Slashdot Mirror
Why Money Doesn't Motivate File-Sharers
nk497 writes "File-sharers aren't motivated by financial gain, but by altruism, according to an economist. Joe Cox, of the Portsmouth Business School, said those uploading content for others to share don't see what they're doing as illegal, meaning current tactics to deter piracy are doomed to fail. 'The survey data suggested there was a deep-seated belief that this type of activity shouldn't be illegal, that there was no criminal act involved.'"
That's not the point of the media companies' campaigns against file-sharing and "piracy," though. Have you seen the FBI anti-copyright-infringement warnings? You can be punished whether or not you distribute copies of a copyrighted work for financial gain.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
This is news? Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?
The *IAAs do. That was the basis of the pirate bay case.
Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?
"Financial gain" != "making money". It can also mean "not spending money".
And yes, I do think that it is precisely what motivates the majority of file sharers in practice. Actually, that's what TFA says as well:
For the leechers, pretty obviously, the major motivation was financial. They wanted to acquire music or films without paying for it because it was cheaper than going out to buy it.
What was interesting was the difference with the seeders, and it was quite apparent that financial motivations were nowhere near as prevelant; it was a kind of altruism.
So most leechers (who make up the majority on any file sharing network) are, in fact, motivated by money. Most seeders are not, however (duh).
Umm, no. When the law is "don't step on the grass in the park" I'll give you that. When the law is "don't steal stuff", having a lot of people think it's OK does not make it alright to just break it.
Like it or not, there's no difference between walking into a 7-11 and stealing a 99 cent candy bar than there is pulling the latest 99 cent song of choice off of The Pirate Bay. They are both taking something that has a set value for nothing, and it's real hard to argue that shoplifting is OK.
Actually, no, this is a Republic, not a democracy (assuming "this" refers to the United States).
And no, this is not "majority rule". The US Constitution is specifically designed to protect the interest and rights of the minority, OVER majority rule.
Sorry, were you trolling with intentional errors?
I'm pretty sure it's the file sharers who are out of touch if they don't see what they're doing as illegal.
It's ironic that you are accusing others of being out of touch by claiming that file sharing is illegal. In fact, it is only illegal under some jurisdictions and, if that wasn't enough, only on very specific circumstances. Let me explain.
First of all, you must be aware that when people talk about "file sharing" or, nowadays, even "piracy", they are referring to nothing more than a copyright violation. That means that the issue is none other than distributing a work of art without the copyright owner's* explicit authorization. This bit of information is important to understand this issue, as there is a lot of FUD and propaganda muddying the waters, so that ignorant folk believe nonsense such as "you wouldn't download a car" or "copying a file is theft".
Now that we know that this "file sharing" thing is nothing more than distributing works of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization, you must understand the rules which are implemented in different jurisdictions. For example, in countries that follow the French tradition of copyright law, it is very legal to distribute a work of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. It's legal to copy and distribute any work of art, provided that the sharing is being done whole following a couple of conditions, which are:
So, in any jurisdiction that recognizes those basic values any citizen is free to distribute any work he wishes, provided that he isn't earning money from it and that he isn't personally responsible for undermining the entire commercialization of that work of art.
As a consequence, we have countries where it has been explicitly declared that sharing files is perfectly legal.
You can't make something legal by wishing it.
In the same manner, you can't make something illegal by mindlessly claiming that it is.
These aren't fairies we're talking about here. you're not going to clap your hands and have tinkerbell drop legal blu-ray rips into your lap.
Of course not. You just go to the library and pick up any book, CD, DVD or leaflet, or even just right-click on a file and click "download". It's much, much easier and simpler than getting tinkerbell involved. And perfectly legal, too.
If you believe that the current model is outdated, You can lobby. you can vote. you can inform. you can raise awareness. you can debate. but just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal.
See, you wasted your post mindlessly repeating that it is illegal without pointing out a single evidence that it is so, no matter where you are, no matter where you are from. Meanwhile, people who happen to live in civilized countries whose legislative branch wasn't (yet) dominated by content distributors do enjoy some legal rights, including the right to access copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e., file sharing). But keep drinking that kool-aid and repeating your "it is wrong, mmmkay?" mantra.
* the sad state of affairs is that some jurisdictions bastardized their legal concept to change "author" to "copyright owner" and then make it possible to transfer copyrights from the artists, those who actually produced the work, to commercial entities who dedicate themselves to market and distribute what they label as "content". Therefore, this copyright issue, in those jurisdictions, stopped being about copyright but about the ability for a corporation to control and hold content hostage.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
There was a video about this very subject a while back on SD. Essentially you can't patent/copyright a "look" or things that are too common like clothes. Therefore you have things like giant horrendous LVs all over Louis Vuitton clothing. You can still go after them for trademark infringement.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
They are giving their time, CPU cycles and bandwidth, altruistically.
deprive people of their rights
You are confusing or conflating natural rights with copy "rights". Copyrights are completely artificial and have no basis in morality. They are a government-constructed entity - like a corporation or paper money. The only similarity to civil "rights" is that the same word is used for both.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.