as to why I shouldn't think that.

If you talk about piracy, it's the same as word of mouth. People talk about what's good or bad about the things they enjoy, even pirates.

Piracy is in no way the same to word of mouth. That doesn't even vaguely make sense. Sure, you can tell other people about bands you have found but how does that suddenly make piracy morally ok? Word of mouth can also arise out of people...oh, I don't know, finding bands and purchasing their music and then telling other people about them. The entire concept of piracy = word of mouth is completely flawed.

Artists should focus on making those "pirates" into fans and finding ways to support them. Some can spread the word on mods in a game, the talent of an artist, or new ways to use the artists back catalogue (remix).

I agree, there need to be more avenues of profit for the artist in the music industry.

You have spoken a lot about ideas and concepts that could arise out of pirating an artist's music, but there are many other ways of discovering music in a legitimate manner. I don't see how the ideas you have put forth apply only to piracy and I don't see how it moves towards making it a good moral standpoint.

The bottom line is that you are getting a product for free, when you would have to pay for it elsewhere. Now just take that one sentence and tell me; why is it ok to act like that isn't a bad thing to do?

Argh, the old "consumers can't dictate the price" fallacy. In economics, price setting is a two+ way street, depending on how many competitors there are in a given market. With an absolute monopoly, there is an interplay between the producer and the consumer in that the producer can set a price, but if the item they're selling isn't necessary to survival, the consumer can easily choose not to buy it, so some form of balance has to be found in order for the product to be profitable. Once you start adding competition, the consumer has even more control -- if company A is selling the same or an equivalent product for more than company B, why on earth would a consumer buy it from company A? In this way, consumers actually do have a pretty significant ability to decide what something is worth. Piracy can be seen as the ultimate competitor, in this instance.

As for the rest of your arguments, there is a huge difference between copying a file and stealing a product from a supermarket. The arguments as to why have been hashed and rehashed way too many times on this forum, but inevitably, the people who base their morality more in legality than social contracts or universal moral concepts (in other words, stage 4's) aren't going to listen; to them, it's illegal -- therefore it's wrong.

 

[GiantRaven]

Argh, the old "consumers can't dictate the price" fallacy. In economics, price setting is a two+ way street, depending on how many competitors there are in a given market. With an absolute monopoly, there is an interplay between the producer and the consumer in that the producer can set a price, but if the item they're selling isn't necessary to survival, the consumer can easily choose not to buy it, so some form of balance has to be found in order for the product to be profitable. Once you start adding competition, the consumer has even more control -- if company A is selling the same or an equivalent product for more than company B, why on earth would a consumer buy it from company A? In this way, consumers actually do have a pretty significant ability to decide what something is worth. Piracy can be seen as the ultimate competitor, in this instance.

The key word there is selling. Piracy is no way, shape or form a sale.

As for the rest of your arguments, there is a huge difference between copying a file and stealing a product from a supermarket. The arguments as to why have been hashed and rehashed way too many times on this forum, but inevitably, the people who base their morality more in legality than social contracts or universal moral concepts (in other words, stage 4's) aren't going to listen; to them, it's illegal -- therefore it's wrong.

The bottom line is that you are getting a product for free, when you would have to pay for it elsewhere. Now just take that one sentence and tell me; why is it ok to act like that isn't a bad thing to do?

Take that, completely devoid of context, (I could be talking about music, clothes, films, cars, games, food) and defend it. Tell me how it is morally ok to do that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Argh, the old "consumers can't dictate the price" fallacy. In economics, price setting is a two+ way street, depending on how many competitors there are in a given market. With an absolute monopoly, there is an interplay between the producer and the consumer in that the producer can set a price, but if the item they're selling isn't necessary to survival, the consumer can easily choose not to buy it, so some form of balance has to be found in order for the product to be profitable. Once you start adding competition, the consumer has even more control -- if company A is selling the same or an equivalent product for more than company B, why on earth would a consumer buy it from company A? In this way, consumers actually do have a pretty significant ability to decide what something is worth. Piracy can be seen as the ultimate competitor, in this instance.

The key word there is selling. Piracy is no way, shape or form a sale.

