OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents

[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.

[geoschmo]

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

Actually, you are right on track with where I hijacked the original topic to.

Basically your comment here is the crux of my question. And I intentionally say question here instead of argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a particular position, because I don't know what I beleive on the whole topic. This is one area I flip-flop on a lot.

What I am asking is, do you have a right that you are losing here? Is making of backup copies, or transfering your content from one media to another neccesarily a right you have? Or is it permission you have been given through the license agreement. Permission can be taken away quite legitimatly. Rights can be suppresed of course. You can be prevented from exercising them through some illigitimate means. But they are still your rights. That's what I mean when I ask if this is an inalienable right.