It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes.
That's better than most pirates!
No, but seriously, you make a very good point, and I'd like to support it. I would also like to say that I buy DRMed content, fully aware of the risks involved, and I am definitely not an idiot.;-)
Imagine if, one day, you pulled the book off the shelf, and you found mould growing inside it, obscuring the words. Or imagine that a fire started in your house and the book burned up. How could we have predicted this!? Imagine buying a book, and never knowing when it would succumb to wear and tear! We should sue book manufacturers!
(OK, I realise I should qualify this lest I get a troll mod for my dissenting opinion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that physical media has its own bottlenecks and pitfalls. DRMed media has different, perhaps narrower, bottlenecks. It's not as cut and dried as the lynch mob makes it sound.)
Umm, OK. Do you want to give a specific example of them infringing copyrights and/or raiding ships on the high seas, or was that just a vacuous snark devoid of any roots in truth?
you are a troll
I don't know, but I'd say that's strike two. I would say the same thing out of actually believing it, not to gather a reaction. Judging by afore-mentioned meaningless and inflammatory snark, I'd say you rate much closer to a troll than the GP.
so screw you on that too
Maybe I'm wrong.
And GPL is a necessary defense against the restrictions of copyright
A "defence" against restrictions of copyright? The restrictions aren't attacking open source software; they're entirely optional. There is absolutely no reason why we need to force derivative works to also be open source in order to maintain an FOSS work. BSD licensed software are evidence enough of that, which are, in practice, more of a disclaimer than anything else.
I've heard similar opinions before, and I simply cannot believe how little thought goes into them.
The reason why people GPL their open source projects is because they like having some control over their works, in that they can't be exploited for profit (but can be improved for profit), and that's what copyright provides. It's a fair ask only if you accept some form of copyright. Otherwise, you should be asking "why should I be forced to provide the source code if it's my copy?" It's a fair question, assuming you don't accept copyright.
Well, I would guess that it depends whether or not they actually promote the idea of having a lengthy period of time in which the product works. I see what you're saying about there being an expectation involved, but if you actually think about it, like you said, physical media wears out at some unspecified time in the future, and so will this. The difference is that, with physical media, you get more influence as to when it does stop working (by taking good care of the media), and that's not exactly expected in this day and age of digital downloads. DRMed non-physical media, in fact, has the potential to outlast physical media, so we can't exactly protest based on the amount of functional time for each.
Without a specific, legally backed, expectation, we can only rely on them actively promoting the perception that it will last forever, or at least as long or longer than physical media. You might be able to twist something like "Download to your phone to listen to whenever you want" as a promise to always have access to your music, but then again, if they include anything in the fine print, then you're stuffed.
I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time arguing this in court.
I will buy a product over pirating it if the price is reasonable and it's equal quality (IE, no DRM).
I will buy a product over not buying a product if the price is reasonable. I realise I have no right to have that product, especially not at a price that I would deem reasonable (with no oversight), so I make a choice of having it and buying it, or not buying it and not having it. I know that when demand drops, the price will drop, or at least I might be able to pick it up second hand for cheap (depending on the product), so I don't get too worried about it.
Wait, if you buy a copy of a song, then doesn't that contradict your ignoring/fighting copyright? Or, to put it more bluntly, do you actually have this objection in a practical sense in that you buy songs and want to distribute them/sell them/claim them as your own, do you just ignore copyright on a purely hypothetical basis, or do you just buy/ignore whenever you damn well feel like it?
Piracy is a considerably more corrupt doctrine (with precious little oversight) that should definitely not be ignored, but should always be fought.
The correct way to fight copyright is to ignore it and everything it produces, in that you shouldn't buy, distribute, or acquire illegally anything that is, or was ever, copyrighted. In that way, you demonstrate that you can and want to live in a world without copyright, that is, you can live on the offerings of artists who don't expect any money or control of their creations in return for creating them.
Prosecuting file-sharers gives better revenue than selling music.
Hey, you know what'd be great? If they didn't have a revenue stream like that. Y'know, if there were no pirates out there to prosecute. Then they'd be forced to work on their music instead!
I mean, did you really, honestly believe that I thought he was literally trying to censor my comment? I know he was trying to be funny, but if he actually tried to make a point, rather than pointless snarks, he might actually sound like less of a idiot.
I believe you, but you're not the only one in the same situation. Other people would just as easily pirate expensive games and buy cheap games, not realising that what they're doing hinders the lowering of game prices.
