Then it would be a good idea to think that the Open Source community, not faced with deadlines, would be able to code the programs in a more ideal situation, leading to code that has a higher degree of elegance and security than code developed by companies attempting to make money from it.
It would be nice to think that this makes OSS more secure, but to tell the truth I don't buy it. Or maybe I only buy it to a very limited degree. In so many aspects it looks like Linux is trying to play catch up to other OSes. A "rival" OS comes out with a new feature and the kernel folks (naturally) want to make sure Linux has the same functionality.
I think this is even more widespread with the move to the desktop. 3D performance, USB, sound, etc. have all taken pretty high priority in the kernel as far as I can tell. That's not bad, of course (I use Linux on the desktop), but that development for desktop users has to take away from time that could be spent making the kernel perform its primary functions more efficiently and securely.
I'm not a kernel hacker. I can only write the simiplest of C programs. Am I way off base? Is the kernel as efficient/secure as it can reasonably be and we should just concentrate on improving application software?
One example of another problem I had once with unstable (when Woody was unstable) was PHP breaking. I just have a little webpage for personal use, and the problem was fixed within a day or two, but it served to remind me why unstable shouldn't be used for critical apps.
I run Debian "unstable" on 3 out of the 5 boxes that I admin (personal use, not corporate). For the most part I prefer unstable because of the newer software that it allows access to. Some software isn't available in.deb form in the stable distribution ("gallery", for example, an online photo gallery system). Other software varies a lot between the stable and unstable distributions ("unstable" software being more advanced, usually). For the most part "unstable" is a misnomer.
But... there are those times when something breaks. This is the reason you shouldn't use unstable on a production box. Earlier this week I worked out a KSpread spreadsheet that I needed for a meeting with an advisor. The day for my meeting came and KSpread wouldn't open up because of a conflict with the libpng version. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't been fixed yet. Others report similar problems. Needless to say I wasn't pleased, and I had to go to my meeting without the spreadsheet.
Does that mean I'll stop using "unstable"? Nah. Should everybody use it? No way.
As an addendum to the above, I'll state that at most universities, a computer engineering degree is essentially an electrical engineering degree with a focus on computers. Physics II (electromagnetism) was enough of a PITA for me that I knew I never wanted to be a computer engineer.
Actually here it's called BIS for Business Information Systems. I go to a school that most everybody wouldn't consider a shining beacon of technology, although we are pretty strong in engineering.
I chose not to go with CS because I don't want to be a programmer. I think I'd be decent at the job, it's just not what I want to do for the rest of my life. So I chose BIS.
Let me tell you a little about my classmates. I've yet to meet another one who runs Linux (some have tried it). Some of them type slowly (I consider that to be 25 wpm or less). Some of them struggle with what I consider basic computing concepts, such as FTP and command-line input. There are some just plain idiots, but most of my classmates are fairly intelligent, both in "book sense" and in "common sense."
I haven't been too impressed with the faculty so far. My VB teacher probably only knew enough VB to teach the (entry-level) course, and he didn't seem to know much about computers other than that. As an example, someone told me a couple of years ago that in class he mentioned that he couldn't check his school email from home because he used AOL (nevermind that it was entirely possible to telnet in and check it). I had a COBOL professor that I liked, he knew the material and was kind of fun to talk to. I'm taking an advanced COBOL class this semester with a professor who has a masters from Harvard, so I'm looking forward to that.
You'll probably notice that some people talk about what a joke an MIS degree is. In a way, that's true. CS majors have to learn all kinds of technical material (and don't forget you'll probably have to take at least through Calculus 3 or 4 for a CS degree), but they do miss out on some of the business material (hey, not *all* of it is common sense). A lot of BIS/MIS majors will never venture outside the required assignments in an attempt to learn a little more. But it's necessary if you really want to learn and be valuable outside of the classroom.
When he demonstrated the orginal computer mouse, Doug Engelbart used a one handed chorded keyboard for his left hand at the same time. The system that they developed allowed users to type all characters using just the chords on the left hand...
