Author Topic: Digital Rights and Economics  (Read 51553 times)

Fenrir

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +1/-2
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Digital Rights and Economics
« on: March 28, 2011, 02:37:49 AM »
This, Krice, is exactly the type of confusion I sought to avert.
What confusion? That piracy IS or ISN'T stealing? Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of anything, except companies of a part of their predicted income. Income which was only predicted and never came to fruition, and as such, can't be stolen, since it doesn't exist.
I had supposed that Krice was using the term hyperbolically or something, and I supposed that you might not realize that, but it seems like I was wrong. I do not think that piracy and theivery are the same. It seems that Krice does.

If those benefits were owed the company, it is still a wrong, whether you call it damage or not.
It's illegal. Killing people is both immoral and illegal, but in some modern states the death penalty exists, which I find barbaric. Morality and legality are not one and the same.
I'm well aware of the distinction. We are indeed discussing our opinions on morality, and I have not once defended something simply because it is law.

By terms of distributive justice, it's actually better than fair. It's even pareto efficient: nobody gets worse, and at least somebody gets better.
That depends entirely upon which rules of destributive justice you accept.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
It’s only “fair” in terms of strict egalitarianism, and such a philosophy cannot be effectual.

Yes, it's not theft, I was speaking metaphorically, but the agreement is made upon purchasing the digital media, also, the whole "you're not buying this disk you're buying a license to use it" is a legalese contraption that limits your ownership of a physical item.
I expect you suppose all other forms of barter to be legalese contraptions, yes? Deeds to land and the like? It is only by agreement that things are possessed, for nothing else can imply ownership. It is a pact, and it should be honored, as honest people are the best benefit to society.

I don't concur. I know many people who wouldn't have bought a lot of gaming systems so happily if it weren't for their vulnerabilities. And probably, so do you (knowing people like that).
We aren't discussing “willingness to buy”.

With intent of black market monetary profit. That's the difference.
I understand.

Yes, we do. Here is a counter question: do you really want us to feel sorry for you because you don't want to buy those products?
No, I don't.
It certainly does not appear to be that way, as you were just complaining about the high prices of software.

Your justification for piracy is that you think the companies make too much money? Very well, how much is too much in your opinion? You would deprive them of what is theirs by right just because they make more money than you do?
It's theirs by right because they hold sway to determine what rights they have. The problem isn't that they make more money, the problem is that it's blown out of proportion to the effort and money they put in. It may not be unjust, but it is unfair.
Who is the judge of that? Who are you to say that it is out of proportion? By what measure shall you determine how much they deserve for the work?

Do you know that with a flat benefit rate of 20% for everyone, for every transaction, people would still be able to actually become rich?
Yes, but why should they not charge as much as people are willing to pay?

Poverty doesn't give one leave to take what he will from the rest of society. Such is gravely arrogant thinking.
I'm not taking what I want from the rest of the society (since I'm not depriving anyone of anything), I'm duplicating for my personal use a digital resource.
Yes, but you are using your poverty to justify your violation of copyright. Poverty alone does not give one leave to commit an act that is unfair and unjust, whether it is stealing or not.

Except they don't decide the price, the price is decided by the seller. Sometimes not even the seller, but the provider:
I was correct in assuming that you know little of business. The “provider” is also a seller. They sell the the PS3 to the stores. The stores are under no obligation to accept the price.

You can't sell a PS3 any price you want if you own a retail store, you know? You have to keep at a fixed price.
I am not familiar with the laws in your country. Does the law require that goods are sold at a certain price? If it is, I will agree that such is unfair.

They purchase it because they want it, and because they can afford it, not because they think it's worth the price.
This sentence contradicts itself. If they are willing to spend the money on the object, it must, by the very definition of the word “worth”, be worth the price to them. If they wanted to purchase it, and they are willing to spend the money, how can you hold the seller to blame?

If one cannot afford their product, he should swallow it like a man. Also, I'm afraid you shall have to tell us which crisis you mean and evidence that companies have thrown us into it.
If you can't see this for yourself, I'm not going to spell it out. Sorry =(
I’m not going to make your point for you. You and you alone must provide evidence for your claims.

It could be construed as encouragement of illegal behavior ;)
As long as you don't help anyone do it, I don't see a problem. Of course, it's up to Slash to decide.

Do you see the irony here? You say that they care too much for themselves, but only because they will not freely give you what they have created.
Not because they won't freely give me what they have created, but because they abuse their already bloated power.
You consider their insistance that the public keep the pacts they made an abuse of power? You say “bloated”. How much power is “bloated”? By what measure do you consider power to be in excess?

