Please! PLEASE Stop PIRACY in this group!

In article <ha3el2ho1etdjdi77ha5t9di3d7u2kvfke.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Rob <noemailformethx.RemoveThis@jsjsaiiowppw.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:57:07 GMT, JAB <nochance.RemoveThis@nohope.com> wrote:
>
>I think software is a unique thing though. Most people that download
>stuff wouldn't dream of stealing anything with a physical form. I bet
>the majority of people that download software don't even think of it
>as being terribly wrong.

I expect it's worse than this: the majority of people (with no
qualifier) don't think of software piracy as something that is
wrong. Or any kind of copyright violation for that matter. And those
who _do_ consider it wrong, if you press them on it, will probably
tend to answer "because it's illegal". Well, there is an obvious way
to eliminate that particular argument.

If this is the case, then it serves as a strong indication that it's
the law that is the problem rather than the people. After all, the law
is theoretically made by and for the people. When 50% of the young
population is criminalized by a law that very few see as particulary
important or morally imperative, look for that law to change
eventually.

I believe that as the young population starts getting into voting age
in appreciable numbers, copyright legislation will be made
increasingly liberal and eventually abolished altogether. This is a
generation that has first-hand experience with digital information and
an implicit understanding for the importance of the freedom to share
this information. Once that generation starts hitting the legislature
and (eventually) the supreme courts around the world, copyright will
be a thing of the past.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:43:43 +0000, Shawk <shawk.DeleteThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

> I'm anti-piracy and obviously I don't know how
>common my experience might be but its an example of a positive you can
>consider or ignore.

It's quite likely that a lot of have had similar experiences. About a
year ago I lent my copy of Rainbow Six: Raven Shield to my bestest
buddy. He hated shooters before then. Since playing it he's hooked on
all the R6 games past and present, Ghost Recon Games and any other
tactical shooter he can lay his hands on.

Maybe not a "piracy" thing, but in a similar vein with the same
outcome. So, good can come of it, I fully acknowledge that point.





>> The problem is, that the sites that carry these things nearly always
>> carry other things too. It's very tempting indeed. But, I have what I
>> need so I refrain.
>>
>> I think software is a unique thing though. Most people that download
>> stuff wouldn't dream of stealing anything with a physical form. I bet
>> the majority of people that download software don't even think of it
>> as being terribly wrong.
>
>I've had this conversation numerous times over the years with my
>daughters - "yes dear, d-loading music 'is' illegal. No dear, I don't
>care if 'everyone' does it. Yes dear - it 'is' stealing. No dear -
>it's 'not' accepted practice"

Both my kids too. Both of them used to grab MP3's. Their generation
really doesn't see anything wrong with. It's going to be a tough nut
to crack for the authorities. I don't suppose it'll ever get stopped
at all in the long run.


>They thought it was so normal I had to take away admin rights and ban
>software like Kazaa over the years. Not so bad now they're older but
>software and (especially) music producers must reconsider how they sell
>their goods now that there has been a generation grow up thinking the
>goods are available for free so why pay - especially given that not all
>parents were like me and in fact may have also d-loaded music etc
>reinforcing their childrens views on the legitimacy of d-loading.

Indeed. There's a heck of a lot of kids doing it. Most youngsters are
completely comfortable with computers and the Internet.

My 5 yr old Grandaughter has her own PC here in my home. She can turn
it on, shut it down, start and end out of all her Dora The Explorer
and Clifford the Big Red Dog stuff all by herself. She can browse to
the CeeBeebies site unaided using a link in the favourites. It amazes
me actually.

This next few generations really are going to be the digital kids I
think.
>
>My two-penneth


Your two penneth and mine make for a "four-penny one"? I lost count of
how many times my Mum used to threaten to give me one of those.

--
Rob

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bcd.TakeThisOut@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:



>If this is the case, then it serves as a strong indication that it's
>the law that is the problem rather than the people. After all, the law
>is theoretically made by and for the people. When 50% of the young
>population is criminalized by a law that very few see as particulary
>important or morally imperative, look for that law to change
>eventually.

You make a very good point here. It is interesting though that a lot
of people draw a distinct line between a physical object and a digital
program or unit of intellectual property.

