Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I disagree with this point of yours, Imperator, even more strongly than I disaggree with the originial point of this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I don't know what the most rigid definition of a culture is, but an ideology that's held by even a few can spread, like a cultural virus. Link:Dont cross the memes.

I'm oh so tempted to list a specific case ... but I want to keep this thread civil.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK I took the test, and they really need to work on it a lot.

Viruses I do suffer from:
1) Junk food---NOT (Unless beer is junk food)
2) Sci fi---Oh ya, they got that one.
3) Politics---yep I guilty there
4) Environmentalism---Perhaps, but then we get fined if we put the wrong kind of trash in the wrong color bin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I (might) suffer from:
1) Linux 80%---NOT EVEN close
2) Religion 60%---NOT
3) British 85%---NOT
4) Windows 75%---True but a low number
5) freeBSD 90%---True but way high. I guess it was because I kenw it at all.
6) Brand Names 65%---True
7) Hippyism 65%---NOT EVEN Close

I would say it was a test of how much media you have been exposed to.

All in all, it needs work. And perhaps their parents should seek a refund from the uni http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 12, 2003, 13:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

An ideology is a component of a culture, not an entire culture in itself. Hacker 'culture' is actually hacker ideology.

On a lighter note, Here's the viruses I suffer from, according to the test : Pokemon, USA, Sci-Fi, Junk Food, Cthulhu, Gaming, Religion, Discordia, Windows, Politics, Brand Names, Conspiracy Theory, Environmentalism.

Possible viruses : Linux, Goth, 8-Bit, Japan, Computer Games, Hippyism.

I plead innocent to Goth, 8-Bit, Hippyism and Discordia. Pokemon and Conspiracy Theory are entirely involuntary. Gladly admit to the rest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I am with Erax on this one. It would be an ideaology, not an entire culture. It takes more than a couple of people to form a unique culture. Hackers do not form a unique culture, but a subset of the culture in which they live.

Arkcon, just what do you think the original point of this discussion was? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 12, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you neither defend nor rescind your statement that mine was vacuous when challenged. Odd. Nor do you apoligize when I explain how your statement was an insult. Also odd.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But normal for Fyron. When he can't win on some particular point he hides in a rhetorical trick and waits for you to forget it.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, I know. If the discussion involves multiple points, he will quietly drop one or two of them, neither conceeding nor defending the point(s); although to be fair, not responding isn't quite proof that he believes he can't win; that's just the most likely possibility.

One has to be careful when calling him on his tactics, however; the Last time I did (about 3 weeks ago - the Last post in that thread was on June 23, 2003 12:51 (board time); I also called him on his claim that he always admits when he is wrong by quoting some of his own Posts from other threads) Fyron accused me of character assasination and that thread got locked down.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wait ... um ... I lost track. Talk amoungst yourselves ... OK, back with you.

Ok piracy. Yes, I've done it myself. Pretty much without rationaliztion of any kind. I just take the copied CD and play the game.

After a while, I delete the game. Maybe I buy the full Version to assuage my conscience (and 'cause it was a good game).

But it's wrong. Obviously wrong. Like stealing cable TV or eating grapes in the supermarket checkout line. Lisa had to break the concept over over Homer's head to get hime to agree -- but it was clear to even him, the golden rule{Link}

[ July 12, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So did I - It's definitely a test of how much media you have been exposed to. Some highlights from my results:

Linux
Install the latest Version of Microsoft Windows. Learn to love it.

Windows
Try MacOS X. It's based on UNIX, it has a smoother UI than Windows and it doesn't suck.
As an extra feature the boxes look nice.

Macintosh (80%)
Use a mouse with more than one button.

UNIX (60%)
Anything this old must be obselete. Go and install a nice modern operating system. I hear MSDOS has come a long way lately.

Do any of these seem slightly contradictory to anyone else?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

The responses are designed to make whatever you have sound bad. So eventually they do contradict; there are only so many popular OSes.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, the jokes about your choices are a little contradictory. But the point is, even if you're not an active user, follower, luddite, whatever -- you still carry the meme. You recognize it. It is in your thoughts. They have you. And you don't even know it.

