Go Down

Topic: Your opinion on piracy? (Read 23180 times) previous topic - next topic

Louis Davis

I believe this indicates you can photograph someones garden legally, if it is visible from a public place, such as the street or sidewalk...
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

wanderson


I believe this indicates you can photograph someones garden legally, if it is visible from a public place, such as the street or sidewalk...
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


Photographing them (or a structure) is not illegal.  However, selling that photograph is an entirely different issue.  There is case law on the subject.  For instance, selling a photograph of a particular building can and does violate the architects copyright for that building, unless the photograph is covered under the specific fair use provisions.  What governs whether a photograph of architecture (or persons) is covered under fair use is a much more complicated issue--and only really gets resolved when the courts get involved.  That said, editorial use (news) or art work (where the object/person is not the predominant subject of the art) are the two most common exceptions.

Of course, as I said to the individual who first used this example--it isn't an accurate (or correct) comparison to the theft of software, dvd's, cd's, etc...
New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

wizdum

#137
Aug 22, 2012, 02:50 am Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012, 02:52 am by wizdum Reason: 1




As I said, this isn't a question of law--which is fundamentally flawed, but of what is right and what is wrong.


The problem is that it is easy to "justify" piracy, when the people you are stealing from are operating on a scorched earth policy. They don't care who they hurt, or what rights they get thrown away. Last year, the US government acted on made up "evidence" by copyright holders. 84,000 websites were wrongly shut down in one act, and replaced with an image showing the ICE and FBI seals. The image stated that the sites had been taken down for copyright infringement and/or hosting and distributing child pornography. One of those domains was owned by an individual that ran a home business (selling custom clothes and hats, if I remember correctly). He just now got his domain back. His business is destroyed. Any customers he had are going to be hesitant to go back to a site that was under investigation for hosting child porn. The vast majority of those 84,000 domains are still under the control of the US Government. No warrants were issued, no cases were heard, no judges were even contacted. This entire operation was outside of the law, and they do it all the time.

THIS is how people justify piracy. It may not be right, but neither is burning the world down because some teenagers discovered bittorrent.


Of course it is easy to justify ones actions... that doesn't make it right.  And of course, the majority of those whose property is being stolen by those 'justifying their act of theft' have nothing to do with the action you mention (or anything similar).  There is a simple and reasonable way to deal with a business that uses such tactics...  Don't buy their product...  Stealing from another person, by using the actions of a third party as justification is pure sophistry and self-delusion.


You asked how people justify Piracy to themselves, and I told you. You don't have to like it.

"Don't buy their product" doesn't work when "they" are an organization made up of every major label/studio in the world, and "they" can still sue you on behalf of a label that is not a member. There are plenty of examples of indie artists allowing people to download their music on Bittorrent, and the RIAA stepping in and suing the downloaders (and keeping the cash for themselves, of course).

I used to pirate movies and music (prior to the availability of Youtube and Netflix). I knew it was wrong, but I still did it. I live in the US, so I had two options. Pirate the media and be labeled a criminal, or buy the media, transcode it into a format that was actually useful (MP3, AVI, etc.), and still get labeled a criminal. I could have purchased the MP3s from iTunes (and did, on occasion, and had my identity stolen as a consolation prize), but I did not have an Apple MP3 player, so I had to strip off the copy protection, which again, made me a criminal in the United States. If I bought a CD, and ripped the tracks off into MP3 format for my MP3 player, I was stripping off copy protection, making me a criminal.  If they're going to label me a criminal anyway, why pay them for it?
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

wanderson

#138
Aug 22, 2012, 02:59 am Last Edit: Aug 22, 2012, 03:06 am by wanderson Reason: 1
Wizdum

You had at least two options you failed to mention.

1) Legally purchase the CD's and convert them to whatever digital format your device required. I know of no case where someone was successfully prosecuted for doing so.  Your only a 'criminal' after conviction.
2) Not listen/acquire music that you couldn't obtain without theft.

By the way; I never asked how thieves justified their theft.  It is a common human foible to blame the victim for such things...
New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

wizdum


Wizdum

You had at least two options you failed to mention.

1) Legally purchase the CD's and convert them to whatever digital format your device required. I know of no case where someone was successfully prosecuted for doing so.  Your only a 'criminal' after conviction.
2) Not listen/acquire music that you couldn't obtain without theft.

By the way; I never asked how thieves justified their theft.  It is a common human foible to blame the victim for such things...



Quote
If I bought a CD, and ripped the tracks off into MP3 format for my MP3 player, I was stripping off copy protection, making me a criminal.

