Are you comparing shoplifting CDs and recieving stolen property to this?
[For those of you who don't know, the case that separated theft and copyright infringement which is often cited here dealt with THAT EXACT argument comparing posession of/ trafficking of stolen goods to copyright infringement]
Are you really going to sit there and suggest that hundreds of millions of kids downloading pirated music and movies aren't, in some portion, doing it to avoid having to pay for their entertainment?
That isn't the point being made - the point was about the difference between "real" loss and hypothetical loss.
We're talking about using a massive distribution network to deliberately make works available to millions of anonymous people, in perfect copies
Of course, there's the rub - HOW do you quantify any solid numbers.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT: There is NO theft at all. YOU made that copy of the work - not the person whom from you copy, leaving the person with the original. And theft, so far, has never been a super or subset of copyright infringement in any sense - affirmed, for example, by Dowling v. U.S [1985] and the Grokster case, unless you call Judge Noonan a liar.
No, media bits can't be stolen THEREFORE calling it stealing or theft is disingenuous. Doesn't mean piracy is right [and only a moron would, IMO, assume calling out a disingenuous label to a "crime" == supporting said "crime]
Oh come on, it will hurt us if we protest, or be vocal about it? No wonder nothing ever gets done, we don't take advantage of all our legal options because of some bullshit fear about our image.
Somebody should tell ACM that plagiarism has jack shit to do with copyright in of itself - copyright infringement =/= plagiarism, plagiarism might involve copyright infringement, but is NOT how it is determined.
In High School, they tried to cram the concept of "self plagiarism" down our throats - what a crock of shit... you can NOT by DEFINITION plagiarize YOUR OWN WORKS. Recycling may be lazy, may violate other ethics, but to call it plagiarism is, IMO, very intellectually dishonest of these institutions.
I wonder, how is the false positive / false negative rate? I mean, places like turnitin.com for example shows this problem quite well with regards to how even quotes - cited and all - raise some flags.
Nor is plagiarism - plagiarism is fraud. The idea that it is more than that, IMO of course, is built on a fallacy driven need to drill into the heads of minds [like myself] about the seriousness of it. I can't help, however, in thinking that they have gone overboard and instead of effectively teaching us away, they seem more bent on SCARING THE EVERLOVING SHIT out of us and that, IMO, does NOT help in understanding ANY material/concept/etc.
And that right there is the main problem for most users. 90% of computer users don't want to have to do "a little jigging" to get every single thing they want to do to work, let alone know how to do it.
Ah, but there are programs to make it easy for the other %. Just like, for example, one doesn't need to rely on a command line to program in C++ or write text documents [FULL GUI DRIVEN IDEs & EDITORS EXIST], or even more obscurely, one doesn't need a hex editor to hack popular games when editors do it for you. WHATEVER THE APPLICATION, if there is a demand to make it easier for more people to do it, historically it seems that this demand is always met.
Yeah, and if they refused to come, or act, and there were no "paying customers" next door - then you would have a large, uncontrolled fire using the logic behind this system. That there is a paying customer next door was, IMO, a miracle.
If you're distributing free copies of software, you're depriving the author of the revenue he would have received if he had been able to sell those copies
In of itself, IMO, meaningless - not buying it [or pirating], making your own software to compete, or just saying the hypothetical person's software sucks and as a result having 1 less person buy it does exactly the same thing, yet these things are not morally reprehensible - which means that it is far more complicated than this over-simplification of what/why/how.
This is why we have copyright laws: so that people who generate content can be fairly compensated for their efforts.
Copyright was meant for control - and that's it. Control over how a work could be used, distributed, etc for a limited time after which it went back to the public. That limited control stimulated the creation of work. It never specificed WHY the control was given, just that the creator retained exclusive control.
Slashdot Mirror
Except most likely, if not almost always, the music put on P2P networks was purchased from somewhere, so your analogy still sucks.
Are you comparing shoplifting CDs and recieving stolen property to this? [For those of you who don't know, the case that separated theft and copyright infringement which is often cited here dealt with THAT EXACT argument comparing posession of/ trafficking of stolen goods to copyright infringement]
Are you really going to sit there and suggest that hundreds of millions of kids downloading pirated music and movies aren't, in some portion, doing it to avoid having to pay for their entertainment?
That isn't the point being made - the point was about the difference between "real" loss and hypothetical loss.
We're talking about using a massive distribution network to deliberately make works available to millions of anonymous people, in perfect copies
Of course, there's the rub - HOW do you quantify any solid numbers.
I can tell [more accurately] that you can't make intellectually honest arguments.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT: There is NO theft at all. YOU made that copy of the work - not the person whom from you copy, leaving the person with the original. And theft, so far, has never been a super or subset of copyright infringement in any sense - affirmed, for example, by Dowling v. U.S [1985] and the Grokster case, unless you call Judge Noonan a liar.
But when it comes to what constitutes theft, what constitutes copyright infringement, that is irrelevant.
Recording off of radio, TV, etc has been legal since Betamax. Get your history right.
Deprive them of their rights, like to go after those infringing on the copyright of said person's work? Yeah, depriving them of their rights my ass.
So pirates only download and never purchase the media they like, or want to contribute [finalcial] support to? Baseless and false dichotomy.
No, media bits can't be stolen THEREFORE calling it stealing or theft is disingenuous. Doesn't mean piracy is right [and only a moron would, IMO, assume calling out a disingenuous label to a "crime" == supporting said "crime]
Oh come on, it will hurt us if we protest, or be vocal about it? No wonder nothing ever gets done, we don't take advantage of all our legal options because of some bullshit fear about our image.
Somebody should tell ACM that plagiarism has jack shit to do with copyright in of itself - copyright infringement =/= plagiarism, plagiarism might involve copyright infringement, but is NOT how it is determined.
In High School, they tried to cram the concept of "self plagiarism" down our throats - what a crock of shit... you can NOT by DEFINITION plagiarize YOUR OWN WORKS. Recycling may be lazy, may violate other ethics, but to call it plagiarism is, IMO, very intellectually dishonest of these institutions.
I wonder, how is the false positive / false negative rate? I mean, places like turnitin.com for example shows this problem quite well with regards to how even quotes - cited and all - raise some flags.
Nor is plagiarism - plagiarism is fraud. The idea that it is more than that, IMO of course, is built on a fallacy driven need to drill into the heads of minds [like myself] about the seriousness of it. I can't help, however, in thinking that they have gone overboard and instead of effectively teaching us away, they seem more bent on SCARING THE EVERLOVING SHIT out of us and that, IMO, does NOT help in understanding ANY material/concept/etc.
And that right there is the main problem for most users. 90% of computer users don't want to have to do "a little jigging" to get every single thing they want to do to work, let alone know how to do it.
Ah, but there are programs to make it easy for the other %. Just like, for example, one doesn't need to rely on a command line to program in C++ or write text documents [FULL GUI DRIVEN IDEs & EDITORS EXIST], or even more obscurely, one doesn't need a hex editor to hack popular games when editors do it for you. WHATEVER THE APPLICATION, if there is a demand to make it easier for more people to do it, historically it seems that this demand is always met.
EDIT: 101010base2 = 42base10, or -22base10 after 2's compliment. Now I'm not hung over while trying to do basic boolean arithmetic.
Whoops, I was hung over when writing that answer, thanks for that correction.
EDIT: 101010base2 is 42base10, OR -21base2 after 2's compliment /geek
Then it dawned on me that 101010base2 was 42base10...
101010base2 is 42base10, OR -10base10 after 2's compliment.
...Steal Behavior Patterns
Funny, I still have my behavioral patterns here, neatly organized in alphabetical order... *shot*
Yeah, and if they refused to come, or act, and there were no "paying customers" next door - then you would have a large, uncontrolled fire using the logic behind this system. That there is a paying customer next door was, IMO, a miracle.
Why should we protect the identity of P2P pirates?
Accused =/= convicted
They have been deprived of the right to control (re)production of their work
You mean like the right to go after thse infringing on their copyrights? Bullshit.
If you're distributing free copies of software, you're depriving the author of the revenue he would have received if he had been able to sell those copies
In of itself, IMO, meaningless - not buying it [or pirating], making your own software to compete, or just saying the hypothetical person's software sucks and as a result having 1 less person buy it does exactly the same thing, yet these things are not morally reprehensible - which means that it is far more complicated than this over-simplification of what/why/how.
This is why we have copyright laws: so that people who generate content can be fairly compensated for their efforts.
Copyright was meant for control - and that's it. Control over how a work could be used, distributed, etc for a limited time after which it went back to the public. That limited control stimulated the creation of work. It never specificed WHY the control was given, just that the creator retained exclusive control.