respectcopyright.org... kiss my furry white ass

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Princhester
Oh so an anecdote from an anti-copyright fanatic is evidence now?

The claim: Some people will end up giving the studios/labels more money, not less, as a result of downloading free content.

The evidence: I am a person and I have done so. (You can find similar anecdotes all over the board.)

Yes, that’s evidence. You can either call me (and everyone else who makes the same claim) a liar, and claim that I (and they) didn’t buy those CDs after downloading the songs; or you can admit that some instances of downloading lead to more sales rather than fewer.

I don’t understand (and you are consistently unable to explain) what the practical difference is between the two things from the perspective of someone trying to earn a living out of making something and selling it, however.

Yes, it’s obvious that you don’t understand. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t understand because you’re consciously trying not to understand; the alternative is that you’re simply too stupid to grasp the difference between selling something you have and selling something you don’t have, but I’m sure that’s not the case.

One could (if one were cynical) form the view that the way you absolutely go apeshit when I refer to what you believe in as “stealing” is because you know how uncomfortably accurate that term is.

If one were as cynical as you suggest, one could also form the view that the moon landing was a hoax, the income tax is an illegal conspiracy, and fluoridation is a Communist plot to taint our precious bodily fluids. Luckily, the ignorant view you’ve formed is one that can easily be refuted by a statement from me (“No, I don’t believe it’s accurate at all”), not one that requires a lot of research and citing.

There’s no need to go over all this old ground, Mr2001, you know and have admitted that taking someone’s intellectual property without paying for it destroys its commercial value. You admitted as much in that other thread. You ultimately admitted that you just don’t care.

I don’t recall agreeing with that first statement, but I have better things to do than sift through that thread right now. Let’s leave it at “I just don’t care.”

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
I just explained what it means: Sometimes downloading a movie (or song, etc.) results in less revenue, sometimes more, sometimes the same. Movies and music aren’t just products, they’re advertisements. You have to look beyond “Did this guy buy a ticket or didn’t he?” Only simple people need to reduce it to a simple black-and-white issue.

God, you’re an asshole.

[Ms2001]

Well, honestly, I’ve been more hostile here than I wanted to. My week is off to a bad start–you may have seen my Pit thread–and I’ve been pissed at everything.

But thanks for the new label, chum. Good to see you putting your best foot forward; that “if you want to convince yourself it’s complex, whatever that means” nonsense wasn’t getting you anywhere.

[Princhester]

Exactly. You don’t care. You’d care pretty damn fast if you were starving because your job had disappeared because of leachers of your IP. But because your employer happens to have a practical means of preventing that, you can sit in your bizarre ivory tower and say everyone else’s IP should be free.

[Princhester]

All your complexity amounts to this: there is no simple relationship between leaching and loss of profit.

So what? If it’s not your IP, it’s not your decision as to what I do with it. If I decide I don’t want it given away, because in my view it may have an impact on my sales then that is my decision, not yours.

Your argument basically is equivalent to: if I rape someone, they may enjoy it. Some women have rape fantasies, some may have secretly wished it to happen. It’s not a simple question, it’s complex. So rape is moral.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Princhester
Exactly. You don’t care. You’d care pretty damn fast if you were starving because your job had disappeared because of leachers of your IP.

Hell, I might even care if anyone were starving because his job had disappeared because of “leachers” of his IP. Care to provide evidence that such a thing has actually happened, or is it just a fantasy?

But because your employer happens to have a practical means of preventing that, you can sit in your bizarre ivory tower and say everyone else’s IP should be free.

Practical means of preventing it? It’s a business model that doesn’t depend on selling copies of information. Similar business models for the entertainment industry are proposed in just about every copyright thread, including the most recent one in GD.

So what? If it’s not your IP, it’s not your decision as to what I do with it. If I decide I don’t want it given away, because in my view it may have an impact on my sales then that is my decision, not yours.

Well, that’s the key issue, now isn’t it. You think people who create information should be able to control who can give it away and who can’t, to control when and where and how others can use it. I don’t.

