can we talk about data piracy?

[DSchmitt]

look, i've downloaded software for free that shouldn't have. many people have. i'm a very open minded person. but i def consider what i did and what many people do stealing.

if you spend thousands of hours creating any software, with the intentions of profiting, you can't possibly tell me you wouldn't be mad when 1 person buys it, then hosts it on a website for everyone else to download for free.

it's stealing...just be aware of the possible consequences

[johnfoss]

Yup, no useful argument from feel the light. But I do digress on my iPhone question above. I don't think you're in any danger legally, even if you make a perfect copy. And I think Nick agrees that if you want to sell your copies, that's another story, and not his major point.

Also I take issue with the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). If I buy an expensive DVD, I have purchased (in my mind) a license to the IP that's on the disc. I should be allowed to make a copy of that "information" for personal use. After all, if my purchase was indeed for the IP on the disc, I shouldn't have to buy it again if the disc gets scratched. Yes, and the movie company might not agree with that, but too bad.

Oddly enough, I haven't actually done this, though I have downloaded Handbrake and read articles on how to do it. It's easy enough, though not a turnkey process. Where I differ from Nick is in the fact that I already bought the DVD.

Like many have mentioned above, this issue is nothing new; it's been possible to copy LP records onto tape, and CDs onto computer for many years now. But the recent tools make it way easier, and the copies can be completely lossless (no reduction in quality). This is supposed to change the rules, but it doesn't. However it does have to change something, for the obvious reason that people are going to copy, and not pay, if it's easy for them to do it.

So we've all copied our CDs onto our computers, to make it easier to access, tag, organize and listen to our music. It's now also easier to copy. I have an MP4 copy of The Matrix on a CD from about ten years ago. This would also be much easier to copy than an actual DVD with menus and navigation. I'm still at the place where it's okay to do that for personal use by the owner, but not to share (give away) or sell.

What I think Nick and feel the light are getting at is the fact that it keeps getting easier to copy and distribute that stuff. And it will continue to get easier. The "market" must respond, because there will be inevitable consequences of this. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

[Heretical Rants]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I applaud you your honesty. Unfortunately, everyone isn't so forthright. I know this because I've obtained some software illegally, and realized later on that I never paid for it as I'd intended to. Whether I feel bad about it or not is irrelevant, I deprived the creators of a sale, of a product that I did use.

I've done the same. That's just the policy that I strive towards achieving.

I'm also more likely to pay for something by something by some small entity, say an independent artist spinning tracks at home, than for something produced by some giant soulless corporate enterprise. I figure that my spending power is best applied supporting the art that I most enjoy, but also that it counts for more when applied towards efforts that have less support to begin with.

Like, I just gave this guy ₤2 for some music but I'd probably never even consider paying for a Michael Jackson album, especially with the artist in that case no longer able to continue producing content.

[Gilby]

Is it illegal for me to go to the library, borrow a book, commit it to memory, and then return it so someone else can do the same?

[johnfoss]

What kind of memory? Are you a silicon-based life form?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

What kind of memory? Are you a silicon-based life form?

Is that relevant to the legality of it?

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by nick

. The problem that you (and your wife) are talking about is that kids are lazy. Every generation from the beginning of time has said this about the generations that follow them. Even I think the generation behind me is lazy!

Sorry but this is not what I am saying, I may be an old geezer but my opinion on young generations is that they are smarter than we were at the same age. But for every generation there is a battle for education (and for every generation there are different incentives to be lazy : though "lazy" this is not the proper word -sorry english is not my native language-).
BTW I write open-source software myself (but I am paid for it!) If I wrote a book (a possible occurence) I would like to get paid for it: a friend of mine did that but his conclusion was that he must have swept floors instead because the hourly salary was less than that of a street-sweeper (mind you I respect street-sweepers: that was just for comparison purposes). So you think that electronic copies of the book are just free?

[aracer]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Is it illegal for me to go to the library, borrow a book, commit it to memory, and then return it so someone else can do the same?

This book?

http://www.amazon.com/Straw-Men-Michael-Marshall/d...
http://www.amazon.com/Straw-Men-Michael-Marshall/d...

[nick]

Originally Posted by nick

And again, I didn't say any of that. Patents are great (even though our patent system is super broken). I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is patented. I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is copyrighted either.

Before I say anything else, I'd like to clarify this. I think I wrote this very poorly. The above should read:

I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is patented by someone else. I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is copyrighted by someone else either.

