The culture of entitlement and illegal downloads

[speakingtohe]

ahh that would be the immoral act

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Harmon

What is the "illegal act" to which you refer?

It might be illegal to make a bootleg film, or to distribute one someone else made, and I'm sure it's illegal to sell a copy.

But merely acquiring a copy? I don't think so.

Acquiring??? I just acquired a DVD because someone left a copy of it lying around on the internet... hmmm. Nice shift of meaning...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Fencing them out ain't gonna work, in my view, without a move toward a degree of digital totalitarianism that is not going to happen in the US.

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.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Acquiring??? I just acquired a DVD because someone left a copy of it lying around on the internet... hmmm. Nice shift of meaning...

Presumably he's also talking about a form of file sharing where people "acquiring" aren't also distributing by uploading.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Stealing for entertainment could certainly be justified if the person had no entertainment and no means of acquiring it legitimately. Hard to figure how the would steal it though in these circumstances.

There's an excellent current film, Hugo, with a scene like this. Two children, one of whom is forbidden to see movies, and the other of whom is essentially abandoned, sneak into a silent-era theater. In the context of the film, most Hugo viewers will see it as justified. Also justified is food stealing by the abandoned child, who would otherwise starve.

Comparing to the situation discussed here:

-- Obviously the food-stealing was more justified than the entertainment-stealing, despite the former being of a physical object.

-- At the end of the movie, the children no longer have to steal food or entertainment because of being in a healthy family situation. If they nonetheless kept on sneaking into theaters, this would be clearly wrong. And much closer to a US college student, in 2012, using the darknet. At least, as I see it.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

I have taught blind people archery and people with down syndrome (kids and adults) to shoot a rifle.

What were you thinking?

[Rhialto]

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.

You mean like in China? Ah, yes, something to look forward to.

[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.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

There's nothing to prevent tighter security over the web. Yes, it can happen in the U.S.

Not without destroying modern business practices.

It will only take the decision of the government, and hardware/software makers, to make it so.

Bittorrent was invented by a "software maker." The "software makers" aren't a cohesive, pro-government anti-piracy group that are going to blithely agree to cripple all internet activities in order to reinforce artificial scarcity.

The government could, with a lot of cost and effort, stamp down on a lot of filesharing--with the side-effect of making a lot of businesses slow to a crawl. However, piracy won't be stopped nor even much slowed--the same practices that were used to exchanged files before the WWW took over would come back with a vengeance. Plus new methods that weren't possible fifteen years ago, when data carriers weren't so compact.

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.

Copying doesn't get harder. EVER. It never has, in the history of humankind. Copying will not be harder in 10 years than it is now.

Digital piracy is never going to be "stopped". It could be mitigated--reduced to a level of nuisance rather than threat to livelihoods ("kids stealing chewing gum, not the Barbary Pirates," as Baen says)--but not by pretending that any corporate or government maneuver will make copying more difficult. They'll need to find something to sell as copies become cheap enough that "I have a copy and you want one" is not sufficiently compelling to get someone to hand over cash.

Sell high-quality authorized version. Sell digitally-signed editions. Sell combo packs: buy the authorized ebook & get a coupon good for 20% off the pback. Sell sociality: buy the ebook; get access to a forum with author chats. Sell convenience: have an awesome website that people want to spend time at, and keep your customers from looking elsewhere when they buy.

But "sell access to these words" is not going to be a long-term success plan. Publishers are fighting to deny this, because they were never aware how much the used book market supported them; they never understood that reading was often entirely disassociated from payments--and even more often disassociated from publisher-and-author payments. They're not going to be able to convince people that "you should read our book!" means "you should buy our book!"--it never has before.

Neither is "sell access to these pictures and sounds." While the secondhand market for songs and movies was never as robust as books, it was there--and access to the entertainment was never entirely based on ability to pay. (I don't mean "stealing into movie houses." I mean watching the VCR tape at a friend's house, or going to a bar to listen to other people play songs in the jukebox.)

The idea that every reader is a royalty-paying buyer has never been true, and attempts to make it that way will fail. Incompetent attempts will make for entertaining corporate flailings; more competent and severe attempts will result in a larger digital underground--and an internet that no longer serves as the backbone of US business and casual entertainment.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Acquiring??? I just acquired a DVD because someone left a copy of it lying around on the internet... hmmm. Nice shift of meaning...

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?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not without destroying modern business practices.

How? Details, please.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Bittorrent was invented by a "software maker." The "software makers" aren't a cohesive, pro-government anti-piracy group that are going to blithely agree to cripple all internet activities in order to reinforce artificial scarcity.

What just happened to Megaupload?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The government could, with a lot of cost and effort, stamp down on a lot of filesharing--with the side-effect of making a lot of businesses slow to a crawl.

Supposition.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copying doesn't get harder. EVER. It never has, in the history of humankind. Copying will not be harder in 10 years than it is now.

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

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Digital piracy is never going to be "stopped". It could be mitigated--reduced to a level of nuisance rather than threat to livelihoods...

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.

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.

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.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Presumably he's also talking about a form of file sharing where people "acquiring" aren't also distributing by uploading.

If by "he" you mean me, you are right.

[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....

[cjr72]

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.

The web is something much greater than a den for piracy in large part because of its openness and lack of security. Locking it down in some misguided attempt to cement the old guard's gatekeeper status would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Bittybye]

Just putting this out there

About 90% of my DVD, paper books, and in the old days VHS was bought second hand or given to me when the other person no longer wanted them, which is legal, no one got paid for my owning that copy.

I in no way advocate piracy, I want my favourite authors to keep writing, but idiots like this irritate me. A pirated books/movie/music is not an automatic lost sale. Most people wouldn't have bought that item in the first place.