Why do a d/a or a/d conversion? Just about any CD or DVD player costing more than a few hundred bucks comes with a digital output these days. We just need to take that feed into a soundcard with a digital input. I doubt you could get a bit-for-bit copy, but since most people are compressing to MP3 anyway the difference should be negligible.
As others have mentioned, the other option for fighting this is tearing the plastic wrap off and then demanding a refund because the CD isn't Red Book compliant and won't play in your CD player. In other words, it's defective.
Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit DON'T FUCKING ROLL!
I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL.
So during discussions about the FSF, GPL, etc., CmdrTaco expressed his opinion in a matter-of-fact way. Now, when presenting a story that goes on the main page of/., he remains moderate on the issue, simply stating his opinion in a manner that it is obviously seperated from the story.
Wait, what's the problem? Did you want him to write a 300-word diatribe at the top of the article vehemently expressing his strong beliefs on the subject? Isn't this what we as/. readers complain about on an almost daily basis? Just because he happens to have strong opinions doesn't mean that he can't post a news story on the subject. It's not hypocrisy at all.
Something Awful had a tidbit a couple of days ago about the crack baby scare for a new generation. One such example was the "Counter-Strike baby.":
"The restaurants of the future will be forced to feature illegible menus that cater to these Counter-Strike babies, adversely effecting the rest of us:
WTF!!! TEH CAMPIN LAMA RESTARANT/ MEUNU: DINNAR: WTF!!!
HAMBuRGR..... $5 COKA_COLA....2 FRENCH FIRES.... #1.50!!!!!!!!!!!
NO SHIT NO SHOES NO SERVAICE ! WTF!!! U FUKER/// IF U DONT LIKE OUR RULEZ U CAN GO SUK AN ASS U FAG 15 PRECENT GRADUTIAN INCLUDED!! WTF1111!!!!A"
In all seriousness, I don't think playing video games makes you stupid or anti-social. Playing video games excessively might do (probably does) these things. But doing most anything excessively often has such negative consequences. Studying physics 12 hours a day will make you stupid and anti-social. Sure, you'll know all about physics, but you're missing that key phrase "well-rounded."
If you had an infinite number of Ferrari's, do you think people will pay you $x for it, where x == 0?
Yes. We're assuming that people can only get Ferraris from me. I think it's a fair assumption in this analogy. They're free to buy other sports cars from other people or to not buy from me at all. Why does the fact that I have an infinite supply matter when I have a monopoly on the product?
Good luck trying to lock up an infinite number of Ferrari's. You'd have to pruchase and infinite number of locks
Does not keeping them locked give people the right to take them without paying?
In a word, hypocrisy. While I can't cite specific examples from memory, his homepage suggested an image of a wholesome nature that's consistent with what the Baptist denomination believes to be good. In short, he made an effort (by going to church, having religious items on his webpage, etc.) to appear one way while behaving in another. I could care less what webpages he goes to, but I'll lambast someone who makes an effort to maintain an image (and hold others to that standard) while behaving differently.
I tend to make a distinction between "real property" and "intellectual property" whereas you do not, from what I can tell.
I think we've reached our fundamental difference. While I do make a distinction between physical property and intellectual property, I do not think that distinction justifies taking something without compensating the owner.
I do not believe "intellectual property" is property at all. There is nothing physically there. A song can be converted into a series of mathematical equations and back again. It has no substance.
Am I correct in assuming that you feel the same about movies, books, etc.?
A movie theater has substance. (Still grey though, because you're watching a movie).
But in my admittedly oversimplified example, you're just (not) paying for the right to use that good/service. This is of course assuming that you aren't costing the owner anything by watching the movie (be it theater depreciation or a seat that he would have sold to somebody else had you not been there). Just like with the MP3 you're getting a good/service without paying, and although you aren't costing the owner anything, you're depriving them of what you would have paid. Ok, so there's the point about what if you wouldn't have paid. That's a very grey area to me. Do you still have the right to receive the good/service even if you wouldn't have paid? I don't think so. From our discussions I think that you might feel differently.
