This is an extremely interesting discussion ... First: Before anyone gets all high and mighty about the immorality of downloading the computer game, just ask yourselves if you've ever been guilty of underage drinking, trying pot, or speeding (along with many other so called "it's okay to break this law" type scenarios). Second: I personally work for a company that sells a proprietary software solution (I'm a programmer/systems analyst). The company sells lots of licenses to the software and generates good revenue. Thus, being a productive and valuable employee, I earn a good, comfortable living. However, if lot's of our potential customers were able to easily hack our software and thus not have to pay for a license, my company would go out of business, and thus I'd be out of a job. Therefore, sicne we are not giving our whole software solution away for free (parts of it are free, because they help sell the other parts), we need to charge for the licensing, and we need to have our copywrited material protected. Thus, I am sincerely in favor of proprietary products that people work hard on to produce and thus are able to sell it and earn a living. Third: I am also a huge fan of open source software. This is where the source code is open and shared and can be obtained for free. People are still able to earn a living because the paid services come with implementation, packaging, support, and consulting. Open source is great because intellectual ideas are shared and built upon other ideas and the software is able to improve on an exponential basis. To put it another way, just imagine if every scientific discovery were copywrited and made proprietary. There would be no way for human beings to build upon each other's knowledge and our development would slow down to a crawl. I also believe that the entertainment industry and much of the software industry gets away with a huge amount of price gouging. I costs a few bucks, tops, to produce a CD, then maybe a buck for shipping and packaging, then the retailer has a minimal mark-up. It's the record company that is charging way to much for the CD (we end up paying on average $18). And the new WinXP authorization scheme (so that you can't install it on another PC) is ridiculous. Conclusion - Don't steal someone's intellectual property - you are only taking someone out of a job. However, the idea of free sharing of ideas is a must, and many of the industries that depend on intellectual property need to get more customer oriented and provide more value.
I think elegant answers to complex problems are often simple, but evidently not simple enough for you so I'll explain it further. Companies that can make a profit from selling their product = a viable company. Companies that can't make a profit from selling their product = a non-viable company. Propping up a non-viable company for illogical reasons is ultimatly a poor economic choice and hurts viable companies. For example, let's say that a bank has made a bunch of loans to a non-viable company. The non-viable company can't repay the loans, but for some illogical reason the bank won't forclose. The bank is in effect propping up the non-viable company. Now let's say that you have a great business idea that you know will make a viable company. But you can't start you company for two reasons; the bank can't loan you any money because it's all tied up with the non-viable companies, and you'll never succeed because it's impossible to compete agains a company that doesn't have to pay it's bills (like the non-viable company). Maybe you think this is a silly scenario, but it's in fact a stripped down version of what is happening in Japan right now. The banks refuse to close down what we call here "Zombie" companies, and it's killing the economy. Banks refusing to close bad companies is not logical. Some other not logical propping up might be....."Buy American"....Government bailouts.....wars for profit.....and most importantly to this thread companies that base their business plan on the mysterious "ownership" of an idea.
I don't know, but you did come here asking for the rest of us to pass judgement upon you. Maybe you should ask yourself, is it time to grow up and participate in society? I mean, even after Christian Slater finished "Gleaming the Cube" and doing his anti-everything position, he came to realize that he was headed down the wrong path and has since tried to be a real actor.
By this logic, I should start stealing books. I know for a fact that Barnes and Noble does not prosecute shoplifters. So I know I will get away with it. And since Barnes and Noble, and the book publishers, have done nothing to stop me, it's only the flaw in their business plan which I'm exploiting. Why on earth should I pay for a book when I can get one for free? It's totally illogical for me as a consumer to pay. Yes, the publishers and the bookstore will lose money, but then I guess they're just not viable companies, right?
