PDA

View Full Version : Piracy Keeps Getting Easier



shewbox
January 12th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Just a thought:

Big Media keeps producing tougher DRM schemes that really screw over its customers. But at the same time, that same content they can prevent average joe from copying is very easily accesible via any number of illicit means. I'm not trying to argue for or against piracy here, I just find it interesting how well piracy thrives despite all the DRM and legislation to keep it under control. :-k

heinouskyle
January 12th, 2007, 02:25 AM
Everyone likes free stuff. And everything is free in the eyes of a pirate.

liljoe76
January 12th, 2007, 02:28 AM
arrrrrgh

IYY
January 12th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Personally, I don't pirate music, but I do support the pirates. Why? Because they're bringing down the music industry, which is currently set up in a way that screws most artists and benefits only a select few who usually don't even deserve it.

BWF89
January 12th, 2007, 02:39 AM
But at the same time, that same content they can prevent average joe from copying is very easily accesible via any number of illicit means.
That's a big 10-4.

I got an iMac with DVD duel layer burning. It took me about a half hour to find the right software and figure out how to make backup copies of my DVD's. Even the ones that said on the back it had preventative measures to keep it from being played on illegitimate devices.

Kernel Sanders
January 12th, 2007, 02:43 AM
Piracy Keeps Getting Easier

Music piracy maybe, but software piracy is getting harder.

Take a look at Windows Vista, its activation timer can be slowed down drastically (not stopped as reported) yet this causes problems, or you can run the business version, and keep connecting to a pirate activation server every so many days to keep your OS functional.

Who the hell would want to run an OS under those circumstances? :rolleyes:

Incidentally, Windows XP was cracked fully prior to its launch, both by the no activation corporate versions availability, and by cracking the retail version.

Vista has shown no sign of being able to be cracked as yet, and the current "workarounds" are appalling, and leave you with an OS that could reduce its functionality, or block access to windows and force you to activate at any time.

Piracy is getting harder, make no mistake.

meng
January 12th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Reducing software piracy can only be a bad thing for Microsoft.

Tomosaur
January 12th, 2007, 03:06 AM
The problem with trying to stop piracy via software is that there is no encryption algorithm or lock which can be be created, which is unbreakable. It is a mathematical impossibility, and all it takes is enough processing power to get it done in a reasonable time. In some cases, encryption can take years to break (seriously), so many crackers prefer social engineering to work around piracy prevention methods. The most DRM and stuff like that does is just provide a minor annoyance. Once the encryption algorithm is discovered, it takes no time at all for the anti-piracy methods to become obsolete. This new hardware-based piracy prevention (HDCP, Vista etc) is tougher, sure, but all it takes is a determined mind, and the people who create this hardware aren't exactly ambassadors of good-will. If they didn't continuously **** people off, people wouldn't be so bothered about cracking their protection.

454redhawk
January 12th, 2007, 03:25 AM
Everyone likes free stuff. And everything is free in the eyes of a pirate.

.

Arisna
January 12th, 2007, 03:32 AM
A lot of music isn't worth paying for. Windows Vista isn't worth stealing. :p

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Personally, I don't pirate music, but I do support the pirates. Why? Because they're bringing down the music industry, which is currently set up in a way that screws most artists and benefits only a select few who usually don't even deserve it.

Interesting. I've always thought of "the music industry" as the corporate backbone that facilitates distribution of music. It's a pretty easy argument to make that very talented musicians don't get rich for being talented, musicians get rich for being commercially available and widely distributed.

Musicians can be smart, and talented, and hard working, but if they don't build commercial relationships, and become masters of marketing, advertising, economics and sales, they're just musicians.

The people who maintain those commercial relationships, create album sales, and generate the revenue deserve the fruits of their labor. That's capitalism. Without those types of people, the music industry is just a bunch of (sometimes) very talented and (often) poor players of instruments.

For the record, I'm not for or against piracy.

[edit] I don't believe the industry screws the musicians. Musicians play music. The industry sells music. If there is some piece of the pie musicians want that they're not getting, they should do a better job of making it for themselves.

Albi
January 12th, 2007, 03:55 AM
IMO the industry is screwing itself over.
I can either pay 99c (which requires me setting up a paypal account and give my credit card info online) PER SONG (honestly, I'm not gonna spend $4500 to fill my ipod!) to download some shotty 128kpb/s DRM infested piece of CRAP, if I can even FIND it with their small selection, and who knows, it might not even let me copy it over to my mp3 player, because supposedly I'm "supporting the artist".

Or I can fire up bittorent/frostwire/soulseek and without any hassle get a free song (even find a high quality version sometimes) that I can do whatever I want with. Honestly, I would buy music just to support the artist, but here's what I want to see happen:

1) Remove DRM from the songs
2) Add higher quality downloads FFS
3) Get rid of sleazy contracting terms, which greatly limits what I can do with something I buy

qamelian
January 12th, 2007, 04:00 AM
[edit] I don't believe the industry screws the musicians. Musicians play music. The industry sells music. If there is some piece of the pie musicians want that they're not getting, they should do a better job of making it for themselves.

For an insider's view of the typical financial arrangements between the recording industry and the artists, check out:

http://negativland.com/albini.html

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 04:13 AM
For an insider's view of the typical financial arrangements between the recording industry and the artists

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties.

The failure in the thought process is there^. The band hasn't made the industry more than 3 million dollars richer. If they could do that, they would do it for themselves.

In any business (programmers can actually relate to musicians in this sense), the money is not generated by the product as much as it's generated by the salesmen. So what if you can play a guitar? Picking bitchin' licks on your Strat doesn't make anyone money (and neither does rappin' stories of the ghetto). The sales department makes money. They deserve most of the return. That's why people get into business, to make money.

In the scheme of things, playing the instrument, being the musician, generates the least revenue. And that's why they get paid the least. The people who risk capital, build commercial relationships, and generate revenue get the lion's share of the return. By the way, this isn't just my opinion. You learn that sort of thing in econ or bus 101, even in community college.

Now that I think of it, if I had to manage a few thousand people involved in developing and packaging albums, driving sales, promotions, and marketing, while putting up with whiny bs musicians who think they deserve more money and a bigger tour bus, all while they're all getting paychecks generated from my capital investment, I'd be pissed about people stealing my music too. Even if I was wrong in principle, if my money was on the line, I would do everything in my power to protect my business. Running, managing and protecting a business is incredibly difficult work. You would do the same.

(Use Limewire!) :D

euler_fan
January 12th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Economically speaking, piracy is usually the result of two things:
(1) Too high a price
(2) access to the means to pirate/cheaper alternative to conventional/legal market

Those are the same reasons people smuggle diamonds/heroin/pick-your-poison or ran speakeasies during prohibition.