As for the rest of your arguments, there is a huge difference between copying a file and stealing a product from a supermarket. The arguments as to why have been hashed and rehashed way too many times on this forum, but inevitably, the people who base their morality more in legality than social contracts or universal moral concepts (in other words, stage 4's) aren't going to listen; to them, it's illegal -- therefore it's wrong.

The bottom line is that you are getting a product for free, when you would have to pay for it elsewhere. Now just take that one sentence and tell me; why is it ok to act like that isn't a bad thing to do?

Take that, completely devoid of context, (I could be talking about music, clothes, films, cars, games, food) and defend it. Tell me how it is morally ok to do that.

Key word: devoid of context. When you're dealing with a physical product, which removing the context from this situation assumes, you're dealing with something that has value as a physical product. Once you turn it into a digital file, the only value it has is as a piece of intellectual property -- and the value on that is pretty darned low, at least as a unit price. The ability to make infinite copies for free tends to do that. As for the whole "you're getting something you would otherwise have to pay for for free" deal, I have a well in my backyard; I pay the city nothing for water, and I don't need to pay for bottled water either. If I didn't have the well, I would have to pay for the water, but because I have it, I get it for free. Would you say that this was wrong as well?

As for your first argument, with piracy not strictly being a "sale," so? That doesn't stop it from being a definite form of competition to the industry, nor does it keep it from being a sign that, for a significant portion of consumers, the going rate on media products is set too high. I know I pay for everything when I can get it for under $10, but go much over that and I start to buy used, go without, or, in the case of movies, start looking on Youtube and other streaming sites. I have never, not once in my life, paid $60 for a videogame, and I can count the times I've spent more than $10 on a movie on the fingers of one hand. And yet I still spend hundreds of dollars on my entertainment a year; I simply consider the standard, full price for these products to be exorbitant, and refuse to pay it, opting instead to get several times the product for a fraction of the price. The sad part is, as I make so many used purchases, the media companies see me as no better than a pirate, despite the fact that I'm clearly saying, "hey guys, I like your product, but you charge too much for it. If you lower the price, I'll buy it new."

 

[Gindil]

Exactly. Glad you like it. I still want to try that thing legally without being labeled a pirate. Let's not forget that most people find things mainly because it's more convenient. Spotify is just the new Napster IMO.

I'm confused. There isn't any way to illegally use Spotify and comparing it to a file-sharing site (illegal distribution) is in no way valid in my eyes. How would you say the two are similar? With one you are getting the music for free (when, for all intents and purposes, you would be expected to pay for it elsewhere) and the other, you are paying for an alternate form of music distribution.

Napster came at a time when NO ONE expected it and changed the paradigm of the music industry. Remember, Napster wasn't illegal until the DMCA came around to take away people's rights. Napster did something that nothing before it really did. It made it so that people could find new artists conveniently. The problem was, it wasn't a centralized website. Basically, it was an aggregate of the demands of the people who used it. It made the music labels largely irrelevant.

The main reason that Spotify isn't here in the US is because of the music labels having a problem with the "freemium" model that Spotify represents. Yes, it's a legal alternative, but look at the results of large power structures going after Napster (the little guy). We now have Bittorrent, Grooveshark, and a LOT of artists away from music labels, who are losing money with their litigation routes. (I could go into examples but I'm getting lazy so...). Notice that with Grooveshark, it's legal but there's been a lot of startups shut down with exorbitant "startup" fees to the old industry so they've gone bankrupt. The problem isn't just that there's new demands for music. The problem is the legacy system fighting when digital has truly taken over.

I'm finding it harder to view this from a morality stand point because it still doesn't make sense. It's an economics thing... Why does Apple charge $1 per song and make money when people could go to the Pirate Bay and download that same song for free? It's about what they value out of that song.

A consumer can't decide the value of a song. I don't go around supermarkets and steal products because I feel they are too expensive, why does this apply to music?[/quote]

Actually they can. I can choose to walk away from an artist that doesn't do what I like. For example, I just recently had an artist say I was an ignorant college student because I felt she had new avenues open to her such as music in gaming. She bemoaned the fact that piracy is supposedly killing her sales when really, I don't think she was pushing herself or differentiating herself from the myriad of other artists and tried to make me the scapegoat for her success or failure.