Meat has substance. Period. You take it... then it's GONE. It isn't there anymore.
I still think you're adding complications to my simplified examples, like with the movie theater above. You aren't costing the grocery store anything because the food would be wasted. What you're doing is depriving them of potential income. You're getting the benefit without paying a dime.
Manufactured money-machine pop music is only there for the purpose of taking your money, and I have no problem ethically with not paying for that.
In practice neither do I. In theory I do have a problem with it. It's borderline hypocrisy (maybe not so borderline), but stealing from the devil is still stealing. Although that doesn't mean I'll never do it.
Bands that do not need my money, but still deserve it are: (snip)
We have more in common in musical taste than we do in IP opinion.
...and these are people I have no ethical problem trading mp3's of occasionally.
So where does one draw the line? If we expect consumers to police themselves, I fear the market for music, movies, books, and other types of IP would collapse. Reminds of of when Lisa drags Homer to the museum with the whole "suggested donation" fiasco. "Good luck lady, you're gonna need it!"
When you go to a theater, you aren't just paying for the intellectual property in the movie; you're paying for use of the theater.
Point taken. If we assume that my use of the theater doesn't cost the owner anything in depreciation and that nobody would have bought a ticket for that seat anyway, does that change anything? You're (not) paying for the use of the theater to watch the movie, and with MP3 copyright infringement you're (not) paying to listen to the music.
The second example, taking meat from a grocery store, is a clear moral wrong. The fact that it would have gone to waste is irrelevant. It was still theirs, and you did not have a right to take it from them.
Obviously I agree that it's wrong, but I don't see how it differs from not paying for a CD while you still get to listento the music. I don't think the fact that you're physically taking the steak is relevant since it would be thrown away anyway. You're still getting the benefit of the product without paying for it.
Note that this does not apply for "pop sensations" like Britney Spears, but really only applies for true artists. The ones who are not doing it for the money, but can still appreciate it. The ones to whom ten bucks now and then will actually make a difference.:)
The band of whom I speak certainly doesn't need my money. If I stopped going to concerts and buying their products nobody would notice. Likewise if I pirated all of their music and snuck into all of their concerts nobody would notice. But I flat-out think that such behavior would make me a bad person, which is why I don't behave like that.
Theft is depriving me of the thing YOU stole, not the *potential* loss of value of something I already own.
Right. That's where I think the difference is between theft and copyright infringement.
People have already pointed out that "losses" due to *potential* sales not happening are completely bogus. You know this, I know this.
Also correct. In fact, I made that same argment here.
Just because somebody got something for less than *you* sell it for does not mean they would have paid for it had they not had the opportunity to get if for less. And it doesn't mean they "STOLE" the price difference from your pocket.
Agreed. If I, for some reason, download the new Backstreet Boys CD, I wouldn't classify that as stealing in a strict definition of the word because, without a gun to my head, I wouldn't have paid for it. But it's still morally wrong in my book. For whatever reason, I apparently want that CD. But I'm not willing to pay $15 for it. Am I willing to pay less? Maybe, but that's not an option at this point in time unless I want to take to XYZ file-sharing protocol and download it.
In summary, I agree that there are differences between physically stealing something (depriving someone of that object) and infringing on somebody's copyright. My question is, how do you propose we handle this intellectual property? How do we deal with the repercussions of lifting these copyrights? Who is going to produce music and movies and books if they aren't compensated in some way?
I think you're right on about people not considering the morals of their actions when dealing with IP issues. There certainly is a difference. If I download some random MP3, listen to it once and then delete it, I don't lose any sleep over it. It doesn't make me feel like a bad person. If I download an MP3 of a song that I like and keep it on my computer to listen to, I still don't feel like I should be repenting for my sins. But if I was downloading CDs of my favorite artists because I'd rather use that money for something else, I'd find that wrong. Seems to me that it's a bit of a slap in the face to an artist that I like not to pay them for their work. Makes you wonder what kind of "fans" these people really are.
