Your opinion on piracy?

The only reason you can get away with lending a movie, is because the movie industry hasn't found a way to manufacture cheap GPS units that electrocute you if you try to leave your house with it. There are laws being drafted in the US right now that will outlaw time-shifting. It is considered worse than piracy (because they havn't found a way to link it to drugs or terrorism yet). The used game market is also a few steps away from being outlawed. I'm beginning to think we don't actually own anything we buy anymore.

What is this "ownership" of which you speak? Nowadays, after outlaying dozens or indeed hundreds of dollars your ability to keep using what you purchased is dependent on some sort of connection with a server, or not changing the PC you installed it on, or not losing the original disk, or a host of other things.

A VCR is a device for piracy. It allows you to make illegal copies of movies and TV programs.

Possibly true, but it also allowed me to make legal copies of films and TV programmes.

Time-shifting is entirely legal in the UK, under a specific exclusion in the copyright act. You are free to watch as many times as you like, but you are not allowed to retain indefinitely. Ad-skipping is also entirely legal. During the period that I owned a VCR, I bought a couple of hundred pre-recorded tapes, but only a few blanks for time-shifting. I also had a Hard-disk/DVD recorder for a while, and I don't recall ever burning a DVD with it, but it meant I could replace two boxes with one. Now I have a Sky+ box (like a Tivo). Its entire purpose, above a basic satellite receiver, is time-shifting. We record stuff, we watch it at a time that suits us, then we delete it. My partner likes to watch history programmes. I can't stand them. She records them and watches while I'm at work. It's all perfectly legal, and the platform is sold for that usage model.

You are also making an illegal copy of a copyrighted work, and making that available to others (if you allow friends/family members to watch with you).

No. I'm not, and if my family and friends want to watch, that's still just as legal as it would have been if they were here when the programme was originally broadcast.

dxw00d:

A VCR is a device for piracy. It allows you to make illegal copies of movies and TV programs.

Possibly true, but it also allowed me to make legal copies of films and TV programmes.

Time-shifting is entirely legal in the UK, under a specific exclusion in the copyright act. You are free to watch as many times as you like, but you are not allowed to retain indefinitely. Ad-skipping is also entirely legal. During the period that I owned a VCR, I bought a couple of hundred pre-recorded tapes, but only a few blanks for time-shifting. I also had a Hard-disk/DVD recorder for a while, and I don't recall ever burning a DVD with it, but it meant I could replace two boxes with one. Now I have a Sky+ box (like a Tivo). Its entire purpose, above a basic satellite receiver, is time-shifting. We record stuff, we watch it at a time that suits us, then we delete it. My partner likes to watch history programmes. I can't stand them. She records them and watches while I'm at work. It's all perfectly legal, and the platform is sold for that usage model.

You are also making an illegal copy of a copyrighted work, and making that available to others (if you allow friends/family members to watch with you).

No. I'm not, and if my family and friends want to watch, that's still just as legal as it would have been if they were here when the programme was originally broadcast.

Then you are lucky you live in a country that still has sane copyright law.

In my case, piracy is a Pareto-efficient outcome compared to the realistic alternative: I don't get the product and the publisher doesn't get any money. Here's an example:

The Encyclopedia of Ecology set costs 2,845 USD.

OK.

Two scenarios can come out of this.

  • I don't download this set. Elsevier gets no money.
  • I download this set. Elsevier gets no money.

So, either way, Elsevier gets $squat. But only in the latter case do I get to use this encyclopedia set. That's why it's Pareto-efficient: Elsevier is made no worse off by my piracy.

Now, if it were a poor starving artist losing out, I might think a bit differently, but these academic publishers will live, easily. Also, they shouldn't garner too much sympathy given the way they behave. Since Elsevier is the object of my example:

Elsevier Caught Again: Published Ghost Written, Industry Supporting Articles As Scientific Resesarch

If you want to, consider what I'm doing punishment.

