Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money.

To be candid, although I just read his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow), I'm not clear as to Doctorow's fame before he published his first novel. What I DO know is that from the start he published under Creative Commons.

I also know that copyright (and in fact any kind of intellectual property) is something relatively new (about two hundred years) and has wildly varied over times and regions of the world. For instance, for a very long time, the US didn't have any IP law because it suited them that way. Interestingly enough, there are quite a lot of countries which have been recently strong-armed by the US and EU into having such laws (many of them in South-East Asia). However, these places used to have a striving market (of now IP'ed products) without these laws before.

I'd invite you to read this: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html
or a significantly longer work on the same subject here :
http://www.dklevine.com/general/inte...al/against.htm

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Trenien

I'd invite you to read this: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html

I did not read the second paper, but the first is basically an attempt to apply communist theory to knowledge work.

The basic "solution" was to essentially have a cash pool for folks that create IP draw a salary from, and just do it.

The problem with this is, of course, said creator doesn't get to pick their pay

It looks good on paper...but the practical application leaves much to be desired, at a minimum.

The reality of the matter is, that the cost to individual freedom for a system effective enough to stop illegal copying is not worth that price...and this, from someone that pays the bills via the proceeds of the sales of software.

At the end of the day, its business and like all business, there is a risk/reward or pain/gain matrix. People copy software, music and books and such and do not pay the creators.

On the other hand...a great many more people follow a different path...if they did not, I would not have the keys to even type this on

And that, all rhetoric aside, is the point of it all.

-K

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Feel free to rationalize all you want by judging for yourself what is more or less harmful to other people - whether you are knowledgeable enough to do so or not. But my recommendation is that people consider taking the high road and simply avoid the potential harm altogether. It doesn't cost much and keeps everyone out of trouble.

Rationalize? Okay, here is an example of file sharing- tell me, is it evil or not. A television show is broadcast freely, someone captures it and distributes it over torrent. The show was originally freely given away, but is IP- so what's the deal? And if this is bad, from whose perspective- the company that developed the show, the broadcaster, the advertisers who paid for the broadcast? And if distributing via torrent is bad, well, wouldn't capturing it on Tivo or whatever and watching it also be bad? Especially if your household watches the program more than one time?

People should be a little realistic about these matters. The companies that distribute "content" should accept that they will never be paid what they want to be paid for their content, and consumers should realize it is their purchases that allow content to be created. And musicians should probably wake up and exemine how the record companies have ripped them off for years. Any way you look at it, the paradigms are changing, and no attempt at DRM is going tio change this.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'm back. (And I've had a snack.)

This means that it is wrong, in any sense of the word or concept, to give away that intellectual property without the express permission of the creator. It also means that it is wrong, in the same word or concept, to duplicate or share it without said permission.

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.

Information, as a resource (and this includes "content") has been declining in price for years. It will continue to do so. DRM won't stop this trend. Indeed, piracy will probably accelerate the trend. In richer societies, like ours, certain groups will manipulate markets and legislate to "protect" their incomes, at everyone else's expense. For example, the scheme for marketing textbooks to college students.

In software, we'll see alot more free and open source products, and if M$ doesn't lower its prices, it will disappear. In regards to textbooks, most of the world will start using extremely inexpensive e-texts, and we'll wonder why our technologically advanced country is so stupid that we make kids pay $100 or more for a single text, not available in e-format. And books, movies, and music will drop in price, or companies won't sell very many copies of them. Not when people can visit their local library and get the stuff for free.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If you convert a book that you own, and intend to use that copy only for yourself, you are exercising "fair use" (in the US, anyway). "Fair use" is essentially a loophole, allowing you amnesty for your copy if no one else gets it. However, you should be aware that if someone breaks into your home, takes your digital file and sells it, you can be held liable for creating the copy.

The law is still very vague on this issue...What happens if I make a backup copy of a digital e-book that I own, and someone breaks in and distributes the copy I made. Would I be liable? How could I be, if the copy is identical to the "original." I doubt you could ever seat a jury that would hold someone liable for creating a digital copy of something that was later stolen. Any more than you would be held liable if someone stole a book that you owned and sold it later.....

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money. This logic does not work for those who are not already known, and therefore have not reached the critical mass of hundreds to thousands of fans and followers to spread the word of their existence. If all you needed was to give away some free stuff, we'd all be rich now.

Well, I am waiting for the law that makes publishers pay ME for wasting my time reading a crappy book <G>. If I go to the library and check a book out and it sucks, I am not losing $15 or more for my wasted time. Publishers really had better hope that consumers like me actually read their advertising blurbs and show some trust, because if I REALLY wanted to be sure that the content I buy doesn't suck, I would examine each purchase at a library beforehand, and buy only what was good. And I would probably spend about 1/10 of what I do now on music and books and movies.....As a segment of the population, book-buyers are a small percentage. In a market like e-books, especially, if you piss off your good customers, you might lose the market rather quickly.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.

I am wondering when the people in the US- us- stopped being marauding huns. the US ignored copyright laws for years, our publishers made money ripping off British and European books and printing them for consumption here. Now the Chinese and others are doing the same to us. Surprising? Not really. Doesn't surprise me that M$ sales are dismal in other parts of the world compared to the US either.

Seems to me that ethics and morality aren't really the motivating forces behind many of the arguments I hear or the policies that are instituted. It's greed, plain and simple.

It's like the idiots that have tried (and failed) to print public domain e-books and charge $5 or $6 for them- didn't work becaause they priced themselves out of a market. Same with the e-book sellers that think DRM will allow them to sell for a few bucks less than the hardcover version- their greed results in few sales.

