Root Cause of Piracy...

[ukb007]

Doom9 has made a valid observation on 21 March 2004 in his news-sheet:

Maybe it's time to start worrying about the cause of piracy, and do something against the root cause.

What, however, is the root cause ?

1. High (this is relative) cost of DVDs ? A movie costs millions of dollars to make. Unless there's profit, there won't be any investment, and no movie. Intellectual property has a right to be protected, and the owner may be justified in taking steps to protect it. So I guess this isn't the root cause. In some third world country I have visited, I saw a camera print of a just-released film being aired in the local cable channel. This is criminal. It not only kills the movie with its terrible picture quality, it causes loss of substantial sums of money.

2. Challenge to the programmer's skill ? Breaking copy protection code because it's there. Well. yes, this is a valid reason, and quite a romantic one, too. Programmers are gods - I'd be willing to buy this reason.

3. Resentment at paying enough for a DVD but not owning it enough ? Making copies from DVDs one owns, for personal use, is accepted in principle, but isn't allowed in certain countries - that may be one morally-right-legally-wrong reason for piracy, and, again, not a very unattractive one, too.

4. Plain greed ? In some Asian countries I've seen the markets are flooded with hacked DVDs: clearly the motive is profiting from someone else's efforts. There are 3 movies in one DVD-5 disc: substantially inferior picture quality and of course no region-codes. Those guys aren't bothered about issues like picture-quality / pan-&-scan / fullscreen-widescreen etc at all. They ought to be summarily shot.

5. The bargain-hunter in all of us ? Don't I compare prices at Zellers with some other store ? Don't I go for a product if there are freebies with it ? And if there's a chance to possess (for entirely personal use and not bragging about it) a DivX of a Hollywood blockbuster at the cost of a CD + cost of DVD rental (or maybe free from a friend) + about 4 hours in a computer, what would I do ? Well, this is bad, bad, bad, and probably this is what George Bernard Shaw had said to be the "middle-class morality".

But I am sure this isn't as simple as I'm making it to be, and there's much more to it. What am I missing ? What is the root cause ? Although there may not be one clear answer, I'd honestly want to know what the majority thinks.

Regards.

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by ukb007
1. High (this is relative) cost of DVDs ? A movie costs millions of dollars to make. Unless there's no profit, there won't be any investment, and no movie.
If the movie has to earn back it´s cost by DVD(video) sale, it´s bound to die anyway. The big money is/should be made from cinema.

Intellectual property has a right to be protected, and the owner may be justified in taking steps to do so.
Of course. The question is - how FAR may the owner go?

In some third world country I have visited, I saw a camera print of a just-released film being aired in the local cable channel. This is criminal.
It´s immoral too. I have no moral problems with movies that already have been aired on TV(legally, I mean), but before/just after release? That´s sick.

3. Making copies from DVDs one owns is accepted, and isn't considered piracy, is it?
I think it depends were you live. AFAIK, in the EU, when you have to circumvent a copy-protection, it´s piracy.
You may own a CD/DVD, but don´t even think about making a copy of it, when the (intellectual) owner doesn´t want you to. Stare at the CD, if you can´t play it(music), but don´t copy it.
Sickening, isn´t it?

4. In some Asian countries I've seen the markets are flooded with hacked DVDs: clearly the motive is profiting from someone else's efforts.
I´m not sure what "hacked" means in terms of DVD, but I suppose you mean that the region code has been altered - right?
The motive may be greed, but perhaps it´s just that some don´t want to rely on their own country´s variant of a certain movie, because it´s inferior to others.

hat is the root cause ? Although there may not be one clear answer
I don´t think that there´s a clear answer either, most of the times I´d say it´s greed(it´s cheaper that way), though individuals will see other reasos for themselves.