The reason there is no moral wrong associated with copying intellectual property is because you never take something away from someone else. They have not lost anything - so how could you have "stolen" something from them?
I'd argue that you have taken something from somebody else (the artist, in the case of MP3 piracy): rightful compensation. How many people consider sneaking into a (not sold-out) movie to not be morally wrong? What about the grocery store that doesn't sell all of its meat before the expiration date. Is taking that steak without paying OK because they would have just thrown it out anyway?
One time while portscanning for port 80 (out of boredom, not for any malicious purpose) on my former dorm's subnet I came across a directory that the individual probably didn't want to have shared: the one containing the history file for his browser.
His webpage portrayed him as a nice, churchgoing young man. But some of those URLs would suggest otherwise...
"But I was sure www.girlongirl was a scripture quote site!"
"You'd be a fool to buy CDs when you can get songs on the Internet for free," said 17-year-old Lee Yong-suk...
What bothers me is that people like Mr. Yong-suk don't seem to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Often it's justified by talking about the evils of Big Business. The record companies suck, if you ask me. They screw over the little guy in an attempt to make a buck (times 10^6) off of consumers. It's exploitative. But so are other corporations (and individuals, for that matter). But that doesn't give us free reign to break the law.
Piracy is going to happen. If you want to take what's not yours, go for it. Use whatever excuse you want. But don't call someone a fool for doing the right thing.
Note: this is addressed more at the individual quoted in the article than at the poster
I think the difference is almost negligable. I believe the fact to which you refer is that stealing is (loosely) defined as taking something from someone thereby depriving them of that something. Copyright infringement, if you ask me, is taking something from someone illegally, depriving them of payment (or whatever).
So basically the difference that I see between the two is that stealing deprives the victim of the object while copyright infringement deprives the victim of the object's monetary value. I think you're splitting hairs a bit too thin here.
While a difference exists, I don't see how you can argue that one is less morally offensive than the other.
Just because sales went up does not mean that sales would not have gone up *more* without this "interference." Of course not a popular thing to say here.
You're absolutely right, but just because 300 CDs worth of songs were downloaded doesn't mean that sales would have gone up by the total sales price of that 300 CDs.
The record industry's absurd claims about how much money is being lost to piracy is just as ridiculous as/. posters who justify their theft with "Well I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
The Fourth Amendment must be used to prevent such invasions of privacy, or we'll slide down the slippery slope until we're living in a country that'd make the old Soviet Union look open and enlightened.
The Fourth Amendment is practically going the way of the dodo. Ever been through any number of police checkpoints? They claim to be checking for drunk drivers, people without seatbelts, lack of insurance, etc. Most people are within the law, but they get stopped and harassed just the same. Generally I have faith in the Supreme Court, but the Court is of the opinion that the benefits of these checkpoints outweigh our rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us.
July 4 (Independence Day) is a prime time of year for these intrusions without probable cause. Ironic?
Even though they made "no attempt to publicize" it, they also made no attempt to hide it.
But that was the point of their experiment. I'll be you dollars to dimes that the number of computer users who throw out-of-the-box machines up on a network far outnumber the users who secure their boxes before putting them in public reach.
It's true that having all these machines on the same network can cause inflation of their numbers. If I were a script kiddie and discovered a variety of machines with a default installation on a network, you can bet I'd have a post-it note on my computer with that network's address. The Honeynet Project looks far from being truly scientific, but it provides a view of the worst-case scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it would be a good idea to think that the Open Source community, not faced with deadlines, would be able to code the programs in a more ideal situation, leading to code that has a higher degree of elegance and security than code developed by companies attempting to make money from it.
