Pirates moan about getting pirated

Discussion in 'Politics & Ethics of Technology' started by Billy Idol, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I don't respect the fact that it is made into property in the first place. Information should be free and if that means that alternative means to fund the creation of it is required such as payment from governments for creative works then I'm ok with that. I could tolerate copyright better if the term was set to a reasonable period such as 14 years. I loathe the idea that large companies have the right to establish a monopoly on creative expression.

    It isn't stealing if you don't believe it is property in the first place.
     
  2. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ok lots to deal with here.

    You are using information in a very generic fashion. If the Holographic theory of the universe is true then everything in the universe is just information, so you should give me your house for free.

    Should the entitlement to your land only last 14 years? I can think of lots of things I might want to do with it, but I can't because you are monopolising it.

    Seriously? You think large corporations have a monopoly on creative expression? Wow that's a new one. Considering the exact example that started this thread was a creative expression from a not large corporation I find that argument a bit odd. Hold on....... Just drew a doodle. creative expression appeared to be possible. Perhaps you mean something else?

    Finally, copyright law is not a fairy, you don't have to believe in it for it to exist.
     
  3. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    If you make a copy of my house you're free to do whatever you want with it.

    The rights to the land I have is set up by the government. It could be possible that they would be able to revoke my rights without compensation. I wouldn't be happy about it but I would have to either live with it or (more likely) protest in some fashion.

    The original term of copyright was 14 years with an option to extend it by another 14 years if the original artist was still alive. If that law was still in effect then all works created before 1985 would be public domain. With a large number of public domain works to take advantage of my own perspective on copyright would be different. Large corporations have lobbied essentially to make effectively no relevant public domain books available for open consumption, ditto for movies and music. The reason why they do this is because they don't want to compete against their own back catalogue given the paltry royalties they receive from their (edit: older) works.

    I believe that if a law is unjust then I don't feel morally obligated to conform. Public disobedience towards things like Marijuana prohibition for instance have been a legitimate form of protest for hundreds of years.
     
  4. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    You said information should be free. Your house is information, I should get it for free, not a copy, but your actual house.

    You didn't grasp my post about licenses. The issue is not just the copying, it is the reassignment of rights.

    If I did copy your house exactly then there are several IP holders who COULD charge me with a breach of copyright, patent and trademark law.

    Yes an I imagine the government can do the same for copyrights. They haven't. The rights for content owners to be the sole issuers of licenses to their content is also set up by the government.


    And before that, authors had perpetual rights to their works. What's your point? The law changes as understanding changes.


    Completely irrelevant. If they own the rights to the content then they can choose who and how people access it. If they choose to withdraw it from sale that is their business and right. They cannot retrospectively rescind the licenses issued however.


    When people perform civil disobedience they do so understanding they are breaking the law, and do so willing to accept the consequences as a means to providing exposure to their cause.

    Considering you don't think you are breaking the law and it is clear that breaking the law is for your own personal benefit and not to make a larger point, I believe your argument is a simple equivocation.

    Of course if your actions truly are a noble pursuit of civil disobedience I will look forward to your admission as such in a public forum in full sight of the authorities where you are willing to accept the consequences of this unjust law.
     
  5. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Copyright protections were originally intentionally created with limited duration, to balance the desired compensation and benefit to the rightsholder with the desire to allow ideas to enrich the public domain, whereupon those elements could be used as the seeds for even more creativity.
    The laws at least initially understood there was still a difference from physical assets like land and ideas, and along with the desire to someday share works, there is the distinction between stealing land and copying a creative work.

    The current terms extend very far beyond the death of an author, and are over a century from creation for corporate properties. It's not even done being extended, from some of the stories I've seen over the years.
    The fact that the terms seem to track so well with the age of Disney Corp. is possibly less than coincidental.

    I do believe that the heavy pressures in the legal system that weight things towards corporate interests raise the specter that, once those under those laws find their results unconscionable, those laws will be defied completely.
    If the perceived purpose of the law changes from allowing a creator to make a living or provide some kind of inheritance to becoming a means for staking a permanent fiefdom in the realm of ideas, its utility to the common good is questioned.