[mf]

If you look at box office sales, DVDs are just a helpful extra income. The worry though is the underground scene that releases DVDrip quality screeners and (in the near future also DVDrip quality, perhaps even higher) telecines, while the movie is still in cinemas. This can actually hurt sales as there are millions of people who would only visit the cinema to watch the movie, and not enjoy the much-higher-than-DVD quality, which are then tempted to just watch the rip cause they won't care about the quality anyway, and it saves them the trip to downtown and a bucketload of money (when thinking of money also include the hugely overpriced popcorn cola and M&Ms).

The question is how big is this share of watchers opposed to the people that will only watch a pirated movie cause it's free, cause they wouldn't want to take out the money to go to the cinema OR rent the DVD later anyway. But I think there isn't that much to worry anyway, cause we still have the tradition of taking a girl to the cinema, and cause the masses are becoming more and more video-quality aware.

Combine that with the new trends of digitally-shot films like Star Wars, and I think the evergrowing mass of people that watch the movie in cinemas for the experience will be able to support movie costs virtually on their own. The key here of course is that movie companies shouldn't be investing their money in secure pay-per-view systems and piracy, but in the improvement of the experience, to get a bigger target audience for cinemas. Think IMAX, think laser-projection, think all kinds of things that won't reach home-cinema for the next 50 years anyway.
And best of all, don't advertise DVD as being as good as cinema, because MPEG4 advertises itself as being as good as DVD :rolleyes:.

[Dimmer]

I think there are two different kinds of piracy. One kind involves individual viewers who make copies of rental/borrowed DVDs because the cost of purchasing the new ones is too high. This is done not for profit but to save money. Indeed, if the cost of the DVDs was lower, more people would buy them, and potentially the movie companies could make more money due to increased sales volumes. This would make illegal copying almost pointless.

The other kind of video piracy is making illegal copies for profit, i.e. for sale, which most certainly is illegal or immoral. However, people don't mind purchasing such discs exactly because they are much cheaper than the licensed ones. In other words, while there is a demand for cheap DVDs, there's going to be a supply. If the movie companies can't provide it, pirates will.

The sales of the camera prints and other video material before its official release is motivated by the same rules of market economy: people want to watch the movie but the movie companies are not selling it yet, while pirates are, so there is no choice left for a consumer. The same applies to the DVD zoning system.

So the reason for the piracy in my opinion is that the movie companies cannot satisfy customers' demand for the cheap DVDs released as quickly as possible. Although the movie companies try to push the laws that protect their policies, they cannot change fundamental market rule: if there is a demand, someone will provide a supply.

[Doom9]

I'd like to add one possible root cause:

Opportunity

If it takes a gun and a skimask, people are less likely to do it than if you can do it in the relative safety and with some anonymity in your own house. Let's face it, it is awfully convenient to be able to download the latest CD from a P2P network (well.. I presume so.. I didn't find Napster too convenient because nobody bothered to have a quality selection of the same bitrate/quality and have it properly tagged, and I haven't used P2P tools since but I'm judging by what some of my acquaintances are telling me). If you had to take a CD from a local store without paying, less people would do it (and no, I'm by no means saying it is the same thing.. it most definitely isn't, but that's not the main point here).

Oh, and obviously when I'm talking about piracy I mean in the eyes of a reasonable copyright law that provides for fair use (and fair use as it's meant to be, not how the MPAA/RIAA would like it to be).

[Pyscrow]

The root cause of Piracy is simple - copyright.
If there was no copyright there would be no piracy!

[Elephant]

There was a good article I read someware about when player pianos first came out and the music companinew wanted them outlawed. It clearly showed the motive & greed of the the music companies. They need to get rid of their greed and the problem would disapear.

[easybeat]

I wonder is piracy as detrimental as we are lead to believe? It's been around for decades now in one form or another and movie budgets are still rising while star's wages are in the £20million mark.Also the major Hollywood studios made an $11 Billion profit last year, doesn't seem to be struggling that much.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by ukb007 1. High (this is relative) cost of DVDs ? A movie costs millions of dollars to make. Unless there's profit, there won't be any investment, and no movie. Intellectual property has a right to be protected, and the owner may be justified in taking steps to protect it. So I guess this isn't the root cause.