It would be nice to think that this makes OSS more secure, but to tell the truth I don't buy it. Or maybe I only buy it to a very limited degree. In so many aspects it looks like Linux is trying to play catch up to other OSes. A "rival" OS comes out with a new feature and the kernel folks (naturally) want to make sure Linux has the same functionality.
I think this is even more widespread with the move to the desktop. 3D performance, USB, sound, etc. have all taken pretty high priority in the kernel as far as I can tell. That's not bad, of course (I use Linux on the desktop), but that development for desktop users has to take away from time that could be spent making the kernel perform its primary functions more efficiently and securely.
I'm not a kernel hacker. I can only write the simiplest of C programs. Am I way off base? Is the kernel as efficient/secure as it can reasonably be and we should just concentrate on improving application software?
One example of another problem I had once with unstable (when Woody was unstable) was PHP breaking. I just have a little webpage for personal use, and the problem was fixed within a day or two, but it served to remind me why unstable shouldn't be used for critical apps.
I run Debian "unstable" on 3 out of the 5 boxes that I admin (personal use, not corporate). For the most part I prefer unstable because of the newer software that it allows access to. Some software isn't available in .deb form in the stable distribution ("gallery", for example, an online photo gallery system). Other software varies a lot between the stable and unstable distributions ("unstable" software being more advanced, usually). For the most part "unstable" is a misnomer.
But... there are those times when something breaks. This is the reason you shouldn't use unstable on a production box. Earlier this week I worked out a KSpread spreadsheet that I needed for a meeting with an advisor. The day for my meeting came and KSpread wouldn't open up because of a conflict with the libpng version. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't been fixed yet. Others report similar problems. Needless to say I wasn't pleased, and I had to go to my meeting without the spreadsheet.
Does that mean I'll stop using "unstable"? Nah. Should everybody use it? No way.
As an addendum to the above, I'll state that at most universities, a computer engineering degree is essentially an electrical engineering degree with a focus on computers. Physics II (electromagnetism) was enough of a PITA for me that I knew I never wanted to be a computer engineer.
Actually here it's called BIS for Business Information Systems. I go to a school that most everybody wouldn't consider a shining beacon of technology, although we are pretty strong in engineering.
I chose not to go with CS because I don't want to be a programmer. I think I'd be decent at the job, it's just not what I want to do for the rest of my life. So I chose BIS.
Let me tell you a little about my classmates. I've yet to meet another one who runs Linux (some have tried it). Some of them type slowly (I consider that to be 25 wpm or less). Some of them struggle with what I consider basic computing concepts, such as FTP and command-line input. There are some just plain idiots, but most of my classmates are fairly intelligent, both in "book sense" and in "common sense."
I haven't been too impressed with the faculty so far. My VB teacher probably only knew enough VB to teach the (entry-level) course, and he didn't seem to know much about computers other than that. As an example, someone told me a couple of years ago that in class he mentioned that he couldn't check his school email from home because he used AOL (nevermind that it was entirely possible to telnet in and check it). I had a COBOL professor that I liked, he knew the material and was kind of fun to talk to. I'm taking an advanced COBOL class this semester with a professor who has a masters from Harvard, so I'm looking forward to that.
You'll probably notice that some people talk about what a joke an MIS degree is. In a way, that's true. CS majors have to learn all kinds of technical material (and don't forget you'll probably have to take at least through Calculus 3 or 4 for a CS degree), but they do miss out on some of the business material (hey, not *all* of it is common sense). A lot of BIS/MIS majors will never venture outside the required assignments in an attempt to learn a little more. But it's necessary if you really want to learn and be valuable outside of the classroom.
After all, it worked for accountants.
When he demonstrated the orginal computer mouse, Doug Engelbart used a one handed chorded keyboard for his left hand at the same time. The system that they developed allowed users to type all characters using just the chords on the left hand...
Must... resist... urge... to... make... immature... comment... about... one-handed... keyboarding...
