Benchmark tests are made to test exclusively one feature of one particular product under certain arbitrary conditions. The only way to really know is to try it yourself.
He can just launch without one and when he comes back to Earth (if he does) he can go to some third world country where they don't care about what he did with his rocket.
I'm no security expert, or anything, but if you copy security "standards" from somewhere else, doesn't that mean somebody will already know how to break your security when they find it?
Maybe breaking up the patterns will make it harder to breach your systems.
". ..how do you judge whether a system is more trusted than another system when there was no design spec or goals listed out to which to test the system against?"
Simple. Real world usage. If somebody breaks security, the answer is staring you in the face. (Now, of only the network admins at a bank would be as gutsy as me. ..)
Next thing you know, we'll be having web movie rights activists and a week where we honor web movies. ..
A very gutsy web movie will make a speech: "I have a dream.. . . . I dream of a world where movies will be given awards regardless of their medium of distribution. .."
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
I would use it in my car's air conditioning system. When it smells anything that I don't want to smell, it automatically changes the air conditioning to recirculate.
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
Whoever wrote that article is missing something. We, the users and writers of Linux, don't need the approval of the market to make our systems go. We don't need the press and other such frilly marketing stuff. We make an OS that works for us. If you don't like it, we're not making you use it. So if the "command prompt" is terrifying to you (though there are ways of avoiding it even in Linux) use something else.
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
MP3's are not like smoking crack! Nobody is harmed by my listening to music in MP3 format. Here's a spew that a friend of mine posted a little while back on our story forum. . .
------------------
Read dis and tell me wot ya theenk, eh. I suppose the whole napster charade has driven me over the edge. I'm considering posting this on my page (Which I will never have) and turn into somewhat of an activist. I'm not sure if I'm gonna read it tomorrow and just think it was an insane rant or something, but in any case, here it is. LET'S DISCUSS THE ISSUE! Attacks or additions to the concept are demanded. So starts the text.
This document puts forth a rather controversial viewpoint significantly against the almost universally-accepted view of piracy (Aside from the view of pirates themselves), so it requires quite a bit of justification--it is, thus, very long and quite a bit to swallow. Just bear with me, as I have to be as detailed as I can to avoid making useless generalizations in an attempt to prove my point.
IS PIRACY WRONG
First, to determine if something is wrong, we must define wrong, and what makes something wrong. For lack of a better working definition, we had best say that something is wrong when it directly causes harm, ie is the primary cause of a particular harm--something could also be said to be wrong when it contributes greatly to harm, but would be to a much lesser extent and must be judged far more carefully. But this is a fair enough definition for our purposes, and one I doubt many would argue. Therefore, piracy, as with any action, would be wrong if it directly harmed others. So, we examine, first what piracy is. Piracy, in all practicality and for purposes of this discussion, is creating a copy of something origionated by someone else and distrubuting it without their consent, assumedly in electronic form. The pirate rarely gains anything from this venture, aside from the cooperation of other pirates who, in turn, give him copies of other things. So piracy, in essence, is based on giving--giving in the hope of recieving. Most posit that in giving something that does not belong to you, it also equates to theft. Let's examine that. Theft is accepted as meaning when you take something from someone else. So is piracy theft? You are creating a copy of the item in question, so you are not depriving the creator of anything they previously had. The complaint with piracy is you are depriving them of something in addition to that which they claim must be given in exchange for using what was origionally their idea--money. So what gives this claim validity? It's a difficult and ambiguous question, so let's look at it a bit more closely. Most people, including myself, accept that it is wrong to make a deal and then break your end of it--in this case, both sides amount to one's claim over the other. This is valid because both people have agreed to make one another's claims valid, and that is what makes the agreement. In piracy, the origional purchaser of the software generally makes an agreement not to pirate the software in the excessive EULA's he is forced to agree to (And I think everyone agrees that software users don't have much choice in agreeing to EULAs, but that's a debate for another day...). This means that he is, in essence, making an agreement with the origionators of the software. This makes it wrong for him to pirate it, aside from the questions of how ethical it is to have a non-negotiable blanket agreement such as a EULA. But let's keep that premise for now, that the EULA makes it wrong to pirate software you have purchased. Then take the next person down the line. He has made no agreement, yet he still has the software, having recieved it free from a friend. What claim, then, does the creator have to demanding money from him? The EULA says you must pay money, but then, the version he has had the EULA removed, and he never purchased the software. The pirate never agreed to pay money. Is it right for the creator to go chasing after him? Ultimately, does he have a right to the claim he makes? Our society says yes, but I think otherwise, as I shall try to explain. The question becomes, as it has ultimately always been, one of intellectual property. 