One more thing: There is a middle ground here. Software companies, writers, the entertainment industry, etc, can all make lot's of money by giving stuff away. Sound ridiculus? Perhaps not. Here are some real life examples of how this works: 1. Bruce Eckel, an author of programming language learning books, gives his most famous titles ("Thinking in C++" and "Thinking in Java") away for free, in electronic form (pdf or HTML format). You can download these books for free and read their entire contents on your PC (or print them up if you want). Yet, Bruce Eckel still sells lots of the full printed and bound copies of his books. Amazing. It turns out that people prefer to have a printed and bound version of a book and are willing to fork out the $30 to $40 for a computer book, even though they already have it in electronic format. The electronic version would simply wet people's appetite for the book, then they go and buy it. Bruce Eckel also makes a good living in his training and consulting business. The free electronic versions of his books help bring in more volume for those branches of his business. 2. SuSe Linux was just purchased by Novel for $210 million. You can obtain SuSe Linux softare for free download. SuSe, along with Red Hat, built a viable business on their Linux distos by adding value in their packaging, testing, services, training and support. You can get the software for free, but if you get it for free, you don't get the other stuff. 3. IBM is making billions on selling servers and consulting services, both built on Linux (which, again, can be obtained for free). 4. Napster. The now defunct Napster, by many accounts from many artists and those in the industry, actually helped music sales and the selling of concert tickets. Young people (the largest segment of the music buying public, but also of limited income), could freely exchange music. This would make it easy for them to try out stuff that they would otherwise be hesitant to fork out $18 for. Then they would turn around and purchase the stuff they liked (it's nice to have the full cd, with the case and lyrics and artwork and better sound quality), and go to concerts of artists that they would otherwise not be familiar with. Finally, getting back to my previous post, if my company's software was stolen and I thus lost my job, it would be more easy for me to find another job in the consulting business, based upon open standards and free or low cost software. I would earn just as much, if not more, money in the consulting field.
Actually, suggesting making money off live show is exactly what I'm going to do, but I'll address situations where that won't work a bit farther down. Musicians can make money off live shows. The Dead made a comfortable living doing this for years, all the while actively encouraging their fans to pirate their music. Performers in Las Vegas and on Broadway also make almost all their profits on live shows rather than from copyright laws. CDs will become freely distributed advertisements for upcoming live shows. Movies can make money off showing movies in theaters, as they did for 70 years before video and dvd came along. Many people still go to the theaters now, even me and even when I know I can bootleg the movie for less than the ticket price. Game companies will have to move to subscription based models. In Asia, a game called Lineage is the big noise with 4 million subscribers. You download the game for free, then pay a monthly fee to play. I think games like Ultima and Everquest work about the same way. Eversince I was 17 and my science fiction novel idea was rejected by Bantam I've had it in for the publishing companies, but I think they are more or less safe as is. Not because books are so great but because no one has come up with an easy way to reproduce books yet. pdf files just don't cut it. You can't read a pdf file on the beach or in a coffee shop during you're lunch break. Obviously these are just some examples, and might not be appropriate in some cases like Spejic's favorite bands. But notice what they all have in common. In each instance the companies are selling some thing or experience that consumers can't easily reproduce. I think even CDs and DVDs could be profitable if they were marketed with something that consumers really wanted that wasn't easily reproducable, like poster's or really good liner notes or something. I don't know how Spejic's bands will make money, but if they are really creative they should be able to come up with an idea on their own. Whatever it is, it will involve marketing something that consumers can't make or copy on their own.
Ok, one more time for people in the back who didn't hear the first few times...... Physical property is different from intelectual property. The same rules don't apply. Robbing a bank is not called copyright violation, downloading a song is not called theft. Let's see if a little arithmatic helps clear things up. If I steal an actual physical book from barnes and noble, they have lost a book (1-1=0) and I have gained a book (0+1=1). The net gain of books in the world is zero, but books have shifted from one place to another. If I copy a cd from Barnes and Noble, they have lost nothing (1-0=1) and I have gained 1 cd (0+1=1). The net gain of books in the world is one. See the difference there?
Buy you havn't made the case yet why free intelectual property would create a better society besides the fact that you want to enjoy high-quality intelectual property now for no cost. Why do you think you can keep getting high-quality intelectual property when you remove the main reason people create such property in the first place?
And of course, if EVERYONE does this, the music industry will not be able to sell albums and make money. Here in Asia, the music industry is in a lot of trouble. Sony Taiwan has not signed any new artists in over a year due to the rampant piracy in Hong Kong, China, and also unfortunately in Taiwan. It IS a problem, and your logic, although it may sound good, has no basis in reality.