IMO it’s as ludicrous for me to tell you “Don’t make copies of that CD, you might cost me sales” as it is for me to tell you “Don’t make your hammers the same size as the ones I make, you might cost me sales.” I don’t get to tell you what size to make your hammer, nor what patterns of bits to put on your CDs.

We will obviously never agree on that point. What a shame.

Your argument basically is equivalent to: if I rape someone, they may enjoy it. Some women have rape fantasies, some may have secretly wished it to happen. It’s not a simple question, it’s complex. So rape is moral.

Ridiculous. Just try to find a post of mine where I claimed copyright violation was moral because its effects are complex - you won’t. You’re conflating two separate issues, and I believe you know it.

[yosemite]

Mr2001 wrote:
IMO it’s as ludicrous for me to tell you “Don’t make copies of that CD, you might cost me sales” as it is for me to tell you “Don’t make your hammers the same size as the ones I make, you might cost me sales.”

Ah. Why am I not surpriseed—continually missing the point: It’s like saying, “If you pay only $12 for this CD, it’s with the understanding that you don’t get to give copies away to everyone. If you want to give copies away to everyone, it’s gonna cost you a lot more.”

The (relatively) low pricetag on some copies of IP comes with strings attached. If you don’t want those strings attached—if you don’t want those restrictions—you can do one of two things: DON’T BUY IT or, PAY A WHOLE LOT MORE. You don’t get to pay the “strings attached” price and expect that the strings are not attached.

So, if you want a world where IP does not have these strings attached? Fine. Prepare to pay more. You can’t have it all your way. Sorry you can’t seem to grasp this point.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**Hell, I might even care if anyone were starving because his job had disappeared because of “leachers” of his IP. Care to provide evidence that such a thing has actually happened, or is it just a fantasy?

**

Clearly I’m being rhetorical when I refer to starving. But the fact remains that plenty of people earn a living by selling IP, and if you leach their IP, they won’t be able to do so. You included.

**Practical means of preventing it? It’s a business model that doesn’t depend on selling copies of information. Similar business models for the entertainment industry are proposed in just about every copyright thread, including the most recent one in GD.

**

Name one. And mind it doesn’t include any reliance upon selling copyable IP. Because every scheme I’ve seen you mention to date does, the irony of which seems to escape you.

**IMO it’s as ludicrous for me to tell you “Don’t make copies of that CD, you might cost me sales” as it is for me to tell you “Don’t make your hammers the same size as the ones I make, you might cost me sales.” I don’t get to tell you what size to make your hammer, nor what patterns of bits to put on your CDs.

**

Firstly, let’s get this straight. No one is using copyright to tell other people what bits they can put on their CD’s, much as it may help you make out some sort of hysterical argument by pretending to the contrary. Copyright only restricts what one cannot put on CD’s, and then only in very limited ways.

But getting down to the substantive point, it is ludicrous for you to restrict me from making a hammer of a certain size because there is nothing original in making a hammer of a certain size. You did not invent hammers of a certain size, and you did not fund interesting work creating a hammer of a certain size for the advancement or entertainment of humankind (or if you did, you’re an idiot :))So it is ludicrous for you to expect to get any legally enforceable exclusive rights in relation to hammers of a certain size.

In other words, your whole reference to hammers of a certain size is a silly straw man. You have taken something unoriginal, valueless and not copyrightable and you attempt to use that as a reason why something original and valuable shouldn’t receive copyright.

Or in short, the usual Mr2001 crap.

**Ridiculous. Just try to find a post of mine where I claimed copyright violation was moral because its effects are complex - you won’t. You’re conflating two separate issues, and I believe you know it. **

Fer cryin out loud, your whole schtick involves a load of whining to the effect that leaching copyright materials does not have simple effects on the bottom line of copyright holders and therefore there is nothing wrong with doing so.

[Ms2001]

yosemitebabe, I responded to that last time you posted it, in the other thread. I’m not sure why you brought it up here, though; it has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Originally posted by Princhester
Clearly I’m being rhetorical when I refer to starving. But the fact remains that plenty of people earn a living by selling IP, and if you leach their IP, they won’t be able to do so.