And again, a song is not a tangible good. You can use it however you want to once it's digital. It's a resource. You use it. But think about all of the ways that a song can be used... Then someone comes around and finds new uses? That's actually making the song more valuable. As I was a child, I was told "Something only has as much value as if you share it with others". Even with a song being downloaded, I can't say that's a lost sale. Maybe someone doesn't like the music and deletes it. Perhaps, it reaches new audiences and someone looks for your band or they like your music. Even grocery stores run loss leaders to get people into their place.

Yes, Apple gives %30 to the artist, but I'm sure there are artists that cut this middleman. Two examples are currently Kevin Smith (Movies) that decided to tour with his $4mil movie and Amanda Palmer who is discussing doing concerts at her fan's home. I have to think there's different values to the music involved and what people can charge for is access to what their fans want and come out ahead.

But these are two completely different concepts. If someone releases something for free then yes, by all means, download it or whatever. But why is it still ok to pirate music when you many different avenues of paying for it legally?[/quote]

Again, the money isn't being made on a song. That's why record labels are peeved and changed copyright laws to suit their purposes. The entire piracy argument is quite flawed because it doesn't allow people to look at such nuances. Kevin Smith is selling tickets to his movie but he has a legion of Twitter followers that like what he does. But he's changing the entire paradigm of movie promotion to which no one has really seen. How many directors actually take the time to only show the movie where they are going to be? Think about how most movies are mass produced and he's being more selective in how he does it. Can it be pirated? yep. But with him doing a Q&A right after the movie, there's something else that people are paying for. The chance to talk to the director in the state or movie theater of their choosing. THAT is something worth looking into.

When you focus on making "pirates" evil criminal overlords, you must be doing something wrong.

Am I really doing that? Or am I merely trying to suggest that you can't take the moral high ground when illegally downloading something. I couldn't give a shit if a person actually downloads something. It just really riles me up when they pretend that it isn't a bad thing to do. I've never seen an adequate argument as to why I shouldn't think that.[/quote]

I'm saying that the morality issue in the piracy argument isn't going to help at all. Think about it... "If you download a game, you're a pirate!" It's like someone is going to tell my mom that I'm being bad. It's not a moral high ground, it's mainly an argument that makes no sense (similar to Geeko's words on the 2nd page) if you view it.

It's immoral:
Well, why? If I buy a physical (or digital) copy of a good, I can make a copy...
I can also lend it to a friend regardless of circumstances.

But if I lend a digital copy, WOEBETIDE, I'm killing someone's job and their livelihood!



My main point is just the fact that there are new avenues to make money and we shouldn't succumb to the false impression that the oldest ways are best.

If you talk about piracy, it's the same as word of mouth. People talk about what's good or bad about the things they enjoy, even pirates.

Piracy is in no way the same to word of mouth. That doesn't even vaguely make sense. Sure, you can tell other people about bands you have found but how does that suddenly make piracy morally ok? Word of mouth can also arise out of people...oh, I don't know, finding bands and purchasing their music and then telling other people about them. The entire concept of piracy = word of mouth is completely flawed.[/quote]

Free music pays [http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/free-music-can-pay/all/1]. A download IMO, is you signaling that you're in the world and you want someone's attention. Maybe they don't like your music but they know who else does. So maybe some of those downloads are try before you buy. The downloads don't get there themselves.

But if you want to know the greatest threat to anyone, it's when they're obscure. That almost happened to Shakespeare. If no one knows about you and your entertainment pursuits, how can they find ways to support you? That's why obscurity is a greater threat than piracy [http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/obscurity-is-a-greater-threat-to-writers-than-piracy/]

Artists should focus on making those "pirates" into fans and finding ways to support them. Some can spread the word on mods in a game, the talent of an artist, or new ways to use the artists back catalogue (remix).

I agree, there need to be more avenues of profit for the artist in the music industry.

You have spoken a lot about ideas and concepts that could arise out of pirating an artist's music, but there are many other ways of discovering music in a legitimate manner. I don't see how the ideas you have put forth apply only to piracy and I don't see how it moves towards making it a good moral standpoint.

