Philosophical Quandry: Piracy [Archive]

Slynky

July 11th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Well, I was all set to type a simply wonderful reply with all sorts of colorful analagies (but Geo beat me to the punch by 2 Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

I think he's said it best so far. Every company spends quite a bit of time deciding the limits of their EULA, marketing, demos (and how restricted), and how best to sell the product. My Adobe Photoshop EULA is more relaxed than my Jasc Paint Shop Pro (hope I'm remembering the correct 2 apps). One allows me to have it installed in 2 places as long as they are not used at the same time. The other permits a second installation but only on a laptop. A very tiny difference. But used as an example of how detailed companies can get when deciding these things. They balance what is good for the owner of the license against potential sales (and sale losses).

In the case of SE4 (or ANY other piece of software), it's the company's decision. If they think a demo is needed, they'll make one available. If it's restrictive, that's their decision. If they wanted purchasers to act as advertisers on their behalf (and loan their game out to potential buyers), then they would have written it into the EULA.

So, you know what side of the fence I'm sitting on.

Piracy? Not piracy because a person didn't make a profit? That's BS. Piracy is defined at Dictionary.com as (paraphrasing) the unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted or patented material (like software piracy). Didn't say one had to make money off it.

In summary, whenever "consumers" take the position that they have the write to draw a line in the sand of copyright violation, believe me, it will be a line that favors themselves not the companies. (and they'll always find a nice twist that satisfies their moral conscience)

spoon

July 11th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
But I am fully 100% confident in saying it's absolutly morally wrong. It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.

Hunkpapa

July 11th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Is it piracy by strict definition...yes, whether you profit or not.

But personally I see nothiing wrong with it, if the person likes the game and goes out and buys a copy, if they don't it is erased.

I cannot count how many times I wasted money on lame-*** games even after reading the reviews. I would much rather test play a game and if I like it purchase it, even if it is on another person's computer. Problem with games like SEIV is that you cannot just sit down for a few minutes to see if you like the game.

Rojero

July 11th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Would not demo games be available that only run for a limit? That would be better, oh yeah they make those already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I think honestly that is what serves the community best a limited Demo product, Piracy is more of a deliberate act of gaining funds by selling and distributing and not being the owner.

jimbob

July 11th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Is it morally wrong? I say emphatically Yes!!

Have I done piracy? Absolutely Yes!!

Am I proud? Absolutely NOT!!

I still don't know why I think it's okay to do... I certainly think it's wrong of me to do, I mean, heck I don't go running red lights or anything. I guess it's just so darned convenient and I let that over rule my concience. At least I've stopped trying to justify it - Microsoft may be evil and big and wealthy, but I've stopped believing that it's alright to have a pirate copy of office on my machine....

just my thoughts

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
But I am fully 100% confident in saying it's absolutly morally wrong. It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.<hr /></blockquote>I am not saying it can't be talked about. I was a little unclear there. Sorry. Anybody is free to discuss whatever they want. But there is no need to debate whether or it's right or wrong. It simply isn't.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 18:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:00 PM

This was not loaning them your CD, it was copying it and giving them the copy.

It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.
Everything is a valid topic for discussion Geo. Having a bad day?

But there is no need to debate whether or it's right or wrong. It simply isn't. Again, everything is open for discussion.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

1FSTCAT

July 11th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Legally, it's wrong. Give them the demo.

Morally, when you've been used and abused by an industry, time after time, people (and especially the more commonly abused) will tend to break the rules.

I am definitely the "try before you buy" kind of person. I have supported the industry, and been *scammed* out of my money time and time again.

So I've "adapted".

If I didn't, "try before I buy" I would be suckered by advertising and gimics, and I would flat out WASTE 3/4 of my purchasing power.

The day that PC games are "rentable" is the day that a good portion of piracy will disappear. (IMHO)

Now, we also have another alternative. Fortunately, we have "Electronics Boutique" in the U.S. For the most part, you can buy anything you want there, and if it SUCKS they will take it back. You don't need a reason. This is the only "legal release" that I've been able to find, to relieve the above quandary.

--Ed

Loser

July 11th, 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
This was not loaning them your CD, it was copying it and giving them the copy.Ah, missed that. It was early.

No, no giving them a copy.

Piracy is wrong. Piracy is theft. Theft is the first sin against Almighty Capitalism (the second being vandalism and the third being devaluation of markets).

That being said I have had a good deal of pirated software on my system over the years. I don't think, offhand, I have any pirated software on my system right now. I have made a point of purchasing games I have 'borrowed' and liked (Diablo II, Homeworld, Shogun, Majesty in the past few years). There are times when you purchase a product and times when you patronize an artist, after all.

I tend to treat any piece of software as though it were governed by the 'book' model that Borland used to follow: "if it's not being use in two places at once it's okay". But you can't police that, so I don't take much advantage of this advantage I intend to take.

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.
Everything is a valid topic for discussion Geo. Having a bad day?<hr /></blockquote>As I said in my subsequent post, I was not really clear on what I meant by that. Of course anyone is free to discuss whatever they want. What I meant was there is no question that it is wrong. There is no reason to debate whether morally it is ok to copy software without permission and give it away when there is no question from a moral standpoint it is not ok.

Geoschmo

kalthalior

July 11th, 2003, 08:11 PM

I had this dilemma myself earlier this year. I wanted to introduce a new friend to the most compelling and addictive 4x game that has been developed to date -- IMHO. Fortunately, I had both SE4 AND Gold. I never play non-Gold anymore, so I loaned that to him. He has now purchased Gold AND SE3 (he loves older games), I have my non-Gold CD back, and I was (hypothetically) legal the entire time having long ago uninstalled non-Gold. Certainly not applicable in all situations, but it was a simple and elegant solution for me. I work in IT and spent MONTHS getting the small firm I previously worked for completely legal,license- wise a couple of years back.

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:13 PM

Again, everything is open to discussion. Your view is not necessarily the view of everyone else on the planet, you know.

Remember, morality is relative.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Again, everything is open to discussion. Your view is not necessarily the view of everyone else on the planet, you know.

Remember, morality is relative.No, legality is relative. Morality is absolute. If morality is not absolute it is not morality at all, it's just opinion.

And again I didn't say you couldn't discuss it. But you can talk about it all you want and it won't change what's right and wrong.

Geoschmo

Phoenix-D

July 11th, 2003, 08:22 PM

On a sub-set of the issue: EULAs can go ! me as far as I'm concered. It says I can only have it on one computer at once? Too frigging bad. I only -use- one at a time, and no one else uses my laptop, so that's a reasonable use.

My opinion is that true piracy (copying a game you would buy, then NOT buying it) is bad. ROMs, burning copies, transfering to other media- all stuff the companies often try to stop- isn't. Why should Nintendo care if I play Earthbound on my PC instead of my SNES? I own the cartridge and the system anyway.

Same with music CDs. If I can't burn, I don't buy, because all my music is in MP3 form in playlists. Mostly because most of it is (legally) free downloaded anyway.

Most of the "piracy prevention software" out there does anything but. It just impedes the legal user- Morrowind's, for example, was hacked before the game was released, and it cuts the framerate by 10-15 FPS for most people. Or Windows XP's activation; that was broken too.

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:24 PM

No, Geo, morality is indeed relative. Different cultures view things differently. The values judged are the same, but the (moral) judgement is not the same. Is it wrong to sacrifice 1000+ prisoners of war when dedicating a new temple? Not if you are an Aztec! This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point, which is valid on all moral issues, no matter how minor.

Erax

July 11th, 2003, 08:25 PM

OK, now I understand why some of you believe such a move would be wrong. I'd say Slynky's post was the clearest. Even if you cover all the 'nots' - you're not making a profit, you're not making a permanent copy, you're not harming the company's profit or potential profit - it's still wrong, because you accepted the EULA when you got your copy and you're not abiding by it. In other words, you had an agreement with the software company, which you have broken without their consent.

That being said, there are some things we take for granted. One of them is that EULAs are immutable and non-negotiable. Now if a user comes up with a use for the software which ultimately benefits the company, he should get in touch with them (assuming they're the kind of company that listens to its customers). Who knows, someday someone might invent a license model that is less restrictive without increasing the risk of piracy.

Edit : I agree with Fyron, morality is relative and culture-dependent. The world is working towards having a unified moral code - probably that of the West - but we are not there yet.

Here's a well-known example : Suicide in modern society -> immoral and cowardly. Suicide in feudal Japan -> honorable.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Erax ]

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:26 PM

EULAs are not actually legally enforceable. You can make as many copies of any CD as you want. As long as you do not distribute the copies, it is 100% legal, as they are backup copies. If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you.

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Who knows, someday someone might invent a license model that is less restrictive without increasing the risk of piracy.
It is called the GNU public use liscense, used with open-source software packages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 08:31 PM

So Fyron, why even bother asking the question? What does it matter whether anyone here thinks it's ok if you burn a copy of Se4 and give it away. Since the Aztecs killed people without giving it a second thought you have permission to do whatever you want. Why stop at piracy. Why not get a gun go steal a copy from someone else. It will save you the trouble of copying it.

You can do whatever you want and no one can say you are wrong for it because the Aztecs killed people. With no moral absoltues you can do absolutly whatever you want.

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 08:39 PM

It is wrong, anyway you look at it. If they want to test drive it, DL the demo or try it on your system. But let�s look at both sides of the coin. The license is a contract. When the game in question is bought and paid for, then installed on your system only, you have done your part, But then you find that it is damaged and in need of repair. Then after several free patches you get to buy an upgrade which is still damaged. And after several patches there are still some problems. Does the agreement still stand? I for one feel that I should be able to return my original SE4 CD and get my money back. Or that SE4 classic should be fixed once and for all. As should Gold. It�s a two way street. With anything except software, defective merchandise is a breach of contract. Why is software different?

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 08:41 PM

Geo, I was talking about on a cultural level, not an individual level.

Gryphin

July 11th, 2003, 08:43 PM

It comes down to:
You agree to the EULA
If you violate the EULA you have gone against your word.
Going against your word is _____
(Fill in the blank. I am not going to say it for you).

Erax

July 11th, 2003, 08:46 PM

Fyron and Geo : see my edit a couple of Posts back.

Phoenix-D

July 11th, 2003, 08:50 PM

"If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you."

But! The windows CD is a special case, since it has no copy protection. You're allowed to make backups, but not allowed to break the copy protection in order to -make- those backups. If that isn't a stupid legal problem I don't know what is.

And no, I don't consider violating EULAs to be breaking my word. Especially with the IMO immoral restrictions some have tried to sneak in- like "by opening this package you agree to the liscence agreement inside" Hello? I think not. Also, a few have tried to put "You may not give this product bad reviews" in their EULA..

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 08:53 PM

I always have random strangers press the "I agree" buttons on my software. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thermodyne

July 11th, 2003, 09:03 PM

What about the software that came with your name brand computer. You follow the agreement and one day the system gets old and dies. So you get a new one. You wipe the old systems drive and give the whole thing to the GW. Then you try to install YOUR software on the new system only to find that it can not be installed. This is called a restricted license. I for one feel that you should be allowed to exchange that Version of the software for an open license unless you agreed in writing to the restricted license.

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Maybe the "morality" discussion is suffering from different ideas of what the term means... or something.

I don't think Fryon meant that because human sacrifice was not immoral to many cultures, that that means it (or any "lesser" offence) isn't immoral for all cultures. Quite the opposite, it seems to me he was saying that each culture has different definitions of morality. In countries like the modern United States, there are many cultures at the same location, with very different convictions about what is right and what is wrong. Also in the US, some of us assert the right to decide for ourselves what we think is right or wrong, and to disagree with others about it.

The mistake, in my opinion, is to try to force everyone to live by the same culturally-based rules. Not that there shouldn't be such rules, but sometimes it's unwise to try to force all cultures to live by the same rules. Separation into countries with different laws and customs serves many purposes, and makes the world a much more interesting and hospitable place as a whole. Fortunately there is often enough common ground to agree on things like human sacrifice, however, though not always. I was told recently that killing unwanted daughters is still legal in India, for example.

PvK

Slynky

July 11th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
I always have random strangers press the "I agree" buttons on my software. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ROFLMAO ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 09:16 PM

Quite the opposite, it seems to me he was saying that each culture has different definitions of morality. Precisely.

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 09:31 PM

As for the actual topic of the thread...

in my opinion, cassette recorders and xerox machines were the beginning of the obsolescence of legal control of public media duplication. Affordable CD writers, the Internet, and contemporary computers, as well as audio/visual encoding devices, have made it entirely practical to share almost all forms of media freely with everyone on the planet. The service of location, distribution, and duplication of almost all media can now be trivially and extremely inexpensively performed by computers.

The world's economic and legal systems [are] quite obsolete and extremely counter-productive, compared to technical realities. We've got these megacorporations invested in the old system of ownership desperately trying to keep us from using computers to do what they do naturally - copy data. Our culture as a whole hasn't really figured out what has happened yet, and has no consensus on what to do about it.

However, this situation is an ocean that can't be held back forever by an artificial dam. Or at least, humans will be an even sillier race than they already are if they try to keep themselves from being able to copy data forever.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: PvK ]

Loser

July 11th, 2003, 09:46 PM

True. Change will come. But it may not be a good change. If a good distribution model, one that compensates the artists, is not developed, certain forms of art (ones that are not valued for Live Performances, the way musicians really make their money) may fall back to the sate in which they existed before the birth of Free Artistry in the Renascence.

[broad generalization]

Change will come. Men to not make history. History makes men.

[/broad generalization]

Phoenix-D

July 11th, 2003, 10:12 PM

And, PvK, how would you propose people make -money- off this sharing of data? You know, that funny little concept they need to pay for food or avoid getting a job they don't want, just because others can't be bothered to compensate them for their work.

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 10:20 PM

There are probably thousands of possible alternate economic systems available to open-minded people, and economics is not my favorite subject. However my personal proposal would be that there would be a tax levied which would be somewhat less than the estimated average expenditure on the media which would be made free, based on the person's disposable income. Taxpayers could then voluntarily indicate which content creators they appreciated the most, and these creators would get compensated accordingly.

People creating media would register their works, and there would be a body responsible for validating claims and approval votes, and catching liars. Personally, I would scale the system so that people working steadily creating original content would at least earn enough to support themselves, even without many appreciation votes.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: PvK ]

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 10:22 PM

may fall back to the sate in which they existed before the birth of Free Artistry in the Renascence. As we all know, there was never any form of free astristry before then. Nope, not even in non-European cultures or before the European Dark Ages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slynky

July 11th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
As for the actual topic of the thread...

in my opinion, cassette recorders and xerox machines were the beginning of the obsolescence of legal control of public media duplication. Affordable CD writers, the Internet, and contemporary computers, as well as audio/visual encoding devices, have made it entirely practical to share almost all forms of media freely with everyone on the planet. The service of location, distribution, and duplication of almost all media can now be trivially and extremely inexpensively performed by computers.

The world's economic and legal systems [are] quite obsolete and extremely counter-productive, compared to technical realities. We've got these megacorporations invested in the old system of ownership desperately trying to keep us from using computers to do what they do naturally - copy data. Our culture as a whole hasn't really figured out what has happened yet, and has no consensus on what to do about it.

