The piracy battle

[patches70]

How can ideas and arguments become exclusive property?


These words were just written by BigBallinStalin, and any quotation without my permission will result in legal fees and damages and anal leakage. You do not have permission to quote this.©

Sue me. Hahaha.

[rishaed]

http://www.upworthy.com/someone-somewhere-owes-the-mpaa-58-billion

[Ray Rider]

http://www.upworthy.com/someone-somewhere-owes-the-mpaa-58-billion

Hahah

rofl

[thegreekdog]

TGD the stealing argument is all well and good until you actually look at the reality of the situation.

I buy a film on DVD. I can legally watch that film. I can legally have as many friends or family round to watch that film as I like as long as I'm not running a commercial business around that service - no law stops me saying to all of my facebook friends and their friends and their friends etc (7 layers of friends out and you have the entire world) "hey guys, I just bought World War Z on DVD, anyone wanna come round and watch it with me?" None of those people have paid for that DVD, yet all are being given a fully legal way to watch it (as long as I dont charge people for coming over or try to make any profit by selling food/drink/whatever before, during or after I show the film).

I can even legally make a copy of that DVD onto my hard drive, and go to a friends house and log into my computer through a VPN connection and stream that movie anywhere I like to watch it at my leisure. I can fly half way round the world and watch it without any legal issue at all, and I can invite people to watch it with me (for free) wherever I like without falling foul of the law. Or of course I could carry the physical DVD to any of those places too.

The restriction in law is that I am not allowed to show that movie in a public place like a bar or park or whatever. When (theoretically) I allow someone I know to stream that video from my computer or to download it, I havent allowed it to be shown in a public place. The law only gets broken if someone shows it in a public place, and the person who showed it in a public place is the person who broke that law, not the person who supplied them with the film in the first place.

I think when one is permitting thousands of people to view a product online for free, it's public and that goes into the realm of piracy as you've described the issue.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not with the companies either. I think there is an appropriate way to go about protecting one's works, whether through the current law and court system, or, if that's not enough, through some internet regulation without the "destruction of the internet" by ham-fisted politicians. I think there is overreaction from the internet community who support the availability of pirated materials. I don't think there is overreaction to some proposed laws and regulations; rather, I think the internet community should reach out to the victims of piracy to determine a better course of action. Right now the debate is "Don't touch my stuff" vs. "You're going to destroy the internet." That seems to be a useless debate.

I can't really imagine a way in which some entity would have enough power over the internet to stand a chance at stopping piracy without also fundamentally changing the anonymous, distributed nature of the internet.
Maybe there is a way, and if I see it maybe I'll change my mind about this, but until then, the reality is that the solutions currently being pushed are quite bad.

I can't really disagree with you on these types of things, but there are more intelligent people than you or me working on this (presumably).

The problem I have with your argument is twofold

First, you're operating from the assumption that a creator (for lack of a better term) is not able to adapt to a new technology (the internet). Why are you making that assumption? A better question is why is the creator required to adapt to the technology? Why is the technology not required to adapt to the creator? The internet is a great thing, but it's not perfect. And it is most certainly problematic when the reaction of the internet community to copyright infringement accusations is to say "you need to adapt" as if there is no other argument but their own argument. This is especially problematic in the context of number two.

Isn't this adaptation pretty much how the business world works? Did kodak have the government ban digital photography so they wouldn't have to adapt? Did IBM have the government ban personal computers so they wouldn't have to adapt? Is Microsoft currently trying to ban tablets and smartphones so they don't have to adapt?
I bet they all would have loved to do that, but they couldn't. They had to adapt or die.
That's what new technology does, it changes the landscape.

Microsoft and IBM seem like weird and probably inappropriate analogies. I understand that ultimately you want television companies and publishers to make works available online. I understand that this is the endgame that most people desire. I also believe this will be the end result (not of piracy, but of the internet generally). This is the natural progression of entertainment on the internet (in my opinion).

But, again, none of that has to do with piracy. You're discussing the adaptation of Microsoft to a competing product. The internet may compete with cable television, for example, but the internet is not competing with the television producers of Breaking Bad or with Metallica or with George RR Martin.

So yeah, internet changed the landscape, but, as I indicated above, it didn't change the morality of (again) stealing someone's work and providing it for free, thereby depriving that person of income.