The bottom line is that you are getting a product for free, when you would have to pay for it elsewhere. Now just take that one sentence and tell me; why is it ok to act like that isn't a bad thing to do?[/quote]

To download a song, is not really stealing. Those are two separate concepts that we need to distinguish from each other. I've explained that all above. But look at exactly what piracy is. Copyright infringement. Have I harmed anyone? Have I found something I can enjoy? Have I shared that benefit to others? Is it possible for the artist to find ways to share that enjoyment? Does every part of this process have to be monetized? The song making process does cost money. Bar none, a song does not cost money to share. But I'll be damned if concert sales didn't go up because I have more money in my pocket.

Yes, some people want more songs and will gladly pay for a CD. Some want other goods from the artist like T-Shirts, bow ties, or whatever is endorsed by the artist. It's not about bilking fans for all they're worth but as Masnick said in the video, Connect with your Fans, give them Reasons to Buy and I'm sure that your fears of piracy will go out the window.

 

[Event_Horizon]

Key word: devoid of context. When you're dealing with a physical product, which removing the context from this situation assumes, you're dealing with something that has value as a physical product. Once you turn it into a digital file, the only value it has is as a piece of intellectual property -- and the value on that is pretty darned low, at least as a unit price. The ability to make infinite copies for free tends to do that. As for the whole "you're getting something you would otherwise have to pay for for free" deal, I have a well in my backyard; I pay the city nothing for water, and I don't need to pay for bottled water either. If I didn't have the well, I would have to pay for the water, but because I have it, I get it for free. Would you say that this was wrong as well?

You completely miss the intellectual property rights of the creator. Just because it is not a physical product, doesn't mean that it is not property. When you take something that is the property of someone else, and use it in a way which they do not want you to use it, you are infringing on their property rights, which is against the law.

In a post a while ago you made an analogy of someone having a car, and another person having some kind of replication device (at least I think it was you). The argument bases ethics on the fact that you are not removing anything from the creator, but you miss your impact on their personal property rights. If the creator of the property shares their creation for free, and gives permission to reproduce it as much as the users want, then there is no infringement of property rights. Going back to the car analogy; if the person gave you permission to replicate the car, then there is no conflict. However if the owner of the car says you cannot replicate it, they can seek legal action for infringing on their rights and in essence "stealing" personal/intellectual property. The people who make music, video games, and movies are explicit in saying that they do not wish their property to be released for free. They want to get money for it, and it is well within their rights. When you take it for free, against their wishes, you are committing a crime against them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Key word: devoid of context. When you're dealing with a physical product, which removing the context from this situation assumes, you're dealing with something that has value as a physical product. Once you turn it into a digital file, the only value it has is as a piece of intellectual property -- and the value on that is pretty darned low, at least as a unit price. The ability to make infinite copies for free tends to do that. As for the whole "you're getting something you would otherwise have to pay for for free" deal, I have a well in my backyard; I pay the city nothing for water, and I don't need to pay for bottled water either. If I didn't have the well, I would have to pay for the water, but because I have it, I get it for free. Would you say that this was wrong as well?

You completely miss the intellectual property rights of the creator. Just because it is not a physical product, doesn't mean that it is not property. When you take something that is the property of someone else, and use it in a way which they do not want you to use it, you are infringing on their property rights, which is against the law.

In a post a while ago you made an analogy of someone having a car, and another person having some kind of replication device (at least I think it was you). The argument bases ethics on the fact that you are not removing anything from the creator, but you miss your impact on their personal property rights. If the creator of the property shares their creation for free, and gives permission to reproduce it as much as the users want, then there is no infringement of property rights. Going back to the car analogy; if the person gave you permission to replicate the car, then there is no conflict. However if the owner of the car says you cannot replicate it, they can seek legal action for infringing on their rights and in essence "stealing" personal/intellectual property. The people who make music, video games, and movies are explicit in saying that they do not wish their property to be released for free. They want to get money for it, and it is well within their rights. When you take it for free, against their wishes, you are committing a crime against them.

