The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

There's nothing to prevent tighter security over the web. Yes, it can happen in the U.S. It will only take the decision of the government, and hardware/software makers, to make it so. And if things continue to tend toward the anarchy that exists today, I expect that eventually, the government and corporations will say, "enough is enough," and enact tighter controls and enforcement.

What will prevent it happening? People behaving themselves.

You tell me which is more likely.

The first amendment will get in the way.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

that they wanted to learn and i had ways of teaching them safely. some of the blind archery students also shot rifles when time allowed. the blind folk just need confidence , proper coaching and audible feedback from the target.

edit: of course when i first heard the idea i thought the person who brought it up was either insane, intoxicated or quite possible both.

I know a guy who teaches blind people to ski.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

If anything, the entitlement is the ownership of "intellectual property". That's a relatively new concept in the history of humanity.

Why should people "own" ideas or images or ways that letters are arranged? Especially the way it is now, basically forever? Being able to own intangible things is kind of ridiculous, when you think about it....

I agree somewhat, I say somewhat since I'm not entirely sure of your meaning. But yes the idea that you can own a word, or a string of words is ludicrous and absurd.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

If anything, the entitlement is the ownership of "intellectual property". That's a relatively new concept in the history of humanity.

Why should people "own" ideas or images or ways that letters are arranged? Especially the way it is now, basically forever? Being able to own intangible things is kind of ridiculous, when you think about it....

Because I like to read books. Yes, there are people who will write just because they like to write. Some of those will share for free. However, I don't doubt the supply will go down. And morally it is only fair to pay people who provide me with entertainment.

So the concept of ownership is our current way of monetizing this for creators. I don't like our current system, but I don't have any specific suggestions. Except for your suggestion that ownership should have some time limit that is less than today's standard. I agree with that.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by emellaich

Because I like to read books. Yes, there are people who will write just because they like to write. Some of those will share for free. However, I don't doubt the supply will go down. And morally it is only fair to pay people who provide me with entertainment.

So the concept of ownership is our current way of monetizing this for creators. I don't like our current system, but I don't have any specific suggestions. Except for your suggestion that ownership should have some time limit that is less than today's standard. I agree with that.

Perhaps the monetizing aspect is the problem? An end of money is a bit far off though lol...

We could simply allow anyone to upload but not set a price, then use some crowdsourcing to determine if the text is of any value. There's tons of things to try, and we should try them all.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The first amendment will get in the way.

How's that, exactly?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Even nicer dodge of the question.

You said "illegal acts." I tried to discern your meaning & you quibble.

I think that you have some vague idea that something is illegal but you really don't know what it is. You just kind of think it's anything involving copying without permission. Most people think as you apparently do. But they are wrong. You, too, are probably wrong but maybe you aren't. I can't tell until you get specific.

But if you are just going to rely on saying "illegal acts" I'm going to conclude that you don't really understand the matter and your opinion isn't worth much attention.

So let's have it - what do you think she wants to do that's illegal?

By illegal I mean acts that are either against criminal or civil law but if you want to quibble that usually means that you don't believe in people having any rights to anything that they create... and don't ascribe your thoughts to me... and people who make comments such as, "...your opinion isn't worth much attention." are generally better placed on "ignore" because they don't want to discuss and consider things, just state their beliefs and ignore anything that runs contrary to them...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Why should people "own" ideas or images or ways that letters are arranged? Especially the way it is now, basically forever? Being able to own intangible things is kind of ridiculous, when you think about it....

Don't overstate... copyright is about being given exclusive rights to an original idea for a limited amount of time, in order to encourage the development of those original ideas for others to enjoy. Without it, many of those original ideas would not be developed. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. (And the debate about the state of copyright is going on in another thread... this is the entitlement thread.)

An idea may not be a physical object, but it can be just as significant. Einstein's theories would be significant, even if we hadn't built an atomic bomb.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

How? Details, please.

The only way to substantially attack the amount of copying going on online, would require restrictions rather more intrusive than are used in China. China, of course, does not have a couple-hundred years' practice with freedom of speech and a free press, and does not have many thousands of businesses that rely on on open information exchange for their income.

Are you really unaware of how entertwined free speech and free business are? Of how DEAD the internet would be if the government shut down YouTube (for hosting "pirate videos") and Google search (for linking to infringing content)? Shut down Flickr for hosting photos that include copyrighted & trademarked images; shut down Facebook for all those user images that are stolen from video games. And that's before we get into shutting down all those Wordpress blogs that repost news stories or half-chapters of their favorite books--it's not like there's a minimum amount that's verifiably not infringement.

Where does it stop--does the gov't inspect every email attachment? Do they require inspection of every file hosted on a remote sharing service--in which case, do businesses get an automatic exemption for the claim "trade secrets?" If so, the pirates have an easy exemption; not, well, plenty of businesses won't be moving data quickly between locations.

What law could allow private information to be exchanged, without allowing "infringing" information to be exchanged? Who would have the right to look at which files, and who would pay for the inspections?

