So with SOPA and PIPA and ACTA and all that, I just figured maybe a new thread on this topic was deserved, even if it just re-hashes what everyone has already said.
Do you think there should be laws against pirating movies, music, software, etc?
I do not.
There is only a single argument that I think should mater:
By downloading a file, nothing is lost, nothing is “stolen.”
People can make all kinds of arguments about lost sales, but really that shouldn’t matter. We’ve reached a point where music and movies can be easily shared with massive amounts of people. If that means that it is no longer profitable for major studios to make those things, well, that just sucks for them. The government should not be restricting the sharing of information just to benefit a few private companies.
I do believe in supporting musicians that I enjoy listening to. I have a Netflix account, etc. I do think people who make movies and music and software deserve to get paid. But I don’t think cracking down on “piracy” is the way to do that. It is up to the industries to create solutions to that problem.
don’t agree.
for software :
what should be available when using a software is a try and buy later version (so many soft we realize we do not need!) best thing also is open source (when author get paid to deliver -badly needed- support :D).
for music:
I agree it’s more complex (for instance I have been playing music for 40 years without never having paid any author -I do not even know who they are-).
when it comes to recorded music the great improvement was to buy one tune at a time (without being obliged to purchase a whole album) and again a try and buy later will be fine.
I don’t agree with the irresponsible attitude: I can have it and why bother… it’s a culture of everything is free … my wife (who teaches) is complaining that this attitude leads her pupils to behave as if they do not have to focus on learning and work: just open your mouth and you will get fed!
the great thing about the internet is that a just price could be very low… but it’s nonetheless a price.
Why? Why should software be treated differently? Just because it is more difficult to make?
Again, why? You’ve only stated what you believe, but not why.
This is an entirely different problem. The culture is that information is free, which is fine by me. 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!
This statement would only make sense if that file had no value. As if it were just a random collection of bits. But this isn’t the case.
“Ah” you say “but one can copy these files for no cost! Therefore my copy is free!”
A recording couldn’t be copied without a master. A book could not be printed without plates. Pictures can’t be printed without negatives. Whether you make 1 copy or 1,000,000 this is the case.
“Well” you say “Then my copy should simply be a fractional price based on how many copies were made!”
This statement demonstrates an ignorance of economics. There may be costs that a producer needs to recover through the sale of his IP, and that cost may only be recovered after the sale of X units at price point Y. Yes, a producer is taking a risk by offering his IP for sale at less than cost, but is this reason alone for punishing that producer?
“So” you say “1MM units have already been sold! My theft is merely depriving the producer of his second yacht…”
Let’s put aside the fact that what you consider “profit” may actually be the cost of a product that’s yet-to-be, or something else that may benefit you if you didn’t prevent the accumulation of funds.
Does this all come down to the fact that you’re against profit? That everyone should bust their a**, bankrupt themeselves, family and friends (equipment doesn’t buy itself, y’know), just that you can get what you want for free?
I get the impression that you’ve never tried to bring anything to market before. Are you planning to be a leech on the ass of society all your life?
I see filesharing and warez as a testing cycle. If I like it, I buy it. If it’s crap, I delete it. If some big giant evil record label is involved, I try not to give them money, though. Independent artists ftw, yo.
If it’s open source and I like it, I donate and rave about it at every appropriate opportunity.
My copy is free, because it is a copy. I made that copy, or my friends made it, or a random stranger made it and gave it to me.
The company selling the product should price the original at what it is worth. If “sharing” means that the original copy of a movie is worth $1,000,000, then companies should price accordingly.
I never said that. My copy should not be a fractional price. It costs nothing to copy it, so my copy is free.
My reasoning has nothing to do with what is good for the producer of the product. If the producer of the work is selling something that is (in modern times) able to be copied for free, then they should get a new line of work, or figure out a better way to monetize their product. Stand up comedians don’t get a nickle everytime someone tells one of their jokes in a bar, why should music producers get a quarter everytime I listen to one of their songs? (Now, if I use that joke or song in a commercial, or if I tell that same joke in a paid act, or record that same song to a CD and sell it, that is when I should have to pay for it).
Again, nothing to do with my argument. Let them get a job that produces something that can’t be copied, or let them go out of business. It is not the governments job to prop up a business that technology has made obsolete.
And you’re 100% wrong about that! Don’t make assumptions.
