6 ms·

alan_cx's comment is a little silly, but I'll take your bait. > Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sel

alan_cx's comment is a little silly, but I'll take your bait. > Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free. Most of the pushes for these laws and raids are done by studios who insist they are losing out, big-time. "Think of the jobs!" If the pirates cannot have their narrow anecdotal evidence, nor can the studios. ;) "People are taking something for free" simplifies the issue, and misrepresents it as well. If I made a song and priced it at three billion dollars and thousands of people "stole" it, would it be the biggest theft in the history of mankind? The terms set out by which information can be exchanged should not be exclusively in control of the creator. Copyright has generally existed under the premise that society demands a little fair use in return. That should be based on what is practical to enforce, and partially on what benefits culture the most. Consider that almost nothing can be done about piracy without sacrificing everybody's civil liberties. This is not a crackpot theory, technologies exist _today_ which end the ability of the government to enforce copyright or any other law over information being exchanged between two parties. The Internet would have to be deeply curated. Even that wouldn't stop it. Are you willing to go that far to enforce copyright? If not (as I hope) you should support making non-commercial filesharing legal, and expanding fair use in other ways.

citricsquid 14y ago
> Most of the pushes for these laws and raids are done by studios who insist they are losing out, big-time. "Think of the jobs!" If the pirates cannot have their narrow anecdotal evidence, nor can the studios. ;) I didn't want to try and make the point because I can't find the information I have seen before and I'm not confident in saying it, but I'm sure I've seen information shown before that if an album had 100,000 listeners 10 years ago it could have yielded x return (enough to justify the investment and risk) and now 100,000 album listeners might mean only 1,000 purchases, which is often not enough to justify the investment and risk. I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense: If 100,000 people consume something and only 10% of those paid for it that's worse than if 50,000 consumed it but 50,000 paid for it (accounting for listener growth, now vs. 10 years ago) > "People are taking something for free" simplifies the issue, and misrepresents it as well. If I made a song and priced it at three billion dollars and thousands of people "stole" it, would it be the biggest theft in the history of mankind? The terms set out by which information can be exchanged should not be exclusively in control of the creator. Copyright has generally existed under the premise that society demands a little fair use in return. That should be based on what is practical to enforce, and partially on what benefits culture the most. The cost of something does not matter when discussing whether or not it's right or wrong to take something. If a song costs $0.10 or $100 it's still wrong to take it. No, downloading a song that is priced at $3,000,000 isn't worse than downloading a song priced at $1, but that doesn't make either of them right? I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you're trying to make here. > Are you willing to go that far to enforce copyright? If not (as I hope) you should support making non-commercial filesharing legal, and expanding fair use in other ways. Personally I would much rather society just stopped being so damn selfish and accepted that if someone wants something they either meet the terms of the owner or just don't consume it. If I want an album that costs $10, I pay $10, if I want an album that costs $100,000, either I pay $100,000 or I don't get the album, I should not just download it for free and say "well it isn't worth $100,000 anyway, so whatever, fuck them, civil liberties!" It's not about copyright, it's about respect for other human beings, respect for the people that create the content you consume. If someone prices something at $100,000 either you pay for it or you don't get it.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  > I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale, which is probably what supports the figures you gave. I'm pretty sure if I go download a thousand songs off of what.cd right now, I'm not draining a thousand dollars out of the music industry. In fact, I'm not draining a cent out of it. A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. > No, downloading a song that is priced at $3,000,000 isn't worse than downloading a song priced at $1, but that doesn't make either of them right? I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you're trying to make here. I was making the point that the author of some creative content should not be able to set all of the terms of their creation, including what they perceive as damages. (This is exactly what "fair use" is.)
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    > That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale No, no I'm not. Nobody believes a download is a lost sale, it's certain that there is crossover between people that would buy if they couldn't pirate but there is no way that every illegal download is a lost sale. My point is that if you (a label, a musician) expect 100,000 people to listen to a song then you should be able to expect that 100,000 people will acquire that listen through means that you support? Either a download or a stream or any other "legitimate" method. If a label or artist only cared about securing the maximum number of listens then they would make the song free, but (most) choose not to, which would indicate they want every listen to be a paid listen (or through an official streaming system), correct? > A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? I'm not pretending money is disappearing and then 100,000 illegal downloads = $100,000 in lost revenue. I'm stating that if an artist or label publishes a song online and they decide it will cost $1 to download then they should be able to expect 100,000 downloads to net them $100,000 in revenue. If 100,000 downloads means only net $5000 in revenue (95,000 illegal downloads, 5000 legitimate) then that is unreasonable and they should be able to consider that "bad", and make efforts to stop that (through shutting down of illegal download services). > Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal.
paulhauggis 14y ago
When are we going to have these same feelings towards open source licenses? Many people in this community have no problems using the current laws to enforce the GNU, which takes away just as many civil liberties.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  I actually dislike GPL as well. There's a reason why BSD-style licenses have done more for open source in the last decade than GPL. What gives you the impression GPL is well-liked by pirates?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  This argument always comes up and it never makes any sense. The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. The fact that it is based on copyright law is just an implementation detail because the FSF does not have enough clout to pass actual laws. It's a clever hack of the legal system, not an ideological reaffirmation of copyright. The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. The GPL is the opposite. The core idea there is that you are not only allowed to make a copy of something, but you are also allowed to access the source code. In practical terms, this is just as important as being able to copy a program because the only meaningful way to make modifications is with access to the source code. Moreover, the license ensures that anybody using the licensed program keeps it free in the same way. Essentially, where normal copyright keeps you from using the information, the GPL keeps you from using copyright law to keep others from using the information. In a very practical sense, something under the GPL is more free than something in the public domain--I could ship you something containing public domain code and not give you the source code or even let you modify it. I could not do that with the GPL. Another way to look at it is that normal copyright gives rights to the "rights-holder" over the consumer. The GPL gives rights to the consumer (like access to source code) rather than to the rights-holder. The "restrictions" it places are the sort of restrictions any system based around rights has to have--you have the right to do almost anything as long as you do not infringe others' rights. In this context it means you can do anything you want (including selling the software) as long as you do not stop others from modifying and redistributing it. In short: the GPL is the opposite of copyright and it gives the consumer more freedom. The only thing it stops you from doing is taking away others' freedom. The only reason it uses copyright is because copyright effectively allows you to write your own laws (but limited to whatever works you've copyrighted) without going through the legislature. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary--all software would just be free as in freedom.
belorn 14y ago
> Does there need to be? Yes. The question of morality require more than the simple fact that someone can gain something of value without loosing something of value in exchange. A question asked by Eben Moglen (a professor in law historian and founder of FSLC), if bread could be copied with no costs by the process of pressing a button, what would the argument be to require more for bread than what a starving person would be able to pay? Would it be morally right to deprive a person of what he or she need to live when it cost you nothing to allow the person to survive? And if you do decide to deprive the person of that bread in a effort to give money for the first bread created, would the death of the starving man then be murder? And before you say "but copyrighted works are not necessary for living", please consider the effect of education has on a person ability to survive. There has also been physcology experiments that has proven the need, the almost extreme need for culture we human beings have. Deprive people of it and there is physical effects from it.