Looks like it might be time for the music industry to cut cost and lower price rather than try to plug the whole in its distribution system.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 05:37 AM
[Edited]

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 07:29 AM
The average Joe isn't copying that latest movie himself, and that's the flaw in the OP's logic. It's only downloading that has become easier, thanks to better p2p programs and faster internet connections, but that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of DRM.

Piracy is more vulnerable than you think; only a very small number of people possess the skills to crack a computer program, or even rip a movie. With better DRM and a few successful crackdowns on the warez scene, piracy won't thrive so much anymore.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 07:32 AM
[Edited]

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 07:59 AM
Global crackdown? Many countries have sophisticated technologies and deal in American media, but lack the law to protect it.

I don't think you understand the problem. The warez scene is small; the number of people that do the actual work is in the thousands. And that's if we're generous and include those ripping CDs and crap. For something difficult, like game cracking, it's *much* lower than that. And sure, some countries won't cooperate with the FBI in the next crackdown, but what are you as a game cracker going to do to avoid the FBI? Pack your bags and move to North Korea?

Piracy will of course always exist, what I'm saying is that it can be harmed considerably.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 08:05 AM
[Edited]

sloggerkhan
January 12th, 2007, 08:08 AM
Personally i find it appalling that in america it's against the law for a person to use their own media reasonably. The only music site I know of that I'd actually use is http://magnatune.com/ . Otherwise you are supporting BS.

I will NOT pay for DVDs/CDs until they are reasonably priced and have NO DRM.
Reasonable: Artists get a significant share (more than 25% of a sale), songs cost less than $0.80 cents, preferably $0.25-0.50 cents, albums cost 5$ or less, and DVDs cost $6.50 or less.

The more DRM there is, the more copyright is abused, the more people will hate hollywood and the RIAA and the more they will pirate and hack and steal until things are changed.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 08:15 AM
Personally i find it appalling that in america it's against the law for a person to use their own media reasonably.

No doubt. I bought an ebook (pdf) a few months ago to give it a try. I couldn't do anything with it. No printing, no copying, no moving to another computer, no moving on the same computer. Worthless. It was a waste of money - totally over the top.

I wrote and complained, swore I would never buy one again.

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 08:18 AM
Even if your estimate of "thousands" is correct, 900 of them live outside the US. Your estimate is grossly incorrect, along with your perception of the problem.

Not living in the US is no guarantee to not get hit. Where were you during Buccaneer and Fastlink? I can tell you where I was: in front of my computer, watching in real time as the news and pictures came in from around Europe, hoping that I wasn't added on any of the servers that were being carried away by the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fastlink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Site_Down

The scene is small, and the people who actually do any work is even smaller. Targeting them does give results (internet traffic was down drastically the days after the raids, and the number of releases much lower than usual), and a bunch of even more successful attacks would do serious harm, and long term harm.


Only "thousands" of people with that skill? C'mon, some even play in these forums. ;)
I meant computer games. They have a lot tougher copy protection than most software. And I did mention that DRM had to improved as well.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 08:30 AM
[Edited]

ubuntuman001
January 12th, 2007, 08:32 AM
What I don't understand is how "sharing" music online, whether it be by gnutella/bittorrent/etc. , is any different than taking a cd to a friend's house, letting him borrow it, and then rip it on his computer?

I mean, back then, you could share music with whomever you liked. For example, you could borrow your friend's Beatles cassette and make your own copy. This is sharing. This is legal. But sharing this on a medium such as the internet, is illegal. Hmmm...

So I guess the only argument the anti-pirating people have is "Well internet sharing is on a scale much larger than anything ever, so it has to be illegal" or something...

My stance on piracy: no comment.

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 08:35 AM
No disagreement. My parents, and everyone else I know, stopped downloading music when they thought they might get sued for doing so. Then everyone I know started doing it again.
Your parents and everyone you know isn't releasing warez. The number of people that do that is much lower and the risk for them is much greater. Again, I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about how much something is downloaded, but the vulnerability of the infrastructure that makes sure things are available to download in the first place.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 08:45 AM
Your parents and everyone you know isn't releasing warez. The number of people that do that is much lower and the risk for them is much greater. Again, I don't think you understand what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about how much something is downloaded, but the vulnerability of the infrastructure that makes sure things are available to download in the first place.

The number of people capable of releasing warez is much bigger than "thousands". Plenty of American companies keep a few talented people like that on the payroll. The number of people who break software is considerably greater than the number of people who release it. I don't disagree that the number of people who use it is exponentially bigger.

Let me take a different approach. Even if I didn't disagree with your point, none of your arguments so far convincingly support it. Even if all of your individual arguments were flawless, which they aren't, they don't add up to a sizable dent in piracy. The truth is that I would like to be convinced, you just haven't convinced me.

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 08:57 AM
The number of people who break software is considerably greater than the number of people who release it. I don't disagree that the number of people who use it is exponentially bigger.

This sentence shows that you don't understand how the scene works. I think you should point out why my logic fails, as you say it does, instead of talk of something you have no knowledge of.


The number of people capable of releasing warez is much bigger than "thousands".

To break copy protection schemes such as StarForce is very difficult. There are not thousands of people in the world that are capable of that today. Not even hundreds. Not even dozens! Thousands that are capable of learning, perhaps. But they'd also have to be VERY interested in cracking games, interested in piracy in general and being part of the scene, and not mind being criminals and number 1 on the FBI hit list. And the countries were most people capable of breaking tough protection schemes live are also countries where you can get thrown in jail for doing it.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 09:08 AM
If I have to go the extra step to convince you that you haven't convinced me, I think I'd rather sleep. It does seem interesting to me that piracy exists on such a large scale, with almost every big piece of software I've ever used easily accessible in a broken form, or with a key gen, being so difficult and often time consuming* - essentially anything you want - all on the backs of "a few" geniuses who are easily stoppable by the group you keep referring to.

It all makes sense to you though? Who do you think writes those solutions to begin with, if there are so few people capable of breaking them back down?

On top of that, how - all else being true (which it isn't) - you get an 'inside' peek into the 'scene' in order to develop an understanding beyond that of the rest of us is a curiosity. I'm bored. I'm going to sleep.


*You didn't say this, I would add it on my own, because it would be time consuming (as it's so difficult) - unless you wrote the software you're distributing illegally

pmj
January 12th, 2007, 09:13 AM
If I have to go the extra step to convince you that you haven't convinced me, I think I'd rather sleep. It does seem interesting to me that piracy exists on such a large scale, with almost every big piece of software I've ever used easily accessible in a broken form, or with a key gen, being so difficult and often time consuming* - essentially anything you want - all on the backs of "a few" geniuses who are easily stoppable by the group you keep referring to.

It all makes sense to you though? Who do you think writes those solutions to begin with, if there are so few people capable of breaking them back down?