What just happened to Megaupload?

A site known for hosting bootleg files got shut down. Shrug. Are you under the impression that Megaupload hosted a substantial portion of the pirated content on the internet? That it hosted even 1% of the unauthorized digital copies available today?

I didn't say "the government can't go after large-scale infringers." I said that governments and software developers aren't going to "join forces" to eradicate or even impede copying online. That "software makers" are not a unified group with a singular goal.

Supposition.

Indeed. Most of my friends don't think it's possible at all. I posit that the gov't could demand the right to inspect every packet exchanged on the internet; it'd just cost a lot of time and money, and slow down business along with a lot of entertainment.

Entertainment would find a way to go elsewhere; business can't.

Controlling where copies can go, and who can access them, CAN get harder.

Do you have any evidence of this? When and where did it get hard to access data that once was widely available, other than by oppressive totalitarian regime?

Where has it gotten harder to get copies-in-general to the people that want them, rather than the occasional attempt to block a very specific type of data? Religious texts and anti-government entertainment are the two big ones subject to this kind of law; data-in-general has always gotten easier to distribute.

Exactly this.

Assuming that governments cannot enact laws and enforce them... assuming that legitimate businesses cannot create ways of functioning within those laws... assuming that life will somehow grind to a halt if this takes place... is ignoring thousands of years of established history. The web is just another tool, and it can be controlled and regulated.

The theory is sound; the practical side is nonexistent. The web *could* be controlled and regulated, if the government had taken an active role in its creation and development, instead of leaving that up to private companies and random individuals. As it stands, our lawmaking committees are full of people who think the internet is a set of tubes that you can put valves on to control what goes into or comes out of them.

They could destroy most of the commercial uses of the internet by demanding to inspect all data between sender and receiver. They can't come up with a program to detect "legitimate data" and only allow that to go through.

Sorting data still takes human consideration, especially since what they're interested in is not the data itself, but the metadata: is this a "legit" use of this data? No program ever invented will tell you if I authorized a particular copy of one of my stories to be shared by or with a particular person.

Even more importantly: No one likes laws on the surface, especially when they seem to restrict things they can do. However, if those laws prove to be beneficial to them, in the form of improved personal security, easier use or lower costs (or all of the above), people tend to accept and eventually support those laws.

Well, yes. Whose security will be better, and whose costs will be lowered? If the laws improve life for the general public, they'll be accepted. All the laws I've seen proposed are a pack of restrictions the general public is supposed to put up with, in order to punish a shapeless group that nobody can prove is doing any real harm.

Assume better copyright infringement control: Who benefits? How does that make *my* life better?

Will I be able to put a statement on my blog posts, "I do not authorize these posts to be copied onto AOL servers," and sue the company for infringement if they are?

None of the stricter web laws we have discussed here will automatically result in the crash of civilization that so many people seem to expect. That is an over-reaction to the possibility of any new laws that is completely expected of people, but in the long-run, usually unfounded.

I wouldn't expect a crash of civilization. I expect more attempts like SOPA and PIPA, badly-written fiascos attempting to foist the job of policing copyright onto people who have no stake in the matter one way or the other, because big corporations have decided they must be losing money through unauthorized copies even though they can't prove it.

The people who most strongly advocate stricter copyright laws seem to forget that not all copyrighted material is registered. That every copy-and-reply email or forum post is potentially "infringing." There is no way to stop "infringement" without crashing the internet.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Then why are they pirating music that's widely available already digitally from multiple sources?

The same reason(s) they used to tape it from the radio or from a friend's record.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

see thats what drives me nuts more than anything. not only is there a sense of entitlement but people are simply spoiled. the concept of simply going without is unheard of. its a world of toddlers stomping their feet crying "i want it now because i said so and i'm going to hold my breath until i get it!"

Our Western economic system is built on a sense of entitlement. Economists' worst nightmares are made out of a population happily "going without".

[spindlegirl]

I was born in the 60's .... warning "When I was a youngun' " story ahead.

I remember when VCRs first came out, and people were buying or renting movies. I still remember the feeling of awe at holding a tape of an actual movie that I remember clearing my schedule to watch because it was finally going to air on tv, and having the ability to not only watch it once, but as many times as I could manage in the alotted rental time.

I think I watched "The Wizard of Oz" about 5 times in one rental period, and I was kind and rewound I got to relive childhood nostalgia.

Now these things are everywhere with one mouse click.... there are many people who were born only in the past 25 years who just don't have that kind of perspective to draw from. I told my teenage son this and he thought I must have been underprivileged as a child... but no, this was normal.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The only way to substantially attack the amount of copying going on online, would require restrictions rather more intrusive than are used in China.

