"Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action."
"And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement."
The thing about the law is that those subtle differences can make all the difference. "A is kind of like B, so if A is legal/illegal, so must B" should not be assumed to be true. Torrents are derived from the works in question; they contain hashes of the file and other data. They're more than just an HTML link.
Either way, a quick look at their torrent page makes it pretty darn obvious they know what they're doing. Compare their operation to one of the dozens of legitimate sites like legaltorrents.com.
"your claim is that every program you download is something you would have bought otherwise?"
No. But on at least one occasion I have downloaded something to avoid paying for it -- in other words, I would have bought it if I couldn't have warezed it.
By the way, you bring up an interesting tautology here. It's easy to progress from "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because I couldn't afford it" to "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because it's readily available for free."
"False syllogism." (^2)
I'm not sure if we're talking about the abstract purity of logic here, or the real world. If the former, you're absolutely correct; the fact that I've done something has absolutely no relation to anybody else's actions. But, practically speaking, I'm a fairly normal dude, and since I've warezed stuff to avoid paying for it, and I know others who've done the same, it's a stretch to believe that we're the only ones on the planet who've ever done so. I guess you could say it's the difference between being a student of logic, vs. being a student of human nature.
"We are not talking about what kids did before they got an education."
Thanks for clarifying that. I was of the understanding that your assertation is that we can't point to anybody who's gone from working in a factory to creating intellectual property. If we add the restriction of excluding those who did so without higher education, the list is still extensive. Off the top of my head: William Shakespeare (left home in the country at 17, partially to make his fortune and partially because he'd knocked up a woman of higher social status), Stephen King (was published before he went to college), Charles Dickens (father was a debtor; was pulled from school at 12 years of age to work in a boot black factory), Woody Guthrie (grew up in depression-era Oklahoma; was an "Okie" dust bowl refugee who came to California to find work), and Jack London (raised in poverty, left school at 14, worked odd jobs and rode freight trains as a hobo, and began writing before he pursued higher education).
Again returning to the pure world of abstract logic, these could be the only four humans in history to whom this applies. But it's doubtful.
"Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there."
Good point, but I think they key word here is "impulse." Also, this may seem non-intuitive, but I hope you'll trust the fact that there are many, many people who simply do not have the time, inclination, or trust in buying something used from a private party on eBay -- me being one of them. Perhaps we're stupid, but we're not liars, and we're that group that might finally swing over to the Apple side at the sight of a $500 Apple-branded box at retail, despite used stuff being readily available on eBay.
"For this post, obviously he didn't so much as acknowledge Jefferson's ideas, just took a pot shot using race relations. You wanna talk about that, Shark72? Go find the thread on it."
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. The point is this: what Thomas Jefferson might have thought about IP has almost no relevance to today's society. The quote was used to justify software piracy. What point is there in Thomas Jefferson as a moral compass for the issue of software piracy, when he lived in times so different that not only did they not have computers, but that slavery was condoned? Somebody else mentioned Larry Lessig -- great, then quote him. He has some relevance.
Lastly -- and, yeah, this is a rant -- if you choose to copy somebody's work without their permission, just acknowledge that you're doing it because you'd really rather just have it for free. "I am embodying the noble spirit of Thomas Jefferson by saving the three hundred bucks on PhotoShop" is a cheat.
Neither. Consider the possibility that not all Slashdotters have the same moral compass as you do. Being a geek does not necessarily mean that you're pro-piracy.
You're correct on the first part. On the second part, I can and will use the law to my advantage if somebody breaks it in a way that harms my business, including hacking into my site to get free access or to copy my source code.
If I understand you correctly, writing a novel once, or developing a piece of software once, and selling multiple copies of same is bad. However, developing a web site once, and charging multiple people money to access the same web site isn't so bad? Seems the same to me: come up with an idea, implement it once, and then charge over and over again for the same thing.
"How about offering some other explanation other than "I want to sit on my ass an collect royalities.""
