P2P downhill in UK

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't believe in forcing people to obey my ideas of what is right and wrong.

Could have fooled me.

Originally Posted by s|k

I know that if I were to fileshare it would be for dishonest reasons. There's no doubt in my mind about it. It doesn't make a bit off difference that you've spent more, it's still wrong.

Your only "argument" (aside from appeals to emotion) is that file sharing is coupled with a loss of "value". How on earth do you make that sit happily with this dismissal of an increase of actual money changing hands?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you seriously had an argument, you'd direct it against the points I have made about people "supporting" (either passively or actively) the breach of copyright of their product in this regard, and not just hammer on about how your morality is right and how everyone else, despite having evidence on their side, is wrong.

You haven't made very many points, just dogmatic assertions. Here read this one:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html
and this one:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

My comment on activism was a relevant aside. You're not an activist

"Who said that they were?", to quote dante.

Strawman I cry, Strawman!

Originally Posted by s|k

Do you have strong morals? I'm not sure you do. Do you have moral courage?

I don't see how this is relevent.

Originally Posted by s|k

It's when you've made personal sacrifices for the sake of a principle that you can claim that you have strong morals.

I think you've started off down a tenuous tangent here.

Originally Posted by s|k

I have no money, and I cannot even afford to rent a movie. I'm not willing to fileshare despite my high bandwidth connection (paid for by my wife) and hours of boredom. I forego gratification because I will not act against something I know to be wrong. That's moral courage. That's the right answer, it's not the easy answer. Are you making easy choices? It isn't abulia is it?

It's the "easy answer" to walk everywhere instead of hopping backwards. It'd be quite difficult for me to go round and smash the headlights of all the cars in Cambridge, and require some significant effort and staying power.

Difficulty is not a sign of moral fortitude.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

You haven't made very many points, just dogmatic assertions. Here read this one:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html
and this one:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Non-sequiturs 1, sense 0.

Please pick out an example of, say, appealing to authority.

Oh, and these "dogmatic assertions" appear to be supported by evidence. How inconvenient.

Originally Posted by The Guardian, a couple of years ago

"Music album sales in the United Kingdom have defied the industry's alarm calls about piracy, shrugging off the world of CD burning and internet file sharing to reach a record high. After a dip in the first quarter of the year, sales hit a new peak of 228.3m at the end of June, almost 3% up on last year. The figure published yesterday by the British Phonographic Industry marks the fifth consecutive year that album sales have topped 200m."

Originally Posted by A report on a Harvard study

For the study, released Monday, researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina tracked music downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, matching data on file transfers with actual market performance of the songs and albums being downloaded. Even high levels of file-swapping seemed to translate into an effect on album sales that was "statistically indistinguishable from zero," they wrote.

We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," the study's authors wrote. "While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing."

The study, the most detailed economic modeling survey to use data obtained directly from file-sharing networks, is sure to rekindle debates over the effects of widely used software such as Kazaa or Morpheus on an ailing record business.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You've actually deprived the person doing it of something, though.

I don't see any real difference. Stealing a chocolate bar may not be quite the same as copying an infinately reproduceable file, but its effect is actually similar as both result in a loss of profit. Your Sega/Sony analogy is invalid, as that involved no transfer of any kind of material between Sega and Sony that could otherwise have been used by Sega to acquire profit, whereas both stealing a chocolate bar and copying a file involve an individual acquiring something which they would otherwise have had to pay for. The two aren't all that different. Why do you think shops care about you stealing a chocolate bar? It's not because they particularly want the bar or find the act of you picking it up and walking through a door without placing round metallic objects on a counter offensive, it's because otherwise they'd have made a profit from it.