However, this situation is an ocean that can't be held back forever by an artificial dam. Or at least, humans will be an even sillier race than they already are if they try to keep themselves from being able to copy data forever.

PvKAnd humans, apparently unable to control themselves, will naturally "steal" something if it's easy to do. Sad commentary, isn't it?

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Quite the opposite, it seems to me he was saying that each culture has different definitions of morality. Precisely.<hr /></blockquote>You guys are talking about different cultures, not morality. It's all well and good to have a deep philisophical discusion about various cultures and their own particular way's of doing things. But certain things are basic. They fall under the right and wrong that defines a sense of absolute morality. Find me a culture in today's enlightened world that believes it's acceptable to steal or murder? Even soceities where it happens all the time it's acknowledged that it's wrong.

Fyron asked the question: Yes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal piracy. I am not asking about legality, but about morality. Is it wrong to do this? Why or why not? If he didn't want an answer, or now he says it's impossible to answer since there is no single definition of morality, why ask the question to begin with? Is it simpy to provoke a semantic discussion about the definition of morality?

If that is what you want Fyron why not be honest and say what you mean? But you asked if it's morally right to copy software without permission and give it away. The answer I give you is that no it is not. If you don't like that answer then do what you want with it.

I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong. For me morality is an absolute issue by definition. Stealing is one of the things my sense of morality says is wrong. Call me archaic, call me whatever you want but I believe what I believe. I can acknoledge that some people don't agree with me and even be civil towards them, but I am not going to accept that stealing is ok just because their "definition" of morality doesn't have a problem with it.

I am all for respecting other cultures. If someones culture says don't eat the meat of animals with split hooves, or they have to build their houses with the door facing west, or they can't wear green on tuesday I have no problem with that. As long as they don't get in my face about doing it I won't object to what they do either. But if someones culture says it's ok to steal or murder then I will unapoogetically say their culture is immoral.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Theft and murder are not universal absolutes. Taking something and killing someone are. Different laws, different lawyers, different judges, different cultures, and different people, may have different opinions about whether any specific act of taking or killing is theft or murder.

Examples:

Some people consider many actions of the US government to be theft (tax, seizures, etc).

Warring nations often call each others' soldiers murderers.

In India, killing unwanted daughters isn't defined as murder.

Different people, laws, judges, etc in the US disagree about whether acts of euthanasia or abortion are murder or not, or wrong on not.

Discussions of software piracy and fair use of media.

Etc.

PvK

Stone Mill

July 11th, 2003, 10:41 PM

There are a lot of shades of gray out there, yes with stealing and even causing another person's death. That is why laws are interpreted by people. And legal decisions from two officials may be different depending on their views and mood and the facts of the situation and the person in question.

I think it is wise and healthy to have a strong sense of morality and right and wrong, but it is good to relax, too.

A person holding themselves to a standard of obeying all rules at all times would have quite an absurd challenging life.

Pvk- right on, dude.

[ July 11, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Stone Mill ]

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 10:43 PM

You guys are talking about different cultures, not morality. Different cultures have different morality.

If he didn't want an answer, or now he says it's impossible to answer since there is no single definition of morality, why ask the question to begin with? Is it simpy to provoke a semantic discussion about the definition of morality?
I never said it was impossible to answer. My question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with the culture in which we live (broad US culture). You seem to be reading things that have not been typed. Again, are you having a bad day today or what?

[ July 11, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 10:44 PM

We're butting heads, so this will be the Last thing I say. Theft and murder are universal absolutes. The fact that some people and some cultures choose to ignore or redefine the terms to ease their concseince merely means those people and cultures are immoral.

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 10:47 PM

So now you are being an elitist. My culture is better than yours, huh? Why is that? Where do you get the right to judge other cultures? Why is your view so much better?

[ July 11, 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Phoenix-D

July 11th, 2003, 10:55 PM

So Geo. If morals are absolute, your opinion then is most just don't know what moral is?

I'm thinking of all the fun cultures that think women or "not us" races having equal rights is immoral here, for example..

Gryphin

July 11th, 2003, 10:57 PM

We can talk of other cultures if you want to. If you want a good conversation for comparison let�s discuss Adultery / Infidelity / Cheating. Different cultures have very different takes on those. I fall into the Category: If you don�t have permission it is cheating. This carries over into any violation of my integrity. I was not always like this.

I am not a god and do not claim the right to judge others. Still, I ask, for those who believe it is right to violate the EULA, do you believe it is right to cheat on your girl friend / wife / etc�.

Erax

July 11th, 2003, 11:04 PM

People can make money off their software by offering a service that requires a fee. Software can be copied, the service cannot. Pay-per-turn games, monthly-subscription Online games and subscription-based antivirus software all operate on this model. I am not an expert but I'd say those kinds of media don't get pirated too often.

In a similar way, you can buy a pirate DVD, but if you want to watch it on the big screen you have to go to a movie theatre.

I won't go so far as to say that all copyable content should be free, but I believe it will ultimately become cheap enough to drive the pirates out of business. Notice I didn't say 'should', I said WILL. The pressure from the competition - illegal though it may be - is just too great.

I bought many of my games years after they were released, when their price had fallen to the $5-$8 range. The enjoyment is the same, I know I won't be throwing my money away and there are no moral issues involved. I am never the first guy on the block to have the latest game but I make up for that by being the ONLY guy on the block that owns some of the more obscure ones. Now I believe I'll see the day when games are released for $15 or even $10. Not all games - the ones made by big-name companies will still be expensive - but the potential is there for a different type of product. It's only a matter of time.

Gryphin : While I did violate the EULA, I do not defend my actions. I now understand that it was wrong and why.

[ July 11, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Erax ]

PvK

July 11th, 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Gryphin:
... Still, I ask, for those who believe it is right to violate the EULA, do you believe it is right to cheat on your girl friend / wife / etc�.No. I believe that EULA's are frequently unfair and unenforcable contracts which one side is trying to impose even if the other side hasn't read it, and are therefore invalid.

"By opening this paper envelope, you agree to a 10-page contract written in legalese which says any document you write with our word processor becomes our intellectual property. It doesn't matter that we can't possibly prove that anyone in particular opened the envelope, installed the software, or even knows this warning or the contract exist. We just own it all. Go hire a lawyer at $200/hour if you want to dispute this claim, otherwise, we ownz u, and anyone who might use our software under any circumstances."

B.S.

PvK

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Pay-per-turn games, monthly-subscription Online games and subscription-based antivirus software all operate on this model. I am not an expert but I'd say those kinds of media don't get pirated too often. Norton Anti-Virus does because the 2002 Version allows you to get a free 1 year subscription and has 0 real identity checking, and it still works to this day! You can no longer get the program off of Norton's web site, but it can be found elsewhere.

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Theft and murder are universal absolutes. Yes, they are universal absolutes. But, what is theft and what is murder is not absolute. What the view on the good/evil nature of these actions is not absoulte. This is where the relative nature of morality comes into play.

Erax

July 11th, 2003, 11:26 PM

They left a hole in their system and are suffering the consequence. This model needs identity checking, or you're back to square one.

I use McAfee. My bad luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So now you are being an elitist. My culture is better than yours, huh? Why is that? Where do you get the right to judge other cultures? Why is your view so much better?Allright, I have to answer theese I suppose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am not talking about culture, I am talking about morals. As long as you culture doesn't violate morality there is nothing wrong with it. Even if it does I am not appointing myself judge jury and executioner here. I am not advocating some kind of forced adherance to my set of values. But I am also not going to simply click my teeth and say it's ok when it's not.

While we are at it Fyron though, you were the one who dreged up this whole discussion in the first place. You brought up the issue of morality. You asked if it was morally right. When I said it wasn't you started the tangent about what basis I have to say whose morals are right. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
So Geo. If morals are absolute, your opinion then is most just don't know what moral is?

I'm thinking of all the fun cultures that think women or "not us" races having equal rights is immoral here, for example..Once again I am not appointing myself the judge of all cultures. And I don't think most things that make up a culture fall into the Category of morals. But I would have to say that not treating all human beings as equals regardless of race or gender is immoral. Wouldn't you agree? Most reasonable people would.

Even in soceities where minorities are oppresed they redefine the terms as Fyron is attempting to do in order to justify it. They will also objectify the members of the oppresed class as a group. Almost universally though when dealing with an idnividual on a one on one basis they will instinctively have a realization that they are equals. This is why upper classes work so hard to keep the others "in their place", so that it's easier to avoid the damage to their own humanity that comes with relializing the person you are mistreating is a person just like you.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 22:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 11th, 2003, 11:46 PM

I have redefined no terms. I have only stated that the practices of morality in different cultures are not the same.

Also, I will have to repeat myself by saying that my original question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with US culture. Within a culture, morality is absolute. But outside of that culture, its moral values are not absolute, and they vary from culture to culture. I was never talking about oppressive cultures, but about morality in general. There are a near-infinite amounts of variations on moral issues that have nothing to do with oppression or killing.

The tangent I started was not related to the original question (as it was not asking about moral values in other cultures, just US culture), but to your statement that moraliy is absolutely static, which it is most certainly not.

[ July 11, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

July 11th, 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Theft and murder are universal absolutes. Yes, they are universal absolutes. But, what is theft and what is murder is not absolute. What the view on the good/evil nature of these actions is not absoulte. This is where the relative nature of morality comes into play.<hr /></blockquote>Well, then. This is a deep comment and not one that is easily dismissed I will agree. However, you yourself in your original statment established your acceptance that the practice was illegal. You even defined it as piracy, a statment I wouldn't neccesarily so so far as to say.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal piracy. I am not asking about legality, but about morality. Is it wrong to do this? Why or why not?You also later sought to keep the discussion on the issue of moarlity for our culture in the United States...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with the culture in which we live (broad US culture).So by your own statements making copies and distributing them is illegal. If it is illegal is it not theft? Are you saying it's illegal by some other basis but it is not theft? Is that how it can be illegal and not immoral?

Or are you sayign that theft is not immoral according to broad US culture?

I am not that suprised you are having problems with this though. These are the sorts of conundrums you find yourself in when you don't have moral absolutes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 12:01 AM

Damn it... I guess you didn't see the "PLEASE WAIT" sign...

Geo, the very nature of your previous Posts directly implied that you were judging other cultural views and asserting that yours is absolutely superior (which you continue to do in the latter part of your Last post).

The fact that some people and some cultures choose to ignore or redefine the terms to ease their concseince merely means those people and cultures are immoral.This is a prime example. Most moral issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefining terms or ignoring your specific (and relative) moral values, or with easing the conscience. Moral values are not absolute. You only think that their concseince needs easing because their views conflict with your own. I am sorry that everyone in the world does not think as you do.

In the past in European cultures, it was considered morally acceptable to marry at ages of around 14. In the US, this is generally found to be apprehensible (statutory rape and such applies here). Does that mean that those ancient European cultures were immoral? Did they redefine any terms? Did they attempt to ease their conscience? No, to all of the above. Going the other way, does that mean that we here in the US are immoral because we view it as wrong to marry under 18? Have we redefined any terms to attempt to ease our conscience? No. This is a good example of the relative nature of morality that directly contradicts your claims. Who is to say which view is the more morally correct one? You have made the claim that you have that right indirectly through the nature of your Posts. And then you attempt to backpeddle away from this by claiming you are not able to judge, but you already have done so.

geoschmo

July 12th, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Damn it... I guess you didn't see the "PLEASE WAIT" sign...
Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.

But watch your tone in the future.I had started my second post before your had completed your post, much less put in your "edit in progress" comment. It wasn't there for me to see, "damn it". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 12:12 AM

First off, note that I often play devil's advocate for the sake of debate. Not everything I post is actually a representation of my personal views. The relative nature of morality is, but not everything else is. This of course does not invalidate any post I have made, so please do not commit that fallacy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So by your own statements making copies and distributing them is illegal. If it is illegal is it not theft? Are you saying it's illegal by some other basis but it is not theft? Is that how it can be illegal and not immoral?Please note that I never once said whether making copies and distributing them is morally right or wrong. It is certainly illegal, but legal and moral are wholely unrelated concepts. They sometimes coincide, but that is more often than not coincidence, and is again all relative. Some laws are based on certain moral views, but those moral views are relative, and they change continuously with the passage of time. Actions that were immoral at one point are moral now, and vice versa. Right back to the relative nature of morality.

Or are you sayign that theft is not immoral according to broad US culture?I am not saying either way. I am not talking about theft in general either, but a very specific action. The crux of the original question of the thread is whether it is immoral or not, which (like everything) is open to debate.

I am not that suprised you are having problems with this though.I have not had any problems, as I have not stated anything in regards to the morality of the action.

These are the sorts of conundrums you find yourself in when you don't have moral absolutes. You are having more conundrums than I am Geo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Damn it... I guess you didn't see the "PLEASE WAIT" sign...
Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.

But watch your tone in the future.I had started my second post before your had completed your post, much less put in your "edit in progress" comment. It wasn't there for me to see, "damn it". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>No, I was writing a new post. I had posted the stuff I was going to edit in there as a new post, and got sidetracked from removing the "please wait" request. Don't be so impatient on ICQ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Also, there is nothing wrong with the tone of that sentence. I guess if you see something wrong with it that is from your particular view on ettiquite which, like morality, is entirely relative. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My view is that the word damn is not a wrong word to use. If you are offended by it, I am sorry, but it will remain.

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.Bah. It was not my intention to "win", but to hold a debate.

Erax

July 12th, 2003, 12:20 AM

Fyron, this time I actually followed you all the way through the argument. One of us is getting better at this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So now I'm curious, what ARE your views ? I knew you were playing devil's advocate back there with the 15000 copies post, but what is YOUR opinion ?

Gryphin

July 12th, 2003, 01:20 AM

EDIT:
As I was preparing my second post in this thread, (the one just before Geo�s), I realized this is not a matter of law or philosophy. It is a matter of morals
My first post came to the wrong conclusion.

I break rules all the time. I don�t violate persons intent that I have agreed to. Installing the game I agree to abide by the EULA.

-----------
This comes down to following the
Letter of the Law
Or
The intent of the Law

For the most part I have always followed the intent
The most important part I summarize on the Home page of my site:
�In my youth I was taught that first you must learn the rules, (and understand them), before you can break them. Later in life I developed the corollary, Sometimes you must break the rules before you can learn them, (and understand them)�

My understanding is the intent of the law would make Fyron�s concept legitimate.
In saying so I do not forget it is still ileagle.

[ July 11, 2003, 15:28: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Thermodyne

July 12th, 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.Bah. It was not my intention to "win", but to hold a debate.<hr /></blockquote>LOL, heck Kazz, I'm in a mood tonight. What side of this do you want me to take.

Phoenix-D

July 12th, 2003, 01:24 AM

"There are probably thousands of possible alternate economic systems available to open-minded people, and economics is not my favorite subject. However my personal proposal would be that there would be a tax levied which would be somewhat less than the estimated average expenditure on the media which would be made free, based on the person's disposable income. Taxpayers could then voluntarily indicate which content creators they appreciated the most, and these creators would get compensated accordingly."