OK, then do you have any evidence of people who are no longer able to earn a living because of file sharing? If it hasn’t happened in the 6 years that file sharing has been mainstream, one has to wonder whether it ever will.

You included.

That’s funny, a little while ago you seemed to know what I do for a living.

The software I write is useless without the hardware my employer sells, and vice versa. It wouldn’t be hard to copy the software (it’s preloaded on a PC), but it’d be as shruggable as copying the firmware from a microwave or a photocopier.

Name one [business model for entertainers that doesn’t depend on selling copies of information].

Live performances.

Firstly, let’s get this straight. No one is using copyright to tell other people what bits they can put on their CD’s … Copyright only restricts what one cannot put on CD’s …

Now that’s pedantry.

But getting down to the substantive point, it is ludicrous for you to restrict me from making a hammer of a certain size because there is nothing original in making a hammer of a certain size.

Oh no? Have you ever seen a hammer that’s exactly 21.6875" long, weighs exactly 10.2 ounces, and is painted yellow?

Some original thought went into that. Not as much as most songs, but perhaps as much as Tom Paxton’s “Ballad of Spiro Agnew”.

Fer cryin out loud, your whole schtick involves a load of whining to the effect that leaching copyright materials does not have simple effects on the bottom line of copyright holders and therefore there is nothing wrong with doing so.

If that’s my whole schtick, you should have no problem finding a post where I said that, right? Put up or shut up.

I don’t want to get into the whole morality of file sharing debate again, but I don’t think the morality of file sharing has anything to do with the bottom line of the copyright holder. Downloading a Metallica track is either immoral or it isn’t, IMO, regardless of whether you later go on to buy a Metallica CD or concert ticket.

[yosemite]

yosemitebabe, I responded to that last time you posted it, in the other thread. I’m not sure why you brought it up here, though; it has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Just further evidence of the disconnect you seem to have on this subject. You continue to bitch about sellers of intellectual property putting restrictions on the use of the stuff they sell, without acknowledging that the low price of the work is the reason for the restrictions. Yet you continue to claim that you don’t “get” why they insist on restrictions, and continue to call these restrictions unreasonable in some way.

And so I’ll say again: Don’t expect a Rolls Royce on Hyundai prices. You didn’t pay for all rights, you don’t get all rights.

But, oh well. You are obviously highly motivated to ignore this fact.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
But thanks for the new label, chum.

You’re welcome - wear it with pride.

Good to see you putting your best foot forward; that “if you want to convince yourself it’s complex, whatever that means” nonsense wasn’t getting you anywhere.

Sorry, that’s how I feel - bootlegging movies takes money away from the people who make movies, and saying it’s “complex” is a nonsense rationalization. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Princhester;), but it’s not your call to decide whether movie studios want you stealing from them. That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking with it. But you had to take it down a notch to the level of name-calling with your “simple people” comment, so fuck you.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**OK, then do you have any evidence of people who are no longer able to earn a living because of file sharing? If it hasn’t happened in the 6 years that file sharing has been mainstream, one has to wonder whether it ever will.

**

The effect may never be obvious. There are too many factors that impact upon the economics of a business for it to be likely that I would ever be able to find an example of one that has gone under precisely because of leaching. But that doesn’t mean it is not a factor. If people are leaching rather than paying for a product, that has to impact on the bottom line.

That’s funny, a little while ago you seemed to know what I do for a living.

I said “if”. If you were to earn a living selling your IP in a way that could be leached, that would impact upon the way you earn a living. I am fully aware that the practicalities are such that you are insulated from the impact of your own philosophy.

Live performances.

Which generally don’t make money, except by merchandising, and that involves relying on the sale of IP (which is never going to make money in your copyrightless universe). And besides which this is a very incomplete answer because many forms of entertainment can’t be done live (movies, in particular).

Oh no? Have you ever seen a hammer that’s exactly 21.6875" long, weighs exactly 10.2 ounces, and is painted yellow?

Some original thought went into that. Not as much as most songs, but perhaps as much as Tom Paxton’s “Ballad of Spiro Agnew”.

Not enough to get a patent. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from copying something so ordinary and unoriginal as a hammer of a particular size weight and colour. Stop beating up straw men.