And what's wrong with that? I developed a web site that a lot of people like, and many of them pay me for access to the site. I put a lot of work into creating this web site that people like; it's paid off, and now I get to sit on my ass. Not everybody can do what I do, but I'm glad that I'm the one who gets to do it. It sure beats working in a factory.
And, make no mistake: if some kid tries to hack into it using the lame rationale that "information wants to be free," I'll kick his ass right proper.
"And I will postulate the opposite: It has no effect on the economy and social structure: Its only downloaded by two groups: people who are curious but who wouldn't want to buy it if that was the only way to get it (they would then do without) or people who couldn't afford to buy it anyway."
I've warezed stuff in the past to avoid paying for it. I freely admit it. I won't wrap myself in a cloak of intellectual dishonesty and claim that I warezed it out of some social protest or civil disobedience. It was simply the case that I wanted the software, would rather not pay for it, so I warezed it. I can't be the only one who's done this.
"You haven't shown proof that anyone has actually gone from toiling in a factory on minimum wage to suddenly producing "intellectual property" so we'll assume nobody actually have and you just made it up."
Happens all the time. Long ago I worked minimum wage at a KFC. Then I went to college and learned how I could use my brain to make money. And, now I do. Again, I can't be the only one. Hope this helps.
"However it does seem likely that a lot of people want a job where you just have to do the work ONCE and then can keep raking it in over and over and over - those without morals probably dream about that."
I want that, too -- in fact, that's what I do. People pay me for access to a web site which I only had to code once. It's great. Everybody should try it sometime.
That was a long post; perhaps I can summarize Mr. Jefferson's positions:
Freedom of ideas: a good thing
Freedom for the black people he held captive in his home, including the one he was sleeping with behind his wife's back: not a good thing
Black people and people who might want to make money off of their intellectual endeavors have two things in common: they're glad that Thomas Jefferson isn't around to make laws today.
"There is also no evidence anyone suffered any real damages because of this."
Right you are. There is the mathematical possibility that of the thousands of copies of software he helped distribute, not a single one was distributed to someone who warezed the software so that they wouldn't have to buy it.
"Every day I look at this I see a steady trend toward corporate police state."
I think everybody here agrees with you. If I can summarize:
Only evil corporations (sorry if I'm being redundant) try to sell copies of the software they develop.
The only good guys are people who release open source software for free.
If you're an individual who's trying to make a living by selling software you've developed, sorry... you're evil, too, by definition. You're a member of the corrupt police state. If your software is pirated, it's your own damn fault for being greedy. Since two wrongs don't make a right, the person who pirated your software is either doing it as a form of civil disobedience, or they didn't actually cause you any harm, even if you're trying to make a living by selling software you've developed. Just release your stuff open source for free and you won't be evil any more.
"Allowing a judge to sentence anyone to prison for copyright infringement is ridiculous. The maximum sentence should be a fine."
I agree, that would be great. I would pirate a lot more stuff if I didn't have to worry about crossing that civil/criminal line. I think lots more people would pirate more. After all, a fine is only money, and if I ran a warez ring and I got fined, I'd just ask my users to kick me a little extra cash, then go right back into business.
" And what is the justification the US government is using to justify doing the **AA's bidding?"
Not to sound circular, but the job of law enforcement is to enforce the laws. Software piracy is illegal, and if you pirate software, you are liable to run afoul of law enforcement.
"Let the **AAs findthese guys, then sue them. Take 'em to court for damages. I don't get it."
It's refreshing to see that. Typically around here, whenever there's news of more lawsuits from rightsholders, the popular consensus is that if there's really a crime being committed, the *AAs should be handing this over to the government rather than taking the law into their own hands.
He's referring to ideas. Ideas aren't copyrighted. It's the expression of ideas that are protected. Even if that's what he actually meant to say, the fact remains that regardless of his intentions, it's generally against the law to reproduce somebody's copyrighted work without their intent.
The "Thomas Jefferson was good and true and noble and we should use his words to justify our actions even if they break the law" sentiment also tends to fall down when you consider that Mr. "freedom of ideas" Jefferson held a black woman captive against her will and was banging her in the same house in which his wife lived.
