OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents

[Nodachi]

Going after the BT sites is only a peice of the picture. Take a good look at the DMCA, here's a link to an excellent analysis. In a nutshell, the big corporations want you to have no fair use rights. Look at your game collection, how many of us make a back-up copy just as soon as we buy a game? Well if your games were movie dvds or music cds and RIAA/MPAA had their way those back-ups would be illegal.

[geoschmo]

Somebody will have to explain to me why this is a bad thing. Why do we assume that we have an inalienable right to make copies of software, even for backup purposes?

I'm trying to make a corellation to some other product we use in our lives, but it doesn't really translate well. We don't have magic boxes that we can stick our shirts and dishes into and have instantaneous perfect duplicates come out the other side.

[tesco samoa]

geo they are not perfect duplicates.

A mp3 is not a perfect duplicate
Nor is a divx

With compression there is loss.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Geo, I do not buy games. I license the software. This is clearly stated in the EULA. As this license confers the right to use the software, with the restrictions stated in the EULA, my rights of use are not, in my opinion, tied to a specific piece of medium, but the code contained on the medium. Wether I use that code when it is contained on a cd I bought or one I copied (From a cd I bought) is irrevelent to the cd manufacturer and the content creater, as long as I do not give any of the cd's containing that code away.

Plus, many EULA's specifically give the user the right to make a backup copy.

In contrast, if I buy a toy, I do not license the use of it, I buy that object, and thereafter it is my responcibility, including any breakage it suffers.

[Aiken]

geoschmo said:
Somebody will have to explain to me why this is a bad thing. Why do we assume that we have an inalienable right to make copies of software, even for backup purposes?

Because I purchase it. Seller offers me some commodity for a certain price, and I agree with it and pay him money to obtain an inalienable right to use it at my own discretion. This is a basic principle of market. Now I can use, destroy, present, resell or keep it. All restrictions to my intentions towards this commodity are artificial obstacles which violate my rights to a certain extent.

[geoschmo]

Interestingly Narf and Aiken you are both disagreeing with me, but you seem to be making arguments that are exactly opposite of one another.

Narf you say that you aren't buying a physical object, but a license. And the license allows you to make backup copies. This is correct in many (most?) cases and I have no disagreement to it. However, the original point being made was that the content providers seem to be moving towards eliminating that as a feature of the licensing. And there are the myriad shades of grey now involving what does or does not constitute fair use under the current licenses.

Aiken, you seem to be taking the opposite side of the argument. Going so far as to call it a "commodity" and saying you have the right to do with it whatever you want, even destroying it. This is true of the CD the software comes on of course, but is it true of the software on the CD? DO you have the right to copy it and then destoy the original?

It's not a commodity really is it? If you destroy a shirt you bought you can't use the backup copy of the shirt. In that case you aren't really buying the shirt as much as you are buying the labor, materials and skills neccesary to make the shirt for you. If you destroy the shirt and make your own, you aren't doing anything wrong. But that will take time and effort on yoru part.

But if you copy software, you aren't doing the same thing as making your own software. There is no labor, no skill invested on your part. You are pressing a button and making a copy. So it's clearly not the same thing as every other product and commodity you might purchase.

Tesco, your point isn't really a legal one but a technical issue. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, but I don't see how it applies to the question.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

You missed one of my points: I am not licensing the cd, I am licensing the software.

Also, the whole licensing scheme (To the best of my knowledge) arose because people argued that, because they had bought the software, they had the rights to make copies and distribut them. This is absurd, as is the whole licensing scheme. Aiken's arguements focused on how it should work; I was pointing out how it worked.

Your point about copying software leads to the question of wether I owe the company that made the cd copy I bought .99c for the cd I would otherwise have bought. The software is not involved, as I already demonstrated I have a license to use it.

[Aiken]

geoschmo said:
Interestingly Narf and Aiken you are both disagreeing with me, but you seem to be making arguments that are exactly opposite of one another.

Well, my point was theoretical, while Narf's one was practical. And from the point of view of classic economics, various EULAs are just contracts of general tenancy. But their prevalence doesn't mean it's the best way of "selling" software. For consumer of course. Software companies are pretty happy with their licenses.

Aiken, you seem to be taking the opposite side of the argument. Going so far as to call it a "commodity" and saying you have the right to do with it whatever you want, even destroying it. This is true of the CD the software comes on of course, but is it true of the software on the CD? DO you have the right to copy it and then destoy the original?

It's not a commodity really is it? If you destroy a shirt you bought you can't use the backup copy of the shirt. In that case you aren't really buying the shirt as much as you are buying the labor, materials and skills neccesary to make the shirt for you. If you destroy the shirt and make your own, you aren't doing anything wrong. But that will take time and effort on yoru part.

But if you copy software, you aren't doing the same thing as making your own software. There is no labor, no skill invested on your part. You are pressing a button and making a copy. So it's clearly not the same thing as every other product and commodity you might purchase.