When the movie industry tried to destroy the VCR market, they were de facto saying that they do not need the income of home video, such as DVDs. Are you calling the people in the movie industry a bunch of liars?

I'll grant that DVDs are not as overpriced as music CDs. But, theaters and concerts are where they movie industry and the recording industry should look for its profits.

The industry may do whatever they wish to protect the content they create, even up to refusing to release it. But, the government should for the most part stay out of it except for commercial piracy operations. And, copyright laws should allow for Fair Use as well as expire in a reasonable time period (say 20 years plus a one-time renewal for another 20 years).

[GWD]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
The root cause of Piracy is simple - copyright.
If there was no copyright there would be no piracy!

Ahhh...now that's thinkin' lat'rlly, that is...!

I think someone else mentioned that it's also a combination of opportunity and cost? I think Pyscrow is closer to the mark...

At some point in human history (any takers on the actual date???) we decided that what we produced individually was worth protecting from being used by others. Mainly because those others that used someone elses idea were profiting from it in a more than likely financial way. This lead to jealousy and much complaining about who created what first and which of their mothers in fact wore military-designed footware...:p

Once the rights of individual creativity were determined, it expanded into things corporational, and you have mass capitalism and those that fight the idea of charging a fee for use of someone else's idea.

Of course, the problem occurs that if we provide our ideas/products/army wear openly for the good of all for no financial gain, no one can use profit as a means of being fulfilled for effort as you switched into that twilight-zone like environment: the Barter System (which everybody knows is totally outside that of the Solar System ;) )

Someone, somewhere, will always think along the line of "What's in it for me?", other people will get jealous and what their share if they see someone else getiing something in return, and the system falls into chaos once again.

So, in reality, the root of piracy is us... you, me & everyone that has in some way profited from someone else's idea unjustly, regardless of actualy copyright infringement!

OK, reality check... The problem is the opportunity and how it relates to human transient morality. We consciously make decisions on whether we will or won't breach a given copyright depending on the situation and how we view the 'victim' and the 'benefactor' of the breach. The issue of financial remuneration complicates things from a legal standpoint, but the decision is no more influenced. The converse to this is the GPL environment (eg, Linux development), but even that has copyright, but it is against anybody profiting from the core element - and that seems to work in real terms on the issue of piracy.

Your witness?...:devil:

GWD

[mf]

Originally posted by GWD
Once the rights of individual creativity were determined, it expanded into things corporational, and you have mass capitalism and those that fight the idea of charging a fee for use of someone else's idea.
OK, reality check... The problem is the opportunity and how it relates to human transient morality. We consciously make decisions on whether we will or won't breach a given copyright depending on the situation and how we view the 'victim' and the 'benefactor' of the breach. The issue of financial remuneration complicates things from a legal standpoint, but the decision is no more influenced.
That would be patents. We're talking about copyrights.

[Elephant]

Patents... Copyrights... Gee, how did the world ever function without them? Very nicely and with less legal fees I might add.

And you know people still innovated, invented and created. So, you can't use that argument to say that we need them. We need them because of human greed. Well that’s a noble reason… not.

It would be a real sin for someone just to share their idea wouldn't it :) Wouldn't want to give it away for free you know!


Don’t get me wrong, if I came up with a great idea and could support my family and live luxuriously, I would like it. But not as much as living in a world where things were really “right” and people treated people the way they would like to be treated.

I guess its' the way of the world today and there’s no turning back. It's just too bad where we are headed is not exactly utopia.


My 2 cents worth.:)

[Elephant]

GDW.

Good post!

Hope MS and RIAA and the bunch go down! If they keep it up they will! Too many nerds and geeks out there that won't give up

Open source... Got my vote!

