IP / Copyright / Pirating Discussion [Split Topic]

[Xerone]

The RIAA is crazy too. They make all these laws that make it illegal to download music or any other copyrighted material that they just can't enfore. The only time I remember someone getting in trouble for downloading music was back in when Kazaa was king and the little girl (Was she 10? Not sure) fined $10,000.

[extrarice]

The RIAA is crazy too. They make all these laws that make it illegal to download music or any other copyrighted material that they just can't enfore. The only time I remember someone getting in trouble for downloading music was back in when Kazaa was king and the little girl (Was she 10? Not sure) fined $10,000.

Actually the lawsuits are still happening all the time. It just doesn't make the news anymore unless (a) the target of the lawsuit fights back, or (b) the target of the lawsuit logically couldn't have downloaded what the lawsuit says they did.

[RedWolf]

The RIAA is crazy too. They make all these laws that make it illegal to download music or any other copyrighted material that they just can't enfore. The only time I remember someone getting in trouble for downloading music was back in when Kazaa was king and the little girl (Was she 10? Not sure) fined $10,000.

Also it should be noted that the RIAA doesn't "make laws."  It is merely a trade group for big record labels, acting and speaking out in the united "best interest" of its members.

[extrarice]

Also it should be noted that the RIAA doesn't "make laws."  It is merely a trade group for big record labels, acting and speaking out in the united "best interest" of its members.

Though they do lobby heavily in Congress and donate a lot of money to Congressmen. Like any individual or group, they can suggest laws and bills to our lawmakers. The RIAA/MPAA just has a lot more money to back up that suggestion than the average person does.

Personally, I find iTune's DRM system the most palatable. You can have that song "authorized" on up to 5 computers at a time (you can de-authorize and re-authorize computers at will). You can burn the songs you buy to CD any number of times you want. The DRM is locked in to the iPod, which is a bummer, but it's a lot better than ripping a CD that installs a root-kit.

[t3hfr3ak]

One thing about pirating modern movies/games. Is that alot of people cannot afford the movies, or music. I lived on my own for two years, barely having enough food for my girlfriend and I. I downloaded music and movies ALOT because I wanted to see them but could not afford to.

[RedWolf]

One thing about pirating modern movies/games. Is that alot of people cannot afford the movies, or music. I lived on my own for two years, barely having enough food for my girlfriend and I. I downloaded music and movies ALOT because I wanted to see them but could not afford to.

Well...just because you can't afford something obviously doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.  Entertainment is neither a right nor a necessity, so if you've fallen on hard times, you'll just have to live without.  Just like how I can't afford a new big-screen plasma TV -- that doesn't make it ok for me to go steal one.  The same could be said for any other luxury good in the world.  Now if you had to steal FOOD to live, that would be another story.  While obviously still illegal, it wouldn't be as unethical as stealing a luxury/entertainment item or service.

All that being said, I think DVDs and CD albums should be no more than $10 new.  And the RIAA and MPAA still suck.

P.S. Thanks for starting up another discussion! 

[palad]

Of course, one difference is that downloading a movie or some music does not deprive somebody else of its use.  In contrast, if I steal a television, the original owner of it no longer has the use of it, and the investment he made is lost.  If I photocopy pages of a book, then return it to the library shelf, the library still has their investment, and other people can still make use of it.  Copying bits of data, by their very nature, cannot prevent the original owner from using them.  What we arrive at, then, is a moral consideration of the rightness and wrongness of using something you have not paid a fair price for, which will eventually get us around to a discussion on the merits of capitalism.  And I don't really wanna go there.   

[extrarice]

Of course, one difference is that downloading a movie or some music does not deprive somebody else of its use.  In contrast, if I steal a television, the original owner of it no longer has the use of it, and the investment he made is lost.  If I photocopy pages of a book, then return it to the library shelf, the library still has their investment, and other people can still make use of it.  Copying bits of data, by their very nature, cannot prevent the original owner from using them.  What we arrive at, then, is a moral consideration of the rightness and wrongness of using something you have not paid a fair price for, which will eventually get us around to a discussion on the merits of capitalism.  And I don't really wanna go there.   

The essence of copyright is control of distribution. It's not about "for-profit" distribution, or controlling access to an idea that has X number of physical copies. No, copying bits of data does not prevent the original owner from using them. However, copying the bits of data without the owner's permission is against the law. That is the crux of copyright. It's not about money, but control. The owner, for a time, should decide how he wants his work to be distributed, not the masses.

That being said, copyright law is severely screwed up in its current incarnation. Read Free Culture for an interesting take on copyright's past, present and future.

[t3hfr3ak]

The essence of copyright is control of distribution. It's not about "for-profit" distribution, or controlling access to an idea that has X number of physical copies. No, copying bits of data does not prevent the original owner from using them. However, copying the bits of data without the owner's permission is against the law. That is the crux of copyright. It's not about money, but control. The owner, for a time, should decide how he wants his work to be distributed, not the masses.