It's all about our _technical_ inability to reproduce material goods quickly and precisely. It doesn't change the commodity nature of software. Take a book, and make a copy of this book with a copying equipment. Your work is incomparably easier than process of writing this book by author, but you have a copy of this book and it's legal (not sure about US, though ). Also, the process of copying with a computer can involve writing thousands lines of code, and heavy programming wizardry. Does it mean that this method is more legal than click-n-drool actions?
Also I can never buy an actual information, I can buy a copy of this information tightly associated with material carrier (cd, tape, or computer system itself). And this total of carrier and copy of an information is what I call "commodity". So if I make a backup copy of cd, it will be a copy of a copy of sofware/information. So where's the original? The original is shared amongst the brains of creators of this information, computer storages, paper notes etc. It's virtual and it doesn't exist in a single tangible form.

[AgentZero]

I think the whole problem comes down to two things: too many lawyers and too much money. Basically, whenever you install a piece of commercial software, you agree to an EULA (End-User License Agreement, if memory serves). This is a contract between you, the user, and those involved in the creation of the software, in which you agree not to do anything that would in any way hurt the profits of the company. That's all it boils down to. If you actually muddle through an entire EULA, you'll actually find out that if, for example, you have a PC and a laptop, you can't actually install the software on both computers, even if you will be the only one using the software, and even if you will never use the software simultaneously on both machines, you are still expected to pay for two copies of the software.

I totally agree that programers, artists, manufacturers and yes, even marketers, deserve to be compensated for their efforts, I honestly believe that the whole piracy issue has been blown WAY out of proportion. I'm sure we've all heard the quote of the billions of dollars that piracy costs the music/movie/game industry every year, and at face value, it looks pretty staggering.

But stop and ask yourself one question: Where do they get that figure from?

Easy, they take the estimated number of pirated copies of music/movies/software that exists, multiply it by the average cost of said media, and you have yourself this figure of billions of dollars of lost profit. This is, however, making a very large assumption: That if unable to obtain a pirated copy, every pirate would go out and pay for it. Which is entirely untrue. A vast majority of pirates download illegal copies of software, etc because they simply can't afford to buy it legally. Ergo, if free illegal Versions weren't available, then the pirates just wouldn't pay for them.

That's a bit like saying if someone tapes a CD of a band I hate and gives it too me, then that's cost the band money. Sure, I now have a copy of their album I didn't pay for, but if it hadn't been given to me, I would have never, ever bought it. Therefore, it's not lost money to the band, because either way they never would have gotten my money. I know that's not a perfect analogy because people who pirate media do actually want it, but it's the best I could come up with.

Now, to be sure, there ARE people who could afford it who pirate anyway, for the thrill, to be rebellious, or just because they're too cheap to actually pay. But mostly, pirates are motivated by purely financial reasons.

Now, I'm not saying I condone piracy or any shape or form, nor do I believe lowering the cost of media will help stop it (if someone can't afford $60 for a game, $40 is probably still out of their range). The vastly over-inflated claims of lost profits really just grates on me, as does the fact that the corporates come up with just boil down to, 'We're making money, but we could be making MORE money.'

At the end of the day, piracy, like any crime, will happen no matter how Draconian the anti-piracy laws get. Every effort should be made to protect developers (especially smaller ones), but quite frankly, this notion of prosecuting people who provide a utility for a legal reason when others use it for illegal purposes is absolutely ridiculous and whoever came up with it should be dragged outside and shot. If things keep going this way, we'll soon be able to sue people for making something that COULD be used illegally, even if nobody acutally does. And wouldn't that be fun?

[Nodachi]

AgentZero is absolutely right about installing the same software on two different computers, it is illegal unless the license allows for it. This also applies to music cds, you can rip the cd to mp3s (legal for now) to play on a portable mp3 player but you can't use both the mp3s and the cd at the same time.

My problem is that the RIAA and the MPAA are trying to eliminate "Fair Use" from copyright law. "Fair Use" allows you to make a backup or to even transfer from one type of media to another provided, as above, you do not make use of more than one at a time. The DMCA does allow for "Fair Use" but also says that if the media is encrypted it is illegal to break that encryption. The MPAA is heavily pushing that point. According to them you may not make a back-up copy of a dvd because it is encrypted material. If the RIAA has its way they will do the same to music cds making it (in their veiw) illegal to rip those mp3s for your portable player.

The law has become so convoluted and contradictory that people don't know what they can and can not do with their legally purchased media. Does anyone out there have wireless speakers hooked up to their entertainment system? If you do you could actually be charged for committing a crime, rebroadcasting of copyrighted material. If you play your music too loud and your neighbors complain you could be charged under the same law for public performance of copyrighted material. These sound silly and are extreme examples but they are true none the less.

I've wandered away from the oringinal topic here but it upsets me to see my rights eroding away before my eyes.