I saw your post, and I have to confess I was a little disappointed. I've posted this argument before, and it usually instantly kills any discussion about whether or not copyright is stealing, so I saw that I had a reply to this post, and I was hoping that someone had tried to poke a hole in my argument, but sadly no. It still reigns supreme.;)
But seriously, I have this possibly irrational belief in the power of rational arguments. I think that most people don't fully comprehend copyright, or rely on knee-jerk reactions and purely emotive arguments (e.g. the classic "information wants to be free"). Add to this, there's the cognitive dissonance involved with coming to the realisation that what you're doing, what you have been doing for years, and what you've been actively and publicly defending is wrong and harmful. As the final cherry on top, the slashdot groupthink cements it into slashdot common sense. I'm hoping that a patient, constant stream of logical arguments will chip away at all these factors.
And I think it's making a difference too. Have you noticed how, while anti-**AA sentiments are relatively constant, highly moderated posts regarding the abolishing of copyright have gone steadily down? Also, posts calling anyone who supports copyright a shill are rather rare these days. Nowadays, if you want to be modded up, you at least need to seem slightly moderate on the subject. It's a win in my book!
And with that, you completely dodged the meat of the GP's argument, successfully distracting us from the rationale in the GP's post. Congrats!
Oh, and piracy is stealing. You're stealing something intangible: value from the copyright. For every copy out there, there's less demand. A little bit of value of the copyright is sold off to each person who has a copy. Once a certain number of people have a copy such that nobody else wants a copy, then the value of the copyright is completely spent. Thus, although it's intangible and state-granted, the copyright is a finite resource with real value. Piracy chips away at the value of the copyright, and thus, I would consider it stealing, just like I would consider counterfeiting money stealing by increment from people with real money.
Just where do they think they're going to get customers?
Does it matter? Clearly, if you and piracy come in a package, then they don't want your money. Don't buy, don't pirate. Let their plan come to fruition without you, and let's see if it was as well thought out as they hoped.
I'd think they would rather have me pirate the game than not play at all.
Not officially, and that's what counts. Until they announce that it's OK to play without pay, then I'd just ignore them.
I don't say this in defence of Ubisoft, I say this to initiate change. I honestly believe that we are capable of changing the market safely in favour of looser copyright restrictions. And I gotta admit, that would be pretty sweet.
Any company that actually realizes that piracy is their competition has taken the first step towards fighting it. If you treat piracy as this evil, criminal act, and try to stop it with force, you will get nowhere. Instead, you can stop it by making the legitimate copy a better product than the pirated one.
I remember you! You said you were working on something that accomplishes exactly that, but you were under an NDA at the time. How's it going?
Just for the record though, I'm still sceptical that such an endeavour is possible, but I could be wrong.
So here's a suggestion: buy only games that are priced under 20 euros, and don't touch the rest.
In fact, current piracy is driving up the cost of creating of games, and that's bound to have an effect on price. Perhaps if we see less piracy in future, and more people willing to deprive themselves of big titles for the sake of bringing down prices, we might see them drop.
... who blamed all those previously reported drops in sales on loss of quality will surely attribute this spike similarly: as a rise in quality? Surely they weren't just coming up with excuses to justify their illegal behaviour, right?
Seriously though, this is all a non-issue. It's up to the copyright holder what they do with their works. Whether sharing is beneficial or not, it's still not up to us to dictate to artists how they should market their product. If the statistics say that sales with sharing are higher than without, then eventually, artists will start allowing sharing. If it works, they'll probably do it again, and others will pick up the trend. Right now, these trends have a far too high chance of being coincidence, or something related to both sharing and sales (e.g. quality, as mentioned before), so this is far from convincing evidence, let alone proof, that the sharing system works.
Be patient. If sharing produces a superior culture, then it's only a matter of time before demand, and eventually supply, will reflect that. Until then, to aid the process of change, I strongly suggest that you don't pirate, lest you start muddying the difference between the two systems. If we stick to sharing only shareable works, then full cost of restricted media will become apparent, as will the value of (or perhaps lack thereof) what restricted media creates. Right now, pirates get free access to everything that restricted media created. We have to each make choices: buy restricted and stick to it, or buy free and do what you damn well please.
The guy really needs to know when to open his mouth and when not to. For instance, he should talk less about disease and more about how to make Linux a better product
Perhaps he should but he makes a valid point, even if the word "disease" is a little inflammatory. In order to better Linux, we need to be man enough to stow the attitude (for now), and accept friendly gestures, no matter the source, for the sake of change in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
That's better than most pirates!