PvK, you've got to be kidding me. What you're proposing here is essentially taxing everyone so Joe Schmoe #41445 can watch his porn collection without having to pay for it first. I'll pass; we don't need yet ANOTHER level of government intervention (and there would be abuse of this system on that level as well)

The person who does nothing because he doesn't enjoy that kind of game, or whatever, shouldn't have to pay for those who do..

Loser

July 12th, 2003, 01:37 AM

Well, if I did not have a close connection with this 'friend' I would just direct them to the demo.

However if, for example, they lived with me and I could persuade, pester, and encourage them to purchase the game (on an almost daily basis), then I would probably make the loan. It all depends, really, on whether or not I think they will buy the game once they decide they like it.

Of course, this is an early morning interpretation of half-formed thoughts. Possibly more to follow...

Slynky

July 12th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Perhaps the thread title should be changed ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

geoschmo

July 12th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Also, there is nothing wrong with the tone of that sentence. I guess if you see something wrong with it that is from your particular view on ettiquite which, like morality, is entirely relative. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Correction, ettiquite unlike morality is entirely relative. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

You are free to believe how you wish. That may suprise you is one of the most important beliefs in my moral system. But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong. I said it before and I will repeat it because it is fundamental. Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

minipol

July 12th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.So by your definition morality is unaffected by upbringing and culture? I'm not sure i agree with you although i'm trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, in some cultures a man is allowed to have several wifes. It's not considered immoral. Here it is. So how can morality be absolute then?
I'm just trying to see your point of view here.

PvK

July 12th, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"There are probably thousands of possible alternate economic systems available to open-minded people, and economics is not my favorite subject. However my personal proposal would be that there would be a tax levied which would be somewhat less than the estimated average expenditure on the media which would be made free, based on the person's disposable income. Taxpayers could then voluntarily indicate which content creators they appreciated the most, and these creators would get compensated accordingly."

PvK, you've got to be kidding me. What you're proposing here is essentially taxing everyone so Joe Schmoe #41445 can watch his porn collection without having to pay for it first. I'll pass; we don't need yet ANOTHER level of government intervention (and there would be abuse of this system on that level as well)

The person who does nothing because he doesn't enjoy that kind of game, or whatever, shouldn't have to pay for those who do..Well there are plenty of variations and specifics to work out.

For the sake of simplicity, I was trying to express a way to support content creators without also proposing a change to the US tax system, which is awful in itself but seems quite off-topic. The current US system does all sorts of taxing for the purpose of providing services that not everyone uses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I didn't mean to directly endorse that specific system.

As an alternative model, the agency which disburses benefits to artists could be one which people Subscribe to voluntarily (e.g. A non-profit network which charges $200/year for DSL-type access to a huge network of content, and disburses the fees after infrastructure costs to content creators.). Or, it could be a tax, but one which only applies to Users of the media, by means of taxing equipment, network access, etc.). There are plenty of possible methods, as I said.

Even using the tax model I originally mentioned, however, it wouldn't be a case of people having to pay for items they didn't like. The appreciation voting would give people a great amount of control to reward the artists they actually liked, and not just the ones they used. Practically everyone would pay less annually for all media than they would under the current system, but their potential consumption of media would be nearly unlimited. You'd have to be someone who made more than you needed before you'd be paying media taxes, and then your taxes would support all media, which you and everyone could then enjoy without worrying about costs, so you could play all the games, listen to all the music, see all the films, read all the books, TV, radio, etc, that you wanted to, without specifically paying for any of it, and even if you were in a bracket to pay media tax, you'd be paying vastly less than you would if you had to pay for everything you used. Moreover, you could reward the artists you liked, and not get "fooled" by flashy marketting that turned out to be crap - they'd make enough not to starve, but not to roll in dough as they currently do.

PvK

geoschmo

July 12th, 2003, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by minipol:
So by your definition morality is unaffected by upbringing and culture? I'm not sure i agree with you although i'm trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, in some cultures a man is allowed to have several wifes. It's not considered immoral. Here it is. So how can morality be absolute then?
I'm just trying to see your point of view here.Perhaps Pvk was right all along and it is merely a difference of definitions. When i say morality is absolute, I am not trying to say everything that anyone in the world says is moral or immoral is absolute. Not every facet of human behavior and interaction is something I would define as a moral issue. But I do believe there are certain fundamental issues of right and wrong that are moral issues. Stealing and murder are two of those. There are a few others, but not a lot. My moral code isn't exactly the Code of Hamurabi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The question at hand was not whether multiple wives is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

That is an evasive answer, but it's the best I can do. I am uncomfortable with the prospect of sitting in judgment of each and every possible rhetorical question about morals anyone wants to bring up.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 02:14: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 03:18 AM

I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not. Again, you have missed my point entirely. Within a culture, moral values tend to be fairly stable, and thus approach absoluteness. The question was not whether it was morally correct or not in other cultures, but within the context of US culture. You made statements about wholely different issues on the relative/absolute nature of morality. This is an entirely separate issue from whether copying the game is morally correct or not. I did not ever once comment on your belief that copying it was immoral, just on the other parts of your post that made the (wrong) claim that morality is absolute.

But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong. This is a two-way street Geo. Just because you believe something does not make it right. Like your belief about morality being absolute.

Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. No, it does not.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless. Measurements of human nature tend to be rather useless.

[ July 12, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

minipol

July 12th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Geo,

now i know what you mean. I thought that was what you meant but wasn't sure. Oh, and you aren't being judged, it's just a discussion (wildly out of control http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )
It's all Fyrons fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
LOL, heck Kazz, I'm in a mood tonight. What side of this do you want me to take.Take whatever side you want.

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 03:23 AM

But I do believe there are certain fundamental issues of right and wrong that are moral issues. Stealing and murder are two of those. That is what I said, you know (essentially). Whether stealing and murder are morally wrong or right is relative, depending on the culture in which you live. But, those are certainly absolutely moral issues in every culture. It is the specific value of them that is not absolute.

Thermodyne

July 12th, 2003, 03:59 AM

OK a company sells CD burners. Same company sells recorded digital media. People use the recorders to copy and distribute the digital content. Said company now asks for protection from its customers who are purchasing burners to burn media. That�s kind of a strange situation IMHO. The company helped create the problem; shouldn�t they invest in a solution? Also, if a pier to pier provider makes it possible for people to easily break the law, would this come under the laws pertaining to public nuisance and disorderly enterprise. There is no threshold of intent to be met under these laws.

Baron Munchausen

July 12th, 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
EULAs are not actually legally enforceable. You can make as many copies of any CD as you want. As long as you do not distribute the copies, it is 100% legal, as they are backup copies. If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you.Actually, should Microsloth discover that you possess 150,000 copies of your Windows CD they would probably sue, and argue that possession of so many copies indicates intent to distribute. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Arkcon

July 12th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:

... is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

GeoschmoHey there, I'm jumping in with a carefully snipped quote from Geo because it meshes well with my point of view.

Consider a "community" of hackers and software crackers, who've developed a "culture" of stealing software.

I think their culture is wrong. A bad culture. Bad. Bad. Bad. ... Bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I won't accept the premise that I have to respect that culture -- in my own mind.

I may not have any right to condemn it publicly, or act against it. After all myself or any group that holds similar convictions are as fallible as anyone other individual or group.

But I agree with Geo, the most basic fundamental rules of right and wrong shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I've said so before in a slightly different context. Link: Conceptually it is wrong. (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/cheat)

I will agree that maybe stolen software registrations are hard to compare perfectly with a household burglary. And yes, the definition of killing gets messy when we consider warfare, government executions, and heck even the decision not to be a vegan.

But the Golden Rule works pretty good in many instances.

[ July 12, 2003, 03:20: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal piracy. I am not asking about legality, but about morality. Is it wrong to do this? Why or why not?Technically, you are asking about ethics, not morality; ethics are rules of right and wrong (which is what you are asking); morals are how well those rules are followed. However, this distinction is seldom material, and more people don't get it than do get it, even in professional literature on the subject. I suppose then 'what exactly do those terms mean?' becomes a question of where language gets its meaning: from usage or from some concrete thing out there? I suppose it doesn't really matter - it's mostly a distinction without a difference.

As for what you are asking ... here's a little riddle to add fuel to the fire:

All ethics are absolute. All ethics are arbitrary. All ethics are applied universally.

These aren't actually contradictory, even though they first appear so.

An explanation:
Part 1) All ethics are absolute.
Ethics are rules, by definition. If the rules include a line saying that this situation or that situation or all situations are ethically fuzzy, then (for those rules) this situation or that situation or all situations are ethically fuzzy. Period. That's absolute, even though it leads to relative situations and variable conclusions about particular instances and general cases.

Part 2) All ethics are arbitrary.
If you take any ethic (any ethic at all - it doesn't matter which one or from what ethical system) and ask "why?" (and actually get a response, oc) you get an underlying principal of some kind (e.g. because of this other rule, because of these other rules, because of these principals, because X said so, because that's the way I feel, because that works the best, et cetera). If the response is one of the "because of X" where X is a principal or rule or principals or rules or any combination thereof (including X said so), you can ask "why" again (or an appropriet variant, such as "why should that be important?" for things that are obvious facts, as an example; "why should we follow what he/she/it/they said?" if an entity/group/person/being is referenced; or even "So why should logic matter?" if all else fails). You can repeat this process until one of several things happen: 1: Responses cease to be forthcoming. 2: The responses fall into a loop ("Why A?" "B" "Why B?" "C" "Why C?" "A"). 3: The response becomes one that is obviously arbitrary (e.g. "Because that's the way I feel" "It just is"). 4: The response becomes one of an emotional argument (e.g. "don't you feel that way?").
1 demonstrates that there isn't really a reason (no reason -> arbitrary), or that the responder has had enough of questions (no data one way or another; find a different respondant/starting question). 2 implies arbitrary as such loops are arbitrary (which loop to pick? There are theoretically an infinite number of such loops). 3 is obviously arbitrary by definition. With 4, it should be pointed out that different people/beings/Groups feel different ways; choosing which person's/being's/group's feelings is an arbitrary choice.
As long as case 1 doesn't happen, the ethic is arbitrary. If case 1 happens, there are a few sub-possibilities: a) there is no reason, thus it is arbitrary; b) the respondant doesn't know, and is trusting an arbitrary source; thus the ethic is arbitrary; c) the respondant is just tired of the questions/dead/gone/sleeping/whatever. 1c is just thrown in for completeness; it is rather immaterial. Cases of an eventual 1c are assumed to be arbitrary. I'll leave it up to a potential opponent to argue that it isn't.

Part 3: All ethics are applied universally.
Implicitly or explicitly, everyone has a system of ethics that they univerally apply. Note that an ethical system includes (implicitly or explicitly) how to deal with those who follow a different system (e.g. calling differences wrong or not).

Parts 1 and 2 aren't contradictory: arbitrary refers to the basis of the ethic while absolute refers to the ethic itself. Parts 2 and 3 aren't contradictory: arbitrary refers to the basis of the ethic while 'applied universally' refers to the judging actions and/or people.

Ethics are arbitrary, so when people disagree, debate doesn't cause agreement unless one side (A) can find something in the other side's (B's) ethics of more importance that supports A's Version (also requires that B's ethics include weighing contradictory ethics to rule one out for the situation in question; some ethical systems could allow for contradiction).
Barring that (also barring altering a person's stance by other means), agreement will not be reached on points of contention.

The original question was very clearly only to provoke comments, and so my absolute ruling on it is utterly unimportant, as I have now commented.

Perhaps I should have held off on the explanation in the interest of furthering discussion? Ahh well, it's done.

PvK

July 12th, 2003, 05:18 AM

Ok, so I think when Geo says murder and stealing are wrong, that might translate to the "culturally correct" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif as "every human society defines some acts of killing and taking from others as wrong".

PvK

Will

July 12th, 2003, 05:28 AM

Well, I'm jumping in a bit late, it seems...

So people don't have to read through six pages of stuff, like I just did, the original question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif :
Suppose you make a copy of SE4 for a friend. Your friend will play the game for a bit and decide if he likes it or not. If he likes it, he will buy it. If not, he will uninstall it and be done with it. Just him forever playing on this copy is not an option to be considered in this thread.In this specific situation, I don't really think it is immoral. From my view, to say otherwise is very close to saying it's immoral to letting the same friend play your copy, on YOUR computer. I don't think anyone would question the morality of bringing your computer to a friends' house to try out the game, with no copying issues. However, an option like that is not always feasible, so you bring the CD, install, try, uninstall.

I can't seem to find a copy of the SEIV EULA -- and I don't feel like digging out my CD and starting an install to read it -- but I will assume that it prohibits installing on someone else's computer without uninstalling on yours. So, yes, it's illegal. The morality of it, however, is different. Some have said that they already provide the demo, and that should provide for the trial instead of trying out someone else's complete copy, and it would be immoral to give something other than the demo to try out the game. But I wonder, when Shrapnel was at Origins, did the computer that had SEIV running have the Demo, or Gold? I would assume that since there was almost no risk of the copy on that computer going anywhere, that they would have put Gold on it; show off the full functionality of the product, and you have a better chance of getting a buyer. Letting my friend play the full Version has little chance of the game going anywhere else; if I had the slightest doubt that it would be distributed elsewhere, I would install, show off, and uninstall all in one sitting.

geoschmo

July 12th, 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Will:
But I wonder, when Shrapnel was at Origins, did the computer that had SEIV running have the Demo, or Gold? I would assume that since there was almost no risk of the copy on that computer going anywhere, that they would have put Gold on it; show off the full functionality of the product, and you have a better chance of getting a buyer.Well it was the full Version. But as the publisher they have the right to make this decision. And regardless of whether your supposition is correct or not you really don't have the right to make that decision for you and your friends. I could agree with the suposition (I don't, but I could) that a fully enabled Version would generate more sales then a demo, but not being the developer or publisher I don't get the right to set their policies regarding the best way to gfenerate more sales.

The reason I don't agree with your suposition is that I believe that someone can tell in 100 turns if they like the game or not enough to buy the full Version. The reason for using the full Version at Origins is one of practicality. People didn't sit there at the convention and play 100+ turns. Richard played the game in between talking to people all weekend long and people would walk up and watch for a while, or do a few turns themselves. It would be a little inconveinent if someone walked up at turn 98 and wanted to watch a few turns and he had to restart right away. That's not an issue for someone playing the demo from the start.

Geoschmo

Will

July 12th, 2003, 06:05 AM

Yes, the publisher can decide how their product is distributed, and with what limitations. However, in this case, it isn't really being distributed... the game is there for maybe an hour, and then it's gone, and the friend decides whether to buy or not. If you physically brought your system over to your friend's house to show of the game, is that still immoral? Or, the slightly easier route, bring your friend to your system to show off the game, is that immoral? How about uninstalling on your system, installing on your friend's, uninstalling on your friend's, then reinstalling on yours? All bring about essentially the same results, and in all situations, Malfador and Shrapnel aren't affected (except perhaps by getting a new buyer). To me, it all just seems like varying numbers of flaming hoops to jump through, when there really is no necessity for any hoops.

