It never ceases to amaze me how dense corporate types are when it comes to DRM. They repeatedly venture into the realms of stupidity and self-destruction. Supposedly, DRM exists to prevent people from pirating ‘intellectual property’. But because of the brain-dead decisions corporations make regarding DRM issues, it instead has the same effect on piracy that Bush’s War has on terrorism. The latest case is Microsoft’s decision to stop supporting the DRM licenses from its defunct MSN Music service.
The net effect of Microsoft’s decision amounts to a massive inconvenience: those who purchased music from the service won’t be able to play it on new computers without first burning it to CD, then copying to the new machine. That’s not as bad as not being able to play it at all. But, um, what about the people who bought several CDs worth of music? Of course, one Microsoft executive has this rock solid rationale to justify the move:
Microsoft exec Robert Bennett defended the company’s decision to destroy its MSN servers, arguing the move will affect only a small number of people.
That, of course, makes everything alright. Yeah, right.
While I sympathize with the MSN Music customers who are getting hit by this bit of silliness, the bigger picture is what concerns me most. This sort of boneheadedness does nothing to help the negative perception of DRM by consumers at large, but goes a long way toward making it worse. People who have never bought music from MSN are now going to point at it as an example of why DRM sucks and why they won’t bother buying any DRM protected music, ever. If that were all, there’d be no problem. But the greater issue is that this now becomes one more excuse people will use to rationalize their piracy of music. And more people who have never pirated music, after throwing up their hands in frustration, will realize that pirating is much easier and free of hassles.
Ultimately, the pirates aren’t alone in ruining it for the rest of us. The lion’s share of the blame can be laid at the feet of the corporations with their failure to handle the situation with common sense. Whether it’s music, videos, ebooks, software, or any other copyrighted digital content, all of the lower end, usually independent, producers of such content are ultimately getting screwed because these corporations have their heads up their asses. This crap could have been greatly slowed a decade ago had the corporations had the foresight and the common sense to adjust their business models to address the growing shift in consumer behavior. Not to mention the creativity to work out solutions other than the draconian DRM measures we see today. And still, after all of this time, they haven’t learned their lesson. Either they collectively have the mental capacity of a rock, or they live in a corporate bubble where reality is what they see when they close their eyes.
In the fast moving world of the internet and other technologies, it really helps if the people making decisions at a corporation really understand what’s going on. The days when you could live for a decade in ignorant bliss are long gone. The world is changing rapidly and companies who are affected by current and emerging tech need to be led by people who aren’t tied down by the bottom line, who can quickly make decisions based on unknown trends, who can recognize a shift in the market before it happens, and who can meet these challenges head on with solutions that make customers happy instead of treating them like criminals. Those who can’t keep up are going to lose money, alienate their customers, and, in some cases, cause irreparable damage to entire markets.
It’s sink or swim. And I’m tired of all those who are drowning bringing the rest of us down with them.
Technorati Tags: MSN Music, DRM, business, piracy, music, pirates, technology, internet
{ 26 } Comments
And more people who have never pirated music, after throwing up their hands in frustration, will realize that pirating is much easier and free of hassles.
That has always been the case. Piracy is the better choice
I am however curious on Pirates are “ruining for the rest of you”. Care to explain for it is not obvious.
The increase of the number of pirates however will help to stem the impending global warming crisis. The FSM says so.
Sorry, I had to throw that in.
I do concur that corporations have slipped up in this consumer deviancy. The same way that the auto industry (GM and Ford anyway) has slipped up in plugging along giving us consumers gas guzzlers when all the while they should have been focusing on the “here and now” rather than projected sales. Toyota was on the ball when GM and Ford dropped it.
That has always been the case.
Indeed. My point is that Microsoft’s decision here continues that vicious circle rather than breaking it.
I am however curious on Pirates are “ruining for the rest of you”.
Those of us who actually respect the right of content creators to profit for their work are forced to suffer for it. We get rootkits stealthily installed by Sony, or games with copy protection that doesn’t let them play on some computers because of false positives. Or we get software that requires you to be online every time you run it in order to verify that it’s licensed, meaning you can’t run it on your laptop when your traveling with no internet connection. Or we have to put up with the crap Microsoft is dishing out to its MSN music customers. In short, we get treated like criminals while the pirates do what they please.