Yes, everybody assumes that China's software and web controls are the only way to make things more secure... and that they will result in a totalitarian regime if implemented. News flash, guys: China was a totalitarian regime well before the Internet was invented. The two are not mutually connected.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Are you really unaware of how entertwined free speech and free business are? Of how DEAD the internet would be if the government shut down YouTube (for hosting "pirate videos") and Google search (for linking to infringing content)? Shut down Flickr for hosting photos that include copyrighted & trademarked images; shut down Facebook for all those user images that are stolen from video games. And that's before we get into shutting down all those Wordpress blogs that repost news stories or half-chapters of their favorite books--it's not like there's a minimum amount that's verifiably not infringement.

So, the world will be dead without Facebook, YouTube and Google? Funny, I seem to remember a very lively world before we could go online to see skateboarding dogs. I also seem to remember a world where the news presented to us was verified and believable... unlike all those blogs out there...

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Where does it stop--does the gov't inspect every email attachment? Do they require inspection of every file hosted on a remote sharing service--in which case, do businesses get an automatic exemption for the claim "trade secrets?" If so, the pirates have an easy exemption; not, well, plenty of businesses won't be moving data quickly between locations.

What law could allow private information to be exchanged, without allowing "infringing" information to be exchanged? Who would have the right to look at which files, and who would pay for the inspections?

Okay, let's nip this one in the bud: We're talking about securing copywritten files to prevent their being illegally shared. No one said anything about restricting business content. And such a system, IF it slows down business transactions, may add entire milliseconds to their web traffic speeds. I'm pretty sure businesses can adapt to that.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I didn't say "the government can't go after large-scale infringers." I said that governments and software developers aren't going to "join forces" to eradicate or even impede copying online. That "software makers" are not a unified group with a singular goal.

Not today. Which is why we have the chaos we have. That doesn't mean events can't push them into the same camp tomorrow, or that others who want more security can't force it on them.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Most of my friends don't think it's possible at all. I posit that the gov't could demand the right to inspect every packet exchanged on the internet; it'd just cost a lot of time and money, and slow down business along with a lot of entertainment.

Security always costs time and money; that doesn't mean it's not worth the trouble. And "slowing down entertainment"? To use your word: Shrug.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Entertainment would find a way to go elsewhere; business can't.

Businesses are not helpless babies. They will not collapse because they have to learn some new tricks, or because their web speeds fall from T8 to T7. Business evolve and adapt... that's what they're designed to do.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Do you have any evidence of this? When and where did it get hard to access data that once was widely available, other than by oppressive totalitarian regime?

One word: Adobe.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Where has it gotten harder to get copies-in-general to the people that want them, rather than the occasional attempt to block a very specific type of data?

Nowhere. Again, that's why we have the chaos we have now.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The theory is sound; the practical side is nonexistent...

Not at all. Talk to Adobe. Talk to Microsoft. They know how to control products. It is do-able. It just has to be done.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If the laws improve life for the general public, they'll be accepted. All the laws I've seen proposed are a pack of restrictions the general public is supposed to put up with, in order to punish a shapeless group that nobody can prove is doing any real harm.

The same can be said about cable TV control. We seem to be handling that just fine.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I wouldn't expect a crash of civilization...

But that's exactly what you're trying to describe, as a result of creating and enforcing better document security. I say you're over-reacting, as most people do, to the idea of better security and enforcement, whatever the goal... while ignoring all of the examples of laws and enforcement around you that have not brought the world to a crashing halt.

To your credit, it seems to be a natural reaction to the subject of law and control (I'm sure it's biologically based, though I suspect a social component is also at work). That's primarily why laws and enforcement have to be documented, in order to provide the trackable evidence, checks and balances that prevent it's getting out of control.

By the way: All of this discussion about the value of laws, etc... is Let's try to get back to the subject of entitlement.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

people do that all the time. i dont have a game system in the house for the kids to play because its not in our budget. i could steal one but i dont.

i love shrimp. i would eat it every day if I could. sadly shrimp is generally not in our budget. i dont steal shrimp.

i do not have any pirated music or books. i simply buy from whats available when i have the money to do so. I have not yet read the girl who played with fire because i have the first two books in trade paperback and will wait for that version to become available before reading.

people go without all the time. the fact that its easy to steal( or rip copies and share them with a thousand people) makes no difference as to the legality or the morality

I am not addressing the legality or morality of illegally copying. All I am addressing is the idea illegal copying is the result of "entitlement", and that previous generations didn't have this sense of entitlement. If previous generations had the means to make illegal copies would have done so. People have been creating bootleg recordings since the means to do so has existed, and people have been creating forged works of art for centuries. Not everyone will make illegal copies, but that is true now and it was true in the past.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Security always costs time and money; that doesn't mean it's not worth the trouble. And "slowing down entertainment"? To use your word: Shrug.

Why should anyone spend time and money for the benefit of the content industry? I have to support these leeches with any recordable DVD I buy to backup my holiday pics, any printer I buy etc. They don't do anything for me, why should I be willing to do anything for them? If we are requested to spend any more money on them I will contemplate to start downloading pirated material to redress the imbalance.