The only thing I download “illegally” are MP3s, and I do so for two reasons: 1) they’re no longer in print or otherwise commercially available (akin to haunting used record stores and thrift shops for out-of-print LPs back in the days); 2) I want to try out a song before I plunk down around $20 for the CD (my b/f and I did this with Eminem’s “Without Me”–loved it, bought the CD the first day it came out). The latter, to me, is like when record stores used to have ‘listening booths’ so you could listen to a record before you bought it.
To me, the simplest thing the various companies could do is to lower the prices of their goods. CDs and applications software is ridiculously overpriced.
yep, same old stuff. “I want it and it’s not available unless I steal it” and “I want it but they charge too much for it, so I’m justified in stealing it”.
Why does everybody assume that property rights and intellectual property rights have a equal basis in law or even a similar purpose?
It’s my understanding that unlike property rights, which are individual rights, intellectual property rights derived from copyright law are not rights but privileges granted for the purpose of enriching all of society, not just the copyright holders.
If technology brings us something of immense benefit to all of society, isn’t it in the spirit of copyright law to make allowances for it? Why does everyone accept the claims from copyright holders that file sharing is hurting them without any proof? And since when is the focus of copyright law on individuals and not society?
Copyright is a means to an end. Nobody should have to justify their ownership of a bicycle, but in my opinion claiming ownership of an idea or a creative work will never, ever be reasonable unless you can justify the benefit to everyone of our letting you claim ownership of such things. Because there is just no such thing as natural ownership of ideas, words or melodies.
and why do you believe that you have a right to what I’ve worked to produce, w/o compensating me for it?
would you sneak into a movie theater w/o paying 'cause after all, they’re showing the movie anyway and they charge too much for them, and you really want to see it, etc.
I put in my time at work and expect to be paid for it. The stylist cutting your hair has provided you with a service, as has the doctor who treats your illnesses. You purchase goods and services, expect to pay for them. You want a copy of a book, movie, cd, why would you expect to get that for free (to own, yes, in most cases you can borrow them for free from a library).
Don’t the people who produce these things you appreciate deserve the fruits of their own labor, just as you expect and demand to get paid for your own?
US law now (thanks, I understand, to Sonny Bono :rolleyes: ) extends a simple copyright until 75 years after the death of the creator - is this just a little excessive?
A 1957 Peanuts strip will be copyrighted until 207x.
Australian law says a copyright ends 50 years after the creation of the work.
and wring - there is a huge difference between “I can’t afford it” and “they won’t sell at any price”
and, IIRC, the “no photos, please” signs in museums was about distractions caused by flash and/or wanting a “good” shot - works of art are routinely photographed, and the images are distributed. Under copyright.
Me too. As someone who rights software for a living, anyone making an unauthorized copy is stealing money from my pocket. Justifications be damned, I want to be paid!
People set prices on software, music, entertainment, games, etc because that’s what they believe they are worth. Your choice, as a consumer, is to decide if you are willing to pay that price or do without. Those are your two options, you don’t get a third one that says “I think it’s priced too high, so I will snarf a copy.”
That’s a false cause. There is absolutely no evidence that links the two, just a convenient excuse used to justify high software and CD prices.
Explain to me why Windows XP Pro now costs more than entry level PC’s.
How does the real world work? I mean how it really works, not your interpretation of it.
You missed the point entirely. Regardless of what they do, it is money the copyright holders will never see. So what that they retain a copy of the work? Where is the harm?
Yeah? So how come MS keeps telling me that I don’t acutally own any programs I bought with their EULA (end user licensing agreement) which they now try to reinforce with UCITA? Why should I respect them when they have been trying to erode my rights as a consumer?
That’s just BSA logic. You’re assuming that everybody who owns pirated copies of software/songs/movies will pay if pirated copies do not exist. That simply is not the case.
They don’t care about you, they just care about the money, it’s that simple. Most of them at any rate, and MS is the worst offender.
That’s confusing two issues. Bad bad form.
Sure. What’s your point?
That doesn’t carry over. A person who acquires bootlegged copies does not necessarily pay for legit copies if said bootleg copies are not available.
Again, nobody is stealing RIAA’s money. So this doesn’t wash.
I don’t see you offering much in the way of refutation, either.
yes, ideally, an owner would be open to offers (at least of copies - I don’t expect the Mona Lisa to be on the market, but photos of it are…)
Again - where (if at all) does moral diverge form legal constraints?
Anyone wishing to re-visit the idea of immoral laws is welcome to do so, but I think this discussion can be held short of that line.
To recap:
something exists.
I would like to purchase a copy of this thing.
the owner can easily make this item available (and, in the cases cited, do so with a reasonable expectation of profit).
bootleg copies are readily available.
What am I to do?
(FTR: I have 2 copies of the VHS/PAL Song of the South, and film prints of some of the WB 'toons)
The larger Q is: what happens when they wear out? can killing a work of art be justified? This is what the copyright holders do by refusing to release copies of them.
[Disclaimer]
After i submitted this post here, I mirrored it into another forum, encouraging it’s members to follow it’s outcome here. It seems that only one so far decided to actively participate in this debate. I presume more are lurking. Anyways, someone posted this which i believe is worthy of this thread so I am quoting him here with his permission.