Opposite positions tend to mirror one another.
That would make sense if I was mirroring you.

The evil of business is proportional to its size.
So I guess everyone that has a job (they sell their services to their employers) is a little evil too then? Why is business evil? Trade powers human progress.

Repression of software piracy stems from the overzealous protection of the entertainment industry, which is a sin of the current capitalist governments.
I do not consider the acts of a government keeping consumers to the pacts they made a sin, nor do I know if they are truly overzealous.

Why do you suppose that public officials are more trustworthy than private companies? At least companies give you the option to simply not purchase their products. Taxes are compulsory, and, if you don't like how they spend it, you can do nothing to stop it.
Do I have to suppose the contrary?
No, you don't, but you don't have to suppose as you do either, so you must defend what you hold to be true. Like I said, they aren't more trustworthy, but, unlike the government, you have the option of not accepting their terms if you deem them unjust.

Taxes are compulsory, but are spent on things I and my fellow citizen can enjoy freely afterwards. Even if they couldn't afford it, were them market offered. Taxes aren't in place for the one who can pay them, but for the one who needs that which the taxes pay.
This system is flawed, for it does not reward work, and I should not be robbed of what I have rightfully earned to be distributed to others. Yes, that IS robbery.

Yes, I honestly think it. A company is not a man, and this is bringing again the piracy !=/= theft issue.
Yes, piracy is not theft. Already established. Just an example.

You cannot seperate people from the company, for a company is owned by people. It is an organization of people. What you have said is like arguing that you don’t mind taking the man’s money from the wallet because a wallet isn’t a person.

It means that you have to pay a tax (the state's privilege) to a private company, for letting your customers hear your radio (a radio you already paid and which is airing a broadcast)
I’m not familiar with the laws in your country. That does sound unjust, but, of course, this has nothing to do with software piracy.

An agreement, however partial, can't be made without the parts making. If you want me to clarify it, even more, to me it feels like a deserved injustice.
That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a “deserved injustice”.

Companies aren't people, and as such cannot suffer.
Again, they are comprised of and owned by people.

Trying to better your social standing and income is fair competition. Making your life worth several thousands of other lives is humiliation.

Are you honestly trying to say that making money makes one's live more valuable, and, thus, a rich person has made his life as valuable as thousands of other lives? Such a conversion is the only way that what you have said can make any sense.

And we all live in this system, even you and me. If company and governmental honchos were each half as rich, everyone in the world could be several times as rich as before.

Sure, but, of course, why should other people have that wealth? What makes them more deserving of it? They didn't earn it. No one paid them in exchange for a product.

Hell, we could all work three hours a day and live in paradise.
It doesn't work that way.

It's the obscenity of it all what is hard to get for the average citizen who defends that system. But it's clear for me that it's main beneficiaries not only get it, but bask in it.
It's the efficacy of it all what is hard to get for the average citizen who doesn't understand how life works.

Don't blame them. They have not forced anyone to buy anything. Regard their customers with contempt, for it is they that have willingly supplied the companies with the money they have.
With contempt, after they've had their minds bombarded with a thousand and one forged promises of satisfaction, broadcasted in the hundreds of TV and radio stations, and plastered everywhere? What should I regard those directives with, admiration? I refuse.
Here in America, we have laws against false advertising, because, you’re right, false advertising is wrong. I don’t know how broken your free market system is, I’m afraid. With truthful advertising, it is just, which is why I suggested that software licenses be placed in more obvious places.

Well, it seems we have strayed from the topic a little with this talk about economics, but I don’t mind if you don’t.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2011, 02:57:01 AM by Fenrir »

languard

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2011, 03:45:19 AM »
Software piracy is theft.  Any attempt to say otherwise is because you don't want to call yourself a thief.  When you create something, it belongs to you.  When a company creates something, it belongs to that company.  If I write a story, it belongs to me.  It is within my right to ask for money for people to read it.  If I write a song, it belongs to me.  It is within my right to ask for money to listen to it.  If Bioware creates a game, it belongs to them.  It is within their rights to ask for money to be allowed to play it.  Just because you think someone asking to much doesn't give give you the right take it anyway.

Extra Credits did an excellent video on this topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy  I encourage you to listen to it.

kipar

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2011, 08:10:23 AM »
Software piracy is theft.  Any attempt to say otherwise is because you don't want to call yourself a thief. 
What people want or don't want is irrelevant. Arguments remains arguments.