I recognized Che Guevara, and failed to recognize the symbol for anarchy. A guy at work was the reverse. It doesn't matter exactly what politics you hold -- just that a certain black outline was obvious. I don't think we have to stop careing, like the game suggests.

Many of the symbols were "Oh, that was on Star Trek" Purely ficticious organizations, yet I recognize their icon better than some real national flags.

Not that that's a bad thing, just shows how symbols propagate though a society, despite your best efforts to control your own mind.

Imperator, if don't copy any games, you will be happier at the end of the day. Or some other day. Or not. YMMV.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

There is also the possibility that the conversation is heading into a bad area and getting way too personal, and that he feels that it would be best for that conversation to end.

There is also the possibility that he has nothing further to say on a particular discussion, and so Posts nothing further about it.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Hmmm... seems the test is only saying what you've been exposed to, and trying to somehow turn it into "You are an irredeemable X", X = whatever 'virus'...

So, apparently I suffer from:
Junkfood
Sci-fi
Religion
Southampton
Free BSD
Politics
Brand Names
Hippyism
Computer Games
Environmentalism

... and also possibly:
TotL
Linux
USA
8-Bit
British
UNIX
Discordia
X11
Conspiracy Theory
Macintosh

Ummm... ok... down the list. No, Yes, No, No, No, Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, and No, No, I just live here, Yes, No, I'm starting to love it, Yes, what?, No, No.

There's a lot of 'No's there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Okay, I've spent all morning catching up on this thread after coming back from vacation, and I feel the irresistable urge to throw in a couple cents.

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

Quote:

~snip~ Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Morality is not absolute, it is an informal convention formulated by a given society to reinforce what it generally deems to be beneficial behavior on the part of its citizens. Laws are typically the formalized quantifications of these moral ideas.
Right and wrong, legal and illegal, moral and immoral are all conventions of convenience designed to encourage socially beneficial behavior, and discourage antisocial behavior. If there were only one person left on earth, all ideas of right and wrong etc would become meaningless, because they are societal constructs that exist only to modify the behavior of individuals toward others.

Quote:

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless. Geoschmo

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This isn't necessarily true. In a universe where everything is relative, there are no absolute points of reference, by definition. An object's weight, for example, is dependent on gravity. That same object's mass is dependent on its velocity; accelerate something close to the speed of light and it's mass approaches infinite. All mathematical and scientific measurments are relative. That doesn't mean they aren't convenient and useful, of course, but they are relative.

But anyway, back to the original question.

The question of software piracy is a legal, not moral, question. Legally, it is clear that if you copy software and distribute it, whether or not it is for profit, you are violating the Fair Use provisions of the relavent law. (EULAs are irrelevant, it is the law that counts. Congress enacts laws, not software companies.)

The moral question is whether or not to break laws, and which laws you may choose to break.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

On the contrary, DarkHorse, I feel piracy is a moral question much more than a legal question, because legally it is largely unenforceable. We can do it (and get away with it), but the question is, should we do it ?

To bring back a somewhat relevant quote from Jurassic Park, "You spent all this money and effort to see if you could do it and never asked yourself if you should."

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Software/data copying piracy anyways. Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A shame, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

[quote]Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Quote:

Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In well-protected waters, that is, such as waters near Europe, North America, Austrailia, and NE Asia. Piracy is still alive and kicking in SE asia, where people are poor, but have easy access to boats, guns, and small, hidden, deserted islands for pirates to hide away.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

[quote]Originally posted by TerranC:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Quote:

Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In well-protected waters, that is, such as waters near Europe, North America, Austrailia, and NE Asia. Piracy is still alive and kicking in SE asia, where people are poor, but have easy access to boats, guns, and small, hidden, deserted islands for pirates to hide away.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And even there you're only speaking in relative terms. No one really knows how many battles there have been between various drug cartels or immigrant smugglers over ships as well as other tools of the trade (planes, etc.) and their cargos as they ply their various businesses. Only 'law abiding' people report when their ship has been taken by violence. You're not gonna get much help from the navies of the world if you report that your 10,000 tons of cocaine was snatched by a rival cartel. So a true picture of the amount of 'piracy' in the world is difficult to form.