"Well, copyright isn't part of a free market economy either. In fact, it's the antithesis of it -- since information has virtually unlimited supply, it is not a scarce resource and thusly its value is undefined. All of this is a fancy way of saying that information in a free market economy is free."
A creative work is in unlimited supply in a free market economy only if the rightsholder has made it so. It's the concept of copyright that maintains a creative work as part of a free market economy; it makes it a potential commodity. If creating an unlimited supply of a copyrighted work means violating that copyright, it's the act of the copyright violation that steps out of bounds of the definition of a free market economy.
It's a bit like saying that money isn't part of a free market economy, because the artificial constraint on supply can be lifted by counterfeiting, or hacking into a bank computer and changing bits. As with copyright violation, once the law has been broken, you're no longer in the realm of the definition of a free market economy. Put in a simpler way, these abstract concepts of money and copyright are part of a free market economy; piracy and counterfeiting are not.
"Instead of whining about lost revenue, perhaps these industries could adapt to the changing market, as they're supposed to in a capitalist system (*cough* RIAA *cough*)."
I'm not sure what you mean. Apple just sold its 20 millionth download, Universal has started an online-only record label, and Apple and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank. If by "adapt" you mean "let people have your product for free," that's not going to happen. Although they may have been slow out of the gate, it seems to me that the record companies are adapting just fine.
" Anyone else find it ironic that this is being reported by Internet Week [internetweek.com] - an online magazine that has no print version?"
Actually, it's very appropriate, which is almost to say it's the opposite of ironic. A story about the New Media taking over is reported by the New Media. Not ironic at all.
The vital difference is that what craigslist is doing is part of a healthy free market economy. Piracy is not part of a free market economy.
Examples:
Kazaa, which exists primarily as a medium for piracy, is being sued. The iTunes Music Store, which respects people's rights, is not.
Torrent tracker sites what deal primarily with unauthorized content, are being menaced by the MPAA. Sites like legaltorrents are not.
A much better analogy would be to compare craigslist with a company like Magnatune, an "open music record label" which I believe fits what many Slashdotters believe to be a better way to run a record company.
" How are they calculating these numbers? Are they saying that these are lost sales from would-be listers? Hmph...."
If you really want to know, The report is free if you don't mind registering with them. For what it's worth, I think you were caught by Ye Olde Misleading Slashdot Summary, which made it appear that the claim was coming directly from the newspaper publishers themselves, rather than an independent analyst group.
"Now, labels are a different story. Yes, their markup for a product is absurd, and a more reasonable profit margin should be targeted."
I'll ask you a similar question I posed the other guy -- what average net margin do you believe the record industry operates at? Since it's obviously too high, what net margin do you think is more reasonable?
"If the sales price would come down to something actually approaching marginal cost, maybe there would be less piracy."
The music industry as a whole operates on less than a 20% net margin. This varies, of course -- Time Warner (which owns Warner Records) made 8% net margin last year, and Vivendi Universal had a 3% loss. By comparison, Logitech and Creative Labs both reported a 12% net margin.
If the record industry had runaway profits, your point would be self-evident, but as the record industry must make do with profits that are generally lower than the computer industry (and, of course, far, far less than many other industries), then it looks like we're applying different standards. That's perfectly reasonable, but just out of curiosity (there are no right or wrong answers here), if you were to change the rules so that record companies had a cap on the net margin they could earn, what would you set it at? 12%, 5%, 3%, etc. ?
"Who the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, and the Pentagon ought to be going after is China, Korea, Thailand, and all the other Southeast Asian countries that are costing American companies millions, if not billions, in 'lost revenues' on computer software sales. Sadly, that would require an act of war..."
The US (and other Berne signatories) do fight piracy in the countries you've mentioned, and it doesn't take an act of war in the sense that you probably mean. It's typically done with economic sanctions.
Slashdot Mirror
"Distributing copyrighted materials without a license is not a criminal offense. It is a violation of a civil right that gives rise to a civil cause of action."
It carries both civil and criminal penalties. Here's where one can learn about criminal copyright infringement.