Why do a d/a or a/d conversion? Just about any CD or DVD player costing more than a few hundred bucks comes with a digital output these days. We just need to take that feed into a soundcard with a digital input. I doubt you could get a bit-for-bit copy, but since most people are compressing to MP3 anyway the difference should be negligible.
As others have mentioned, the other option for fighting this is tearing the plastic wrap off and then demanding a refund because the CD isn't Red Book compliant and won't play in your CD player. In other words, it's defective.
Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit DON'T FUCKING ROLL!
I'm sorry CmdrTaco but during the infamous KDE/Gnome flamefests you added way too much oil to the fire to be considered even remotely moderate on the issue of Free Software and the GPL.
/., he remains moderate on the issue, simply stating his opinion in a manner that it is obviously seperated from the story.
/. readers complain about on an almost daily basis? Just because he happens to have strong opinions doesn't mean that he can't post a news story on the subject. It's not hypocrisy at all.
So during discussions about the FSF, GPL, etc., CmdrTaco expressed his opinion in a matter-of-fact way. Now, when presenting a story that goes on the main page of
Wait, what's the problem? Did you want him to write a 300-word diatribe at the top of the article vehemently expressing his strong beliefs on the subject? Isn't this what we as
Something Awful had a tidbit a couple of days ago about the crack baby scare for a new generation. One such example was the "Counter-Strike baby.":
"The restaurants of the future will be forced to feature illegible menus that cater to these Counter-Strike babies, adversely effecting the rest of us:
WTF!!! TEH CAMPIN LAMA RESTARANT/ MEUNU: DINNAR: WTF!!!
HAMBuRGR..... $5
COKA_COLA....2
FRENCH FIRES.... #1.50!!!!!!!!!!!
NO SHIT NO SHOES NO SERVAICE ! WTF!!! U FUKER/// IF U DONT LIKE OUR RULEZ U CAN GO SUK AN ASS U FAG
15 PRECENT GRADUTIAN INCLUDED!! WTF1111!!!!A"
In all seriousness, I don't think playing video games makes you stupid or anti-social. Playing video games excessively might do (probably does) these things. But doing most anything excessively often has such negative consequences. Studying physics 12 hours a day will make you stupid and anti-social. Sure, you'll know all about physics, but you're missing that key phrase "well-rounded."
If you had an infinite number of Ferrari's, do you think people will pay you $x for it, where x == 0?
Yes. We're assuming that people can only get Ferraris from me. I think it's a fair assumption in this analogy. They're free to buy other sports cars from other people or to not buy from me at all. Why does the fact that I have an infinite supply matter when I have a monopoly on the product?
Good luck trying to lock up an infinite number of Ferrari's. You'd have to pruchase and infinite number of locks
Does not keeping them locked give people the right to take them without paying?
In a word, hypocrisy. While I can't cite specific examples from memory, his homepage suggested an image of a wholesome nature that's consistent with what the Baptist denomination believes to be good. In short, he made an effort (by going to church, having religious items on his webpage, etc.) to appear one way while behaving in another. I could care less what webpages he goes to, but I'll lambast someone who makes an effort to maintain an image (and hold others to that standard) while behaving differently.
I tend to make a distinction between "real property" and "intellectual property" whereas you do not, from what I can tell.
I think we've reached our fundamental difference. While I do make a distinction between physical property and intellectual property, I do not think that distinction justifies taking something without compensating the owner.
I do not believe "intellectual property" is property at all. There is nothing physically there. A song can be converted into a series of mathematical equations and back again. It has no substance.
Am I correct in assuming that you feel the same about movies, books, etc.?
A movie theater has substance. (Still grey though, because you're watching a movie).
But in my admittedly oversimplified example, you're just (not) paying for the right to use that good/service. This is of course assuming that you aren't costing the owner anything by watching the movie (be it theater depreciation or a seat that he would have sold to somebody else had you not been there). Just like with the MP3 you're getting a good/service without paying, and although you aren't costing the owner anything, you're depriving them of what you would have paid. Ok, so there's the point about what if you wouldn't have paid. That's a very grey area to me. Do you still have the right to receive the good/service even if you wouldn't have paid? I don't think so. From our discussions I think that you might feel differently.
