The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[downs]

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.
> 

Apparently the concept is not clear, because we're not talking about "taking".

We're talking about copying.

Not the same thing.

>> 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.
> 

Proof by anecdote. Good going.

>> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 

I think he knows that.

>> 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.
> 

It's on its way out.

>> 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.

Then you are wrong. :)

> 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.

And how many cents off that CD do you think the people who made it will ever see?

Not that this is relevant, since it is. not. stealing.