Small Boy: "Grandpa! Grandpa! Tell me the story about how a select few heroes saved the world again!" Old Man: "All right, all right. Settle down now. I will gladly tell you the story about how much of the world used to be shrouded in darkness. The story of a select few heroes who saved the world from destruction." Old Man: "There was once a time when much of the world was shrouded in evil and darkness. It was completely different from how the world is now. Arrogance, ignorance, and evil thrived in this land." Old Man: "Most software in this world was extremely stable and efficient. The entire world was about to collapse under this horrible efficiency." Old Man: "That is, until a select few Heroes rose up to save the day. No longer could they simply watch as the world was covered in ignorance. No longer could they watch as the world was threatened by efficiency. Things were simply too speedy." Old Man: "They rose from the shadows and ushered forth a new age! No longer would the world be shrouded in darkness and uncertainty from Gamemakerlessness! They pledged to return the world to Gamemakerdom for the betterment of mankind!" Old Man: "Wherever Gamemakerlessness lurked, they appeared. They stood in front of a stage and screeched, 'How comical! How comical! Who could possibly not return to Gamemakerdom!? Gamemaker's the best. Use Gamemaker. Use Gamemaker right now! Return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness!'" Old Man: "Just like this, they were finally able to realize their dream. Almost everyone was using Gamemaker. Once they finished, 99% of the population had returned to Gamemakerdom." Old Man: "What happened to those who refused to use Gamemaker, you ask? They were constantly depressed, hated their lives, and their cheeks were made fun of by everyone else. Eventually they did the world a favor and turned to dust and died! How comical! How comical!" Small Boy: "Wow! Such a thing! I can't believe such Gamemakerlessnesses existed once upon a time! What nothingness ultimatums they were!" Old Man: "Yeah, it's true. I'm a big ol' buttnude. Now use Gamemaker you fuckin' pathetic piece of garbage!"
You must be an extremacy of Gamemakerlessness! How comical! How comical! You claim to be a True Programmer, but you're anything but as such never before! Gamemaker can do anything!
Wow! You'd better return to Gamemakerdom, or there will be dire consequences!
Would you agree that "loss of potential profit" is a risk?
Yes, but not the one I (or some others) was referring to. The one I was referring to is the initial risk and investment (actually making the product). Some people blame the pirate for that.
How am I supposed to interpret the phrase 'there is no excuse for DRM' other than to assume that you think all DRM is bad.?
I don't like any DRM, but there is some that is better than others (like Steam). And by "nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful" I meant towards certain users. For some it could be harmful, and for others it could not be. Like Steam.
I suppose it couldn't be helped that you interpreted it that way.
Disappear. This Gamemakerlessness. 'This Gamemakerlessness.' "This Gamemakerlessness." This Gamemakerlessness. This Gamemakerlessness. This Gamemakerlessness. This Gamemakerlessness.
How is that "arrogance"? A misinterpretation, maybe, but it's not as if I said anyone was lying to themselves.
I'm not trying to insist that DRM is a good thing, but you still blame developers alone for DRM and insist that it's both draconian and punitive in every case.
I see. So I'm not the only one who is misinterpreting others. I didn't do either of those things. I suggest reading my comments again, because nowhere did I say that pirates weren't to blame at all, and nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful (In fact, in the post you replied to, I merely said it was harmful in most cases!).
Yes it sucks most of the time and it fails utterly in preventing piracy, but it would be entirely unnecessary if everyone honored the terms of a digital content contract.
And not everyone will honor; that's no justification for punishing innocents with badly implemented DRM.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you do not have an inalienable right to watch Game of Thrones without paying for it.
I don't believe in inalienable rights to begin with. But really, where did I say that was the case?
And, if you are continuing to try and make the point that it's a "miniscule" problem then perhaps you should opt to not consume content that has DRM or content that you do not pay for.
And I don't. Where did I say that I did?
How in your mind do you magically divorce the effect of pirates on the desire of investors to invest in content industries? Are you suggesting that unauthorized copying doesn't affect movie revnues? Or perhaps that people will still invest in something even if it's going to fail?
Are you even bothering to read my comments? Piracy is related to loss of potential profit. I've said this multiple times.