When you create something, it belongs to you.  When a company creates something, it belongs to that company.  If I write a story, it belongs to me.  It is within my right to ask for money for people to read it.  If I write a song, it belongs to me.  It is within my right to ask for money to listen to it. 
Once I have something it belongs to me. Once I heard or know something it belongs to me. It is within my rights to give it to anybody. We are speaking about moral, not legal rights, right?

Extra Credits did an excellent video on this topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy  I encourage you to listen to it.
Richard Stallman has an excellent story on this topic:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I encourage you to read it.

Rabiat

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2011, 09:11:49 AM »
The modern meaning of 'piracy' was invented specifically to defame (unauthorized) duplication or (unlicensed) broadcasting. It is not synonymous to theft, as duplication doesn't actually deprive another of the thing that was taken. The problem exists because it concerns things that are perfectly duplicable with no damage to the original.

Despite that, I think unauthorized copying of a paid product is (morally) wrong. I agree with the opinion that as a user, you should be paying for a license to use the product. It is right for the people that made the product, to be paid for making it.

My personal opinions are probably easily falsified from an educated point of view on law or economics, of which I have no clue whatsoever. With that as a disclaimer, I think the digital rights lobby and the entertainment industry (not the creators of the product, but those solely involved with law and marketing) are no strangers to shady practices themselves.

For example (AFAIK this applies to at least Western Europe):

  • If you're buying storage media (like a hard drive, a blank DVD or USB flash drives) part of the price is charged as a compensation for the predicted loss of digital rights owners. Although you might use these media exclusively to store backups of your personal files, you're paying for others' unauthorized copying.
  • You may not be in the position to choose whether or not to purchase a product. If you're buying a new PC, for example, you may not be able to opt out of a pre-installed version of Windows, even though you might already have a valid Windows license, and you're scrapping your old system.
  • As a paying consumer, you may still be subjected to preventive DRM measures, without having done anything illegal. I remember Starforce, which secretly installed a device driver for optical drives, with no uninstall option. This comes dangerously close to malware.

These, to me, are plainly unjust and should be as unlawful as what they call 'piracy'.

Psiweapon

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Im in ur rougeliekz, pixelling ur tielz!
    • View Profile
    • I Lovemaking Tiles
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2011, 10:21:47 AM »
Ok people this is getting academic  ;D

Do any of you mind if I print this sometime and give it to my Social Philosophy teacher? perhaps he'll find some interest in it, and maybe he can point us to some flaws or shining points in our ageements.

Now I'll take some time to quote most of this and give my answers.
The invisible hand is a lie, the fiendish dogma of the market cultists. Lest the apostasy grows strong, their blood god will devour each and everyone, pious and infidel alike.

languard

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2011, 02:23:53 PM »
<snip>
Once I have something it belongs to me. Once I heard or know something it belongs to me. It is within my rights to give it to anybody. We are speaking about moral, not legal rights, right?
<snip>
Richard Stallman has an excellent story on this topic:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I encourage you to read it.

I am talking legally (at least for USA) and morally.  Just because I know the story of Harry Potter doesn't mean that Harry Potter belongs to me.  I have no right to write a book that takes place in Hogwarts and publish it for money.  I have no right to listen to a Dream Evil song over and over again until I can recreate the song exactly as they wrote it and sell it/give it away.

As for that article...I quite reading after I saw the line 'It is illegal to let others read your books'.  For me at that point the author lost all credibility.  As citizens we do have the responsibility to keep the government in check, but this can be done without blatant anti-government/paranoia.

One thing I would like to bring up is that there is a difference between civil disobedience, and crime.  Civil disobedience is done to benefit society at large.  The men and women who defied the Jim Crow laws in the USA come to mind.  Yes they were criminals at the time, but they weren't doing it strictly for their own personal gain.  They wanted to change society.  They broke the laws in a way that drew attention to how unfair the laws were.  Most software pirates quietly download from a torrent, with no thoughts other than 'F*** the man, I want free games'.  No true desire/intent to change the laws.  Notice I said most.  Not all are like that, and sometimes depending on your country, you really don't have a choice.  The game can't be purchased in your country, the game is no longer published, ect.

