Would it be considered piracy...
 

... to give my original SE4 CD to a friend but still continue playing Version 1.49? I have SE4 Gold so I still own a legitimate copy of the game, it's just a later Version... I'm asking because I kept my original CD rather than destroy it for the $15 discount on Gold because I thought my brother's friend would like the game, so I wanted to give it to him instead of just destroying it, but I'm currently in the middle of a PBW game in Version 1.49, and it doesn't look like I'll be eliminated very soon. I ordinarily wouldn't give it this much thought, but I'm currently on probation and even a traffic violation can get me 6 months in county jail!

Thanks!

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

I don't know if it fits the strict legal definition of piracy, but I think it would be a violation of the license agreement. Typically with software if you give the disk away or sell it you are supposed to delete any copies of it.

Of course as someone mentioned the Last time this came up, where is the license agreement? I never noticed before, but there doesn't seem to be one with SEIV anywhere.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

This sounds a lot like the ordeal with Napster and Metallica, for those who followed it. Some said they were splitting hairs when they endorsed tape swapping, but sued for mp3 swapping. Their reason? Well, tape swapping is among fans, and broadens their fan base. It's local. It's small. It's grassroots. There's no mass rip off. No outside corporations involved. They claimed tape swapping gave them their original start.

Seems to me this is the same thing. By giving, loaning your copy, you are really just opening SE4 (and Shrapnel) up to new people. Word of mouth is more loyal than anything in my view.

What I am trying to say is, you have Lars on your side. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Here is the stock answer on multiple copies of games. Many license agreements currently allow you to install software on as many computers as you want, as long as only one copy is running at a given time. On the other hand, you do own SEIV and Gold. So, you can sell, or give, your original copy to your friend, ask him to let you know when he is going to play it so that you won't be breaking the license agreement, and then once your PBEM game is done, remove 1.49. That is conditional, of course, on the license agreement being worded in this way. Some license agreements don't allow you to install the software on more than one computer without permission from the publisher.

If you want to be safe, give your friend the copy of 1.49 and remove it from your computer. OR, tell your friend to hang on for a month or so. then give him the software when you are finished with you PBEM game. Or write Shrapnel and ask for permission. In all situations, you are covered.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you will find that tape swapping eventually leads to CD sales. The quality of a tape is poor to begin with, gets poorer with use as the tape wears out, and copies are even poorer. So you will be eventually forced to buy a CD if you start with tapes. Digital copies in the form of CD copies or (gasp!) downloadable MP3 files are different. They don't 'wear out' in any signifigant sense. The sound quality is just as good the 10,000th time you play it as the 1st time. Apparently CDs do break down after a while (decades, though) but you can easily make a new copy on new media that will be just as good as the original.

It's not hard to see why Lars likes tape copying but not CD copying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ June 26, 2002, 23:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Back in the wee days:

Gallieo made a telescope
Backed up Corpernicus's theory
Got burned by the christian church

Now to the present:

Dropout made Napster
Made swapping faster and wider
Got burned by RIAA

I'm not saying that this is a revolutionary way in computer technology, but I'm saying that history repeats.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, yeah. Those two are exactly the same. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Well, except that Gallio's discovery didn't enable people steal stuff.

But except for that they are the same.

sheesh.

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not yet, anyway.

I know some people that are just itchin' to steal the moons of Jupiter.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Actually, the previous revolution in the music industry is the best comparison. It used to be that people bought sheet music & played songs for themselves on pianos or other instruments. So, the authors of songs were the 'superstars' of those days. When vinyl records and radio broadcasts came along ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) was paranoid because people could hear ONE person's performance and not have to pay individually for it. They went into the same 'make everything illegal' tirade that RIAA and MPAA are repeating today. But of course people liked the new technology too much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It took a while for new business models to be worked out but we did finally get a reasonably stable system that worked well enough for several decades. Given that there is no way to reverse the technology I think RIAA and MPAA will have to settle for a new business model themselves eventually.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not yet, anyway.