No, but seriously, you make a very good point, and I'd like to support it. I would also like to say that I buy DRMed content, fully aware of the risks involved, and I am definitely not an idiot. ;-)
Imagine if, one day, you pulled the book off the shelf, and you found mould growing inside it, obscuring the words. Or imagine that a fire started in your house and the book burned up. How could we have predicted this!? Imagine buying a book, and never knowing when it would succumb to wear and tear! We should sue book manufacturers!
(OK, I realise I should qualify this lest I get a troll mod for my dissenting opinion. Essentially, what I'm saying is that physical media has its own bottlenecks and pitfalls. DRMed media has different, perhaps narrower, bottlenecks. It's not as cut and dried as the lynch mob makes it sound.)
W... T... F...?
Umm, OK. Do you want to give a specific example of them infringing copyrights and/or raiding ships on the high seas, or was that just a vacuous snark devoid of any roots in truth?
I don't know, but I'd say that's strike two. I would say the same thing out of actually believing it, not to gather a reaction. Judging by afore-mentioned meaningless and inflammatory snark, I'd say you rate much closer to a troll than the GP.
Maybe I'm wrong.
A "defence" against restrictions of copyright? The restrictions aren't attacking open source software; they're entirely optional. There is absolutely no reason why we need to force derivative works to also be open source in order to maintain an FOSS work. BSD licensed software are evidence enough of that, which are, in practice, more of a disclaimer than anything else.
I've heard similar opinions before, and I simply cannot believe how little thought goes into them.
The reason why people GPL their open source projects is because they like having some control over their works, in that they can't be exploited for profit (but can be improved for profit), and that's what copyright provides. It's a fair ask only if you accept some form of copyright. Otherwise, you should be asking "why should I be forced to provide the source code if it's my copy?" It's a fair question, assuming you don't accept copyright.
Wait. How are they "legally sanctioned"?
No! That's a terrible idea! You'll just be convicted for murder, and...
(IANAL)
Well, I would guess that it depends whether or not they actually promote the idea of having a lengthy period of time in which the product works. I see what you're saying about there being an expectation involved, but if you actually think about it, like you said, physical media wears out at some unspecified time in the future, and so will this. The difference is that, with physical media, you get more influence as to when it does stop working (by taking good care of the media), and that's not exactly expected in this day and age of digital downloads. DRMed non-physical media, in fact, has the potential to outlast physical media, so we can't exactly protest based on the amount of functional time for each.
Without a specific, legally backed, expectation, we can only rely on them actively promoting the perception that it will last forever, or at least as long or longer than physical media. You might be able to twist something like "Download to your phone to listen to whenever you want" as a promise to always have access to your music, but then again, if they include anything in the fine print, then you're stuffed.
I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time arguing this in court.
I will buy a product over not buying a product if the price is reasonable. I realise I have no right to have that product, especially not at a price that I would deem reasonable (with no oversight), so I make a choice of having it and buying it, or not buying it and not having it. I know that when demand drops, the price will drop, or at least I might be able to pick it up second hand for cheap (depending on the product), so I don't get too worried about it.
Wait, if you buy a copy of a song, then doesn't that contradict your ignoring/fighting copyright? Or, to put it more bluntly, do you actually have this objection in a practical sense in that you buy songs and want to distribute them/sell them/claim them as your own, do you just ignore copyright on a purely hypothetical basis, or do you just buy/ignore whenever you damn well feel like it?
Piracy is a considerably more corrupt doctrine (with precious little oversight) that should definitely not be ignored, but should always be fought.
The correct way to fight copyright is to ignore it and everything it produces, in that you shouldn't buy, distribute, or acquire illegally anything that is, or was ever, copyrighted. In that way, you demonstrate that you can and want to live in a world without copyright, that is, you can live on the offerings of artists who don't expect any money or control of their creations in return for creating them.
No-one said it would be easy...
I, for one, welcome our pro-human biased overlords.
Oh.
Well, I guess I was a little over-zealous and angry myself. Sorry about that.
I think you misunderstood me AC. I was playing on the immediate blaming of record labels, rather than the people who rip them off.
Still you make a good point.
Wait wait, wait. You think that EMI inconveniencing small business owners, who willingly sell their goods, is a reason for you to personally pirate?
Why don't you just admit now that you'll use any flimsy pretence to pirate?
Hey, you know what'd be great? If they didn't have a revenue stream like that. Y'know, if there were no pirates out there to prosecute. Then they'd be forced to work on their music instead!
Ah, a world without piracy. That would be nice.
Superman?
I'm not sure if your statement is fixable.
I mean, did you really, honestly believe that I thought he was literally trying to censor my comment? I know he was trying to be funny, but if he actually tried to make a point, rather than pointless snarks, he might actually sound like less of a idiot.