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Arkcon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:

... is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

GeoschmoHey there, I'm jumping in with a carefully snipped quote from Geo because it meshes well with my point of view.

Consider a "community" of hackers and software crackers, who've developed a "culture" of stealing software.

I think their culture is wrong. A bad culture. Bad. Bad. Bad. ... Bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I won't accept the premise that I have to respect that culture -- in my own mind.

I may not have any right to condemn it publicly, or act against it. After all myself or any group that holds similar convictions are as fallible as anyone other individual or group.

But I agree with Geo, the most basic fundamental rules of right and wrong shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I've said so before in a slightly different context. Link: Conceptually it is wrong. (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/cheat)

I will agree that maybe stolen software registrations are hard to compare perfectly with a household burglary. And yes, the definition of killing gets messy when we consider warfare, government executions, and heck even the decision not to be a vegan.

But the Golden Rule works pretty good in many instances.<hr /></blockquote>The problem with that is that you are bending the word culture to suit your purposes. That is a sub-culture at best (probably not even that).

teal

July 12th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Personally I find EULAs to be slightly immoral.

Since the company has a monopoly on the product they are distributing in a sense they are coercing you into agreeing to the EULA. (admittedly a very very mild form of coercion, but a form of coercion nevertheless.) As an aside I believe this is why all the forms you have to sign in order to take a chemistry class waiving the school of any responsiblity should you get hurt are invalid. They wouldn't let you take the class without the form so they were coercing you into signing it. The end result is the same as if you hadn't signed the form, the school is liable if they were negligent and/or actively caused you harm and not liable if they weren't. Sorry I'm tired, it tends to cause more pointless asides...

Back on topic... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Since the EULA is basically forced upon you it is not valid. On the other hand one can't have uneforceable agreements because in a certain sense everything is coercion because if both sides didn't need what the other had, why were they deeling in the first place? So a compromise must be reached. The company can't ask you to agree to *anything* in order to use thier product and the customer must still follow certain agreements if they are considered to be reasonable requests.

Strangely enough this has come up before in history... I don't know the exact chain of historical events. But the long and the short of it was somebody tried to prevent libraries from loaning out books on similar legal grounds to what we are discussing. Understandably the libraries sued. The courts saw that this was silly and came up with the "doctrine of first sale". A copywrite owner has the right of first sale of their product. After that the new owner can do whatever they please with their purchase. Including loaning it to a friend. As far as I'm concerned, this is the appropriate moral ground for software sale as well. Liscensing is like "renting" a book. Not just renting a book, but forcing me to rent a book by not offering the reasonable opportunity to buy that book. (EULAs also often force you to read that book in only one certain location and with only one pair of glasses....)

Transactions involving copywrited materials can not work perfectly using free market ideals because they are inherently mini-monopolistic things. Since they are monopolies the consumer needs protection against the copywrite holder. The right of first sale is an important protection for the consumer and I, for one, am dissapointed to see it thrown out of the world in the digital age by the despicable legal trick of EULAs. Consequently I think it is the moral thing to do to continue to act as if the contracts governing the sale of books are in force with software as well.

So back to the original question posed by Fyron. Yes it is immoral to copy your SEIV game and give it to a friend (no matter how long or short they intend to use it). Because this is something that you could not do morally do with a book. On the other hand it would not be immoral to uninstall SEIV from your computer and loan it to your friend for a bit and then get it back.

There is a wrinkle here though. With a traditional boardgame you are not required to buy one copy for each player involved (not even such games as Magic:the gathering in which most players do just that). So why could you not set up your SEIV game on several different computers at once for simultaneus (or even PBW) play assuming (since this whole discussion is hypothetical anyways) that the players only played games with each other. I believe that you could do so and still remain morally in the right.

One more thing I just thought of. It is not immoral to make a mixed tape for your friend. I suppose this is because of the fair use provision. It is permissible to copy something when used for certain purposes and one of those is furthering the bonds of friendship by sharing something with your friends. How the fact that I want to say making a mixed tape is ok, but copying SEIV is not ok can be resolved I'm not sure... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif In any case I'm sure I have rambled enough...

Teal

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 07:08 AM

The original question was very clearly only to provoke comments, and so my absolute ruling on it is utterly unimportant, as I have now commented.
What other possible purpose could a question have than to provoke comments? A question is asked to get comments on the matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The original question was very clearly only to provoke comments, and so my absolute ruling on it is utterly unimportant, as I have now commented.
What other possible purpose could a question have than to provoke comments? A question is asked to get comments on the matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Get an answer; get a solution to a problem; teach someone else something; insult someone via sarcasm or irony; convince someone to take a particular course of action; debate tactic: a method of challenging a debate opponent on a potential flaw in their position ... there are a lot of reasons.

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 09:02 AM

Note how every single one of those possibilities are comments on the question? They are comments that serve different purposes, but all comments nonetheless. Just pointing out that you made a vacuous statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Note how every single one of those possibilities are comments on the question? They are comments that serve different purposes, but all comments nonetheless.Granted I'm commenting on the question when listing those possibilities; however, not all of the possible reasons listed for the original question require a responding comment to achieve the desired effect. Specifically, I listed three that don't:
teach someone else somethingA person being taught does not necessitate that person taught comment on the question. The purpose of the question is to teach in such cases; comments are only desireable as a method of confirming the learning. They are not directly relevant to the question, and are not truely part of the purpose for the question.
insult someone via sarcasm or ironyAgain, no comment is necessary (on the part of the target or anyone else, for that matter) for the insult to occur (although it may require some words preceeding the question, we are specifically discussing responses to the question here, so that is immaterial).
convince someone to take a particular course of actionIf I ask you why you don't try something, then you try it, I have successfully convinced you to take a particular course of action, regardless of wether or not you comment on the question. For such cases, comments are irrelevant; it is the action that matters.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Just pointing out that you made a vacuous statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Why the insult?

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 09:37 AM

Why the insult? Insult? I see no insult. I merely labeled the sentence as what it is. Insulting would be if I called you vacuous, which I did not do. I guess if you want to take it personally it could be seen as an insult, but that is not how it was intended.

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Insult? I see no insult.Then you aren't too terribly perceptive. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I merely labeled the sentence as what it is.So are you maintaining that all listed possibilites have comments as their goal, without addressing my expansion of what I meant? That's odd. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Insulting would be if I called you vacuous, which I did not do.Not directly - but in calling a statement someone makes vacuous, you are saying that that person makes vacuous statements, which in turn implies that they are vacuous people. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I guess if you want to take it personally it could be seen as an insult, but that is not how it was intended.You are saying it wasn't intended that way, but you aren't apoligizing either. Odd.

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 09:56 AM

So back to the regularly scheduled philosophizing...

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So back to the regularly scheduled philosophizing...And you neither defend nor rescind your statement that mine was vacuous when challenged. Odd. Nor do you apoligize when I explain how your statement was an insult. Also odd.

[ July 12, 2003, 09:02: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Arkcon

July 12th, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem with that is that you are bending the word culture to suit your purposes. That is a sub-culture at best (probably not even that).Well, I disagree with this point of yours, Imperator, even more strongly than I disaggree with the originial point of this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I don't know what the most rigid definition of a culture is, but an ideology that's held by even a few can spread, like a cultural virus. Link:Dont cross the memes. (http://totl.net/VirusScanner/)

I'm oh so tempted to list a specific case ... but I want to keep this thread civil.

[ July 12, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Thermodyne

July 12th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Arkcon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem with that is that you are bending the word culture to suit your purposes. That is a sub-culture at best (probably not even that).Well, I disagree with this point of yours, Imperator, even more strongly than I disaggree with the originial point of this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I don't know what the most rigid definition of a culture is, but an ideology that's held by even a few can spread, like a cultural virus. Link:Dont cross the memes. (http://totl.net/VirusScanner/)

I'm oh so tempted to list a specific case ... but I want to keep this thread civil.<hr /></blockquote>OK I took the test, and they really need to work on it a lot.

Viruses I do suffer from:
1) Junk food---NOT (Unless beer is junk food)
2) Sci fi---Oh ya, they got that one.
3) Politics---yep I guilty there
4) Environmentalism---Perhaps, but then we get fined if we put the wrong kind of trash in the wrong color bin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I (might) suffer from:
1) Linux 80%---NOT EVEN close
2) Religion 60%---NOT
3) British 85%---NOT
4) Windows 75%---True but a low number
5) freeBSD 90%---True but way high. I guess it was because I kenw it at all.
6) Brand Names 65%---True
7) Hippyism 65%---NOT EVEN Close

I would say it was a test of how much media you have been exposed to.

All in all, it needs work. And perhaps their parents should seek a refund from the uni http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 12, 2003, 13:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Erax

July 12th, 2003, 03:03 PM

An ideology is a component of a culture, not an entire culture in itself. Hacker 'culture' is actually hacker ideology.

On a lighter note, Here's the viruses I suffer from, according to the test : Pokemon, USA, Sci-Fi, Junk Food, Cthulhu, Gaming, Religion, Discordia, Windows, Politics, Brand Names, Conspiracy Theory, Environmentalism.

Possible viruses : Linux, Goth, 8-Bit, Japan, Computer Games, Hippyism.

I plead innocent to Goth, 8-Bit, Hippyism and Discordia. Pokemon and Conspiracy Theory are entirely involuntary. Gladly admit to the rest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

July 12th, 2003, 07:12 PM

I am with Erax on this one. It would be an ideaology, not an entire culture. It takes more than a couple of people to form a unique culture. Hackers do not form a unique culture, but a subset of the culture in which they live.

Arkcon, just what do you think the original point of this discussion was? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 12, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Baron Munchausen

July 12th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So back to the regularly scheduled philosophizing...And you neither defend nor rescind your statement that mine was vacuous when challenged. Odd. Nor do you apoligize when I explain how your statement was an insult. Also odd.<hr /></blockquote>But normal for Fyron. When he can't win on some particular point he hides in a rhetorical trick and waits for you to forget it.

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
But normal for Fyron. When he can't win on some particular point he hides in a rhetorical trick and waits for you to forget it.Yep, I know. If the discussion involves multiple points, he will quietly drop one or two of them, neither conceeding nor defending the point(s); although to be fair, not responding isn't quite proof that he believes he can't win; that's just the most likely possibility.

One has to be careful when calling him on his tactics, however; the Last time I did (about 3 weeks ago - the Last post in that thread was on June 23, 2003 12:51 (board time); I also called him on his claim that he always admits when he is wrong by quoting some of his own Posts from other threads) Fyron accused me of character assasination and that thread got locked down.

Arkcon

July 12th, 2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Arkcon, just what do you think the original point of this discussion was? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Wait ... um ... I lost track. Talk amoungst yourselves ... OK, back with you.

Ok piracy. Yes, I've done it myself. Pretty much without rationaliztion of any kind. I just take the copied CD and play the game.

After a while, I delete the game. Maybe I buy the full Version to assuage my conscience (and 'cause it was a good game).

But it's wrong. Obviously wrong. Like stealing cable TV or eating grapes in the supermarket checkout line. Lisa had to break the concept over over Homer's head to get hime to agree -- but it was clear to even him, the golden rule{Link} (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/7F13.html)

[ July 12, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Jack Simth

July 12th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
OK I took the test, and they really need to work on it a lot.

Viruses I do suffer from:
1) Junk food---NOT (Unless beer is junk food)
2) Sci fi---Oh ya, they got that one.
3) Politics---yep I guilty there
4) Environmentalism---Perhaps, but then we get fined if we put the wrong kind of trash in the wrong color bin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I (might) suffer from:
1) Linux 80%---NOT EVEN close
2) Religion 60%---NOT
3) British 85%---NOT
4) Windows 75%---True but a low number
5) freeBSD 90%---True but way high. I guess it was because I kenw it at all.
6) Brand Names 65%---True
7) Hippyism 65%---NOT EVEN Close

I would say it was a test of how much media you have been exposed to.

All in all, it needs work. And perhaps their parents should seek a refund from the uni http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So did I - It's definitely a test of how much media you have been exposed to. Some highlights from my results:

Linux
Install the latest Version of Microsoft Windows. Learn to love it.

Windows
Try MacOS X. It's based on UNIX, it has a smoother UI than Windows and it doesn't suck.
As an extra feature the boxes look nice.

Macintosh (80%)
Use a mouse with more than one button.

UNIX (60%)
Anything this old must be obselete. Go and install a nice modern operating system. I hear MSDOS has come a long way lately.

Do any of these seem slightly contradictory to anyone else?

Phoenix-D

July 12th, 2003, 11:35 PM

The responses are designed to make whatever you have sound bad. So eventually they do contradict; there are only so many popular OSes.

Arkcon

July 13th, 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
The responses are designed to make whatever you have sound bad. So eventually they do contradict; there are only so many popular OSes.Yeah, the jokes about your choices are a little contradictory. But the point is, even if you're not an active user, follower, luddite, whatever -- you still carry the meme. You recognize it. It is in your thoughts. They have you. And you don't even know it.

I recognized Che Guevara, and failed to recognize the symbol for anarchy. A guy at work was the reverse. It doesn't matter exactly what politics you hold -- just that a certain black outline was obvious. I don't think we have to stop careing, like the game suggests.

Many of the symbols were "Oh, that was on Star Trek" Purely ficticious organizations, yet I recognize their icon better than some real national flags.

Not that that's a bad thing, just shows how symbols propagate though a society, despite your best efforts to control your own mind.

Imperator, if don't copy any games, you will be happier at the end of the day. Or some other day. Or not. YMMV.

Fyron

July 13th, 2003, 01:34 AM

There is also the possibility that the conversation is heading into a bad area and getting way too personal, and that he feels that it would be best for that conversation to end.

There is also the possibility that he has nothing further to say on a particular discussion, and so Posts nothing further about it.

Will

July 13th, 2003, 06:02 AM

Hmmm... seems the test is only saying what you've been exposed to, and trying to somehow turn it into "You are an irredeemable X", X = whatever 'virus'...

So, apparently I suffer from:
Junkfood
Sci-fi
Religion
Southampton
Free BSD
Politics
Brand Names
Hippyism
Computer Games
Environmentalism

... and also possibly:
TotL
Linux
USA
8-Bit
British
UNIX
Discordia
X11
Conspiracy Theory
Macintosh

Ummm... ok... down the list. No, Yes, No, No, No, Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, and No, No, I just live here, Yes, No, I'm starting to love it, Yes, what?, No, No.

There's a lot of 'No's there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

DarkHorse

July 13th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Okay, I've spent all morning catching up on this thread after coming back from vacation, and I feel the irresistable urge to throw in a couple cents.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE]~snip~ Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless. Morality is not absolute, it is an informal convention formulated by a given society to reinforce what it generally deems to be beneficial behavior on the part of its citizens. Laws are typically the formalized quantifications of these moral ideas.
Right and wrong, legal and illegal, moral and immoral are all conventions of convenience designed to encourage socially beneficial behavior, and discourage antisocial behavior. If there were only one person left on earth, all ideas of right and wrong etc would become meaningless, because they are societal constructs that exist only to modify the behavior of individuals toward others.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.
GeoschmoThis isn't necessarily true. In a universe where everything is relative, there are no absolute points of reference, by definition. An object's weight, for example, is dependent on gravity. That same object's mass is dependent on its velocity; accelerate something close to the speed of light and it's mass approaches infinite. All mathematical and scientific measurments are relative. That doesn't mean they aren't convenient and useful, of course, but they are relative.