You make some great points, most of which I agree with. It's funny I wrote before that books were safe for now from pirating, but in my personal case the only exception are technical manuals. I'll often download those and use them, but this is mostly because I've been burned sooooo many times with terrible manuals. I don't know why computer technical books are so bad and so expensive, but I got sick of wasting money on them and just started downloading. However, when I find a good one I always buy it, not out of any sense of doing good, but just because I prefer leafing through the book with my hands rather than my mouse. I do think that most business that rely on intelectual property rights laws are in trouble if they don't change their ways. Although there are millions of people like me who bootleg stuff, there are still plenty of people willing to pay right now, enough for those companies to still make a profit, but I think that will be changing. The RIAA is now the most visable defender of copyrights, and they are taking two tacks. First, they are sueing p2p file sharers. But there are so many of us, I can't imagine that they'll really have much luck with this strategy. It might scare away a few people, but not many. Their other strategy is to market the idea that it's bad to copy stuff. Again in my opinion, "Just say no" to filesharing will have about as much impact as "Just say no" to pot did. I hope thay guys like you in the industry are working on ways to make money other than with intelectual property laws, because I'm pretty sure those laws are doomed.
First of all, if someone wants to be an artist or a programmer because they think they'll get rich they're not very smart. There are much more reliable ways. JeffS noted a bunch of ways that freedom of in information (maybe that's a better term than anti-copyright...much more appealing) so you might enjoy reading his posts. Back to the book again (if you read that post) if I give B&N money and they give me a book, then I've bought an physical property and we've both gained and lost something (money and books respectively). If I buy an intelectual property, then I've gained that property and lost money, but they've gained money and not lost anything. Is that more clear?
See? It's working! I've already brought Sony Taiwan to its knees!! I've written several times I think that intelectual property right laws are illogical and unenforceable. Now Sony Taiwan is finding that out, but my logic has no basis in reality? hmmmm, go figure..... Again, I think there are reliable ways for these companies and artists to make money other than reliance on some kind of imaginary ownership of an idea. I also predict that many of the less nimble companies are going to be in big trouble if they don't understand that.
There isn't a "better" media for all types of intelectual property. A downloaded song sounds as good as a CD and a downloaded game plays as well as the store bought version. So you want future intelectual property to be created by hobbyists and people with day jobs? You want software to be made by people that only get paid if they give support? Oh, boy, that sounds like fun. And if anyone can sell support, why doesn't everyone get out of the development business and into the support business? Of course, than nothing new gets made... There are valid ways of doing just this, such as listening to the radio, getting free stuff from the artist's web site, visiting MP3.com, getting cd samplers from stores, and so on. Who would be paying you for this and why? Don't forget that nothing about the current economic system prevents people from creating free intelectual property, and there are people right now that make free songs and software and so on. There arn't exactly a lot of jobs created because of it. By the way, there are plenty of "consultants" here in Silicon Valley, but most of America calls them unemployed.
First, tell me which ways so I can be rich. Second, if you can't get rich doing these things, then why would they ever get done? You are placing a WHOLE lot of faith that mere hobbyists can create quality products. As a programmer making a computer game as a hobby, let me tell you your faith is sadly misplaced. If you take the IP without paying, they will lose something. They lose the chance to sell the product to you. They lose control of an object they created. They lose the reason to make more IP in the future.
But you have not explained why it would be better for everyone if the laws did not exist. How does it help the Taiwanese (either music listeners or musicians) that they don't have any new indigenous acts?
One more comment. If you think that intelectual property can given away free and there are alternate ways of getting money from it, you have to explain the whole internet fiasco at the end of the 1990's, when everyone was creating content, giving it away free, and trying to find ways of getting money from it. They just about all failed.
So by that rationale, I guess it's ok to tap illegally into a cable box serving a building in order to steal free cable service - after all, you're not depriving the cable company or its other customers of anything. And I guess it's ok to sneak into a movie theatre and watch the movie for free from an empty seat - after all, they're showing it anyway and you're not depriving them of anything. You're a parasite, plain and simple. You have the same wants as everyone else - you want the same products as they do. But you rely on the fact that enough other people will actually pay for those products, in order to keep the flow of those products strong, so you can ghost in and steal your free copies. Yes, copyright infringements may not be "theft" in the legal sense of a criminal definition. But you asked this group to decide if you're a thief, which means you want to know whether you fall within the common definition, as decided by the people, not the legal definition. And I think the majority here have answered your question in the affirmative. You're a thief.
I think Makno is not a thief. He is one of these thousands of thousands of people who are transforming and revitalising the music industry. They are helping out the economy of America. Time for a change. F these music industry blood suckers. They can go to hell. Let's download another one!