To take the other example, by getting a haircut and then running off, you haven't taken anything from the hairdresser physically, but you have deprived a business of time and effort which would otherwise have been utilised to create a profit. Just as the hairdresser would have attended to a paying customer in the time he wasted on you, the musician (apart from those who would still be musicians even if it was impossible to make money as a musician) would have been engaged in some other profit-creating activity during the time spent creating the music being shared. Likewise, the record company would not have expended time, effort and money paying employees, signing bands and producing music if there was no profit to be gained from doing so, just as the hairdresser wouldn't have cut your hair if there was no profit to be gained from doing so. Regardless of whether filesharing meets a strict legal definition of 'theft' or not, the amount of music produced if everyone fileshared instead of buying music would decrease immensely.

To this you may reply that filesharing and buying music are not mutually exclusive activities, but the fact that filesharing can sometimes lead to people actually buying more music than if they had never fileshared is merely incidental. The fact is, the act deprives someone of profit. It's like saying it's alright to steal the chocolate bar because you might like it and then later go on to buy more of those bars (aside from the distinction between physically removing an object and copying a file, which I have already dealt with). The possible future redemption isn't the reason for doing it - the motivation for downloading the music or stealing the bar is personal satisfaction, not altruism towards record companies or musicians.

To me it just seems like you adopt the stance you do in an attempt to justify something you like doing. I fileshare sometimes as well, but when I do I have no pretences about what I am doing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

My comment on activism was a relevant aside. You're not an activist, you're just a common filesharing plebian.

Ah, we descend into abuse now. Well done.

And as I say, it's certainly not the main reason I download, but it is certainly the reason I upload (which incidentally is what the original article was talking about - not dowloading).

Do you have strong morals? I'm not sure you do. Do you have moral courage?

Yes. They are just different morals to yours.

Have you done nothing other than satiate your appetite for entertainment?

How does uploading do this?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

I don't see any real difference. Stealing a chocolate bar may not be quite the same as copying an infinately reproduceable file, but its effect is actually similar as both result in a loss of profit.

Lots of things lead to "loss of profit". Writing a movie review with a negative summary would probably lead to less takings for the movie and thus less profit. People who write open source / free software could be said to cause reduced sales in non-free software (I would never buy a text editor now simply because there are excellent freeware options available).

But we do not call these activities (writing movie reviews, writing free software) as "theft", unless we totally wish to devalue the term.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

I don't see any real difference. Stealing a chocolate bar may not be quite the same as copying an infinately reproduceable file, but its effect is actually similar as both result in a loss of profit.

Stealing the chocolate bar takes a chocolate bar from the shop. They have a definite loss from the amount they spent on the bar. Downloading an infinitely reproducable file is only a potential loss at best, and doesn't appear to cause any actual loss at all, as the bits I quoted above supported.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

To this you may reply that filesharing and buying music are not mutually exclusive activities, but the fact that filesharing can sometimes lead to people actually buying more music than if they had never fileshared is merely incidental.

It's a little black box that indirectly gives people more money. As money is the entire basis of your argument, calling it irrelevent is incredibly strange.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

The fact is, the act deprives someone of profit. It's like saying it's alright to steal the chocolate bar because you might like it and then later go on to buy more of those bars.

That's a valid comparison if the act of producing cost nothing. It doesn't. If it did, I'm not sure if people would care any more. Don't continue to use the oft-refuted physical product/digital product equality argument. It just falls down on far too many relevent issues to be of any use.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

(aside from the distinction between physically removing an object and copying a file, which I have already dealt with)

Laffo.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

To me it just seems like you adopt the stance you do in an attempt to justify something you like doing. I fileshare sometimes as well, but when I do I have no pretences about what I am doing.

I have no pretences about what I'm doing. I'm breaking copyright law. I don't care though, and I don't find it morally reprehensable.

Oh for embedded images, and a copy of that stream of infinite gif from SA.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Lots of things lead to "loss of profit". Writing a movie review with a negative summary would probably lead to less takings for the movie and thus less profit. People who write open source / free software could be said to cause reduced sales in non-free software (I would never buy a text editor now simply because there are excellent freeware options available).