Second, I cannot disagree with your more on my analogy. Stealing someone's television is absolutely equivalent to stealing someone's television show. In both cases, the person doing the thieving is not paying for the product or service. Again, this is something that boggles my mind. How can a reasonably law-abiding citizen (e.g. you or BBS) be so ardently in favor of an Australian illegally obtaining the ability to watch a television show? Not only is this person breaking the law, they are not providing the creator with any compensation whatsoever. Erego, it's directly equivalent to stealing a television. I'm not using that example in jest and I'm not using it to demonstrate a slippery slope argument. These two situations are absolutely equivalent and to suggest otherwise is an awkward attempt (in my opinion) to justify piracy. There isn't even a moral imperative that could justify stealing a television show.

Now, I'm flying off the handle again so I'll stop. I just don't get the support for piracy. I don't get it at all. Pay for the stuff you watch or read. If you can't pay for it, oh well. You are not entitled to watch a television show or read a book for free simply because technology allows you to do so. The existence of the technology does not suddenly change the morality, nevermind the legality, of stealing someone else's works.

I agree that it's stealing. I agree that it's immoral.
It is not "as immoral" as physical theft though.
There's plenty of differences, such as that piracy is copying the artifact and thus not depriving anyone else of it. Such that piracy can POTENTIALLY have beneficial effects similar to viral marketing (not saying this makes up for lost revenue, but classic stealing has no such potential benefit). Additionally when looking at piracy figures one must keep in mind that only a fraction of that is actually lost revenue, the vast majority would not have actually bought the product if it weren't available for free.

Basically, if getting stuff online for free was the same as stealing stuff from someone's home, then we wouldn't have content producers that put their own stuff for free online. (and there are plenty of these)

I'm not ardently in favour of piracy, I'm just taking a pragmatic approach.
Given the options available today (piracy vs. SOPA etc), piracy is definitely the lesser evil.
I also think crispy is pretty spot on about the big entertainment industry having a bit of a hissy fit over this, cause they don't want to change.

Piracy is the lesser evil for you, but not for others. I think this is where I get angry. Primarily, the only reason that anyone is in favor of piracy is because that person believes he or she has a right (or desire) to receive entertainment illegally (and immorally). I get angry because I have no idea how this is a valid argument. It's like saying, "I want free food, so I should have the right to get it for free."

SOPA is bad, sure. I don't disagree with that. Big entertainment has more to worry about from legal providers, no? I mean you have Netflix now publishing it's own television shows with great success. That's where the adaptation must come from, not from a response to illegal pirating.

[DoomYoshi]

Primarily, the only reason that anyone is in favor of piracy is because that person believes he or she has a right (or desire) to receive entertainment illegally (and immorally). I get angry because I have no idea how this is a valid argument. It's like saying, "I want free food, so I should have the right to get it for free."

Ok, case studies in morality time.

Case 1:
Codemasters hasn't made the Big Nose games in 20+ years. That company folded in the 90s. Nobody owns the rights to those games. I can buy a used copy, but it doesn't benefit content creators in any way. Why is piracy a moral problem in this case? Because one purchaser of content decided to sell a product (on eBay) and another person decided to give it away for free?

If one person is selling blowjobs is it immoral for me to receive one for free?

Case 2:

Of American silent films far more have been lost than have survived, and of American sound films made from 1927 to 1950, perhaps half have been lost.

A large part of the reason is that nobody wanted to keep them. Another large part is that nobody knew who owned the copyrights and you weren't allowed to make copies unless you had permission from the copyright holder. I can now never watch The Case of Sergeant Grischa thanks to anti-piracy. How is that moral?

Case 3:
I won't watch Jackson 5ive reruns unless I don't have to pay for them. So, if I watch pirated copies on the internet, nothing is lost (for the content creators) but something is gained (by me). Where does immorality lie if I watch it?

On a more general note: Privacy is immoral. If someone decides to create content and then never let anyone see it, it is a moral duty for people to share it by piracy. WikiLeaks is the embodiment of morality in our times.

[thegreekdog]

Case (1) and Case (2) are not contemplated by anything I've written, so they are invalid case studies.

In Case (3), why is nothing lost for the content creators?

Privacy is not immoral.
Wikileaks, to my knowledge, does not copy and release Breaking Bad for free. So, again, probably invalid analogy.

[DoomYoshi]

Case (1) and Case (2) are not contemplated by anything I've written, so they are invalid case studies.