All this being said, I can see how the game industry isn't exactly helping their case.  DRM is invasive and the first thing I rip out.  I stand up in front of my students and tell them this, and urge all of them that if they get in the industry (I teach game design/programming) to fight for the removal of DRM.  Also the draconian return policies don't help either.  I go to a store and buy a crap toaster, I can return it.  Even if it does technically 'toast' the bread, I can still return it.  Buy a crap game?  S.O.L. buddy.  The game industry does need to change.  But quietly stealing a game from the torrents won't enable change.

Ok people this is getting academic  ;D

Do any of you mind if I print this sometime and give it to my Social Philosophy teacher? perhaps he'll find some interest in it, and maybe he can point us to some flaws or shining points in our ageements.

Feel free to include anything I post.  I'm a professor myself, and I'm all for bringing real-life issues into the classroom :)

Z

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Z's Roguelike Stuff
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2011, 04:54:53 PM »
I am talking legally (at least for USA) and morally.  Just because I know the story of Harry Potter doesn't mean that Harry Potter belongs to me.  I have no right to write a book that takes place in Hogwarts and publish it for money. 

I don't agree with morality presented in this particular example. As far as I have heard, some authors have tried to sue Dan Brown because the theories presented in Da Vinci Code were similar to ones they have previously published in their own book (they have lost, but still). Also, it is apparently illegal to use hobbits in a published work, because they have been invented by JRR Tolkien (while it is legal to use halflings or orcs, because these words have existed before Tolkien - even if the meaning in a new work of art is based on the Tolkien's version). I believe in both cases, if the new work of art affects the original copyright holders, it actually helps them (nobody would hear about that book if Da Vinci Code were not a bestseller, and if I have not read Tolkien's books, then playing a Tolkien-based game will make me more likely to read it eventually). Art is usually based on prior art, and law like this just blocks creation of new art, or reduces its quality. Also it forces authors of new art to hide their inspirations, rather than credit the original authors (like Thomas Biskup did when he called the small guys with good missile skills hurthlings). I believe it would be better if the new authors credited the original ones and the original authors saw it as good for them, instead of seeing them as a potential reason for a lawsuit.

Of course it is bad if someone claims that he has written Harry Potter and sells it and earns money instead of J. K. Rowling. But why then should a library be allowed to earn money from lending books written by someone else? Well, I believe that the world would make the most sense if there would be no DRM-like protection anywhere, and anybody print a novel and sell it (the price would be low then, just to cover the printing costs, so you could not actually earn on someone else's work), and a moral standard (or tax?) that makes people actually pay the authors who have created something they like.

Quote
As for that article...I quite reading after I saw the line 'It is illegal to let others read your books'.  For me at that point the author lost all credibility.  As citizens we do have the responsibility to keep the government in check, but this can be done without blatant anti-government/paranoia.

I don't understand what you mean here, the story does not tell about the present state, but is a vision of what the future may look like if the current trends become stronger.

languard

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2011, 07:58:05 PM »
@Z:

I think we're talking two slightly different scenarios here.  I'm say that I have no right to write a story that takes place in Hogwarts and follows the adventures of Harry's kids and publish that for money.  Rowlings created that world, not me, it is her right to profit from it, not mine.  Mind you my viewpoint on this is skewed somewhat because I do write stories/design game worlds  ;D  It sounds like you are talking about some of the more nit-pick aspects of the law, like the hobbit example.  I agree that sometimes the law gets carried to far, but there are creative ways around it.  D&D got in trouble for having Ents in the game, so they just changed the name to Treants.  I would argue that such restrictions encourage creativity in the arts, because you can't just ride on other people's ideas.  Also, sometimes the law works in the copier's favor, like in the Queen vs Vanilla Ice case.  A single changed beat allowed him to get away from basically copying Queen's song.

I also completely disagree with your solution to the current broken system  8)  My opinion is that most creators would get robbed silly in that system.

As for that article, if just the opening paragraph had been that ridiculously paranoid vision of the future and then he went on to rationally discuss problems and solutions, I could have accepted it.  But when someone has to rely on nothing but paranoia to sustain their point, they lose credibility in my eyes.  And I did speed-skim the rest of the article, and it was basically all paranoia that I could see. 

Z

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Z's Roguelike Stuff
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2011, 09:46:27 PM »
In your case, this is still your story, even if it takes place in Hogwart. You get a profit from what you have created. It's true that you get easier money because you did not have to create your own world and you get interest from all the fans of Harry Potter, but why JK Rowling should have something against that? She profits too, because your story is a good advertisement for the original one. Should the Greek goverment earn a percentage on all uses of the Greek mythology? If you have an idea for a story which takes part in Hogwart, but you don't develop in because you fear JK Rowling, then creativity is lost.