    I don't think casual infringers that can't wait six months for a price drop on the FPS of the month are granted a halo of righteous rebellion, but I can foresee scenarios where their disregard can spread to society as a whole. (edit: I believe a good portion of what we see these days has some of this as a factor.)
    I can see things going quite the other direction in favor of expanding the control of and expression of creative works beyond any human time frame as well, so take it as you will.
     
    #105 3dilettante, May 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2013
  6. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    The law as we know it yes. Prior to that the works of an author were considered perpetual. People like to give the impression (perhaps they are under that misunderstanding themselves), that Copyright law was the first assignment of rights for content.

    There is a very important part about copyright that people miss. Copyright law very explicitly now provides ownership to a manifestation of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

    What constitutes an idea and it's manifestation is often a place of contention, however understand that the concept of copying rights et al already covers the concept of freedom of ideas.

    Thinking for one second that copyrighting game of thrones on TV or Call of duty on PC somehow is a restriction of ideas is simply fanciful and dishonest argument in search of justification for bad behaviour.

    Anyone can create their own works based on the basic ideas and concepts that those works used as a basis. Again grey areas approach when it is determined what is a basic idea and what is plagarism, but that it a far far far place from copying Game of Thrones and then assigning your own rights to them which is exactly what happens with pirating.

    I am curious, that if these works have no value, why bother copying them and redistributing them. If they hold no value and the content owners require or deserve no compensation then what they produce must not be of any worth. How do people who condone piracy think content providers should be compensated?
     
  7. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Physically taking my property is entirely different compared to copyright infringement. The former is a legal infringement whilst the latter is a civil infringement which falls into an entirely different branch of law.

    The rights given to copyright holders are passed from the people to the government and then to the creators of the works. The people have a right to compel the government to change the terms of the creative monopoly because that monopoly has been granted by the people. I know when I pirate I am breaking the law and in some ways immoral however that doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to my own differing beliefs. I simply consider complying with an unjust law to be even worse than the moral cost of non compliance.

    I doubt that it will come down to that. However in any case if the opportunity arises where I am asked to openly disregard the law amongst other people then I will strongly consider doing so.

    I whole heartedly agree. Modern content ought to be protected because the people who want to create it and the people who want to consume it have their interests entirely aligned.

    Thanks for your support on this.
     
  8. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I think you've forgotten the original point of this issue. Your point was that information should be free. I argued that that was a very generic statement and could logically be extended to your own house as ultimately it was just "information". Thank you for supporting my notion that information is not a catch all for all property rights.



    That is true for all law.

    You are free to believe and act on those beliefs all you like just as the judge is free to fine or imprison you as an act based on his/her own beliefs. It's an unfair world I know.




    So you believe in the cause, just not that much.



    So after all this you agree that content owners should be protected. Well that was fun.
     
  9. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    Creating a work directly inspired by copyrighted works or embodying elements peculiar to a specific work is still a minefield, or rather an area that is generally considered infringement that is being awkwardly punted around. This includes fan works or riffs on material that are not outright parody of their source material. I can't remember where mashups fall these days.

    We may not get a cerebro-vision Lord of the Rings trilogy, if the Tolkein estate doesn't mellow out in a generation or two.
    Just how long do we need to gate the treatment of some of the most seminal works in 20th century fantasy literature to the whims of J.R.R's line?

    If those ideas involve me putting a Stark in modded turn of the century set-piece shooter, it might get me a cease and desist.
    It stretches my conception of reasonable if I get that message on a holocube in the year 2080.
    Maybe it'll fall under a version of some future concept of parody, but I don't think I'd be so lucky. Then again, I think by that age I'd just be happy that someone or something contacted me and I was alive to see it.

    What overriding interest is there in pursuing RIAA-level litigation over a DVD rip of Game of Thrones put on to Space-Torrent in aforementioned far-off 2080?
    Or for that matter, the tangled web of laws that could get brought up in concert with my attempted DVD rip if I had to reverse engineer the disc encryption to get it working on the archival formats of the far off future. God help me if I, for nostalgia purposes, printed out my notes with a printer using a third-party cartridge.