Think I'll start learning Linux. Hope Micosoft doesn't destroy that! But even if they do... there will be another and eventually maybe the good guys will win... but then again, maybe they won't. Stay tuned for the next episode! ;)

[ukb007]

We are drifting towards discussions of social systems, where there is no profit motive, and everyone is happy. This sounds romantic enough to remind us of Communism which, in theory, is attractive. But remember, a live experiment in Communism has failed in the erstwhile Soviet Union, and is failing (or has already failed ?) in China. The theory is flawed because it failed to take into account the human factor fully (as if any theory can ever do so). Arguably, Capitalism has also got its own pitfalls: look at various companies' yearly results - there is always a talk of growth, but don't we all for a moment think: can growth be forever ? One of the main pivots that Capitalism banks on is scientific innovations that should always go on providing new technologies and, therefore, keep demand alive and assure an eternal growth. Well, can that be limitless ? This acceptance of limitlessness is what scares me. Because it is so contrary to nature.

Can there be a third way, other than Communism and Capitalism ?

Regards.

[Mug Funky]

4. Plain greed ?

i think we're getting closer to the truth here.

friend of mine just got back from bangkok with a boatload of "questionable" DVDs he got from a mall devoted entirely to this end. police prescence was strictly limited to sitting outside watching people go in. he saw a monk buying porn...

on these discs is the small copyright notice "if you think this is a pirated DVD, keep it to yourself. go spend the money you saved on fags and beer"

like doom9 says, if it's convenient and you're getting something you'd normally have to pay for, then why not do it?

of course, the rather fascist behaviour of the RIAA and MPAA play into the pirates hands - on one side you've got these coked-up execs from LA telling you to pay $30 (AUD) for a b-grade action flick that's only fun when drunk while suing people that didn't, or you can forego all that and buy a $1 DVD from a friendly guy in bangkok, with the same (often) quality and an amusing notice on the back.

i'm not advocating doing this of course, but it's interesting when the pirates appear to care more for you than the copyright holders.

[echooff]

Root Cause of Piracy...

Little or no personal integrity...pure and simple. Everything else is just so much bulls@#$, designed to fudge right and wrong. Piracy is stealing. Theft is wrong. I don't agree with the mpaa's attempt to re-define, but we all know when we are stealing and when we are making a copy of something we already own for our personal use.

[Dimmer]

Originally posted by echooff
Piracy is stealing. Theft is wrong. I don't agree with the mpaa's attempt to re-define, but we all know when we are stealing and when we are making a copy of something we already own for our personal use.Don't forget there is big difference between theft in its conventional definition and digital piracy. Making illegal copies doesn't deprive the owner of their property. The only thing they lose is a potential profit if you were ever to buy this DVD legally. In many cases, you wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway, so nobody really loses anything.

[Mug Funky]

dimmer: echo off is trying to say that although that might be true for 5% of "dirty pirates", there's a significant number of people who possibly would have bought the DVD but are happy with their pirate copy.

considering how good codecs are becoming (i was recently able to get a 640x480 movie in constant q2 in under 650megs, after some judicious filtering), the issue of pirate versions being inferiour is becoming less of a motivation to buy the legal version.

you can download lossless CDs now with ease, you can get exceptionally good quality DVD rips off p2p networks, and mpeg-4 standalones are starting to appear more often. the gap between source and copy is getting smaller, and considering the resolution of a standard TV, there's really not much gap left at all.

the bottom line with consumers (remember why we are called "consumers" - we are the end point in the market, we consume uniformly and blindly according to current economic models, and frankly it's not far from reality) is that when confronted with a similar product for less money, they will opt for the cheaper one. when they can get the (almost) same product for free, then morals wont count for much at all. indeed the only thing holding back most from large scale movie piracy is the bandwidth isn't cheap enough and the mpeg-4 players aren't plentiful enough yet. imagine what will happen when we all get broadband and mpeg-4 players.

[Dimmer]

@Mug Funky
Indeed, you right - why pay more if you can get the same thing for less. This obviously has nothing to do with morality or intelligence of the consumers, it's pure market economy. As far as I know, in most countries it's not illegal to buy pirate copies, it's illegal to sell them. Average consumer doesn't care about the origin of the product, they mostly care about the price. Therefore, I see two outcomes for the current piracy problem: either dropping DVD prices, or leaving things as they are thus confirming that the movie companies make most of their money in cinema theaters and don't rely on DVD sales as a considerable source of income.