'Intellectual property' gives the origional creator of something rights over it, how and when it is used and reproduced. This is not in dispute in legal terms, but the question we pose is not of the law--that much is quite clear--it is a question of what is ethical or what is 'right'. So on to intellectual property, and whether it's violation hurts the origionator enough to warrant it's enforcement, both as a concept and as a law. When you create something and someone else copies it, you do not lose anything you already had. You still have the origional, and people still know you were the one who created it. What you have, then, is not actually a loss, but a lack of gain that you hold claim to. This recurring concept of claim is crucial, because that's really all it is--you're not taking something from someone else, merely neglecting to give what they say you must give. This is how they claim their 'loss'; the idea that lack of gain means loss. But there is a distinct difference, and so I hold that piracy is not theft. It may still be wrong, but is not theft. Logical support for this can be made simply by reversing the tables--it could easily be said that by not letting a pirate copy something, you are depriving him of something he otherwise would have had. Rediculous, you say? Examine more closely, and you can find little difference. It is merely the same premise of loss on the opposite side. Logically, both have equal claim to losing something, because both honestly have something to lose (I use the word lose for brevity now, accepting that it actually means 'not gain', as stated before)--so we shall simply disregard both, as neither has any evidence to being valid that the other cannot claim, despite the established order's shrieking claims to the contrary. If indeed the idea of harm via not gaining is invalid, then it follows that it does not harm you if someone else copies your work. Indeed, if only the practical effects are counted, this is exactly the case--it is only the society built up, under which you claim you must have money for your work, that suffers, and who is to say you even have the right to force such a precept on others? They might honestly believe that piracy is OK, and that intellecual property should always be free. Many actually hold this view, as the prolificacy of GNU and such proves. You would have more money if they hadn't pirated, but then, you would have more money if you hadn't lost the lottery. Why not sue for losing the lottery? It is, after all, depriving you of money you otherwise would have had, and this is the only sin a pirate commits. In any case, everything said thus far has been philosophical inference at best and rhetorical bilge at worst. It may be more helpful to examine the practical, real-world aspects of piracy, and it's direct effects on society--as this is ultimately the way something must be judged to begin with.
CONS OF PIRACY
Loss of money The creators of software/music/whatever lose money they claim they otherwise would have had. We've talked about that, to no end, so let's take this part out of the equation for now.
Loss of incentive An equal claim of anti-piracy pundits is that without recieving money for software, there is no incentive to create it. This itself would not make piracy wrong, but would merely be a price paid for it and would definately harm society, and that aspect might make it wrong. However, reality has proven this whole concept false, as the existance of Linux (A free, arguably superior operating system) and it's office software (Hailed by it's users as vastly superior to it's commercial counterparts), along with the huge amounts of freeware and GNU programs available (including games), none of which are charged for, proves that software will be created regardless. It is arguable that less would be created, but this doesn't carry enough weight to sway the argument.
Harm to industry Without any of the massive influx of money from software, the computer and software industries would be severely stunted. Advancement of software and hardware alike would slow considerably due to significantly lower funding. This much cannot be argued. Only two factors question whether this is enough of a problem to declare piracy bad--first, is any industry more important than the society as a whole (ie can the greater good be dictated by a corporate CEO), and second is the fact that most large companies realistically lose very little money to piracy. Most of the money that Microsoft, Novell and Sun make is from selling to large businesses, and large businesses rarely pirate. Those people that do pirate such products are usually those who would rather go without it than pay for it anyway. So there would be a loss in this area, but only a minor one.
Feeling of being violated Creators of intellectual property don't like it when their stuff is used against their will. We cannot judge if one person's feelings can be more important than everyone else's, so this must be disregarded, with one simple phrase to illustrate, lifted from a Space Moose comic: "You rights end where my feelings begin." Sensitivity cannot be dictated by law, and claims must be validated on both sides before they can be enforced--intellectual property is an entirely one-sided claim. Say the first person to ever forge a sword showed up demanding legal settlement and shutdown of every other blacksmith who ever tried to make one. This is precisely the same thing, only to a more extreme extent on both sides.
PROS OF PIRACY
Free software! Whoohoo! The real reason anyone pirates, regardless of the law, or questions of ethics. Free software. Free music. Free movies. Before they are released, even. Either saving yourself wads of cash for something you otherwise would have had to pay for, or getting something that you wouldn't have paid for and thus wouldn't ever have had otherwise. This is the all-consuming drive behind piracy. It is obviously a great boon to the common man, and is only a detriment to the companies who produce it. How much of a detriment is still questionable, as it is common knowledge among most pirates that you pirate things you wouldn't buy, and the creators get only a fraction of what is paid at retail anyway. This is the biggest pro of piracy--the others are only secondary concerns at best.
