No, becasue effectively =/= actually having it taken - and even then, the only thing patents cover are expressions of an idea [in the form of inventions] - meaning if you have other means of implementing it, it should still be possible to get it out there.
The fact that software is a different class of "stuff" and not subject to the same laws as previously existing "stuff" doesn't change the fact that you didn't create the software.
I didn't create Firefox, OpenOffice, wxDev-C++, etc, yet they are legally free.. whats your point if not to create untrue arguments and logical errors?
Ah, Stan, but copyright infringement != theft, and != serving jail time.
Doesn't make it right, but only a moron would confuse clarification with justification.
I got a better idea for yall... STOP ILLLLEGGAAALLLLYYYYY DOWNLOADING STUFF THAT DOESNT BELONG TO YOU!!:)
Yeah, 'cause its not like people can / are falsely accused using methodslike 3 strikes./s
If there is a high chance of being wrongfully accused of something by using a particular means, damn right I will complain about it, and in no way does objection to this. automatically mean you pirate.
Its funny that yall complain because there are means put into place to prevent people from stealing stuff.
Maybe because the means of catching alleged lawbreakers plays judge, jury, and executioner without proof or due process?
[and no, theft is not involved last I checked]
Thats like getting upset because you break into a gas station to steal stuff, but get in trouble for it and you cant seem to understand whats wrong.
More like you don't have a fucking clue about what opponents of this are saying and you'd rather continue using tired and dis-proven talking points instead of actually *trying* to read up on the issue and intelligently respond.
Dont be dumb.
Oh the irony...
Dont steal. Dont have any problems.
1. No stealing involved
2. Not committing a crime != immunity from being accused of it.
Also, for all of you that are ignorant (most of you), you dont need court to figure this out.
Uh, yes you do when it comes to alleged crimes, you idiot.
Learn how networks work, and then you'll realize that your IP address tells a LOT about you.
IP addresses only point you to the router, not the person using the computer that uses that router, nor in a network of multiple computers, the computer itself. The dotted-decimal number alone does shit.
....and the people that lose money from you being a thief.
Again, you call people thieves when no such act is involved and when no proof of the contrary [that it is involved] has occurred. Piracy doesn't take money, or anything from somebody that they already had [but have no longer]. Copyright infringement is a totally different beast as backed up by years of case law. Doesn't make it right, and only a complete retard believes that you have to view it as stealing to view it as wrong, but it. fucking. matters.
Think about it honestly.
Again, ironic you state that.
At least Suddenlink gives YOU a chance not to be stupid about how you download shit.
By acting on accusation alone? Bullshit.
At least Suddenlink takes the wrap FOR YOU so that YOU dont have to deal with copyright issues over the stuff YOU are illegally downloading.
Again, ACCUSED. These claims are over allegations, they BELIEVE you are illegally downloading something - doesn't mean you are, or aren't FOR SURE until it is PROVEN one way or another.
Somehow, I think you have trouble with the words "accused" and "allegation," given how you have been so definitive about the unknown, and willing to prosecute without proof/due process.
If it wasnt for them, you'd simply be in trouble for copyright. Plain and simple.
A Slashdot first?
The geek who admits that the P2P pirate can and should be punished like a thief?
Ignorance != admission.
Copyright infringement is still separate from theft in every way except for the person gaining something illegally. Dowling v. U.S in 1985, BTW, made it clear that infringement of copyrights != possession of stolen goods [hah, bet you didn't know anybody who not only knows the differentiation of copyright infringement and theft made in that case, but the SPECIFIC circumstances in which it was needed in that case.
Or maybe the "deniers" as you dismiss them are correct. Consider that burners for CDs were only becoming common around this time, and odds are would *still* be far too expensive for many a household to have - that and the internet was still at the point where broadband had not become widely available yet. Also consider that they were in DIRECT COMPETITION to the PLAYSTATION [and later on the PS2].