But we do not call these activities (writing movie reviews, writing free software) as "theft", unless we totally wish to devalue the term.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Your ... analogy is invalid, as that involved no transfer of any kind of material that could otherwise have been used ... to acquire profit, whereas both stealing a chocolate bar and copying a file involve an individual acquiring something which they would otherwise have had to pay for.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

an individual acquiring something which they would otherwise have had to pay for.

Someone writing a free software version of a paid software is exactly what you describe. It means someone will get something for free which otherwise they'd have to pay for.

edit : Also, this "loss of profit" business is not really relevent as copyright protection applies to things which don't cost any money.

[Nodrog]

There's no need to define theft in terms of permanent loss; something involving contact with a person's property without his permission seems more reasonable. If I hotwire your car while youre out and return it in the same condition I left it (including refilling the petrol) then you wont have suffered any loss, but this shouldnt prevent it from being a crime. Whether you choose to class it as 'theft' or something else is just semantics really - the important part is that youre using something that belongs to someone else without their permission.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Whether you choose to class it as 'theft' or something else is just semantics really - the important part is that youre using something that belongs to someone else without their permission.

Semantics do matter, especially when we're dealing with emotive words.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There's no need to define theft in terms of permanent loss; something involving contact with a person's property without his permission seems more reasonable. If I hotwire your car while youre out and return it in the same condition I left it (including refilling the petrol) then you wont have suffered any loss, but this shouldnt prevent it from being a crime.

As far as I understand, this wouldn't be theft under British law. It'd be "Taking and driving away" or something like that.

[roadrunner_0]

TWOCing

taking without owners consent - and yes, its a different crime than theft same as copyright infringement is


as a (slight) aside, whats thet actual punishment for copyright infringment in the UK, as i must be shit cos i can't find a definite answer

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Semantics do matter, especially when we're dealing with emotive words.

The meaning of words generally changes as new unseen cases come up. It all comes down to whether you want to take the 'essence' of the concept theft as being permanent loss, or as being use without permission. Since words generally dont have 'essences' in practice, this is fairly arbitrary.

[roadrunner_0]

but theft does have a clearly defined meaning, if i enter someones property without their permission i am trespassing. If i take their car i am taking without owners consent

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Since words generally dont have 'essences' in practice, this is fairly arbitrary.

As Mark says, the problem is in usage. You can define rape to include software piracy if you like (e.g. "a violation of the rights of your property" or something like that) but then it's a bit much to ask incredulously "You wouldn't rape a woman, why would you making a copy of Office 97?" and expect some sort of sane response.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's a little black box that indirectly gives people more money. As money is the entire basis of your argument, calling it irrelevent is incredibly strange.

I'm focussing on the morality of the act of filesharing itself, not on the possible incidental financial side-effects of that act. Filesharing may on balance turn out to be good for the music industry, just as deliberately and spitefully breaking someone's leg may turn out to be beneficial for them in the long run. That doesn't justify the act itself, however, as the intention of the leg-breaker was not to improve the person's life but to inflict pain, and the intention of the filesharer was not to help the music industry but to gain free access to something which they would otherwise have to pay for, all in the interests of their own personal enjoyment. Are you saying that if those studies you quoted had come to the opposite conclusions you would have immediately stopped filesharing? Or that you would do so if someone could somehow incontrovertibly prove to you that you would spend more money on music in the coming years by not filesharing than by filesharing? Somehow, I doubt it. The fact that filesharing might turn out to be beneficial has nothing to do with your decision to share files and your argument is merely an attempt to justify something you'd do regardless of the consequences for the industry.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Someone writing a free software version of a paid software is exactly what you describe. It means someone will get something for free which otherwise they'd have to pay for.

But not in a way that involved a transfer of any kind of material that could have been used to acquire profit. The filesharer reduces profit by 'taking' something (albeit without affecting the owner's copy), whereas the reduction in profit caused by the author of freeware does not.

[Ste]

my "intent" when I download music is to see if I like it.
As a consequence I am going to see a band on saturday that I would never have heard about had it not been for downloading their mp3's.
As soon as I find their cd for a decent price (<£10) I will buy it.