citricsquid 14y ago

> Most of the pushes for these laws and raids are done by studios who insist they are losing out, big-time. "Think of the jobs!" If the pirates cannot have their narrow anecdotal evidence, nor can the studios. ;) I didn't want to try and make the point because I can't find the information I have seen before and I'm not confident in saying it, but I'm sure I've seen information shown before that if an album had 100,000 listeners 10 years ago it could have yielded x return (enough to justify the investment and risk) and now 100,000 album listeners might mean only 1,000 purchases, which is often not enough to justify the investment and risk. I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense: If 100,000 people consume something and only 10% of those paid for it that's worse than if 50,000 consumed it but 50,000 paid for it (accounting for listener growth, now vs. 10 years ago) > "People are taking something for free" simplifies the issue, and misrepresents it as well. If I made a song and priced it at three billion dollars and thousands of people "stole" it, would it be the biggest theft in the history of mankind? The terms set out by which information can be exchanged should not be exclusively in control of the creator. Copyright has generally existed under the premise that society demands a little fair use in return. That should be based on what is practical to enforce, and partially on what benefits culture the most. The cost of something does not matter when discussing whether or not it's right or wrong to take something. If a song costs $0.10 or $100 it's still wrong to take it. No, downloading a song that is priced at $3,000,000 isn't worse than downloading a song priced at $1, but that doesn't make either of them right? I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you're trying to make here. > Are you willing to go that far to enforce copyright? If not (as I hope) you should support making non-commercial filesharing legal, and expanding fair use in other ways. Personally I would much rather society just stopped being so damn selfish and accepted that if someone wants something they either meet the terms of the owner or just don't consume it. If I want an album that costs $10, I pay $10, if I want an album that costs $100,000, either I pay $100,000 or I don't get the album, I should not just download it for free and say "well it isn't worth $100,000 anyway, so whatever, fuck them, civil liberties!" It's not about copyright, it's about respect for other human beings, respect for the people that create the content you consume. If someone prices something at $100,000 either you pay for it or you don't get it.