[Joe Fenton]

Originally posted by echooff
Root Cause of Piracy...

Little or no personal integrity...pure and simple. Everything else is just so much bulls@#$, designed to fudge right and wrong. Piracy is stealing. Theft is wrong. I don't agree with the mpaa's attempt to re-define, but we all know when we are stealing and when we are making a copy of something we already own for our personal use.

You've fallen for the RIAA and MPAA propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Copying copyrighted material is neither piracy nor stealing. No one is deprived of their physical possessions. You forget that copyrights and patents were instituted as a contract between the government and individuals who came up with ideas. Rather than have the individual keep the idea secret so they could make money off it, then lose the idea when they die unexpectedly, the government decided they would instead impose laws which give this person certain controls they would not normally have in an attempt to prevent secret knowledge from being lost.

The laws are a balance between the greed of the originator and the benefit to the people. There is NO MORAL BACKING to the concept!! It is NOT an issue of RIGHT versus WRONG. It is a matter of greed and contract law. Sometimes, the moral thing to do is civil disobedience - oppose outdated and ill-conceived laws that no longer serve the people.

The law MUST serve the general welfare, not the greed of a few individuals. In this day and age, copyright and patent law must be revised as it no longer serves the general welfare. Is the RIAA or MPAA protecting the public or their desire to have yet another gold backscratcher at the public expense? Seeing the RIAA in action should tell you which side you should be on MORALLY.

[Kedirekin]

Extremely well said.

[Elephant]

Joe,

Great post!!!:):):)

IMHO

In the end The RIAA will either have to adapt or go out of business!

With the advent of the internet, musicians don't really need the traditional methods of distribution and will be able to bypass the record companies completely... and be able to get a decent amount for their work... not the 2 cents a song or whatever the ridiculously low percentage that the record companies, (read-greedy unrighteous manipulators), give them now!

Movies might be a different story as the production costs are obviously much higher. They need to lower their prices, then there would be no need for piracy. But as long as their greed consumes them, then their problem will continue.
:)

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
Copying copyrighted material is neither piracy nor stealing. No one is deprived of their physical possessions.Gee, Joe, what a statement! Thinking about it, you can apply this to almost every single law.

For instance, speeding on a highway when there are no other cars to crash into should not get you a ticket, since you are not risking anyone to be deprived of his right to a pretty car or his right to life... Except yours, of course, but then you should tell the cop to mind his own business, shouldn't you?

Raping a nude striper after the show would not deprive her from any physical possessions either, so why should you go to jail?

There was a hot discussion (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65012) in this forum about the "intrinsic difference in nature" of physical and intellectual possessions. Some would argue there the same point you did now. If there is no physical possession stolen, then there is no damage done.

I find it a very simplistic point of view. No one in that other thread provided any evidence to sustain that "intrinsic difference in nature", and I wouldn't like to bring the topic again here. But what you call greed of a few individuals is nothing but the right any creator has to charge for his work.

You are free to not buy his records, listen to someone else's music or resort to "civil disobedience", as you call it. But you are not entitled to get the product of his work for free.

Of course popular musicians make much more money than what they actually need. You may call that greed. But others, like George Michael, for instance, has recently decided not to make more money from his future albums, and he'll put them on the web in some form of "donateware". Any money left after covering operating costs will go to charity.

It would be nice if all musicians, or everybody, actually, once they get what they need would resort to some kind of altruism. But, unfortunately, human nature says otherwise.

For one, I think that gynecologists are too greedy. They charge US$100 for 10 minutes and furthermore they get to see your wife naked. :) But that's their job. You are free to use other cheaper medicine providers, like monks, witches and oracle tellers.

[MfA]

He means that the definition of the words stealing and piracy (the original one) do not apply to copying.