Oh the horrors of downloading!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

But not in a way that involved a transfer of any kind of material that could have been used to acquire profit. The filesharer reduces profit by 'taking' something (albeit without affecting the owner's copy), whereas the reduction in profit caused by the author of freeware does not.

Someone downloading a copy of the a freeware program reduces profit by 'taking' something which would have cost money if they had taken a different option. Whichever way you try and narrow the definition it doesn't really help.

The bottom line is that no-one has a "right" to make profit. You have the right to try and make profit of course, but life doesn't guarantee you anything.

Going back to an earlier post you said :

I fileshare sometimes as well, but when I do I have no pretences about what I am doing.

Gee, you must be so proud that you are, in your own words, honest about your thieving.

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by MasterAir

Hate to say this, but I think its great people are cracking down on piracy. It seems odd that this type of theft is socially acceptable. Most musicians are not that wealthy, so removing their livelihoods seems a little unreasonable.

Its not the poor ones I 'stealing' from. I spend as much money nowadays (if not more) on musicians products, its just I tend to buy from smaller artists. I used to put gigs on for touring bands in Dundee, and I'd feel hella guilty downloading their stuff and not buying it (although a lot of the bands I put on I only heard from downloads or copies in the first place). I'd certainly feel more guilty than I would downloading the next major artist whose house I've just seen on MTV2, or seen coked out their heads at the latest awards show... As an aside, if I buy a small, lesser known artists CD that I like, I can look at their thanks to lists and discover other, maybe similar influences, and discover other bands I'd have never heard of otherwise. I can hear about the big bands again off MTV, or any other mainstream source.

Also, I met a lot of talented people through my course at university, who work in the games industry/are studying to work in the games industry. And I'm certainly sure that a lot of these people (especially the artists) wouldn't be nearly as good as they are without pirated software (I don't think open source is really a valid argument in this case, *nix OSes still need a high level of technical skill to administrate by any artists standards). Is fostering a strong future buying market not have value?

[JonnyBGood]

I'd say somewhere in the region of 95% of the artists I download music by are dead. I hope their lack of fifteen euro isn't hindering their development in the afterlife that much

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

I'm focussing on the morality of the act of filesharing itself, not on the possible incidental financial side-effects of that act.

Morality seems to be a strange place to begin, as there is no absolute morality and thus using it as the base of the argument is about as good as saying "You're wrong because a fish told me".

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Filesharing may on balance turn out to be good for the music industry, just as deliberately and spitefully breaking someone's leg may turn out to be beneficial for them in the long run. That doesn't justify the act itself, however, as the intention of the leg-breaker was not to improve the person's life but to inflict pain, and the intention of the filesharer was not to help the music industry but to gain free access to something which they would otherwise have to pay for, all in the interests of their own personal enjoyment.

Bad analogy, unless the act of legbreaking directly causes something beneficial all the time - things like name recognition are an inherent benefit of filesharing, disproportionately so for obscure artists. It's also another example of an overly emotive argument - rhetorically equating "pain" with "downloading things because they look interesting".

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Are you saying that if those studies you quoted had come to the opposite conclusions you would have immediately stopped filesharing?

Studies should, in theory, reveal reality. The only "reality" of filesharing I've seen is one that is supported by the above quotes. Therefore, to ask things like that to come out the other way would require a change in the reality, which would in turn require a reevaluation of position - but then again, it probably wouldn't have any effect. Artists (except those who are definitively not on the way up, like Metallica) don't seem to mind if anyone downloads their material, and some (Matt Stone and Trey Parker are good examples, urging people to download the episode of South Park that's been banned in Britain) support it - confident that they're making a good enough product.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Or that you would do so if someone could somehow incontrovertibly prove to you that you would spend more money on music in the coming years by not filesharing than by filesharing?

