Why fund a cure for cancer when you can fight piracy?

[sic0048]

I guess the problem with the whole "it didn't result in loss revenue" that bothers me the most is that takes the rightful ownership of the material from the owner. Let's see if I can explain what I mean...

Let's just say I am an artist and created a new album. Perhaps I sell that album on-line, but I do not freely share it to the public via any means (I'm not trying to cloud the issue with radio station copies, etc - lets keep it simple). In other words, I only sell my music. Let's say it is picked up on some file sharing site and becomes the hottest download in May. My legitimate sales increase due to the "added publicity" that all the downloads received. This is afterall the arguement that anyone "for" illegal downloads always uses.

The point is that people have still stolen my music. I am not in control of the distibution anymore. That is not the way I intended for my music to be distributed. The fact is that anyone that downloaded my music illegally broke the law, and there should be means to prosecute those people.

The fact that my sales increased, decreased, or went sideways has zero relevance to this fact. The idea of lost/gained sales doesn't change the fact that I lost the distribution control over my legally owned property via illegal means and now there are lots of illegal copies out there that I was not compensated for. That is theft plain and simple.

Again - I'm not trying to argue the merits of this particular treaty. I don't agree with it, but this conversation has gone way beyond that point (as these types of threads always do).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Opus4

Not really -- you've actually paid for and received a fake in that case -- you've gotten a Rollex, not a Rolex. When downloading/copying media illegally, you've gotten the original (or pretty close to it) for nothing. After downloading something, you (probably) didn't get a movie re-enacted by some local actors with a camcorder nor did you get poor covers of songs by someone calling themselves "The Beedles". (Still theft by someone in that chain, basing the for-sale items on someone else's creation that doesn't belong to the seller, if it is patented/copyrighted/etc & the seller doesn't have the rights to it.)

But here's the thing, people try to equate downloading to stealing, saying downloading an album off the internet is no different than walking into the store and shoplifting the CD.

Problem is, it is different, downloading reduces demand, not inventory.

Being that in the real world, you can't replicate physical products for free, the closest thing in the real world to downloading a digital copy of a work, is buying a fake.

Ignore the cost of buying the fake, the idea is the same. If I buy a fake Rolex off a street corner, I'm not reducing Rolex or their stores inventory. It's certainly not "theft" from Rolex or a store. The crime with a fake Rolex is the IP infringement of the creation of the "copy" (the fake).

The copy looks, and works like a Rolex, but isn't quite as good, just like an MP3 sounds like the original but isn't quite as good.

No, not a perfect analogy, but analogies are never perfect and it's the best I can come up with.

You might pay a small fee that doesn't go to the artists if you get it from certain sites -- and if you got a real Rolex for a small price, it probably was stolen, just like the music is essentially stolen.

To be clear, the point wasn't about paying, it was about how a fake of a Rolex (or Oakley sunglasses, or whatever) isn't theft, it's IP infringement, just like downloading. Oakleys work too, in high school we took a school trip to DC, and a number of people on our trip picked up fake Oakleys, they new they were fake (I think) but for $5 they figured why not. What they bought weren't stolen, they didn't steal them from Oakley, what they obtained, was an unauthorized copy of a pair of Oakleys. Just like downloading is an unauthorized copy of a work.

Originally Posted by sic0048

How could it not effect sales? OK - so a person that copies a book might not have bought that particular book - I can agree with that. But it would effect book sales SOME if not an exact 1 to 1 ratio. If I spend time reading a stolen book, that is one less book I might have bought irregardless if it is the exact same title or not.

How could it "not" affect sales? Well one possibility is that people get exposed to stuff they'd never even think of buying, that they may end up liking and buying. Take a look at the study I linked above.

But the agruement should not revolve around lost sales anyway IMHO.

Is the argument not what sort of means are reasonable to combat piracy? If so, how can lost sales NOT figure into that argument. How do you weigh benefits of reducing piracy against loss of personal freedom without knowing how much piracy you're stopping?

Take your counterfeit Rolex comment for example. I take it to mean that if someone that buys a counterfeit item they would never have paid the money for the real item.

My example was to illustrate the difference between IP infringement and theft. Since downloading is equated to stealing, which is not the case, it's IP infringment, it's like copying a Rolex or Oakleys.

If this was true, why do manufactures fight counterfeiting so much? After all, according to that arguement, none of the counterfeit items effect their bottom line, so why would a company spend $$ to try to curb it?