And, on that note, my e-books blog is now up to 600 posts. (I have an automated uploading system but Google only allows 50 non-captcha posts in a 24 hour period, whereof the multiple of 50.) PROBLEM?

I think diesel is too expensive, but I don't drill into the tanks of the petrol station

This is old but worth a read for a chuckle

I believe you can use 2500 litres of bio dielsel for personal consumtion before having to pay duty on it (so i've ready anyway)

The diesel analogy is flawed because imitating one person's configuration of ones and zeros does not deprive them of said digits.

Tapping into the diesel tank is a bit different.

I think you have to have a fairly old diesel to run it on cooking oil.
I know some Land Rover owners who let down the oil with petrol (though I think you're supposed to use methanl/ethanol), but many modern diesels should not be run even on refined biodiesel, or never more than about 5-10%.

The diesel analogy is flawed because imitating one person's configuration of ones and zeros does not deprive them of said digits.

If you post your credit card number here, your credit card will still have the required digits.
Whether or not your bank account will have the required digits shortly after is another matter.

wanderson:
You are not being ripped off... for a multitude of reasons. The biggest is that the software was provided to you 'as is' without any warranty, ...

It appears others think I am:

In France, the very serious “UFC Que Choisir” organization (focused on protecting consumers of all kinds of products) has received over 1500 complaints in 4 days from gamers about connectability issues and has asked Blizzard to have a permanent solution within 15 days and to communicate completely and transparently about problems encountered in due time.

Sounds like the big ban-hammer might descend on Blizzard in France.

I think the argument that corporations can treat their customers like crap "because they can" is starting to lose favour.

Also from Germany:

http://www.surfer-haben-rechte.de/cps/rde/xchg/digitalrechte/hs.xsl/75_2080.htm?back=index.htm&backtitle=Startseite

As translated by Google Translate:

vzbv warns game developers from Blizzard

Due to lack of information about the game on the packaging requirements of the computer game "Diablo 3" and the lack of access to the game because of technical problems, the Consumer Federation (vzbv) warned the game manufacturer Blizzard. Blizzard has failed to take on the game box a sufficient indication of a permanent Internet connection to use the game. Also in connection with the registration requirement on Battle.net, Blizzard's internal network, there is no information that it is not in the registry is a single act of entering the game keys. Instead, the game can only be used if the player is logged into his personal account on Battle.net. Blizzard now has until 13 Leave in July 2012 period, the requested cease and desist because of antitrust violations.

AWOL:
If you post your credit card number here, your credit card will still have the required digits.
Whether or not your bank account will have the required digits shortly after is another matter.

Yeah that's true.

But money (including the digital form) is only as good as the physical goods and services it can buy. In other words, I adhere (for the most part) to an energy theory of value (cf. the Technocracy movement).

It takes very little energy to duplicate software, etc.

That others feel the same way you do, does not in fact support the argument. In my post I pointed out that they are treating you in the manner you agreed to when you purchased their software.

[quote author=Nick Gammon link=topic=105119.msg897653#msg897653 date=1345425492]
I think the argument that corporations can treat their customers like crap "because they can" is starting to lose favour.[/quote]

Favor/opinion is irrelevant in a a contract--which is what a software license agreement is. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the contract. If one party breeches the contract, the other has legal recourse.

[quote author=Nick Gammon link=topic=105119.msg897653#msg897653 date=1345425492]
Due to lack of information about the game on the packaging requirements of the computer game "Diablo 3" and the lack of access to the game because of technical problems[/quote]

This is a different kettle of fish. In this case, it appears that the company (corporation) failed to adhere to the contract terms. That means those who purchased the game would be entitled to refunds, a very simple solution.

However, I will point out that even if one accepted your argument, it doesn't provide either legal or moral justification for theft (piracy), which I don't believe you were intending.

gooby:

AWOL:
If you post your credit card number here, your credit card will still have the required digits.
Whether or not your bank account will have the required digits shortly after is another matter.

Yeah that's true.

But money (including the digital form) is only as good as the physical goods and services it can buy. In other words, I adhere (for the most part) to an energy theory of value (cf. the Technocracy movement).

