OT: An Interesting Read About Bit-Torrents

[Atrocities]

Timstone said:
Jack:
That was one of the best Posts since a while. I really like how you illustrated things. Thumbs up for you.

Ditto. Excellent post Jack.

[Atrocities]

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?

Simply put Geoschmo, we do not. That is clearly outlined and stated in all software licenses. It is our responsibility to read the included documentation when we install and use software. If the software is acquired illegally, then you have no excuse to be using it and are running the risk for doing so. That said, many people opt to use pirated software as opposed to buying it.

I do think though, that out dated software should be considered low priority and therefore encouraged to be traded freely. It is a win win situation for the manufacture. They interest people in their old software, while positioning themselves to sell more new software to those who like their old software.

Ask yourself this question, all those programs you have boughten over the years, how many of them do you still use? Why allow them to go to waste? You can sell the copies to a second hand store, or do what many people have done, and interrupted the law to mean that they can publish copywrited software on a P2P network.

I for one do not like to obtain things via p2p. I simply feel that I should pay for them so that I have ownership over the right to use it. I do not own the software or the program, but I do own that copy and am responsible for it. In that way, I do back up my copies, or buy a second copy when I can afford it. I simply believe that if I am going to pay $50.00 plus for something that can be damaged or destroyed very easily, I want a spare. Like a spare tire so to speak. However that does not mean that I want to use someone else’s used or spare tire.

JMHO and 2 cents worth.

(Spelling errors)

[Mayday]

All these companies are going to have to change their plan of attack. I really can't see this legal crusade leading them anywhere but to the alienation of a lot of people.
They obviously can't stop the creation and proliferation of these P2P programs, and they are foolish to think they can.
I mean, not only would they have to deal with stopping every programmer on Earth from making them, but they'd also have to go about suing people internationally.

[Atrocities]

The rule of thumb is:

He with the money wins. Its all about how much justice you can afford to pay for. And in thier case, the RIAA, SBA, and such, have very deep pockets.

[Mayday]

Another rule of thumb is:
The law only works while people in general feel some need to obey it.

[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?

[Phoenix-D]

Atrocities said:

Simply put Geoschmo, we do not. That is clearly outlined and stated in all software licenses. It is our responsibility to read the included documentation when we install and use software. If the software is acquired illegally, then you have no excuse to be using it and are running the risk for doing so. That said, many people opt to use pirated software as opposed to buying it.
(Spelling errors)

The problem here is Geo's point -has nothing to do with piracy-. Its making backup copies of software you own. I for example have..hmm, I think 4 SE Gold discs.

You can't apply the shirts logic to software because its a completely different idea. You buy a shirt to have..the shirt. Not the tags, not the packaging. The CD is just an extension of the packaging.

Software liscenses, BTW, are legally probably worth much less than the time it takes to click them. Many include illegal clauses, add conditions after the fact to a sale (illegal), and/or can't even be read until after you've bought and opened the software. All of that makes it seriously questionable if they can be enforced.

[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.

[Alneyan]

Phoenix-D said:
Software liscenses, BTW, are legally probably worth much less than the time it takes to click them. Many include illegal clauses, add conditions after the fact to a sale (illegal), and/or can't even be read until after you've bought and opened the software. All of that makes it seriously questionable if they can be enforced.

There has been a ruling in Missouri (in early October 2004) that EULAs are actually enforceable, if you have given your agreement (you should be fine before clicking the Ok button). I think the case was about Blizzard and reverse engineering, which was forbidden by the terms of the licence.

So EULAs can be used in courts, though I believe a district ruling is not enough to be applied to the whole federation; still, it may be used as a precedence I guess. But don't quote me on that, since I am no lawyer.