On top of that, how - all else being true (which it isn't) - you get an 'inside' peek into the 'scene' in order to develop an understanding beyond that of the rest of us is a curiosity. I'm bored. I'm going to sleep.


*You didn't say this, I would add it on my own, because it would be time consuming (as it's so difficult) - unless you wrote the software you're distributing illegally

I said that *some* software was difficult to crack, namely games. And you're right about it being time consuming; some games takes weeks to get released. I also said that DRM had to be improved. If that wasn't clear before, I'm making it clear now: DRM has to improve. The technology is here, it's constantly improving, but it has to be put to more use if piracy is to be decreased.

And you have to understand where I'm coming from when I see the scene as vulnerable. I used to be part of the scene. I wasn't anybody special, but I had enough connections and sat on enough information to bring down dozens if not hundreds of sites and people if I had gone to the police and told them everything I knew. It's a miracle that the scene is as secure as it is, and it makes me really happy, because it means that snitching is very rare. And not because if you snitch someone will come and kill you, like in certain other criminal groups, but because we value our community and friends.

KaeseEs
January 12th, 2007, 09:37 AM
What I don't understand is how "sharing" music online, whether it be by gnutella/bittorrent/etc. , is any different than taking a cd to a friend's house, letting him borrow it, and then rip it on his computer?

I mean, back then, you could share music with whomever you liked. For example, you could borrow your friend's Beatles cassette and make your own copy. This is sharing. This is legal. But sharing this on a medium such as the internet, is illegal. Hmmm...

So I guess the only argument the anti-pirating people have is "Well internet sharing is on a scale much larger than anything ever, so it has to be illegal" or something...

My stance on piracy: no comment.

The problem with your analysis is that copying your friend's tape isn't, and has never been, legal. Nor his CD. The reason that nobody we know was sued in the 80s is that tape trading between individuals was/is near impossible to track, trace, etc. and rather ineffectual. Many large-scale tape copy&resellers were busted, however (to be sure, many more never were). With the internet, the scale of the sharing is much greater, and generally traceable via networking protocol and manipulation of ISPs (corporate 'social engineering'?), meaning it's simple for *AA to nail a few 13 year-olds for six figures apiece and make examples.

Note also that the litigation from 'content' moguls over the first VCRs, which set the precedent for fair use of media (at least in the US), is still the norm - backups and format-shifting are legal, most everything else isn't. Though the (shortsighted, foolish and probaby unconstitutional) DMCA would seem to be at odds with this, thus YMMV.

jeremy
January 12th, 2007, 11:43 AM
The problem with your analysis is that copying your friend's tape isn't, and has never been, legal. Nor his CD...
That depends where you live. Here it is legal as long as long as it is for personal (ie. not for financial gain) use.

AndyCooll
January 12th, 2007, 01:57 PM
Originally Posted by KaeseEs
The problem with your analysis is that copying your friend's tape isn't, and has never been, legal. Nor his CD...
Quote: Jeremy:
That depends where you live. Here it is legal as long as long as it is for personal (ie. not for financial gain) use.


And where is "here"? For it certainly hasn't ever been legal in the UK. "Personal", as far as I'm aware always meant that you, the owner of the material may make another copy for your own personal use, not for distribution to friends.

:cool:

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Everyone likes free stuff. And everything is free in the eyes of a pirate.

Allmost all my software, music and movies are pirated. I bitch and moan about how they are overpriced etc and that these companies make enough money already.

But the simple truth I want those things and am just too lazy and dishonest to work for them, stealing them is easy and the chance to get caught virtually nihil.

Kernel Sanders
January 12th, 2007, 02:05 PM
Reducing software piracy can only be a bad thing for Microsoft.

QFT

rai4shu2
January 12th, 2007, 02:20 PM
The problem is people abusing the term "piracy" to mean something it isn't.

Real piracy is when you are deprived of your real property, not when your business model isn't working and you therefore decide that it must be because your wealth is magically being "stolen" from you.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 02:36 PM
More lame excuses, intellectual propery is property too.

Kernel Sanders
January 12th, 2007, 02:45 PM
The problem is people abusing the term "piracy" to mean something it isn't.

Real piracy is when you are deprived of your real property, not when your business model isn't working and you therefore decide that it must be because your wealth is magically being "stolen" from you.

I maintain that piracy is NOT theft, its copyright infringement. Theft is when you take something, depriving someone of the opportunity to sell it again. Imagine walking into a shop, picking up an item, and then walking out without paying. You are depriving the owner of the opportunity of selling that product again, as you are now in possession of it. If you were able to walk into that shop, clone that item and leave, you would be infringing copywrite, yet the owner could still sell the original, he hasnt been deprived of that.

My opinion anyway :)

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 02:58 PM
More lame excuses, intellectual propery is property too.

IP is a form of state granted monopoly that should be blasted out of existence, well at least where patents are concerned but the recent talks of banning the free distribution of lyrics in some countries is also too much. There are a limited number of combinations of words with meaning, to own them is farcical. Perhaps the owner of the English language should sue us all for copyright infringement.

I would back copyright as it was limited to a single performance or production. For a song this means that the release is copyrighted not an abstract entity.

mips
January 12th, 2007, 03:03 PM
More lame excuses, intellectual propery is property too.

Yes but i never took the songs you wrote, you still have them.

There is a difference between piracy and copyright infringement, it's not the same thing. Using the correct terminology is not an excuse.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 03:11 PM
Yes but i never took the songs you wrote, you still have them.
*
There is a difference between piracy and copyright infringement, it's not the same thing. Using the correct terminology is not an excuse.
*It is the same thing: you deprive people from the fruit of their labour. One person lives from creating and selling goods, the other from creating and selling ideas but according to your logic the latter basicly has no rights to an income from his work.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 03:15 PM
The failure in the thought process is there^. The band hasn't made the industry more than 3 million dollars richer. If they could do that, they would do it for themselves.

In any business (programmers can actually relate to musicians in this sense), the money is not generated by the product as much as it's generated by the salesmen. So what if you can play a guitar? Picking bitchin' licks on your Strat doesn't make anyone money (and neither does rappin' stories of the ghetto). The sales department makes money. They deserve most of the return. That's why people get into business, to make money.

In the scheme of things, playing the instrument, being the musician, generates the least revenue. And that's why they get paid the least. The people who risk capital, build commercial relationships, and generate revenue get the lion's share of the return. By the way, this isn't just my opinion. You learn that sort of thing in econ or bus 101, even in community college.

Now that I think of it, if I had to manage a few thousand people involved in developing and packaging albums, driving sales, promotions, and marketing, while putting up with whiny bs musicians who think they deserve more money and a bigger tour bus, all while they're all getting paychecks generated from my capital investment, I'd be pissed about people stealing my music too. Even if I was wrong in principle, if my money was on the line, I would do everything in my power to protect my business. Running, managing and protecting a business is incredibly difficult work. You would do the same.