It takes very little energy to duplicate software, etc.

First, value is not dictated by the cost of distribution (which includes more than simple reproduction of item), it includes the cost of creation (among others) as well. I suggest you look at what it costs to hire programmer(s) to produce a truly custom piece of software... Even simple pieces will run tens of thousands of dollars.

Second you can select whatever theory for value you like, but in practice an item has the value the end consumer is willing to pay for it... That individuals are willing to pay significant amounts of money for a copy of something is evidence that the copy has actual value... Evidence that can (and is) used against those who steal those products.

It has been interesting reading all the angles to this.

I like to have CDs , DVDs and books in physical form, not downloads stored on a drive.
However I often buy those second hand or borrow them from a library.
Neither way particularly helps the original authors.

I also just don't feel like I am crossing a strong moral line if I do download something.
I understand all the arguments here on the forum, but I just don't feel guilty.
In general I download because I am unsure about something and want to try before buying.

Schools are interesting because they now often photocopy extracts from books, or print output from the internet.
They do this more for convenience than anything else as it may well be more expensive than providing text books.

In general I download because I am unsure about something and want to try before buying

And do you buy afterwards?

AWOL:

In general I download because I am unsure about something and want to try before buying

And do you buy afterwards?

And even if you do 'buy' it later, how long do you 'try' it out...

I do sometimes buy, but not always and the author might not have intended try before buy. Lets says it was a CD, if I like it I'll buy a physical CD though I could just burn one myself. If I don't like it I'll delete it. Most of the DVDs I have are second hand. Software can be slightly more tricky because sometimes you think this just is not worth the money, it has serious problems, but there might be a little function that is useful. Having said that there is so much excellent open source and freeware available that rarely happens now. Microsoft provide Visual Studio and SQLServer with licences that permit individuals to use them (or they did last time I looked). For me books have to be paper, I spend a fortune on new books but I get a lot second hand. I would not feel guilty reading a scan or photocopy of a technical book, but I would not make a copy myself.

radman:
Software can be slightly more tricky because sometimes you think this just is not worth the money, it has serious problems, but there might be a little function that is useful.

Saying it is useful is an admission that it has value. Like it or not, the creator/owner of a piece of software (or any other intellectual property) has the right to dictate what they want to charge for that value. As a consumer you have the right to pay the requested price or not. Using the product without paying the requested price is theft. That is not a moral statement, but simply a factual one. Feelings of guilt are a completely separate issue.

Using the product without paying the requested price is theft

That depends on the local legislation, certainly what is written on/in the packet is often not the law. Feeling guilty or not is the moral point. Rightly or wrongly if people don't feel guilty then they tend to ignore the Law. Do you park for free when you should pay? Do you ever speed when you drive (that could kill somebody)? Do you feel guilty about doing these things?

radman:

Using the product without paying the requested price is theft

That depends on the local legislation, certainly what is written on/in the packet is often not the law. Feeling guilty or not is the moral point. Rightly or wrongly if people don't feel guilty then they tend to ignore the Law. Do you park for free when you should pay? Do you ever speed when you drive (that could kill somebody)? Do you feel guilty about doing these things?

I was not using a legal definition of theft, but simply the basic definition of the word. It is theft if the producer/owner didn't give you permission to use the product/service. I avoided the legal use of the term, because as you said there are entire nations that do not use the basic definition of theft--except when it comes to that governments property... Guilt and legal gerrymandering do not alter the basic nature of the act--it is theft.

AWOL:

In general I download because I am unsure about something and want to try before buying

And do you buy afterwards?

I have been guilty of this a few times with videogames, since they are eliminating the used game market. I ended up purchasing the game every time but one. I couldn't get Modern Warfare 2 to run on my PC, so I never bought it. Netflix, Google Play, youtube, and Amazon prime have ended my need (yes "need" I was tired of crappy trailers and paid-off "critics") to pirate music and movies. Steam ended my need to pirate video games (just wait till the holiday 75% off sale).