Increased Knowledgeability/Sales Many, many people on the internet know how to use 3DS Max. Can you guess how many of them legally own it? Some of them may buy it later, because they know how to use it. There is scarcely a chance they would otherwise, with how much it costs--when you don't know anything about different software packages, you go with the cheapest. And we all know the myth of the pirate who liked a game so much they went out and bought it. The crazy thing is, it's true--though, admittedly, not all that often. And EVERYBODY has heard the story of someone who bought a game just to find out it sucked beyond belief, didn't come with a manual, and that no refunds were available. But, particularly in the case of CDs, the rash of mp3s helps sales as much as it hurts them--many people, having heard one song and liked it, go out and buy the CD it was on so they could get the rest. And take the case of productivity software, such as programming languages. It's fairly easy to tell if something was written in your language, and most people know it. If anybody actually makes a product and goes to sell it, they ARE going to buy a copy of whatever software they used, because of paranoia that they'll get sued if nothing else. In cases like these, the person always goes with whatever software they managed to pirate in the first place. In this case, piracy DIRECTLY gained you a customer. So even from the company's perspective, piracy does come with some small advantages.
AMBIGUOUS PARTS
Pointlessness Take the pirate who would rather go without than pay. This is most pirates, in case you didn't already know. This means, no matter what happens, even if enforcement is 100% perfect and no software in the entire world is ever pirated, you will still get no money from this person. Is the greater good, then, to make him go without, even though it does nobody any good? Or let him have it because at least it's good for him, if not you?
Abandonware It is still considered piracy to distribute games, data and so forth that are no longer available for purchase through any means. This is incontrovertibly wrong, as it does nothing but deprive people of something for absolutely no reason, and is a major strike against current piracy laws and concepts--it alone is almost enough to prove the law is weighted on the side of intellectual property being upheld even against both freedom and the good of the people as a whole.
Who can own information? This question speaks for itself. So you created a program--someone else creates the same program again when they copy it to their hard drive and again when they send it to their friends. You created the template, they created the item. Are the two the same thing? Could be...but then, perhaps they aren't.
Greed Pirates want stuff without paying for it and corporations want money just for using their information. Both sides are equally selfish.
No intellectual property means no ownership The idea is that if everything were thrown up for grabs, no one would get their rightful claim to anything. Plagiarists and thieves would immediately steal every idea and market the hell out of it, and every kind of art would be deluded. This is an unrealistic fear. First, for the idea of plagiarism, I should qualify that I do think it's wrong for you to market sell someone else's idea (That much I'm willing to give to the creator, and I don't think I need to explain since I'm guessing you all agree already). Therefore, plagiarism is out except in cases where it's given out for free, which removes any malicious incentive there might be--any derivative works would be done out of admiration, and by fans. Those sorts of things can only strengthen a franchise. Second, the idea that things get deluded. This is not true simply because the origional creator of something holds a lot of weight in the eyes of it's fans. It makes a huge difference if something is 'official'--Any number of new missions for Starcraft or mods for Quake are available on the net, made by fans, but people will still instantly go out and buy any expansion the origionators put out (So long as there's any sort of substance to it). Likewise, Games Workshop, creators of Warhammer 40k and other tabletop wargames, put out several publications based entirely on fan submissions--these detract nothing from it's book sales and actually strengthen them by strengthening the fan base. And do you have any idea how many Star Wars fan films have been created? Can you guess how many anybody really cares about? Intellectual property will survive in all it's best ways even without the law--it would merely become a more open society, less restrictive on creativity, and intellectual pursuits and art would only be bettered.
Freedom A truly free society means piracy. Piracy does more good than harm, and does not harm the creator directly (No, it DOESN'T. A claim that someone owes you money is hardly comparable to them stealing it from your house, and yet in our country the penalties are comparable). The creator's claim to money is based solely on intellectual property concepts, which cannot be backed up logically OR ethically at this point. So the question is whether we want to give up that freedom--whether it will be better in the long run, and whether it's worth giving up freedom of intellectual property in order to keep it (The question is moot, since that's the way it is now--the question instead becomes whether we want to reverse it or keep trying to strengthen the currently weak enforcement of it).