[Elephant]

Originally posted by r6d2


But what you call greed of a few individuals is nothing but the right any creator has to charge for his work.



IMHO

Says who? The copyright laws do... but in nature it does not exist.

Patents... Copyrights... Gee, how did the world ever function without them? Very nicely and with less legal fees I might add.

And you know people still innovated, invented and created. So, you can't use that argument to say that we need them. We need them because of human greed. Well that’s a noble reason… not.

In ancient days... a guy has an idea. He makes a wheel. Some body else sees it. Do they have to ask the inventors permission to make one for their own use? Maybe the inventor should have kept it a secret so nobody could copy it.

In IMHO, once the info is out, it fair game to anyone. If you don't want anyone to use your idea, then keep it to yourself. Copyright only serves the greed & selfishness of humans. It's not right. It is against the natural laws of nature and the way God or whatever you believe in set the world up.

I don't know... it just seems to go against the natural order of things... “You can't do that because I said so”.

Greed is not good. You thought it up… great! Share it. It will come back to you. You want to get paid for it… then keep it a secret. You can sell the secret to somebody. Once it’s out in the open… sorry it's public info and that’s the way it should be.

Obviously, it’s not this simple. There is the other side of the coin to argue.

Just a few thoughts. ;)

[techz]

Maybe if film stars and musicians alike stopped expecting millions for every thing we wouldnt have to pay so much.

[Erik_Osterholm]

@r6d2:
The point is that there is a difference. The *AA would like to call copyright infringement "piracy" and "theft" because of these terms' connotations. Copyright infringement doesn't have the same feel as the term "theft". They're trying to sway public opinion, which includes the judges that will be hearing the cases, and the congresspersons who will make the laws.

@Elephant:
The purpose of original purpose of intellectual property rights is actually to promote creativity and the production of art. What good would it do for George Lucas to spend millions creating a movie if he can't make that money back? And if he ONLY makes that money back, nothing more, then how is he going to eat? How is he going to feed his family? Maybe you think that there shouldn't be professional intellectual property creators? Believe me, if this was the case, the quality of movies, books, etc. would diminish quite a bit, as people would only ever be able to create in their spare time. Imagine how long it would take to do the special effects for a movie like The Matrix if you could only ever work on it as though it were a hobby--in your spare time and using your own money with no hope of ever recouping that money. For that matter, the computer tools (and computers themselves) used to create these effects wouldn't exist under this hypothetical scenario. Why would they have been created? They have little purpose outside of entertainment.

Frankly, once a society has advanced to the point where there is a surplus of food and shelter, it can begin thinking about producing entertainment. Right now in the US, entertainment is really a huge export. If IP rights went away tomorrow, millions would lose their jobs. Right or wrong, IP rights are a necessary evil.

The real rub, though is that for the betterment of society, copyrighted works should enter the public domain in a reasonable time after they are created. That effectively isn't going to happen in the US anymore, and is the main beef I have with the current system. I don't necessarily want to be able to get The Matrix for free, but I want it to go into the public domain sometime down the road.

[Pyscrow]

Changed my mind - Greed is the root cause of Piracy. Bl##dy software companies Greed!

Just installed Nero6 on my box, after happily using Nero 5 for years.(5 wont recognise my new CD burner) Guess what, the licence fee I paid them to use Mpeg2 encoding in Nero5 is not good enough, if I want to burn DVD's in version 6 I need to pay yet another licence fee for the Mpeg2. I have also copped the same built in Mpeg2 licence price on several other DVD based packages. I reckon I've paid a licence to use Mpeg2 encoding half a dozen times to various companies, as part of the software price.

How hard would it be for them to agree on a simple system to recognise a legit install of an Mpeg2 encoder, and automatically turn theirs on? Quiet easy I would think, but it is all just greed! why do that if they can scr#w the customer for another fee?

How many times have YOU paid the Mpeg2 licencing fee?

Not this time,not me - cracked the d#mn thing and they can get stuffed!

[avih]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Changed my mind - Greed is the root cause of Piracy. Bl##dy software companies Greed!