    If creators can't get make a good enough living after 90 years, I say let someone else have a go. It's copyright, not a license to an eternal fountain of money.
     
  10. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    There won't be any agreement between us I guess.
     
  11. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    This misses the point. You will get into trouble reusing manifested ideas such as Rob Starks name etc etc etc, you can't be faulted for having the concept of a boy king on a mission of vengence, and that is the true value of the idea. It is Martin's manifestation of that idea as Rob Stark that you can't use.

    I think you will find that mash-ups probably could be prosecuted, however the right holder also has the right not to enforce the right in individual cases (effectively granting a non-exclusive, non-transferrable license.
    .
    I'm not interested in speculating on future technology and laws. It's pointless (although it may be interesting to some).

    Yep. Completely up to the rights holder to decide if they wish to do that.

    Again. Not going to speculate on the future. :)

    Ditto. :)


    No idea, but it's the crux of the point. They have the right to do so. Pirates use the excuse that ultimately it's not worth it or better for the product if it's pirated. That is completely and utterly beside the point. It is not the pirates right to make that decision. It is the copyright owners right to make those decisions. Some do some don't but the important thing is that it remains their decision.

    Um, it is a license to exploit the property for the term of the copyright period. We can have a separate discussion about an appropriate term length, but considering how hard it is to get people to accept even a 1 day term, I doubt there is any point.
     
  12. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    After your last post I thought we had.

    I have been making the same points here for many years. I've long learned not to expect people who want to pirate to agree with me. When you are involved with the damage done from the inside it's very frustrating to see people still not get it. Hopefully one day they will.
     
  13. ERP

    ERP Moderator
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    My 2C in this is there is a very large portion of the userbase who would rather get any product for free than to pay for it, assuming the inconvenience isn't too great.
    Where we are to day is on the PC almost anyone can get a pirated copy of almost anything with minimal risk by clicking on a link and waiting for a few hours.
    People who do this regularly will justify the action usually by cobbling together various arguments they've seen used by others, mostly because they don't consider themselves to be "bad people".

    In the 80's when I first started writing games, piracy was equally rampant, but distribution was a lot harder, you copy protected titles to make it inconvenient for Joe Schmoe to give his friend a copy.

    It's a fact of life at some level. You can use DRM to make it more inconvenient, but that hasn't been overly successful, so what you end up doing is changing the model, it's what people have been telling the music industry to do since Napster first appeared.

    You build games and experiences that are harder to copy, you'll see more always online games, you'll see games and game services with monthly fees, you'll see a move towards "free to play" because you can monetize the investment that way.

    No one is going to develop Uncharted 9 or TES 10 if there is no way to get a return on that investment.

    I personally think it's sad because in those environments the game will be different than they are in todays single player experiences and I happen to like those games.
     
  14. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    I'm saying that pursuit to that extreme, given the meta game surrounding why these terms keep growing and why these protections become ever more intertwined with anything to do with everything, risks the legitimacy of the whole structure, and not just in the eyes of torrent freaks.


    I think the majority of people not on web forums would find a ballpark figure of less than several human lifetimes reasonable.
    The broad extension of protections beyond the limits of human experience or human practicality only worsens the latter problem.
    I can't speak to what can be done for people that can't stand time frames of weeks or months, unless they are terminal cancer patients, but there are more reasonable standards that a broader consensus can maintain.
     
  15. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    The issue of music and napster I think was a wrong headed approach. The changes that came did not address the primary issue of the legitimacy and worth of copyrighted works. All it did was kick the can down the road. It's pragmatic, it seems to work, but it has still not changed people fundamental understanding of the issue.

    I think consumer attitudes to content has a lot of growing up to do. Surely for people over 20 years of age, they have enough responsibility to understand that you should pay for someone elses work and respect their ownership of it.

    The only way things are really going to work is if consumers attitudes change. Many of the excuses re availability, convenience etc are gone. It should now simply be a moral judgement based on the concept of ownership of a work.