When you decide to face up to actual arguments being put to you and can explain why it is ludicrous to have copyright entitlements in (say) “The Lord of the Rings” you may have an argument, but face it, you can’t.

I don’t want to get into the whole morality of file sharing debate again, but I don’t think the morality of file sharing has anything to do with the bottom line of the copyright holder. Downloading a Metallica track is either immoral or it isn’t, IMO, regardless of whether you later go on to buy a Metallica CD or concert ticket.

Well you would say that, because immorality of doing so depends upon whether you are effectively stealing something valuable, which you are. So naturally you want to view the download in total isolation so that you don’t have to consider the wider effects.

You do in fact understand this, whatever you might pretend. Why else would you be so careful to deny the link between leaching and the profitability of those from whom you leach?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Just further evidence of the disconnect you seem to have on this subject. You continue to bitch about sellers of intellectual property putting restrictions on the use of the stuff they sell, without acknowledging that the low price of the work is the reason for the restrictions.

I will address this in the other thread.

Yet you continue to claim that you don’t “get” why they insist on restrictions, and continue to call these restrictions unreasonable in some way.

There you go putting words in my mouth. Of course I “get” why they insist on restrictions. It is possible to simultaneously understand something and disagree with it. But history is full of examples of people insisting on unreasonable things.

Originally posted by Princhester
If people are leaching rather than paying for a product, that has to impact on the bottom line.

Yes, and now we’re back to the complexity issue. If it were really true that a downloaded song is a lost sale, then the record industry would be hurting more and more as downloading became more popular. However, real-world data shows that they aren’t. Obviously something is wrong with that theory.

My explanation, as you’ve probably picked up by now, is that file sharing often leads people to buy more, not less. I’ve described how that’s true in my case, and I’m sure you can find plenty more people who have similar stories. You say there are many factors in the economics of a business; well, sales lost to downloads are a factor, and sales gained from downloads are another factor. You can’t just look at one and ignore the other.

I said “if”. If you were to earn a living selling your IP in a way that could be leached, that would impact upon the way you earn a living.

That isn’t what you said (go back and read your post), but I see what you’re driving at now. If my income depended on selling copies of IP, then illegal copying could affect my income.

I guess I’ll have to keep earning a living in a way that doesn’t depend on selling copies of IP then, eh? Just like I’ve recommended for everyone else.

[Live performances] generally don’t make money, except by merchandising

Tens of thousands of people paying $50 each, and the band isn’t making money? Sounds like they need to cut out a middlemen or ten.

Not enough to get a patent. No one is arguing that you should be prevented from copying something so ordinary and unoriginal as a hammer of a particular size weight and colour.

And yet, even the most ordinary and unoriginal song is still protected by copyright.

You do in fact understand this, whatever you might pretend.

Look, you presumptuous weasel, I’ve told you truthfully what I believe. If you’re going to act like some authority on what I’m thinking, if you are so goddamn arrogant that you claim to know my own opinions better than I do, then I’m through with you.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**Yes, and now we’re back to the complexity issue. If it were really true that a downloaded song is a lost sale, then the record industry would be hurting more and more as downloading became more popular. However, real-world data shows that they aren’t. Obviously something is wrong with that theory.

**

A quick google shows that those who like file sharing read the figures as showing that sales of CD’s have risen due to file sharing, those who don’t say sales of CD’s have fallen due to file sharing, and this academic paper agrees with the latter.

My explanation, as you’ve probably picked up by now, is that file sharing often leads people to buy more, not less. I’ve described how that’s true in my case, and I’m sure you can find plenty more people who have similar stories.

Oh I’m sure that any number of people who like to download stuff for free would tell me that. Any number of them. Whether it is true is another matter. I have never heard a thief yet who said “Yes, what I do is wrong and unjustifiable”.

And in any event, you haven’t described how file sharing in your case has lead you to buy less at all. All you’ve said is that you have bought some things that you have downloaded. How many things have you downloaded? How many have you bought? Of course, you’ll say that those things you have downloaded, but not bought, you would not have bought even if you could not have downloaded. You would say that, wouldn’t you? And it is conveniently impossible for me to dispute you, but pardon me if I don’t believe you.