In Case (3), why is nothing lost for the content creators?

Privacy is not immoral.
Wikileaks, to my knowledge, does not copy and release Breaking Bad for free. So, again, probably invalid analogy.

Case (1) and Case (2) are both cases in which

anyone is in favor of piracy is because that person believes he or she has a right (or desire) to receive entertainment illegally

Case one I decide I can illegally download the Big Nose ROM. Case two someone decided (in this case they decided not to) illegally copy The Case of Sergeant Grischa.

They lost nothing because I wouldn't have paid for it. Honestly, I wouldn't have. If it was on tv, I may have sat through the commercials. But it isn't.

If I write a script for breaking bad, how is that any different than writing a script for illegally torturing prisoners in Iraq? They are both beautiful works of art. Is the difference that one is fact and one is fiction?

[Gillipig]

The piratebay is going nowhere. Maybe some countries will block it but the site won't be shut down. If by some miracle the movie industry could influence the Swedish supreme court to take it down, there are plenty of other sites that do just what the piratebay does anyway.

[Crazyirishman]

edited so the post shows up on the next page since the bottom of the page sux.

[MegaProphet]

In Case (3), why is nothing lost for the content creators?

From what I've read (I can try to find some sources if you'd like them) content creators are generally not hurt by piracy and in fact may benefit from it. Many times they've already been paid for the content by a network. So it's the large networks and advertisers that are hurt most by pirating. However they still aren't hurt as much by pirating as they are by their own decisions to not make the content readily available because if people have the choice to pay for it they often will. The word of mouth that content gets due to pirating arguably outweighs the possible loss. I'm not saying that it's okay to pirate content due to this just that it doesn't really affect the content creators.

[Crazyirishman]

Question: ¿is it piracy to download something from youtube?

So, in the US, you need to explicitly apply for a copyright and pay for the fee. By default, all copyrights are not creative commons, but are rather require the potential user/customer to first obtain permission from the copyright holder.

If you download original content from Youtube--content that does not infringe on anyone else's IP rights--then you should be scot-free; however, it depends on (1) the terms and conditions of Youtube, which no one reads, and (2) the owner of that original content may be able to successfully sue you if (a) it's worth doing so, and (b) he files to get a copyright.

Any idea on how that would apply to Chile?

Also this reminds me of one of the greatest things I've seen on a college campus... the fotocopiadora (photocopier). They have one of these bad boys set up for every dept in the college and the professors put all the readings for the entire course in this folder for the students. So instead of paying hundreds of dollars towards the university bookstore/ textbook publishing monopoly, you spend a couple hundred pesos (usually less than 1US dollar) to get somebody to make you a copy of the reading. It really cuts down on costs as a student.

@TGD- is the system listed above immoral as well?

[BigBallinStalin]

Question: ¿is it piracy to download something from youtube?

So, in the US, you need to explicitly apply for a copyright and pay for the fee. By default, all copyrights are not creative commons, but are rather require the potential user/customer to first obtain permission from the copyright holder.

If you download original content from Youtube--content that does not infringe on anyone else's IP rights--then you should be scot-free; however, it depends on (1) the terms and conditions of Youtube, which no one reads, and (2) the owner of that original content may be able to successfully sue you if (a) it's worth doing so, and (b) he files to get a copyright.

Any idea on how that would apply to Chile?

Also this reminds me of one of the greatest things I've seen on a college campus... the fotocopiadora (photocopier). They have one of these bad boys set up for every dept in the college and the professors put all the readings for the entire course in this folder for the students. So instead of paying hundreds of dollars towards the university bookstore/ textbook publishing monopoly, you spend a couple hundred pesos (usually less than 1US dollar) to get somebody to make you a copy of the reading. It really cuts down on costs as a student.

@TGD- is the system listed above immoral as well?

It's difficult to successfully make someone 'cease and desist' if they live outside the US. It can work if the foreign country has close ties with the US, which would seek to either shut down particular websites or call for certain people's extradition (but those are 'big time' cases).

[thegreekdog]

Question: ¿is it piracy to download something from youtube?

So, in the US, you need to explicitly apply for a copyright and pay for the fee. By default, all copyrights are not creative commons, but are rather require the potential user/customer to first obtain permission from the copyright holder.