I have NEVER said nothing should be done to fight piracy. My argument is, and has always been that DRM, the DMCA, and things like ACTA go way too far and cause far too much harm to personal freedom and industry innovation to be justified by any losses due to piracy they may stop.

Here's my counter argument: People make unauthorized copies of Rolexes. Rolex wants to stop that. Is it reasonable for them to build an RFID reader and cellular modem into their watches, and only allow them to work if they are can read an RFID chip implanted in the owners arm and verify that that chip belongs to the registered owner of the watch? Does that make sense?

My argument is no, that's stupid. It punishes those who buy the real thing, forcing them to jump through hoops and makes the product (rolex) less valuable since it will no longer operate everywhere.

Meanwhile such measures have no effect on those who make or use the fakes.

The same is true of DRM it makes the product less useful to those who buy the real thing, and has no effect on those who download.

Originally Posted by sic0048

I guess the problem with the whole "it didn't result in loss revenue" that bothers me the most is that takes the rightful ownership of the material from the owner. Let's see if I can explain what I mean...

Let's just say I am an artist and created a new album. Perhaps I sell that album on-line, but I do not freely share it to the public via any means (I'm not trying to cloud the issue with radio station copies, etc - lets keep it simple). In other words, I only sell my music. Let's say it is picked up on some file sharing site and becomes the hottest download in May. My legitimate sales increase due to the "added publicity" that all the downloads received. This is afterall the arguement that anyone "for" illegal downloads always uses.

Well let's pause here for a moment. Given that the above happens, how far would you go to stop the downloading? What measures are "reasonable"?

Does it make sense for you to spend tens, hundreds, thousands of dollars, or more, to license PlayReady DRM? Should the government monitor everyone's downloads to see if they're downloading your song so they can be prosecuted?

Presumably if DRM and prosecution stopped/prevented all those illegal downloads, they'd eliminate your extras sales. So the net would be loss of extra revenue for you, higher production costs (DRM licenses), and substantial invasion of privacy for the public at large.

So I ask you this, while stopping the illegal downloads of your album is the "right" thing to do, were the monetary (DRM and reduced revenue) and social (invasion of privacy) worth it?

The point is that people have still stolen my music. I am not in control of the distibution anymore. That is not the way I intended for my music to be distributed. The fact is that anyone that downloaded my music illegally broke the law, and there should be means to prosecute those people.

And Title 17 of the US code makes that illegal, and you have the right to press charges against the individual(s) who perpetrated the crime and law enforcement has the authority to prosecute it.

I have never, ever said that illegal downloads should just be ignored. I have no problem with Copyright, or the idea of the creator should have the exclusive rights granted them by Title 17.

The fact that my sales increased, decreased, or went sideways has zero relevance to this fact. The idea of lost/gained sales doesn't change the fact that I lost the distribution control over my legally owned property via illegal means and now there are lots of illegal copies out there that I was not compensated for. That is theft plain and simple.

Nobody disputes that. I don't think anybody (reasonable) has ever disputed that. The debate (from the "opposition") is, and has always been, given that the behavior is wrong, how far should we go, what means, what measures are reasonable to curb this behavior.

Our entire system of laws is based on the idea that "right" and "wrong" is not a binary operation, there are varying degrees of wrong, and those varying degrees of wrong deserve and require varying levels of enforcement and deterrence. J-walking is illegal, but we don't put up fences everywhere, or station police officers everywhere to prevent it, because it's not worth it.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

My legitimate sales increase due to the "added publicity" that all the downloads received. This is afterall the arguement that anyone "for" illegal downloads always uses.

More correct, is that is the "counter" argument that people make when someone asserts that piracy has negatively impacted sales. I'm not sure people use this argument to justify their personal use downloading... maybe some do, I don't know.

The point is that people have still stolen my music.

Technically they've infringed on your copyright... but I see where you are going here...

I am not in control of the distibution anymore. That is not the way I intended for my music to be distributed. The fact is that anyone that downloaded my music illegally broke the law, and there should be means to prosecute those people.

With you so far... don't think anyone disagrees at this point. Thankfully, this was thought about a long time ago, and laws were created to help with this sort of thing. I don't know if people realize, but copyright laws and due process are still in effect today, and can be used. Not sure we need a secret treaty to help with this. It's also ironic, that your very argument is the very argument that cable providers and sat providers use today to restrict your fair use rights... ie, they don't want you to record your own shows... SageTV would probably be illegal under the new ACTA... maybe.