Meat has substance. Period. You take it... then it's GONE. It isn't there anymore.
I still think you're adding complications to my simplified examples, like with the movie theater above. You aren't costing the grocery store anything because the food would be wasted. What you're doing is depriving them of potential income. You're getting the benefit without paying a dime.
Manufactured money-machine pop music is only there for the purpose of taking your money, and I have no problem ethically with not paying for that.
In practice neither do I. In theory I do have a problem with it. It's borderline hypocrisy (maybe not so borderline), but stealing from the devil is still stealing. Although that doesn't mean I'll never do it.
Bands that do not need my money, but still deserve it are: (snip)
We have more in common in musical taste than we do in IP opinion.
...and these are people I have no ethical problem trading mp3's of occasionally.
So where does one draw the line? If we expect consumers to police themselves, I fear the market for music, movies, books, and other types of IP would collapse. Reminds of of when Lisa drags Homer to the museum with the whole "suggested donation" fiasco. "Good luck lady, you're gonna need it!"
So if you had an infinite number of Ferraris you would complain if some were stolen?
If I had an infinite number of Ferraris for which I was asking a sales price of $x and some were stolen, yes, I would complain.
When you go to a theater, you aren't just paying for the intellectual property in the movie; you're paying for use of the theater.
:)
Point taken. If we assume that my use of the theater doesn't cost the owner anything in depreciation and that nobody would have bought a ticket for that seat anyway, does that change anything? You're (not) paying for the use of the theater to watch the movie, and with MP3 copyright infringement you're (not) paying to listen to the music.
The second example, taking meat from a grocery store, is a clear moral wrong. The fact that it would have gone to waste is irrelevant. It was still theirs, and you did not have a right to take it from them.
Obviously I agree that it's wrong, but I don't see how it differs from not paying for a CD while you still get to listento the music. I don't think the fact that you're physically taking the steak is relevant since it would be thrown away anyway. You're still getting the benefit of the product without paying for it.
Note that this does not apply for "pop sensations" like Britney Spears, but really only applies for true artists. The ones who are not doing it for the money, but can still appreciate it. The ones to whom ten bucks now and then will actually make a difference.
The band of whom I speak certainly doesn't need my money. If I stopped going to concerts and buying their products nobody would notice. Likewise if I pirated all of their music and snuck into all of their concerts nobody would notice. But I flat-out think that such behavior would make me a bad person, which is why I don't behave like that.
Theft is depriving me of the thing YOU stole, not the *potential* loss of value of something I already own.
Right. That's where I think the difference is between theft and copyright infringement.
People have already pointed out that "losses" due to *potential* sales not happening are completely bogus. You know this, I know this.
Also correct. In fact, I made that same argment here.
Just because somebody got something for less than *you* sell it for does not mean they would have paid for it had they not had the opportunity to get if for less. And it doesn't mean they "STOLE" the price difference from your pocket.
Agreed. If I, for some reason, download the new Backstreet Boys CD, I wouldn't classify that as stealing in a strict definition of the word because, without a gun to my head, I wouldn't have paid for it. But it's still morally wrong in my book. For whatever reason, I apparently want that CD. But I'm not willing to pay $15 for it. Am I willing to pay less? Maybe, but that's not an option at this point in time unless I want to take to XYZ file-sharing protocol and download it.
In summary, I agree that there are differences between physically stealing something (depriving someone of that object) and infringing on somebody's copyright. My question is, how do you propose we handle this intellectual property? How do we deal with the repercussions of lifting these copyrights? Who is going to produce music and movies and books if they aren't compensated in some way?