I know some people that are just itchin' to steal the moons of Jupiter.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">dont look in MY appartment, but whens the Last time you actually SAW the moons of jupiter? yep, thats what i thought. and if you ever want to see them AGAIN...

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Dude, you aren't really stealing the moons. You are just sharing them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

I can just see it now:

Headline:
2130AD - God sues mortal for lunar theft!

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Laser printers were, and still are, garbage compared to full-blown photo-offset printing. People loved laser printers anyway because they were in control. They could print nice, readable documents and decent if not 'realistic' graphics for themselves.

It's the same force behind MP3s. Personal control. You can have a huge bunch of music on a drive and shuffle-play it the way you like. Doesn't matter if it has hit the 'Top 40', or if it's 30 years old, or even if it was ever sold in a commercial music store. A little bit less sound quality is not a problem for most people. Even if they have 'high-fidelity' equipment they are used to listening to FM stereo, which is lower sound quality than 128 bps MP3s.

Meanwhile, 'ClearChannel' rides all the corporate owned radio stations and forces them to play the same 10 songs over and over for the rest of eternity, or until they go bankrupt from people tuning out and listening to their MP3s... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif See the reasons for MP3s? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

BTW, I prefer a minimum of 160 bps MP3s. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 27, 2002, 14:55: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Calling it an issue of personal control completely ignores the recording industries main argument. Which is that they have the right to control the distribution of their product.
Whether you believe they are being shortsighted or not, people have the right to make poor business decisions. You don't have the right to make them for them.

When you make your living off of how many people buy your recordings, then you are naturally going to be opposed to someone distributing copies of those recordings, or enabling the easy distribution of those copies without you receiving compensation for them. Espectially when that person gets compensation for the act in the form of advertising revenue as Napster was doing.

Pointing out the lesser quality of MP3 recordings is really not an issue either. Most (not all, but most) people listen to popular music on car stereos, while they are driving, sitting around the house, out at the beach, etc. While they are doing stuff. It's background music. The lower quality of the recording is insignificant if you are listening to it on a lower quality sound system, or aren't concentrating hard on the music cause you are doing something else while it's playing anyway.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Not pointing out that it's about personal control misses the main point of everyone else's argument. 'Copyright' has become legalized extortion. It Lasts for the author's lifetime +70 years for printed works and apparently is meant to be perpetual for the music industry. You did hear how they tried to sneak a 'music is a work for hire' clause into recent legislation so they could own everything outright instead of having to pay royalties to the artists who CREATED 'their' wealth? How many years has has it been since 'Satisfaction' by the Stones was released? Approaching 40. Yet we are still expected to pay a fee directly (buying a CD) or indirectly (commercials on radio) in order to hear it! It's part of the culture now, one of the most recognizable songs in history. When can we just listen to it without being tapped by bloodsuckers? If the suits won't accept reasonable limits on copyright then people are going to ignore them. It's the classic case of abuse of the law producing disrespect for the law.

I really, really hope that the challenge to copyright extension being heard by the Supreme Court is upheld or we are headed for Copyright Feudalism.

[ June 27, 2002, 15:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

The right to control the distribution of one's own creation, and to receive comensation for it, is a basic tennent of a free market economy. The only people with a legitimate "personal choice" in the matter are the people who create the recording. The writers, artists, and producers.

Saying "I've heard it once, so it's mine" is ludicrous. It removes any sort of incentive for the people who produce the art to continue to do so in the future.

I agree that technology requires that some new system of distribution be developed, but the content should remain under the control of the people who produced it.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

I did NOT say hearing it once makes it mine. I said 40 years+ of ownership is excessive. This is the same extremist counter-argument that has driven people to ignore copyright altogether.

Until the suits develop some respect for the audience, and culture outside of corporate ownership, the audience and the culture are not going to respect the suits copyright claims.

[ June 27, 2002, 15:55: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

So at what point DO you have the right to tell me that what I make is no longer mine to control? Why is 40 years to long? You are free to write your own song are you not? I am not restricting your freedom. You are taking away the freedom of the artist to determine what is best for his art.