In other words: The people who hold the patents or copyrights are the only people who should be profiting off their works. No one else.

[kamikaze]

Oh, such follies I read here. Should I indulge?

[aracer]

Originally Posted by nick

Before I say anything else, I'd like to clarify this. I think I wrote this very poorly. The above should read:

I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is patented by someone else. I don't think I should be able to sell anything that is copyrighted by someone else either.

In other words: The people who hold the patents or copyrights are the only people who should be profiting off their works. No one else.

That does read somewhat differently

We're still left with some issues though. What you're suggesting is that the only way for an author to make money from what they write is to self publish on their own printing press at home and sell direct. No publishers or book shops allowed. ISTM the ink and paper supplier is left in a morally dubious position though. Similarly for music.

Even if you want to ban paper books and CDs and force everybody to use MP3s and Kindles, how do you process payments without the bank making a profit? Your server provider is then also operating in a legal grey area.

[Charly.Oldie]

Just few Words
The MAFIA (Music and Film Industries Asociation)
Is very small in making Money compared to many others like Steel, Transports, Finance, Car and so on
But why do nearly all Governments around the World listen so much to them and starting to change Laws, so it looks more and more like Censorship and controlling the free Internet and also reduce the freedom of Speech?

That is IMO the real thing not copyright issues

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by nick

For me, the consumer, the value is in the distribution, not for the content.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. What good is a distribution channel if there is no content to distribute?

In your rosy utopia where no one gets anything from their creative works, there will be very little available and what is available will be crap. Enjoy...

The economics of the situation do not matter. Sharing information should be 100% legal, regardless of the type of information being shared

There's a huge different between sharing information and stealing information, and that decision should be made by the producer of said information.

Your argument seems to be that since it's so easy to steal these days, that the act of stealing should be legal. I can't see any merit to that argument. All it tells me is that you have no respect for the work of others.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by nick

In other words: The people who hold the patents or copyrights are the only people who should be profiting off their works. No one else.

Huh? You just said it should be legal to steal... so there won't be ANY profits going to anyone.

[DaneDawson]

So I am going to be completely honest here, I did not read all the previous posts. I made it half the way through before it got very labor intensive and seemed almost abusive, which to me is is where the problem lays with this whole situation.

Anti-Piracy people claim that the goods that were made, namely the people who made/produced them, deserve compensation (for that is how a capitalist economy functions).

Pro-Piracy claim that it's not stealing and if anything it's sharing as you would share a book (or more accurately a text document, since you can actually make "worthless" copies of a text document).

My philosophy on the whole situation is as follows: I think that a large majority of media that is produced these days is fairly worthless. This includes movies, games, software, music, even some books are starting to degrade in quality. Personally, I pirate things that I find intriguing or worth looking into, and if the product is worth paying for and I have the ability to do so, I buy it. A good game development company or a good musician deserves the money to pay for what they did and enjoy a lifestyle that reflects the efforts they put into their work, and if I feel they did good work and I know I enjoyed the product enough to deem it "worthy" of paying I do so.

*HOWEVER*

The SOPA/PIPA bills are no longer a matter of piracy at all. Sure, that was the intention they were drafted to stop, but the power it gives the US government over the entire internet is simply ridiculous. For those of you who haven't gotten a chance to read into it, do so. It allows (and allow me to abbreviate the specifics a little) the US government to, upon suspicion of even helping host copyrighted material (even in the user generated content!!), close down the entire website and then allow the site to try and prove their innocence. These sites include YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, CNN (any news site really), etc.

As an example, if someone posts on CNN a link or any type of copyrighted material the US government has the ability to shut down cnn.com without any proof other than an accusation. Of course, CNN probably helps lobby this bill so that's unlikely, but still the point lies they will shut down the ENTIRE SITE for user generated content. This will very likely destroy youtube and wikipedia, and if either make it through the gauntlet they will be severely different.

Fun fact, if a company decides they were falsely accused and the site went down for no reason, in the bill it also states it is illegal to counter-sue for compensation.

There are other things worth checking into as well, read into the bill!

This is worth reading into, you need to know about this bill and what it will do. This isn't about piracy right now, this bill was pushed far too fast and is worded to give the government *way* too much power.

The internet is intended for free speech and activity, that's kind of it's purpose. This bill will literally destroy the internet as we know it. If you agree with the idea of an American lifestyle with nobody watching over your shoulder and controlling everything you do, this should never pass.

At least, that's my view on the matter.