That seems unlikely, as, except in the case of Starforce protected games (boycott, baby, write to the publishers!), downloading something is more likely to increase the chance of me buying something than decrease it. I don't watch television, go to the cinema often or listen to the radio. The amount something like Carnivale (picking an example out of the things I've recently downloaded!) or Lost would impact my psyche otherwise would be extremely small.

But that's all irrelevent, because I'm not basing my morality judgement on such criteria.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Somehow, I doubt it. The fact that filesharing might turn out to be beneficial has nothing to do with your decision to share files and your argument is merely an attempt to justify something you'd do regardless of the consequences for the industry.

You were doing so well in this bit, until the final clause. I don't need to justify it, I don't have a problem with it, I wouldn't have a problem if people did it to a work of mine (indeed, I'd encourage it, as anything I produce is likely to be hideously obscure, and thus the increased name recognition will directly increase both the people that, hopefully, enjoy the work and, more practically, give me more money).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd say somewhere in the region of 95% of the artists I download music by are dead. I hope their lack of fifteen euro isn't hindering their development in the afterlife that much

I was wondering about this yesterday. How do anti-downloaders stand on something like Citizen Kane, when there's no significant artist left alive and the studio will already have made its money back multiple times?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

But not in a way that involved a transfer of any kind of material that could have been used to acquire profit. The filesharer reduces profit by 'taking' something (albeit without affecting the owner's copy), whereas the reduction in profit caused by the author of freeware does not.

"Reduction in profit" is an etherial thing. Would I buy Mathematica if I hadn't downloaded it? Of course not, it's prohibitively expensive, I'd go to the university computer labs if I must use it, or download MathCAD from the college VPN. What profit has been actually reduced?

Well, none, fairly obviously. Wolfram wouldn't have any more money or any less money due to me downloading Mathematica.

Where's the reduction in profit? What has Wolfram to lose, and the only long-term repurcussion is a long term gain for Wolfram.

In addition, the freeware author does "take" things. He takes ideas. Freeware software wouldn't do as well as it does if it lacked some significant functionality, and things like that are not thought about in isolation.

What would be your stance if someone took something like South Park and quoted from it? (If it's against, then GOD I'M DOOMED)

What about quoting it and recording me quoting it, and sharing it with you guys? OK for a line? A scene? An entire episode?

Is that still ok? Is it wrong? Where's the line drawn? All I've taken is "ideas" to do this, is that ok? It contains most of the worth of South Park (the dialogue, same as any similar comedy program), does that make it wrong? Would it be less wrong to do the same with something that doesn't rely on dialogue?

What if I then make my own little animated representation of the visual parts of the episode, and put the sound over the top? Is that wrong? Is it wrong without putting the sound over the top? Where's the distinction drawn, and why, if it 's even wrong at all?

Is this worse or better than just uploading the same episode of South Park?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I was wondering about this yesterday. How do anti-downloaders stand on something like Citizen Kane, when there's no significant artist left alive and the studio will already have made its money back multiple times?

It's not in the public domain, someone still owns the rights to it, it's not me, I don't download it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

It's not in the public domain, someone still owns the rights to it, it's not me, I don't download it.

What will this achieve? The people who made it are dead. The people who paid the people who made it to make it are dead. The people who were paid by the people who were paid to make it are dead.

[Ste]

I thought copyright ran out after 40 years anyway?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ste

I thought copyright ran out after 40 years anyway?

Up to 95 years. 28 by default, 67 voluntary.

Ironically, one of the main groups who benefit from this is Disney, who started off by replicating out-of-copyright, or non-enforceable, works.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What will this achieve? The people who made it are dead. The people who paid the people who made it to make it are dead. The people who were paid by the people who were paid to make it are dead.