Because something is popular does not make it right. You cannot change the laws to fit a mob mentality. That is anarchy.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

So at what point DO you let go of something you've been pushing on the public for decades? (Not something YOU created, either.) If you keep pushing it on people and it becomes part of everyday life you then have the right to charge them in perpetuity for part of their culture? If some corporation had been around to claim ownership of Shakespeare's works when he wrote them would we still be paying some company for the right to stage his plays? Sorry, that's not how it works.

This is not some radical new idea invented by 'leftists' or 'anarchists'. The definition of copyright in the constitution says copyright is limited. They did not recognize 'Intellectual Property', only an incentive to let people benefit from having added something new to the public sphere. (The same goes for patents, btw.) I wonder if the framers of the Constitution would have even rcognized 'art' as copyrightable. They were thinking of useful information like maps. If I'm never gonna see something leave copyright protection in my lifetime, is that 'limited'? Corporate lobbyists have had copyright extended and extended and extended throughout the past century, and it looks like they intend to keep extending it. The corporations plainly want to create a new Feudalism where they get paid forever for material that they DID NOT EVEN CREATE. The artists create it, then sign it away for the 'benefit' of distrubtion and marketting. Then the suits get the majority of the money. They have even tried to shut the artists out completely with this 'work for hire' trick. I don't doubt they intend to pursue that also.

You are falling for a shell-game when you think this is about artists rights. They are hiding behind the artists, exploiting them yet again. There was a hilarious lawsuit by Courtney Love for 'her share' of the damages recovered from Napster, you know. The company lawyers huffed-n-puffed and stiff-armed her. She didn't get a cent of the 'damages' recovered for the unfair exploitation of 'her' music, and neither did anyone else. It all went into the suits' stock options. This is about corporations attempting to create a new feudalism. When honest limits are accepted for copyright again we can worry about enforcement.

[ June 27, 2002, 16:37: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Well, I would agree that limited copyrights are not a totally bad thing. I was saying that extreme example for effect. If the original artist sells his right to a coporation, that corporation shuld not have the complete strength of the copyright protection as the artist. And I think we both can agree that the "Suits" as you call them get too much of the gains from the work.

But Napster didn't distinguish between a recording that was 15 years old, and one that was 15 days old. For all their potificating about improving access to music unavailable by other means, that wasn't their bread and butter and they new it. They were being just as disingenuos as the industry, and you are naieve if you don't see that. If that's all it was about then the lawsuit would have never happend and Napster would be plugging along to this day sharing old songs.

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Baron, you ever notice how we always seem to start out on opposite sides of any discussion, and then over time our stongly held beliefs and compelling debate techniques draw us closer to a middle ground that is emminently resonable and practical?

What say you and I appoint ourselves Co-Emporers of the Earth. I think between the two of us we could do a pretty damn good job of running things. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

I'm curious as to how much "bread & butter" Napster actually made.
They certainly didn't charge people to get the program or even use it, and I don't recall anything about ad sponsoring either.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Yes, people can abuse freedoms to do Bad Things. Lots of universities still print 'resource booklets' for their courses by photocopying chapters out of copyrighted textbooks and binding them together. Publishers have been trying to stop this, or extract a fee, for decades. It's not working. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Should we put all photocopy machines under lock & key and have lawyers watch what everyone is copying to prevent this? Don't they have other important uses that make our open and productive society what it is?

Yes, people trade brand new songs in MP3s as well as older songs. In some cases it leads to new CD sales. In many cases the new songs are deleted because they aren't interesting enough. In a few cases people keep them. The odds are good that those people would not have bought the CD anyway.

What the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do is equivalent to locking up all photocopy machines to stop a fraction of the population from accessing a fraction of their 'intellectual property' with an unknown and unknowable effect on their revenues. Remember, the justification for legal action is loss of revenue. Can they prove that MP3 trading is not increasing their revenue through wider exposure? No.

Can it be proven that absolute copyright has had bad effects on the economy in general? Yes. Copyright is costing ALL OF US now. Time to reform it.