I don't "miss" it, I just think it's irrelevant, as a broken construct from a broken law. I don't deny that copyright should exist, or that intellectual property holds some value, but I do deny that the current laws regarding it are in any way reasonable. Under the original copyright law, copyright lasted 15 years after the IP was created. Under the current law, it lasts 75 years after the creator dies. If you can't see what's wrong with that, there's something wrong with you. I also believe that copyright infringement should only apply to people who try to sell unauthorized copies of someone's IP for profit, or to claim it as something they made, without giving the creator credit for his or her work. Pirates generally do neither of those things -- and I have no problem with prosecuting the ones who do.

As for the car thing, you do realize that, under your analogy, I would need to get permission from the maker of the car, not its current owner, right? Because they are the ones who would hold copyright, not the owner of the individual car. Actually, under your analogy as worded, piracy is perfectly okay, because at some point, someone had to buy the product before it could be put up on a torrent site, and therefore the owner of that copy -- the equivalent to the whole "car copying" thing -- gave express permission by putting it out there to be copied.

 

[jawakiller]

Ok I am just soooooooo sick of this. This IS what news is now. Find large, yet undeadly problem, Hype it up and MENTION IT EVERY OTHER THREAD/SECOND, and use it to either distract us from the large, deadly problem or distract us from our boring lives. I am so sick of hearing about piracy, iraq/middleastern wars, politics, and deadly problems that we will face if we don't straighten up and BEHAVE.

I apologize but...can we talk about something new?

What would you like to talk about than? How bad the final fantasy franchise is?

 

[Event_Horizon]

I don't "miss" it, I just think it's irrelevant, as a broken construct from a broken law. I don't deny that copyright should exist, or that intellectual property holds some value, but I do deny that the current laws regarding it are in any way reasonable. Under the original copyright law, copyright lasted 15 years after the IP was created. Under the current law, it lasts 75 years after the creator dies.

How does that justify anything the pirate does? Laws may need reformation, sure, but the basics of personal property rights, not copyright laws, are what all the arguments seem to miss. Just because they are extensive (maybe too extensive) doesn't give anyone the right to override them. There are possibly reasons why those laws are like that. If I wrote a story and I died just after it was published, I cannot give consent to others to change the original text. So the 75 years sounds like a decent amount of time for my intellectual property to remain as I desired it.

If you can't see what's wrong with that, there's something wrong with you.

Not appropriate. Since I could just as easily say if you disagree with me then there's something wrong with you. Way to completely tune out someone else's perspective.

I also believe that copyright infringement should only apply to people who try to sell unauthorized copies of someone's IP for profit, or to claim it as something they made, without giving the creator credit for his or her work.

If I publish something for free on the internet, and I say specifically that it must stay on my site, it doesn't matter whether someone profits/gets credit from it or not; if they copy it somewhere else, and I say not to, they are infringing on my property rights. You cannot go and use someone's creation and justify it as for their own good. If indeed it was for their own good, they would agree to it, but until they do, you cannot touch their creation. This same process ensures that whatever you create will have the same privileges.

As for the car thing, you do realize that, under your analogy, I would need to get permission from the maker of the car, not its current owner, right? Because they are the ones who would hold copyright, not the owner of the individual car.

How does that change the scenario? The manufacturer has copyright over the car's blueprints, and if they don't want a third party replicating it, that party can't.

Actually, under your analogy as worded, piracy is perfectly okay, because at some point, someone had to buy the product before it could be put up on a torrent site, and therefore the owner of that copy -- the equivalent to the whole "car copying" thing -- gave express permission by putting it out there to be copied.

Not quite. Does the person who purchased a copy of the song suddenly own the rights to the song, or do they just own that particular copy? I'd say they own the copy, and are not the creator of the song, and as such do not have exclusive rights to that song. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You own the copy, but do you have the right to give away copies of the copy? No, despite arguments against, the law is clear on this. It would be as if you wrote a book and sold to to someone who then started making copies of it and giving them out for free. Is that book suddenly not yours anymore because he purchased it, even though the words in the pages are yours and the copyright belongs to you?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't "miss" it, I just think it's irrelevant, as a broken construct from a broken law. I don't deny that copyright should exist, or that intellectual property holds some value, but I do deny that the current laws regarding it are in any way reasonable. Under the original copyright law, copyright lasted 15 years after the IP was created. Under the current law, it lasts 75 years after the creator dies.