Having things become public domain as soon as the creator dies would probably cause all sorts of problems with assassinations and the like.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Just as the hairdresser would have attended to a paying customer in the time he wasted on you, the musician (apart from those who would still be musicians even if it was impossible to make money as a musician) would have been engaged in some other profit-creating activity during the time spent creating the music being shared. Likewise, the record company would not have expended time, effort and money paying employees, signing bands and producing music if there was no profit to be gained from doing so, just as the hairdresser wouldn't have cut your hair if there was no profit to be gained from doing so. Regardless of whether filesharing meets a strict legal definition of 'theft' or not, the amount of music produced if everyone fileshared instead of buying music would decrease immensely.

To this you may reply that filesharing and buying music are not mutually exclusive activities, but the fact that filesharing can sometimes lead to people actually buying more music than if they had never fileshared is merely incidental. The fact is, the act deprives someone of profit. It's like saying it's alright to steal the chocolate bar because you might like it and then later go on to buy more of those bars (aside from the distinction between physically removing an object and copying a file, which I have already dealt with). The possible future redemption isn't the reason for doing it - the motivation for downloading the music or stealing the bar is personal satisfaction, not altruism towards record companies or musicians.

To me it just seems like you adopt the stance you do in an attempt to justify something you like doing. I fileshare sometimes as well, but when I do I have no pretences about what I am doing.

but is it really depriving someone of profit though? in the case of the chocolate bar, time went into that particular bar of chocolate. In the case of a haircut, time went into that particular haircut. however when one copies music, none of the creator's time went into generating that particular copy. The initial copy that they made has been distributed and sold elsewhere, the same for software. Lets say that I have Maya on my computer, that's what, a £7000 piece of software there. I could never affort to purchase that from them - that's what, half a year's wages for me, but they have not invested any time at all in the copy that I have. They invested time in the original source code, that has been used to make copies that other people have purchased for sure, but my particular copy has not deprived them of anything at all.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

but is it really depriving someone of profit though? in the case of the chocolate bar, time went into that particular bar of chocolate. In the case of a haircut, time went into that particular haircut. however when one copies music, none of the creator's time went into generating that particular copy. The initial copy that they made has been distributed and sold elsewhere, the same for software. Lets say that I have Maya on my computer, that's what, a £7000 piece of software there. I could never affort to purchase that from them - that's what, half a year's wages for me, but they have not invested any time at all in the copy that I have. They invested time in the original source code, that has been used to make copies that other people have purchased for sure, but my particular copy has not deprived them of anything at all.

So it's ok because other people pay for the product for you?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What will this achieve? The people who made it are dead. The people who paid the people who made it to make it are dead. The people who were paid by the people who were paid to make it are dead.

I don't understand where you get off thinking you have the executive authority to decide to assign whatever status, justification, value, ownership you fancy to an item of content you had no part in creating. It makes no difference to me who made it or who collects the royalties now, maybe it's the family! Maybe it's some fat executive pig! I don't care. To answer your question, what does it achieve, I say it achieves satisfying my moral responsibilities.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't understand where you get off thinking you have the executive authority to decide to assign whatever status, justification, value, ownership you fancy to an item of content you had no part in creating. It makes no difference to me who made it or who collects the royalties now, maybe it's the family! Maybe it's some fat executive pig! I don't care. To answer your question, what does it achieve, I say it achieves satisfying my moral responsibilities.

Carmen Electra has a moral responsibility to get down with the J to the B to the G before 21st of March 2006. If she does not comply I will be supporting a campaign to have her imprisoned.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't understand where you get off thinking you have the executive authority to decide to assign whatever status, justification, value, ownership you fancy to an item of content you had no part in creating.

Who does have this "executive authority"? A senator who receives large campaign contributions from the content industry?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who does have this "executive authority"? A senator who receives large campaign contributions from the content industry?

The U.S. Constitution.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

It's irrelevant in any sense, I know the content isn't mine. When making decisions about my own behavior I worry about myself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Although I would subject said senator with censure were I to meet her or him with the same cathexis I have exhibited on these forums.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

The U.S. Constitution.

The US constitution did not outline the current copyright period, as far as I know. That was the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act et al.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The US constitution did not outline the current copyright period, as far as I know. That was the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act et al.