I guess I’ll have to keep earning a living in a way that doesn’t depend on selling copies of IP then, eh? Just like I’ve recommended for everyone else.

Except that you are yet to come up with a scheme by which the IP industry can do that, with the exceptoin of live performances. So I guess it’s goodbye to most of the IP industry, in your moral universe.

And yet, even the most ordinary and unoriginal song is still protected by copyright.

I knew you’d say that. You can’t meet my point, so you special plead. You can’t meet the point that an original song deserves copyright, so you red herring off by pointing to the fact that some copyright material is borderline.

Deal with the meat, stop playing around with the edges.

Look, you presumptuous weasel, I’ve told you truthfully what I believe. If you’re going to act like some authority on what I’m thinking, if you are so goddamn arrogant that you claim to know my own opinions better than I do, then I’m through with you.

Much easier to call me names than to deal with the fact that you have clearly adopted a silly position, but when called on it, have pretended it wasn’t your position.

http://www.merit.unimaas.nl/epip/papers/waelbroeck_paper.pdf

[Princhester]

Sorry, ignore that last url, it’s just the same as the link earlier.

And what I meant to add was, if you truthfully don’t think that the morality of downloading has anything to do with the issue of whether or not doing so affect profits, why did you spend nearly 10 pages arguing with myself and others about it in that other thread? Why did you spend so much time arguing with me about whether the copyright holder loses anything?

Perhaps you were just arguing for the sake of arguing. That’s entirely possible. In fact, I’ve got that impression from time to time.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

You can hate the ads, you can think they’re going for the wrong audience, you can resent having to watch extra stuff after spending so fucking much money for the ticket and the goddamn usurious prices on the drinks and popcorn. Hell, I seethe too. But do NOT say piracy isn’t bad, isn’t a problem, and doesn’t hurt.

Fact is, yes, it’s not just millionaire CEOs who get hurt by piracy.

I don’t know about the movie industry; maybe you don’t buy Dewey Cheatham and Howe’s explanation, but I’m willing to take it at face value until I know more…

But (whee, here is a chance for me to get on THIS tired old soapbox again! Yay! Goddamnit, stop cringing and rolling your eyes, all of you) I can tell you that in software piracy it hurts the $$ getting to the little people. Up until he sold over his rights, my husband was paid quarterly royalties on software sales. He’s no Bill Gates. I’m sorry the movie industry is turning people off with their ads, especially since I’d like more people to know that yeah, normal people get fucked by piracy too.

[sturmhauke]

*Originally posted by Dog80 *
**The ads are even worse in the UK. They come from Federation Against Copyright Theft http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/

Among other claims, they state (in the theater ad, I couldn’t find that claim on their site) that illegal copies are used to fund terrorist activities.

Yeah, sure. Saddam and Osama, keep the DVD burners next to the WMD. **

Well, The Register thinks the IRA sells pirate software to fund their activities. I don’t pretend to know the extent of this situation, but it is at least plausible.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Princhester
Oh I’m sure that any number of people who like to download stuff for free would tell me that. Any number of them. Whether it is true is another matter.

Are you saying I didn’t buy 20+ CDs after downloading the tracks? I suppose I can’t expect someone as cynical as you to take my word for such a trivial statement… so what proof do you want? Would a photo of the CDs be sufficient?

And in any event, you haven’t described how file sharing in your case has lead you to buy less at all.

Perhaps I’ll go through the list tonight and see what I might have bought.

How many things have you downloaded? How many have you bought? Of course, you’ll say that those things you have downloaded, but not bought, you would not have bought even if you could not have downloaded. You would say that, wouldn’t you?

Of course, for those cases where it’s true. And I suspect that’s most of them - I wouldn’t buy a Britney Spears CD just to hear “Hit Me Baby One More Time”, or a Men Without Hats CD just to hear “The Safety Dance”.

I knew you’d say that. You can’t meet my point, so you special plead. You can’t meet the point that an original song deserves copyright, so you red herring off by pointing to the fact that some copyright material is borderline.