(Use Limewire!) :D

I'd agree with some if not most of this but...

In the past the current distribution channels were vital. There's no way around it, selling music was a huge investment on the order of millions that only a few could afford to take on and the large payout represented their importance to the process however much we do not like it.

This is no longer the case. The previous start up cost of hundreds of millions with millions needed for simple maintenance are now reduced to start up costs in the thousands with maintenance costs around several hundred a year for downloaded content.

The music distribution sector is no longer the vital 2% it used to be and all the loss of profits, move towards downloads and attempts to lock down the tech industry are indicative of that. The end result is distributed distribution (love that combination) perhaps with an appropriate front end set up that would make its money via advertising and via deals with the artists.

Why hasn't it already happened, they haven't been prepared to take on the risk as of yet but that doesn't mean that it won't work in the long run nor does it mean we shouldn't support them in doing so. Advocacy is vital in a free market.

Really they're in the same boat as OSS was, we didn't just say MS were unnecessary something was done about it. What is needed for artists is the previously mentioned front end and a server OS they can just slap on a box with a high speed line that they can link into that front end then just drop the content in. Naturally over time large corporations would develop that would offer hosting for a cut but it wouldn't remove that initial way in so wouldn't collapse back into the current situation.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 03:20 PM
*It is the same thing: you deprive people from the fruit of their labour. One person lives from creating and selling goods, the other from creating and selling ideas but according to your logic the latter basicly has no rights to an income from his work.
.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: none; color: #666666; font-family: "Verdana [microsoft]", "Lucida [B&H]", "Arial [monotype]", "Helvetica [Adobe]", "Arial [monotype]"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }

Lets take this back to the core logic for the moment. Most properly laws derive from the ideas of Locke and the concept of original appropriation.

If we are to have an idea of IP then original appropriation must exist. I have millions of thoughts a day, do all the new ones belong to me in a legal manner or must I satisfy some oligarch before I own them.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 03:44 PM
Lets take this back to the core logic for the moment. Most properly laws derive from the ideas of Locke and the concept of original appropriation.

If we are to have an idea of IP then original appropriation must exist. I have millions of thoughts a day, do all the new ones belong to me in a legal manner or must I satisfy some oligarch before I own them.

I amy have said ideas but this not how I meant it. I meant things like, books, movies, audio, software etc. Actually they are products but because the digital age they have more become like ideas in the way that they can be copied and spread quite easily.

dorcssa
January 12th, 2007, 03:55 PM
In my country, downloading is legal, but sharing it(uploading it) is illegal. It's a little funny I think.

rai4shu2
January 12th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Everyone has the right to work, but whether that work pays is not my problem. That is your problem.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 04:22 PM
Everyone has the right to work, but whether that work pays is not my problem. That is your problem.
Tell us where do you live because for everyone else rai4shu2 property is free for the taking.

Incidently are you one of those people who think that getting the state to steal for you from the working people (ie welfare) is your right too?

ZylGadis
January 12th, 2007, 04:25 PM
The phrase "Intellectual Property" is a contradiction by the definition of the terms "intellect" and "property."
And piracy is NOT copyright infringement, either. It would be copyright infringement if somebody took a song by (e.g.) Britney Spears, changed the name of the file / id tags / all author information, and released the same song under a different name.
In a free world, there would be no piracy, because everybody would do it. The term "piracy" is misleading again - nobody is stealing from the authors, because the authors still have their work. It is impossible to steal an idea. It is possible to take someone else's idea, use it, and prevent the original author from using it, but that is a different story - the original author still has the idea as much as you do.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 04:36 PM
The phrase "Intellectual Property" is a contradiction by the definition of the terms "intellect" and "property."
And piracy is NOT copyright infringement, either. It would be copyright infringement if somebody took a song by (e.g.) Britney Spears, changed the name of the file / id tags / all author information, and released the same song under a different name.
In a free world, there would be no piracy, because everybody would do it. The term "piracy" is misleading again - nobody is stealing from the authors, because the authors still have their work. It is impossible to steal an idea. It is possible to take someone else's idea, use it, and prevent the original author from using it, but that is a different story - the original author still has the idea as much as you do.
It's not about the "work" you steal, you steal their way to make a living, which they worked for NOT you.

rai4shu2
January 12th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Do you actually bother to read posts, ffi?

Please stop already with the flame-baiting. It's getting old.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Just because a person can make money from it in the right context does not make it acceptable. I can take a gun, prance into the centre of Cardiff and demand money. Under many circumstances it would be hard work, I might have to kill many police officers.

Just because its hard work and could be made saleable is not enough to infer a property right or legitimacy.

I've already said I'd allow a person a limited time monopoly on the sale of an individual implementation but would not allow them to claim it all as their property. So Britney Spears could make a recording of Hit Me Baby and call that her own and imbue a property right in all copies and format translations but would insist on a fair use policy.

I'd allow another person to make their own version of the same song and release that, also I'd allow the release of related material like lyrics. This is sane property in that it isn't granting people control over combinations of words that would have been used many times in the past, it is only allows the specific implementation to be called property and then on a limited time frame.

This is similar in practicality to where software patents are. I'd allow MS to call their source their own but allow anyone to re-implement it.

We need to move away from government granted monopolies and towards a free market. Strong IP is an abomination in such a system.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 05:39 PM
Just because a person can make money from it in the right context does not make it acceptable. I can take a gun, prance into the centre of Cardiff and demand money. Under many circumstances it would be hard work, I might have to kill many police officers.

This certainly would not be work but extorting other to hand over their property.


Just because its hard work and could be made saleable is not enough to infer a property right or legitimacy.

I've already said I'd allow a person a limited time monopoly on the sale of an individual implementation but would not allow them to claim it all as their property. So Britney Spears could make a recording of Hit Me Baby and call that her own and imbue a property right in all copies and format translations but would insist on a fair use policy.

I'd allow another person to make their own version of the same song and release that, also I'd allow the release of related material like lyrics. This is sane property in that it isn't granting people control over combinations of words that would have been used many times in the past, it is only allows the specific implementation to be called property and then on a limited time frame.

This is similar in practicality to where software patents are. I'd allow MS to call their source their own but allow anyone to re-implement it.



It's like taking with a communist, they also believe it's fair to use the property of others because they believe the other has to much already (they of course never believe the same holds true for their property)



We need to move away from government granted monopolies and towards a free market. Strong IP is an abomination in such a system.

Wow, I actually used to very strongly against DRM but you have just now convinced me otherwise. Audio and video recordings, writings and software belong to the authors and if you use it without compensating it you are stealing from them.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 05:44 PM
IIn the past the current distribution channels were vital. There's no way around it, selling music was a huge investment on the order of millions that only a few could afford to take on and the large payout represented their importance to the process however much we do not like it.