That is theft plain and simple.

That's copyright infringement to the letter. There's a reason the mpaa didn't come out with "You wouldn't copy are car" commercials. But, hey, if calling something "theft" that is not theft, make you feel better, then fine, call it theft. I'm all for people feeling better. The law still recognizes it as infringement... but oh well.

Again - I'm not trying to argue the merits of this particular treaty. I don't agree with it, but this conversation has gone way beyond that point (as these types of threads always do).

As Stranger pointed out as well, how far should the govt go. How much freedom are you willing to give up? And where does it stop? Those answers are different for everyone, and it's what makes these threads so much fun It's not black or white.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stuckless

That's copyright infringement to the letter. There's a reason the mpaa didn't come out with "You wouldn't copy are car" commercials. But, hey, if calling something "theft" that is not theft, make you feel better, then fine, call it theft. I'm all for people feeling better. The law still recognizes it as infringement... but oh well.

OK - you're right - perhaps I am over simplifying it by calling it theft. But apparently I'm not the only one. Heck, even the government passed the "No Electronic Theft Act" (also called NET - it passed in 1976 and allowed for prosecution of individuals who copied copyrighted material but without financial gain. Up to that point prosecution could only occur if there was financial gain). They didn't call it the "No Electronic Copyright Infringement Act"

I realize that American courts have found that copying music is not considered theft (but rather copyright infringement as you mentioned above), but it is in other countries (like Britain) it is.

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by sic0048

I guess the problem with the whole "it didn't result in loss revenue" that bothers me the most is that takes the rightful ownership of the material from the owner. Let's see if I can explain what I mean...

Let's just say I am an artist and created a new album. Perhaps I sell that album on-line, but I do not freely share it to the public via any means (I'm not trying to cloud the issue with radio station copies, etc - lets keep it simple). In other words, I only sell my music. Let's say it is picked up on some file sharing site and becomes the hottest download in May. My legitimate sales increase due to the "added publicity" that all the downloads received. This is afterall the arguement that anyone "for" illegal downloads always uses.

The point is that people have still stolen my music. I am not in control of the distibution anymore. That is not the way I intended for my music to be distributed. The fact is that anyone that downloaded my music illegally broke the law, and there should be means to prosecute those people.

The fact that my sales increased, decreased, or went sideways has zero relevance to this fact. The idea of lost/gained sales doesn't change the fact that I lost the distribution control over my legally owned property via illegal means and now there are lots of illegal copies out there that I was not compensated for. That is theft plain and simple.

Again - I'm not trying to argue the merits of this particular treaty. I don't agree with it, but this conversation has gone way beyond that point (as these types of threads always do).

sic0048,

I think part of the problem is your insistence that you've been a victim of theft in your example above. Fact is, you haven't. What you have been a victim of is 'unlawful/illegal distribution' which is different than theft. If anyone is distributing your work without a specific contract from you to do so THEY are the ones that committed the crime - (again, not theft, but illegal distribution) and deservedly should be prosecuted (using laws that already exist, FWIW) for that and you should receive a monetary reward.

Imagine if someone where walking the streets somewhere in China and a street vendor was selling Windows 7 very cheaply - I know, hard to imagine - and they bought a copy. They (the buyer) certainly didn't steal anything from Microsoft, but the vendor is definately guilty illegal software distribution. To date, I know of no instance where Microsoft has ever prosecuted someone that bought a 'copy' of any of their software for theft. To me, that is a pretty good demonstration of what is and isn't actual theft.

IMHO, a large part of the problem stems from how broadly people try and portray their relationships with their 'friends' - please bear with me on this, I do have a point I'm trying to make. For example, I truely doubt that there'd be an issue if anybody shared music/book/movie with their actual friends, but if one tries to make a case that a p2p network is just 'friends sharing music', well that just isn't the same thing. Take myfacetwitbook for example, how many 'friends' on a users page are anything really close to being a friend? I think that one could argue that maybe 25% might really be friends - but if you sent everyone music from your collection - I personally think that'd be illegal distribution - whereas if the music was sent to that 'real' group of friends, being guilty of illegal distribution would be harder to rationalize.

Hope that makes some sense. Hard to explain clearly with as little sleep as I've been getting lately.