I think you're right on about people not considering the morals of their actions when dealing with IP issues. There certainly is a difference. If I download some random MP3, listen to it once and then delete it, I don't lose any sleep over it. It doesn't make me feel like a bad person. If I download an MP3 of a song that I like and keep it on my computer to listen to, I still don't feel like I should be repenting for my sins. But if I was downloading CDs of my favorite artists because I'd rather use that money for something else, I'd find that wrong. Seems to me that it's a bit of a slap in the face to an artist that I like not to pay them for their work. Makes you wonder what kind of "fans" these people really are.
The reason there is no moral wrong associated with copying intellectual property is because you never take something away from someone else. They have not lost anything - so how could you have "stolen" something from them?
I'd argue that you have taken something from somebody else (the artist, in the case of MP3 piracy): rightful compensation. How many people consider sneaking into a (not sold-out) movie to not be morally wrong? What about the grocery store that doesn't sell all of its meat before the expiration date. Is taking that steak without paying OK because they would have just thrown it out anyway?
One time while portscanning for port 80 (out of boredom, not for any malicious purpose) on my former dorm's subnet I came across a directory that the individual probably didn't want to have shared: the one containing the history file for his browser.
His webpage portrayed him as a nice, churchgoing young man. But some of those URLs would suggest otherwise...
"But I was sure www.girlongirl was a scripture quote site!"
"You'd be a fool to buy CDs when you can get songs on the Internet for free," said 17-year-old Lee Yong-suk...
What bothers me is that people like Mr. Yong-suk don't seem to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Often it's justified by talking about the evils of Big Business. The record companies suck, if you ask me. They screw over the little guy in an attempt to make a buck (times 10^6) off of consumers. It's exploitative. But so are other corporations (and individuals, for that matter). But that doesn't give us free reign to break the law.
Piracy is going to happen. If you want to take what's not yours, go for it. Use whatever excuse you want. But don't call someone a fool for doing the right thing.
Note: this is addressed more at the individual quoted in the article than at the poster
I think the difference is almost negligable. I believe the fact to which you refer is that stealing is (loosely) defined as taking something from someone thereby depriving them of that something. Copyright infringement, if you ask me, is taking something from someone illegally, depriving them of payment (or whatever).
So basically the difference that I see between the two is that stealing deprives the victim of the object while copyright infringement deprives the victim of the object's monetary value. I think you're splitting hairs a bit too thin here.
While a difference exists, I don't see how you can argue that one is less morally offensive than the other.
Just because sales went up does not mean that sales would not have gone up *more* without this "interference." Of course not a popular thing to say here.
/. posters who justify their theft with "Well I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
You're absolutely right, but just because 300 CDs worth of songs were downloaded doesn't mean that sales would have gone up by the total sales price of that 300 CDs.
The record industry's absurd claims about how much money is being lost to piracy is just as ridiculous as
http://images.google.com/images?q=natalie+portman
'nuff said.
The Fourth Amendment must be used to prevent such invasions of privacy, or we'll slide down the slippery slope until we're living in a country that'd make the old Soviet Union look open and enlightened.
The Fourth Amendment is practically going the way of the dodo. Ever been through any number of police checkpoints? They claim to be checking for drunk drivers, people without seatbelts, lack of insurance, etc. Most people are within the law, but they get stopped and harassed just the same. Generally I have faith in the Supreme Court, but the Court is of the opinion that the benefits of these checkpoints outweigh our rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us.
July 4 (Independence Day) is a prime time of year for these intrusions without probable cause. Ironic?
Even though they made "no attempt to publicize" it, they also made no attempt to hide it.
But that was the point of their experiment. I'll be you dollars to dimes that the number of computer users who throw out-of-the-box machines up on a network far outnumber the users who secure their boxes before putting them in public reach.
It's true that having all these machines on the same network can cause inflation of their numbers. If I were a script kiddie and discovered a variety of machines with a default installation on a network, you can bet I'd have a post-it note on my computer with that network's address. The Honeynet Project looks far from being truly scientific, but it provides a view of the worst-case scenario.