That being said, copyright law is severely screwed up in its current incarnation. Read Free Culture for an interesting take on copyright's past, present and future.

While I do agree with what you say... I have another opinion. Once you pay for something. Are you not the owner of it? If you feel you want to buy a DVD, Game, Book, Music, ECT and share it online, is that not getting your permission?

[palad]

There are two different levels of ownership.  You do own the physical object and can do anything you like with it.  If you buy a book, and want to use it to wallpaper your house, feel free.  Copyright law, however, creates a distinction between the book itself, and the specific combination of words that make up the book.  While you may own the book, the author still holds the rights (for a certain time) to the combination of words.

Currently, companies are trying to create a situation where you don't actually purchase a cd or software program -- instead, you license the information.  In effect, you're purchasing the item but leasing the information, and ownership remains in the publisher's hands.

[RedWolf]

Patent law, however, creates a distinction between the book itself, and the specific combination of words that make up the book.

By the way, just to clarify, Patent law is not what we're talking about here.  It's Copyright law.  They're very different things.

While I do agree with what you say... I have another opinion. Once you pay for something. Are you not the owner of it? If you feel you want to buy a DVD, Game, Book, Music, ECT and share it online, is that not getting your permission?

When you buy a DVD, you buy a copy of that work for your own personal use on a small scale.  You are not buying the copyright rights, which would allow you to distribute the work.  Copyright is all about controlling the publication and distribution of a work.  The owner of the copyright reserves the rights to decide how a work they created is distributed.  If you are not the owner of the copyright for the work, it is illegal for you to distribute the work in any form, whether free or not.  And that's that.

Still, we seem to like breaking the law...under certain circumstances anyway.

[extrarice]

Still, we seem to like breaking the law...under certain circumstances anyway.

There is a difference between illegal and unethical/immoral... ;-)

For instance, it is technically illegal for me to download a ROM image of "Tetris" for Gameboy (unless I own the cart...and even then, I wouldn't want to go to court if Nintendo decided to press the issue). However, it does not violate my ethics and morals to not pay for a product that is no longer in production or for retail sale, especially since I would be aquiring the product in a different form than the retail sale provided (ROM image vs. physical cart).

Now, when you star talking about ethics and morals, that debate usually turns into personal decisions and convictions, since it is not black-and-white law.

[RedWolf]

Still, we seem to like breaking the law...under certain circumstances anyway.

There is a difference between illegal and unethical/immoral... ;-)

Oh, I know it, my friend...I know it all too well.

That one reason you said there is why there's a problem with the current copyright situation at all.  If we all felt it was "wrong" to break the law in all circumstances with regard to copyright law, then there would be no controversy.  We would just be happy little cogs in the wheel of the entertainment and software industries.

The main problem for me is that consumers' fair-use rights are being restricted all the time when it comes to making personal copies of things they already have purchased, and that bothers me a lot.  I don't claim to own or even want the right to distribute copies of what I have purchased, but I want the right to make personal copies of that work to all different forms of media myself without hassles and without being considered a criminal.  I also want the convenience of acquiring new entertainment without being locked to a specific physical format.  The entertainment industry is turning normal people into criminals by lobbying to restrict copyright laws and being anti-consumer in terms of DRM and stifling innovation and convenience.  They'll soon have to wake up and change their ways, however, if they want to keep their customers.

Another case where ethics and laws don't exactly mix is when it comes to "obsolete" or out-of-print games, like you said.  It's a weird, fuzzy territory that's both wrong and kinda right at the same time.  I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue, but meanwhile, as I'm being indecisive on the issue, I do have a large collection of old games that I didn't purchase...

[t3hfr3ak]

Now RedWolf... I can understand that. Lets say I just bought a game that i LOVE for the PC. I don't want the CD getting scratched or anything and I want to take care of it. So I either A)Make a copy B)Make an Image file of the CD or C)Buy another copy.

We should be able to do A or B without problems if it is for personal use only. But no matter what people will abuse it. It sucks all too much when you actually on it. (EA games are famous for thier protection crap)

[extrarice]

Now RedWolf... I can understand that. Lets say I just bought a game that i LOVE for the PC. I don't want the CD getting scratched or anything and I want to take care of it. So I either A)Make a copy B)Make an Image file of the CD or C)Buy another copy.

We should be able to do A or B without problems if it is for personal use only. But no matter what people will abuse it. It sucks all too much when you actually on it. (EA games are famous for thier protection crap)

Agree with you 100%. And technically, you are allowed by law to do A for any media you purchase. Why noone has sued company X for preventing home backups, as allowed by law, is beyond me.