Thread: Bill S. 978

I think that this is an issue that will not be solved for a long time.
It is also supports evidence to show that there is no universal standard of morality.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The same one that I raised in the other thread which you never dealt with.


Any rational definition of theft is predicated upon some instance of deprivation.

If you have an idea, and I suck it out of your brain so that you don't have it any more and put it in my brain, then I've stolen it from you. If I just copy it, then I haven't stolen it from you because you still have it. It's the same with 1s and 0s that make up digital data. IP constitutes an artificial monopoly and a restriction of my fundamental right to copy any idea that I see. Modern civilization would not be possible without this. The seeds of modern civilization were sown by the free exchange of ideas.

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life. If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

Originally Posted by Xei

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life. If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

Okay, we're going to need to make a distinction between the type of pirates.

Pirates that copy IP and sell it for profit = bad.

Pirates that copy IP and distribute it for the spread of information and culture NOT for monetary gain = fuck yeah.

The owners of said IP have the right to sell it no doubt. But copyright laws today really restrict the way that same IP can be shared and enjoyed by the masses.

Originally Posted by Meakel

Pirates that copy IP and distribute it for the spread of information and culture NOT for monetary gain = fuck yeah.

Refusing to fund culture = spreading culture?

Forcing a new band to break up due to the debts they accumulated from making their first and promising album = spreading culture?

I can't believe how disingenuous these arguments get. You don't stream a film because you believe in spreading information and culture. You stream a film because you want to be entertained for a while (without paying the people who made it).

If you're going to debate this at least do it in an honest way like Philosopher.

Originally Posted by Xei

Refusing to fund culture = spreading culture?

Forcing a new band to break up due to the debts they accumulated from making their first and promising album = spreading culture?

I can't believe how disingenuous these arguments get. You don't stream a film because you believe in spreading information and culture. You stream a film because you want to be entertained for a while (without paying the people who made it).

If you're going to debate this at least do it in an honest way like Philosopher.

I wont repost what I've already done, but I posted links earlier about several examples of 'piracy' helping sales. A study showed that 'pirates' themselves are actually more likely to buy music.

It's not a refusal to fund culture. Like I said, those who own the rights, get to sell their product. They should the only ones who profit financially from their creations. They get to be the only people who profit from box office sales, concert tours, CD, DVD and MP3 sales.

Find me one instance of a band that broke up from lack of funds because of privacy.

Here's a study on bands it helps: Why Most Artist's Profit From Piracy

There's a curve to it. The bottom 75 percent of the music industry, the 'new bands' you speak of, benefit from the wider distribution of their work. It's the Hannah Montana's and Bieber's of the industry that suffer. If you could call that dent in their revenue suffering....

Even to the people who upload and don't believe it, they're doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

So when you download an album... you're doing that... to spread it to a wider audience... and so help the sales? You don't actually buy it personally, but deep down that's your altruistic motivation?

What I don't get is why you want to make the choice rather than the artists. If it helps sales to let people download it for free, then let them adopt a name-your-price scheme like In Rainbows, or whatever scheme they want. If it's so great for the artists then let the artists agree on that, and they they'll make a profit... no? And if a band decides that that's not the best way to do things, that's their loss; it is not your prerogative to take action based on your disagreement.

As to the article in favour of piracy on torrentfreak.com; hm, I don't think you're choosing your sources in an entirely disinterested fashion there? You don't think torrentfreak.com (which will make profits from its advertising), have any bias when it comes to resolving the cognitive dissonance of its clientèle? There are very few facts except the couple of, contextually, very outdated studies with no explication. People mostly discover new music now, I believe, by streaming it (from sites like Youtube), so one wonders if the old figures about downloads helping the spread are pertinent at all. Also, the focus seems rather squarely on the music industry, where starting up can be relatively inexpensive. Where are the studies about the effect of piracy on other media, like film?

When I download an album, I listen to it. If I like it, I go to see their concerts, I buy their merchandise and their CD's. I spread the word about this great new music. If I don't like it, I delete it.