So in the conclusion to this, I must reveal my own beliefs--that 'intellectual property' is greedy bilge, and that piracy as it is practiced now (ie the freebie free-for-all) is not a sin and should not be illegal. This is not because of piracy itself, but because of it's roots--I don't believe intellectual property is valid. You can own a house--you cannot own your neighbor's house just because he used the same design. I think software companies will recieve their just compensation for their work regardless--game companies who have defenses against piracy, such as those who run gaming servers requiring CD keys and such, will still thrive. Office software companies, who make their money from a comparatively tiny number of clients, will lose virtually nothing. Companies that gouge their prices and make inferior software will die. GOOD. Music companies that markup their CD prices from a 15 cent production price to 18$ retail might suffer. Unbelievably rich bands that demand they maintain their millions at the expense of already-broke college students will lose money either way (Either to piracy or through loss of popularity from suing their fans). On the other hand, the common person will thrive--more than enough to compensate the losses on the part of the corporations. And, in a further emotional generalization, I don't think hundreds-of-billions-in-the-bank Micro$oft is gonna die from piracy any time soon. People are for piracy out of greed. People are against piracy out of greed. As proof that piracy does very little real damage, I offer reality: Piracy is unbelievably rampant, to the point that most people can get anything they want at any time. And yet, software companies are still getting rich, and the computer industry is still flying at a hundred gajillion miles an hour. Music sales have been *increasing*, despite the practically ubiquitous explosion of mp3s. Companies such as Red Hat are making a living off of distributing software that is *free*. I, someone who buys my video games at retail and produces all kinds of unique intellectual property myself (including both mp3s and software), thus being very close to the problems of people stealing it, am ethically and spiritually on the side of pirates. No ownership of information, no universal claim to something just because it was your idea. You'll get your credit anyway, and if you're smart you'll even get your money. So stop trying to drink everyone's blood. (You'll notice that it's always the huge, fantastically rich companies that are the most against piracy in any case) Now for my concessions to the other side, and the relieving revelations therein. I think charging for software is fine. I'm even willing to put up with EULAs. And I think requiring someone to have a legal copy before they can sell something created with your software is totally legit--and, likewise, I think selling someone else's software without their consent is wrong and should be illegal. But I think giving software out for free does more good than harm once all the cards are down, and thus should not be punished. I don't think there should be any legal remedy for other people using your ideas if they're not using them to make money. So on to the ultimate point of this paper: Intellectual property should be free for anybody to use, but legal only for the creator to make money off of. Piracy is simply the most direct and relevant case of this, and the most important case in which the law must change. But it won't. We must change first, changing our views and making them heard. If you agree, spread these ideas around, let others know our reasoning. If you disagree, tell me why. I am not afraid of being proven wrong, and I can't logically be right or pursuasive without first exposing and sealing the holes in my arguments.
Fine print: I do think that if we accept the concept of EULA's that dictate no piracy, these constitute agreements and thus WOULD make piracy wrong--but only for the person who origionally agrees to them. But then, that would also mean hacking the software to take the EULA out before you install it (A very difficult proposition, at best) would make pirating it legal. And you know what? That's fine. If they're willing to put forth more work hacking it than the program itself is worth to them just so they can share it with their friends, I think that's a good thing. Who's to say the programmer's work is somehow more important? But then, companies could just make the EULA a requirement before you buy the package. Which is better for everyone in the long run anyway, because have you ever tried to actually return a package because you couldn't agree to the EULA? You usually can't, no matter what the thing supposedly says. This would solve that problem, and I think making people agree to the EULA *after* they pay for the software is unjustifiable anyway...
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
HOORAY! HOORAY! Descent is my favorite game! I love D2X and lDescent and all those because they let me play DESCENT on MY computer. HOORAY! I can play descent 3! Hooray!
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
Nothing will ever live up to it's hype. Nothing ever can, nothing ever will. (Excepting cases in which there was no hype but the product was cool anywa) It's a question of how close will the product get?
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
I honestly don't think there's much of a difference in actualy game-play/storyline (if there is a storyline) between any of the ID games (with the exception of Commander Keen). They're all a BLOW UP THE SATANIC FORCES AND LET THEIR INNARDS RAIN DOWN ON YOU TO SATISFY YOUR SADISTIC FANTASIES kind of thing. . . not that that's a bad thing. ..
I think it'd be cool if they made this DOOM remake compatible with the original doom---that way you could play network games with doom players on 486's as well as doom players on P3 600mHz systems with heafty 3D acceleration. . .:)
Now, when're they going to make a 3D version of Commander Keen---that's what I'd like to know.:)
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
I think what we're trying to do is create a small, preasurized environment --- I don't think they're trying to make the whole planet a human-friendly environment.