Independent musicians, software developers, authors, and what have you, those who work out of their basements, garages and bedrooms with no corporate backing, for the love of what they do, also pay the price. It’s not the hardcore I’ll-never-pay-for-information type of pirates that hurt them, but the casual ones. Those who copy and distribute content to, or receive it from, their coworkers and friends. Casual pirates *are* potential customers who are being lost. And to an indie every lost customer represents one more setback in the struggle to work full time doing what they love to do.
Casual pirates *are* potential customers who are being lost.
Blatantly untrue. Casual pirates are quite unlikely to buy an album, software or whatever without first sampling it. Sharing is like word of mouth. Even if not all people who get shared items end up buying them, it is quite likely that they will buy merchandise or go to concerts.
As for software, well since it’s been painfully obvious that copy-protection measures do not work, and that people still buy them, I am still surprised that companies do not just stop paying that cost (of paying for copy-protection), pass it to their consumers as lower price and see the sales become larger as the software is more affordable.
What I see is that companies are ruining it for the rest of you but you’re also ruining for yourself by not embracing other business methods.
Just see Magnatune which sells songs while giving free samples (embracing sharing) and still makes a profit, for the artist and for the store.
Just see games like Galactic Civilization which did not install copy-protections and still managed to do quite well.
Blatantly untrue. Casual pirates are quite unlikely to buy an album, software or whatever without first sampling it.
I’m coming at this from the perspective of downloadable games by indie developers. Nearly every one of them will have a demo available. Many of them use some form of copy protection, but it’s usually very weak and is often the result of getting their games on the portals like BigFish or Real Arcade. You can’t convince me that casual game pirates are not potential customers in that market. Note I said potential.
If a soccer mom stumbled across a causal game she’s interested in, she may very well buy it. But if it’s handed to her on a burned CD by the soccer mom next door, she now has no incentive to buy. And very likely no inclination to either. That’s the sort of person to whom I’m referring with the phrase ‘casual pirate’. Joe Blow in a college dorm, living on a diet of beer and Ramen, might be a casual pirate (or he might be hardcore), but he isn’t going to be a potential customer until he gets out in the real world. And maybe not even then. So when I talk of casual pirates, I’m talking about soccer moms and Dave over in Accounting who piddles around with Bejewelled when he’s bored.
Just see games like Galactic Civilization which did not install copy-protections and still managed to do quite well.
Stardock, the developers of GC, often come up in piracy discussions among indie developers. I’ve found three schools of thought in the indie game dev world regarding piracy:
1) there’s nothing you can do about it, so don’t even bother
2) you ought to do everything you can to prevent your game from being pirated (such as requiring an internet connection for authentication every time you launch the game)
3) you can’t stop hardcore pirates without pissing off legit customers, so just take some simple steps to discourage casual piracy
By far, #3 has been the most common attitude I’ve seen, but that might be changing. A recent experiment by one major indie developer indicated that over 90% of the people playing one of their games were playing pirated copies. That’s generated a new discussion and changed some minds. Now more people seem to be looking at option 2. I think we’ll be seeing more and more indie games requiring an internet connection to play.
No matter the reason people pirate, the response developers take to protect their interests are a direct result of that. So if the number of single player games that you can play offline diminish in the next few years, it’s the pirates to be blamed for it. No one likes seeing something in which they’ve invested a great deal of time, money, and effort treated as if it were community property. When it’s your dream to be a full time indie game developer, knowing full well you’ll never get rich doing it, it’s more than discouraging to see people stealing your dreams.
I am surprised that noone has thought that maybe, just maybe, the current business model does not suffice for the current environment. We are not living in the 80-90s anymore and things have changed. What you are producing (software) does not have any scarcity limitation.You are in effect creating an infinite good. What you need to do is capitalize on it by using a different business model.
it doesn’t matter if you use a simple of a draconian anti-piracy measure, it is still going to be cracked and shared. However if you do go for “method 2″ you will only hurt yourself as heavy anti-piracy is known to backfire against legal customers more than the pirates.