People in any business need to look at WHAT IS rather than at WHAT SHOULD BE.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that .

Sounds to me like those 2 burglars pretty much got what they deserved. If someone ever breaks into my house, if I was in a very chipper mood, they MIGHT get a single warning. I am not going to risk my wife and kids lives when dealing with intruders. Who knows whether that intruder just wants to steal a tv set or wants to murder the inhabitants of the house. IMHO, if a person breaks into a residence, he deserves anything he gets, including multiple shotgun blasts to the head. That's not "cold blood," that's self-defense.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Sounds to me like those 2 burglars pretty much got what they deserved. If someone ever breaks into my house, if I was in a very chipper mood, they MIGHT get a single warning. I am not going to risk my wife and kids lives when dealing with intruders. Who knows whether that intruder just wants to steal a tv set or wants to murder the inhabitants of the house. IMHO, if a person breaks into a residence, he deserves anything he gets, including multiple shotgun blasts to the head. That's not "cold blood," that's self-defense.

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

[Penforhire]

Steve, I'm not arguing the the e-book is not a distinct valued item. I'm asking how is it different than an audio cassette tape (or MP3-on-CD) made from a CD I own? That tape is a distinct valued item also. But I'm entitled to make it.

I think you are confounding the issue of ease-of-duplication with fair use. Just because something is easy to duplicate perfectly does not mean I cannot make fair use. In my world the author still gets paid for one sale.

[DaleDe]

While it can be argued that legally copyright infringement is not theft that is the term that matches most of the impact but I think the idea mentioned earlier that this is really forgery captures the idea better.

All those who argue that copyright stealing is ok can use the same exact arguments that stealing someone identity is also ok for the same reasons. Using someones credit card number does not deny them the credit card which they still have. Sometimes we don't have the technically correct words in our language to define some illegal actions but that doesn't make the actions ok.

Dale

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

There has been a law here for many years that allows a homeowner in Texas to use deadly force to protect both people and property if the incident occurs after dark. This struck me as something quite archaic and I was glad to see it reconsidered recently. Unfortunately, the law was "strengthened" to allow such deadly force during the daytime, too. I hope civilization appears here soon. Time to bury myself in a good book.

I think it is appropriate to use deadly force to protect the sanctity of one's home at ANY time, night or day. If I find someone wandering through my house, my primary goal is defense of my family. If I have to use deadly force to achieve that goal, so be it. What the hell right does anyone have to invade my family's home anyways? If anyone does so, they do so at their own peril.

I live in a good neighborhood, but home invasions have occurred not only in bad neighborhoods in my city, but in a couple of the good ones as well. I don't care to hear about a criminal's "rights"- my house, my rights.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

Well, I guess the solution is- don't break into people's houses. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the scumbags that bought the farm. What they did was certainly not a "victimless" crime. ANd how did they know the house was unoccupied.

If someone had done that to 2 criminals breaking into my house, I would think that was mighty neighborly of him. Now just suppose these 2 criminal scumbags had spent the last week or so pirating music and software. Some people here would be ready to hang'em........

[jamesdmanley]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

um actually he did. ive listened to the tapes over and over. mr horn CLEARLY says "move, [and] youre dead," then there is a 3 second pause followed by gunfire.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Sometimes we don't have the technically correct words in our language to define some illegal actions but that doesn't make the actions ok.

I think that may be key to the matter here... electronic file sharing is so new that the laws haven't really caught up with them yet. "Fair use" is at best vaguely defined and understood.

wgrimm, regarding your TV analogy, "fair use" covers your watching a broadcast program in your home (which was already paid for by advertisers) as often as you like. It's when you either make copies of it to sell, or even give away, or when you invite others to see your copy in order to make a profit from their gathering, that it ceases to be fair use, and you are guilty of copyright infringement. (This does not apply when the program is live and not taped for re-watching, which is why bars don't have to pay the NFL to air a football game, say.)

"Fair use" also allows you to make as many copies of something you own as you'd like, as long as it's used only by you. When someone else gets the copy you made, that violates fair use. If you made the copy they stole, sorry, but that means you violated fair use. If they steal your original first and make copies, they committed the violation to fair use... not you. Get it?

I know, it's silly when you think about it... but the point is, the person who is considered guilty is the person who created the copy that is now in the wrong hands, whether that was their intention or not. That's more or less the letter of the law, though it should probably be altered to better satisfy the spirit of the law (in other words, to make you not liable when someone steals your Tivo'd season of "Lost" and resells it).

Originally Posted by wgrimm

I am wondering when the people in the US- us- stopped being marauding huns.

Who you calling a hun?

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I think you are confounding the issue of ease-of-duplication with fair use. Just because something is easy to duplicate perfectly does not mean I cannot make fair use. In my world the author still gets paid for one sale.

Actually, I'm not arguing against that, nor confusing them. What I am saying is that, in the eyes of the law, a copy you make of a protected work is still a protected work, no matter how easy it is to copy it, and you do not have the right to sell it to someone else (or even to give it away, really) without compensating the original creator, unless they expressly gave you permission to do so.

If you don't sell it, that's "fair use," and everybody's happy. If you do sell or give away the copy you made... even if, through intent or accident, it gets sold or given away... and even if it simply "gets out of your hands," and has the potential to be sold or given away... you are considered a violator of "fair use," and prosecutable to the full extend of the law. Remember the Thomas trial? That's how they got her. If she'd simply kept all her music copies off of the P2P networks, the RIAA wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, and she wouldn't be financially ruined now.