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
For some odd reason, ID hasn't been able to recreate the playability of DOOM. After Doom 2, all their games were ultimus boringus to me. Quake just drove me mad with its complete absence of gameplay, heretic, hexen and all those other such games were just another attempt to milk the 1st-person shooter for everything they could. . . all Quake 3 arena has is multiplayer. . .
I love to sit and write code
When I get in a programming mode Compile and run It is so much fun
Slashdot Mirror
Try looking at my opinion on freely distributed music. . .
While I do not entrench myself in all the nitty-gritty details of my car, I'm glad that somebody (namely the manufracturers and the automechanics) do.
It's because some people emphasize the tool that the tool is functional.
Don't listen to him! He's an agent! He only wants to keep you in the Matrix. . .
Benchmark tests are made to test exclusively one feature of one particular product under certain arbitrary conditions. The only way to really know is to try it yourself.
. . . they just distributed Windows as open source software. Then they could bundle it with whatever the hell they wanted. :)
He can just launch without one and when he comes back to Earth (if he does) he can go to some third world country where they don't care about what he did with his rocket.
Maybe breaking up the patterns will make it harder to breach your systems.
Simple. Real world usage. If somebody breaks security, the answer is staring you in the face. (Now, of only the network admins at a bank would be as gutsy as me. . .)
"We don't serve web movies here."
Next thing you know, we'll be having web movie rights activists and a week where we honor web movies. . .
A very gutsy web movie will make a speech: "I have a dream.. . . . I dream of a world where movies will be given awards regardless of their medium of distribution. . ."
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
Or maybe some time after. . . :)
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
If I could catch one of those asteroids. . . there ougt to be enough water for me to take my 30 minute showers again . . .
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
------------------
Read dis and tell me wot ya theenk, eh. I suppose the whole napster charade has driven me over the edge. I'm considering posting this on my page
(Which I will never have) and turn into somewhat of an activist.
I'm not sure if I'm gonna read it tomorrow and just think it was an insane rant or something, but in any case, here it is.
LET'S DISCUSS THE ISSUE!
Attacks or additions to the concept are demanded.
So starts the text.
This document puts forth a rather controversial viewpoint significantly against the almost universally-accepted view of piracy (Aside from the view of
pirates themselves), so it requires quite a bit of justification--it is, thus, very long and quite a bit to swallow. Just bear with me, as I have to
be as detailed as I can to avoid making useless generalizations in an attempt to prove my point.
IS PIRACY WRONG
First, to determine if something is wrong, we must define wrong, and what makes something wrong. For lack of a better working definition, we had best
say that something is wrong when it directly causes harm, ie is the primary cause of a particular harm--something could also be said to be wrong when
it contributes greatly to harm, but would be to a much lesser extent and must be judged far more carefully. But this is a fair enough definition for
our purposes, and one I doubt many would argue.
Therefore, piracy, as with any action, would be wrong if it directly harmed others.
So, we examine, first what piracy is. Piracy, in all practicality and for purposes of this discussion, is creating a copy of something origionated by
someone else and distrubuting it without their consent, assumedly in electronic form. The pirate rarely gains anything from this venture, aside from
the cooperation of other pirates who, in turn, give him copies of other things.
So piracy, in essence, is based on giving--giving in the hope of recieving. Most posit that in giving something that does not belong to you, it also
equates to theft. Let's examine that.
Theft is accepted as meaning when you take something from someone else. So is piracy theft?
You are creating a copy of the item in question, so you are not depriving the creator of anything they previously had. The complaint with piracy is
you are depriving them of something in addition to that which they claim must be given in exchange for using what was origionally their idea--money.
So what gives this claim validity? It's a difficult and ambiguous question, so let's look at it a bit more closely. Most people, including myself,
accept that it is wrong to make a deal and then break your end of it--in this case, both sides amount to one's claim over the other. This is valid
because both people have agreed to make one another's claims valid, and that is what makes the agreement. In piracy, the origional purchaser of the
software generally makes an agreement not to pirate the software in the excessive EULA's he is forced to agree to (And I think everyone agrees that
software users don't have much choice in agreeing to EULAs, but that's a debate for another day...). This means that he is, in essence, making an
agreement with the origionators of the software. This makes it wrong for him to pirate it, aside from the questions of how ethical it is to have a
non-negotiable blanket agreement such as a EULA. But let's keep that premise for now, that the EULA makes it wrong to pirate software you have
purchased.