How does that justify anything the pirate does? Laws may need reformation, sure, but the basics of personal property rights, not copyright laws, are what all the arguments seem to miss. Just because they are extensive (maybe too extensive) doesn't give anyone the right to override them. There are possibly reasons why those laws are like that. If I wrote a story and I died just after it was published, I cannot give consent to others to change the original text. So the 75 years sounds like a decent amount of time for my intellectual property to remain as I desired it.

If you can't see what's wrong with that, there's something wrong with you.

Not appropriate. Since I could just as easily say if you disagree with me then there's something wrong with you. Way to completely tune out someone else's perspective.

I also believe that copyright infringement should only apply to people who try to sell unauthorized copies of someone's IP for profit, or to claim it as something they made, without giving the creator credit for his or her work.

If I publish something for free on the internet, and I say specifically that it must stay on my site, it doesn't matter whether someone profits/gets credit from it or not; if they copy it somewhere else, and I say not to, they are infringing on my property rights. You cannot go and use someone's creation and justify it as for their own good. If indeed it was for their own good, they would agree to it, but until they do, you cannot touch their creation. This same process ensures that whatever you create will have the same privileges.

As for the car thing, you do realize that, under your analogy, I would need to get permission from the maker of the car, not its current owner, right? Because they are the ones who would hold copyright, not the owner of the individual car.

How does that change the scenario? The manufacturer has copyright over the car's blueprints, and if they don't want a third party replicating it, that party can't.

Actually, under your analogy as worded, piracy is perfectly okay, because at some point, someone had to buy the product before it could be put up on a torrent site, and therefore the owner of that copy -- the equivalent to the whole "car copying" thing -- gave express permission by putting it out there to be copied.

Not quite. Does the person who purchased a copy of the song suddenly own the rights to the song, or do they just own that particular copy? I'd say they own the copy, and are not the creator of the song, and as such do not have exclusive rights to that song. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You own the copy, but do you have the right to give away copies of the copy? No, despite arguments against, the law is clear on this. It would be as if you wrote a book and sold to to someone who then started making copies of it and giving them out for free. Is that book suddenly not yours anymore because he purchased it, even though the words in the pages are yours and the copyright belongs to you?

*sigh* Personal property laws have jack squat to do with it; if you look it up in the law books -- which someone did in either this thread or the other one that was active today -- you'll find that personal property and intellectual property are not even legally related, intellectual property is just a convenient term that gives a rough idea of a complex issue.

By the way we aren't ever going to finish this argument. Look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development. I'm arguing from a stage five "the law is in the wrong here, so I am not morally obligated to follow it, but am morally obligated to do whatever I can to change it" position, while you're arguing from a stage four "it's illegal, therefore it's morally wrong" standpoint. That's the dividing line in this debate; the people who rabidly argue for copyright law are coming from a stage 4 perspective, while those of us arguing the other side are arguing from a stage 5 or higher perspective. This debate is going to keep going in circles until all of the stage 4 people advance to stage 5 (unlikely) or we just quit arguing it, because it's getting old, and we haven't made any headway in years.

 

[Event_Horizon]

*sigh* Personal property laws have jack squat to do with it; if you look it up in the law books -- which someone did in either this thread or the other one that was active today -- you'll find that personal property and intellectual property are not even legally related, intellectual property is just a convenient term that gives a rough idea of a complex issue.

Okay granted I am unfamiliar with the terminology.

Look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Well first it isn't very contributing to the discussion when you claim that I cannot argue with you since I don't understand morals at a stage five moral reasoning. Immediately you shut off the discussion by claiming an intellectual high ground. I don't argue in favor of the law because the law is simply the law.