-PGPfan

[brainbone]

When it comes to software piracy, one dirty little secret that some companies (Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) often try to cover up is that piracy of their product can actually help them become and stay entrenched. It's only after having reached a certain point of market saturation they they will start to implement meaningful anti-piracy measures. Why? Piracy of their product doesn't necessarily reduce its value, but it does reduce the value of any competitors product -- be it open-source/free or otherwise.

Of course this model doesn't work for all copy-written material. It generally holds true when you have a large base of potential customers that usually don't risk piracy -- like larger businesses, universities, governments, etc.

Again, I'm not trying to say piracy is a good thing. I'm just pointing out that it is much more complex once you start looking at the details.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

sic0048,

I think part of the problem is your insistence that you've been a victim of theft in your example above. Fact is, you haven't. What you have been a victim of is 'unlawful/illegal distribution' which is different than theft.

Hope that makes some sense. Hard to explain clearly with as little sleep as I've been getting lately.

-PGPfan

I'm slowly understanding the difference between the two.

I guess I come at things from a moral point of view - and from that point of view there is little difference between the two. But technically and legally there is a difference.

[MattHelm]

Originally Posted by sic0048

Let's just say I am an artist and created a new album. Perhaps I sell that album on-line, but I do not freely share it to the public via any means (I'm not trying to cloud the issue with radio station copies, etc - lets keep it simple). In other words, I only sell my music. Let's say it is picked up on some file sharing site and becomes the hottest download in May. My legitimate sales increase due to the "added publicity" that all the downloads received. This is afterall the arguement that anyone "for" illegal downloads always uses.

OK, counter question. Lets say you you do this, but you put the file in FLAC format. I want this on my iPod, which does not play FLAC native. I convert it to lossless (whatever the apple lossless is). Is this stealing?

The music companies are trying to say it is, and if it's a DVD, the DMCA says removing the protecting is, even though I don't share it.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by MattHelm

OK, counter question. Lets say you you do this, but you put the file in FLAC format. I want this on my iPod, which does not play FLAC native. I convert it to lossless (whatever the apple lossless is). Is this stealing?

The music companies are trying to say it is, and if it's a DVD, the DMCA says removing the protecting is, even though I don't share it.

Personally I would totally agree with you - "personal use" should extend to those situations. Unfortunately, it is not the case currently. There are some countries that are currently pushing for a clearer and friendlier definition of "personal use". It would be nice if the US adopted that type of definitiion, but with all the money the music and film industry throws at this, I doubt it will ever happen.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sic0048

It would be nice if the US adopted that type of definitiion, but with all the money the music and film industry throws at this, I doubt it will ever happen.

Which is really the problem IMO. All of the efforts outside of the original Copyright code, the DMCA, ACTA, etc, are "advertised" as means to combat piracy, but time and time again it's been shown that they only serve to cripple personal "fair" use.

What has the DMCA accomplished? Other than making research (crypto) more difficult and making a significant amount of otherwise "fair" use illegal?

I submit that it has had no appreciable affect on Copyright violation. Which is the problem, these new laws have (terrible IMO) effects on personal freedom and privacy, but achieve none of their stated goals. Given that, are they reasonable to have on the books?

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I submit that it has had no appreciable affect on Copyright violation. Which is the problem, these new laws have (terrible IMO) effects on personal freedom and privacy, but achieve none of their stated goals. Given that, are they reasonable to have on the books?

I would tend to agree. Any encryption device used seems to be broken in very short periods of time. Heck, even Blueray which was suppose to be uncrackable was broken in just a couple of years. I guess that is an eternity compared to some cyphers that have been used, but it was still broken.

That being said, I'm not against a well thought out law that protects the IP of people and yet allows "fair use" that is based on common sense and not some CEO with a ax to grind. I do think that these types of laws need to be revisted every so often in order to keep up with the digital age. But don't waive people's Constitutional rights with silly laws that prevent "fair use" or take civil liberties.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sic0048

I would tend to agree. Any encryption device used seems to be broken in very short periods of time. Heck, even Blueray which was suppose to be uncrackable was broken in just a couple of years.

It wasn't even that, it was a matter of months IIRC. BD+ wasn't broken til 1-2 years after BD came out, but it wasn't even used on BDs until shortly before it was broken.

I guess that is an eternity compared to some cyphers that have been used, but it was still broken.