I would tell you, but unfortunatly those ideas are someone's intelectual property, and as you know the free transfer of ideas is bad for the economy. Most of the rest of you posts are questions about how people would make money without copyright laws. Every good idea someone comes up with you find potential problems with or possible exceptions to. Nothing devestating, just nit-picking. I have a feeling that could go on for a long time, so let's stop it here. You ask if I have faith in hobbyists or something along those lines. What I have faith in is people's ingenuity at making money doing what they want to do. I think copyright laws are giving such people unfair competition. Regardless of the morality of filesharing, I think present trends show that companies that rely on intellectual property rights for profit are in trouble. The artists or creaters will probably come out allright, since people with actual skills usually do. The 10 percenters might want to brush up their resume's however.
Re: Re: A thief or just a criminal? Companies selling intellectual property are selling nothing for money, but I'm the parasite? Can't quite follow that logic.
Re: Re: Re: A thief or just a criminal? So software is "nothing"? So that program you're enjoying for free is "nothing"? Now THAT's a logic I can't quite follow. And I'd still like to hear you or Foosinho respond as to whether you believe sneaking into movies, or tapping into cable service is theft or not.
Still, people want the lyrics and artwork. Also, if you stick with the download, you can only play it on your PC. If you burn a CD, it invarably does not sound as good as an original store bought CD. The quality of the writable CD's is not that great. I think there's room for both the proprietary model and the open source model. There will always be proprietary solutions, because there are certain product types that open source does not do well. but the OS is where it excels. And, surprise surprise, there are literally millions of hobbyists who have produced tons of great software over the last 30 years. They do it because they love it. Also, many open source developers are very well paid. There are independant organizations that are subsidized by the big companies, because it is cheaper for the big companies to pay a little bit to the open source cause than to build their own operating system from scratch. And there are employees of the big companies that are paid to write open source software. And the software is overall better. Also, many open source developers get very well paying jobs because they have demonstrated a high degree of skill with their open source endevours. And actually Red Hat and SuSe are in both the development business and the support business. Yes, everything they sell in their Linux distros is completely available for free, in various forms. But it takes a lot of time and expertise to put together a complete linux system. So what Red Hat and SuSe are selling is essentially the service to put the various open source elements together (the linux kernel, the various gnu utilities, various productivity software, the desktop environments, games, development tools, networking services, easy installation programs - all the stuff that make up a complete OS system). And then they sell the support and documentation. Think of open source specifically, and open intellectual property in general, as a publicly traded company. Everyone invests in the company's stock to get a share of the pie of it's profits. The difference is open source is about mutually beneficial (and profitable) intellectual property, rather than pieces of stock. The funny thing was, the only artist that was worried about Napster was Metallica. When the whole issue was hot, I remember distinctly that most artists were saying Napster was good for their own fortunes. They saw it as the ultimate marketing tool, which they didn't have to pay for. Yes there are. Red Hat and SuSe employ a lot of people. IBM makes billions off open source deployment, and they employ thousands. Television and radio provides free content, and makes tons of money in advertising. Unemployment is hitting all industries. It's a terrible economy. But one of the few growth areas in IT has been Linux. And Linux, just like it's cousin Unix, takes some expertise at the enterprise level (it's relatively easy on the home desktop). This creates jobs. And with a lot of people being laid off from big companies, due to cutting back IT costs, the companies are looking more and more to consultants that have skill. This creates jobs, but in a different area than before (as opposed to full time jobs). Let me close by quoting an explaination from the website by the Free Software Foundation: "Free software does not mean software at no cost. Free software is about freedom. It's not free as in free beer, it's free as in free speech"
I'd like to make another point (and I'll keep it short this time ) BigSoccer, like the rest of the internet, utilizes free, open intellectual property (standards), like TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, and Java Script. If these protocols/languages (i.e. intellectual property) were proprietary and closed, the internet as we know it would not exist today (it would be damn near impossible). And the billions e-commerce has generated (and all the jobs that go with it) is well documented.
Another point (okay, I'll shut up after this one ) BigSoccer is likely an oranization that has to stay lean and mean. It generates some revenue from it's advertising and the BigSoccer store, but probably not tons of money. Therefore, I'm making a logical guess that they are using the cheapest software selections possible. I wouldn't be surprised if ... their servers likely run OS's like Linux or FreeBSD (both free or very low cost open source software). their web server software is Apache (free or very low cost open source software) their database is either MySQL or PostgreSQL (both free or very low cost open source software) And of course, they use the other open standards I already mentioned. I'm making a logical assumption, but BigSoccer might not be possible if it were not for open source software. Or it would cost a lot more (subscriptions, etc.)