I did mention option 1. Just because you haven't heard of a case of someone being prosecuted, doesn't mean its legal. The law is there.

You are correct, I did forget option 3. So my options are, pay them and be a criminal, don't pay them and be a criminal, or do nothing, and hope they don't label me a criminal anyway (and seize my assets, shut down my business, and shoot my dog).

I'm also staying out of the linguistics argument on purpose. If copyright infringement was theft, they wouldn't be separate sets of laws. There is no room for interpretation. Using the term "theft" is how you justify your hatred of duplicating bits, in the same way that pirates justify their actions by calling it "file sharing".
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

cjdelphi


Quote
I know it's bad but I have no other choice.

You have the choice to walk away.

I think diesel is too expensive, but I don't drill into the tanks of the petrol station.
Just because it isn't difficult to steal doesn't mean to say that you should.

Edit: Isn't it odd? I don't ever recall Universal Studios or Warner Brothers, or even Disney ever spamming this forum (I'm not saying they wouldn't...), but pirates, well, don't get me started.


Drilling into the petrol tanks, is purely theft "now you have it, now you don't"  it's a real world physical things, once stolen, it's gone.

The same can not be said about "software" or "movies" the "victim" is who exactly?   since this is not Black Or White, it really comes down to ethical values......

Yes "Warner Brothers" is the victim because someone watched it and never paid for it...

But saying warner brothers lost money because a person downloaded it is not exactly true is it, chances are the person who downloaded it was NOT going to go to the cincema anyway let alone pay for a ticket
to watch the movie they just pirated.

if it's software, it comes down to Cost (eg, is it really worth $200 or $20) .

If a person had of spend 20 hours hand crafting a beautiful vase or sculpture, then yeah $200 is worth it, there is only "one" but when the same programmer
sells 20,000 copies at $200, who's morally "right" or "wrong" then?



wanderson



Wizdum

You had at least two options you failed to mention.

1) Legally purchase the CD's and convert them to whatever digital format your device required. I know of no case where someone was successfully prosecuted for doing so.  Your only a 'criminal' after conviction.
2) Not listen/acquire music that you couldn't obtain without theft.

By the way; I never asked how thieves justified their theft.  It is a common human foible to blame the victim for such things...


Quote
If I bought a CD, and ripped the tracks off into MP3 format for my MP3 player, I was stripping off copy protection, making me a criminal.

I did mention option 1. Just because you haven't heard of a case of someone being prosecuted, doesn't mean its legal. The law is there.

You are correct, I did forget option 3. So my options are, pay them and be a criminal, don't pay them and be a criminal, or do nothing, and hope they don't label me a criminal anyway (and seize my assets, shut down my business, and shoot my dog).

I'm also staying out of the linguistics argument on purpose. If copyright infringement was theft, they wouldn't be separate sets of laws. There is no room for interpretation. Using the term "theft" is how you justify your hatred of duplicating bits, in the same way that pirates justify their actions by calling it "file sharing".


Your not a 'criminal' until convicted.  As I mentioned, I know of no individual in the US who has been convicted for 'ripping' a cd that they own to a different format--indeed I would be surprised if anyone was actually charged for doing that--since it is clearly approved under standard fair use doctrine.  However, there is a world of difference between actually purchasing the product for personal use and then converting it to a format suitable for one's needs and what you describe as "Well they are going to call me a criminal anyway, so I might as well steal the item I want and actually become a 'criminal'."

And ripping that music cd for personal use is a world of difference to ripping the cd and placing it where others can 'share' that derived product.  The vast majority of those shares are going to be people who did not purchase the original.  That is a 'criminal' offense, as well as simple theft.


I'm also staying out of the linguistics argument on purpose. If copyright infringement was theft, they wouldn't be separate sets of laws. There is no room for interpretation. Using the term "theft" is how you justify your hatred of duplicating bits, in the same way that pirates justify their actions by calling it "file sharing".


As I have said laws are made by flawed humans. Intellectual property is still property.  The taking of that property meets the definition of theft.  Crimes have degrees and types; hence why there are multiple crimes associated with theft.  The theft of intellectual property is properly treated (in the US) as a civil matter (for the most part) --except where powerful organizations have used government authority to create special laws.
New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

wanderson


Drilling into the petrol tanks, is purely theft "now you have it, now you don't"  it's a real world physical things, once stolen, it's gone.

The same can not be said about "software" or "movies" the "victim" is who exactly?   since this is not Black Or White, it really comes down to ethical values......

