5 ms·

Social engineering doesn't require changes to the Internet. Edit: educating people about the ethical and economic implications of piracy does not require any

Social engineering doesn't require changes to the Internet. Edit: educating people about the ethical and economic implications of piracy does not require any change to the Internet.

akkartik 15y ago
I don't understand what you mean, or even if you're agreeing or disagreeing with swombat. Edit: yeah giving people information doesn't have the connotations as 'social engineering'.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Well, I was thinking more of a more deliberate, calculated method of instilling values into young people. Social engineering in the sociology sense. But you're right, it was a bit dumb to use the phrase here, as it's probably thought of in the Kevin Mitnick sense.
hxa7241 15y ago
How about educating these corporations about changing business models to suit changed circumstances? The economic -- i.e. overall -- effects of piracy are quite likely good for the public.
Natsu 15y ago
"Don't Copy that Floppy" was an utter failure. Many people object to copyright as unethical according to their personal ethics. The behavior of the RIAA & MPAA has not helped them convince anyone, either.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  The failure of one program doesn't invalidate an entire concept. Just because the Space Shuttle wasn't cost effective doesn't mean we should give up on space exploration. Regarding people's objection to copyright, I see that largely as a circular argument. We're heading into an information-based economy with a population that doesn't seem to value intellectual property. If they can't hold it in their hand, they don't see why it's worth anything. As a software engineer, this really worries me.
  - swombat 15y ago
    Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. As a human being living on this planet, it really worries me that some people feel that their privilege to make a buck from some information is valued more than the ability for mankind to use that information to make progress. You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). Edit: for the record, I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion, however much I might disagree with it, and I upvoted you.
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-) You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head. By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication. I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  "Don't Copy that Floppy" wasn't an utter failure due to everyone taking a moral high ground that they thought copyright was unethical. It was because it was extremely easy to pirate software with little or no risk of consequences.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    You're only giving more reasons why such things won't work. The cost of enforcing rules such that there is a high risk of consequences is absolutely staggering. They've already declared yet another "war" on it, and we all know how much those cost.

Social engineering doesn't require changes to the Internet. Edit: educating people about the ethical and economic implications of piracy does not require any change to the Internet.

akkartik 15y ago

I don't understand what you mean, or even if you're agreeing or disagreeing with swombat. Edit: yeah giving people information doesn't have the connotations as 'social engineering'.

georgieporgie 15y ago
Well, I was thinking more of a more deliberate, calculated method of instilling values into young people. Social engineering in the sociology sense. But you're right, it was a bit dumb to use the phrase here, as it's probably thought of in the Kevin Mitnick sense.

hxa7241 15y ago

How about educating these corporations about changing business models to suit changed circumstances? The economic -- i.e. overall -- effects of piracy are quite likely good for the public.

Natsu 15y ago

"Don't Copy that Floppy" was an utter failure. Many people object to copyright as unethical according to their personal ethics. The behavior of the RIAA & MPAA has not helped them convince anyone, either.

georgieporgie 15y ago
The failure of one program doesn't invalidate an entire concept. Just because the Space Shuttle wasn't cost effective doesn't mean we should give up on space exploration. Regarding people's objection to copyright, I see that largely as a circular argument. We're heading into an information-based economy with a population that doesn't seem to value intellectual property. If they can't hold it in their hand, they don't see why it's worth anything. As a software engineer, this really worries me.
- swombat 15y ago
  Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. As a human being living on this planet, it really worries me that some people feel that their privilege to make a buck from some information is valued more than the ability for mankind to use that information to make progress. You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). Edit: for the record, I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion, however much I might disagree with it, and I upvoted you.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-) You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head. By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication. I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.
res0nat0r 15y ago
"Don't Copy that Floppy" wasn't an utter failure due to everyone taking a moral high ground that they thought copyright was unethical. It was because it was extremely easy to pirate software with little or no risk of consequences.
- Natsu 15y ago
  You're only giving more reasons why such things won't work. The cost of enforcing rules such that there is a high risk of consequences is absolutely staggering. They've already declared yet another "war" on it, and we all know how much those cost.