The single least-attractive attribute of many of the people
who download content illegally is their smug sense of entitlement. …
The world does not OWE you Season 1 of “Game Of Thrones” in
the form you want it at the moment you want it at the price you
want to pay for it. If it’s not available under 100% your terms, you
have the free-and-clear option of not having it.
This isn't any kind of counterargument. No, the world doesn't owe me¹ that, but I'm not forcibly taking it either.People are voluntarily sharing it with me. So what I'm owed is irrelevant. YCombinator doesn't owe me access to HN either, but I'm not a bad person for using it if they're offering it to me.
¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please.
It's not really like HN though, YCombinator may be voluntarily providing the service and us users are voluntarily providing the content.
The difference with a torrent download (in many cases at least) is that the author is not voluntarily sharing it with you so they're not really offering it. Somebody else may be voluntarily sharing their bandwidth with you but that's about it.
Putting analogies aside, as everyone seems to focus on the analogy rather than the actual topic:
Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.
Some conditions are abusive. Try selling a non-perishable product in the EU with the condition that you provide less than two years of warranty and you can have a court telling you that.
Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.
Usually you can set whatever conditions you like as long as they don't contradict existing laws.
What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.
I might have misunderstood you. Do you mean that if they don't want you to share the content then they shouldn't sell it to you, because you will share it regardless of what the terms of the sale dictate?
These arguments on here are starting to feel like a broken record.
It's more like you lend your car to a friend under certain conditions (such as not relending) and find that they have in fact re-lent it to their friend who has in turn re-lent it to someone else who re-lent it to someone who decided to melt it down and sell it for scrap.
'yes, the world does. Copyright is an artificial construct whose moral basis exists solely as a calculated decision to try to increase production, a bargain between the public - of which I am one - and the creators - misleadingly called "the world" - about creating and providing works. Now, under the current rules, I and the rest of the public have chosen not to impose explicit mandatory terms of access, but we have in other cases like bandwidth and orphan works, so let's not pretend that we can't do it for you too. You may welsh on the spirit of our agreement while satisfying the letter of our law, and we may choose to overlook it because it's not serious enough a problem to invoke the grim majesty of the legal meatgrinders or for other reasons, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there is welshing going on here. And you certainly do not get to lecture me about it!"
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."
All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.
They did not forcibly took it: they bought the DVD, Blueray and/or access to the telecast. It's theirs.
If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.
Yes, but it's not what's happening here, so that's irrelevant.
I've now got a funny picture in my head of there being good distributors and bad distributors based on whether they initially purchased the material or not. Sorta like buying organic foods, only in this case seeking out torrents from those that produce a receipt showing they're legitimately good guys.
Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if legally valid.
What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?
You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement.
The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin.
If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.
Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.
If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.
Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce that particular copy, plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car.
Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as patents.
If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer.
It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost.
If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?
They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content.
The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven:
Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument
that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The
publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period.
Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than
doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than
30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing
documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the
new technology.
(...)
The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is
the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows
the industry has grown by 5% over this period.
¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit the artist.
The problem with that study IIRC is that it doesn't separate illegal downloads from legal free downloads. Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country. The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term.
I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country.
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
Can you give me some examples?
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works? perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
Can you give me some examples?
Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) , video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
A counter question to this;
If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else?
Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
perhaps more money would also create better new works?
Define "better work".
I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not convinced it is in this case.
Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?
No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic consumer protection.
For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their works.
* Define "better work". *
I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC gaming as an example of this.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else, movies and music don't really work like this.
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to be recouped somehow.
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.
They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original author can dictate at least some terms of use?
No, why should I?
Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic incentive is to be the latter.
I think with a house a better example is that after buying te house you still have to pay council rates (you do here at least). The person selling your the house transfered you all their rights to it, the house though comes with the stipulation you have to pay the rates.
That's not a condition imposed by the previous owner. It's not buying the house that comes with that stipulation, it's having one, regardless of how it came to your possession.
If you rent an apartment, you're expected to comply with your rental agreement.
Sure, because the property is still theirs.
If you buy a house, you're expected to comply with your homeowner's association bylaws.
That's not the previous owner telling me what to do. And not if they're considered abusive: banning families with minors, for example, is illegal. I consider their conditions abusive too, even if the law doesn't.
If you use your house for criminal activities, you may forfeit it if a judge agrees.
If you're a convicted sex offender, you're required to register your address with the government.
Completely different. And that's still not the previous owner telling me what to do.
Life is full of compromises, tradeoffs, and other restrictions to what you may consider your "rights."
Yes. And some of them I consider legitimate, and others I don't. Is != ought. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean it should.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure new works continue to be produced. In my opinion, copyright is not needed - nay, it's harmful to that goal and therefore it has not justification to exist.
¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please.
EDIT: fixed typo.