I don't see how using a name "treant" instead of "ent" promotes creativity. It only hides the fact that DND got the idea from Tolkien.

Inventing a system which makes everyone get what they should won't be easy, probably it is impossible. Hopefully discussions like this bring us closer to make everyone see that the situation is not black and white (publishers are holy knights and pirates are evil, or vice versa) and to try something new.

Fenrir

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +1/-2
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2011, 04:39:29 AM »
Any attempt to say otherwise is because you don't want to call yourself a thief.
This accusation is nonsense. Even if I did suppose that it fit the definition of "theft", I would not be a thief, for I do not commit acts of software piracy. One can but wonder why you thought it wise to accuse me of the same.

Extra Credits did an excellent video on this topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy  I encourage you to listen to it.
This video is riddled with appeals to pity and other such logical fallacies. The animation is charming, but it does not succeed in making a decent point.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This little story is absurd. It does not provide any evidence or reasons for anything, and it is so poorly written that it does not have any entertainment value, so it is completely useless.

I believe in both cases, if the new work of art affects the original copyright holders, it actually helps them (nobody would hear about that book if Da Vinci Code were not a bestseller, and if I have not read Tolkien's books, then playing a Tolkien-based game will make me more likely to read it eventually).
It is not the less a wrong, even if it does help the original copyright holders (and you can't prove that it does). By your reasoning, I suppose it is not wrong of me to break into your house so long as I wash your dishes while I'm there.

Hopefully discussions like this bring us closer to make everyone see that the situation is not black and white (publishers are holy knights and pirates are evil, or vice versa) and to try something new.
Evil is fitting. If pirates insist upon violating the rights of others, what else shall we call it?

languard

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2011, 02:09:39 PM »
@Z: If I am interpreting what you're saying correctly, the law permits this.  It's called Creative Commons/Open Source.  Wizards of the Coast did an experiment with this (somewhat) with D&D 3rd Edition.  So it's not the law that prevents your scenario from happening, it's the creators/publishers that prevent it.  Or are you trying to say that creators should be forced to share what they create via CC or Open Source?

@Fenrir:  My apologies.  It is extremely rare that someone will argue against software piracy being theft without having committed piracy, but I should have considered that.  My stance still stands though, software piracy = theft.  Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you.  Piracy is taking software that doesn't belong to you.  Therefor, piracy is theft.  Limiting theft to the taking of physical goods doesn't work anymore in this digital age.  Data has very real value.

siob

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • blit(brain)
    • View Profile
    • gamejs
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2011, 02:44:35 PM »
Most software pirates quietly download from a torrent, with no thoughts other than 'F*** the man, I want free games'.  

*downloading* software is never illegal. Only uploading / providing it without the appropriate license is.

this is true in US + EU. i see the RIAA is trying to make that illegal but they haven't succeeded so far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_download#The_RIAA_against_illegal_downloading

Piracy is taking software that doesn't belong to you.  Therefor, piracy is theft.  Limiting theft to the taking of physical goods doesn't work anymore in this digital age.  Data has very real value.

Again: piracy is providing, giving away software which you do not own. Taking software from someone is never illegal.

To add some thoughts of my own and not just diss you:

The problem with copyright as it is today is twofold:

 * copyright de facto lasts forever (see: mickey mouse laws)
 * DMCA indirectly limits our usage rights
 
Why 1) is a problem should be obvious.

Problem 2) is more subtle: It is perfectly legal to copy a DVD to give it to your mom (fair use). But since it is illegal to circumvent the copy protection of a DVD you are de facto deprived of that right.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 02:53:36 PM by siob »

languard

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2011, 04:46:39 PM »
*downloading* software is never illegal. Only uploading / providing it without the appropriate license is.
Can you source that?  A quick Google search didn't turn up anything supporting that statement.  In any case, using software that you have not paid for is illegal.  The only way you can argue against that in a court would be if you honestly thought you had legally obtained the software (but even that might be questionable with some things I just read).  Same thing goes for stolen physical items.  Buy a hot PS3 from a pawn shop legitimately, and you won't be in trouble (probably).  Still might have to give it back to the owner though.  Buy a hot PS3 from a scruffy guy off the street...and now you're in for a more interesting time with the law.

With the other points, I do agree with you that current copyright laws are screwed up.  Wizards of the Coast have term 'Tapped' copyright for CCGs.  That's right, you can't make a card game and have in the rules 'To use this card, you must tap it'.  That's just not right.  And don't get me started on software patents....

But your fair use example is wrong.  Unless you can provide a source on that?  Fair Use almost never allows the complete and un-transformed copying of something.  I'm not a lawyer, but I am a teacher.  We get training on what we can and can't do under Fair Use, and it isn't as open as many people think.  That said I do agree that DRM violates our rights as consumers.  We are allowed to make archival copies, as long as those copies are kept personal.  DRM is made to stop this.

To make sure no one is misunderstanding my stance on this:  Playing a game you did not pay for is a crime in the USA, unless the creators provided the game for free.  Playing Dragon Age 2, or Crysis 2, or Bulletstorm, or <insert recent AAA release here> without paying is a crime.  There is no argument here, it is illegal.  You will be in trouble with the courts if caught.  You download, install, and play a copy of these games on your computer without paying, you are breaking the law.  This is fact.  If you don't accept this...we'll have to agree to disagree.

Is it moral to do so?  I think not, but now we are in the realm of opinion :)  Are the current USA IP laws messed up?  In my opinion, oh my yes.  They are really messed up.  But, I don't think stealing software is the best way to get the law changed ;)

Keep it coming everyone.  I love debates like this  ;D

Z

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Z's Roguelike Stuff
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2011, 05:24:44 PM »
It is not the less a wrong, even if it does help the original copyright holders (and you can't prove that it does). By your reasoning, I suppose it is not wrong of me to break into your house so long as I wash your dishes while I'm there.

You don't provide reasons why you think it is "wrong". Moreover, AFAIK both publishing fan fiction and downloading music (as long as you find someone who wants to share it with you, no matter what the authors and publishers think about it) are legal in some (civilized) countries.

It is a well established fact that Da Vinci Code helped the original authors a lot (at least that's what I get from reading the Internet articles on this topic, I am not willing to do a accurate research on that).

Your example makes no sense IMO.

@languard: Creative Commons is just one particular set of licenses, and Open Source has nothing to do with the case (it's author's decision whether to distribute the source or not and I agree with that). But yes, I believe that there are cases when laws allow authors/publishers too much monopoly, and they should be changed to limit this monopoly somehow. No monopoly would be great for people like me (as a person who wants to perceive good art, wants to create art, wants other people to build on it, and believes that crediting the authors who really did the job by donations etc is the right thing and is willing to do that and hopes that other people will similarly credit me for my art), but I understand that probably it would not work well with other people, and thus some genius needs to invent a new system. Somehow such openness seems to already work for scientists whose research has no direct application in industry (who get government grants for their work even if their research has no direct practical use, is not of general interest, and probably will never be), even if they have to pay heavy fees to the scientific publishers, both as authors and as readers, and are not paid for doing reviews.

Fenrir

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Karma: +1/-2
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2011, 09:46:19 PM »
You don't provide reasons why you think it is "wrong".
I had supposed that I explained this in a previous post, but it seems I am mistaken.

I think it is wrong, because, when you buy a software license, you are buying only such priviledges as the license stipulates, and you are agreeing to be bound by that license. If you distribute the software, you're violating your agreement.

Downloading pirated content is simply being an accomplice to the pirate's misdeed.

Moreover, AFAIK both publishing fan fiction and downloading music (as long as you find someone who wants to share it with you, no matter what the authors and publishers think about it) are legal in some (civilized) countries.
If we were discussing legality, one could simply look up the appropriate laws, and we would not be having this discussion. We are discussing what is morally right.

It is a well established fact that Da Vinci Code helped the original authors a lot (at least that's what I get from reading the Internet articles on this topic, I am not willing to do a accurate research on that).
"I am not willing to do a accurate research on that"
You admit that you're not even willing to confirm that it is truth, and yet you expect us to believe it? You would support your argument with things that you cannot prove are fact?

Of course, as I said, "it helps the victim," doesn't make it less wrong...

Your example makes no sense IMO.
...which is exactly why I gave an example of a fictional circumstance where someone's rights are violated, but he is helped all the same.

@landguard
I do not condone piracy AT ALL. I just don't think it fits the definition of theft, as I am not certain that one can really possess a sequence of symbols or an idea. If we suppose that a certain individual is in possession of an idea, then we must suppose that all others who concieve the same idea—even if it be of of their own accord without prior knowledge of the original thinker's conception and ownership of that idea—are thieves.

Piracy involves breaking an agreement, and that is where the injustice is committed.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 09:48:48 PM by Fenrir »