An article about the Limits of Copyright by Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professoer and an author of the petition:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/d...,16071,00.html

The 'home' site of the Eldred v. Ashcroft petition:
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/e...legaldocs.html

LOOK at the list of co-signers! This is not a ground-swell of kids who want to copy music. This is rebellion from the established academic and scientific world.

[ June 27, 2002, 17:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, no. I don't think they did ever pull it off to the extent he wanted to. But that was the "business plan" and the idea that he was pushing. I think the lawsuit pretty much brought it to a halt before his dream was realized. You don't think he was just doing it for the fun of it do you? Napster was a corporation at one point, and had some assets. I don't know what the source of the revenues were. Possibly investors looking towards possible future returns? If he had won the suit and had retained the right to do what he wanted, it would not have been long before you started seeing "subscription fees" and ads. In fact that is likely to be the end result of the idea anyway. But the issue over whether the content providor deserves any compenastion was the foundation of the whole disagreement.

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Napster was ever making money. I think the reason they weren't making money is that their expected source of income sued them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif They believed they were creating a new business model, and that the music industry would pay them to distribute their product. They hadn't counted on the fear of the new. Now the Peer-to-peer networks have taken up the slack while the Napster fight and general corporate klutziness kept large distributors out of the growing new 'culture' of music listening. They've cut their own throats now. There's no going back to central distribution.

Ideally, bands would now go Online and distribute their own samples. AND sell their own CDs direct, cutting out the exploiting suits. But 'artists' are not known for business sense, or even interest. That's how they got into their current situation with the recording industry. I guess a new 'middle-man' will appear or the old middle-man will adapt to the new situation and exploit them in new ways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ June 27, 2002, 17:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

IIRC, wasn't Napster sold for something like 50 million. I know it was quite a bit, but I don't know who the money went to.

There is an ultimate limit on printed copyright, even though there exist extensions beyond the 70 years after the author's death. I think beyond that you can extend it another 30 or 40...not sure. Read it once when trying to figure out if a GK Chesterton book was still copyrighted.

I am completely on Baron's side in this, and I think the fundamental philosophy of this issue can be found in many a college lit class--when they discuss interpretations of works. Does it matter what the author thought when he wrote work X, or is the only real interpretation the one we create, not knowing what he was thinking. The fundamental question, beyond that, consists of ownership of ideas and how they are presented. Some authors get profoundly offended when critics or professors interpret a book to mean something he/she never meant it to mean.

I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

I say the copyright laws should resemble a car warenty. 10 years or 1 million copies. I mean come on, after 1 million copies, you don't need the money any more, and after 10 years, for music at least, tastes change...you are part of history, not business.

Only thing I can say about the future of copywrite is, god forbid the human race creates another religion in the western world. As god would have to pay some "suit" everytime he came to earth and quoted what he once said or wrote on a tablet.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

I will agree that the system as a whole has become horribly skewed. It used to be that the author of a work was viewed as the "producer" and the publisher was just distribution. The publisher "worked for" the author in effect. That has got turned around now and the publisher is producing and the author has become in effect merely a raw material. The publsiher controls the access to the market and so the author becomes dependant on them and thus sells their rights for a bowl of porridge.

The internet offers the possibility of once again allowing the author direct access to the market. This is a good thing. No doubt is scares the crud out of the current publishing power structure.

What needs to happen is for forward thinking artists to deal directly with Napster, or Napster like technology and regain control over what they do. But the technology needs responsible limits as well so that it cannot be used to distribute works of artists that do not wish them to.

And yes, copyrights need to be limited. But violation of those copyrights cannot be tolerated or excused.