Then take the next person down the line. He has made no agreement, yet he still has the software, having recieved it free from a friend. What claim,
then, does the creator have to demanding money from him? The EULA says you must pay money, but then, the version he has had the EULA removed, and he
never purchased the software. The pirate never agreed to pay money. Is it right for the creator to go chasing after him? Ultimately, does he have a
right to the claim he makes? Our society says yes, but I think otherwise, as I shall try to explain. The question becomes, as it has ultimately always
been, one of intellectual property.
'Intellectual property' gives the origional creator of something rights over it, how and when it is used and reproduced. This is not in dispute in
legal terms, but the question we pose is not of the law--that much is quite clear--it is a question of what is ethical or what is 'right'. So on to
intellectual property, and whether it's violation hurts the origionator enough to warrant it's enforcement, both as a concept and as a law.
When you create something and someone else copies it, you do not lose anything you already had. You still have the origional, and people still know
you were the one who created it. What you have, then, is not actually a loss, but a lack of gain that you hold claim to. This recurring concept of
claim is crucial, because that's really all it is--you're not taking something from someone else, merely neglecting to give what they say you must
give. This is how they claim their 'loss'; the idea that lack of gain means loss. But there is a distinct difference, and so I hold that piracy is not
theft. It may still be wrong, but is not theft.
Logical support for this can be made simply by reversing the tables--it could easily be said that by not letting a pirate copy something, you are
depriving him of something he otherwise would have had. Rediculous, you say? Examine more closely, and you can find little difference. It is merely
the same premise of loss on the opposite side. Logically, both have equal claim to losing something, because both honestly have something to lose (I
use the word lose for brevity now, accepting that it actually means 'not gain', as stated before)--so we shall simply disregard both, as neither has
any evidence to being valid that the other cannot claim, despite the established order's shrieking claims to the contrary.
If indeed the idea of harm via not gaining is invalid, then it follows that it does not harm you if someone else copies your work. Indeed, if only the
practical effects are counted, this is exactly the case--it is only the society built up, under which you claim you must have money for your work,
that suffers, and who is to say you even have the right to force such a precept on others? They might honestly believe that piracy is OK, and that
intellecual property should always be free. Many actually hold this view, as the prolificacy of GNU and such proves. You would have more money if they
hadn't pirated, but then, you would have more money if you hadn't lost the lottery. Why not sue for losing the lottery? It is, after all, depriving
you of money you otherwise would have had, and this is the only sin a pirate commits.
In any case, everything said thus far has been philosophical inference at best and rhetorical bilge at worst. It may be more helpful to examine the
practical, real-world aspects of piracy, and it's direct effects on society--as this is ultimately the way something must be judged to begin with.
CONS OF PIRACY
Loss of money
The creators of software/music/whatever lose money they claim they otherwise would have had. We've talked about that, to no end, so let's take this
part out of the equation for now.
Loss of incentive
An equal claim of anti-piracy pundits is that without recieving money for software, there is no incentive to create it. This itself would not make
piracy wrong, but would merely be a price paid for it and would definately harm society, and that aspect might make it wrong. However, reality has
proven this whole concept false, as the existance of Linux (A free, arguably superior operating system) and it's office software (Hailed by it's users
as vastly superior to it's commercial counterparts), along with the huge amounts of freeware and GNU programs available (including games), none of
which are charged for, proves that software will be created regardless. It is arguable that less would be created, but this doesn't carry enough
weight to sway the argument.
Harm to industry
Without any of the massive influx of money from software, the computer and software industries would be severely stunted. Advancement of software and
hardware alike would slow considerably due to significantly lower funding. This much cannot be argued. Only two factors question whether this is
enough of a problem to declare piracy bad--first, is any industry more important than the society as a whole (ie can the greater good be dictated by a
corporate CEO), and second is the fact that most large companies realistically lose very little money to piracy. Most of the money that Microsoft,
Novell and Sun make is from selling to large businesses, and large businesses rarely pirate. Those people that do pirate such products are usually
those who would rather go without it than pay for it anyway.
So there would be a loss in this area, but only a minor one.
Feeling of being violated
Creators of intellectual property don't like it when their stuff is used against their will.
We cannot judge if one person's feelings can be more important than everyone else's, so this must be disregarded, with one simple phrase to
illustrate, lifted from a Space Moose comic:
"You rights end where my feelings begin."
Sensitivity cannot be dictated by law, and claims must be validated on both sides before they can be enforced--intellectual property is an entirely
one-sided claim.