Here is probably the best explanation of the problem with DRM and laws like the DMCA and ACTA:
(got to use IE for some reason)
http://content.digitalwell.washingto...76/lecture.htm
or the transcript:
http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

And an interesting paper on (among other things) why DRM is futile:
The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution

That being said, I'm not against a well thought out law that protects the IP of people and yet allows "fair use" that is based on common sense and not some CEO with a ax to grind.

That law is Copyright.

I do think that these types of laws need to be revisted every so often in order to keep up with the digital age. But don't waive people's Constitutional rights with silly laws that prevent "fair use" or take civil liberties.

I'm curious what you think of Cory Doctorow's talk linked above.

[stuckless]

I realize this isn't directly related to the ACTA OP... but given that much of this talked about piracy... i thought it would get OK to share

This Ars article has an interesting perspective on "piracy" from a developer.

For those of you that decide to read the article... you notice it mentions a current promo where you can download 5 indie games (a bundle) for whatever price you want

[Fuzzy]

Personally, the biggest impact piracy has had on my life is that I can't play the newest NFL Madden game in full, stereoscopic 3D... :-)

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm curious what you think of Cory Doctorow's talk linked above.

Sorry, I didn' know exactly which article you are referring to. Can you link to it?

[stanger89]

Either of the first two links in my post 72.

[SomeWhatLost]

one thing I didn't see brought up is simple basic economics...

if supply is infinite, price is $0... doesn't matter how much demand there is... doesn't matter how many laws our benevolent media overlords pay to have passed in secret... the moment a song (or whatever) becomes an mp3 (or whatever) the actual price becomes $0... basic econ-101...

so if you apply basic economics to the "it's like stealing $100 from a Bank" theory, it becomes stealing $0 worth of MP3's is like stealing $100 from a Bank... seems kind of silly to the compare the two?


but it seems more like business model issue than a moral issue...
"artists" (or whoever/or whatever IP based business) have no "Right to make money" anymore than anyone else does. If I open a McDonald's in a small (fat) town of 500 that already has 5 Mcdonald's, 3 BK's, 2 KFC's and one pizza hut (but no taco bell's, as they are evil) do I have a right to earn an income? I paid $500k (or whatever the franchise fee for micky d's is...)... so I should get laws forcing people to choose my hamburgers over the others?

Itunes has been very successful competing with free... for those who say it is impossible to compete with free, how do you explain Itunes?
it couldn't have anything to do with giving people a reason to buy could it? an easy to use interface, a sense of community/belonging (for some), known quality, the wish to personally support their favorite band, I bet there are plenty of reasons that I am missing as to why people are willing to pay $0.99 for something they could get for free... and the thing is, while some of those reasons are not 'tangible', they are very much a finite resource hence the reason Apple gets a whole crap load of apple wielding drones to pay them...

note, just talking economics here, not morality... you can still argue right and wrong all you want

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

Itunes has been very successful competing with free... for those who say it is impossible to compete with free, how do you explain Itunes? it couldn't have anything to do with giving people a reason to buy could it? an easy to use interface, a sense of community/belonging (for some), known quality, the wish to personally support their favorite band, I bet there are plenty of reasons that I am missing as to why people are willing to pay $0.99 for something they could get for free...

iTunes is, IMO, the single biggest nail in the DRM coffin, but I don have one issue with your reasoning. Quality is not one of the reasons people buy from iTunes or Amazon, or whoever, over downloading. Quite often you can obtain better quality (higher bitrates or even lossless) illegally than you can legally (other than buying the CD).

So IMO, the success of iTunes/Amazon/etc come down to really two issues:
People are lazy - iTunes/Amazon/etc provide a simple, familiar interface for obtaining content.
People usually choose to do the "right" (legal) thing - iTunes/Amazon/etc are legal, and in general people would rather buy a legal copy than to download an illegal one (not everyone, but most IMO).

If the "pro-DRM" crowd were correct, iTunes wouldn't sell a song, especially when their product is inferior to the illegal counter part (lower bitrate) and used to be less compatible (DRM).

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm curious what you think of Cory Doctorow's talk linked above.

I had a chance to watch the video and I would agree with his arguments.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Quality is not one of the reasons people buy from iTunes or Amazon, or whoever, over downloading. Quite often you can obtain better quality (higher bitrates or even lossless) illegally than you can legally (other than buying the CD).

just to be clear, I just said "Known Quality" not better...
ie you know what you are getting on Itunes whereas you think you know what your getting from TPB, and you usually end up getting what you think you are getting... but not always... the pirate bay has a fairly loose concept of quality control....