[/Disclaimer]
the justifications for stealing the fruit of some one else’s labor are:
I can’t get it legally 'cause they don’t sell it anymore.
(so, your desire to own something out weighs the owners right to control **their ** property?)
They charge too much for it, and are making obscene amounts of profit on it (so, again, your desire to own something out weights the owners right to control their property)
If they really wanted to, they could make it impossible for these thefts to occur (so, I’m justified in stealing things if I consider the owner to be lax in their security? and, of course, if they increased the security involved, they’d have to raise the prices which would bring #2 into play again).
Amazing feats.
Your desire to own something that belongs to some one else does not give you moral justification for stealing it, even if the real owner is a horrible greedy person.
but one could argue that ‘abandonware’ would be similar to literary works that are in the ‘public domain’. In other words, you don’t have to pay royalties to an author once the copywrite expires (usually 70 years). For software, that time period should be adjusted to reflect the fact that the technology changes much more quickly.
I would have to say that if enough time has passed and the company does not exist or shows no interest in maintaining a brand, then abandonware should be up for grabs.
I would have to look at it on a case by case basis.
It’s really THEIR work to do with as they see fit. I can’t think of a good reason for forcing them to sell copies of it.
[Apu voice]
This is not a lending library! Now buy something or get out before
I blow your heads off and thank you come again!
[/Apu voice]
You know why software and CD prices are so high? Because people but themat that price.
The same reason a PC costs more than a toaster. The cost of one has nothing to do with the cost of other.
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you explain your view to me. I suspect in your world, you think stealing is ok because the evil corporations charge too much for their products.
It may be possible that with the Internet the old business model of selling CDs may no longer be as viable. I think pirating software and media will get easier and that the business won’t be able to stop it. If that is the case, these companies will need to find a new way of doing business.
and
I understand your point. You think that because these Moroccan kids can’t go to Circut City and buy Quake III or Microsoft Office, its ok for them to get bootlegs since the software company wouldn’t have made that sale anyone.
I am telling you it is not ok because someone who DOES have access to legitimate versions of the software made those illegal coppies to sell to the Moroccans. That person is essentially stealing revenue from the software company.
You don’t have to buy their product. YOU agreed to purchasing their license (not their software). Now you feel you don’t have to hold up to your end of the agreement?
Some would pay. Some wouldn’t.
Worst offender? These are businesses. They only exist to make money. That’s it.
Good one.
My point is that a significant number of people do not just download a couple songs and then buy the CD if they like them. They download the songs and never purhcase the CD.
As far as I can see, ‘abandonware’ is quite closely analogous to printed publications that have gone out of print; if the publisher doesn’t want to produce it any more, that’s just tough; you have to search for a used copy or do without, except that the roles of ‘Author’ and ‘Publisher’ are not necessarily equivalent as the company may have intellectual property rights over the work of employed programmers.
Does the copyright of a printed publication expire if the publisher goes out of business?
There is considerable support for giving authors a right to forcibly revert their copyright interest in a work if the current holder fails to continually publish it. This would let a musician revert a copyright that a distributor has decided to sit on instead of publish, and would resolve some, but not all, “abandonware” issues. (With software, the author is, as a matter of law, usually the corporation itself, not the individual programmers, so this won’t help.) Doing away with the work-for-hire doctrine would also help here.
What if the theft contributes positively to the artist? When I ‘steal’ an MP3, I do it only to test out the album I’m intending to buy. So if I like the MP3 then I shell out and buy the CD but when I don’t the file gets deleted. This puts a wholly positive spin on MP3 file sharing and I can’t imagine I’m the only one doing this.
Mangetout: I’m sorry, I did have a half page reply to your post typed out but the stupid bloody poxy bastard server gave me an error and it deleted the whole thing. I’ve not got the patience to retype it now but I will do it tomorrow.
Wring
But the ‘theft’ has had a beneficial effect for all concerned, as it was intended to. Therefore, how is it morally wrong?
Sure, there are plenty of irresponsible freeloaders out there. In the post addressed to Mangetout that was deleted I did elaborate on a system whereby the artists got sole control over whether or not a song was allowed to be shared. At the moment that control lies with the record companies who steamroller of the wishes of artists like, say, Chuck D who actually endorse file sharing. However, should I be penalised for simply being a prudent consumer because of the actions of people who can’t use the software decently? Isn’t that the same kind of argument always ripped to shreds around here whenever anyone tries to use it to justify gun control?
I can also tape off the radio and tape from CD’s borrowed from the library. Should we illegalise cassette tapes? After all, what else are they really used for?
Since, obviously, that statement is the basis of all your argumentation, I stand by what I have said. If they only care about taking the easy way out without regards to individual cases, how can anybody be wrong by doing the same? Especially if i feel I am not harming them by doing so. The only difference would be that they abide the law and I don’t. Big deal…
[Daffy Duck voice]
“Of Course You Realize This Means War!”
[/Daffy Duck voice]
It seems that this is the root of the dissension between pro/anti-piracy
The theft had a beneficial effect for all concerned in that one example. Taking it further, though, do you believe that everyone who downloads an MP3 and likes the music goes on to buy the album (as opposed to downloading the rest of the MP3s)?
As an aside – and I haven’t had time to think this one all the way through – is the immorality of theft inherent in its commission or only in its effects? In other words, is theft wrong because of the lack of permission regardless of any beneficial effects?