The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Jesse Phillips]

I'm sorry this just seems like crap logic. I probably will be unhappy 
about going into this but oh well.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:25:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

> Warning: this can turn into a long debate...
> 
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>> 
>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
>>>  > letter
>>> of the
>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every
>>>> day are lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
>>>> copyrighted material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter
>>>> penalties for things like internet piracy, because it's simply so
>>>> widespread and damaging.
>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>>> the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>>> language).
>>>
>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>> whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong. you sure
>>> can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything since
>>> there's nothing to steal.
>> 
>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
>> "steal," but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't
>> have the right to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over
>> whether you do or should have that right.
> 
> I won't argue about wording and linguistics with you. this would be just
> silly. I'll simply agree that my definition of what stilling is differs
> from yours. I do disagree on one thing though: everything in life is a
> balance and a compromise. Democracy is a compromise between the rights
> of the individual and that of the community he belongs to, for one
> example. this notion of compromise is inherit in our discussion as well:
> on the one hand we have the right of the content creator to do what he
> wants with his creation and on the other hand we have the right of the
> public to access that creation.
> So we disagree on where the balance lies. However, please do not claim
> "it's taking something you don't have the right to have taken" since
> that right is also is present.
> 

Why does the public have the right to access that creation? I'm sorry, I 
don't think me or Robert would agree with you that when something has 
been created everyone has the right to have access to that creation.

>>> Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses
>>> in what you wrote:
>>>
>>> A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
>>> that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff.
>>> this is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use
>>> other alternatives.
>> 
>> Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
>> paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
>> downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy
>> for me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1
>> million/day in LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative,
>> that's not factored into the argument.
> 
> Hence, that statement is flawed since the vast majority of people would
> *NOT* have bought the content in question.
>> 
>>> if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office
>> 
>> Mah paycheck!!! (that's paying me to post on D NGs...)
>> 
>>> I'd probably
>>> search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
>>> good enough for me and most other private people and small companies.
>>> no one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
>>> globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive
>>> and is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the
>>> world those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000
>>> NIS which is a lot.
>>> B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so. If you look at music and
>>> films than the image is backwards: since it's easy to pirate I can
>>> download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep what I like. If I
>>> like it I'll tell friends and more people will be exposed to the
>>> content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright holder and
>>> helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't need to pay
>>> for.
>> 
>> I'm going to cry bull**** here. Quite a few sites offer legit free
>> music/ video. The content creators/producers have made this available
>> for precisely the reason you said -- so people view it and tell their
>> friends or choose to buy higher-quality versions of it. The stuff they
>> DON'T make available for free is not there because it is more
>> profitable for them not to make it available. The creators/producers
>> choose what to share for free
>>  -- NOT the consumers.
>> 
>> 
> As I said above, it's all a matter of balance: people are willing to pay
> for the _convenience_ of being able to download music online in good
> [lossless probably] quality. people are also willing to buy merchandise
> to support their favorite artist and of course, people are willing to
> pay to attend a concert/performance/etc of the artist. Those are all
> logical business models. however, people *aren't* willing to pay for the
> /right/ to download music.
> 
> Where's the balance? simple - The record companies where selling us a
> cat in the bag for years and demanding us to pay again {and a larger sum
> at that] each time they switch formats. That's unacceptable to me. I am
> willing to pay for the convenience of an online service if that service
> was in fact convenient and I could get a feeling what I'm paying for.
> This does not mean DRM [this is finally dawned upon the companies]. A
> consumer expects that just like when he buys a car where he can drive it
> on what ever road he wants, the same would happen with the music. Since
> Apple allow for non-drm music in itunes - this is the last thing that
> needs to change in order for me to buy my music there. (also, I think
> the price is a bit high but that's just a matter of pricing which is
> solved by market forces)
> 
> As soon as those online service evolve into something that is really
> convenient there will be no reason for the average user to want to
> pirate. pirating will never completely disappear but they'll be a minor
> thing.
> 

Your claim is that most people only pirate for convenience. I can see 
this for some, but I do not see it as a majority. I know people will not 
only buy products the pirate because the like them, but pirate products 
they bought to have more control over them. I realize that helps your 
case and not mine, but I facts are good to have.

>>> If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
>>> than a day. after all you can legally download their products from
>>> their
>>>  respective websites!
>> 
>> Their business model is to make money off the support for their
>> software, not the software itself.
> 
> exactly. just one of the million posibilities of viable business models
> that do not equate the consumer and end user of the product to thieves,
> pirates and sinners in general.

You can sell software/music... and not treat your customers as thieves. 
Your only say that this model makes it impossible for an end-user to 
become one.

> 
> 
>>> The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
>>> the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
>>> information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
>>> irrelevant business model and go extinct.
>> 
>> Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an
>> extinct business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.
> 
> That's partly my argument. When was the last time you used a telegraph?
> That technology was replaced be better technologies. So what what about
> all those people that where trained with Morse code and telegraph
> equipment? Should the government force us to use telegraphs in order for
> them to keep their jobs? What about silent film actors? today actors are
> required to be able to speak properly as part of their profession, So
> what about all those actors that cannot speak properly? There are of
> course more examples where a new technology deprecated some profession
> or job. Same goes for all the jobs at record companies - they are
> unneeded and the record company itself is redundant in a world where the
> artist can create he's work alone and reach his audience directly via
> the web.

This statement shows that we are fight 2 different battles. I don't care 
about record companies, and I don't think Robert does either. If you 
aren't buying records/cds whatever it is they do to publish work, they 
don't need to make money. However, the creator/composer/programmer what-
have-you can/should/does have the right to charge/limit/collect/deny... 
what-not his work in any manner he sees fit. If he goes through a record 
company that is the only legal distribution of his work that can be 
obtained. You do not have the right to decide his choice of distribution 
is invalid because it does not suit you. When you buy it you are also not 
buying the right to redistribute it.

The owner also has the right to limit the medium to which his product can 
run. While I think these things, DRM, are stupid it is still their right, 
and thus I decided not to buy it. Unfortunately that is how the free 
market work. It is not a matter of, If I want the product I can access it 
by any means necessary, but I can either live with the choice of the 
author or boycott it. And boycotting fails because of the number of 
people that go with option 1.

Question, a lot of your argument rides on the one that pirated either 
getting others to buy the product or purchasing other products from the 
creator. What if none of that happens and the creator makes no money on 
said pirate, is it still not stealing?

> 
> 
>>> business 101 - "The customer
>>> is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
>>> because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
>>> business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.
>>>
>>> I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying
>>> 100$ for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the
>>> records companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.
>>>
>>> one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
>>> the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
>>> *after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?
>> 
>> I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
>> justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on
>> occasion download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't
>> feel bad about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is
>> really no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who
>> worked to bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.