In principal theft is theft, stealing IP is the same as stealing a
pair of shoes. Or is it? You can see and hold a pair of shoes because
they have solid physical form. A digital item only exists in a certain
medium, a medium that only exists in a "virtual" environment. I guess
it's a bit like radio waves, they exist but only in a tangible form
when captured and translated into a discernable format.


>I believe that as the young population starts getting into voting age
>in appreciable numbers, copyright legislation will be made
>increasingly liberal and eventually abolished altogether. This is a
>generation that has first-hand experience with digital information and
>an implicit understanding for the importance of the freedom to share
>this information. Once that generation starts hitting the legislature
>and (eventually) the supreme courts around the world, copyright will
>be a thing of the past.

Maybe so. One has to wonder though just how the creators of digital
work and IP are ever going to get appropriate financial reward for
their efforts. No reward means no incentive to make the effort in
first place.

There are interesting times ahead whichever side of the fence one sits
on.

--
Rob

In article <g9jel21rrcoe309e2974nar34gph2luceb.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Rob <noemailformethx.RemoveThis@jsjsaiiowppw.invalid> wrote:
>You make a very good point here. It is interesting though that a lot
>of people draw a distinct line between a physical object and a digital
>program or unit of intellectual property.
>
>In principal theft is theft, stealing IP is the same as stealing a
>pair of shoes. Or is it? You can see and hold a pair of shoes because
>they have solid physical form. A digital item only exists in a certain
>medium, a medium that only exists in a "virtual" environment. I guess
>it's a bit like radio waves, they exist but only in a tangible form
>when captured and translated into a discernable format.

The duality here will become more interesting once we develop the
ability to duplicate physical items with relatively little cost. If I
have a prototyping machine (aka a 3D printer) capable of churning out
plastic copies of whatever I fancy - how long until toy manufacturers
start lobbying lawmakers to outlaw such machines?

It will probably also make it clearer why copying is not stealing. It
is apparantly difficult to make people understand that when I make a
copy of a piece of information, that does not affect any other copies
of that piece of information. Hence the claims that "piracy is
theft". It becomes clearer when you can point at my copy of (say) a
Barbie doll and then point at the manufacturer's original and assert
that even though I manufactured a copy, the manufacturer retains his
original.

>Maybe so. One has to wonder though just how the creators of digital
>work and IP are ever going to get appropriate financial reward for
>their efforts.

The regime of copyright is far from the only way for authors to make
money. In fact, its effect is mostly to provide economic security for
the distributor of the product. It is generally distribution and
retail that actually costs money and therefore holds the highest
financial risk.

In the age of electronic distribution, this risk will mostly
disappear. This means that in the future, any given work may only
require 10% of the revenue it used to in order to make its author
happy. I don't expect it is much of a challenge to find a way to
obtain this 10% from the market, and only a very slight bit of
ingenuity will probably be necessary to earn considerably more than
this from one's fan base.

> No reward means no incentive to make the effort in
>first place.

While this statement is true as written, I believe it somewhat
inaccurately represents what you wanted to say. I will assume that you
rather mean "no financial reward means no incentive ...". If so, then
you would clearly be wrong. A lot of people have been producing
cultural products up through the ages without consideration for
financial reward and this trend isn't likely to stop any time soon. In
fact, with phenomena such as YouTube etc. it is only likely to grow
exponentially as the number of cultural interactions explodes - no
longer held back by geographical or cultural distance.

Now, it may become more difficult to produce high-budget items
(although this is not given). If so, then we may be seeing fewer $100+
million Hollywood blockbusters, high-budget games, etc. But I have a
feeling we will find viable financial models also for such productions
if we want them.

Note, however, that one viable way of obtaining funds is through
patronage. Historically, patrons of the arts have been wealthy and
highly political individuals, possibly with their own agendas. This
particular aspect of patronage has too many drawbacks to be considered
very viable. Today, however, with a middle class that is generally
quite wealthy and has ready access to the Internet, it should be
possible to draw money from what I'd call public patronage. That is,
an author might make it public that he intends to produce a new work
X, but he needs financing to make it happen. People who want work X to
be created might then help finance its creation. This could happen as
investments, donations, pre-orders, or whatever. I can see many people
wanting to have a certificate on their wall saying "I helped fund
Stephen King's novel X"

I also expect there will be quite a few people who would prefer to buy
their copy of a given work from the "source" rather than via some
other channel. It can be quite surprising to note how much import the
label "genuine" can have when people make purchasing decisions.

