|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:05 PM |
|
|
More on copyright issues
I know there is a thread about copyrights already... but there are things I want to focus on strictly connected to the so called "illegal data transfer", in other words, downloading from internet.
The big question is, why is it illegal in some countries (yes, not in all.)
Let's just leave the common "theft" arguments aside, which don't interest me, because the difference between physical and "aesthetical" (I won't even call it intelectual) property is so huge there is not even a point of correlation, imho.
The main argument is: More people buying, better quality of products, richer market and the whole demand&supply issue. Which would be fine. But there is an important thing people tend to omit in this reasoning.
me not downloading a game or song doesn't equal me buying this song.
I direct this specifically to those thinking this is a crime. Yes, a crime, a malevolent, despicable act. I ask them to give me specific reasons who is harmed and how, taking the logic I'm going to present (again) into consideration.
Suppose I downloaded a game. There is no physical theft and I'm not selling it, thus making an unfair business out of it. Pretty much the only thing I'm doing is taking advantage of someone's work despite not paying for it.
Yes, I understand this may be bothersome to the creator of the game, song, movie, or whatever. But the real question is, what's the difference if I force myself >not< to download his game, song or whatever. After all, buying his stuff isn't a law - not downloading it is.
After successfully executing the law, the creator still gets nothing, nothing at all. That's why I am not interested in buying his product and I never were. I took advantage of it being available for copying. If that opportunity is denied, I'm simply quitting the whole deal, not caring about his product anymore.
And he gets no cash, no matter whether I do download his game or not.
If there is no difference between the action and lack of action - regarding consequences - how come the action is considered a crime, then?
I understand that it's unfair if I buy the stuff from the local dealer selling smuggled stuff. I express my desire to _pay_ for the stuff, and I just pay a person who is not related to the development. In other words, in this case, it's a big difference WHOM do I pay, and it's not right NOT to pay the CREATOR for his work. I agree that this should be outlawed.
But downloading?
There is no payment part, and I'm not a customer. At all. There is absolutely no difference for the producer whether I don't get his game, song or movie, or get it via internet. Again, if there is no difference, why is this outlawed?
Just because his feelings get hurt, that people use his work without paying?
I'm sorry, but that's just not enough. There is no real loss for him, he doesn't lose ANY money as long as I am genuinely sure that I would NOT buy his product no matter what.
Thus, my action has absolutely no consequence and shouldn't be outlawed at all.
If you give me counter arguments, please don't say that "some people would buy it instead of DLding if it was impossible to DL" and such. My point is based on this sole example and this particular logic. You can apply more people in your arguments ofc, but please assume they are all following the same motives as me and don't want to buy the product at all, no matter whether it's possible to DL it or not.
Stick to the topic. I want to know why do some people consider what I'm doing a crime, after they are familiar with the logic that makes me think it's not a crime.
I'm genuinely curious.
And, as a snowy addition: WHY ON EARTH DO COMPANIES WASTE CASH FOR "ANTI-PIRACY PROTECTION" ? It's RIDICULOUSLY stupid. Not only do those "protections" get cracked in less than two days, while being outragously costly, but they also are a major annoyance to those who have PAID for the game. Shouldn't it be vice versa? I pay for the game, I get quality stuff, not the snowty "INSERT CD OR SNOW YOU" or other RIDICULOUS problems with patches, mods and such that ironically are of NO CONCERN to PIRATES?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:44 PM |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orEhUEcxHeY
The system sucks. You pay multiple times for a product with infinite supply. Yes I realize its CREATION is not infinite and requires a lot of effort (heck I've been programming software and dealing mostly with computer-related stuff myself... so I know that), but that effort is spent ONCE after which everyone has his/her own factory to mass-produce it.
So the effort to MAKE it should be compensated in some way, not to duplicate it. Because that's what you pay for: duplication of product. Not its making.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:19 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 22:22, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Let's just leave the common "theft" arguments aside, which don't interest me, because the difference between physical and "aesthetical" (I won't even call it intelectual) property is so huge there is not even a point of correlation, imho
That's like asking people to give a reason why it's wrong, but they aren't allowed to give a reason why it's wrong.
It's theft. Period.
Quote:
me not downloading a game or song doesn't equal me buying this song
I wouldn't buy a Ferrari either, but that doesn't mean it's ok to steal one.
When I was younger before there was an internet, I couldn't afford to buy albums, but I didn't go out and steal them. I knew people who DID go to the store and steal them and they used a very similar argument that you do.....something along the lines of "it's just a piece of plastic and it's not worth all that money". The media that it comes on is irrelevant. It's the song or the software or the design that is being stolen.
Your argument about the difference between physical property and intellectual property is invalid. You can look at a Ferrari and say it is physical and therefore has value. But the Ferrari has value for the same reason that software has value. The value comes from people's time and labor. With the Ferrari it comes from the miners who mine the metals, the machinists who make the parts, the factory people who put the parts together. The actual intrinsic value of the raw material in a Ferrari, before being mined from the earth, is almost nothing. So by your reasoning the Ferrari has no value and therefore it's ok to steal one.