And what of it. Can you demonstrate clearly, with evidence, that specific senators acted criminaly? You've got a radical outlook on things, I think. Does your philosophy about property compel you to participate in any other activities similiar to your 'uploading' that isn't simply sitting at your computer and hitting a few buttons? Does your outlook force you to put yourself at considerable risk or disadvantage with no other gain beyond living by your principles? Or are downloading and uploading the only things you do?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

Or are downloading and uploading the only things you do?

Of course not, don't be idiotic but that has no relevance to this thread.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

And what of it. Can you demonstrate clearly, with evidence, that specific senators acted criminaly?

You can quite easily prove that they don't know what they're doing.

Last week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the "Broadcast Flag" and "Audio Flag," a set of proposals by the MPAA and RIAA that would stifle innovation by giving content holders a virtual veto over new technologies and existing user rights.

But Senator Stevens, the 82-year old committee chairman from Alaska, surprised the audience by announcing that his daughter had bought him an iPod, and suddenly Stevens had a much greater understanding of the many ways innovative technology can create choice for consumers. Content industry representatives at the hearing found themselves answering much tougher questions than they typically receive.

The instant they gain self interest, they gain the desire to scrutinise laws that affect millions of people - an attitude which has been shown to exist time and time again.

Originally Posted by s|k

You've got a radical outlook on things, I think. Does your philosophy about property compel you to participate in any other activities similiar to your 'uploading' that isn't simply sitting at your computer and hitting a few buttons?

I read out The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe over Teamspeak to some goons in America, that broke the copyright laws and took an enormous amount of time (in the order of 6-7 hours).

And of course I reject the premise of the question.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Of course not, don't be idiotic but that has no relevance to this thread.

I'm no fan of big industry or rich people. I think being rich is despicable. I resent DRM and the control it takes away from me from stuff on my own computer. But I can't personally justify filesharing or reconcile it with standards of integrity I impose on myself.

I have Shareza installed on my computer and it is always on. But I never use it, and nothing is ever uploaded. :/ I'm hoping that someday I'll find legal things to share, like ebooks in the public domain or open source software or freeware.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Having things become public domain as soon as the creator dies would probably cause all sorts of problems with assassinations and the like.

if your strongest argument against the loss of IP upon death is that maybe the country's nerdiest people will band together and assassinate people until they no longer break arbitrary copyright laws, it seems like a fairly good system to me

In addition, that's a trivial problem, even if it did exist, to get around. Make it "until the creator dies or he would have reached average life expectency if he dies before that". Make it a flat 40 years. Hell, 60-75 would be ok, it's not like many people will both make something worth the argument in their teens and live to be 90, but whatever.

95 is just stupid though.

This also isn't touching on the status of Abandonware.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

But I can't personally justify filesharing or reconcile it with standards of integrity I impose on myself.

Any argument that rests on "Why should the government permit us to do this?" is inherently flawed in my opinion. Please try to state the reasons why our freedoms should be taken away, not demand reasons why they should be granted.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Ste

I thought copyright ran out after 40 years anyway?

it can be renewed indefinitely as long as someone still holds and renews the copyright, although the only application i can think of off the top of my head for this is ordnance survey, who still hold all of their copyright for all of their maps no matter when they were first published
(there are others i just cant think of any at the moment)

[s|k]

In any case, I just thought of this today (and I'm thinking out loud now), my new adopted profession and the professional associations I've joined all require their members to respect intellectual property rights of others. It's no longer even a moral issue for me, but just a professional obligation. Of course this isn't going to persuade any of you to abandon your abandon, I doubt much will. Maybe I've worked too hard at discrediting myself to be taken serious any longer.

[PureviL]

Originally Posted by s|k

It's not in the public domain, someone still owns the rights to it, it's not me, I don't download it.

Don't want to bump into a discussion but I stumbled onto a definition of 'public goods' while revising for a media-economics exam.

Public goods:
- expensive to make but easy to reproduce.
- Consumption by one does not reduce amount available to others.