Say the first person to ever forge a sword showed up demanding legal settlement and shutdown of every other blacksmith who ever tried to make one.
This is precisely the same thing, only to a more extreme extent on both sides.
PROS OF PIRACY
Free software!
Whoohoo! The real reason anyone pirates, regardless of the law, or questions of ethics. Free software. Free music. Free movies. Before they are
released, even. Either saving yourself wads of cash for something you otherwise would have had to pay for, or getting something that you wouldn't have
paid for and thus wouldn't ever have had otherwise.
This is the all-consuming drive behind piracy. It is obviously a great boon to the common man, and is only a detriment to the companies who produce
it. How much of a detriment is still questionable, as it is common knowledge among most pirates that you pirate things you wouldn't buy, and the
creators get only a fraction of what is paid at retail anyway.
This is the biggest pro of piracy--the others are only secondary concerns at best.
Increased Knowledgeability/Sales
Many, many people on the internet know how to use 3DS Max.
Can you guess how many of them legally own it?
Some of them may buy it later, because they know how to use it. There is scarcely a chance they would otherwise, with how much it costs--when you
don't know anything about different software packages, you go with the cheapest.
And we all know the myth of the pirate who liked a game so much they went out and bought it. The crazy thing is, it's true--though, admittedly, not
all that often. And EVERYBODY has heard the story of someone who bought a game just to find out it sucked beyond belief, didn't come with a manual,
and that no refunds were available.
But, particularly in the case of CDs, the rash of mp3s helps sales as much as it hurts them--many people, having heard one song and liked it, go out
and buy the CD it was on so they could get the rest.
And take the case of productivity software, such as programming languages. It's fairly easy to tell if something was written in your language, and
most people know it. If anybody actually makes a product and goes to sell it, they ARE going to buy a copy of whatever software they used, because of
paranoia that they'll get sued if nothing else. In cases like these, the person always goes with whatever software they managed to pirate in the first
place. In this case, piracy DIRECTLY gained you a customer.
So even from the company's perspective, piracy does come with some small advantages.
AMBIGUOUS PARTS
Pointlessness
Take the pirate who would rather go without than pay. This is most pirates, in case you didn't already know. This means, no matter what happens, even
if enforcement is 100% perfect and no software in the entire world is ever pirated, you will still get no money from this person.
Is the greater good, then, to make him go without, even though it does nobody any good? Or let him have it because at least it's good for him, if not
you?
Abandonware
It is still considered piracy to distribute games, data and so forth that are no longer available for purchase through any means. This is
incontrovertibly wrong, as it does nothing but deprive people of something for absolutely no reason, and is a major strike against current piracy laws
and concepts--it alone is almost enough to prove the law is weighted on the side of intellectual property being upheld even against both freedom and
the good of the people as a whole.
Who can own information?
This question speaks for itself. So you created a program--someone else creates the same program again when they copy it to their hard drive and again
when they send it to their friends. You created the template, they created the item. Are the two the same thing? Could be...but then, perhaps they
aren't.
Greed
Pirates want stuff without paying for it and corporations want money just for using their information. Both sides are equally selfish.
No intellectual property means no ownership
The idea is that if everything were thrown up for grabs, no one would get their rightful claim to anything. Plagiarists and thieves would immediately
steal every idea and market the hell out of it, and every kind of art would be deluded.
This is an unrealistic fear. First, for the idea of plagiarism, I should qualify that I do think it's wrong for you to market sell someone else's idea
(That much I'm willing to give to the creator, and I don't think I need to explain since I'm guessing you all agree already). Therefore, plagiarism is
out except in cases where it's given out for free, which removes any malicious incentive there might be--any derivative works would be done out of
admiration, and by fans. Those sorts of things can only strengthen a franchise.
Second, the idea that things get deluded. This is not true simply because the origional creator of something holds a lot of weight in the eyes of it's
fans. It makes a huge difference if something is 'official'--Any number of new missions for Starcraft or mods for Quake are available on the net, made
by fans, but people will still instantly go out and buy any expansion the origionators put out (So long as there's any sort of substance to it).
Likewise, Games Workshop, creators of Warhammer 40k and other tabletop wargames, put out several publications based entirely on fan submissions--these
detract nothing from it's book sales and actually strengthen them by strengthening the fan base.
And do you have any idea how many Star Wars fan films have been created? Can you guess how many anybody really cares about?
Intellectual property will survive in all it's best ways even without the law--it would merely become a more open society, less restrictive on
creativity, and intellectual pursuits and art would only be bettered.