Just installed Nero6 on my box, after happily using Nero 5 for years.(5 wont recognise my new CD burner) Guess what, the licence fee I paid them to use Mpeg2 encoding in Nero5 is not good enough, if I want to burn DVD's in version 6 I need to pay yet another licence fee for the Mpeg2. I have also copped the same built in Mpeg2 licence price on several other DVD based packages. I reckon I've paid a licence to use Mpeg2 encoding half a dozen times to various companies, as part of the software price.

How hard would it be for them to agree on a simple system to recognise a legit install of an Mpeg2 encoder, and automatically turn theirs on? Quiet easy I would think, but it is all just greed! why do that if they can scr#w the customer for another fee?

How many times have YOU paid the Mpeg2 licencing fee?

Not this time,not me - cracked the d#mn thing and they can get stuffed!

sorry mate. as much as u don't like it, you agreed to their license when u bought their software. you could use other apps, but u chose to crack their latest version. regardless of nero's ethics, thid behaviour is unacceptable in this forum. striked for rule 6.

[Doom9]

How many times have YOU paid the Mpeg2 licencing fee?How many times have you paid for an operating system? How many times for an MP3 decoding license (included in the price of the OS by the way), and the list could go on and on. It is generally an accepted practice that you have to pay for new versions of software. In case of Nero, you get a discount $15 discount if you have the old version, and according to their website (I can't confirm that because I have no use for such a hting), the DVD video (I presume that's the MPEG-2 thing because there is no additional mpeg-2 plugin listed) plugin is included in the package so there's no need for you to buy the plugin again.

@Elephant: I think I've read your same statement in about 3 different versions in this and other threads. I thought only politicians loved to repeat themselves...

[Mug Funky]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton

Sometimes, the moral thing to do is civil disobedience - oppose outdated and ill-conceived laws that no longer serve the people.


i can't believe you'd compare yourself with Gandhi!!

i agree with that statement, however copyright serves the people. simple. think about it. if somebody goes and steals your idea (refer to the "people ripping people" thread), what reason do you have to innovate, to create? although it could be argued that a real true artist would create out of some urge to help mankind, nobody can claim to be that altruistic all the time.

copyright laws were originated as a means to protect content creators.

of course this means the RIAA and concepts like "intellectual property" being bought and sold tend to abstract the base idea above, it still holds.

as an artist (not musical at all...) i would be mortified if i saw a blatant rip-off of my work in a gallery under a different name. no matter how altruistic i may be, i can and will "sink" to the level of wanting justice in this case.

by the same token, if i found people making prints of my work and selling these at large profit without telling me, i would politely but assertively ask them to give me a not insignificant cut of their profits. (of course i'd be flattered they thought my work good enough to pirate, but they're still doing me wrong).

now the current situation is of course different - the situation i explained above is happening to most artists, in that they are not seeing enough of what their labels are making from their work. but to use this corruption to dismiss all copyright as "outdated and ill-conceived" is myopic in the extreme.

there was a discussion on the origins of copyright some months ago on the doom9 news i think, that made the point of copyright being intended to protect culture by providing incentive to create.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Elephant
Says who?Well, I assumed you were aware of how free market works. Either you are not, or you don’t believe in free market.

If I take your position as absolute, i.e., “there is no natural right to charge for your creations”, then nobody is allowed to define what to charge for his work. That is sort of “from everyone, according to their capacity; to everyone, according to their needs”, which is not other thing but communism at its best. I’m not against a communist point of view, but I’ve seen it failing miserably everywhere except China.

I prefer the crude nature of free market, free will, and let everyone to behave according to his own greed/altruism slider. Of course “Let’s all be good fellows” is likely to produce better results, society wise, but that I think is not in human nature. If it was, Jesus would have been glorified instead of crucified, and we would all have learnt the lesson, which as you can clearly see in the world today, we have not.
Originally posted by Elephant
Greed is not good. […] Obviously, it’s not this simple. There is the other side of the coin to argue. Flip the coin like this: an artist whose work you have obtained without paying can say: “Look, this guy is so cheap. He won’t even pay for what he needs from me”.