There are in fact artists who agree on it. I'm not going to list a whole bunch of artist's and what not, but I do remember reading an interview where Lady Gaga talks about her thoughts on the issue. I take my own action because the copyright laws wouldn't let these artists make a scheme like that. No recording company is going to let their best-selling artist distribute their songs for free. If that bottom 75% does it, their fans will be happy, they'll see an increase in revenue from the scores of new people who now enjoy their music. But sadly enough, it's the companies that control that top 25% that lead the music industry, and they're the ones that would 'suffer'. So they're not going to change a thing.

Yeah, torrentfreak, probably isn't the most reliable reference in this context. You can check my post on the first page for more links, a couple of which aren't about music. As for film, I myself admit the piracy there isn't great. I do not agree with 'Theater Shot' pirates for example. I would never download one of those. If you want to see a movie within a month or two of it's release date, you're going to have to go pay for it. Going to a theater with an HD camera and posting it online is what I consider stealing. The box office profits are the studio's right. But once that studio releases the movie on DVD, I say it should be free to spread (without profit of course). I think really, the gist of my argument is that all IP, once released for retail sale, should be made Creative Commons. Studios and companies are just the only ones allowed to profit from their IP.

Originally Posted by dajo

so what? most musicians get a fraction of the record sales. Most goes to the middle men.

Live performances are the kicker.

Not to mention, they usually have to give up the copyrights to their recordings. My first album will be self-produced, thank you very much.

I pirate music and films to help starving children in Africa.

Originally Posted by Xei

My memory of that thread is replying to you and not getting a response?

You completely ignored my fundamental point though and instead listed a bunch of practical objections e.g. "how will new products get developed?". It was Tommo pointing out that companies would just make their technology more difficult to understand that stumped me. Until I realized that employees would understand and disseminate the technology.

The point is that IP is not normally for something you came up with one evening when you were baked; IP can cost millions of pounds to produce, and take up years of a dedicated individual's life.

And the priority that the person gets for being the first to think of it should be preserved. People should get credit for the ideas that they come up with. I don't know (or care) what to say about monetrary investment. I guess, don't invest in it if you won't be satisfied with the result.

If you copied the idea for your private use and used private materials and resources to realise it then I suppose you are free to do that, but the idea that you can steal an idea that somebody has dedicated so much to develop and mass produce it and sell it for your own selfish interests is utterly horrid, both ethically, and pragmatically; how on Earth do you think new products will ever be created? And yes it is deprivation, it's deprivation of the value of the resources and labour one puts into the idea; that is what you are stealing.

Wait a minute here. I put labor and resources into developing an idea. You copy the idea. Do I not still have the idea? If you were to put it more bluntly, you would say that I've stolen the potential profit that the idea might have led to. That is at best potential theft and more realistically, laughable.

How exactly do you think the media industry is going to work if what matters is not the cost of development but the cost of copying? Somebody puts millions into a film and you're saying it's your right to copy the DVD and sell it to the public if you bought the blank DVDs??

Yeah, pretty much. Your entire argument is based on attachement to our [i]particular[i] incarnation of technology. There is lots of art that can be produced in other ways for reasonable amount of money that will be just as satisfying, e.g. plays. If somebody puts millions of dollars into some stupid movie with people starving and getting massacered all over the world, then I find that morally reprehensible and they can pretty much cry me a river as far as I'm concerned.

What do you mean by the seeds of civilisation? My guess is that you are conflating the discovery of truth and nature (what scientific research does, for instance, and what no company has the rights to), with the creation of nature.

Guess again: Fire, the wheel, spears, spear throwers, bows and arrows, fish hooks, agriculture, building techniques, sailing techniques, boats, carts, chariots, the wheel barrow, etc. You may laugh at all of these things as "primitive" technology but they are a necessary step from where we started to where we are now.

Also, do you believe in taxation?

I reject the premise of the question.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I pirate music and films to help starving children in Africa.

I pirate because im a broke bastard who doesnt want to pay for something i can get for free.

All there will be left on the internet is porn...

Is my quasi-coherent ranting so unappealing to you that it doesn't even deserve a mention?