I read that link Baron. Pretty good article actually. It made me think, although I can't say he convinced me on everyhting. It always amuses me when people in a disagreement over constitutional issues talk of the intent of the founding fathers. As if the founding fathers were a single entity that was consistant and unanimous in every opinion. For every belief that one can find the support of Jefferson for, I can find an equally elloquent and contrary opinion among another founder, usually Hamilton. (History buffs are chuckling now. I am such a nerd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ) The fact is they were men from all walks of life like us. And they disagreed, sometimes very strongly over issues. Almost every sentance in the constitution and bill of rights was disagreed with by at least one of the founding fathers. But they debated, and compromised, and came up with a document that was at once general and specific, both rigid and flexible, both fixed and changeable. Quite an accomplishment actually.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is all well and good for high minded philisophical discussions such as this. We are all in effect "authors" on this fourm with Shrapnel as our "publisher". The free exchange of beliefs and ideas is another of our founding principles. Technology makes this exchange easier, great. But when your livelehood depends on selling this content you produce, it changes your perspective.

It's fine for a professor of literature, who has a job teaching at the university to pay the bills, to publish a sholarly work and say it "belongs" to the reader. Or for someone like Jefferson who didn't have to work to put food on the table because he had labor of human slaves to do it for him to decry the ownership of "intellectual property". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif But when you can't exercise your talent at writing because you aren't getting paid for it and you have to work at a diner, you don't have the luxury of such lofty principles. For those people their right of ownership to the work they produce is just as obvious.

Geoschmo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">$50 million is chicken feed. A single 'blockbuster' album can make more than this. So really, Napster was sold for a song. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case, though, the current 'interpretation' has been dictated by the corporations who want to setup a free ride for themselves. The 'rebels' trying to over-thrown absolute copyright are the ones who are interpreting it as originally written! The constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are there to provide an incentive for people to contribute to the public domain, NOT to guard 'intellectual property'!

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, Congress is granted the power:
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;

How that relates to copyright in other countries, I don't know. I suppose if this challenge succeeds they will try to lock us into a treaty that forces their interpretation since that method has been so successful in other areas. Since there is a clause allowing for provisions in the Constitution to be over-ridden by international treaties this is going to be the route that everyone goes to get their way now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ June 27, 2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that the reach of copyright has been extended with every advance in technology. It's now possible to argue that mere possession of information 'damages' someone's ability to make profits. It used to be that you had to try to exploit copyrighted material to violate a copyright, not merely possess it.

The current system has proven the classic proverb of grasping a handful of sand. The harder you grasp it, the more you lose. Yes, artists need to get fair compensation for their work. But corporations should not be able to stand over us and bill is for living our lives in the common culture. Because of this over-reaching, extremist position the respect of the general public for copyright has been badly eroded.

I think the worst of the problem could be addressed through an extension/expansion of 'fair use' rights. If I happen to have a copy of a favorite song from 20+ years ago it's not a threat to anybody's income. If I was going to buy a copy I'd have done so long before. I think this holds true for most people. If we really like something we DO buy it. If we find an MP3 of a song we haven't heard for a decade or more and download it that doesn't mean we would have bought the CD if we ran across it in a store.

Similarly, if I scan a favorite SciFi novel into my PC and keep it for re-reading/reference I am violating copyright. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Sure, if some website scans in a novel & Posts it without permission that is violating copyright. They are 'exploiting' someone else's work, at the very least to generate attention and 'hits' for their site even if they don't charge money for it. But I can't change the form of the information I purchased? This is ridiculous.

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

[ June 27, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you have just hit the real issue in this debate: money. Specifically, whether a particular artist makes enough money to support themselves. The days when rich landowners would support artists directly are gone; now, those artists must find a way to receive compensation for their talent. And our society (particularly American society) doesn't place much value on most artists. Yeah, there are lots of performers making large amounts of money by having their performances distributed by a large corporation. But most of those performers are no-talent hacks who only make money because the huge marketing machine at a record company brainwashed the general public into believing it's a worthwhile investment. And that is the other problem with this whole issue: since the record companies are making money off CRAP by investing large amounts of money in it, they certainly can't afford to have someone listen to the CRAP for free.

Anyway, this whole debate would be pointless if we could find a way to provide a decent standard of living to all people without forcing them to work in jobs they either disliked or were ill-suited for. Which comes down to controlling resources and whether or not the planet has enough resources to provide that standard of living to the current population. And, of course, the "natural" tendency of people to want their lives to be a little better than their neighbors' lives (i.e. greed).