You can say… I don’t really need his work. Already then, don’t obtain it illegaly. But be consistent.

I hope you can see that, as a consumer, you are maximizing your personal profit too. Aren’t you greedy enough?
Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm
The point is that there is a difference. Well, I’ve seen lots of people saying that. I’ve still not seen a single evidence presented by them. This surprises me. If it was so evident not to require any evidence, then it would be evident for me, or anyone else to see.

OTOH, I provided several examples of why there is no such a difference at all in the quoted thread above. If you have something to add to sustain this “intrinsic difference in nature”, please do so. I’d really like to learn about it.

As per Pyscrow’s illegal use of a crack to bypass what he considers a greedy software house's policy, nobody forced him to upgrade. He was free to choose civil disobedience to complain against what he considers an abuse. He decided to use piracy instead. And we have him talking about greedy companies. What an oxymoron…

[r6d2]

Originally posted by MfA
He means that the definition of the words stealing and piracy (the original one) do not apply to copying. I almost miss this another interesting statement. From Webster's:
Main Entry: pi·ra·cy
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyrightMain Entry: steal
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
synonyms STEAL, PILFER, FILCH, PURLOIN mean to take from another without right or without detection. STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material thingsOf course etymology of these words, as with any word, give them an "original" meaning which does not always convey the current meaning. But language is evolutive, and it would be daredevil to sustain that Webster is under the **AA's payroll too, wouldn't it?

[Elephant]

Originally posted by Doom9
@Elephant: I think I've read your same statement in about 3 different versions in this and other threads. I thought only politicians loved to repeat themselves...
I enjoyed that one... it brought a smile to my face. In fact, I'm still smilling! :):):)

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Elephant
I enjoyed that one... it brought a smile to my face. In fact, I'm still smilling! :):):) It is also typical of politicians to refuse to answer direct questions. :D:D:D:D

If you're running for Mayor, don't forget to tell the people you'll charge no taxes whatsoever. :)

[Elephant]

Looks like each side of the argument has some very good points!

Good dialogue... I have enjoyed this thread!

Thank you everybody for your input> :)

[Pyscrow]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Changed my mind - Greed is the root cause of Piracy. Bl##dy software companies Greed!

Just installed Nero6 on my box, after happily using Nero 5 for years.(5 wont recognise my new CD burner) Guess what, the licence fee I paid them to use Mpeg2 encoding in Nero5 is not good enough, if I want to burn DVD's in version 6 I need to pay yet another licence fee for the Mpeg2. I have also copped the same built in Mpeg2 licence price on several other DVD based packages. I reckon I've paid a licence to use Mpeg2 encoding half a dozen times to various companies, as part of the software price.

How hard would it be for them to agree on a simple system to recognise a legit install of an Mpeg2 encoder, and automatically turn theirs on? Quiet easy I would think, but it is all just greed! why do that if they can scr#w the customer for another fee?

How many times have YOU paid the Mpeg2 licencing fee?

Not this time,not me - cracked the d#mn thing and they can get stuffed!
Rule 6 reads:-
No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature, asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.

There is no way that I have violated this rule, and I want an apology for the Warning, and it removed!

No where in rule 6 does it say that I can not say that I have cracked a piece of software, it says I can not post cracks serials or illegally obtained copyright content. It says I can not link to such content. It says I can not help or or ask for help in cracking software. I have done none of these.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
I have done none of these. What a pity, you lost a golden opportunity of appealing a strike, as stated on the sanctions (http://forum.doom9.org/sanctions.htm) page of the forum rules:
By publicly complaining about a strike, [...] you also forfeit your rights to an appeal.

[Wilbert]

@Pyscrow,

rule 6 says:
No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content!

In other words, saying you cracked something, have illegally obtained copyrighted content, etc., is also not allowed. You participate long enough in this forum to know that.

Thread closed.