But anyway, back to the original question.

The question of software piracy is a legal, not moral, question. Legally, it is clear that if you copy software and distribute it, whether or not it is for profit, you are violating the Fair Use provisions of the relavent law. (EULAs are irrelevant, it is the law that counts. Congress enacts laws, not software companies.)

The moral question is whether or not to break laws, and which laws you may choose to break.

Erax

July 13th, 2003, 11:00 PM

On the contrary, DarkHorse, I feel piracy is a moral question much more than a legal question, because legally it is largely unenforceable. We can do it (and get away with it), but the question is, should we do it ?

To bring back a somewhat relevant quote from Jurassic Park, "You spent all this money and effort to see if you could do it and never asked yourself if you should."

Suicide Junkie

July 14th, 2003, 01:04 AM

I feel piracy is a moral question much more than a legal question, because legally it is largely unenforceableSoftware/data copying piracy anyways. Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.

Fyron

July 14th, 2003, 01:10 AM

you hardly see any swashbucklers these days. A shame, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

TerranC

July 14th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QUOTE]Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.In well-protected waters, that is, such as waters near Europe, North America, Austrailia, and NE Asia. Piracy is still alive and kicking in SE asia, where people are poor, but have easy access to boats, guns, and small, hidden, deserted islands for pirates to hide away.

Baron Munchausen

July 14th, 2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QUOTE]Piracy of physical items is much more easily prevented, and you hardly see any swashbucklers these days.In well-protected waters, that is, such as waters near Europe, North America, Austrailia, and NE Asia. Piracy is still alive and kicking in SE asia, where people are poor, but have easy access to boats, guns, and small, hidden, deserted islands for pirates to hide away.<hr /></blockquote>And even there you're only speaking in relative terms. No one really knows how many battles there have been between various drug cartels or immigrant smugglers over ships as well as other tools of the trade (planes, etc.) and their cargos as they ply their various businesses. Only 'law abiding' people report when their ship has been taken by violence. You're not gonna get much help from the navies of the world if you report that your 10,000 tons of cocaine was snatched by a rival cartel. So a true picture of the amount of 'piracy' in the world is difficult to form.

[ July 14, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

dogscoff

July 14th, 2003, 11:03 AM

You're not gonna get much help from the navies of the world if you report that your 10,000 tons of cocaine was snatched by a rival cartel.
Is that so..?

*dogscoff scratches his chin thoughtfully for a few moments, then digs an eye-patch and cutlass out of his sea-chest.

Erax

July 14th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Another quote from a famous industrial spy : "Stealing information is different from stealing physical goods. If I steal your shoes, I can wear them and you can't. But if you have some information and I make a copy of it, you still have yours, you can still use it."

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this statement, but I find it interesting.

geoschmo

July 14th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Obviously the problem with that statement is that if your business depends on the sale of that information, and people make copies of it without paying then you end up not being able to afford to buy new shoes.

Geoschmo

Loser

July 15th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You're not gonna get much help from the navies of the world if you report that your 10,000 tons of cocaine was snatched by a rival cartel.I would have to disagree with this, though not in such a way that it invalidates your point in any way.

You can get plenty of help. Just hand the right information to the right people. One cartel determines what another cartel is doing and when (they can use resources and facets of human intelligence gather no longer available to mainstream government intelligence), and reports it to The Law. They got help, though not in the same way that a legitimate business would get help.

It is said that no big drug bust occurs that is not the result of a tip or an accident. I wonder if that applies to other illicit activity like human trafficking or stolen goods.

rdouglass

July 15th, 2003, 08:29 PM

I dunno' but to me it's pretty simple;

If you take something - anything! - without the owners permission, its stealing. Whether that be physical or intellectual property.

When you buy (or license) something, you now have the (original) owners' permission to do only what was agreed upon during the exchange of monies, goods, or services.

Anything else is stealing.

And to all those thinking that an EULA may not be legally binding, think again. Notice in most, if not all, ELUA's they state something to the effect that if you don't agree to the EULA, then return the S/W for a refund. I'm no lawyer but AFAIK that has always held up in a U.S. court of law.

Erax

July 15th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Granted. But why is stealing immoral ?

Edit : This is meant to provoke thought. I am not questioning the fact that stealing is immoral.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: Erax ]

Fyron

July 15th, 2003, 08:37 PM

It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.

[ July 15, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rdouglass

July 15th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....

Erax

July 15th, 2003, 08:51 PM

This was going to be an interesting topic but I'll be offline the rest of the day. Argh.

Anyway, I think there should be a separate term. Depriving a person of something is not the same as making a copy of it (not entering into the morality aspect). Calling both 'stealing' seems too simplistic to me.

Just as calling IP 'property' seems too simplistic.

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK

July 15th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by rdouglass:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It does not matter what it says in the EULA. None of them are enforceable. Nothing it says in them matters.How can you say this? What evidence do you have to prove this? AFAIK it always holds up 'cause you have a choice.

Please show me where there is evidence backing this piosition....<hr /></blockquote>The burden of proof is for the enforcer. You can't prove that any particular person clicked the "I agree" button, opened the seal on an envelope, or otherwise agreed to a EULA without a signed contract. It's not a contract, it's a cheap trick. Maybe some lawyers can make it stick in some cases, but it's still a cheap trick.

Moreover, I agree with the sentiment that many contracts are invalid, according to my own moral standards, because frequently they are many pages of attrocious legalese and are given with the expectation that the signer will not sit there for an hour trying to understand it before signing it. Often such contracts are used by an entire industry, forcing people who need even a basic service (such as housing, or medical services) to accept, or be excuded from something they need. Perhaps not legally, but morally, I see this as unfair bullying by the people offering the contract. Some may say that it's the victims' responsibility, or society's responsibility, to object, and if they get hurt by this, it's the fault of their own complacency. There's some validity to that, but it's akin to saying that mugging victims deserve what they get for not being properly armed or staying home. The system could be changed to make things better for everyone, but again, the people who care about it the most and have the most attention, knowledge, money and power to bear on the problem, are those who stand to gain by continuing to exploit the status quo and perpetuating it as long as possible.

PvK

Fyron

July 15th, 2003, 09:19 PM

PvK

July 15th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing. If you want to argue it isn't stealing the software itself because it's not physical property and you aren't denying the owner the use of said property, then it is stealing the money the software would generate in sale if you purchased it legally. There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. But you are depriving the owner of something that is rightfully theirs. In plain speak that is considered stealing is it not?

GeoschmoI have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.

A few counter-examples:
Software industry likes to claim that they lose billions of dollars they otherwise would have had, because kids and foreigners didn't pay prices they could never afford. They also increase their theoretical losses for people check out a copy of software before buying, find out what crap it is, and so don't buy it. "Hey, if they couldn't get a copy of it, they would've had to pay $300 to find out that our software is worse than shareware! We lost millions of profits we should have had!"

PvK

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 09:32 PM

So I am curious. Don't take this as sarcastic cause I am honestly asking to know. What is a fair method for a person who makes software to make sure he is properly compensated for his time and effort? It's not like all of us could go write our own game. Or even if we could we don't. So what should be the process involved so the developer can make a living producing software that we use and enjoy?

Geoschmo

rdouglass

July 15th, 2003, 09:33 PM

I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.
Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 15th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by rdouglass:
I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?I have a suspicion that saying a EULA is not legally enforceable is about like saying we aren't required by the constitution to pay income taxes. You might be able to make it sound all good and proper talking about it here in the forum but it's not going to fly in a real court. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Companies are all the time being hit with license fees for improperly copying software on different workstations. I have never heard of one of those being thrown out of court because the EULA wasn't legally binding. The reason the software compnies don't come after individual Users more is the cost of taking them to court is more then they will recover, and the bad press that it will generate.

Geoschmo

PvK

July 15th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
I have yet to be convinced that anyone has a right to theoretical business profit they might have made if some "intellectual property violation" hadn't occured.
Well let's use an anology. It's not a perfect one, but it's pretty close. Say I own a movie threater. I sell tickets to people who pay to see the movie. Most shows don't fill up completely, but I make enough money to make a living and stay in business.

Now you think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. And you were careful and didn't break the lock on teh door or anything like that. And maybe you will like the movie enough to come back the next night and pay to see it. Probably not, but you tell yourself that anyway and it makes you feel better.

So is that ok?

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>No it's not ok. However the reason it's not ok is not that the theatre owner would have made money from him. I think there are several arguments why it wouldn't be right, which aren't really on topic, though.

Similarly, I think there are also some other issues to consider with intellectual property violations.

However, for the single issue of whether the theatre owner deserves the claim a right to theoretical sales, I don't think he does.

I do think he has the right to prevent tresspass, throw the fellow out, have him cited from breaking in, etc. I just don't think he has the right to claim money based on the idea that the sneak would have paid him for the ticket.

Here's a variation. Suppose the "thief" has a device which picks up radio signals that drift out of the theatre from the projection, and let's him see the movie on a screen in his own home. Does he have the right to view the film this way? I say yes - he should be able to decode any signals passing through his own house.

Legally, maybe not. In the UK, they have receiver detection trucks like you see the Nazis using in war movies about the underground resistance. The UK authorities use this to "catch" people watching TV in their homes without having paid the "TV tax." I think that's pretty outrageous, personally. If your business involves beaming signals into my property, I say I have every right to decode them however I want to, regardless of how much theoretical money you might have made if I would submit to your contracts and subscription rates.

PvK

PvK

July 15th, 2003, 10:07 PM

PvK

July 15th, 2003, 10:14 PM

Erax

July 15th, 2003, 10:20 PM

You think you want to see the new Van Dam movie, but you aren't sure cause the Last one was a real dog. So you sneak in the back door and watch the movie. It's not like you are taking a seat that someone else needs. The movie isn't likely to sell out anyway. So technically I haven't lost any money if you weren't going to pay to see it in the first place. It's a close enough analogy, and it reminds me of something that happened to my dad once (a story for another occasion, perhaps). I obviously haven't deprived you of anything (real or potential). So the only issue is, will I feel guilty about it afterwards or not ? Probably. But I wouldn't say I'd stolen something from you.

I just want to make one thing clear : when I said copying was different from stealing, I didn't mean one was OK and the other wasn't. They're just different enough to deserve different names. Like greed and avarice (from the copyright thread) : both are flaws, both are about money, but they're different.

tesco samoa

July 15th, 2003, 10:20 PM

PVK theoretical sales

That is what I feel as well....

Take Bell Canada and this concept of the theroretical sale

Now 100000 people subscrible to Dish network in the states.

They do not wish to Subscribe to Bell Sat. Tv.

Why because they wish to watch American TV.

According to Bell Canada these people are breaking the law and costing Bell Canada billions of dollars. Why theroretical sale.

Music and games are the same

Its these theroretical sales that their after. Like all of asudden people will buy the stuff if they cannot copy it. I do not think so. The only difference is that they would not have a crack / copy. That is it.
Example
I have a copy of the song 'boys are back in town'.

But I was never ever going to buy a thin lizzy cd.

Did they lose money from me. No. I was never ever going to spend money on that item.

Did they lose theroretical money on me. Yes. Depending on the year they peg me at it could be up to 9 dollars.

P.S. if i was to buy it i would by it used...

If i could not get this song then i would tape it off the radio or just listen to it when it comes on the radio. ( As I have a ok system the sound quality is the same as a 128k mp3 file as far as my ears can tell)
Here as well they lost a theroretical sale.

thanks pvk...

Personally i perfer open source software anyways....

spoon

July 15th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Making an unauthorized copy of software is stealing.
...
There might be a different legal definition for what that is besides stealing, I am not a lawyer. GeoschmoI believe it's called Copyright Infringement...

Hunkpapa

July 15th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by PvK:

Legally, maybe not. In the UK, they have receiver detection trucks like you see the Nazis using in war movies about the underground resistance. The UK authorities use this to "catch" people watching TV in their homes without having paid the "TV tax." I think that's pretty outrageous, personally. If your business involves beaming signals into my property, I say I have every right to decode them however I want to, regardless of how much theoretical money you might have made if I would submit to your contracts and subscription rates.

PvK[/QB]That is a bunch of crap, I feel for you.

Fyron

July 15th, 2003, 11:03 PM

PvK is from Germany though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 12:49 AM

pvk they should have people on everystreet cornor watching out for people who jay walk and ticket them.

It is as equally morally wrong. And all laws should be equally enforced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by PvK:

Here's a variation. Suppose the "thief" has a device which picks up radio signals that drift out of the theatre from the projection, and let's him see the movie on a screen in his own home. Does he have the right to view the film this way? I say yes - he should be able to decode any signals passing through his own house.

Legally, maybe not. In the UK, they have receiver detection trucks like you see the Nazis using in war movies about the underground resistance. The UK authorities use this to "catch" people watching TV in their homes without having paid the "TV tax." I think that's pretty outrageous, personally. If your business involves beaming signals into my property, I say I have every right to decode them however I want to, regardless of how much theoretical money you might have made if I would submit to your contracts and subscription rates.

PvKThis is the exact situation with encrypted satellite TV services. The signal is there all the time, passing through your property. Why should you not have the right to decrypt it and watch? There are millions who think they have the right and they go right ahead and download the programs and/or build the boxes that let them access the programming without a twinge of guilt. The service providers are fighting the same sort of running battle as the [RI/MP]AA with constant new legal angles and new technologies trying to stem the leakage of their 'intellectual property'. They're having about the same degree of sucess, too.

For that matter, I've got a cable tv cable running along the wall outside my apartment. I could setup a sensitive antenna and watch cable for 'free' at the price of a somewhat fuzzier image than a direct link. (I've tested with a few TVs just out of curiousity. It does work. Coax isn't that well insulated, apparently... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Aside from the fact that cable tv is just as sh*tty as broadcast tv ever was, but with more channels, I can't see any downside to it. I gave up watching tv years ago though, so I don't have to worry about whether it's 'ethical' to do so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
So I am curious. Don't take this as sarcastic cause I am honestly asking to know. What is a fair method for a person who makes software to make sure he is properly compensated for his time and effort? It's not like all of us could go write our own game. Or even if we could we don't. So what should be the process involved so the developer can make a living producing software that we use and enjoy?

GeoschmoCopyright is a fine system for encouraging creative activities. In exchange for publishing your work, whether it is art or science, you get an exclusive right to control it -- for a while. Unfortunately, we don't have copyright anymore. We have 'intellectual property' -- which is a complete fraud.

Information. Cannot. Be. Property.

Period. Full stop.

As already observed here, if you 'take' information the previous 'owner' is not deprived of its use.

Similarly, once someone knows something you can't take it back.

Information is fundamentally different from property, which is why a fundamentally different legal concept was created to deal with it. Copyright. And copyright recognizes that information is different from property by setting a limit on how long the original producer of the information may continue to claim the right to control it. This is common sense. As people keep using the information it gets more and more assimilated into daily life until it is part of the culture. Letting anyone claim a 'perpetual' right to control information is the same as letting someone claim the right to control the public discourse.