I think I'm just rambling now, but I wanted to share some thoughts that should at least fuel some more spirited debate.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Death to the plutocrats!

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

[quote]Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

Quote:

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This sounds great. In fact I would be in favor of a "Fair use" clause, but (there's always a but) how does that apply to the "sharing" of it. I think almost any reasonable person would agree that if you bought a copy and wanted to give that copy to someone you'd have that right. But does that translate into the right to copy it and give the copy, or give the original and keep the copy? That is the whole crux of the dispute as it relates to Napster.

Would giving copies away qualify as fair use in your mind or exploitation? With technology advancing to the point where a copy is for practical purposes indistinguishable from the original that becomes a problem.

Geo

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do you want to kill Mickey's dog? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah... let them survive and see the artists make all that money WITHOUT them. A fate worse than death!

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, the copies have to come from somewhere... so this would amount to a special exemption for private individuals to copy things, yes. There would have to be conditions on it, but in general the law's bias should shift from the copyright holder to the public after this deadline/limit. Yes, this could 'hurt' the income of the publisher if the person who gets a free copy might have bought one instead. There just has to be a limit placed on how long the original publisher can expect to make income from the work.

And then the final deadline where even commercial exploitation is prohibited has to have a real limit, too. Notice the "15 Library Associations" that signed on to the petition. Libraries cannot make archival copies of works that are slowly crumbling away because of fear of being sued. Again, because it might hurt someone's income! Even if the works are out of print and cannot be purchased anymore! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Old novels, magazines, textbooks. Artifacts of our history and culture are being lost. There has to be a limit to copyright so we can preserve this.

[ June 27, 2002, 21:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Then instead of having the middle men control the world's expression, the artists do.

Sounds like no change to me. Maybe even worse. I'm sure they are every bit as capable of hiring a legion of lawyers and lobbying congress. At least middle men will give others a chance, if they see dollars coming out of it. But if the artists hold the green, who are they going to let in on the party?

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Aaahhhh.... This is all very important discussion that I definitely have my two cents to add, and it talks about the heart of what make our culture what it is (more on that in a later post {hint: $$$'s now the only http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif way to get food, shelter, water, fun}), but before I do that.... Did the original posters question ever get answered? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif He surely needs one. Can his friend run the SE IV CD while he runs the SE IV Gold CD?

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Ah. That is something that drives me crazy. Back Cataloge.
And lets just stay away from the world of broadcast Tv.

Did you know that it is illegal to watch unfilterd American TV in Canada. WE have this 10000 KM high wall. Even if you pay for the broadcast...

Copyright is destroying the internet.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

MP3's 128 kb recordings are not high quality.

I have no problem with them being traded. If you have a half decent system you will notice how hollow they sound. Highs are very flat. 320kb is where you start to equal cd quality.

CD's themsevles are finnaly starting to equal records in sound quality. what with dvd-a and scad.

Digital music is catching up. It is still young and behind tubes for quality.

Where was i going with this.....

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Copyright is _trying_ to destroy the internet, along with insanely draconian proposed legislation to allow government organisations to read all your amil and scan your ISP logs, but ultimately the internet is just too uncontrollable. It is inherently chaotic and it defies centralised authority by its very nature. In the end, the pirates, the pornographers and (most importantly) the fair Users - and by "fair Users" I mean the vast majority of netizens - will win out, and society/ business/ economy will have to adapt to accomodate new ways of doing things.

Guess who's been down the pub http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

"Only thing I can say about the future of copywrite is, god forbid the human race creates another religion in the western world. As god would have to pay some "suit" everytime he came to earth and quoted what he once said or wrote on a tablet."

Actually, this sort of exists already, as churches need to file with the government to get a 501c3 license to be recognized as a legit church. No money involved, but the control factor is still there.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Slashdot has a story today about the views of a major recording artist on this issue. Well, TWO major recording artists, actually, since the story includes a pointer to an earlier story about Courtney Love. Notice that neither Courtney Love nor Janice Ian have any detectable sympathies with the 'industry' itself, the record labels and other extortionists who exploit the artists and whine to the government about 'their' artists getting cheated, when they've signed these poor people at 80/20 royalty ratios... or worse. And are still trying to get recorded music declared 'work for hire' so they don't have to pay artist royalties at all anymore. It'd just be a one-time fee like the plumber or car mechanic.