You’re missing the point, which is: There is as much originality in the description of my hammer as there is in some copyrighted songs. If the purpose of IP is protect originality, I should have just as much protection of the size, weight, and color of that hammer as the authors of “The Ballad of Spiro Agnew” and “4’33” do over theirs.

Much easier to call me names than to deal with the fact that you have clearly adopted a silly position, but when called on it, have pretended it wasn’t your position.

So go ahead, let’s see it. It would be here on the SDMB, right? We’ve never communicated through email, phone, in person, or on any other forums.

Show me this position that you claim I’m denying. And when it becomes clear that you can’t, quit accusing me of things I never said. I am the authority on my own opinions, not you.

And what I meant to add was, if you truthfully don’t think that the morality of downloading has anything to do with the issue of whether or not doing so affect profits, why did you spend nearly 10 pages arguing with myself and others about it in that other thread? Why did you spend so much time arguing with me about whether the copyright holder loses anything?

I was fighting ignorance, which is the point of this web site. I don’t want anyone else to think file sharing is more harmful than it really is, because that gives an air of legitimacy to the arguments that increased copy protection, the DMCA, the RIAA’s lawsuits, etc. are somehow necessary for people to keep earning a living.

Stamping out ignorance is a noble goal anyway, but it’s especially important when that ignorance can have negative consequences. The belief that file sharing causes people to lose their livelihood has led to a loss of consumers’ rights, and could lead to even more in the future.

[Ms2001]

If the purpose of IP is protect originality, I should have just as much protection of the size, weight, and color of that hammer as the authors of “The Ballad of Spiro Agnew” and “4’33” do over theirs.

That is, over their creations (the original sequence of words and notes, or lack of notes). I’m sure they already have just as much protection over the size, weight, and color of their hammers as I do.

[Princhester]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Are you saying I didn’t buy 20+ CDs after downloading the tracks? I suppose I can’t expect someone as cynical as you to take my word for such a trivial statement… so what proof do you want? Would a photo of the CDs be sufficient?

No I’m more interested in what you didn’t buy but downloaded.

And in fact you may not be typical anyway, you clearly have a large emotional investment in the idea that downloading doesn’t hurt CD sales so maybe you are as ethical about it as you say. That doesn’t mean you’re average.

You’re missing the point, which is: There is as much originality in the description of my hammer as there is in some copyrighted songs. If the purpose of IP is protect originality, I should have just as much protection of the size, weight, and color of that hammer as the authors of “The Ballad of Spiro Agnew” and “4’33” do over theirs.

No, you are missing the point. The fact that a large solid object has foamy edges does not mean there is no difference between it and a vacuum.

Yes there are things that are borderline copyrightable. That does not mean that highly original works should not be capable of being copyrighted.

In your example above, you point to something that probably falls just short of being patentable (your hammer) and you point to something that maybe just gets over into being copyrightable (the songs you mention) and you say “this can get copyright, that can’t, yet there’s not much difference between this and that, so the whole copyright concept is ludicrous”

The only thing that is ludicrous is the artificiality of the examples you choose.

Try comparing an ordinary hammer and “The Lord of the Rings” and now explain to me why it is ludicrous that one does not get copyright or patent and the other does.

I was fighting ignorance, which is the point of this web site. I don’t want anyone else to think file sharing is more harmful than it really is, because that gives an air of legitimacy to the arguments that increased copy protection, the DMCA, the RIAA’s lawsuits, etc. are somehow necessary for people to keep earning a living.

Oh dear oh dear, Mr2001, we are tying ourselves into a knot here, aren’t we?

First I say:“Fer cryin out loud, your whole schtick involves a load of whining to the effect that leaching copyright materials does not have simple effects on the bottom line of copyright holders and therefore there is nothing wrong with doing so.”

Then you deny that and demand a cite, in the course of which you provide a cite as above proving that your position is as I say it is.

Now, you were going to tell me how entertainers were going to make money without selling copyable IP. So far you’ve come up with a scheme for musicians who can play live. When am I going to get your proposals for the rest of the entertainment industry, particularly movies?