My overall point is that if an individual person creates something, their rights of ownership extend to that thing. People cannot simply override the rights of others on a whim. So taking a work someone has created, and using it beyond the scope of what the creator wanted, tramples on their rights, and in a society such as ours, infringement of rights is a crime. Surely the specifics of the laws can be argued, but in the instance of piracy, it should be fairly clear cut as to morality of such an action. If the creator of a work doesn't want their work to be used in a certain way, and a person uses that work in that way, that person is infringing on the creators rights, which happens to be a crime. To say that I argue at a level 4 moral reasoning is missing the greater point. I could be arguing from a level 5 or 6, in which our social contract requires our human rights to be maintained, or the universal ethical principle is that it is wrong to infringe on someone's human rights.

The law then becomes wrong if the law infringes on those rights, but as far as copyrights go, until I am presented with evidence that copyright law infringes on human rights*, then I can only reasonably assert that they protect the authors rights as they are intended to do.

*One could argue that the rights of the buyer are infringed by preventing them from distributing their purchase as they please. However if the buyer does such an action, the creators rights are infringed. This conflict has to be resolved some way, and to me it seems to be a logical impossibility to both keep the buyers rights and the creators rights intact at the same time. My personal belief, at the moment, is that the creators rights should triumph because they themselves created the piece, where as the buyer put nothing towards the piece other than to acquire it, holding no responsibility for the content, distribution, or the success and failure of the piece.

 

[omicron1]

Postulate:

An unchecked pirate market will eventually subsume the industry. If it is not wrong nor disadvantageous to pirate, almost no one will purchase games and therefore no one will make games for sale. Freeware/artware will become the only available type of game.

If it is simply wrong to pirate, the industry will survive. The unscrupulous will pirate and those with a strong moral compass will buy. The industry will not be as strong as otherwise, but it will exist.

If piracy is impossible or heavily policed, there will be an upturn in game purchases. It is foolish to believe that a group of people who game as a hobby would stop gaming if they could not do it for free. It is also foolish to believe that they would buy every game they had previously pirated - they will buy less than or equal to the same amount of games as the average legitimate gamer, and if they buy less than others (due to monetary reasons, perhaps), they will make up the time by playing freeware games.

If piracy of a particular small subset of games is made impossible, those games will not see a sales increase - the pirates will simply pirate something else.

If piracy of an entire genre, platform, or type of game is made impossible, that element will see a sales upswing - however, it will be less than if piracy were impossible across the board.

...

Any questions?

 

[2fish]

snip
Any questions?

Why do I see this thread every week? Are pirates the new downtrodden group looking to the people for aid or something?

Personally I don't pirate because I see it as wrong. Copy right law and downloading old games that are not sold anymore well that needs to be worked on. I take my stance based on morals and off the idea that money talks spend money on good games get more good games.

Money=Votes vote for what you like in your capitalist world.

(yes I know you didn't mean for me to ask you that question but hey it was a good intro.)

 

[SenseOfTumour]

It's never going to be resolved, the piracy issue, and especially not here, where we'll always be in the shadow of the looming banhammer every time the word appears.

However, I would say that anything that's using only part of someone else's work to make something new, that isn't for sale, and therefore being creatively used as a nod to the quality of the original shouldn't be shot down in flames by lawsuits.

Many mashups are great, and in fact can introduce people to new music. I'm not sure about the gaming uses, but I imagine some people who, for instance, played the flash based 2d versions of Half Life and Portal went on to buy the full games, because they found the ideas behind them interesting enough. I also very much DOUBT that anyone who wanted to buy Portal didn't bother because the flash version was enough.

There's a guy who goes by the name of Go Home Productions who's done full albums of mashups of pretty damn good quality, I'm sure you can find him on that tubey thing, I'd hate to think he wasn't allowed to play around with the vast library of existing music to create what he does.

EDIT: found one - an interesting take on early Jackson Five and Nirvana, Kurt's kinda cheerful

Piracy however, doesn't need any creative input, and as far as I can see does negative impact artists and the creative people who make the entertainment we like, I know the level of damage is exaggerated by the industries, and downplayed by the pirates, but there's some level of damage, and it's very hard to argue that it is a good thing.

I'd also suggest that the advance of technology has made things worse, back 20 years and sure, people could copy tapes and videos to give to friends at school or work, but essentially, there'd be a fair number of copies sold, and a few of those might be copied a few times.