If you download original content from Youtube--content that does not infringe on anyone else's IP rights--then you should be scot-free; however, it depends on (1) the terms and conditions of Youtube, which no one reads, and (2) the owner of that original content may be able to successfully sue you if (a) it's worth doing so, and (b) he files to get a copyright.

Any idea on how that would apply to Chile?

Also this reminds me of one of the greatest things I've seen on a college campus... the fotocopiadora (photocopier). They have one of these bad boys set up for every dept in the college and the professors put all the readings for the entire course in this folder for the students. So instead of paying hundreds of dollars towards the university bookstore/ textbook publishing monopoly, you spend a couple hundred pesos (usually less than 1US dollar) to get somebody to make you a copy of the reading. It really cuts down on costs as a student.

@TGD- is the system listed above immoral as well?

It is both immoral and illegal.

[AndyDufresne]

Question: ¿is it piracy to download something from youtube?

So, in the US, you need to explicitly apply for a copyright and pay for the fee. By default, all copyrights are not creative commons, but are rather require the potential user/customer to first obtain permission from the copyright holder.

If you download original content from Youtube--content that does not infringe on anyone else's IP rights--then you should be scot-free; however, it depends on (1) the terms and conditions of Youtube, which no one reads, and (2) the owner of that original content may be able to successfully sue you if (a) it's worth doing so, and (b) he files to get a copyright.

Any idea on how that would apply to Chile?

Also this reminds me of one of the greatest things I've seen on a college campus... the fotocopiadora (photocopier). They have one of these bad boys set up for every dept in the college and the professors put all the readings for the entire course in this folder for the students. So instead of paying hundreds of dollars towards the university bookstore/ textbook publishing monopoly, you spend a couple hundred pesos (usually less than 1US dollar) to get somebody to make you a copy of the reading. It really cuts down on costs as a student.

@TGD- is the system listed above immoral as well?

It is both immoral and illegal.

I thought there was some loop hole for research and fair use? I.E. if you photocopy a chapter out of a book for students and provide it to them, as long as you give them the citation and biblio information, it isn't illegal? I recall professors doing something like this.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

He noted something about "all the readings" which I assumed meant books.

I will note that it is immoral (although not illegal) for professors to require students to purchase the professor's books. One of my history professors in college made us purchase three of his books, one of which was not ever used in the course.

[Funkyterrance]

I will note that it is immoral (although not illegal) for professors to require students to purchase the professor's books. One of my history professors in college made us purchase three of his books, one of which was not ever used in the course.

Lol, I had a professor that made us do this. I was like "Is this the only way you can get people to read your shitty book?".

[Juan_Bottom]

Isn't that an illegal form of fraud?

[thegreekdog]

Isn't that an illegal form of fraud?

I didn't think about at the time for two reasons. First, college was not really a time when I thought seriously about things like that. Second, the guy was an excellent writer.

[Army of GOD]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

[Crazyirishman]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

Where can I find these deal?

I still don't understand how it is legal for the textbook/bookstore monopoly to function. For example a calculus textbook can easily cost $100 and be required, even though there haven't been very many groundbreaking improvements in the last couple hundred years or so. Yet new additions are released and required simply for $. I don't get how somebody can get a copyright on mathematics?

Also, for my photocopier deal, I haven't seen whole texts put in the folder, just the selected essays that we're being taught.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

The guy bought the rights anyway? Seems both legal and moral and therefore not the same scenario as originally proposed.

Your second paragraph is very ironic given your views on market competition. People not attending (and therefore not paying for) college seems a good way for the market to solve the problem of overpriced textbooks. But I can see how you find the concept of stealing someone's work enticing. Please be sure to send me your address so I can steal some of your stuff. Alternatively, please let Army of God steal your stuff so he can sell it to me cheaper than I could otherwise buy it from you.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

Where can I find these deal?

I still don't understand how it is legal for the textbook/bookstore monopoly to function. For example a calculus textbook can easily cost $100 and be required, even though there haven't been very many groundbreaking improvements in the last couple hundred years or so. Yet new additions are released and required simply for $. I don't get how somebody can get a copyright on mathematics?

Also, for my photocopier deal, I haven't seen whole texts put in the folder, just the selected essays that we're being taught.

My understanding (I went to college a long time ago, so bear with me) is that while these books are required, they aren't actually required. What is the downside of not purchasing a mathematics textbook?

I typically bought either used books or books from a different place than the bookstore. But I was in the minority.