Yet, the corporations think they can force this unreal concept on us by buying laws. It doesn't matter to them that the REAL WORLD doesn't work that way, they are gonna buy politicians and PR campaigns until they get what they want. And then try to get the government they purchased to enforce it.

So here we are, several decades into the regime of 'intellectual property' -- I don't know when the term was first written into a law... does anyone here know? But the concept of making copyright perpetual by indirection dates back to the early years of this century when the retro-active extensions started being passed on a regular basis to protect the corporate stockpile of money making copyrights. Everything written/recorded/filmed since 1923, well before you or anyone else here was born, is still 'private property' to some suit who spends his/her life trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of it. So we get the 'anthologies' with one or two new stories and a dozen old ones, the 'music compilations' and 'greatest hits collections' with one or two new songs and a dozen old ones, the 'Special Editions' and 'Directors Cuts' with 5 minutes of new footage in a 2 1/2 hour movie...

Of course, only a small fraction of the works published in all media since 1923 are still worth trying to make any money off of. Hardly anyone wants to listen to music from the early days of vinyl or early black and white films. The other 95+ percent of 'commercial' works, whatever their historical or cultural value, are simply dead weight that no librarian dares to re-copy for fear of a copyright lawsuit. Ah yes... because then these 'worthless' copyrights would suddenly be worth something. You could then sue some hapless librarian for 'violating' your copyright and suck some money out of them and the library they work for. So the history and culture of the 20th century is slowly crumbling away in our libraries, under the glare of hungry copyright -- erm, 'intellectual property' -- lawyers.

Beyond the large-scale damage done to history and culture, though, is the simple violation of common sense.

Did you know you are breaking copyright law when you sing 'Happy Birthday' at your private birthday party? It's more than a century old, by now. It's part of the culture -- the way we live our daily lives. Shouldn't the general public be allowed to continue what has become a folk tradition? They can't enforce this at present, but you can damn well bet they are working on ways to do so, what with all the 'surveillance' technology developing as fast as communications in general. I'm wondering when Coke will try to assert copyright on Santa Claus and sue everybody who's ever used the now 'universal' image of the bearded fat guy in the red suit. Santa as we know him now was first used in a Coke Ad in the 1920s so I expect the copyright is still legally valid.

The 'intellectual property' fraud has had an ugly effect on the actual producers of art and science, too. They've been hypnotized by the suits -- who are cheating them too -- into thinking it's those evil 'pirates' out there who are restricting their income. George Lucas is a good example of the 'artist' who should have been a lawyer. He sued over 'Battlestar Galactica' claiming that it was somehow infringing Star Wars simply because it was a space show with fighter craft flying around. And some poor sap got sued by Lucas in the 80s for creating a spreadsheet tutorial called 'The Templates of Doom' -- yes, he was 'infringing' on the Indiana Jones franchise by using a cute name for his tutorial and including a few references in the lessons.

Corporate GREED has blown the concept of copyright so completely out of proportion that it cannot be reasonably complied with anymore. Just like otherwise 'law abiding' people during Prohibition simply ignored the law and went on drinking, just like ordinary people (not 'religious fanatics' because the fanatics were the ones in power) during the most insanely rigid phases of Medieval 'religion' went on having their own opinions and getting murdered for it, people will continue incorporating new experiences into the 'public domain' -- the CULTURE -- because it's the natural thing to do. The human mind naturally retains experiences and organizes them together into patterns without stopping to think who owns what and pay the fees.

Computer software is a slightly different case than most art but it has suffered due to the abuse of copyright in the other areas I've described. Because the law has been so outrageously abused people have ceased to respect the law. Add to this the problem of uncertain expecations and it's no surprise that computer software copyrghts have been so meaningless to most people. With most consumer products you at least know what you're buying and you can judge whether the price is worth what you want. A car is a car, and you know what it is supposed to do and what it cannot be reasonably expected to do. The same goes for scads of small applianes from blenders to cell phones. A computer is a completely different animal. Software is incredibly mutable and can utterly transform the machine on your desk (or lap, as the case my be) from a game machine to a busines management system to a communications device. And each 'application' can be completely transformed from one Version of the software to another. So if you pay $500 for your spreadsheet program and six months later there's another 'Version' with bug fixes and a jillion new features, which you have you buy at some steep 'upgrade price'... what did you pay for? This is a very different relationship than we have to any other consumer product I am aware of. It's not surprising that people are so willing to ignore copyright in this case and just copy things because it's so easy to feel cheated a few months later. But as I said, thanks to the abuse of copyright in other ways the situation is even worse than it would otherwise have been.

If we could restore copyright -- a reasonable expectation that all new information will eventually become public domain -- we could cut down the piracy problem dramatically. It's the old fistful of sand problem. The harder you squeeze the more you lose.

[ July 16, 2003, 02:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

deccan

July 16th, 2003, 07:02 AM

Oooh, a philosophical discussion on the SEIV forum! My favorite kind! How come no one invited me!

*Grabs a soapbox and jumps into the discussion pit, accidentally knocking several people off-balance with armloads of books on law, morality and philosophy.*

Are EULAs really legal?

Originally posted by rdouglass:
I was just asking if anyone actually had evidence of a time where an EULA did NOT hold up (in the U.S. please - I know many things are OK in other contries).

And how well do you really think the defence "Well, I really didn't understand the fine print..." will hold up in court? In fact, a company in Texas was recently fined $173,000 for failing to comply with an EULA. If it was possible to circumvent the EULA, don't you think they would have tried?!?!?Really? References please? I don't mean to imply that you're lying, simply that you might be mistaken. The case that you are referring to may have involved a more conventional paper agreement signed by the two parties, properly witnessed and advised by proper lawyers etc.

Here are some of mine:

A Growing Suspicion Over the Validity of Shrinkwrap Licensing: A Case Summary of SoftMan v. Adobe
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=Cache:RDFGR8t1v6kJ:www.hewm.com/use/articles/softman.pdf+EULA+shrinkwrap&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Court: Network Associates can't gag Users
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981228.html?tag=nl

Lawsuit challenges software licensing
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html

I note that the general consensus on this board is that EULAs are indeed indisputably legal. I think this reflects the generally accepted principle in Western society that agreements signed between two voluntary parties are legally enforceable. But this isn't really true. The law (i.e. legislation plus legal precedent) governs the kinds of agreements that can be enforced (agreements that sell people into slavery for example obviously aren't legal even if both parties agree), how they should be worded, under what kinds of conditions they can be enforced etc. pretty strictly. For example, under U.K. law, some kinds of agreements must be witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, some kinds of agreements must be made under seal and so forth. How else can lawyers earn their lavish fees? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The EULA is a relatively new and untested legal instrument. Until a history of cases is built up that precisely define the limits, practices, acceptable wordings and ways of signalling agreement etc. that govern EULAs, it's safe to say that EULAs are mostly there to intimidate Users.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Baron, all of that is quite interesting and thought provoking. But I have no idea why you quoted my question at the begining of it because it doesn't even partially address my question. It's just a more eloquent description of your view of the problem.

I agree with a lot of what you said. But I still would like to know what good is any copyright, even one with a limited lifespan, if you can't keep people from copying and giving away the work that you sell to make a living? How does someone like Aaron make a living writing software games if anyone can simply download a copy for free off the internet or get it from a friend without even an threat of legal repurcussions?

I don't think most people are like you Baron. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the majority of people who copy software or music have not put as much thought into whether it is right or wrong as you have. They simply figure they can't really get caught and so they don't care if it's wrong. And I believe most people that don't copy software and music don't refrain out of an sense that it is inherantly wrong to do so without compensating the author. They don't do it simply because they believe that there might be a way they could get caught. Or they believe it is against the law to copy and obey the law. Excepting those that simply don't listen to music or play games of course.

So removing the threat of legal penalties, however impotent it may be, removes what little recourse the authors do have to control the use of their production, does it not?

Or are you saying that the current system of enforcment and penalties is acceptable as long as the term of the copyright is limited and not transferable? If that is what you are saying I suppose your post does sort of respond to my question. It was just a bit subtle and it took me a couple readings to see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 13:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Erax

July 16th, 2003, 03:54 PM

Baron, awesome post ! I could never express myself half as well as you have done it.

Geo, the current system of enforcement and penalties is not acceptable, because it fails to prevent piracy ! I personally feel that 'content' will eventually become free or nearly so through pressure from the competition (illegal though it may be).

If your perception of the current situation is correct (and I'd say it complements the Baron's post nicely), you shouldn't expect people to suddenly develop a better conscience. And copy-proof content is not too likely to happen either.

I'd say a business and legal model that faces the plain fact that you can't prevent people from copying content (no matter how much you'd like to) might satisfy all parties involved. The current system won't, no matter how hard they try to push it.

While content may be easily copied, service cannot. Therefore, a new business model will probably arise over time, something on the order of 'the car is yours for free, but you have to fill it up at my gas station'. That is one possibility. Open source is another. PvK's 'content tax' is another. Some day one of these proposals will replace the current standard.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Erax, exaplin to me how you expect a game such as SE4 could ever survive under such a system? What type of "service" would we be talking about here? Aaron gives away the game and sells patches? You honestly think something like that would work?

And how could authors of books and musicians make a living? What sort of "service" do I need for my Dan Fogelburg CD's or my Asimov books?

And I am sorry but Pvk's content tax idea is so unrealisitc and flawed I am not even sure how to effectivly comment on it. I didn't think he was actually suggesting it as a realistic possibility but as an extreme point for comparison.

Administrativly it would be a nightmare. Who would determine what is worthy of compensation. The government? I am not one of these people who thinks games like Grand Theft Auto should be censored or Banned, but I will be damned if I think my tax dollars should go to support it. The whole idea is so counter to the idea of a free market capitalist system I can't even find anything in it I like.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 04:34 PM

Geo,

You've almost got it. Copyright would work if the original 'public contract' were restored. The deal was that the original creator/compiler of the information got to control it for a limited time. Then it was public property. Corporate suits are trying to turn this into feudalism where we pay them forever. The right to control commercial exploitation of information has been mutated into 'financial damage' from losing 'potential' income and then mutated again into an imagined 'right' to the income that they think they should be getting. Feudalism didn't work with 'real' property, it sure isn't gonna work with 'intellectual' property. Those peasants went right ahead and poached game from the 'King's Land' when they were starving. Even the threat of mutilation (amputation of hands like the current wave of radicals in Islamic countries advocate for stealing) or outright death did not prevent them. Trying to make us all serfs on the corporate info-plantation is also doomed to failure and people instinctively recognize the unfairness of it. Since the current 'law' is completely contrary to the facts of life they ignore it. Just like the peasants who ignored the law that demanded they starve rather than go get the food they knew was there.

[ July 16, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

rdouglass

July 16th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by deccan:
.........Really? References please? I don't mean to imply that you're lying, simply that you might be mistaken.....http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2003-06-17.1667.phtml

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 04:58 PM

Ok Baron. (Hey, it's ironic your nick considering your vehment opposition to the practice of feudalism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

So basically instead of coming up with wacked out methods of compensaiton, or reinventing our whole economic system, and in the process causing more serious problems then we are fixing, the solution is simple.

Eliminate the practice of selling the actual copyright of any material. This includes any sort of backdoor methods such as performance contracts or the like. The current system where the corporations act as owner and distributor of the product must cease. The Author of the material must own the rights to the product and the corporations will be their employees contracted for the purpose of marketing and distribution, instead of the artist being the employee (slave really) of the corporation.

Limit the length of the copyright of any sort of information to something more reasonable and realistic. This would vary depending on the type of material. Longer for books, shorter for software, music and movies somewhere in the middle.

During the term of the copyright the artist would control the distribution and sale of the material and receive whatever compensation for it that can be determined through the natural market process of supply and demand. They would likely need to contract with various distributors or marketers, all of whom should receive compensation for their services from the author, but the author/artist would retain the copyrights to it.

Any aunathorized duplication of the material during the copyright period would have stiff penalties. Of course if the author/artist decides to do so he can waive some or all of those penalties, but he shuld retain the right to have them enforced as strictly as they wish, including financial and possible criminal proceedings, depending on the type and severity of the incident. This would NOT be limited to copies made and distributed for profit but extend also to copies made to avoid payment for the material, unless the author decides to allow such copies to be made.

Once the copyright period ends the material becomes public domain and can be freely copied and distributed by anyone. At that point anyone that can succesfully market the product in such a way that there is a demand for it will be entitled to the compensation with no requirement to pay the orignal author.

I see two problems with this idea.

One, what happens on the death of the author? Does the product become public domain or can the copyright be transfered to his heirs until the term expires?

Secondly, what about an author who writes a book and then wants to use the same characters in a later book? Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Suicide Junkie

July 16th, 2003, 05:16 PM

Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Secondly, what about an author who writes a book and then wants to use the same characters in a later book? Does the copyright on those characters run from the Last book in the series or the first? Can any joe blow go off and start writing Honor Harrington books once the term expires on the original book, even thogh the author is still producing novels with her in it?
Actually, the more I think about this, the less I think it's a problem. So someone else writes a book with your character in it. That can be a good thing for you actually because it can generate interest in your original works which you can still be distributing.

Also, you could allow corporations to "buy out" an authors copyright so that they could distibute the product freely themselves, but doing so should not transfer the copyright to them. It should transfer the work into the public domain early, so that in effect anyone would be free to market and distribute it. This could make sense as a business model considering the limited lifespan of most of these types of things. The author could get a big check at once instead of waiting for royalties over the term of the copyright and no hassles with inforcing the copyright. The corporation gets a head start on production and distribution over any competitiors, and should have the advantage in the market as theirs would be the "official Version". But they would still have to produce a quality product as they would be subject to market competition.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Characters aren't copyrighted, the books/movie/etc are. Characters become trademarks, like the Energizer Bunny and Mickey Mouse, instead.Ok, so how is that handled then? Do trademarks have a longer lifespan then copyrights? I don't really know anything about it.

Geoschmo

Erax

July 16th, 2003, 05:37 PM

Erax, explain to me how you expect a game such as SE4 could ever survive under such a system? What type of "service" would we be talking about here? Aaron gives away the game and sells patches? You honestly think something like that would work?

And how could authors of books and musicians make a living? What sort of "service" do I need for my Dan Fogelburg CD's or my Asimov books?

And I am sorry but Pvk's content tax idea is so unrealisitc and flawed I am not even sure how to effectivly comment on it. I didn't think he was actually suggesting it as a realistic possibility but as an extreme point for comparison. I am not saying those proposals, which were though up on the spur of the moment (mine took all of five minutes to write up), would actually work. Mine works for antivirus software but not for stories or music (books and CDs are media, not content). But people have to challenge the current system, which obviously does not work, and trade ideas around until someone comes up with something viable. Hey, you've done it yourself.

I like your proposal because the original author is compensated and he may keep his copyright if that is important to him - but then he runs the risk of losing some profits to piracy.

I still see a problem with corporate-produced content which does not 'belong' to the people who did the real creative work, but I like your idea.