>There are interesting times ahead whichever side of the fence one sits
>on.

Indeed.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd.RemoveThis@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Shawk wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
> > In article <1163435692.15103.0 RemoveThis @damia.uk.clara.net>,
> > Shawk <shawk RemoveThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
> >> Interesting Ian wrote:
> >>> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
> >>> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
> >>> justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.
> >>
> >> That's not justification (even arguably). I can afford a game but I'm
> >> too poor to buy a nice widescreen to play the game on - am I justified
> >> in stealing one according to your rules? Games are a luxury item not a
> >> necessity - if someone was starving and stole an apple then I'd be more
> >> understanding but a game? Nope.
> >
> > Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
> > outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
> > friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
> > other kids your age engage in.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Bent D
>
>
> I see your point but disagree - in my youth the 'cultural' item was a
> pair of trainers with a recognised brand. Reason I see your point is
> that I didn't have trainers with a brand and was looked down upon by
> peers who did - it only made me determined not to be poor anymore and to
> ensure my kids didn't go through the same. It did not justify me or
> anyone else going out and stealing a pair.

Of course not, because you could not duplicate a pair of shoes yourself.

Quoth The Raven; Shawk <shawk.DeleteThis@clara.co.uk.3guesses> in
<1163339037.16498.0.DeleteThis@proxy01.news.clara.net>
> I've had this conversation numerous times over the years with my
> daughters - "yes dear, d-loading music 'is' illegal. No dear, I don't
> care if 'everyone' does it. Yes dear - it 'is' stealing. No dear -
> it's 'not' accepted practice"
>
> They thought it was so normal I had to take away admin rights and ban
> software like Kazaa over the years. Not so bad now they're older but
> software and (especially) music producers must reconsider how they
> sell their goods now that there has been a generation grow up
> thinking the goods are available for free so why pay - especially
> given that not all parents were like me and in fact may have also
> d-loaded music etc reinforcing their childrens views on the
> legitimacy of d-loading.
> My two-penneth

in my opinion music downloads are as less illegal as tv show downloads.
for instance, no one believes format shifting is wrong, you take what
you have and move it to another format to listen to later on another
device. no one gets upset when you use your Sony cassette tape player to
record a song off the radio. Sony provide the means after all, just the
same that Sony provide a vhs player with the means to record a show on
FTA-tv.

so how is this different from downloading a song or movie to your
computer? the media owners still get to air it first and get paid for
it, all you are doing is downloading a recording/copy of that media. yes
the commercials are what pays for the media and you get it commercial
free, but the commercials only pay off the first time it's aired, and
your getting it after the payoff has already occurred and the media
owners and the networks that have aired the media got their money. they
don't get paid the second time and that's when you download it.

--
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

Stewardesses is the longest word that can be typed with only the left
hand, while lollipop is the longest with the right hand. (when
following the rules for typing).

Quoth The Raven; Rob <noemailformethx.TakeThisOut@jsjsaiiowppw.invalid> in
<gt9el2lq4rjh6vom2sknbaln6cngioonbj.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>
> It's quite likely that a lot of have had similar experiences. About a
> year ago I lent my copy of Rainbow Six: Raven Shield to my bestest
> buddy. He hated shooters before then. Since playing it he's hooked on
> all the R6 games past and present, Ghost Recon Games and any other
> tactical shooter he can lay his hands on.
>
> Maybe not a "piracy" thing, but in a similar vein with the same
> outcome. So, good can come of it, I fully acknowledge that point.


just consider it a demo of the game, if you like it, buy it.

I could have easily pirated the Dark Messiah game, however they added a
bonus for legit owners, they provided bonus content for steam users for
MP, so I had incentive to buy the game instead.