I believe you, but you're not the only one in the same situation. Other people would just as easily pirate expensive games and buy cheap games, not realising that what they're doing hinders the lowering of game prices.
I saw your post, and I have to confess I was a little disappointed. I've posted this argument before, and it usually instantly kills any discussion about whether or not copyright is stealing, so I saw that I had a reply to this post, and I was hoping that someone had tried to poke a hole in my argument, but sadly no. It still reigns supreme. ;)
But seriously, I have this possibly irrational belief in the power of rational arguments. I think that most people don't fully comprehend copyright, or rely on knee-jerk reactions and purely emotive arguments (e.g. the classic "information wants to be free"). Add to this, there's the cognitive dissonance involved with coming to the realisation that what you're doing, what you have been doing for years, and what you've been actively and publicly defending is wrong and harmful. As the final cherry on top, the slashdot groupthink cements it into slashdot common sense. I'm hoping that a patient, constant stream of logical arguments will chip away at all these factors.
And I think it's making a difference too. Have you noticed how, while anti-**AA sentiments are relatively constant, highly moderated posts regarding the abolishing of copyright have gone steadily down? Also, posts calling anyone who supports copyright a shill are rather rare these days. Nowadays, if you want to be modded up, you at least need to seem slightly moderate on the subject. It's a win in my book!
And with that, you completely dodged the meat of the GP's argument, successfully distracting us from the rationale in the GP's post. Congrats!
Oh, and piracy is stealing. You're stealing something intangible: value from the copyright. For every copy out there, there's less demand. A little bit of value of the copyright is sold off to each person who has a copy. Once a certain number of people have a copy such that nobody else wants a copy, then the value of the copyright is completely spent. Thus, although it's intangible and state-granted, the copyright is a finite resource with real value. Piracy chips away at the value of the copyright, and thus, I would consider it stealing, just like I would consider counterfeiting money stealing by increment from people with real money.
Piracy is stealing. Stealing is wrong.
Does it matter? Clearly, if you and piracy come in a package, then they don't want your money. Don't buy, don't pirate. Let their plan come to fruition without you, and let's see if it was as well thought out as they hoped.
Not officially, and that's what counts. Until they announce that it's OK to play without pay, then I'd just ignore them.
I don't say this in defence of Ubisoft, I say this to initiate change. I honestly believe that we are capable of changing the market safely in favour of looser copyright restrictions. And I gotta admit, that would be pretty sweet.
I remember you! You said you were working on something that accomplishes exactly that, but you were under an NDA at the time. How's it going?
Just for the record though, I'm still sceptical that such an endeavour is possible, but I could be wrong.
So here's a suggestion: buy only games that are priced under 20 euros, and don't touch the rest.
In fact, current piracy is driving up the cost of creating of games, and that's bound to have an effect on price. Perhaps if we see less piracy in future, and more people willing to deprive themselves of big titles for the sake of bringing down prices, we might see them drop.
Here's an even better anti-piracy tool: release everything for free! Instantly cave to all demands. Then nobody would have cause to pirate!
Damn, I'm clever!
... who blamed all those previously reported drops in sales on loss of quality will surely attribute this spike similarly: as a rise in quality? Surely they weren't just coming up with excuses to justify their illegal behaviour, right?
Seriously though, this is all a non-issue. It's up to the copyright holder what they do with their works. Whether sharing is beneficial or not, it's still not up to us to dictate to artists how they should market their product. If the statistics say that sales with sharing are higher than without, then eventually, artists will start allowing sharing. If it works, they'll probably do it again, and others will pick up the trend. Right now, these trends have a far too high chance of being coincidence, or something related to both sharing and sales (e.g. quality, as mentioned before), so this is far from convincing evidence, let alone proof, that the sharing system works.
Be patient. If sharing produces a superior culture, then it's only a matter of time before demand, and eventually supply, will reflect that. Until then, to aid the process of change, I strongly suggest that you don't pirate, lest you start muddying the difference between the two systems. If we stick to sharing only shareable works, then full cost of restricted media will become apparent, as will the value of (or perhaps lack thereof) what restricted media creates. Right now, pirates get free access to everything that restricted media created. We have to each make choices: buy restricted and stick to it, or buy free and do what you damn well please.
Perhaps he should but he makes a valid point, even if the word "disease" is a little inflammatory. In order to better Linux, we need to be man enough to stow the attitude (for now), and accept friendly gestures, no matter the source, for the sake of change in the long term.
Wait, did you just put words in his mouth...
... and then argue against them?
Just checking.
Geeks.
We can't remember anything without a dollar $ign!