Slashdot Story: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...thread&tid=141

Janice Ian (on her own website): http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Courtney Love (on Salon.com): http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

[ July 09, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So if you rent an apartment for 40+ years, you should own it by default?

If you get a room in the same hotel for vacation, every summer, for 40+ years, you shoudl own that room in the hotel?

Copyright isn't the problem. Big Business' abuse of copyright is.

The 70-years-after-death clause is so that an Author's work keeps supporting his or her children / other heirs. If I opened a hotel, and died, the hotel wouldn't suddenly stop giving my children, grandchildren, etc money. Would it?

Noone BUYS music. You -rent- it. If you buy a CD, that CD functions as a key for unlimited listening -- but you still don't OWN the music. If you buy sheet music, you pre-pay a lifetime's worth of rent to play the music ... but you still don't own the music itself.

Without laws protecting intellectual property, noone would ever see much reason to put the blood, sweat, and tears into creating much of anything ... and culturally, we'd be bankrupt.

Thanks, I don't want to live that way.

What needs to be done is, lower the price of CD's to a reasonable level; the recording companies need to stop gouging the public.

Blank CD media bought in ludicrous bulk must cost, what, maybe $0.10US a disc? Tops? Add in maybe $0.40US total for cover art / packaging issues. Up to $0.50US per disc.

If the producer and the store were each willing to take $2US, and another $2US for the artist, we're talking under $7 for the CD. Add in, oh, another $1US to cover costs of getting it from the distributor's warehouse, to the store itself. Look, about $8US for the CD ... but we're paying 2x and 3x that much right now, the difference almost entirely going into the pockets of the corporate types.

So. It's not copyright that's the problem; it's corporate greed.

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

This is really amazing. I mailed this link to our Forum Editor cause its so good. More importantly, the RIAA has to understand that they can't win. Morpheus is doing fine and more are coming out of the wings. If they would just give up and let the people run with the technology a buisness model woudl probably evolve over time, with a little help of course.

Though all these laws and regulations are frustrating as hell, that is not the worst part for me. It's the fact that i can't do anything about it. The RIAA has never written back (even a form letter!) to all my 100+ "opinions"/complaints they requested on their website. The politicians probably all listen to music that has long since lost its copyright, their grandchildren are probably the only ones listening to anything that still has copyright protection (ooops forgot Jenna Bush and the drunken raves she's always at). And i could never get into the recording industry with the attitudes i have now.

So basically the only people that think this is a problem are about half of our country and the only people that love copyrights are the people who have control. So short of blowing up the RIAA (got that Mr. inspector from the thought polic, i said something akin to treason) or moving to another country (any suggestions). All we can really do is ***** and moan and then steal the latest songs off of Morph.

btw, no hate for anyone who listens to stuff that has run out of its copyrights, i actually do too.

----

Long Live Emmanuel Goldstein

Re: Would it be considered piracy...
 

Yeah, many people don't understand that the lack of respect fo copyright comes from the extreme attempt to extend it to every corner of our lives. It's like the prohibitionists trying to stop everyone from drinking at all and only provoking people to find new ways to drink. Ever hear of the 'Grape Brick'? It was a very popular product in the 1920s. It was just a bunch or raisins compressed into a solid brick and it had a 'warning' on it that went something like: Warning: Do not place this grape brick in a large pot with 2 quarts of water and a cup of sugar and a packet of yeast and let stand for a week or a illegal alchoholic beverage may result! Deh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

All Prohibiton did was erode respect for the law by making the law unreasonable. Same thing with this paranoid attempt to control everything we do with our computers. When they give up on trying to make us pay royalties every farking minute of our lives and find a rational position again they'll get most people to respect copyright again.

[ July 12, 2002, 02:46: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]