This is no longer the case. The previous start up cost of hundreds of millions with millions needed for simple maintenance are now reduced to start up costs in the thousands with maintenance costs around several hundred a year for downloaded content.

The music distribution sector is no longer the vital 2% it used to be and all the loss of profits, move towards downloads and attempts to lock down the tech industry are indicative of that. The end result is distributed distribution (love that combination) perhaps with an appropriate front end set up that would make its money via advertising and via deals with the artists.

Why hasn't it already happened, they haven't been prepared to take on the risk as of yet but that doesn't mean that it won't work in the long run nor does it mean we shouldn't support them in doing so. Advocacy is vital in a free market.

Really they're in the same boat as OSS was, we didn't just say MS were unnecessary something was done about it. What is needed for artists is the previously mentioned front end and a server OS they can just slap on a box with a high speed line that they can link into that front end then just drop the content in. Naturally over time large corporations would develop that would offer hosting for a cut but it wouldn't remove that initial way in so wouldn't collapse back into the current situation.

Don't get carried away. It's a simple equation and a simple point. If musicians are unhappy with their deals (per the post I was responding to), they need to control, manage and drive sales.

It doesn't matter what distribution method they use. The point is that if musicians go to the industry, sign a contract, get put on the payroll, and take advantage of the leverage that a big commercial company has, they aren't in a position to demand that they get any more than a modest return.

There isn't anything to disagree with. ;)

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Don't get carried away. It's a simple equation and a simple point. If musicians are unhappy with their deals (per the post I was responding to), they need to control, manage and drive sales.

It doesn't matter what distribution method they use. The point is that if musicians go to the industry, sign a contract, get put on the payroll, and take advantage of the leverage that a big commercial company has, they aren't in a position to demand that they get any more than a modest return.

There isn't anything to disagree with. ;)

Who says I am talking about the musicians? I am also talking about the record companies. Pirates are stealing from them as well. Now you might argue they make enough but who are you to judge? Your neighbour might think the same about you and decide it is right for him to steal from you.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 06:01 PM
It's like taking with a communist, they also believe it's fair to use the property of others because they believe the other has to much already (they of course never believe the same holds true for their property)

No I consider the whole thing to be a form of state granted monopoly. There's nothing communist about wanting to see property rights that have no logical basis dismantled. Let people live and die in a free market. If they don't like it then invest elsewhere. Strong IP is damaging to the economy and should be dealt with.

IP is just the government asserting its power by granting rights to those who pay it money.

M7S
January 12th, 2007, 06:03 PM
More lame excuses, intellectual propery is property too.
That's a bit like saying that an imaginary girlfriend is a girlfriend, too.

Intellectual property is a great term to use to make people believe that thoughts are property. A thought is your own as long as you haven't shared i, but you can't share a thought and call it your own. (In cases and some counties you can claim copyright on it though.)

Theft is theft and copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If you won't use the correct names for things there is no way this discussion will lead anywhere. When you have acknowledged that copyright infringement is copyright infringement and nothing else we can discuss whether it's right or wrong.

Just my 2 c.

Johnsie
January 12th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Soon piracy will no longer be necessary.... The big guys simply wont be able to compete with the free stuff that is just as good if not better. Big companies usied to own the ausio/video/software market but now anyone can publicise their stuff for free and the whole market is becoming much more crowded and competitive. The big guys are now just small specks on a huge globe of websites.

ffi
January 12th, 2007, 06:12 PM
No I consider the whole thing to be a form of state granted monopoly. There's nothing communist about wanting to see property rights that have no logical basis dismantled. Let people live and die in a free market. If they don't like it then invest elsewhere. Strong IP is damaging to the economy and should be dealt with.

IP is just the government asserting its power by granting rights to those who pay it money.


No IP is not blocking a free market, same as anti-theft laws are. I will give you an example from a more or less similar situation but one where the benefit of IP laws for the free market are far more clear, the farmaceutical industry: R&D of drugs and the testing procedure are very very costy beside the fact most drugs never make it to the market (but most costs are made) but most drugs are very easy to reproduce and cheap to produce. Why would any company still invest in R&D if they can wait till their compatitor has something succesful and then start to sell the same drug?

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 06:14 PM
Don't get carried away. It's a simple equation and a simple point. If musicians are unhappy with their deals (per the post I was responding to), they need to control, manage and drive sales.

It doesn't matter what distribution method they use. The point is that if musicians go to the industry, sign a contract, get put on the payroll, and take advantage of the leverage that a big commercial company has, they aren't in a position to demand that they get any more than a modest return.

There isn't anything to disagree with. ;)

They are always in a position to demand, whether they will receive is another thing. I think the point is we can still dislike the situation without wishing it to be illegal and can advocate change and show how to bring it about.

Change maybe coming anyway, here in the UK the charts are starting to allow download only singles in. This will open the way for smaller artists by giving them coverage. Of course in the short term the British charts will just become dominated by the Beatles again but that is just a transition period.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 06:22 PM
No IP is not blocking a free market, same as anti-theft laws are. I will give you an example from a more or less similar situation but one where the benefit of IP laws for the free market are far more clear, the farmaceutical industry: R&D of drugs and the testing procedure are very very costy beside the fact most drugs never make it to the market (but most costs are made) but most drugs are very easy to reproduce and cheap to produce. Why would any company still invest in R&D if they can wait till their compatitor has something succesful and then start to sell the same drug?

In the end the Pharmaceutical industry will also come grinding to a halt over this as the most basic drugs are priced at monopoly prices. Without IP people will not develop standards in isolation, what will happen is a return to collaborative development. We made great gains out of such a system.

The same argument could be made about IBM and BIOS. It is their fault they invested in an area where they couldn't claim a property right. We shouldn't give out property rights just because a few companies have made bad business decisions. The PC is also something that should have been created as a collaborative industry standard. Indeed the changes that were made by the cloners soon after they came about were much better than what IBM had invested all their time in.

phossal
January 12th, 2007, 06:27 PM
They are always in a position to demand, whether they will receive is another thing. I think the point is we can still dislike the situation without wishing it to be illegal and can advocate change and show how to bring it about.

Change maybe coming anyway, here in the UK the charts are starting to allow download only singles in. This will open the way for smaller artists by giving them coverage. Of course in the short term the British charts will just become dominated by the Beatles again but that is just a transition period.


I mistakenly thought you disagreed with something I wrote, instead of using it as a launching pad to express some random thoughts of your own. I shouldn't have replied earlier, sorry. I have tricked myself into thinking that being quoted means something in the response I'm about to read is in some way related to what I wrote. It's clear now that it isn't. Sorry.

G Morgan
January 12th, 2007, 07:58 PM
I mistakenly thought you disagreed with something I wrote, instead of using it as a launching pad to express some random thoughts of your own. I shouldn't have replied earlier, sorry. I have tricked myself into thinking that being quoted means something in the response I'm about to read is in some way related to what I wrote. It's clear now that it isn't. Sorry.

It was related I was just pointing out that just because the small margins musicians made in the past was appropriate given the situation it is not necessarily appropriate today with current forms of technology. Really its momentum that keeps the current situation afloat and changing it requires advocacy at the beginning. Or at least there is nothing wrong with such advocacy.

I may have mistaken the intent of the post I first quoted though.

ffi
January 13th, 2007, 01:28 PM
what will happen is a return to collaborative development. We made great gains out of such a system.


You are joking, right!? You are actually advocating collectivism? I mean it worked great for the USSR, Nazi-Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China etc. etc

G Morgan
January 13th, 2007, 02:33 PM
You are joking, right!? You are actually advocating collectivism? I mean it worked great for the USSR, Nazi-Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China etc. etc

Who said anything about collectivism. Collaboration would be done on an entirely voluntary basis, if people wanted to go it alone fair enough but don't expect us to make baseless property rights in order to make up for your bad business decisions.

Most development in history actually has been done as a collaborative effort. What generally happens is someone comes out with a rough idea that is terribly implemented but has some potential then everyone gets hold of it and makes changes and we eventually fall into a standard pattern as some companies get together to get things working. It's this evolutionary process that is the most important and the reason that go it alone development is so expensive is because its extremely inefficient and a bad way of doing things.

It's why companies can't make money off it in a logical system where property refers to a physical thing and ideas are fair game. It's bad business and should not be encouraged by making ridiculous IP laws.

cowlip
January 13th, 2007, 03:37 PM
This is supposed to change once Trusted/Treacherous Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing) enters the consumer space so you can't run debuggers (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) on DRMs anymore (+DMCA makes it illegal already, this is just supposed to stop it completely).

And they won't be selling CDs forever I don't think, but I wonder for how much longer?

spockrock
January 14th, 2007, 09:31 AM
You are joking, right!? You are actually advocating collectivism? I mean it worked great for the USSR, Nazi-Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China etc. etc

hahahhaaha wow..... Nazi-Germany, while the german Nazi party was national socialist, they were on the opposite end of the spectrum, they did not collectivize anything. I don't want to send the topic off hand but the other countries can be argued how collectivized they are, but look up the spanish revolution, for a proper example of collectivization. That said, I move on....

ffi
January 14th, 2007, 01:03 PM
Who said anything about collectivism. Collaboration would be done on an entirely voluntary basis, if people wanted to go it alone fair enough but don't expect us to make baseless property rights in order to make up for your bad business decisions.

Most development in history actually has been done as a collaborative effort. What generally happens is someone comes out with a rough idea that is terribly implemented but has some potential then everyone gets hold of it and makes changes and we eventually fall into a standard pattern as some companies get together to get things working. It's this evolutionary process that is the most important and the reason that go it alone development is so expensive is because its extremely inefficient and a bad way of doing things.

It's why companies can't make money off it in a logical system where property refers to a physical thing and ideas are fair game. It's bad business and should not be encouraged by making ridiculous IP laws.

The only way to get a collaborative effort is to use force and limit freedoms otherwise it would still be beneficial for new compitors to steal the idea.


hahahhaaha wow..... Nazi-Germany, while the german Nazi party was national socialist, they were on the opposite end of the spectrum, they did not collectivize anything. I don't want to send the topic off hand but the other countries can be argued how collectivized they are, but look up the spanish revolution, for a proper example of collectivization. That said, I move on....

Communism and nazism are two sides of the same coin, both are collectivist. Remember what nasims stands for: national socialism. The Nazis wanted to create an "überrace" the communists a classless society of workers. For the nazis, degenerates had to die so the german race would advance for the communists it was the bourgeois. Incidently the nazi germans also set up a lot of social security, even in the countries they conquored, like here in the Netherlands, were a lot of these collective policies have survived till today.

G Morgan
January 14th, 2007, 01:42 PM
That denies the fact there are profitable collaborative efforts all over industry today.

ffi
January 14th, 2007, 02:08 PM
That denies the fact there are profitable collaborative efforts all over industry today.

This is really a non-sequitur. Collaborative R&D efforts exists, for exactly the same reason, single companies do R&D because they know their R&D will be protected by patents, ie they can reap the benefits of their work.

BWF89
January 14th, 2007, 07:13 PM
only a very small number of people possess the skills to crack a computer program, or even rip a movie. With better DRM and a few successful crackdowns on the warez scene, piracy won't thrive so much anymore.
But it only takes a very small number. Once they've cracked the program they'll release what they've found out and anyone will be able to do it.

I can tell you where I was: in front of my computer, watching in real time as the news and pictures came in from around Europe, hoping that I wasn't added on any of the servers that were being carried away by the police.
You probably have a much higher chance of getting in trouble with the law if your the one that originally uploaded/hosted the torrent, not just one of the millions that download torrents everyday.

*It is the same thing: you deprive people from the fruit of their labour. One person lives from creating and selling goods, the other from creating and selling ideas but according to your logic the latter basicly has no rights to an income from his work.
There was no such thing as a copyright law until 1662 when it was first created in Britain. Musicians, playwrights, and authors before that time never had any sort of contract to give them a monopoly over their own work. If I was living during the time of Shakespeare and wanted to preform Romeo and Juliet as a school play I could just get a copy of the script, get some students to play actors, and preform it for the school without asking for any sort of permission.

zerhacke
January 14th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Every piece of software in my house is either free or pirated. I own nothing that I paid for. Now that my entire house software is Linux based this means that a greater percentage of my household is free versus pirated, but I still have pirated software.

My MP3 collection on the house server is in the 30,000 song range now, I have never bought a legal mp3, and I have owned only one CD in my life. Everything in my music collection is pirated.

I have a burgeoning XVID/DIVX movie collection going, and I own none of those movies legally.

However, I find my collection justified. I have not harmed any *AA agency on the face of the earth. How is this?

I would have only harmed an *AA agency had I stood a chance of buying these items legally but chose to pirate them instead. As a man living on SSI (not even SSDI, regular old SSI) for a disability I have, I will never, could never, likely will never, and have never had the opportunity to purchase these items. The *AA would have never gotten my money in the first place. If piracy had never been possible I simply would have lived without these things. Since they would have never gotten my money anyways, they're not recording a loss in profits at my behest.

I don't go to the movies, I don't rent DVD's or VHS tapes (do they still exist?), I don't have any friends in real life to borrow cassette/CD's from, I don't buy movies, I don't buy CDs, I don't interact with any *AA agency in the first place. They'll never get my money. It's not a function of boycotting these agencies, it's a function of not having the money to give them in the first place.

I may pirate, but I don't harm them.

dorcssa
January 14th, 2007, 09:45 PM
My MP3 collection on the house server is in the 30,000 song range now, I have never bought a legal mp3, and I have owned only one CD in my life. Everything in my music collection is pirated. I have four legal CD's. :p :D


I have a burgeoning XVID/DIVX movie collection going, and I own none of those movies legally.

Some of mine if I wan't to, I couldn't have, coz I'm not a millionare to buy tv series from the amazon.com, and I'm not living in amerika to watch Skyone, or Sci-fi channel for instance. But still, I wan't to see the newest episodes of my favourite series'. And the hungarian subtitle for stargate and battlestar galactica is out within one day, thanks for one girl(maybe we're the first in the world who can see them subtitled??). :D


I would have only harmed an *AA agency had I stood a chance of buying these items legally but chose to pirate them instead. As a man living on SSI (not even SSDI, regular old SSI) for a disability I have, I will never, could never, likely will never, and have never had the opportunity to purchase these items. The *AA would have never gotten my money in the first place. If piracy had never been possible I simply would have lived without these things. Since they would have never gotten my money anyways, they're not recording a loss in profits at my behest.The sad thing is, that they calculating the loss of the money this way. They try to estimate the number of dowloads, and multiply them with a bigger number, than the actual cost of the product, because ...well, I think that 's how amerika works, no? People sueing each other for everything they can find out for the money, and when it's got to bigger guys, the price is bigger too.



VHS tapes (do they still exist?)
Yes they do. I have many of them, but trying to get the movies in dvd(if you lucky, you can find a good film for about 4$, but usually they just crap for that price), cos they are in a little wrong condition now. But something you just simply can't find on the net.

public_void
January 14th, 2007, 10:34 PM
IMO the way media is distributed has left many companies behind. Their effort to prevent the sharing of media is an attempt catch up, and reduce their loses. It is not people that should change, as file-sharing networks have made the accessibly of media fast and easy. Businesses need to see this and embrace change. They need to allow their customers freedom and choose. Surely a system can be created that builds on this, that retains current file-sharing framework however allows business opportunities.

I also think "The customer is always right" phase is gradually being ignored, in favour of how many figures the profits are. File-sharing networks are a clear indication of the way forward in media distribution.

pmj
January 15th, 2007, 12:28 AM
But it only takes a very small number. Once they've cracked the program they'll release what they've found out and anyone will be able to do it.

Right, but my point was that you could slow down piracy considerably by making it harder to crack copy protection, since that would decrease the number of people capable of doing it and making it a more time consuming task, and making it more dangerous to be one that does it. I never said piracy could be prevented entirely.


You probably have a much higher chance of getting in trouble with the law if your the one that originally uploaded/hosted the torrent, not just one of the millions that download torrents everyday.
I wasn't talking about torrents here, I was talking about the initial distribution on scene sites. Bittorrent isn't used by the scene, and we aren't millions of people. And what I did was slightly more than just uploading a couple of things. ;)

spockrock
January 15th, 2007, 02:04 AM
Communism and nazism are two sides of the same coin, both are collectivist. Remember what nasims stands for: national socialism. The Nazis wanted to create an "überrace" the communists a classless society of workers. For the nazis, degenerates had to die so the german race would advance for the communists it was the bourgeois. Incidently the nazi germans also set up a lot of social security, even in the countries they conquored, like here in the Netherlands, were a lot of these collective policies have survived till today.

yes I know what nazi stood for as I clearly stated they were the national socialist party. Hitler hated the communists. Hitler often spoke out against communists, and how communism would kill/destroy Germany. Odd eh how if communists and Nazis were on the same side of the coin, then he would not of killed communists, and blamed the burning of the Reichstag on communists. After Hitler took power he absolved labour unions and put them under control of the Employers Federation, which were under nazi control. That is hardly any form of collectivization nor is that rally socialist. The Nazis were an extreme right wing party, that may have implemented policies that are 'socialist' in nature, however the Nazi party is socialist only in name.

BWF89
January 15th, 2007, 02:17 AM
Bittorrent isn't used by the scene, and we aren't millions of people.
Yes we are millions of people. Almost all of the people in school that listen to music have at least a few songs that are downloaded off a network like BitTorrent, Fastrack, or Gnutella. Were probably the majority of the American population under 30.

Zwei
January 15th, 2007, 02:41 AM
A lot of music isn't worth paying for. Windows Vista isn't worth stealing. :p

LOL

pmj
January 15th, 2007, 02:46 AM
Yes we are millions of people. Almost all of the people in school that listen to music have at least a few songs that are downloaded off a network like BitTorrent, Fastrack, or Gnutella. Were probably the majority of the American population under 30.

What I was talking about was the so called warez scene, a comparatively small group of people that actually create the releases you later download through bittorrent. The vast majority of the media and software that you find on p2p, except perhaps mp3 due to the ease of ripping and distributing that, originates from the scene.

dorcssa
January 15th, 2007, 01:40 PM
Maybe ripping a game is a big deal, I don't know, but ripping a dvd movie is not so. Even I can do it, if I wan't to, just look around a little bit(and ask some question on a tracker forum). ANd mp3's go the same way, just easier. The warez scene is important coz of the games(which about I don't care, I don't play much games), the TC, etc kind of films directly from the movie place, and distributing the tv series. The last one is VERY important for europeans, hence they can't see that series any other way.(hoping to distribute that dvd in our country is a matter for decades..ok, maybe just years if you lucky..okok, in Germany for instance it's not true, but we're in the Eastern block..oh no, just were)

Tomosaur
January 15th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Ripping is easy, cracking is generally not so, as it requires fooling and/or completely removing copy protection. The problem is that it only takes one person to crack software/movies/whatever, and then millions can get their hands on it. I am not an advocate of theft, but I think the current prices of software and media are completely unfair on the consumer, and as the original creators rarely get a fair deal, you're not really paying for whatever you're buying. You're just 'liberating' the media from the people who own the rights to it. These are often not the people who created it. If prices were lower, and I was confident that the people profiting were those who created whatever it is, then I would buy a lot more. As it stands, I rarely buy software (virtually everything I run is free and open-source). I do buy all the music I own. Occasionally I will download a pirated copy of a song or two, but I buy the album if I like it. I rarely buy films, I like seeing them in the cinema. Lots of my friends just download films, so I watch theirs, although I do buy DVDs from time to time.

norrman
January 15th, 2007, 03:57 PM
Software houses and etc.doesn't realize that piracy is actually a good thing for them.By pirating software there is more people involved and telling to others how good some progs or movies are.Free advertising for everyone!
Vista is one great example why I'm completely moving to different Os's.When I'm using windows I don't feel confident...I mean someone is certainly sniffing and sending information about me.Windows is filled with logs and "sniffy stuff", no wonder why it is having a great hunger concerning hardware and memory.Spread architecture with billion lines of code is not controllable...no one really knows what is running beneath? Ya I know...there is many other aspects also, but I wanted to give my thoughts from the top ;)

nocturn
January 15th, 2007, 04:17 PM
*It is the same thing: you deprive people from the fruit of their labour. One person lives from creating and selling goods, the other from creating and selling ideas but according to your logic the latter basicly has no rights to an income from his work.

I would say they do, *but* the current system is not that.
Yes, the artist should get a fair compensation, but not 1% of what the big studios are making and I should have more control over the ideas/art I bought.

Protecting your content by infecting computers with viruses like Sony did is horrible, WGA en Vista activation are equally horrible since they turn a machine I own against me (there should be something like the 3 laws of robotics for PC's).

What I would like to see is some blanket compensation that goes directly to artists while indivuals are free to rip mp3's for their car stereo etc.

StarsAndBars14
January 16th, 2007, 04:41 PM
It's like taking with a communist, they also believe it's fair to use the property of others because they believe the other has to much already (they of course never believe the same holds true for their property)

You just hit a home run. . .what the heck do you think three quarters of the people here are.



Wow, I actually used to very strongly against DRM but you have just now convinced me otherwise. Audio and video recordings, writings and software belong to the authors and if you use it without compensating it you are stealing from them.

Personally, I would have no problem with DRM were it changed to be more in line with fair use and doctrine of first sale. Say if you own a CD you can set up to xx things you can play it on. If you wanna play it somewhere else then you take one of your other locations off.

You can give it to your friend and he can do the same - with your activation code - and you can also set for him the number of days he is able to borrow the CD. After the period expires he has to go back to you to renew the activation code. If someone tries cracking the CD once, then anything from a warning being played upon the start of ripped songs/popping the CD in a music player to complete destruction of the data on the CD may be a fitting reaction.

This would probably require a more unified sort of DRM among software manufacturers and a greater interface to home technology by the consumer. It might take years to implement, but I see the benefits as outweighing the costs. It would protect the rights of the consumer while at the same time making sure that artists and record companies (why is that term even used anymore? there are no new records per se) get what they

a. worked for
b. facilitated the making and distribution of

respectively.

And I hate to nit pick but maybe that "use" in your sentence should be changed to "obtain." There is a difference between buying/renting something and using it.

For example, I can use something three times, that I legally obtained. Do I have to compensate them for each time I use it and also for when I bought it? That sounds like WGA-ish material to me.

I can use something twice, that I did not legally obtain. I have no right to use this and thus I am breaking the law.

I can obtain something either way, but not use it at all and thus get no fulfillment from the act.



Intellectual property is a great term to use to make people believe that thoughts are property. A thought is your own as long as you haven't shared i, but you can't share a thought and call it your own. (In cases and some counties you can claim copyright on it though.)


Er. Uh.

What was Mozart's symphony ... it was his. Thoughts by themselves are indeed not property, but once they take form and become a tangible work they have transcended the original definition of "thought."


Why would any company still invest in R&D if they can wait till their compatitor has something succesful and then start to sell the same drug?

Because they want to make it more potent.
Because they want to make it cheaper.
Because they want to make it longer lasting.
Because they want to offer something themselves in order to provide competition.

I'm sure there are more but, is that enough?

Faerine
January 20th, 2007, 07:38 PM
The failure in the thought process is there^. The band hasn't made the industry more than 3 million dollars richer. If they could do that, they would do it for themselves.

In any business (programmers can actually relate to musicians in this sense), the money is not generated by the product as much as it's generated by the salesmen. So what if you can play a guitar? Picking bitchin' licks on your Strat doesn't make anyone money (and neither does rappin' stories of the ghetto). The sales department makes money. They deserve most of the return. That's why people get into business, to make money.

You may be right that money is the reason for people going into business. What you are failing to consider is that business is not, has never been, and will never be, the primary reason for people being creators. A creator will play his/her guitar (or write books, or design gardens, or build cars--or yes, code software) because he/she has an urge to invest his or her skills to make something new and important--for reasons like contributing to a cause (FLOSS, anyone?), progress, or even for seeing your creation being born and watching it develop (I suppose some might compare a creation to a child, although I don't know for sure--at present ZylGadis and I have creations but no children).

I am not saying that all programmers/writers/musicans are creators. Some are really there primarily to make money--which is strange, because such people lack the real creator's urge--and if money is your goal, there are better ways. And I am in no way subscribing to the "starving artist" notion. Money is essential for everyone to live a comfortable life--but it is not the most important thing there is, and for a creator it becomes a side effect, not a purpose.



In the scheme of things, playing the instrument, being the musician, generates the least revenue. And that's why they get paid the least. The people who risk capital, build commercial relationships, and generate revenue get the lion's share of the return. By the way, this isn't just my opinion. You learn that sort of thing in econ or bus 101, even in community college.

Now that I think of it, if I had to manage a few thousand people involved in developing and packaging albums, driving sales, promotions, and marketing, while putting up with whiny bs musicians who think they deserve more money and a bigger tour bus, all while they're all getting paychecks generated from my capital investment, I'd be pissed about people stealing my music too. Even if I was wrong in principle, if my money was on the line, I would do everything in my power to protect my business. Running, managing and protecting a business is incredibly difficult work. You would do the same.

Well, perhaps in an earlier day and age "middlemen" were needed, to transfer goods from the creator/producer to consumers. Not any more--at least for information (software, books, music, ideas, etc.) Anyone with access to a server can upload information and share it (freely, or with payment) with anyone with access to the internet. Information differs from material goods in the fact that you can share it--and still keep it for yourself. This is important. People are much more willing to share, if at the same time they are not losing anything. DRM and similar concepts are trying to artificially impose restrictions where restrictions do not belong naturally, and, sooner or later, they will die (I do hope it is sooner.)

But even if you assumed, for a moment, that middlemen were still needed--take a look at it like this: without the artist, what would the music industry sell? Empty albums with great marketing campaigns and shiny covers? No music? I wonder who would buy that.

Artists can (especially in the 21st century) live without the sales people. Sales people, on the other hand, cannot live without the artists. So, even if running, managing and protecting a business is incredibly difficult work--for the artist and for the rest of the world, it is redundant work. It is needed only by the business person him/herself, while what the world wants is the work of the artist.

Whiny bs musicans, you say? They might as well be, but if anyone has the right to be whiny and bs (and I am not saying that anyone does), it is he or she who does the real work--the creation. Not a leecher, who without the existence of this artist's work would be nothing, whose existence can at most be justified by delivering this work, when the need for such delivering exists.

zubrug
January 20th, 2007, 09:57 PM
I think that it comes down to the cost factor, take a look at what has happened in the pharmaceutical regarding aids drugs, etc.
There will always be regional disparities that result in moves in the "piracy" direction.