For further thought, an analogy:
My friend buys a nimbus performer giraffe, and I think it is awesome. I take it apart and measure each part, very precisely. I take notes on how it is put together. I draw up plans using these measurements. I then purchase materials, and build myself an exact replica of that unicycle.
So you think it would be better if these things you’d like to copy for free weren’t available at all? You think technology has made making original art in the form of films and music (and also writing software) obsolete?
If it’s patented or has significant enough original content to be inherently covered by other IP laws (not likely for a unicycle, but possible for something like a boat hull) then it is illegal. Or do you think there should be no laws protecting any sort of IP, and industrial espionage should actually be encouraged? Note that the whole point of the patent system is to encourage the development and sharing of ideas and technology, not to allow companies to take money.
I guess I was making a generalization, sorry about that. I can record an album or make a movie using my tablet, but I can not write any of the software that allows me to do that.
I do not beleive that there is anything patented on the nimbus performer giraffe, though I may be wrong.
Of course I like music, movies, and software! And of course I don’t think technology has made them obsolete.
I still buy music from local artists, though most of the musicians I listen to encourage people to share their music online, or let people download all of it for free right off the bat. Oh, and I still pay to go to concerts, or donate if the shows are free. My girlfriend has a premium (paid for) spotify account.
I still pay to go to the movies every once in a while, but not often. We also have a netflix account. Honestly though, I’m not that into movies, and I’d be okay if big budget films went extinct.
I’m typing this from firefox, run off of a pc running ubuntu. If I wasn’t doing that I’d be on my tablet, I did pay for the very few apps I needed to purchase.
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.
I’m more than happy to pay for music, movies, and software when they are availible to me in a useful format and distribution method. But let me be clear, I am paying only because it is easier for me to use netflix or spotify than it is for me to download things. For me, the consumer, the value is in the distribution, not for the content.
So far most of the posts do not seem to address my original point, so I’m going to rehash it:
The economics of the situation do not matter. Sharing information should be 100% legal, regardless of the type of information being shared, with very few exceptions.
That being said, there are obviously ways to get people to volentarily pay for content, even if that content could be otherwise, legally, obtained for free. If the current media companies do not like those alternatives, they will end up going out of business. The sooner that happens, the better.
I find that hard to believe given you seem to want a lot less of all of them. Or maybe you just don’t understand how making it so that there is no value in the IP will result in a lot less people being able to make their living generating original works.
So how are you working that one? Does it become illegal to sell anything which has a patent? Or is it just that a patent has no value at all - anybody can use it? Do remember to shut down the patent office, because nobody will be patenting anything. I don’t suppose people will bother so much with inventing stuff either in that case. Or writing books. Or music. Pretty hard to do so when you have to earn a living doing a normal day job as well.
I do agree with you about how your patent system is broken - but we have a perfectly decent one over here which works just fine.
Nope, that isn’t the only argument that matters. You might have a better understanding of this is you were the creator of the content that were being copied for free. All of your writing here so far suggests that you don’t.
Obviously it doesn’t matter to you, but it does matter to them?
In other words, I’m going to pirate as long as it’s possible for me to do so, and not feel guilty about it. That makes you like all those people out there driving around with cell phones held up to their ear (depending on local laws, yadda yadda). No, your copies won’t kill anyone, but your disregard for the law is just the same.
Is this broad statement a reference to PIPA and SOPA? Because I’m not seeing “the government” doing this (at least in most countries).
The “getting paid” thing strikes a discord with everything else you’ve said so far. Or you haven’t explained yourself very well. Meanwhile, you think pirating should be legal because it’s easy to make perfect copies. That’s like saying releasing evil worm software to the open Internet should be legal for the same reason.
In any case, I think we are in agreement on being opposed to the basic concept of the PIPA and SOPA proposals, as I wrote in the other thread. You want to prosecute pirates? Prosecute pirates. Dropbox is not a pirate, they provide a service. UPS provides a service. It is not the job of UPS to look in every package. Should it be? These laws say it should. But UPS isn’t the criminal, it’s the shipper (and supposedly the addressee). Go after them.
…If they choose to present it like this. It seems to work for some top professional software, like Photoshop, so it’s a viable option. But that should be up to the seller.
What culture? I’m familiar with the concept of information being free, but not that applies to, or is intended to apply to, intellectual property. That is not “information,” it’s intellectual property. It’s a product. If somebody makes a film and wants everyone in the world to see it, they’re going to make it easy to obtain. If someone else spends $100 million to make a movie for entertainment, they’re going to expect it not to be free. And it’s their property, so that should be their right as well.
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.
No less harsh than your assertions. You cleared it up some in a later post, but we still think you want to download blockbuster movies for free, or otherwise, what sounds like letting others pay for it so you can have it for free. You haven’t explained the business model there.
This also needs a better explanation. How much should a copy of Star Wars Episode I, which I believe was one of the first all-digital motion pictures, cost to download? If the original is digital and you’re just making a “free” copy, who pays for the production, actors, staff, etc?
Such as? So you still seem to be saying that you should be able to make a digital copy of every piece of intellectual property that’s ever been made into digital form, and not pay for anything except electricity. Right?
Actually, jokes and comedy routines can and are copyrighted, so there have indeed been court cases and large awards over stuff like that.
Let me turn that one around. Why shouldn’t they? Why do you want it if it’s not worth a quarter to you? That sounds cheap enough…
Technology hasn’t made media obsolete, it’s made it better. Being able to make perfect copies of something does not make the something obsolete. Why do you think it does? You’re blaming the media when the media isn’t the problem, copying it is. Your argument seems to stem from the idea that if something is easy to copy, it should be free. That doesn’t fly.
Do you have a story there? I have produced things. I have sold IP. I believe it has value. If Power Ade wants a picture of a guy on a unicycle jumping rocks high above Lake Tahoe, let them arrange to take it themselves. Or, why can’t they save themselves a ton of money by licensing mine for $3000? I posted it online. Why can’t they use it for free?
Change the unicycle to an iPhone. Same argument?
Therefore stuff that’s easy for Nick to create should be free, but stuff you don’t know how to create has more value? All of us can record music or make movies with the tools available. Today much cheaper than in the past, but for the most part, the tools have been available for at least 100 years. Nothing has changed, except for easier access, and easier ability to copy. Again, being able to copy something should not be a determiner of its worth.
So, you’re saying we should listen to it live, or only pay for it then? But wouldn’t you also like to listen to it at other times? If the ability to do that is worth nothing to you, you don’t need it. But if you want it, why should you have it for free?
We wouldn’t. I thought Avatar was pretty cool. I hope James Cameron doesn’t get discouraged from making more art of a similar nature, and don’t mind paying a bit to either watch it or license a copy. If you would rather not see it, that’s fine. And if you only like watching movies in the theater that’s fine as well. Then you don’t need a copy.
I’m also using Firefox, which is provided for free, on a computer that also runs Photoshop, Lightroom, Microsoft Office and other software that I respect enough to pay for (or let my company do so).
What would that be? Is it the method that’s the problem? Would you prefer 8-track? They can still be copied, but it’s a much bigger hassle (especially in this century).
List some exceptions; this should give us a point to work from.
Times change. Used to be musicians had to learn to play real loud ( no amps). Horns were developed. Big bands. Dixieland, Jazz, swing. OK, I’m not that old, but my grandmother told me about it, and she could dance the Charleston, so you just sit down and listen.
Later on, scratchy sounding disk sales were invented. Along with the amps to make the music loud. Plus an army of patent and copyright lawyers who couldn’t whistle well enough to call a dog, but they ended up owning the muzac. If you hear music in an elevator, or out of a juke box, $ goes to muzac Inc.
So by the 1970’s, many artists felt unempowered. The Dead ( grateful band) were still alive and kicking, and made an unusual decision when confronted with fans trying to sneak recording stuff into their concerts. They insisted that a nice area should be provided for these “boot leggers” (what pirates were called before the internet). Rather than ban this new tech recording stuff, the band said lets make each show great, and “have a place for recording fans”. So many great quality recordings from the band have been preserved.
This practice, along with good music and hallucinations, made the grateful dead the most popular touring band of all time. People came in droves to their shows, for decades. The dead defined an era of freedom. Album sales were not so good, they used a different economic plan.
If it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen. All the arguments against digital copying seem to hinge on money making models from the scratchy disk era. Times change. If you are a performer, do live shows. The scratchy disk copyright model has passed. Live shows weren’t just the past, they are now the future.
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
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.
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.