Edit : Aaaron gives SE4 away for free, then makes you his partner and charges a subscription to access PBW. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 16:40: Message edited by: Erax ]

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Erax:
I still see a problem with corporate-produced content which does not 'belong' to the people who did the real creative work, but I like your idea.Yeah, that's another one I hadn't thought of. Perhaps we make that illegal. *Geo whips out his magic law making pen* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Corporations were not designed to produce knowledge anyway. They are designed to give the business owner some limited protection of his personal assets in case of a business failure. They are not supposed to function as virtual persons in every way, and allowing them to do so is dangerous for a lot of reasons.

So if a corporate employee produces some marketable information, ie software, the employee should retain the copyright. But some equitable arangment should be created which compensates the copropration. Since the work itself would not have been possible without the support the author received while creating the work. But the rights should be retain by the person or persons mostly responsible with the act of creation. For something like windows I guess that would be the team of writers involved in the process.

Originally posted by Erax:

Edit : Aaaron gives SE4 away for free, then makes you his partner and charges a subscription to access PBW. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yeah, unfortunatly that's just not a realistic business model. Only a very small percentage of people who bought SE4 use PBW. Not enough to support Aaron, certainly not enough to support both of us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 06:14 PM

I think 5 years is a good time limit for everything ( for non commerical use )
And 20 years for commerical use of everything.

Where commerical use means some one somewhere is making money off it.

And if a project was funded by governement at all grants then it is automaticly placed in the public domain.

The public domain is a good thing and all of society benifits from it.

Companies still make money off public domain. Ever buy a book that was written before 1923 ... Its all public domain.

There is a lot of music available in the public domain as well.

Now for the concept of trademarking and patienting ideas and concepts.... I think that this should not be allowed.... Society does not benifit one bit from that.

Imagine if someone patiented the idea of a vechile that moves on tracks in the 1820's.... With todays laws...

Innovation and copyrights and patients travel down two seperate roads in opposite directions...

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 07:40 PM

Tesco, I think the idea is that you can't patent the idea for a train, but you can patent a specific type of train locamotive, or at least some parts of it that are unique and your own design. You can't patent a steam engine after all. Patenting has benifits to soceity in that it encourages research and inovation, which can have some pretty substantial up front costs. But like copyright it can be taken to non-productive extremes.

I don't have a problem with you 5 year, 20 year terms. I think that is probably a bit long for software, but it would probably work for books. But I do have a question about what is commercial and what is non-commercial. If my friend buys a copy of SE4 and I burn a copy so I don't have to pay for it, is that a commercial or non commercial use?

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
pvk they should have people on everystreet cornor watching out for people who jay walk and ticket them.

It is as equally morally wrong. And all laws should be equally enforced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The UK is also full of surveillance video cameras, even worse than the US is getting. Big Brother is watching you, and his local governments are counting on ticket revenues from people who forget their seatbelts, or for not having a registration sticker on their license plate, or who drive a high-performance car 5 mph over a pointless speed limit where the bus routinely drives 10-15 mph over.

PvK

Erax

July 16th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Patents were created to allow inventors to benefit from the fruit of their creative work, while allowing their knowledge to be released to the public. Scientific knowledge must be shared to benefit society as a whole, but those who provide such knowledge must be compensated for it. Otherwise they would use their knowledge for themselves only, creating a series of technology-based secret societies.

So how is this different from books or music ? Well, entertainment content has no value unless it is shared, it can't really be hoarded for one's own benefit.

As for trademarks, they embody the 'brand value' that a name holds. If you market anything at all with the name 'Star Wars' on it, you know it will attract millions of fans, some of which may actually buy the product. The brand name adds value to your product, and you must compensate Lucasfilm for it.

Now I know very little about actual trademark legislation, other than that they have no expiration date. However, I feel they should work like mining rights : if you don't exploit them over a given period of time, you lose them.

tesco samoa

July 16th, 2003, 09:09 PM

geo you can patient the idea for a train.... There are companies that just patient ideas and only ideas. Major corp's push this all the time.

You no longer have to beat someone to producing a product people like and purchase. You just have to beat the company who builds it by only coming up with a concept and prooving it in court.... That is it.

And the copy would fall under non commerical use. Commerical use would be for another company / person to use the code and sell it for profit...

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And the copy would fall under non commerical use. Commerical use would be for another company / person to use the code and sell it for profit...So copying a game to sell it to make money is commercial use and wrong, but copying the game for personal use to simply avoid paying the purchase price is non-commercial and is ok? That makes no sense to me.

From the perspective of the author of the work what is the difference if another company makes a million copies and sells them without compensating him, or if a million people all make one copy without compensating him. Either way that is one million copies he doesn't get paid for.

As to your other point I will plead ignorance. I have never heard of a company patenting an idea the way you are describing it. In fact to my knokwledge you have to have some sort of diagram to get a patent. How do you diagram an idea?

Geoschmo

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 09:33 PM

I entirely agree that it would be a big help to restore copyrights to 5-20 year limits.

However, it doesn't really address piracy before that period is up. It would help in the case of things like business applications software. I actually prefer 5-year old Versions of MS Office, for example, because it lacks the overblown crud and unwanted features.

Of course, existing megacorps will fight this tooth and nail, since it will make many of their products even less appealing than they currently are.

There are certain things which technology has made trivial and easy, which society's obsolete conceptions are keeping us from using. The longer humans take to realize this, the more sad we are. Some people seem to take capitalism as a moral principle, but for some things, thanks to technology, it wouldn't really need to be relevant any more except through the oppression of corporations and governments. Is it really a good thing for most of the population to feel that they must spend most of their time and energy doing work that they don't enjoy, or face homelessness and hunger (not to mention reduced access to entertainment media) even if there is plenty for everyone, even if thanks to technology, only the people who enjoy working in construction and food production do so? Is it good that when technology makes certain professions unneeded, that the corporations get all the benefits, while the obsolete workers get nothing but a sudden need to find new careers, or go homeless?

Some people seem to think that my idea for compensating digital content creators is unrealistic. Under the current system, many people develop computer games for corporations. For a major title, most of the money goes to Wal-Death and other chain retail stores, some goes to other vendors, the publisher makes or loses depending on how well the mass market responded, and the actual developers generally get a small slice. If games were distributed essentially for free over the net, then most of the money the public pays to the retail/distribution/publisher etc engines doesn't exist. If the public paid an agency for the right to all media in a catalog (which ideally, would be most/all media, in my opinion), much less would be needed to support the same amount of content.

Some have objected to the idea of paying for unwanted or disapproved content, but it seems like they've missed (dismissed?) the part about people being able to indicate which works and creators they appreciate (equally, they could say which ones they disapprove), and this would determine the amount of compensation.

This is not an abandonment of free enterprise, but a further liberation of enterprise and artistry from the yoke of megacorporations and the threat of starvation for struggling artists.

PvK

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 09:40 PM

Pvk, how do you determine who qualifies as an artist/author able to receive the "stipend" you talked about? What's to stop everyone form declaring themselves an artist and getting a free check even if they produce nothing worthwhile?

Geoschmo

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
...
From the perspective of the author of the work what is the difference if another company makes a million copies and sells them without compensating him, or if a million people all make one copy without compensating him. Either way that is one million copies he doesn't get paid for.

As to your other point I will plead ignorance. I have never heard of a company patenting an idea the way you are describing it. In fact to my knokwledge you have to have some sort of diagram to get a patent. How do you diagram an idea?

GeoschmoIn the one case, the public decided to buy a million copies of the work, and someone else got the money. (Reminds me of the current corporate model.)

In the other case, no one thought the work was worth the price, but a million people thought it was interesting enough to copy.

Seems like a big difference to me.

You patent an idea by having a moronic patent office. There are all sorts of patented ideas, including for many computer algorithms which are quite easy to independently develop without any foreknowledge, but would be against patent law to use if you did. E.g. I believe I have seen the patent for Huffman encoding, which is essentially the extremely basic idea that you could store something like:

abcEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEeEEEe

as:

abc(10xEEEe)

Oh boy, let's reward the sleezes who thought of a clever but fundamental idea (or whose employees did) and then decided to get the goverment to let only them use it.

PvK

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Pvk, how do you determine who qualifies as an artist/author able to receive the "stipend" you talked about? What's to stop everyone form declaring themselves an artist and getting a free check even if they produce nothing worthwhile?

GeoschmoYou can only give stipends to people who receive a certain amount of the voluntary approvals from the consumers.

PvK

Loser

July 16th, 2003, 09:57 PM

I'm not sure I have a nice rational argument with which to confront your ideas, PvK, but they sound far to socialist to me. Establishing this central agency... well... sometimes such things are necessary, but it's to be avoided as much as possible.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
In the one case, the public decided to buy a million copies of the work, and someone else got the money. (Reminds me of the current corporate model.)

In the other case, no one thought the work was worth the price, but a million people thought it was interesting enough to copy.

Seems like a big difference to me.
Actually in the second it may have been worth the price. But why pay for it if you can get it for free and not be breaking the law?

I think I agree with Tesco. If he is saying that after five years you can freely copy it as long as you don't sell it, but before five years you aren't allowed to copy it. I think that is reasonable. Five years is a LONG time for software.

But Pvk if I understand you correctly, you are advocating changing the law so that there is no recrimination whatsoever for copying the software at any time as long as it's not being sold. If it wasn't agasist the law to make a copy of software why would anyone ever buy it? Even great software that you love and would pay for if you had to. You'd be stupid to pay for it if you could get it free wouldn't you?

Just because copying is easy and stopping it is hard doesn't mean it's ok and we shouldn't try.

Basically all software would be shareware. And how often do shareware authors make any money? Of course a few have made some. Aaron did himself with SE3. But not enough to do this full time.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
You can only give stipends to people who receive a certain amount of the voluntary approvals from the consumers.
So why not just cut out the inefficent middle man and just let the buyers buy what they want from the sellers they like. If the seller doesn't make something the buyer wants he'll get it from someone else. There's your voluntary approval right there.

Capitalism, what a concept. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
You can only give stipends to people who receive a certain amount of the voluntary approvals from the consumers.
So why not just cut out the inefficent middle man and just let the buyers buy what they want from the sellers they like. If the seller doesn't make something the buyer wants he'll get it from someone else. There's your voluntary approval right there.

Capitalism, what a concept. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>You're just ignoring the points and the topic. There are many reasons. Two are:

1) Like your previous suggestion, your solution doesn't address unauthorized copying. My system authorizes all copying. Your system retains incentive to copy without paying, but technology makes such copying trivial and costless (except to the creator who loses compensation). Nonetheless, your suggestion works to a limited extent, as evidenced by Shrapnel.

2) Your suggestion doesn't include how to eliminate the current megacorporate leeches which dominate the industry.

PvK

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Copyright of characters vs. stories...

That is something of a problem. A trademark is traditionally something used to identify a business to its customers. Mickey Mouse is a trademark because he's the 'face' of Disney. The other characters invented by Disney are not necessarily trademarks. Donald Duck, Scrooge McDuck, Goofy, Pluto, etc... Control freaks like Walt Disney, Inc. are obviously not going to be pleased with losing control of even minor characters. But then corporations are often not pleased that they have competition at all, witness Microsoft and the 'pay me for every machine you ship' license on DOS and Windows. The public has to get off its collective arse and make Congress understand that copyright has gone to far. There's no other solution to the problem.

A reasonable limit on copyright duration is just going to have to be sufficient. Give people the time to get some decent benefits from what they invent, and then have a firm end of copyright. I advocate 21 years myself. This is the traditional length of a 'generation' even though we've lowered the voting age to 18 recently. (That was because of the complaints during the Vietnam War that 18 year-olds were old enough to die in war but not old enough to vote, remember.) Anyway, 21 years after a book, song, movie is released you've got a whole new generation of people who have grown up with it. It's just 'part of the world' for them. They can't remember a time when it wasn't around. So, it's time to let it go.

Yes, corporations 'owning' patents and copyrights is a problem. It's the source of the current warping of the law, actually. Because of the direct links of stock value to the compensation of top officers of the corporation suits have an incentive to try every trick they can come up with to increase the bottom line for their corporate monster^H^H^H^H^H^H^ master. You do know that almost all employment contracts include the right of the employer to all creations of the employee on the job, and sometimes even on their own time? Many people don't realize what they are signing, but those contracts really do say that the company owns everything you do. This is something else that needs to be stopped by Congress -- i.e. the general public has to get off their arse.

A real solution to the 'making a living' problem for artists of all stripes would be to set legal limits for the percentage of price for a copyrighted work that a corporate 'distributor' could take. Thus guaranteeing the 'original creator' a certain portion of his earnings. As it is now for example, most contemporary record labels don't pay 'their artists' a red cent in royalties. They have structured the contracts in (frankly illegal) ways that guarantee them all the profits and the artists get all the charges, resulting in the artists owing the corporations money. Most acts only make money on tour. A few actually do own at least a share in their own labels (Anni di Franco, Loreena McKennit, Metallica) and actually get some of the corporate profits.

(Hint: If you buy the CD of your favorite artist directly from them AT THE CONCERT they get the share that normally goes to the retail outlet. This is orders of magnitude more than they would normally get. Don't buy the CD at the store. Wait. Go to see them on tour and buy it directly from them. This doesn't solve the corporate greed problem, but it helps the artists.)

The most evil, slimey, disgusting trick of all is the 'work for hire' clause in those contracts. According to current copyright law a 'performance' cannot be a work for hire. Yet they have had this clause defining all songs/albums as 'works for hire' in their contracts for decades. If the artist notices they get the glad-hander reply 'but that's not valid so it doesn't mean anything'... yes, but all the time they have been lobbying to CHANGE THE LAW. They nearly got it passed a few years ago (it was an amendment or 'rider' on the 1998 copyright extension as I recall). Those b*st*rd suits have been plotting to rob 'their artists' once and for all even while they are whining before congress about how this 'piracy' hurts 'their artists'. How many of the complainers (ahem, Lars from Metallica?) even know this? It was just barely kicked out of the bill before it was finalized.

[ July 16, 2003, 21:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie

July 16th, 2003, 10:26 PM

What about a tax rate of 0.1% per employee?
Don't hire more than 1000 employees, or you're in trouble.

Encourage small, friendly mom & pop home businesses.

Baron Munchausen

July 16th, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
geo you can patient the idea for a train.... There are companies that just patient ideas and only ideas. Major corp's push this all the time.

You no longer have to beat someone to producing a product people like and purchase. You just have to beat the company who builds it by only coming up with a concept and prooving it in court.... That is it.

And the copy would fall under non commerical use. Commerical use would be for another company / person to use the code and sell it for profit...This is another facet of the 'intellectual property' fiasco. Yes there are corporate 'entities' out there whose sole purpose for existance is to litigate over copyrights and patents. And yes you can patent 'general ideas' like Amazon.com's 'one click purchase' obscenity. This is not so much a function of legal stupidity as incompetent patent officers. The process of getting a patent hasn't been legally changed in generations. The people staffing the office have just gotten stupid. There undoubtedly will have to be some reform of the US Patent office as well as strictly legal reform.