Freedom
A truly free society means piracy. Piracy does more good than harm, and does not harm the creator directly (No, it DOESN'T. A claim that someone owes
you money is hardly comparable to them stealing it from your house, and yet in our country the penalties are comparable). The creator's claim to money
is based solely on intellectual property concepts, which cannot be backed up logically OR ethically at this point.
So the question is whether we want to give up that freedom--whether it will be better in the long run, and whether it's worth giving up freedom of
intellectual property in order to keep it (The question is moot, since that's the way it is now--the question instead becomes whether we want to
reverse it or keep trying to strengthen the currently weak enforcement of it).
So in the conclusion to this, I must reveal my own beliefs--that 'intellectual property' is greedy bilge, and that piracy as it is practiced now (ie
the freebie free-for-all) is not a sin and should not be illegal. This is not because of piracy itself, but because of it's roots--I don't believe
intellectual property is valid. You can own a house--you cannot own your neighbor's house just because he used the same design.
I think software companies will recieve their just compensation for their work regardless--game companies who have defenses against piracy, such as
those who run gaming servers requiring CD keys and such, will still thrive. Office software companies, who make their money from a comparatively tiny
number of clients, will lose virtually nothing. Companies that gouge their prices and make inferior software will die. GOOD. Music companies that
markup their CD prices from a 15 cent production price to 18$ retail might suffer. Unbelievably rich bands that demand they maintain their millions at
the expense of already-broke college students will lose money either way (Either to piracy or through loss of popularity from suing their fans). On
the other hand, the common person will thrive--more than enough to compensate the losses on the part of the corporations.
And, in a further emotional generalization, I don't think hundreds-of-billions-in-the-bank Micro$oft is gonna die from piracy any time soon. People
are for piracy out of greed. People are against piracy out of greed.
As proof that piracy does very little real damage, I offer reality: Piracy is unbelievably rampant, to the point that most people can get anything
they want at any time. And yet, software companies are still getting rich, and the computer industry is still flying at a hundred gajillion miles an
hour. Music sales have been *increasing*, despite the practically ubiquitous explosion of mp3s. Companies such as Red Hat are making a living off of
distributing software that is *free*.
I, someone who buys my video games at retail and produces all kinds of unique intellectual property myself (including both mp3s and software), thus
being very close to the problems of people stealing it, am ethically and spiritually on the side of pirates. No ownership of information, no universal
claim to something just because it was your idea. You'll get your credit anyway, and if you're smart you'll even get your money. So stop trying to
drink everyone's blood. (You'll notice that it's always the huge, fantastically rich companies that are the most against piracy in any case)
Now for my concessions to the other side, and the relieving revelations therein. I think charging for software is fine. I'm even willing to put up
with EULAs. And I think requiring someone to have a legal copy before they can sell something created with your software is totally legit--and,
likewise, I think selling someone else's software without their consent is wrong and should be illegal. But I think giving software out for free does
more good than harm once all the cards are down, and thus should not be punished. I don't think there should be any legal remedy for other people
using your ideas if they're not using them to make money.
So on to the ultimate point of this paper: Intellectual property should be free for anybody to use, but legal only for the creator to make money off
of. Piracy is simply the most direct and relevant case of this, and the most important case in which the law must change.
But it won't. We must change first, changing our views and making them heard.
If you agree, spread these ideas around, let others know our reasoning.
If you disagree, tell me why. I am not afraid of being proven wrong, and I can't logically be right or pursuasive without first exposing and sealing
the holes in my arguments.
Fine print: I do think that if we accept the concept of EULA's that dictate no piracy, these constitute agreements and thus WOULD make piracy
wrong--but only for the person who origionally agrees to them.
But then, that would also mean hacking the software to take the EULA out before you install it (A very difficult proposition, at best) would make
pirating it legal. And you know what? That's fine. If they're willing to put forth more work hacking it than the program itself is worth to them just
so they can share it with their friends, I think that's a good thing. Who's to say the programmer's work is somehow more important?
But then, companies could just make the EULA a requirement before you buy the package. Which is better for everyone in the long run anyway, because
have you ever tried to actually return a package because you couldn't agree to the EULA? You usually can't, no matter what the thing supposedly says.
This would solve that problem, and I think making people agree to the EULA *after* they pay for the software is unjustifiable anyway...
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
I think it'd be cool if they made this DOOM remake compatible with the original doom---that way you could play network games with doom players on 486's as well as doom players on P3 600mHz systems with heafty 3D acceleration. . . :)
Now, when're they going to make a 3D version of Commander Keen---that's what I'd like to know. :)
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun