File sharing = piracy? (Need enlightenment)

[Archonsod]

Because without the DRM piracy would be several times worse. It's not supposed to stop the professional pirates, it's supposed to stop joe public from copying the game and giving it to his mates.

 

[Skyrage]

It doesn't really help even there though, does it? Your average Joe's are the ones that download the most after all.

 

[Archonsod]

The average PC owner couldn't tell you what a rar file is, let alone what to do with a torrent.

 

[M@ster-$]

So a bunch of anti-anti-piracy ads (not a typo there) on youtube are saying that filesharing/downloading films for free is not stealing.

I have absolutely no idea how the film/game/music industry works, so I'd like to know: how is this not stealing?

Because international copyright law defines it as copyright infringement rather than theft. It also envisioned such acts to be the realm of the corporate rather than the individual, so while they can't send you to jail for it they can demand millions in damages.

Theft on the other hand tends to be domestic law, usually a criminal offence and therefore prosecuted by the state, which usually means there's no inherent means of financial recompense.

Yeah, if you manage to snatch something and they don't notice - you are happy folk. That's the shop, which loses money, not the copyright holder.

 

[Skyrage]

The average PC owner couldn't tell you what a rar file is, let alone what to do with a torrent.

You would be surprised to be honest. Most people today up until 20 know such basic terms and what they are and those aged up to 30 are in quite large numbers as well. Sorry, but people do catch up with technology. Maybe what you said would be true 10 years ago but not today.

 

[Weaver]

well, where i live the only mental image people get when they hear "pirate" is a coarse unshaved man wearing red bandana and a sabre. and "piracy" associates mainly with sinking ships, stealing the booty and drinking rum. no more, no less. i don't think anyone believes in "intellectual property piracy" (or how do you call it?) in these parts.
i mean, look, i've bought a book. i liked it and i've given it to my buddy because i wanted him to read it too. is that piracy? ok, he liked it too, took it to the xerox and copied a few novels he liked most, so that he could reread it later. is that piracy yet? his girlfriend read those copied pages too. piracy? seriously, what the damn? i think that as long as i don't start to make money selling those copied materials i'm not breaking any local law and not stealing anyone's money. all this hype is raised by capitalist pigs who want to rip even MORE money from us honest people.
next step would be charging money for every time i reread the book.

 

[kurczak]

i think that as long as i don't start to make money selling those copied materials i'm not breaking any local law and not stealing anyone's money.

The legal definition of damage is damnum emergens (actual damage) AND lucrum cessans (loss of profits).You didn't cause any actual damage, but you did cause loss of profits.

Not necessarily my opinion, just the legal concept.

 

[M@ster-$]

i mean, look, i've bought a book. i liked it and i've given it to my buddy because i wanted him to read it too. is that piracy?

No...

ok, he liked it too, took it to the xerox and copied a few novels he liked most, so that he could reread it later. is that piracy yet?

Copyright © XXX XXX. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.

This what they write.

 

[Skyrage]

Loss of profits is more of an excuse though more than anything else to be honest.

Let's take an example such as Bay12Games's Dwarf Fortress. It is freeware - anyone can download it and spread it or whatever for free. Yet there are people who constantly donate money to Tarn Adams despite it. Why?

Basically, there will always be pirates who infringe on this so-called DRM/IP and there will be those that won't. I don't really see how you can claim that those who pirate the game could be considered a loss of profit when they never intended to pay for a product in the first place anyway.

Also, as Weaver mentioned, if I buy a book and let a friend borrow it - would that constitute as a loss of profit? If so then should borrowing be made illegal? What real difference is it if this friend borrows the book over and over compared to him copying it off once and then reading the copy? If the friend ever decided to buy his own copy then it would mainly be for the sake of convenience and nothing else, right? So following the path of logic when looking at the law, the owner of the book have paid for it so profit has been made, but the moment the book is lent to someone, then that counts as loss of profit. Why? Because the idea is that the book is merely a container for the intellect that is held within, and it is this that we are supposedly paying for, right? And if that is the case then everyone who has ever lent a book to someone else is technically a criminal because they shared knowledge with people who didn't pay for it.

So it makes me wonder - if you copy the container along with the content (copy a whole book, movie, MP3, whatever) - what real difference is it? Cause if lending is not illegal but copying is, wouldn't it mean that the real crime lies in the fact that the container and not the content is copied?

Logically, the law is pretty flawed in many ways and in order to protect IP at all is to alter the law altogether and have it modernized. Maybe just pay a set chunk sum to artists or whatever for every product that they produce and let this sum be based on how good their previous product was received - and simply have it all available for free somehow - let commercials etc do the financing as well as donations from fans. Even if something is free, if it sucks then people won't bother getting it after all. On top maybe it would stimulate the artists/whatever to actually try making good stuff instead of mass produce ****. Those that really support someone can always donate money - basically let people themselves decide the price on a product and let them pay what they think it's worth. Win-win for everyone.

 

[M@ster-$]

Depends on region. Somewhere people are so greedy, they won't pay a penny to support the product

 

[Kleidophoros]

Loss of profits is more of an excuse though more than anything else to be honest.

Let's take an example such as Bay12Games's Dwarf Fortress. It is freeware - anyone can download it and spread it or whatever for free. Yet there are people who constantly donate money to Tarn Adams despite it. Why?

Basically, there will always be pirates who infringe on this so-called DRM/IP and there will be those that won't. I don't really see how you can claim that those who pirate the game could be considered a loss of profit when they never intended to pay for a product in the first place anyway.

Also, as Weaver mentioned, if I buy a book and let a friend borrow it - would that constitute as a loss of profit? If so then should borrowing be made illegal? What real difference is it if this friend borrows the book over and over compared to him copying it off once and then reading the copy? If the friend ever decided to buy his own copy then it would mainly be for the sake of convenience and nothing else, right? So following the path of logic when looking at the law, the owner of the book have paid for it so profit has been made, but the moment the book is lent to someone, then that counts as loss of profit. Why? Because the idea is that the book is merely a container for the intellect that is held within, and it is this that we are supposedly paying for, right? And if that is the case then everyone who has ever lent a book to someone else is technically a criminal because they shared knowledge with people who didn't pay for it.

So it makes me wonder - if you copy the container along with the content (copy a whole book, movie, MP3, whatever) - what real difference is it? Cause if lending is not illegal but copying is, wouldn't it mean that the real crime lies in the fact that the container and not the content is copied?

Logically, the law is pretty flawed in many ways and in order to protect IP at all is to alter the law altogether and have it modernized. Maybe just pay a set chunk sum to artists or whatever for every product that they produce and let this sum be based on how good their previous product was received - and simply have it all available for free somehow - let commercials etc do the financing as well as donations from fans. Even if something is free, if it sucks then people won't bother getting it after all. On top maybe it would stimulate the artists/whatever to actually try making good stuff instead of mass produce ****. Those that really support someone can always donate money - basically let people themselves decide the price on a product and let them pay what they think it's worth. Win-win for everyone.

thats actually what DRM is for; prevent "lending" and second-hand sales.
i dont think its illegal to lend software. say you can give your serial key for M&B to anyone, no ones gonna ask you why but you will lose your activation. recent DRM protected games also comes with a number of activations on a number of PCs, say 5 activations on 2 different PCs. its upto you which PCs you will use them on. again its upto you who to lend a book. but as soon as you copy software or a book, its illegal. because there are 2 people using software/book then, without losing activation/ability to read the book.
and a pool to collect money and distribute it amongs artists aint gonna happen; okay, maybe in a communist world.

 

[Archonsod]

Basically, there will always be pirates who infringe on this so-called DRM/IP and there will be those that won't.

There will always be people who commit murder. Does that mean laws prohibiting it are illogical and should be dropped? The law isn't supposed to stop you doing something, it's there to deal with you after you do it.

if I buy a book and let a friend borrow it - would that constitute as a loss of profit?

Yes. Unless your friend also decides to buy the book.

And if that is the case then everyone who has ever lent a book to someone else is technically a criminal because they shared knowledge with people who didn't pay for it.

Technically the copyright does state you may not loan out the work, so it would make anyone who loaned it out a criminal.

Logically, the law is pretty flawed in many ways

Always has been, always will be. The point of the law isn't to be logical, it's to serve the state. In most countries it's impossible to actually live without breaking at least one law, and it's intentional.

Those that really support someone can always donate money - basically let people themselves decide the price on a product and let them pay what they think it's worth. Win-win for everyone.

Been tried, failed. It's erroneous reasoning too. If you want to read my book, why shouldn't I make you pay?

 

[kurczak]

Ok, I'm going to play the devil's advocate, there would be no point, if we all agreed

Let's take an example such as Bay12Games's Dwarf Fortress. It is freeware - anyone can download it and spread it or whatever for free. Yet there are people who constantly donate money to Tarn Adams despite it. Why?

Irrelevant. That is Bay12Games' individual initiative. The fact there is a bakery that gives bread for free, doesn't mean that you can take bread for free anywhere.

Basically, there will always be pirates who infringe on this so-called DRM/IP and there will be those that won't.

So what? Shall we legalise murder, just because there will always be some murderers? The law is presciptive, not descriptive. It deals with "ought to", not with "is".

I don't really see how you can claim that those who pirate the game could be considered a loss of profit when they never intended to pay for a product in the first place anyway.

The law states that the author is the exclusive "owner" of all rights related to the work, including the right to spread and distribute it. If he decided to allow people to use his work only for money, then you, by allowing someone to use it witout paying for it, caused loss of profits.

The fact that they never intended to pay for it is no argument. They were obliged to pay by the law. Not paying taxes is not legal, just because you never intended to pay them anyway, is it?

Also, as Weaver mentioned, if I buy a book and let a friend borrow it - would that constitute as a loss of profit?

Yes. Most probably, at least in the Czech law. Dura lex sed lex - The law is harsh, but is the law nonetheless.

What real difference is it if this friend borrows the book over and over compared to him copying it off once and then reading the copy?

Basically none. That's why it is forbidden.

If the friend ever decided to buy his own copy then it would mainly be for the sake of convenience and nothing else, right?

His motives are irrelevant to the law.

So following the path of logic when looking at the law, the owner of the book have paid for it so profit has been made, but the moment the book is lent to someone, then that counts as loss of profit.

Because two people read it, but only one of them paid for it.

Why? Because the idea is that the book is merely a container for the intellect that is held within, and it is this that we are supposedly paying for, right?

Exactly, you on the material, you are absolutely free to sell the papers, too bad that the paper contains information which you don't own and so the law limits your action.

And if that is the case then everyone who has ever lent a book to someone else is technically a criminal because they shared knowledge with people who didn't pay for it.

Correct. Well not a criminal. One book is not enough to constitute a crime. So you are not commiting a crime, but you are still breaking the civil part of the law.

So it makes me wonder - if you copy the container along with the content (copy a whole book, movie, MP3, whatever) - what real difference is it? Cause if lending is not illegal but copying is, wouldn't it mean that the real crime lies in the fact that the container and not the content is copied?

The logic may be correct, but the premise is wrong. Lending is illegal.

Maybe just pay a set chunk sum to artists or whatever for every product that they produce and let this sum be based on how good their previous product was received - and simply have it all available for free somehow - let commercials etc do the financing as well as donations from fans. Even if something is free, if it sucks then people won't bother getting it after all. On top maybe it would stimulate the artists/whatever to actually try making good stuff instead of mass produce ****. Those that really support someone can always donate money - basically let people themselves decide the price on a product and let them pay what they think it's worth. Win-win for everyone.

You don't like paying for books? Don't buy it. Or read only authors who don't want any money. Authors as well as anybody else are free people and thus are free to charge money for their products if they want. The law is not preventing authors not to charge anything, it only allows them. It is their choice.



Once again - I was playing the devil's advocate. Attack the opinions, not me.


Edit: hmm, I guess that's why I should view the posts that were sent while I as writing.

 

[Light In Extension]

The shortest answer - it depends on the file .

 

[Skyrage]

Well then. To sum it all up:

I guess that libraries are then illegal.

 

[kurczak]

Well then. To sum it all up:

I guess that libraries are then illegal.

The omniscient and benevolent law grants a statutory license to libraries to lend books. However a library must pay a fee to the authors whose books are being lent.

 

[Skyrage]

True, BUT on the other hand, people do not pay for the intellect found in libraries.

And actually, libraries do not pay fees directly to the authors - rather to whatever middle man who handles all that stuff. It's a small difference, but still.

 

[Bellum]

True, BUT on the other hand, people do not pay for the intellect found in libraries.

And actually, libraries do not pay fees directly to the authors - rather to whatever middle man who handles all that stuff. It's a small difference, but still.

It's no difference. The "middle man" has the permission of the author.

 

[kurczak]

True, BUT on the other hand, people do not pay for the intellect found in libraries.

And actually, libraries do not pay fees directly to the authors - rather to whatever middle man who handles all that stuff. It's a small difference, but still.

Hmm, in every library I know one has to pay for borrowing books, or at least one has to pay for "membership". But anyway, even if there were libraries that didn't charge anything at all, they would still have to pay to authors and would have to fund it from somewhere else. It would be like buying two books and giving one to your friend, that would be perfectly legal.

 

[Weaver]

skyrage mostly summed up what i had in mind.
to dwell on it - "loss of profit" seems to be a very moot thing. and it only depends on how they expect to get this profit. if they think that they should be payed every time i reread a book, then every time i reread the book without repaying they technically lose profit.