--
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day because that means
it's going to be up all night. - Stephen Wright

Quoth The Raven; Bent C Dalager <bcd DeleteThis @pvv.ntnu.no> in
<ej7hfv$dct$2@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>
> In article <ha3el2ho1etdjdi77ha5t9di3d7u2kvfke DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Rob <noemailformethx DeleteThis @jsjsaiiowppw.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:57:07 GMT, JAB <nochance DeleteThis @nohope.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think software is a unique thing though. Most people that download
>>stuff wouldn't dream of stealing anything with a physical form. I bet
>>the majority of people that download software don't even think of it
>>as being terribly wrong.
>
> I expect it's worse than this: the majority of people (with no
> qualifier) don't think of software piracy as something that is
> wrong. Or any kind of copyright violation for that matter. And those
> who _do_ consider it wrong, if you press them on it, will probably
> tend to answer "because it's illegal". Well, there is an obvious way
> to eliminate that particular argument.
>
> If this is the case, then it serves as a strong indication that it's
> the law that is the problem rather than the people. After all, the law
> is theoretically made by and for the people. When 50% of the young
> population is criminalized by a law that very few see as particulary
> important or morally imperative, look for that law to change
> eventually.
>
> I believe that as the young population starts getting into voting age
> in appreciable numbers, copyright legislation will be made
> increasingly liberal and eventually abolished altogether. This is a
> generation that has first-hand experience with digital information and
> an implicit understanding for the importance of the freedom to share
> this information. Once that generation starts hitting the legislature
> and (eventually) the supreme courts around the world, copyright will
> be a thing of the past.
>
> Cheers
> Bent D

do you think the next generation will have qualified supreme judges?
when asked before getting into office, if they have ever downloaded a
song, they would be disqualified for breaking the law and being
prejudiced towards violating copyright. however if the candidate lies
and gets into office, the law would be in the favour of downloader's.

--
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really
bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like a
serious bummer.

"Chris B." <cbrbagallo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:04ydnYaqSrC6YMjYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...

>>
> How is stealing a GAME ever justified?


I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.

Interesting Ian wrote:
> "Chris B." <cbrbagallo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:04ydnYaqSrC6YMjYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> How is stealing a GAME ever justified?
>
>
> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
> justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.


That's not justification (even arguably). I can afford a game but I'm
too poor to buy a nice widescreen to play the game on - am I justified
in stealing one according to your rules? Games are a luxury item not a
necessity - if someone was starving and stole an apple then I'd be more
understanding but a game? Nope.

In article <1163435692.15103.0 DeleteThis @damia.uk.clara.net>,
Shawk <shawk DeleteThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
>> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
>> justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.
>
>
>That's not justification (even arguably). I can afford a game but I'm
>too poor to buy a nice widescreen to play the game on - am I justified
>in stealing one according to your rules? Games are a luxury item not a
>necessity - if someone was starving and stole an apple then I'd be more
>understanding but a game? Nope.

Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
other kids your age engage in.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd DeleteThis @pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

"Bent C Dalager"wrote
> Shawk wrote:
>>Interesting Ian wrote:

>>> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
>>> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
>>> justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.

>>That's not justification (even arguably). I can afford a game but I'm
>>too poor to buy a nice widescreen to play the game on - am I justified
>>in stealing one according to your rules? Games are a luxury item not a
>>necessity - if someone was starving and stole an apple then I'd be more
>>understanding but a game? Nope.

> Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
> outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
> friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
> other kids your age engage in.

That might be a reason but not a justification.

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <1163435692.15103.0 DeleteThis @damia.uk.clara.net>,
> Shawk <shawk DeleteThis @clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>> Interesting Ian wrote:
>>> I personally buy all my games but clearly in one circumstance it can
>>> arguably be justified; namely if one if very poor and couldn't possibly
>>> justify the financial outlay in actually purchasing the game.
>>
>> That's not justification (even arguably). I can afford a game but I'm
>> too poor to buy a nice widescreen to play the game on - am I justified
>> in stealing one according to your rules? Games are a luxury item not a
>> necessity - if someone was starving and stole an apple then I'd be more
>> understanding but a game? Nope.
>
> Games can, as any cultural item, be vital to avoid becoming a social
> outcast. It's bad enough to be poor but much worse to not have any
> friends simply because you can't afford the cultural activities that
> other kids your age engage in.
>
> Cheers
> Bent D


I see your point but disagree - in my youth the 'cultural' item was a
pair of trainers with a recognised brand. Reason I see your point is
that I didn't have trainers with a brand and was looked down upon by
peers who did - it only made me determined not to be poor anymore and to
ensure my kids didn't go through the same. It did not justify me or
anyone else going out and stealing a pair.