"And, as others have pointed out, these sites are not distributing copyrighted content, but links to information detailing ways to obtain copyrighted content, subtle difference, but nothing worse than what Grokster is doing and that has already been ruled not to be contributory infringement."
The thing about the law is that those subtle differences can make all the difference. "A is kind of like B, so if A is legal/illegal, so must B" should not be assumed to be true. Torrents are derived from the works in question; they contain hashes of the file and other data. They're more than just an HTML link.
Either way, a quick look at their torrent page makes it pretty darn obvious they know what they're doing. Compare their operation to one of the dozens of legitimate sites like legaltorrents.com.
"your claim is that every program you download is something you would have bought otherwise?"
No. But on at least one occasion I have downloaded something to avoid paying for it -- in other words, I would have bought it if I couldn't have warezed it.
By the way, you bring up an interesting tautology here. It's easy to progress from "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because I couldn't afford it" to "I wouldn't have bought it anyway because it's readily available for free."
"False syllogism." (^2)
I'm not sure if we're talking about the abstract purity of logic here, or the real world. If the former, you're absolutely correct; the fact that I've done something has absolutely no relation to anybody else's actions. But, practically speaking, I'm a fairly normal dude, and since I've warezed stuff to avoid paying for it, and I know others who've done the same, it's a stretch to believe that we're the only ones on the planet who've ever done so. I guess you could say it's the difference between being a student of logic, vs. being a student of human nature.
"We are not talking about what kids did before they got an education."
Thanks for clarifying that. I was of the understanding that your assertation is that we can't point to anybody who's gone from working in a factory to creating intellectual property. If we add the restriction of excluding those who did so without higher education, the list is still extensive. Off the top of my head: William Shakespeare (left home in the country at 17, partially to make his fortune and partially because he'd knocked up a woman of higher social status), Stephen King (was published before he went to college), Charles Dickens (father was a debtor; was pulled from school at 12 years of age to work in a boot black factory), Woody Guthrie (grew up in depression-era Oklahoma; was an "Okie" dust bowl refugee who came to California to find work), and Jack London (raised in poverty, left school at 14, worked odd jobs and rode freight trains as a hobo, and began writing before he pursued higher education).
Again returning to the pure world of abstract logic, these could be the only four humans in history to whom this applies. But it's doubtful.
"Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there."
Good point, but I think they key word here is "impulse." Also, this may seem non-intuitive, but I hope you'll trust the fact that there are many, many people who simply do not have the time, inclination, or trust in buying something used from a private party on eBay -- me being one of them. Perhaps we're stupid, but we're not liars, and we're that group that might finally swing over to the Apple side at the sight of a $500 Apple-branded box at retail, despite used stuff being readily available on eBay.
"For this post, obviously he didn't so much as acknowledge Jefferson's ideas, just took a pot shot using race relations. You wanna talk about that, Shark72? Go find the thread on it."
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. The point is this: what Thomas Jefferson might have thought about IP has almost no relevance to today's society. The quote was used to justify software piracy. What point is there in Thomas Jefferson as a moral compass for the issue of software piracy, when he lived in times so different that not only did they not have computers, but that slavery was condoned? Somebody else mentioned Larry Lessig -- great, then quote him. He has some relevance.
Lastly -- and, yeah, this is a rant -- if you choose to copy somebody's work without their permission, just acknowledge that you're doing it because you'd really rather just have it for free. "I am embodying the noble spirit of Thomas Jefferson by saving the three hundred bucks on PhotoShop" is a cheat.
"A shill or a one issue troll?"
Neither. Consider the possibility that not all Slashdotters have the same moral compass as you do. Being a geek does not necessarily mean that you're pro-piracy.
You're correct on the first part. On the second part, I can and will use the law to my advantage if somebody breaks it in a way that harms my business, including hacking into my site to get free access or to copy my source code.
If I understand you correctly, writing a novel once, or developing a piece of software once, and selling multiple copies of same is bad. However, developing a web site once, and charging multiple people money to access the same web site isn't so bad? Seems the same to me: come up with an idea, implement it once, and then charge over and over again for the same thing.