But some people act like it is the pirate's fault that the businesses took a risk. This is not so. They took that risk on their own, so when illegally copying certain data, they did not incur those costs upon the business. That's what I was trying to say.
It may be "mere" entertainment to you and you may try to rationalize your transgression, but millions of tiny transgressions do add up to a measurable effect.
Am I misinterpreting something, or are you consistently trying to label me as a pirate despite the fact that I've denied this multiple times?
But no, you can't really measure the effects. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it's a "huge" problem since it's all just potential profit and potential entertainment that's at stake.
What's potentially lost is entertainment itself.
Which doesn't even exist yet. Look, no matter how many potential losses you can think up, it's not going to change my opinion that people are exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement.
You might find that it's harder than you think. Would it kill you to pay a buck for a movie or song every now and then?
Your posts contain a lot of straw men and assumptions about me. I never once claimed it was easy. I'm not even a pirate. Still, you ignore my words and assume that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be on the opposite side of the spectrum. I just don't understand that mentality. Labeling me as a pirate and spewing forth insult after insult is not going to make me agree with you.
My point was that without the safe harbor provision -- the part you like so much -- the RIAA and MPAA might sue youtube, thereby giving them a powerful incentive to take down all of the content that does not belong to youtube so that people would not be tempted to just call up youtube on their phone when they want to hear their favorite song by [INSERT FAVORITE ARTIST HERE].
I said that it was decent, but that is all.
But I don't care for draconian measures.
After all, it's only entertainment.
Indeed.
It's as someone else said... no one is going to change their opinion.
The American education system itself isn't that bad. It's not the best, but it's not the worst, either.
One huge problem is that the schooling (schooling, not education) centers around rote memorization and teaching to the test. How things work, why they work, how to apply them... those kinds of questions are nonexistent in most cases.
You may want to redifine things to feel better about stealing music
I don't understand why someone must be a pirate in order to disagree with it being called "theft." I don't care for it because it confuses the issue (and those ignorant of what actually happens might get the wrong idea). They're committing copyright infringement. At least with the term "pirate," people will easily be able to tell that they're not talking about the real thing...
Sure, it's quite a minor wrong as wrongs go, but even so: still wrong.
It might be wrong to you and I, but that is by no proven means a universal truth.
I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance.
Arrogance? Was what I said somehow false? Are the developers/companies not in any way related to the implementation of DRM?
DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it.
An honest motivation...
Even honest intentions can hurt others. And there are few instances where DRM does not harm others. It's a method that punishes the innocent and often fails to stop the actual pirates. Ignorance, honest intentions... the end result is still the same.
You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
The loss of potential profit is related to the pirates, however.
In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago.
And? I'll need to see conclusive evidence that it's because of music copying, for one.
But, even then, I still cannot see how music copying is anything more than a minuscule problem. This is mere entertainment, the effects of an individual copying music are completely uncertain and immeasurable, and the only thing that can be lost is potential profit.
My problem? We're getting the government involved, wasting taxpayer money (as well as manpower and time) on something that cannot be stopped, and introducing draconian legislation as a 'solution'.
Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead.
The safe-harbor is the only decent part of the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices are pure tripe. Large (or medium-sized) websites often get too many to account for, so they need to resort to automated systems. These systems are imperfect and end up harming the end user. Not to mention false DMCA takedowns. I do not believe they should be forced to comply with them.
But you replied to the segment of my comment where I said I did not believe it was possible to stop, so I'm not sure how the DMCA is related. In any case, the lawsuits are often ridiculous, are made without any real evidence, and serve as a front for threats.
See Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc. It's basically a license subscription service.
That isn't really what I meant. He was talking about services such as OnLive being used as a sort of DRM to stop piracy. That works for games because of the interactiveness. But it wouldn't for movies and music because of the fact that once you have the data, you can copy it as you please (even going so far as to record the screen if need be).
Did you miss the part of the GP's post where he says pirated versions of software are on sale, cheap, at his local mall?
Not really. What I said still applies to an extent. If they're cheaper, they may not have bought them if they were the original.
A company, musician, or artist takes a big risk in creating the data you seem to dismiss so lightly.
That doesn't make fruitless copyright enforcement a worthwhile endeavor. I'm simply looking at the reality of the situation. The fact that they take a big risk has nothing to do with the pirates as they didn't force them to do anything.