IMO, the Dreamcast may have been impacted by piracy, but to attribute the downfall completely to piracy and not include the factors of the gaming market at the time [and SEGA's choice in in how it released the Dreamcast/how it marketed it/when they did] is creating an inherently disingenuous argument.
stephanie myer was working on some book, but because someone leaked it online, she stopped and refuses to go back to it. i'm aware that this isn't due to monetary reasons, as you had hoped, but it does pertain to the question.
So the book leaked, and she goes off whining and pouting instead of finding a way to work past the pitfall? Its nothing new, books are leaked [from major series / authors] often it seems, yet they always find a way to deal with it instead of shutting down future work entirely.
I'd say the question of whether or not a work's failure can be attributed to piracy alone is a very legitimate one, given how many variables there are to begin with in regards to creative works and their success/failure.
The need for p2p users to justify their thief never seems to stop.
Dunno what is astounding, people justifying piracy, or people claiming ignorance on others, only to assume they are justifying piracy when there is little proof that their post was intended to do so. Asking these questions, opposing the RIAA, etc does not [NOT [NOT]] make you a pirate who is justifying anything, using those questions to justify piracy makes you somebody who is trying to justify piracy. Not asking those questions, etc in of themselves.
The people, business, bands, and artists that make the creative work: go broke, terminate, or fail.
Unfortunately, that does not answer whether it was piracy alone, or piracy PLUS a ton of other factors.
Look for some contact info for an independent music label and call them up. Ask them if they've had any problems with piracy. Ask them if there are any albums on their label that have sold less the 200 copies, but have been illegally downloaded more than 200,000 times on p2p sites.
This is called begging the question, and you seem to know for sure the outcome of doing just that, as if it were fact, but with no proof that something completely different won't happen instead. It varies from company to company. [protip: Indie labels/seem/ to be much more open to using P2P, torrenting, etc to promote their artists and get themselves out there than bucking p2p and torrenting like the RIAA, etc do on a regular basis.]
Talk to some people that write code for a living. Ask them if they've ever had code stolen from them, or used without compensation. Talk to a photographer. Ask them if they've ever lost money from someone illegally using one of their images to promote something. Talk to a published author. Ask them if they know how many times their book has been downloaded and what that number equals in lost income.
1. Stealing != "used without compensation," stealing = taking, depriving them of something. Piracy will harm, but to accuse people of being childish yet clinging to such a tired analogy [despite being proven inaccurate by tons of people, sources, etc] is kinda ironic.
2. The issue was not whether or not piracy harms or impacts the development, but whether or not failure can be attributed to piracy alone.
Just because the MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of thugs engaged in legal extortion, doesn't excuse the fact that illegal copies destroys the financial lives of artists.
The whole point of this/. article is that how much it has outright destroyed financial lives of artists/[insert people involved with media creation here] is in debate, as in does it really destroy lives in this fashion all by itself? Statistics show that in the mainstream, corporation saturated field of entertainment, it is very unlikely. In the smaller, lesser known realm of creative works, it is very difficult to tell - due to obscurity, to some degree piracy, and economics among many other factors [getting the people or funds together to do something in the first place for example] that can impact.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are asserting lives have been utterly destroyed due to piracy, I'm saying what the article writer is saying, prove it beyond saying "it is because it is," since there are so many variables involved.
Do you expect that people who do art must be forced to have a day job to do their art?
If they are still trying to make it to a point where they can tap into a continual revenue stream, why shouldn't it be expected that they need a day job to sustain it? When in any other sort of job, you don't start up on the higher levels making a lot off your work, you work your way up from the pits. It is pretty much the same thing.
While I do think unfair undercutting should be prevented when provable and possible, I don't go around expecting to make a continual income just from starting to create, I understand that there is a lot of work and effort to be done before I can even think about being at that level. It is a volatile set of industries, even if you factored piracy out, the dynamics and forces involved are of multiple magnitudes.
If you read a lot of the posts here it is clear the Slashdot Pundits expect that others should work for free to provide them with online entertainment.
More like, if you read the posts here, it is clear that some expect others to work for free to provide online entertainment, but HARDLY enough to justify a gross generalization like this.
By the same logic plagiarism is OK then, right? You arent denying the author access to his creative work.
Easy strawman, since you don't have the light right to begin with. The logic is that no deprivation == no theft, not that no deprivation == it is ok, you idiot.
End of story nothing you arrogant shit, especially since you mis-characterize everybody not supporting this as justifiers / promoters of piracy. Especially since you choose to impose your views on others- here's a hint: morals vary, and law is not black and white. Especially since piracy by the average user - as you are addressing - IS NOT FORPROFIT.
For-profit piracy is scum, but make sure you have your facts straight and can tell the difference between opinion and fact bwefore imposing your views on others.
downloading media without paying for it (it is illegal).
Really, I am breaking the law when I share the song I made myself? (hint: downloading without permission of the copyright holder, not downloading for free in general, is what is illegal. You have your head up your ass too far to be able to take a moral high ground.
That makes P2P file sharing illegal, since I am receiving bits of copyrighted files in return for other bits of copyrighted files
Incorrect - besides the fact that file-sharing protocols don't require you to share, it isn't copyrighted or not - a false framing of the discussion - whether or not you share a work with permission of the holder or not. If it was merely sharing copyrighted files, I would be liable for sharing my own works - copyrighted immediately after creation according to U.S laws.
I am dumbfounded at how many times the word "steal" is used in these replies. Truly the culture thieves (Disney, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have already won.
Indeed. Copying is copying, lying is lying, theft is theft, but copying != theft != lying. Can't tell you how many people I've run into who seem to be unable to grasp this and, not in this thread (yet at least), try to claim the semantical high ground when they really aren't in a position to do so. Words, and their meanings, MATTER.
Slashdot Mirror
No, becasue effectively =/= actually having it taken - and even then, the only thing patents cover are expressions of an idea [in the form of inventions] - meaning if you have other means of implementing it, it should still be possible to get it out there.
The fact that software is a different class of "stuff" and not subject to the same laws as previously existing "stuff" doesn't change the fact that you didn't create the software.
I didn't create Firefox, OpenOffice, wxDev-C++, etc, yet they are legally free.. whats your point if not to create untrue arguments and logical errors?
Ah, Stan, but copyright infringement != theft, and != serving jail time. Doesn't make it right, but only a moron would confuse clarification with justification.
Yeah, 'cause its not like people can / are falsely accused using methodslike 3 strikes. /s
If there is a high chance of being wrongfully accused of something by using a particular means, damn right I will complain about it, and in no way does objection to this. automatically mean you pirate.
Maybe because the means of catching alleged lawbreakers plays judge, jury, and executioner without proof or due process? [and no, theft is not involved last I checked]
More like you don't have a fucking clue about what opponents of this are saying and you'd rather continue using tired and dis-proven talking points instead of actually *trying* to read up on the issue and intelligently respond.
Oh the irony...
1. No stealing involved 2. Not committing a crime != immunity from being accused of it.
Uh, yes you do when it comes to alleged crimes, you idiot.
IP addresses only point you to the router, not the person using the computer that uses that router, nor in a network of multiple computers, the computer itself. The dotted-decimal number alone does shit.
Again, you call people thieves when no such act is involved and when no proof of the contrary [that it is involved] has occurred. Piracy doesn't take money, or anything from somebody that they already had [but have no longer]. Copyright infringement is a totally different beast as backed up by years of case law. Doesn't make it right, and only a complete retard believes that you have to view it as stealing to view it as wrong, but it. fucking. matters.
Again, ironic you state that.
By acting on accusation alone? Bullshit.
Again, ACCUSED. These claims are over allegations, they BELIEVE you are illegally downloading something - doesn't mean you are, or aren't FOR SURE until it is PROVEN one way or another. Somehow, I think you have trouble with the words "accused" and "allegation," given how you have been so definitive about the unknown, and willing to prosecute without proof/due process.
[citation needed]
[citation needed] Last I checked, nothing was being stolen here.
Sounds like you [AntEater] are making some very baseless generalizations against those who use profanity. This antiquated/archaic idea needs to end.
Ignorance != admission. Copyright infringement is still separate from theft in every way except for the person gaining something illegally. Dowling v. U.S in 1985, BTW, made it clear that infringement of copyrights != possession of stolen goods [hah, bet you didn't know anybody who not only knows the differentiation of copyright infringement and theft made in that case, but the SPECIFIC circumstances in which it was needed in that case.
Identity theft and missing persons aren't costing $500 billion a year, are they?
And piracy is?
No. They need reasonable suspicion.
No, they need PROBABLE CAUSE , very different [or rather, somewhat different] than reasonable suspicion.
Yeah, like your narrow definition of creative is more correct than someone else's, cure. /s [damn anon. cowards]
Or maybe the "deniers" as you dismiss them are correct. Consider that burners for CDs were only becoming common around this time, and odds are would *still* be far too expensive for many a household to have - that and the internet was still at the point where broadband had not become widely available yet. Also consider that they were in DIRECT COMPETITION to the PLAYSTATION [and later on the PS2]. IMO, the Dreamcast may have been impacted by piracy, but to attribute the downfall completely to piracy and not include the factors of the gaming market at the time [and SEGA's choice in in how it released the Dreamcast/how it marketed it/when they did] is creating an inherently disingenuous argument.
I fail to see how you can pirate someone's music and "support" him at the same time
Maybe by buying what one pirates after they pirated it, or so the idea goes. Not saying whether I agree with it or not, but that is one possibility.
The two are usually mutually INclusive (not EXclusive)
Maybe creators will just stop creating
BS. People will always find a way to make money from their work, find reason [commercial and noncommercial alike] to create.
stephanie myer was working on some book, but because someone leaked it online, she stopped and refuses to go back to it. i'm aware that this isn't due to monetary reasons, as you had hoped, but it does pertain to the question.
So the book leaked, and she goes off whining and pouting instead of finding a way to work past the pitfall? Its nothing new, books are leaked [from major series / authors] often it seems, yet they always find a way to deal with it instead of shutting down future work entirely.
Troll or Serious?
I'd say the question of whether or not a work's failure can be attributed to piracy alone is a very legitimate one, given how many variables there are to begin with in regards to creative works and their success/failure.
The need for p2p users to justify their thief never seems to stop.
Dunno what is astounding, people justifying piracy, or people claiming ignorance on others, only to assume they are justifying piracy when there is little proof that their post was intended to do so. Asking these questions, opposing the RIAA, etc does not [NOT [ NOT ]] make you a pirate who is justifying anything, using those questions to justify piracy makes you somebody who is trying to justify piracy. Not asking those questions, etc in of themselves.
The people, business, bands, and artists that make the creative work: go broke, terminate, or fail.
Unfortunately, that does not answer whether it was piracy alone, or piracy PLUS a ton of other factors.
Look for some contact info for an independent music label and call them up. Ask them if they've had any problems with piracy. Ask them if there are any albums on their label that have sold less the 200 copies, but have been illegally downloaded more than 200,000 times on p2p sites.
This is called begging the question, and you seem to know for sure the outcome of doing just that, as if it were fact, but with no proof that something completely different won't happen instead. It varies from company to company. [protip: Indie labels /seem/ to be much more open to using P2P, torrenting, etc to promote their artists and get themselves out there than bucking p2p and torrenting like the RIAA, etc do on a regular basis.]
Talk to some people that write code for a living. Ask them if they've ever had code stolen from them, or used without compensation. Talk to a photographer. Ask them if they've ever lost money from someone illegally using one of their images to promote something. Talk to a published author. Ask them if they know how many times their book has been downloaded and what that number equals in lost income.
1. Stealing != "used without compensation," stealing = taking, depriving them of something. Piracy will harm, but to accuse people of being childish yet clinging to such a tired analogy [despite being proven inaccurate by tons of people, sources, etc] is kinda ironic.
2. The issue was not whether or not piracy harms or impacts the development, but whether or not failure can be attributed to piracy alone.
Done ranting, but 12 year old's need to know.
Wow, ad hominem much?
Just because the MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of thugs engaged in legal extortion, doesn't excuse the fact that illegal copies destroys the financial lives of artists.
The whole point of this /. article is that how much it has outright destroyed financial lives of artists/[insert people involved with media creation here] is in debate, as in does it really destroy lives in this fashion all by itself? Statistics show that in the mainstream, corporation saturated field of entertainment, it is very unlikely. In the smaller, lesser known realm of creative works, it is very difficult to tell - due to obscurity, to some degree piracy, and economics among many other factors [getting the people or funds together to do something in the first place for example] that can impact.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are asserting lives have been utterly destroyed due to piracy, I'm saying what the article writer is saying, prove it beyond saying "it is because it is," since there are so many variables involved.
Do you expect that people who do art must be forced to have a day job to do their art?
If they are still trying to make it to a point where they can tap into a continual revenue stream, why shouldn't it be expected that they need a day job to sustain it? When in any other sort of job, you don't start up on the higher levels making a lot off your work, you work your way up from the pits. It is pretty much the same thing.
While I do think unfair undercutting should be prevented when provable and possible, I don't go around expecting to make a continual income just from starting to create, I understand that there is a lot of work and effort to be done before I can even think about being at that level. It is a volatile set of industries, even if you factored piracy out, the dynamics and forces involved are of multiple magnitudes.
If you read a lot of the posts here it is clear the Slashdot Pundits expect that others should work for free to provide them with online entertainment.
More like, if you read the posts here, it is clear that some expect others to work for free to provide online entertainment, but HARDLY enough to justify a gross generalization like this.
There may have been other reasons the system failed, but piracy really killed it.
And not the terrible timing on SEGA's part?
Re: the article, "I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet!"
By the same logic plagiarism is OK then, right? You arent denying the author access to his creative work.
Easy strawman, since you don't have the light right to begin with. The logic is that no deprivation == no theft, not that no deprivation == it is ok, you idiot.
Damn, that triggered a StarCraft quote: Jim Raynor:
End of story nothing you arrogant shit, especially since you mis-characterize everybody not supporting this as justifiers / promoters of piracy. Especially since you choose to impose your views on others- here's a hint: morals vary, and law is not black and white. Especially since piracy by the average user - as you are addressing - IS NOT FORPROFIT.
For-profit piracy is scum, but make sure you have your facts straight and can tell the difference between opinion and fact bwefore imposing your views on others.
downloading media without paying for it (it is illegal).
Really, I am breaking the law when I share the song I made myself? (hint: downloading without permission of the copyright holder, not downloading for free in general, is what is illegal. You have your head up your ass too far to be able to take a moral high ground.
That makes P2P file sharing illegal, since I am receiving bits of copyrighted files in return for other bits of copyrighted files
Incorrect - besides the fact that file-sharing protocols don't require you to share, it isn't copyrighted or not - a false framing of the discussion - whether or not you share a work with permission of the holder or not. If it was merely sharing copyrighted files, I would be liable for sharing my own works - copyrighted immediately after creation according to U.S laws.
Digital Vomit write:
I am dumbfounded at how many times the word "steal" is used in these replies. Truly the culture thieves (Disney, RIAA, MPAA, etc.) have already won.
Indeed. Copying is copying, lying is lying, theft is theft, but copying != theft != lying. Can't tell you how many people I've run into who seem to be unable to grasp this and, not in this thread (yet at least), try to claim the semantical high ground when they really aren't in a position to do so. Words, and their meanings, MATTER.