    Someone has made something.
    I'd like to experience it.
    They want to charge me $60
    thanks I'll pay that
    deal done.

    Or

    They want to charge me $60,
    no thanks, not worth that much to me,
    I'll pass.

    Not:

    What $60?
    No way.
    But I'll experience it anyway.

    Until that attitude changes, nothing will change.
     
  16. MrFloopy

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I think exploitation rules should apply.

    i.e. You must exploit the content or lose it.

    In terms of how long you should be allowed to exploit it, tell me why it should not be perpetual then perhaps I can understand what a specific term limit should be.



    No idea what people think is reasonable, and without understanding the reason why it should end, it's impossible for them to have an informed opinion on the length of any term.


    Why is Martin's life work less of an asset that can be passed down to his children than say the bookshelf he may have made? Again explain the reason for having any term limit.


    As I said, when pirating rates are so high, 1 day/week/month terms mean nothing. The issue for these people is not the term but that work can be protected at all!
     
  17. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,122
    Likes Received:
    2,873
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    If only a copyright could be grown from incidental rainfall and plant growth, maintained with zero external input from society, and if only such works could maintain their utility like a bookshelf does when it is shared with absolutely nobody else.
    We wouldn't have as much to debate if ideas could rot like a bookshelf does.

    Martin's work, like every creative endeavor, had inspiration and elements drawn from a greater pool of existing ideas built by the traditions and creative efforts of those that came before.
    There's at least an academic interest in knowing what Martin's lifelong synthesis of personal and external sources could lead to if the same freedom of experimentation and sourcing could someday cycle back on his contribution.
    Some works become so influential that they take on their own cultural currency. Shakespeare's works and characters keep showing up everywhere in close enough for infringement forms throughout the centuries.
    Other famous writings, like the New Testament (and the books that didn't make the cut), and various other religious and cultural works, would be far fewer in number if a proper international licensing system were in place throughout the centuries.
    It's a fascinating and difficult to monetize phenomenon.

    I would consider allowing what was built from the legacy of generations past to be as freely malleable by generations yet to be a philosophical good.

    On an systemic note, continued enforcement of unbounded copyright down the generations until the end of time is an intractable problem.
    I've made allowances for inheritance, although I find it less compelling the closer the heirs of the author gets to retiring while still benefiting from works they didn't contribute to.
    Orphaned works already take an eternity get to the public domain if terms were not limited. Absent an exploitation clause, the ever-marching limits just means nothing orphaned gets to the public domain.

    If Joseph Campbell and whoever was the originator of the infinite monkeys at typewriters aren't completely off the mark, society faces a future of creative collisions with trails of documentation older than the jurisdictions litigation is filed in.
    It also faces off against human nature's desire to use ideas with abandon. It's why there is a social pool of ideas and traditions to draw from in the first place, and we would be committing society to perpetually fighting an ever increasing set of increasingly petty battles.

    Perhaps it won't happen if the dwindling commercial interest leads to an inherent level of entropy, where such copyrights are not litigated because at some point the potential payments won't pay for costs of considering or researching litigation, or even monitoring for infringement.
    I would rather evaluate some kind of notable exception to a default expiration date than trying to evaluate that on a continual basis with no bounds.


    edit: As I said before, I can also see a future where the people under those laws, and possibly those that enforce it, stop taking it seriously.
     
  18. tuna

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    356
    There are loads of games available as trials (you can play one hour I think) if you are using PS+.
     
  19. tuna

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,139
    Likes Received:
    356
    Does that include everything you have in your house, such as your computer?
     
  20. Billy Idol

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,940
    Likes Received:
    768
    Location:
    Europe
    Good. Thanks for the infos. I really wanted to know if you have invested a single Euro, that is why I accused you so overly aggressive, for which I apologise.
    I must admit that I am a bit surprised. The two colleagues of mine who pirate, really don't pay a single game typically**. And they don't do it on PC, but on the 360. They have nearly all the games, often even before the official launch of the game...

    **only exception is Gears of War 1, after there was a ban wave from MS which hit most modded Xboxes, they were so addicted in MP that they insta bought a new 360 and even a copy of GeOW.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...