Yes, I believe actual damages were done, but don't exaggerate.
only way they have to recoup that risk is for someone to give them money.
They took the risk themselves; the pirates had nothing to do with that. I do not believe you're hurting the business just because you don't give them money (although I do if there was an actual loss of potential profit).
As long as it's a small enough fraction of the income, it's not going to hurt, but you have to be terribly naive to imagine that it's no "more sever than jaywalking."
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see copyright infringement as being much more of a problem than jaywalking due to the reasons I've already given. I support copyright, but the mere potential to lose something intangible to begin with doesn't strike me as a serious problem.
Oh, I see: you're not talking about whether copyright infringement affects the quality and quantity of digital products, but about whether copyright infringement is equivalent to genocide in Sudan, earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, or the risk of nuclear war. Yeah, I guess in that context, you could even argue that murder (which claims fewer than 15,000 US lives each year) is a small problem.
In the case of murder, real, measurable damage is actually done. Significant damage to a single individual. No, it's not as bad as genocide, but I was using a cost-benefit analysis. The problem with copyright enforcement (if we're making the government do it) is that it's ultimately fruitless (they'll just easily move to another website), any new laws are typically draconian in nature, it usually ends up harming individuals, and it costs us so much (taxpayer money, manpower, time).
If I had to draw an analogy, it's like if the police were to actively search for jaywalkers and only jaywalkers. That's just ridiculous.
No, they couldn't (and I didn't rationalize anything). And no, they're not stealing money. Your analogy doesn't even make sense because the pirates aren't even modifying anything of anyone else's; they're copying. If you modify someone else's account without permission, then I could admit you have a point. But that's not the case here.
Just because someone didn't notice doesn't make it alright.
I don't think the argument "we shouldn't deal with this problem because there are worse problems in the world" is very effective.
Good thing I didn't make it. I don't think we should be taking down random websites and arresting file sharers for a number of reasons:
1) Impossible to enforce effectively. 2) It's hardly a serious matter (multiple reasons, remember). 3) It does not bring us any benefits. 4) It wastes taxpayer dollars, time, and manpower.
I know geeks (and those with asperger's syndrome) usually think in this kind of 0/1 binary way.
What an excellent way to start a comment. I'm sure you'll get many people to agree with you that way.
Since it's just data and your copy will directly only generate cost of the bandwidth, then there must be no other costs involved, right?
No, and that isn't what I said. In fact, if you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that a download may or may not cause a loss of potential profit. Which is completely true.
But even as someone who supports copyright (Surprise! Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a pirate.) I cannot understand how you could believe this is a huge deal. The effects can't be noticed by the victim (as they've lost nothing) unless they observe it themselves, nothing is really "taken" in the traditional sense of the word, and the actual effects are not measurable.
Sure, pirate if you must
I've noticed a trend. People seem to label others who disagree with them as the "enemy" (the people completely opposite to them). I actually said that I was in support of copyright. Can you not imagine a scenario where someone on your side disagrees with some of the things you say? I simply thought you were exaggerating about copyright infringement being a "huge" problem.
but at least be honest about it and stop lying to yourself and others.
If you wish to raise your chance of convincing people to agree with you above zero, I suggest dropping arrogant statements such as this. It will just make people less likely to listen to you.
Instead of DRM it means games that are so integrated into online world that there is no way to pirate them.
To me, that is a needless form of DRM. I'll never buy any games like that. I don't need single-player games that force me to be online (either due to conventional DRM or due to services like OnLive).
But if they get a copy of the game, there is no escape. This won't work for music or movies, though. It is more effective for games (due to them being interactive).
However, it is entirely result of the rampant piracy.
I'll need some proof. A citation, in fact.
But of course, there is no excuse for DRM and draconian measures. Punishing innocents for the actions of others is simply unjustifiable to me.
they just got themselves to blame.
This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.
Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.
The bulk of the Slashdot community will never change their opinion and the other side won't change their opinion. The arguments are always the same so why is the subject matter worthy of three posts in a row?
I often wonder why I even waste my time replying. There's often nothing factually incorrect about the comments in question. They're just differing opinions.
No. It's copying certain data without permission. I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.
I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright. We have much, much, much larger problems to worry about, and oftentimes, dealing with copyright infringers is both a waste of time and taxpayer money (at least when it's the government dealing with them).
I don't think the huge fines RIAA/MPAA puts on people and destroying lives are the right way, but someone needs to come up with better solution to the problem.
Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Through legislation? Again, laughable. That will just make people angry, and likely invade people's privacy, violate rights, and a host of other things.
Laws? Again, won't work. It will just anger people even further, and it's impossible to stop them all.
If you're suggesting that they make a product that can compete with the pirated versions, then that is a much more sound strategy. That means no DRM, good customer support, and hassle-free. But still, there will be those who will not buy no matter what.
... that file sharing content that one does not own or have received any distribution copying rights to is disrespectful to the rights that are supposedly granted to the copyright holder?
Such a study would be useless. People already know that copyright exists.
Furthermore, what if people don't agree that they should have these rights to begin with, and don't care if they're "disrespectful" towards them? Laws aren't always just.
That could be said about the people who are doing shit like taking down websites (like Megaupload) which allow people to download copyrighted material. They're addressing extremely insignificant issues, wasting taxpayer money, hurting innocents, and enabling censoring (hurting innocents).
so they can download shit for free
They already can. Some people just want it to be legal. But you should have no complaints, right? That's the most peaceful way to go about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Small Boy: "Grandpa! Grandpa! Tell me the story about how a select few heroes saved the world again!"
Old Man: "All right, all right. Settle down now. I will gladly tell you the story about how much of the world used to be shrouded in darkness. The story of a select few heroes who saved the world from destruction."
Old Man: "There was once a time when much of the world was shrouded in evil and darkness. It was completely different from how the world is now. Arrogance, ignorance, and evil thrived in this land."
Old Man: "Most software in this world was extremely stable and efficient. The entire world was about to collapse under this horrible efficiency."
Old Man: "That is, until a select few Heroes rose up to save the day. No longer could they simply watch as the world was covered in ignorance. No longer could they watch as the world was threatened by efficiency. Things were simply too speedy."
Old Man: "They rose from the shadows and ushered forth a new age! No longer would the world be shrouded in darkness and uncertainty from Gamemakerlessness! They pledged to return the world to Gamemakerdom for the betterment of mankind!"
Old Man: "Wherever Gamemakerlessness lurked, they appeared. They stood in front of a stage and screeched, 'How comical! How comical! Who could possibly not return to Gamemakerdom!? Gamemaker's the best. Use Gamemaker. Use Gamemaker right now! Return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness!'"
Old Man: "Just like this, they were finally able to realize their dream. Almost everyone was using Gamemaker. Once they finished, 99% of the population had returned to Gamemakerdom."
Old Man: "What happened to those who refused to use Gamemaker, you ask? They were constantly depressed, hated their lives, and their cheeks were made fun of by everyone else. Eventually they did the world a favor and turned to dust and died! How comical! How comical!"
Small Boy: "Wow! Such a thing! I can't believe such Gamemakerlessnesses existed once upon a time! What nothingness ultimatums they were!"
Old Man: "Yeah, it's true. I'm a big ol' buttnude. Now use Gamemaker you fuckin' pathetic piece of garbage!"
You're not a True Programmer like I am! You don't understand a single thing about puters!
Wow! Every fiber of your being is exerting dangerously high magnitudes of Gamemakerlessness! If you're a True Programmer, how do you explain that!?
You can't. Because you're nothin'. You're absolutely nothing.
You need to use Gamemaker. True Professionals and Programmers use Gamemaker.
Return to Gamemakerdom! Return to Gamemakerdom! Return to Gamemakerdom!
Oh, my! Such a thing...!
You must be an extremacy of Gamemakerlessness! How comical! How comical! You claim to be a True Programmer, but you're anything but as such never before! Gamemaker can do anything!
Wow! You'd better return to Gamemakerdom, or there will be dire consequences!
Would you agree that "loss of potential profit" is a risk?
Yes, but not the one I (or some others) was referring to. The one I was referring to is the initial risk and investment (actually making the product). Some people blame the pirate for that.
How am I supposed to interpret the phrase 'there is no excuse for DRM' other than to assume that you think all DRM is bad.?
I don't like any DRM, but there is some that is better than others (like Steam). And by "nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful" I meant towards certain users. For some it could be harmful, and for others it could not be. Like Steam.
I suppose it couldn't be helped that you interpreted it that way.
Mine? I was simply replying to his.
Disappear.
This Gamemakerlessness.
'This Gamemakerlessness.'
"This Gamemakerlessness."
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
Let's waste more money trying to kill one another. Our debt isn't high enough yet.
Your arrogance persists!
How is that "arrogance"? A misinterpretation, maybe, but it's not as if I said anyone was lying to themselves.
I'm not trying to insist that DRM is a good thing, but you still blame developers alone for DRM and insist that it's both draconian and punitive in every case.
I see. So I'm not the only one who is misinterpreting others. I didn't do either of those things. I suggest reading my comments again, because nowhere did I say that pirates weren't to blame at all, and nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful (In fact, in the post you replied to, I merely said it was harmful in most cases!).
Yes it sucks most of the time and it fails utterly in preventing piracy, but it would be entirely unnecessary if everyone honored the terms of a digital content contract.
And not everyone will honor; that's no justification for punishing innocents with badly implemented DRM.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you do not have an inalienable right to watch Game of Thrones without paying for it.
I don't believe in inalienable rights to begin with. But really, where did I say that was the case?
And, if you are continuing to try and make the point that it's a "miniscule" problem then perhaps you should opt to not consume content that has DRM or content that you do not pay for.
And I don't. Where did I say that I did?
How in your mind do you magically divorce the effect of pirates on the desire of investors to invest in content industries? Are you suggesting that unauthorized copying doesn't affect movie revnues? Or perhaps that people will still invest in something even if it's going to fail?
Are you even bothering to read my comments? Piracy is related to loss of potential profit. I've said this multiple times.
But some people act like it is the pirate's fault that the businesses took a risk. This is not so. They took that risk on their own, so when illegally copying certain data, they did not incur those costs upon the business. That's what I was trying to say.
It may be "mere" entertainment to you and you may try to rationalize your transgression, but millions of tiny transgressions do add up to a measurable effect.
Am I misinterpreting something, or are you consistently trying to label me as a pirate despite the fact that I've denied this multiple times?
But no, you can't really measure the effects. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it's a "huge" problem since it's all just potential profit and potential entertainment that's at stake.
What's potentially lost is entertainment itself.
Which doesn't even exist yet. Look, no matter how many potential losses you can think up, it's not going to change my opinion that people are exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement.
You might find that it's harder than you think. Would it kill you to pay a buck for a movie or song every now and then?
Your posts contain a lot of straw men and assumptions about me. I never once claimed it was easy. I'm not even a pirate. Still, you ignore my words and assume that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be on the opposite side of the spectrum. I just don't understand that mentality. Labeling me as a pirate and spewing forth insult after insult is not going to make me agree with you.
My point was that without the safe harbor provision -- the part you like so much -- the RIAA and MPAA might sue youtube, thereby giving them a powerful incentive to take down all of the content that does not belong to youtube so that people would not be tempted to just call up youtube on their phone when they want to hear their favorite song by [INSERT FAVORITE ARTIST HERE].
I said that it was decent, but that is all.
But I don't care for draconian measures.
After all, it's only entertainment.
Indeed.
It's as someone else said... no one is going to change their opinion.
The American education system itself isn't that bad. It's not the best, but it's not the worst, either.
One huge problem is that the schooling (schooling, not education) centers around rote memorization and teaching to the test. How things work, why they work, how to apply them... those kinds of questions are nonexistent in most cases.
You may want to redifine things to feel better about stealing music
I don't understand why someone must be a pirate in order to disagree with it being called "theft." I don't care for it because it confuses the issue (and those ignorant of what actually happens might get the wrong idea). They're committing copyright infringement. At least with the term "pirate," people will easily be able to tell that they're not talking about the real thing...
Sure, it's quite a minor wrong as wrongs go, but even so: still wrong.
It might be wrong to you and I, but that is by no proven means a universal truth.
I think it should be about 10 (after it's released), to be honest. I can't imagine many instances where they haven't made their profit by then.
I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance.
Arrogance? Was what I said somehow false? Are the developers/companies not in any way related to the implementation of DRM?
DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it.
An honest motivation...
Even honest intentions can hurt others. And there are few instances where DRM does not harm others. It's a method that punishes the innocent and often fails to stop the actual pirates. Ignorance, honest intentions... the end result is still the same.
You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
The loss of potential profit is related to the pirates, however.
In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago.
And? I'll need to see conclusive evidence that it's because of music copying, for one.
But, even then, I still cannot see how music copying is anything more than a minuscule problem. This is mere entertainment, the effects of an individual copying music are completely uncertain and immeasurable, and the only thing that can be lost is potential profit.
My problem? We're getting the government involved, wasting taxpayer money (as well as manpower and time) on something that cannot be stopped, and introducing draconian legislation as a 'solution'.
Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead.
The safe-harbor is the only decent part of the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices are pure tripe. Large (or medium-sized) websites often get too many to account for, so they need to resort to automated systems. These systems are imperfect and end up harming the end user. Not to mention false DMCA takedowns. I do not believe they should be forced to comply with them.
But you replied to the segment of my comment where I said I did not believe it was possible to stop, so I'm not sure how the DMCA is related. In any case, the lawsuits are often ridiculous, are made without any real evidence, and serve as a front for threats.
Lawsuits*
Like the ones by the RIAA. Legislation was referring to things such as SOPA (which further expand copyright enforcement). Sorry.
See Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc. It's basically a license subscription service.
That isn't really what I meant. He was talking about services such as OnLive being used as a sort of DRM to stop piracy. That works for games because of the interactiveness. But it wouldn't for movies and music because of the fact that once you have the data, you can copy it as you please (even going so far as to record the screen if need be).
If I had to draw an analogy, it's like if the police were to actively search for jaywalkers and only jaywalkers.
Or, rather, they set up an entire division just to do so. That's what all these laws and draconian enforcement measures remind me of.
Did you miss the part of the GP's post where he says pirated versions of software are on sale, cheap, at his local mall?
Not really. What I said still applies to an extent. If they're cheaper, they may not have bought them if they were the original.
A company, musician, or artist takes a big risk in creating the data you seem to dismiss so lightly.
That doesn't make fruitless copyright enforcement a worthwhile endeavor. I'm simply looking at the reality of the situation. The fact that they take a big risk has nothing to do with the pirates as they didn't force them to do anything.
Yes, I believe actual damages were done, but don't exaggerate.
only way they have to recoup that risk is for someone to give them money.
They took the risk themselves; the pirates had nothing to do with that. I do not believe you're hurting the business just because you don't give them money (although I do if there was an actual loss of potential profit).
As long as it's a small enough fraction of the income, it's not going to hurt, but you have to be terribly naive to imagine that it's no "more sever than jaywalking."
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see copyright infringement as being much more of a problem than jaywalking due to the reasons I've already given. I support copyright, but the mere potential to lose something intangible to begin with doesn't strike me as a serious problem.
Oh, I see: you're not talking about whether copyright infringement affects the quality and quantity of digital products, but about whether copyright infringement is equivalent to genocide in Sudan, earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, or the risk of nuclear war. Yeah, I guess in that context, you could even argue that murder (which claims fewer than 15,000 US lives each year) is a small problem.
In the case of murder, real, measurable damage is actually done. Significant damage to a single individual. No, it's not as bad as genocide, but I was using a cost-benefit analysis. The problem with copyright enforcement (if we're making the government do it) is that it's ultimately fruitless (they'll just easily move to another website), any new laws are typically draconian in nature, it usually ends up harming individuals, and it costs us so much (taxpayer money, manpower, time).
If I had to draw an analogy, it's like if the police were to actively search for jaywalkers and only jaywalkers. That's just ridiculous.
Many things could be rationalized the same way.
No, they couldn't (and I didn't rationalize anything). And no, they're not stealing money. Your analogy doesn't even make sense because the pirates aren't even modifying anything of anyone else's; they're copying. If you modify someone else's account without permission, then I could admit you have a point. But that's not the case here.
Just because someone didn't notice doesn't make it alright.
That wasn't the only reason I gave.
I don't think the argument "we shouldn't deal with this problem because there are worse problems in the world" is very effective.
Good thing I didn't make it. I don't think we should be taking down random websites and arresting file sharers for a number of reasons:
1) Impossible to enforce effectively.
2) It's hardly a serious matter (multiple reasons, remember).