And yes, some of the value of a Ferrari is the intellectual value of the engineers who designed it in the first place. Even though the other time and labor listed above would still be needed, it would be illegal to steal the plans for a Ferrari and build them yourself.
I work in engineering and the result of my labor is intellectual property. Does that mean I shouldn't get paid for my work just because I'm not "producing anything"?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's theft. Period.
It's sharing. Period.
Thievery requires you to deprive someone of something they have through that action.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:23 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 22:25, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Then you are a thief, period.
You can't freaking share something that you don't own.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then you are a thief, period.
No you are a thief! Ha!
In all seriousness, care to use proper arguments instead?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
I already used proper arguments. The results of this thread were entirely predictable. You can think whatever the hell you want.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I already used proper arguments. The results of this thread were entirely predictable. You can think whatever the hell you want.
No, people pay (in the current copyrighted) for DISTRIBUTION, not from labor.
You can easily price something twice easily, or discount it to half, that doesn't change your labor, how come it changes the value? There is no connection, it's an ARTIFICIAL price. If you sell 1000 copies instead of 10 does that mean you did more labor, like say, 100 times more? Ridiculous.
So yeah, proper arguments please.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:36 PM |
|
|
Binabik, I don't want to answer in detail to your post, but there is one thing I want to say: please, no analogies, no examples based on more or less related stuff, no mixing data with cars. Adress my logic and show me your point of view based on it, not some redundant "I don't want to own a ferrari and I won't steal it either"-type of unrelated, unnecessary examples. I respect your opinion, but I don't want to be patronized here or called a thief on VERY weak and ambiguous moral basis.
So, instead of trying to judge me based on those morals, answer my direct questions. No analogies.
Thanks 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
I can answer whatever ****ing way I want.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:39 PM |
|
|
No need to be angry either, sir.
The reason I'm writing this is because I believe this _particular_ cause is VERY different from others, and thus analogies are not a good way to adress the unique situation.
If I'm wrong, it's in my logic that makes the situation unnecessarily unique, and that's what I'm asking about.
The bolded parts are what I wanted to discuss:
Quote:
If there is no difference between the action and lack of action - regarding consequences - how come the action is considered a crime, then?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
This is part of the reason why the economy is dying. With this mentality, the world economy rightfully suffers for this total lack of business ethics.
It doesn't matter if you don't tangibly steal something. The labor of the product goes unrewarded, which is often the more expensive part of the whole process; not just the raw materials involved. So yes, you are directly stealing something. Like a gypsy, only lazier. "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is extremely tentative and has no basis in reality. I somehow doubt you would be staring at a white wall if you couldn't commit theft. You'd be doing something with your free time. You have no authority to say what you wouldn't and wouldn't do, because you're not in that situation.
Let's look at a computer program: Rosetta Stone. It's a software program for learning languages, and it is immensely comprehensive. You have to pay $500 to purchase levels 1-3 of a language, which is enough for you to be fully fluent in it. You're paying 500 dollars for a little box with its CD's. Why? Are they ripping you off in ridiculous proportions? No, they are not. Because the massive amount of labor from linguists, programmers, etc., that went into creating a program for learning every major language was surely literally billions of dollars, and such programs require customers services and must be updated from time to time. The raw materials of the purchase probably make up about 2% of the price.
Disrespecting intellectual property, which is labor, will be the damnation of society if you ignore it too much for too long, because the world is becoming more information-based each day.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter if it's theft or not. It discourages productivity. If artists don't get paid, then they'll stop being artists, and you won't have music to download. It's that simple.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
me not downloading a game or song doesn't equal me buying this song.
So you don't download = you don't necessarily buy? Didn't see that coming  
Quote:
And he gets no cash, no matter whether I do download his game or not
I don't know how you reason that creators get zilch if you actually buy their game. No, perhaps it doesn't work on a cash-in-hand basis. But my reasoning goes that the more copies sold, the greater the rewards and prestige for the game's creator, assuming the publisher is competent = generally sequels or more projects = higher salary. I would think that that is blindingly obvious.
I wouldn't spit in someone's face if they announced they're a download pirate but I can't agree with any rationale they might present claiming their practices aren't harming the industry.
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter if it's theft or not. It discourages productivity. If artists don't get paid, then they'll stop being artists, and you won't have music to download. It's that simple.
Theory-crafting vs reality
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
That's better. No weird analogies to things that can't be multiplied or even transmitted online. Sorry Bin, you can do better 
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you don't tangibly steal something. The labor of the product goes unrewarded
I am aware of this. Problem is, my lack of download will give the same result. The labor will get unrewarded. That's right, I'm not even a tiny bit interested in buying the product. Thus, does it really matter whether I owe it or not? To all of BAD ANALOGISTS here: DON'T compare it to items that can NOT be COPIED here. DON'T assume I'm going to distribute it somewhere or sell it to make profit myself. Thanks.
Quote:
"I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is extremely tentative and has no basis in reality.
Why is that? I am genuine in my claim. If I say I'm not interested in buying, say, Dragon Age, because I don't have cash for stuff like that, I am sure of what I'm talking about. I_WILL_NOT_BUY_IT. Why doesn't it have a basis in reality?
Quote:
I somehow doubt you would be staring at a white wall if you couldn't commit theft. You'd be doing something with your free time.
You're IMPLYING here that I would do against my words, which is lame. It's just entertainment. If I can't get one, I'll get another. i'll go cycling, whatever.
Quote:
Let's look at a computer program: Rosetta Stone. (...)
I am aware of the costs and effort, thank you. The question remains: what is the difference for THEM if I download it. Did I deny their profits? not really... that would be true only if the alternative was me BUYING the product. But if the alternative is me NOT BUYING it... well... what _IS_ the difference, really, then?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:56 PM |
|
|
Mvass: is there a difference for them whether I have an illegal copy or not if I'm not interested in buying their product?
Me not buying it also discourages them.
But it's not banned. Which is connected to my point, conveniently ignored by all of you:
If there is no difference between the action and lack of action - regarding consequences - how come the action is considered a crime, then?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are they ripping you off in ridiculous proportions? No, they are not. Because the massive amount of labor from linguists, programmers, etc., that went into creating a program for learning every major language was surely literally billions of dollars, and such programs require customers services and must be updated from time to time. The raw materials of the purchase probably make up about 2% of the price.
You haven't addressed my point. They don't have a pre-defined number of copies they are going to sell. So it depends how it sells out. It has nothing whatsoever to do with labor.
Something could require huge amount of investment but people not willing to buy it at all -- where the **** is the connection?
And really people overestimate the effort required. Hardware is harder to design than software, has investment risks into facilities (not just "labor"), and there are huge production costs unless you sell in extremely large amounts to mass-produce efficiently.
Yet some software is more expensive than a much more complex CPU. Yeah, reflects labor all right! [/sarcasm]
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If there is no difference between the action and lack of action - regarding consequences - how come the action is considered a crime, then?
Because you're playing with numbers in a dishonest way.
For a piece of, say, music, you have three options:
(1) Buy the music. => Music company earns money.
(2) Don't buy the music. => Music company earns nothing.
(3) Illegally download the music. => Music company earns nothing.
Your logic appears to be that the end result (from the music company's point of view) is the same if you choose 2 or 3. Therefore there is no victim. Therefore it can't be a crime because a crime has to have a victim.
Ok, but suppose EVERYONE had this attitude, and reconsider the consequences of each action. Now the music company has put X amount of dollars into production of a piece of music and made no money out of it. The music company essentially LOSES all that money and goes bankrupt. People lose jobs, etc. In this case, there IS a victim. The music company has lost thousands (insert your own number) of potential sales because of collective dishonesty.
If everyone had your attitude, there would be no goods to steal in the first place. I'm not wholly on the company's side, mind you. I think the hugely inflated prices (particularly in the age of high speed internet, when production costs are virtually nothing) incentivize this rampant stealing, but it certainly doesn't justify it.
@Death
That's not a salient argument. The value of goods is not determined solely by value of the constituent materials. I'm not saying that the value of a CD isn't inflated. But the value of a CD is not just in the materials cost (duplication cost). The production value is incorporated in into the total value of the CD, as well as other nonmaterial values, such as - how much do you want it, what is demand, etc.? When you argue that you should only be responsible for the duplication cost, that's crazy economics.
Let's just say that the cost of production is 100 million dollars, and the cost of duplication is 1 cent. You are arguing that you should only have to play the duplication cost. Let's say that 1000 people buy CDs. The company makes 10 bucks. Who has to eat the other 99+ million dollars in production costs? The company? Then no company would ever produce CDs! The company has to incorporate the production costs into the final sale price, which will also be inflated to some huge amount depending on what the demand is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass: is there a difference for them whether I have an illegal copy or not if I'm not interested in buying their product?
Me not buying it also discourages them.
But it's not banned. Which is connected to my point, conveniently ignored by all of you:
"Conveniently ignored by all of you" here having the meaning of "I want to justify my unethical behavior on the internet and I'm going to pretend nobody is answering my question because I never wanted it answered to begin with, I just wanted people to agree with me to make me feel better."
I believe you when you say your claim is genuine, but it's a hollow claim irregardless. I can say I won't succumb to violence if somebody killed a loved one before my eyes, but what I say and what I do are two different things. You have to do something in your spare time. If you go cycling instead of playing computer games, then you will invest your money in a new bicycle much sooner. Instead, through your immoral theft, you receive the rewards of working people's labor, and give them nothing in return. You're not in a situation where piracy isn't an option, so you cannot say what you would and wouldn't do.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 1 