"How about offering some other explanation other than "I want to sit on my ass an collect royalities.""
And what's wrong with that? I developed a web site that a lot of people like, and many of them pay me for access to the site. I put a lot of work into creating this web site that people like; it's paid off, and now I get to sit on my ass. Not everybody can do what I do, but I'm glad that I'm the one who gets to do it. It sure beats working in a factory.
And, make no mistake: if some kid tries to hack into it using the lame rationale that "information wants to be free," I'll kick his ass right proper.
"And I will postulate the opposite: It has no effect on the economy and social structure: Its only downloaded by two groups: people who are curious but who wouldn't want to buy it if that was the only way to get it (they would then do without) or people who couldn't afford to buy it anyway."
I've warezed stuff in the past to avoid paying for it. I freely admit it. I won't wrap myself in a cloak of intellectual dishonesty and claim that I warezed it out of some social protest or civil disobedience. It was simply the case that I wanted the software, would rather not pay for it, so I warezed it. I can't be the only one who's done this.
"You haven't shown proof that anyone has actually gone from toiling in a factory on minimum wage to suddenly producing "intellectual property" so we'll assume nobody actually have and you just made it up."
Happens all the time. Long ago I worked minimum wage at a KFC. Then I went to college and learned how I could use my brain to make money. And, now I do. Again, I can't be the only one. Hope this helps.
"However it does seem likely that a lot of people want a job where you just have to do the work ONCE and then can keep raking it in over and over and over - those without morals probably dream about that."
I want that, too -- in fact, that's what I do. People pay me for access to a web site which I only had to code once. It's great. Everybody should try it sometime.
Copyright violation, like many other areas of law, has both civil and criminal penalties. In this instance, it's a criminal issue.
The relevant law is here if you would like to learn more about the laws of the US. To fight a law you think is unfair, you must first understand it.
That was a long post; perhaps I can summarize Mr. Jefferson's positions:
Black people and people who might want to make money off of their intellectual endeavors have two things in common: they're glad that Thomas Jefferson isn't around to make laws today.
"There is also no evidence anyone suffered any real damages because of this."
Right you are. There is the mathematical possibility that of the thousands of copies of software he helped distribute, not a single one was distributed to someone who warezed the software so that they wouldn't have to buy it.
"Every day I look at this I see a steady trend toward corporate police state."
I think everybody here agrees with you. If I can summarize:
"Allowing a judge to sentence anyone to prison for copyright infringement is ridiculous. The maximum sentence should be a fine."
I agree, that would be great. I would pirate a lot more stuff if I didn't have to worry about crossing that civil/criminal line. I think lots more people would pirate more. After all, a fine is only money, and if I ran a warez ring and I got fined, I'd just ask my users to kick me a little extra cash, then go right back into business.
" And what is the justification the US government is using to justify doing the **AA's bidding?"
Not to sound circular, but the job of law enforcement is to enforce the laws. Software piracy is illegal, and if you pirate software, you are liable to run afoul of law enforcement.
"Let the **AAs findthese guys, then sue them. Take 'em to court for damages. I don't get it."
It's refreshing to see that. Typically around here, whenever there's news of more lawsuits from rightsholders, the popular consensus is that if there's really a crime being committed, the *AAs should be handing this over to the government rather than taking the law into their own hands.
He's referring to ideas. Ideas aren't copyrighted. It's the expression of ideas that are protected. Even if that's what he actually meant to say, the fact remains that regardless of his intentions, it's generally against the law to reproduce somebody's copyrighted work without their intent.
The "Thomas Jefferson was good and true and noble and we should use his words to justify our actions even if they break the law" sentiment also tends to fall down when you consider that Mr. "freedom of ideas" Jefferson held a black woman captive against her will and was banging her in the same house in which his wife lived.
"Well, copyright isn't part of a free market economy either. In fact, it's the antithesis of it -- since information has virtually unlimited supply, it is not a scarce resource and thusly its value is undefined. All of this is a fancy way of saying that information in a free market economy is free."
A creative work is in unlimited supply in a free market economy only if the rightsholder has made it so. It's the concept of copyright that maintains a creative work as part of a free market economy; it makes it a potential commodity. If creating an unlimited supply of a copyrighted work means violating that copyright, it's the act of the copyright violation that steps out of bounds of the definition of a free market economy.
It's a bit like saying that money isn't part of a free market economy, because the artificial constraint on supply can be lifted by counterfeiting, or hacking into a bank computer and changing bits. As with copyright violation, once the law has been broken, you're no longer in the realm of the definition of a free market economy. Put in a simpler way, these abstract concepts of money and copyright are part of a free market economy; piracy and counterfeiting are not.
"Instead of whining about lost revenue, perhaps these industries could adapt to the changing market, as they're supposed to in a capitalist system (*cough* RIAA *cough*)."
I'm not sure what you mean. Apple just sold its 20 millionth download, Universal has started an online-only record label, and Apple and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank. If by "adapt" you mean "let people have your product for free," that's not going to happen. Although they may have been slow out of the gate, it seems to me that the record companies are adapting just fine.
" Anyone else find it ironic that this is being reported by Internet Week [internetweek.com] - an online magazine that has no print version?"
Actually, it's very appropriate, which is almost to say it's the opposite of ironic. A story about the New Media taking over is reported by the New Media. Not ironic at all.
You linked to the wrong report. The report referenced in the article is free, if you don't mind registering with them.
The vital difference is that what craigslist is doing is part of a healthy free market economy. Piracy is not part of a free market economy.
Examples:
A much better analogy would be to compare craigslist with a company like Magnatune, an "open music record label" which I believe fits what many Slashdotters believe to be a better way to run a record company.
"Quick, let's make sure we pass some legislation that makes Craig's List illegal so we can prop up the profitability of antiquated business models."
Huh? It's the same business model... charge money for running employment classifieds. Craigslist simply does it better than most.
" How are they calculating these numbers? Are they saying that these are lost sales from would-be listers? Hmph...."
If you really want to know, The report is free if you don't mind registering with them. For what it's worth, I think you were caught by Ye Olde Misleading Slashdot Summary, which made it appear that the claim was coming directly from the newspaper publishers themselves, rather than an independent analyst group.
"Now, labels are a different story. Yes, their markup for a product is absurd, and a more reasonable profit margin should be targeted."
I'll ask you a similar question I posed the other guy -- what average net margin do you believe the record industry operates at? Since it's obviously too high, what net margin do you think is more reasonable?
"If the sales price would come down to something actually approaching marginal cost, maybe there would be less piracy."
The music industry as a whole operates on less than a 20% net margin. This varies, of course -- Time Warner (which owns Warner Records) made 8% net margin last year, and Vivendi Universal had a 3% loss. By comparison, Logitech and Creative Labs both reported a 12% net margin.
If the record industry had runaway profits, your point would be self-evident, but as the record industry must make do with profits that are generally lower than the computer industry (and, of course, far, far less than many other industries), then it looks like we're applying different standards. That's perfectly reasonable, but just out of curiosity (there are no right or wrong answers here), if you were to change the rules so that record companies had a cap on the net margin they could earn, what would you set it at? 12%, 5%, 3%, etc. ?
"I view P2P file-sharing as a form of civil disobedience."
And indeed, by installing and using Kazaa you are every bit the hero as those who risked their lives at the diner sit-ins in Montgomery in the 1960's.
Keep on pirating away -- the bigger your collection grows, and the more people with whom you share it, the more sanctified you become. God bless you.
"Who the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, and the Pentagon ought to be going after is China, Korea, Thailand, and all the other Southeast Asian countries that are costing American companies millions, if not billions, in 'lost revenues' on computer software sales. Sadly, that would require an act of war..."
The US (and other Berne signatories) do fight piracy in the countries you've mentioned, and it doesn't take an act of war in the sense that you probably mean. It's typically done with economic sanctions.
Examples and more info: