4 ms·

To be honest, I'm not sure that most software developers care much if a student, for example, downloads software and tinkers with it for personal use 'breaking

by wfo 11y ago

To be honest, I'm not sure that most software developers care much if a student, for example, downloads software and tinkers with it for personal use 'breaking copyright'. In fact many large software companies encourage piracy so that when these kids grow up to work at a company, they'll demand the tools they know already from past piracy. There's a huge difference between making money off a business model which is based around breaking copyright and breaking it for personal use. Most software folks don't care at all about the second, which is what the article is about, which is why your comments are unconvincing.

brian-armstrong 11y ago
There is no business usecase for movies and music (with some small exceptions for ads, but nothing like enterprise software). So, by your criteria, they just shouldn't receive copyright protection because their product targets consumers? How does that make any sense?
- digler999 11y ago
  I say they shouldn't receive copyright protection because consumers dont enjoy equal representation in Congressional copyright hearings, such as those for DMCA or the numerous copyright extensions. We simply cannot afford to pay for congressmen to vote for our interests the way the movie, music, and publishing industries can.
  - brian-armstrong 11y ago
    And the compromise you're looking for is... that artists receive nothing? What justifies wholesale piracy of their hard work?
- wfo 11y ago
  Have you ever listened to the radio, gone to a theater, been to a nightclub or music venue, watched a movie on television? Of course there is a business use case for movies and music. A theater or TV station could pirate movies and show them for profit. A nightclub or DJ service or radio station that plays songs is running a business based on that music. You asked "how would you feel if someone violated the GPL". My answer is that well the GPL can't be violated for personal use so it's not relevant at ALL to this discussion. Another software license? Most SW devs would say "if it's for personal use, who cares?" If software and music/movies are so fundamentally different w.r.t. piracy as you claim (since nobody can have a business based on music or movies? What?), you should have no trouble understanding why it's absurd to try to compare them in order to convince people piracy is bad. And I never said we should remove copyright for anyone in particular (though perhaps we should remove it altogether -- piracy has a few minimal negative effects, many positive ones, I'm not convinced the cure isn't worse than the disease). I'm explaining why your analogy is misguided and rhetorically ineffective.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    >piracy has a few minimal negative effects, many positive ones If you really believe that you should read this article by a developer who ran an experiment on pirating his own game [1]. 94% of day 1 users had pirated the game and were not contributing to the fixed costs of generating the IP. Not all users were going to pay full price, but the developer could have run discounts later to capture most of those users. This was a DRM-free game with a demo, so there were none of the typical excuses for pirating. http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...
    - wfo 11y ago
      Yes, one time an indie flash game was pirated a lot (for the record I actually bought that game at the time). That's exactly what I meant when I said minimal. It sucks for him, but compare that to the people whose machines were bricked by DRM. Compare that to the people whose lives have been destroyed because they downloaded or their kid/grandmother downloaded an MP3. Consider the damage that's been done to the free and open internet and the consequences if one of the constant attacks on it in defense of copyright like SOPA should succeed. Consider all of the culture that could have been created if it wasn't illegal to use someone else's ideas. Consider what we've lost because wealthy capitalists can own and trade our culture/art/thoughts.

by wfo 11y ago

brian-armstrong 11y ago

There is no business usecase for movies and music (with some small exceptions for ads, but nothing like enterprise software). So, by your criteria, they just shouldn't receive copyright protection because their product targets consumers? How does that make any sense?

digler999 11y ago
I say they shouldn't receive copyright protection because consumers dont enjoy equal representation in Congressional copyright hearings, such as those for DMCA or the numerous copyright extensions. We simply cannot afford to pay for congressmen to vote for our interests the way the movie, music, and publishing industries can.
- brian-armstrong 11y ago
  And the compromise you're looking for is... that artists receive nothing? What justifies wholesale piracy of their hard work?
wfo 11y ago
Have you ever listened to the radio, gone to a theater, been to a nightclub or music venue, watched a movie on television? Of course there is a business use case for movies and music. A theater or TV station could pirate movies and show them for profit. A nightclub or DJ service or radio station that plays songs is running a business based on that music. You asked "how would you feel if someone violated the GPL". My answer is that well the GPL can't be violated for personal use so it's not relevant at ALL to this discussion. Another software license? Most SW devs would say "if it's for personal use, who cares?" If software and music/movies are so fundamentally different w.r.t. piracy as you claim (since nobody can have a business based on music or movies? What?), you should have no trouble understanding why it's absurd to try to compare them in order to convince people piracy is bad. And I never said we should remove copyright for anyone in particular (though perhaps we should remove it altogether -- piracy has a few minimal negative effects, many positive ones, I'm not convinced the cure isn't worse than the disease). I'm explaining why your analogy is misguided and rhetorically ineffective.
- bduerst 11y ago
  >piracy has a few minimal negative effects, many positive ones If you really believe that you should read this article by a developer who ran an experiment on pirating his own game [1]. 94% of day 1 users had pirated the game and were not contributing to the fixed costs of generating the IP. Not all users were going to pay full price, but the developer could have run discounts later to capture most of those users. This was a DRM-free game with a demo, so there were none of the typical excuses for pirating. http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...
  - wfo 11y ago
    Yes, one time an indie flash game was pirated a lot (for the record I actually bought that game at the time). That's exactly what I meant when I said minimal. It sucks for him, but compare that to the people whose machines were bricked by DRM. Compare that to the people whose lives have been destroyed because they downloaded or their kid/grandmother downloaded an MP3. Consider the damage that's been done to the free and open internet and the consequences if one of the constant attacks on it in defense of copyright like SOPA should succeed. Consider all of the culture that could have been created if it wasn't illegal to use someone else's ideas. Consider what we've lost because wealthy capitalists can own and trade our culture/art/thoughts.