Now it's so simple for one person to get one copy, and distribute it across the entire world with no difficulty to thousands of people with no loss of quality. Home taping never killed music and was a silly idea, in fact I believe it just spread the stuff around thru schools, and got kids more interested, but now it's too easy, and many people probably don't even consider it to be morally wrong.

 

[Gindil]

I don't "miss" it, I just think it's irrelevant, as a broken construct from a broken law. I don't deny that copyright should exist, or that intellectual property holds some value, but I do deny that the current laws regarding it are in any way reasonable. Under the original copyright law, copyright lasted 15 years after the IP was created. Under the current law, it lasts 75 years after the creator dies.

How does that justify anything the pirate does? Laws may need reformation, sure, but the basics of personal property rights, not copyright laws, are what all the arguments seem to miss. Just because they are extensive (maybe too extensive) doesn't give anyone the right to override them. There are possibly reasons why those laws are like that. If I wrote a story and I died just after it was published, I cannot give consent to others to change the original text. So the 75 years sounds like a decent amount of time for my intellectual property to remain as I desired it.

That is BS on most fronts. We have a problem where Ernest Hemingway's work should be free to use (ie public domain). But because of copyright laws in the US, it's extended. The detriment is the very fact that you can't see any new compilations of his work, nor can you see others use his work and extend it in different ways. And why is it that pirates need justification for what they do?

If you look at any industry, none of them have gone out of business because of piracy. If anything, artists of all types have found new ways to make money.

If you can't see what's wrong with that, there's something wrong with you.

Not appropriate. Since I could just as easily say if you disagree with me then there's something wrong with you. Way to completely tune out someone else's perspective.

But notice the argument presented. Enforcing copyright law really has never been in the interest of an artist. There truly is something wrong with copyright law when your heirs don't have to do anything but piggyback off your work and do nothing for themselves.

I also believe that copyright infringement should only apply to people who try to sell unauthorized copies of someone's IP for profit, or to claim it as something they made, without giving the creator credit for his or her work.

If I publish something for free on the internet, and I say specifically that it must stay on my site, it doesn't matter whether someone profits/gets credit from it or not; if they copy it somewhere else, and I say not to, they are infringing on my property rights. You cannot go and use someone's creation and justify it as for their own good. If indeed it was for their own good, they would agree to it, but until they do, you cannot touch their creation. This same process ensures that whatever you create will have the same privileges.

Again, how is this infringing a bad thing? If anything, so long as you continue to create, you're providing people with a reason to like your work. Look at something like xkcd. It has people quoting it all over the place and if someone wants to support him, he has all of his drawings in books.

If people actually responded by saying "don't touch" that's more of a perverse incentive. Maybe they like it and can reach a different audience than you can. If anything, artists should be glad for the exposure and find new ways to sell and differentiate themselves.

As for the car thing, you do realize that, under your analogy, I would need to get permission from the maker of the car, not its current owner, right? Because they are the ones who would hold copyright, not the owner of the individual car.

How does that change the scenario? The manufacturer has copyright over the car's blueprints, and if they don't want a third party replicating it, that party can't.

... So if I want to change the brakes, I need to go to the manufacturer and all third parties are automatically shut out?

That's kinda bad for the economy overall...

Actually, under your analogy as worded, piracy is perfectly okay, because at some point, someone had to buy the product before it could be put up on a torrent site, and therefore the owner of that copy -- the equivalent to the whole "car copying" thing -- gave express permission by putting it out there to be copied.

Not quite. Does the person who purchased a copy of the song suddenly own the rights to the song, or do they just own that particular copy? I'd say they own the copy, and are not the creator of the song, and as such do not have exclusive rights to that song. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You own the copy, but do you have the right to give away copies of the copy? No, despite arguments against, the law is clear on this. It would be as if you wrote a book and sold to to someone who then started making copies of it and giving them out for free. Is that book suddenly not yours anymore because he purchased it, even though the words in the pages are yours and the copyright belongs to you?

The law really isn't clear and there's a lot of arguments for and against. I'll just state that the law will remain behind the technology, trying to support an old fashioned view while technology gets better at finding workarounds to the law.