ewillbefull 14y ago
> I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale, which is probably what supports the figures you gave. I'm pretty sure if I go download a thousand songs off of what.cd right now, I'm not draining a thousand dollars out of the music industry. In fact, I'm not draining a cent out of it. A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. > No, downloading a song that is priced at $3,000,000 isn't worse than downloading a song priced at $1, but that doesn't make either of them right? I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you're trying to make here. I was making the point that the author of some creative content should not be able to set all of the terms of their creation, including what they perceive as damages. (This is exactly what "fair use" is.)
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale No, no I'm not. Nobody believes a download is a lost sale, it's certain that there is crossover between people that would buy if they couldn't pirate but there is no way that every illegal download is a lost sale. My point is that if you (a label, a musician) expect 100,000 people to listen to a song then you should be able to expect that 100,000 people will acquire that listen through means that you support? Either a download or a stream or any other "legitimate" method. If a label or artist only cared about securing the maximum number of listens then they would make the song free, but (most) choose not to, which would indicate they want every listen to be a paid listen (or through an official streaming system), correct? > A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? I'm not pretending money is disappearing and then 100,000 illegal downloads = $100,000 in lost revenue. I'm stating that if an artist or label publishes a song online and they decide it will cost $1 to download then they should be able to expect 100,000 downloads to net them $100,000 in revenue. If 100,000 downloads means only net $5000 in revenue (95,000 illegal downloads, 5000 legitimate) then that is unreasonable and they should be able to consider that "bad", and make efforts to stop that (through shutting down of illegal download services). > Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal.

paulhauggis 14y ago

When are we going to have these same feelings towards open source licenses? Many people in this community have no problems using the current laws to enforce the GNU, which takes away just as many civil liberties.

ewillbefull 14y ago
I actually dislike GPL as well. There's a reason why BSD-style licenses have done more for open source in the last decade than GPL. What gives you the impression GPL is well-liked by pirates?
tikhonj 14y ago
This argument always comes up and it never makes any sense. The GNU is exactly the opposite of normal copyright. The fact that it is based on copyright law is just an implementation detail because the FSF does not have enough clout to pass actual laws. It's a clever hack of the legal system, not an ideological reaffirmation of copyright. The idea behind normal copyright--what some people here do not like--is to limit others' access to information. The whole point is that you cannot copy something without the right-owner's permission. The GPL is the opposite. The core idea there is that you are not only allowed to make a copy of something, but you are also allowed to access the source code. In practical terms, this is just as important as being able to copy a program because the only meaningful way to make modifications is with access to the source code. Moreover, the license ensures that anybody using the licensed program keeps it free in the same way. Essentially, where normal copyright keeps you from using the information, the GPL keeps you from using copyright law to keep others from using the information. In a very practical sense, something under the GPL is more free than something in the public domain--I could ship you something containing public domain code and not give you the source code or even let you modify it. I could not do that with the GPL. Another way to look at it is that normal copyright gives rights to the "rights-holder" over the consumer. The GPL gives rights to the consumer (like access to source code) rather than to the rights-holder. The "restrictions" it places are the sort of restrictions any system based around rights has to have--you have the right to do almost anything as long as you do not infringe others' rights. In this context it means you can do anything you want (including selling the software) as long as you do not stop others from modifying and redistributing it. In short: the GPL is the opposite of copyright and it gives the consumer more freedom. The only thing it stops you from doing is taking away others' freedom. The only reason it uses copyright is because copyright effectively allows you to write your own laws (but limited to whatever works you've copyrighted) without going through the legislature. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary--all software would just be free as in freedom.

belorn 14y ago

> Does there need to be? Yes. The question of morality require more than the simple fact that someone can gain something of value without loosing something of value in exchange. A question asked by Eben Moglen (a professor in law historian and founder of FSLC), if bread could be copied with no costs by the process of pressing a button, what would the argument be to require more for bread than what a starving person would be able to pay? Would it be morally right to deprive a person of what he or she need to live when it cost you nothing to allow the person to survive? And if you do decide to deprive the person of that bread in a effort to give money for the first bread created, would the death of the starving man then be murder? And before you say "but copyrighted works are not necessary for living", please consider the effect of education has on a person ability to survive. There has also been physcology experiments that has proven the need, the almost extreme need for culture we human beings have. Deprive people of it and there is physical effects from it.