The current hassles that SCO/Caldera is causing with Linux are in this same Category. They had complete turnover of management and the new staff decided that they couldn't make money the legit way and their best chance to get some money out of the corpse of the business was to start suing people. The plan seems to be that either they extort money from IBM by lawsuit or they scare IBM into buying them out before they completely crash and get sued by the shareholders.

[ July 16, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
You're just ignoring the points and the topic. There are many reasons. Two are:

1) Like your previous suggestion, your solution doesn't address unauthorized copying. My system authorizes all copying. Your system retains incentive to copy without paying, but technology makes such copying trivial and costless (except to the creator who loses compensation). Nonetheless, your suggestion works to a limited extent, as evidenced by Shrapnel.

2) Your suggestion doesn't include how to eliminate the current megacorporate leeches which dominate the industry.

PvK1) My solution adresses it. It's illegal. Just because something illegal is easy to do and hard to stop doesn't mean we give up trying. A better method is like what Baron and Tesco are advocating, getting to the root of the actual problems and solving them rather then scrapping our entire economic system and handing over all art, entertainment, and software to some faceless burocracy.

2) You must not have read it then. I said that corporations should not be able to own copyrights. I said that artists/authors should control the distribution and recive the compensation for their production. What else do you want, beside the right to copy freely any software you feel like jsut because you can?

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
I'm not sure I have a nice rational argument with which to confront your ideas, PvK, but they sound far to socialist to me. Establishing this central agency... well... sometimes such things are necessary, but it's to be avoided as much as possible.Well the issue of how well an idea or system is carried out is extremely important. Socialism in the Soviet Union was largely a new flavor of abuse. Socialism in Sweden seems to work pretty well. I still don't think I'd label myself a "socialist" (particularly in company that seems to stigmatize the term). Megacorporate capitalism however is getting worse and worse at its own system, taking over governmental and legal powers, dominating media with crud, and soon, dominating computers with "secure" hardware and software which will get everyone to pay them constantly for the right to continue to use corporate intellectual property.

The idea I've proposed could be implemented as a private corporate business model too, but it's a bit less efficient, because you can't completely avoid the copy problem and the media base is less widespread.

For example, MegaMedia Corp can announce a subscription for full access to all the media it "owns", for a yearly fee of only say, $20. If they can control access and make it cheap and convenient to distribute to Subscribers, then probably practically everyone interested will Subscribe.

That's better than the current system, because people get much more content for less, and they don't have to worry about purchasing each title. Copying may be controlled simply by the low price - if it's so cheap and easy to get everything legitimately, then would-be "thieves" won't bother, or will be controlled by peer pressure. "You stole it? You didn't just Subscribe? It's only $20 and I did it - what a lamer!"

The thing is, corporations by their current nature, want to maximize profit, and don't care about society's benefit unless it helps their bottom line, and so they'll probably figure they should shoot for a higher cost, pushing the line where people will want to copy it.

Within the capitalist model, it gets back to the point others have made, that piracy is essentially competition for corporations. Essentially, corporations want to squeeze as much as they can out of their products, even if it means violating the nature of the media, and buying the legal and political influence to impose their will. They may be paranoid and naive to some degree here - they might actually make more money if they just lowered their prices and made simple network distribution.

However, I still prefer the promise of a non-corporate system (executed by conscientious Swedes, of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) with a charter not to maximize its own profits, but to support the creation of the best media and make it available to everyone.

For one thing, even if the corporate model changes so that they offer all their media for a cheap flat price, they're still going to only give as little as they can to the people who actually make the media.

PvK

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
For example, MegaMedia Corp can announce a subscription for full access to all the media it "owns", for a yearly fee of only say, $20. If they can control access and make it cheap and convenient to distribute to Subscribers, then probably practically everyone interested will Subscribe.

That's better than the current system, because people get much more content for less, and they don't have to worry about purchasing each title. Copying may be controlled simply by the low price - if it's so cheap and easy to get everything legitimately, then would-be "thieves" won't bother, or will be controlled by peer pressure. "You stole it? You didn't just Subscribe? It's only $20 and I did it - what a lamer!"
Now this I think is a great idea. As long as it's voluntary. Instead of the coporation though the artists/authors could band together like the guilds of old. This gives them access to enough capital to market their production, but they aren't forced into the contracts that are such a problem.

Just don't make it a government thing that you have to join and have no alternatives to and I would hapily support it.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
A real solution to the 'making a living' problem for artists of all stripes would be to set legal limits for the percentage of price for a copyrighted work that a corporate 'distributor' could take. Thus guaranteeing the 'original creator' a certain portion of his earnings.Well, I have a personal problem with any sort of mandated price limits.

I think a better alternative would be simply to make all these types of contracts illegal. The artist/author should retain complete control of the rights to their work. They should be allowed to enter into agreements with a publisher/distributor/marketer, but have the legal right to recind the agreement at ANY TIME and go somewhere else. An artist could negotiate a deal like this now, and some of the well established stars do. But new artists don't get deals like this because they need the company at first more then the company needs them. Because of this unequal position the company can make unreasonable demands and if the artist doesn't like it they can go back to stocking shelves at the A&P and the company will just find another artist that will sign on the dotted line.

If all these type deals were illegal the company would lose that leverage. They would be forced to actually work for the artist instead of the other way around.

Not setting price limits would allow a new artist to get their foot in the door easier. They could take a pittance at first to gain access to the marketing, distribution channels. They would be taking the risk on their own talent that they think they have. It's the definition of entrepreneurism. Then once they become established they would be free to renegotiate their deal at any time.

Geoschmo

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
1) My solution adresses it. It's illegal. Just because something illegal is easy to do and hard to stop doesn't mean we give up trying. A better method is like what Baron and Tesco are advocating, getting to the root of the actual problems and solving them rather then scrapping our entire economic system and handing over all art, entertainment, and software to some faceless burocracy.

2) You must not have read it then. I said that corporations should not be able to own copyrights. I said that artists/authors should control the distribution and recive the compensation for their production. What else do you want, beside the right to copy freely any software you feel like jsut because you can?I was replying to your short message which I quoted, not your earlier proposal.

The problem with anti-piracy laws is that they're obsolete and unenforceable. Or if you can enforce them, it is with very invasive stuff that forces you to surveil the public, and/or make all your computers look for copyright codes and refuse to copy data that has them. That's scary stuff, which a megacorp near you is working on.

Suppose you're playing Space Empires X, empire creation, and you can choose whether you want your people to have free access to all their own media or not, as a society. Which empire is going to have better research and happiness Ratings? The one where the average citizen can only afford to access 0.01% of the media?

PvK

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Both the Baron's and Geo's ideas below sound like they'd be great steps in the right direction, to me. They don't really address piracy, though, just other corporate abuses.

PvK

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
A real solution to the 'making a living' problem for artists of all stripes would be to set legal limits for the percentage of price for a copyrighted work that a corporate 'distributor' could take. Thus guaranteeing the 'original creator' a certain portion of his earnings.Well, I have a personal problem with any sort of mandated price limits.

I think a better alternative would be simply to make all these types of contracts illegal. The artist/author should retain complete control of the rights to their work. They should be allowed to enter into agreements with a publisher/distributor/marketer, but have the legal right to recind the agreement at ANY TIME and go somewhere else. An artist could negotiate a deal like this now, and some of the well established stars do. But new artists don't get deals like this because they need the company at first more then the company needs them. Because of this unequal position the company can make unreasonable demands and if the artist doesn't like it they can go back to stocking shelves at the A&P and the company will just find another artist that will sign on the dotted line.

If all these type deals were illegal the company would lose that leverage. They would be forced to actually work for the artist instead of the other way around.

Not setting price limits would allow a new artist to get their foot in the door easier. They could take a pittance at first to gain access to the marketing, distribution channels. They would be taking the risk on their own talent that they think they have. It's the definition of entrepreneurism. Then once they become established they would be free to renegotiate their deal at any time.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
What about a tax rate of 0.1% per employee?
Don't hire more than 1000 employees, or you're in trouble.

Encourage small, friendly mom & pop home businesses.Sounds like a better system than megacorps taking over the world!

PvK

geoschmo

July 16th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
[QUOTE]The problem with anti-piracy laws is that they're obsolete and unenforceable...... Which empire is going to have better research and happiness Ratings? The one where the average citizen can only afford to access 0.01% of the media?
If copyright were limited and reasonable then it wouldn't have to result in 99% of the population not having access. But simply not enforcing copyright because it is to hard to do is a bad solution. A reasonable copyright strictly enforced will incentivise inovation, creative production and cause a greater rate of research.

Geoschmo

PvK

July 16th, 2003, 11:59 PM

Sounds like motivating your public with threats and surveillance to me. I think you will end up generating a revolutionary faction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

BTW, my personal policy is to buy games I respect enough to want (which ends up being a short list), though I often shop around, wait for price drops, and/or buy used.

PvK

deccan

July 17th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by rdouglass:
http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2003-06-17.1667.phtmlWell, that particular case certainly didn't involve EULA issues. It involved outright software piracy which is a copyright infringement. Copyrighted products are protected by copyright laws and have nothing to do with the EULA, after all books don't come with EULAs, but that doesn't mean that it's legal to copy and distribute copyrighted books.

In a sense this is a straw man issue. The real issue, as most people have realized judging by the direction in which the discussion has moved, is the issue of intellectual property, i.e. patents, trademarks, copyrights and such. Products simply don't need EULAs to be protected from unauthorized copying.

However, in cases where the EULA purports to specify ways in which the product may be used, , or to specify that the product can't be decompiled or analyzed to see how it works, or to restrict the right of the buyer to re-sell the product, then it's on doubtful legal grounds.

[ July 17, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: deccan ]

deccan

July 17th, 2003, 01:20 AM

The Economist is known for being a bastion of liberal free entreprise and is considered pro-business. But for the past few months, The Economist has taken a decidedly skeptical attitude towards the issue of intellectual property. Here are some excerpts:

Markets for ideas
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=574263

Excerpt:

POPULAR discussion about intellectual-property rights is bedevilled by a recurring confusion. Few people any longer insist that �property is theft�, as Proudhon claimed. The centrality of property rights in a well-ordered market economy is so much taken for granted that the idea has seeped below the level of mainstream consciousness. So when owners of intellectual property say they are being robbed�as the record companies said they were, by Napster, or as big pharmaceutical companies say they are, by producers of cheap drugs in poor countries�one�s instinct is to see things their way. Property comes in many forms, one supposes, but whatever form it takes, stealing it must be wrong.

Not so fast. The urge to possess may be a basic human instinct, but the legal idea of property�and what, precisely, this complicated notion entails�is a human invention, developed down the years (and still being revised) to serve economic and social goals. The law on intellectual property, in particular, is everywhere both comparatively new and in flux. This is not a question of black and white, of right or wrong, as rich-country owners of intellectual property insist. It is a matter of striking a balance�and it is possible that owners are getting too much of a good deal.

Patently absurd?
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=662374

Excerpt:

Innovation does not happen by accident. It takes long hours and a great deal of investment�often many millions of dollars. By conferring a monopoly to exploit a particular technology for a fixed period of time (increased recently in America from 17 to 20 years to bring it into line with Europe), patents create incentives for investors to put money into risky new ideas. But monopolies create problems of their own. Firms or individuals holding patents must register and defend them, risking potentially crippling lawsuits. Those without patents must license them, or engage in inefficient and anti-competitive alliances.

Economists have tussled for decades over ways to balance these costs and benefits. That debate is now taking a fresh turn. Growing numbers of economists are unearthing evidence that America�s patent regime is out of step with precisely those values it was designed to promote. Some believe that, in certain industries, strengthening intellectual-property protection accomplishes nothing positive. Others think that it may actually do some harm. If these economists are correct, patent-holders themselves may soon start clamouring for weaker, and not stronger, protection.

�Everything under the sun made by man is patentable,� asserted the American Supreme Court in a landmark decision in 1980 that left inventors scrambling to stake out their places in the sun. Between 1982 and 1992, the number of patents issued each year in America doubled from 55,000 to almost 110,000. �We are the patent office, not the rejection office,� said Bruce Lehman, the PTO�s commissioner at the time.Computers led the patent surge, with the number of related patents tripling between 1982 and 1992. Semiconductor patents increased fivefold over the same period (see chart).

As a result, Carl Shapiro, an economist at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, says that computing, semiconductor and information-technology firms now encounter a �thicket� of patents that constrain their inventiveness. This phenomenon has been dubbed the �Tragedy of the Anti-Commons��in contrast to the classic �Tragedy of the Commons� that described how free resources such as fresh air and clean water could be over-used and destroyed by selfish agents. Here, the opposite occurs: when lots of property owners have to grant permission before a resource can be used, the result is that the resource tends to be chronically under-used. �In the case of patents,� says Mr Shapiro, �innovation is stifled.�

Do firms become more innovative when they increase their patenting activity? Studies of the most patent-conscious business of all�the semiconductor industry�suggest they do not. Rosemarie Ziedonis at Wharton Business School in Pennsylvania and Bronwyn Hall at Haas found that investment in R&D (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase during the industry�s most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of each dollar they spent on R&D. From 1982 to 1992, the chip makers doubled their output of patents from 0.3 to 0.6 for every million dollars of R&D. That was at a time when the patent yield in other industries had barely budged.

deccan

July 17th, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong. For me morality is an absolute issue by definition. Stealing is one of the things my sense of morality says is wrong. Call me archaic, call me whatever you want but I believe what I believe. I can acknoledge that some people don't agree with me and even be civil towards them, but I am not going to accept that stealing is ok just because their "definition" of morality doesn't have a problem with it.I'm not sure whether or not it's okay to bring this up again, but I really feel like bringing a number of things to Geo's attention.

There are heaps and heaps of books written on the subject of morality in particular and value theory in general, so any summarized description of the issue is clearly lacking in many ways.

However, one thing that is clearly unresolved is that there are deep, logical problems with the concept of "absolute morality".

This article is a good description:

On the Nature of Morality
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/morality.htm

Note in particular these excerpts:

"... by objective morality is meant a moral view which claims that there exists a morality which is external to human beings. Much like the existence of a law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any conscious being. Hence, morality is not a human fabrication - it merely awaits to be detected. In contrast, subjective morality denotes the view that moral views are nothing but human opinions, the origin of which is biological, social, and psychological. Without conscious beings, there would be no such thing as morality. Furthermore, on the subjective view, it is not possible to deem a moral opinion "true" or "false" - since such assessments require some objective standard against which to assess."

"... it is important to distinguish subjective morality from moral relativism, which claims that moral views differ between different contexts or cultures, and from moral nihilism, which states that there is no morality or that morality does not matter. One possible implication of moral relativism, which is quite often wrongly inferred as being contained in the general class of subjective meta-ethics, is the view that moral statements can only be considered applicable in the context in which they are uttered."

I can't really comment further on Geo's position without knowing more specifics about his beliefs, but I do hope that he realizes that he won't be able to convince anyone of the rightness of the beliefs without advancing some logical argument in its support rather than relying on some subjective, personal moral intuition.

Furthermore, Geo, don't you think it would be good to know that your beliefs are right because they are grounded in reason rather than simply because you have an unassailable confidence in your intuition that they are right?