[ July 14, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that so..?

*dogscoff scratches his chin thoughtfully for a few moments, then digs an eye-patch and cutlass out of his sea-chest.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Another quote from a famous industrial spy : "Stealing information is different from stealing physical goods. If I steal your shoes, I can wear them and you can't. But if you have some information and I make a copy of it, you still have yours, you can still use it."

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this statement, but I find it interesting.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Obviously the problem with that statement is that if your business depends on the sale of that information, and people make copies of it without paying then you end up not being able to afford to buy new shoes.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would have to disagree with this, though not in such a way that it invalidates your point in any way.

You can get plenty of help. Just hand the right information to the right people. One cartel determines what another cartel is doing and when (they can use resources and facets of human intelligence gather no longer available to mainstream government intelligence), and reports it to The Law. They got help, though not in the same way that a legitimate business would get help.

It is said that no big drug bust occurs that is not the result of a tip or an accident. I wonder if that applies to other illicit activity like human trafficking or stolen goods.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I dunno' but to me it's pretty simple;

If you take something - anything! - without the owners permission, its stealing. Whether that be physical or intellectual property.

When you buy (or license) something, you now have the (original) owners' permission to do only what was agreed upon during the exchange of monies, goods, or services.

Anything else is stealing.

And to all those thinking that an EULA may not be legally binding, think again. Notice in most, if not all, ELUA's they state something to the effect that if you don't agree to the EULA, then return the S/W for a refund. I'm no lawyer but AFAIK that has always held up in a U.S. court of law.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Granted. But why is stealing immoral ?

Edit : This is meant to provoke thought. I am not questioning the fact that stealing is immoral.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

This was going to be an interesting topic but I'll be offline the rest of the day. Argh.

Anyway, I think there should be a separate term. Depriving a person of something is not the same as making a copy of it (not entering into the morality aspect). Calling both 'stealing' seems too simplistic to me.

Just as calling IP 'property' seems too simplistic.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The burden of proof is for the enforcer. You can't prove that any particular person clicked the "I agree" button, opened the seal on an envelope, or otherwise agreed to a EULA without a signed contract. It's not a contract, it's a cheap trick. Maybe some lawyers can make it stick in some cases, but it's still a cheap trick.

Moreover, I agree with the sentiment that many contracts are invalid, according to my own moral standards, because frequently they are many pages of attrocious legalese and are given with the expectation that the signer will not sit there for an hour trying to understand it before signing it. Often such contracts are used by an entire industry, forcing people who need even a basic service (such as housing, or medical services) to accept, or be excuded from something they need. Perhaps not legally, but morally, I see this as unfair bullying by the people offering the contract. Some may say that it's the victims' responsibility, or society's responsibility, to object, and if they get hurt by this, it's the fault of their own complacency. There's some validity to that, but it's akin to saying that mugging victims deserve what they get for not being properly armed or staying home. The system could be changed to make things better for everyone, but again, the people who care about it the most and have the most attention, knowledge, money and power to bear on the problem, are those who stand to gain by continuing to exploit the status quo and perpetuating it as long as possible.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not legally binding because it is not a legal document. There is no signing by both (or either) parties, there is no notery present, no lawyer present, nothing.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

A few counter-examples:
Software industry likes to claim that they lose billions of dollars they otherwise would have had, because kids and foreigners didn't pay prices they could never afford. They also increase their theoretical losses for people check out a copy of software before buying, find out what crap it is, and so don't buy it. "Hey, if they couldn't get a copy of it, they would've had to pay $300 to find out that our software is worse than shareware! We lost millions of profits we should have had!"

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

So I am curious. Don't take this as sarcastic cause I am honestly asking to know. What is a fair method for a person who makes software to make sure he is properly compensated for his time and effort? It's not like all of us could go write our own game. Or even if we could we don't. So what should be the process involved so the developer can make a living producing software that we use and enjoy?

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have a suspicion that saying a EULA is not legally enforceable is about like saying we aren't required by the constitution to pay income taxes. You might be able to make it sound all good and proper talking about it here in the forum but it's not going to fly in a real court. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Companies are all the time being hit with license fees for improperly copying software on different workstations. I have never heard of one of those being thrown out of court because the EULA wasn't legally binding. The reason the software compnies don't come after individual Users more is the cost of taking them to court is more then they will recover, and the bad press that it will generate.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No it's not ok. However the reason it's not ok is not that the theatre owner would have made money from him. I think there are several arguments why it wouldn't be right, which aren't really on topic, though.

Similarly, I think there are also some other issues to consider with intellectual property violations.

However, for the single issue of whether the theatre owner deserves the claim a right to theoretical sales, I don't think he does.

I do think he has the right to prevent tresspass, throw the fellow out, have him cited from breaking in, etc. I just don't think he has the right to claim money based on the idea that the sneak would have paid him for the ticket.

Here's a variation. Suppose the "thief" has a device which picks up radio signals that drift out of the theatre from the projection, and let's him see the movie on a screen in his own home. Does he have the right to view the film this way? I say yes - he should be able to decode any signals passing through his own house.

Legally, maybe not. In the UK, they have receiver detection trucks like you see the Nazis using in war movies about the underground resistance. The UK authorities use this to "catch" people watching TV in their homes without having paid the "TV tax." I think that's pretty outrageous, personally. If your business involves beaming signals into my property, I say I have every right to decode them however I want to, regardless of how much theoretical money you might have made if I would submit to your contracts and subscription rates.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. I think you're probably right, unless you have a really good legal team to argue the case and carry it up to the Supreme Court.

I just think it's wrong, by my own standards.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lots of possible answers to this. I gave one of my "pie in the sky" ones Last week on this thread (ideally, change the laws and the economy so all media is free, and creators are given enough to live on, plus bonuses based on recomendations from consumers).

In the existing ecomony, there are many people making livings making games, but mainly megacorporations are slurping up as much of the cash as they can, and producing a lot of crap.

In the current ecomony outside the megacorporate monsters, make games people like a lot, and enough people may pay for them rather than looting them - apparently working fairly well for people publishing under independent labels like Shrapnel, HPS, Battlefront, and Matrix.

...

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's a close enough analogy, and it reminds me of something that happened to my dad once (a story for another occasion, perhaps). I obviously haven't deprived you of anything (real or potential). So the only issue is, will I feel guilty about it afterwards or not ? Probably. But I wouldn't say I'd stolen something from you.

I just want to make one thing clear : when I said copying was different from stealing, I didn't mean one was OK and the other wasn't. They're just different enough to deserve different names. Like greed and avarice (from the copyright thread) : both are flaws, both are about money, but they're different.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

PVK theoretical sales

That is what I feel as well....

Take Bell Canada and this concept of the theroretical sale

Now 100000 people subscrible to Dish network in the states.

They do not wish to Subscribe to Bell Sat. Tv.

Why because they wish to watch American TV.

According to Bell Canada these people are breaking the law and costing Bell Canada billions of dollars. Why theroretical sale.

Music and games are the same

Its these theroretical sales that their after. Like all of asudden people will buy the stuff if they cannot copy it. I do not think so. The only difference is that they would not have a crack / copy. That is it.
Example
I have a copy of the song 'boys are back in town'.

But I was never ever going to buy a thin lizzy cd.

Did they lose money from me. No. I was never ever going to spend money on that item.

Did they lose theroretical money on me. Yes. Depending on the year they peg me at it could be up to 9 dollars.

P.S. if i was to buy it i would by it used...

If i could not get this song then i would tape it off the radio or just listen to it when it comes on the radio. ( As I have a ok system the sound quality is the same as a 128k mp3 file as far as my ears can tell)
Here as well they lost a theroretical sale.

thanks pvk...

Personally i perfer open source software anyways....

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe it's called Copyright Infringement...

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a bunch of crap, I feel for you.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

PvK is from Germany though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

pvk they should have people on everystreet cornor watching out for people who jay walk and ticket them.

It is as equally morally wrong. And all laws should be equally enforced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the exact situation with encrypted satellite TV services. The signal is there all the time, passing through your property. Why should you not have the right to decrypt it and watch? There are millions who think they have the right and they go right ahead and download the programs and/or build the boxes that let them access the programming without a twinge of guilt. The service providers are fighting the same sort of running battle as the [RI/MP]AA with constant new legal angles and new technologies trying to stem the leakage of their 'intellectual property'. They're having about the same degree of sucess, too.

For that matter, I've got a cable tv cable running along the wall outside my apartment. I could setup a sensitive antenna and watch cable for 'free' at the price of a somewhat fuzzier image than a direct link. (I've tested with a few TVs just out of curiousity. It does work. Coax isn't that well insulated, apparently... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Aside from the fact that cable tv is just as sh*tty as broadcast tv ever was, but with more channels, I can't see any downside to it. I gave up watching tv years ago though, so I don't have to worry about whether it's 'ethical' to do so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Copyright is a fine system for encouraging creative activities. In exchange for publishing your work, whether it is art or science, you get an exclusive right to control it -- for a while. Unfortunately, we don't have copyright anymore. We have 'intellectual property' -- which is a complete fraud.

Information. Cannot. Be. Property.

Period. Full stop.

As already observed here, if you 'take' information the previous 'owner' is not deprived of its use.

Similarly, once someone knows something you can't take it back.

Information is fundamentally different from property, which is why a fundamentally different legal concept was created to deal with it. Copyright. And copyright recognizes that information is different from property by setting a limit on how long the original producer of the information may continue to claim the right to control it. This is common sense. As people keep using the information it gets more and more assimilated into daily life until it is part of the culture. Letting anyone claim a 'perpetual' right to control information is the same as letting someone claim the right to control the public discourse.

Yet, the corporations think they can force this unreal concept on us by buying laws. It doesn't matter to them that the REAL WORLD doesn't work that way, they are gonna buy politicians and PR campaigns until they get what they want. And then try to get the government they purchased to enforce it.

So here we are, several decades into the regime of 'intellectual property' -- I don't know when the term was first written into a law... does anyone here know? But the concept of making copyright perpetual by indirection dates back to the early years of this century when the retro-active extensions started being passed on a regular basis to protect the corporate stockpile of money making copyrights. Everything written/recorded/filmed since 1923, well before you or anyone else here was born, is still 'private property' to some suit who spends his/her life trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of it. So we get the 'anthologies' with one or two new stories and a dozen old ones, the 'music compilations' and 'greatest hits collections' with one or two new songs and a dozen old ones, the 'Special Editions' and 'Directors Cuts' with 5 minutes of new footage in a 2 1/2 hour movie...

Of course, only a small fraction of the works published in all media since 1923 are still worth trying to make any money off of. Hardly anyone wants to listen to music from the early days of vinyl or early black and white films. The other 95+ percent of 'commercial' works, whatever their historical or cultural value, are simply dead weight that no librarian dares to re-copy for fear of a copyright lawsuit. Ah yes... because then these 'worthless' copyrights would suddenly be worth something. You could then sue some hapless librarian for 'violating' your copyright and suck some money out of them and the library they work for. So the history and culture of the 20th century is slowly crumbling away in our libraries, under the glare of hungry copyright -- erm, 'intellectual property' -- lawyers.

Beyond the large-scale damage done to history and culture, though, is the simple violation of common sense.

Did you know you are breaking copyright law when you sing 'Happy Birthday' at your private birthday party? It's more than a century old, by now. It's part of the culture -- the way we live our daily lives. Shouldn't the general public be allowed to continue what has become a folk tradition? They can't enforce this at present, but you can damn well bet they are working on ways to do so, what with all the 'surveillance' technology developing as fast as communications in general. I'm wondering when Coke will try to assert copyright on Santa Claus and sue everybody who's ever used the now 'universal' image of the bearded fat guy in the red suit. Santa as we know him now was first used in a Coke Ad in the 1920s so I expect the copyright is still legally valid.

The 'intellectual property' fraud has had an ugly effect on the actual producers of art and science, too. They've been hypnotized by the suits -- who are cheating them too -- into thinking it's those evil 'pirates' out there who are restricting their income. George Lucas is a good example of the 'artist' who should have been a lawyer. He sued over 'Battlestar Galactica' claiming that it was somehow infringing Star Wars simply because it was a space show with fighter craft flying around. And some poor sap got sued by Lucas in the 80s for creating a spreadsheet tutorial called 'The Templates of Doom' -- yes, he was 'infringing' on the Indiana Jones franchise by using a cute name for his tutorial and including a few references in the lessons.

Corporate GREED has blown the concept of copyright so completely out of proportion that it cannot be reasonably complied with anymore. Just like otherwise 'law abiding' people during Prohibition simply ignored the law and went on drinking, just like ordinary people (not 'religious fanatics' because the fanatics were the ones in power) during the most insanely rigid phases of Medieval 'religion' went on having their own opinions and getting murdered for it, people will continue incorporating new experiences into the 'public domain' -- the CULTURE -- because it's the natural thing to do. The human mind naturally retains experiences and organizes them together into patterns without stopping to think who owns what and pay the fees.

Computer software is a slightly different case than most art but it has suffered due to the abuse of copyright in the other areas I've described. Because the law has been so outrageously abused people have ceased to respect the law. Add to this the problem of uncertain expecations and it's no surprise that computer software copyrghts have been so meaningless to most people. With most consumer products you at least know what you're buying and you can judge whether the price is worth what you want. A car is a car, and you know what it is supposed to do and what it cannot be reasonably expected to do. The same goes for scads of small applianes from blenders to cell phones. A computer is a completely different animal. Software is incredibly mutable and can utterly transform the machine on your desk (or lap, as the case my be) from a game machine to a busines management system to a communications device. And each 'application' can be completely transformed from one Version of the software to another. So if you pay $500 for your spreadsheet program and six months later there's another 'Version' with bug fixes and a jillion new features, which you have you buy at some steep 'upgrade price'... what did you pay for? This is a very different relationship than we have to any other consumer product I am aware of. It's not surprising that people are so willing to ignore copyright in this case and just copy things because it's so easy to feel cheated a few months later. But as I said, thanks to the abuse of copyright in other ways the situation is even worse than it would otherwise have been.

If we could restore copyright -- a reasonable expectation that all new information will eventually become public domain -- we could cut down the piracy problem dramatically. It's the old fistful of sand problem. The harder you squeeze the more you lose.

[ July 16, 2003, 02:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Oooh, a philosophical discussion on the SEIV forum! My favorite kind! How come no one invited me!

*Grabs a soapbox and jumps into the discussion pit, accidentally knocking several people off-balance with armloads of books on law, morality and philosophy.*

Are EULAs really legal?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? References please? I don't mean to imply that you're lying, simply that you might be mistaken. The case that you are referring to may have involved a more conventional paper agreement signed by the two parties, properly witnessed and advised by proper lawyers etc.

Here are some of mine:

A Growing Suspicion Over the Validity of Shrinkwrap Licensing: A Case Summary of SoftMan v. Adobe
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=Cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Court: Network Associates can't gag Users
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981228.html?tag=nl

Lawsuit challenges software licensing
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html

I note that the general consensus on this board is that EULAs are indeed indisputably legal. I think this reflects the generally accepted principle in Western society that agreements signed between two voluntary parties are legally enforceable. But this isn't really true. The law (i.e. legislation plus legal precedent) governs the kinds of agreements that can be enforced (agreements that sell people into slavery for example obviously aren't legal even if both parties agree), how they should be worded, under what kinds of conditions they can be enforced etc. pretty strictly. For example, under U.K. law, some kinds of agreements must be witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, some kinds of agreements must be made under seal and so forth. How else can lawyers earn their lavish fees? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The EULA is a relatively new and untested legal instrument. Until a history of cases is built up that precisely define the limits, practices, acceptable wordings and ways of signalling agreement etc. that govern EULAs, it's safe to say that EULAs are mostly there to intimidate Users.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Baron, all of that is quite interesting and thought provoking. But I have no idea why you quoted my question at the begining of it because it doesn't even partially address my question. It's just a more eloquent description of your view of the problem.

I agree with a lot of what you said. But I still would like to know what good is any copyright, even one with a limited lifespan, if you can't keep people from copying and giving away the work that you sell to make a living? How does someone like Aaron make a living writing software games if anyone can simply download a copy for free off the internet or get it from a friend without even an threat of legal repurcussions?

I don't think most people are like you Baron. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the majority of people who copy software or music have not put as much thought into whether it is right or wrong as you have. They simply figure they can't really get caught and so they don't care if it's wrong. And I believe most people that don't copy software and music don't refrain out of an sense that it is inherantly wrong to do so without compensating the author. They don't do it simply because they believe that there might be a way they could get caught. Or they believe it is against the law to copy and obey the law. Excepting those that simply don't listen to music or play games of course.

So removing the threat of legal penalties, however impotent it may be, removes what little recourse the authors do have to control the use of their production, does it not?

Or are you saying that the current system of enforcment and penalties is acceptable as long as the term of the copyright is limited and not transferable? If that is what you are saying I suppose your post does sort of respond to my question. It was just a bit subtle and it took me a couple readings to see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 13:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Baron, awesome post ! I could never express myself half as well as you have done it.

Geo, the current system of enforcement and penalties is not acceptable, because it fails to prevent piracy ! I personally feel that 'content' will eventually become free or nearly so through pressure from the competition (illegal though it may be).

If your perception of the current situation is correct (and I'd say it complements the Baron's post nicely), you shouldn't expect people to suddenly develop a better conscience. And copy-proof content is not too likely to happen either.

I'd say a business and legal model that faces the plain fact that you can't prevent people from copying content (no matter how much you'd like to) might satisfy all parties involved. The current system won't, no matter how hard they try to push it.

While content may be easily copied, service cannot. Therefore, a new business model will probably arise over time, something on the order of 'the car is yours for free, but you have to fill it up at my gas station'. That is one possibility. Open source is another. PvK's 'content tax' is another. Some day one of these proposals will replace the current standard.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Erax, exaplin to me how you expect a game such as SE4 could ever survive under such a system? What type of "service" would we be talking about here? Aaron gives away the game and sells patches? You honestly think something like that would work?

And how could authors of books and musicians make a living? What sort of "service" do I need for my Dan Fogelburg CD's or my Asimov books?

And I am sorry but Pvk's content tax idea is so unrealisitc and flawed I am not even sure how to effectivly comment on it. I didn't think he was actually suggesting it as a realistic possibility but as an extreme point for comparison.

Administrativly it would be a nightmare. Who would determine what is worthy of compensation. The government? I am not one of these people who thinks games like Grand Theft Auto should be censored or Banned, but I will be damned if I think my tax dollars should go to support it. The whole idea is so counter to the idea of a free market capitalist system I can't even find anything in it I like.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Geo,

You've almost got it. Copyright would work if the original 'public contract' were restored. The deal was that the original creator/compiler of the information got to control it for a limited time. Then it was public property. Corporate suits are trying to turn this into feudalism where we pay them forever. The right to control commercial exploitation of information has been mutated into 'financial damage' from losing 'potential' income and then mutated again into an imagined 'right' to the income that they think they should be getting. Feudalism didn't work with 'real' property, it sure isn't gonna work with 'intellectual' property. Those peasants went right ahead and poached game from the 'King's Land' when they were starving. Even the threat of mutilation (amputation of hands like the current wave of radicals in Islamic countries advocate for stealing) or outright death did not prevent them. Trying to make us all serfs on the corporate info-plantation is also doomed to failure and people instinctively recognize the unfairness of it. Since the current 'law' is completely contrary to the facts of life they ignore it. Just like the peasants who ignored the law that demanded they starve rather than go get the food they knew was there.

[ July 16, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]