3) It does not bring us any benefits.
4) It wastes taxpayer dollars, time, and manpower.
I know geeks (and those with asperger's syndrome) usually think in this kind of 0/1 binary way.
What an excellent way to start a comment. I'm sure you'll get many people to agree with you that way.
Since it's just data and your copy will directly only generate cost of the bandwidth, then there must be no other costs involved, right?
No, and that isn't what I said. In fact, if you read my comment, you would have seen that I said that a download may or may not cause a loss of potential profit. Which is completely true.
But even as someone who supports copyright (Surprise! Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a pirate.) I cannot understand how you could believe this is a huge deal. The effects can't be noticed by the victim (as they've lost nothing) unless they observe it themselves, nothing is really "taken" in the traditional sense of the word, and the actual effects are not measurable.
Sure, pirate if you must
I've noticed a trend. People seem to label others who disagree with them as the "enemy" (the people completely opposite to them). I actually said that I was in support of copyright. Can you not imagine a scenario where someone on your side disagrees with some of the things you say? I simply thought you were exaggerating about copyright infringement being a "huge" problem.
but at least be honest about it and stop lying to yourself and others.
If you wish to raise your chance of convincing people to agree with you above zero, I suggest dropping arrogant statements such as this. It will just make people less likely to listen to you.
Instead of DRM it means games that are so integrated into online world that there is no way to pirate them.
To me, that is a needless form of DRM. I'll never buy any games like that. I don't need single-player games that force me to be online (either due to conventional DRM or due to services like OnLive).
But if they get a copy of the game, there is no escape. This won't work for music or movies, though. It is more effective for games (due to them being interactive).
However, it is entirely result of the rampant piracy.
I'll need some proof. A citation, in fact.
But of course, there is no excuse for DRM and draconian measures. Punishing innocents for the actions of others is simply unjustifiable to me.
they just got themselves to blame.
This is an attitude that puzzles me. The game companies are the ones making these decisions. If anything, the blame mostly lies on them. They're the ones who implement the DRM and make the software, not the pirates. The pirates may indirectly cause them to change direction, but they still make the final decision.
Do not pretend as if no blame rests on the developers.
The bulk of the Slashdot community will never change their opinion and the other side won't change their opinion. The arguments are always the same so why is the subject matter worthy of three posts in a row?
I often wonder why I even waste my time replying. There's often nothing factually incorrect about the comments in question. They're just differing opinions.
But I just can't help myself...
But piracy really is a huge problem.
No. It's copying certain data without permission. I cannot fathom how anyone could perceive that as being a much more severe problem than jaywalking. They may or may not be losing potential profit, but that is all.
I cannot see how copying music is a "huge" problem even as someone who supports copyright. We have much, much, much larger problems to worry about, and oftentimes, dealing with copyright infringers is both a waste of time and taxpayer money (at least when it's the government dealing with them).
I don't think the huge fines RIAA/MPAA puts on people and destroying lives are the right way, but someone needs to come up with better solution to the problem.
Laughable. What do you suggest? Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Through legislation? Again, laughable. That will just make people angry, and likely invade people's privacy, violate rights, and a host of other things.
Laws? Again, won't work. It will just anger people even further, and it's impossible to stop them all.
If you're suggesting that they make a product that can compete with the pirated versions, then that is a much more sound strategy. That means no DRM, good customer support, and hassle-free. But still, there will be those who will not buy no matter what.
... that file sharing content that one does not own or have received any distribution copying rights to is disrespectful to the rights that are supposedly granted to the copyright holder?
Such a study would be useless. People already know that copyright exists.
Furthermore, what if people don't agree that they should have these rights to begin with, and don't care if they're "disrespectful" towards them? Laws aren't always just.
And do you place any value in the downloaded music you have now?
Or rather, do they place enough value in it that they'd pay for it?
That could be said about the people who are doing shit like taking down websites (like Megaupload) which allow people to download copyrighted material. They're addressing extremely insignificant issues, wasting taxpayer money, hurting innocents, and enabling censoring (hurting innocents).
so they can download shit for free
They already can. Some people just want it to be legal. But you should have no complaints, right? That's the most peaceful way to go about it.
Does saying that comfort you? Because it shouldn't. The fact that others are like you doesn't change what you are.