Yes "Warner Brothers" is the victim because someone watched it and never paid for it...

But saying warner brothers lost money because a person downloaded it is not exactly true is it, chances are the person who downloaded it was NOT going to go to the cincema anyway let alone pay for a ticket
to watch the movie they just pirated.

if it's software, it comes down to Cost (eg, is it really worth $200 or $20) .

If a person had of spend 20 hours hand crafting a beautiful vase or sculpture, then yeah $200 is worth it, there is only "one" but when the same programmer
sells 20,000 copies at $200, who's morally "right" or "wrong" then?


Are mass produced objects not 'worth' it--they too have fairly low (and in some cases lower) marginal costs to create?  Then I guess all those folks who actually pay for clothes and such from Walmart ought to just take what they need from the shelves.  The worth of an object is defined by what folks are willing to pay, at least folks who actually legally purchase it.  The fact that the thief wouldn't have payed for the item if they hadn't stolen it, doesn't mean that they didn't steal something that has value.  In much the same way that the typical car thief wouldn't actually purchase that ferrari they steal--doesn't mean the ferrari doesn't have 'worth'

And yes it does come down to cost, and by stealing the item you prove that it has worth.  A thief is alway morally (and hopefully legally) wrong.
New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

AWOL

Quote
And yes it does come down to cost, and by stealing the item you prove that it has worth

That argument has a tendency to go circular, I think.
I'm not disagreeing, just saying.
"Pete, it's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.

wanderson


Quote
And yes it does come down to cost, and by stealing the item you prove that it has worth

That argument has a tendency to go circular, I think.
I'm not disagreeing, just saying.


Yes your right.  I should have said that by stealing the item the thief proves it has worth/value to them hence countering their claim that since they wouldn't have purchased it in the first place it doesn't have any value.
New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

radman

Have not quite left yet, just finishing drink.

I have realised my true calling and have joined the Missionary Church of Kopimism and I am pleased to say my religion is officially recognised. Like all religions followers tend to be persecuted, but we feel we have a religious duty to copy information and share it and will not allow Digital Rights unbelievers to stand in our way.

As it happens I have a bag of DVDs with me now and will be happy to provide them for the cost of the media  :D




AWOL

If you are a true believer, you will post your credit card details here, that we may all share your True Enlightenment, and thereby enjoy false profits prophets.
"Pete, it's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.

radman

Quote
enjoy false profits prophets.

Ha, ha ... very good
Ctrl+C  Ctrl+V

Constantin

Have caught people steal and re-host content from my website many a time. Hot linking pretty pictures is another thing people like to do. It's everywhere. What's fun is substituting new images instead of the ones they were counting on by changing the .htaccess file. Well, at least before we got married, had multiple kids, etc. = had more time for fun stuff like that.

Being a content creator these days is not all that great. As others have pointed out, the ones raking in the dough are the big conglomerates which have the lawyers and the access to enable 120 year copyrights on content made to order. Exceptions like the lady who authored and published the Harry Potter series prove the rule... by and large the publishers and distributors are making the money, leaving little for the creators of content.

Those who achieve a sliver of fame then do well to DIY most of the production / distribution and so on. Look at Hootie and the Blowfish, a small puff of success that actually became very profitable for the band because they had produced the album already (i.e. no production costs to subtract from the album sales revenue) and decided against big production videos, etc. in favor of low-calorie stuff, maximizing their returns. Compare that to Salt-N-Pepa, who after multi-platinum sales (Waterfalls) got a grand total of $55k in profit-sharing. Hence the focus on artists to tour - a tough gig but much easier way to make money than album sales.

The other thing to consider is is just how good many people / artists have gotten and hence how difficult it has become to stand out. Without differentiation, how to achieve a price above commodity levels?

I don't practice piracy for the simple reason that I'm willing and able to spend the money to buy 'non-pirated' content. But that doesn't stop me from buying used CDs, for example, which means that the artist only benefits from the first sale and not the sale to me. But I'm OK with used CDs, DVDs, books, etc. because the quality is still good enough for me (or better, in the case of hard covers vs. the usual softcovers these days). I also believe that people should be allowed to sell on content they have purchased in the past vs. some of the current EULA practices that attempt to sell a license for a limited time, on a specific machine, etc.

wizdum

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57499519-38/court-affirms-$675000-penalty-in-music-downloading-case/

Finally, some justice. This criminal stole $31 worth of music, now he will live the rest of his life in debt.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

Go Up