When I said/linked before “Piracy, The better choice.” this is the base meaning I was getting to.
Go online-only and it is you who will lose all the potential market of offline players. I’m not going to care one bit since, if we’re going to talk about simple single-player games, 1) I don’t play them, 2) Even If I feel the need to, me needs are covered by free software.
What I’m trying to say is, you’re not scaring anyone. Rather, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
One last thing. And I may sound a bit offensive but I’m not.
That sucks and all but honestly, that is no arguing point.
It might be my dream to be a full-time medieval blacksmith but if I try to visualize it I will (most probably, barring medieval faires) fail because there is just no market for it anymore
It might be my dream to be a full-time coach driver but I will fail, because there is just no market for it anymore.
Just because something is your dream, does not mean that the world has to conform to it.
Just because something used to be a viable business in the past, it does not mean that it will keep being one in the future and you trying to prevent that (like the recording industry is doing right now) will only make yourself the loser.
You are in effect creating an infinite good. What you need to do is capitalize on it by using a different business model.
That’s one of the points I made in the post. Corporations should have explored alternative business models rather than trying to force DRM down everyone’s throats. Specifically for games, there are several alternate business models. Unfortunately, most require a larger investment than traditional downloadable game development.
it doesn’t matter if you use a simple of a draconian anti-piracy measure, it is still going to be cracked and shared
No one disputes that. All developers know it’s impossible to prevent piracy. What they want to do is to reduce the impact on their bottom line. How to do that is what they can’t agree on.
It might be my dream to be a full-time medieval blacksmith but if I try to visualize it I will (most probably, barring medieval faires) fail because there is just no market for it anymore
It might be my dream to be a full-time coach driver but I will fail, because there is just no market for it anymore.
Apples and oranges. Blacksmithing and coach driving were obsoleted by technology. The problem here is that people are not respecting copyright. This is a social and moral dilemma, not a technological one.
Just because something is your dream, does not mean that the world has to conform to it.
I’m not suggesting that they do. My point is that as more content creators become discouraged seeing their dreams dashed against the rocks, they will give up. It’s pointless to churn out content that’s no one’s going to pay for. And as more content creators are driven out of business, who replaces them?
Just because something used to be a viable business in the past, it does not mean that it will keep being one in the future and you trying to prevent that (like the recording industry is doing right now) will only make yourself the loser.
You are reiterating one of my points, that the corporations didn’t react appropriately to the changing environment. The RIAA surely is going about this the wrong way. But I also blame people who pirate. Such willful violation of the law is troubling in more ways than one. There’s this percpetion that piracy is a victimless crime, that if anyone gets hurt it’s the corporations — the old stick-it-to-the-man attitude. That’s just not true. There are people getting hurt by piracy and potential pirates need to be educated about that.
Ultimately, everyone loses. Piracy has far reaching consequences that are not yet fully realized.
Not so. Both Blacksmithing, Coach Driving and Traditional Game creation had their business models eroded due to technology. Specifically, it is technology that allowed the widespread sharing that is hurting your bottom line.
Also, copyrights are just a (quite recent) legal measure designed to enhance cultural progress. They are not set in stone and have been corrupted beyond their original purpose which makes them hurt what they were designed to promote. Currently all they are doing is creating an artificial barrier/scarcity where the good is infinite, in order for people to have a reason to buy said good.
Also remember that not all laws are current to the technology era. Copyrights are severely obsolete as they were designed in order to prevent copying in a technology era were copying could not only be done at a high cost and by a few.
The obvious trend that people do not respect copyrights should give you a hint that the they do not belong any more in our age.. When a law is so widely ignored/dissented against, it is only a matter of time until it becomes irrelevant and taken down.
Look back in history and you will find others who’s business models were eroded by technology and who in turn, turned to the law to try and save their failing business. They too were complaining that nobody is respecting the laws and driving them out of business.
Unfortunately this line of defense did not help them either for progress cannot be denied and the world is now a better place.
Content creators that do not have the same problems with sharing as the old school does and/or find different business models.
Already free software and flash-based online freeware are taking over the casual gamer market.
You have a very negative view on the people who share.
The widespread willful violation of the law should give you a hint that the law is wrong, not the people.
Not all people who file-share are immature rebels-without-a-cause. I support file sharing because I disagree with the current satus-quo of copyrights which leads to less and less creativity for all. I don’t care about “sticking it to the Man” but about bettering the world and taking down copyrights seems a step in the right direction.
As a final note, here’s something relevant
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t consider it ’sharing’ when you distribute without my permission something I created. Creators have a right to profit from their work. Copyright law is certainly not outdated. I do agree it has been horribly distorted beyond its original intent, but it doesn’t take away the fundamental right to profit from one’s hard work.
Now, if you want to lend your ebook or software, that you legally purchased (I hate the concept of ‘licensing’) to someone, you have that right. That’s sharing. But if you do so, you should not retain a copy for yourself. If you keep a copy, you’ve gone beyond sharing and entered the realm of distribution. You do not have the right to distribute my software unless I explicitly grant it.
What you call sharing, I call stealing. The common argument against this position is that, unlike when you take a physical item such as a TV, the owner loses nothing when you copy digital content. That’s true in some cases, but not in others. And in my opinion, the word ’stealing’ should evolve to cover this behavior just as ‘piracy’ has. And it should become a criminal offense, rather than the civil offense it is now.
Fine, but that’s outside the concept of the copyrights which are supposed to be promoting innovation.
Stealing has a different meaning and does not apply. You only wish to use it for the negative connotation. If y
I believe it will eventually go the other way.
Fine, but that’s outside the concept of the copyrights which are supposed to be promoting innovation.
Patents are intended to promote innovation. Copyright is intended to guarantee content creators (originally authors) the right to profit from their work while ensuring that the very same work eventually becomes available to all. Before the corporations got their greedy paws into it, it was largely functioning as intended, having been updated over the years to account for more than just the written word.
Stealing has a different meaning and does not apply. You only wish to use it for the negative connotation.
Call it stealing, piracy, sharing, whatever you want to call it. It’s morally corrupt behavior.
Incorrect. The initial purpose of Copyrights was to provide incentives for promotions and creation of new work. They did this by granting a temporary artificial monopoly to the creator which allowed them to exploit the work they did.
Currently promotion is much better served by the free and easy distribution available by the internet while creation of new work has been shown to flourish much more outside of copyright restrictions.
Thus Copyrights do not serve no purpose they were designed for. On the contrary, they run counter to it by creating barriers where there are none.
Many millions of people would dissagree with you.
Just because you assert it, does not make it correct.
The initial purpose of Copyrights was to provide incentives for promotions and creation of new work.
We’re making the same point here. By guaranteeing the content creator’s right to profit, there is incentive to create more content. That’s just as true now as it was when it was first conceived.
Currently promotion is much better served by the free and easy distribution available by the internet while creation of new work has been shown to flourish much more outside of copyright restrictions
You keep asserting that technology is to blame. That’s just not the case. The technology makes it possible, but it’s the people who abuse the technology and their desire to get something for nothing that creates the problem. Just because the majority of society are losing the concept of right and wrong when it comes to copyrighted material doesn’ t make them all correct.
Free content, designated as such, can be promoted and distributed in any way one sees fit. But content intended to be sold for profit should not be.
Many millions of people would dissagree with you.
Sad, but true. I’m not arguing that times aren’t changing, or that it can be prevented. What I’m arguing is that it’s wrong. If all goods and services were treated equally, I’d not mind. The idea that it’s OK to copy and distribute reproducable goods simply because it can be done is absurd. Morally, it’s equivalent to taking a TV from a store without paying for it, even if it physically is different.
Just because you assert it, does not make it correct.
Right back at you.
The explosion in creative content in the last years is the proof to the contrary. It is plainly obvious that too many people do not need monetary compensation in order to create.
My previous sentence has nothing to do with placing blame. I am explaining how
1. Promotion of content is much better done through free distribution
2. Copyrights make it harder to create more content.
How about those people who want to build on something that is already created? They are being stopped by copyrights. As proof, see the plights of documentaries
You’ve asserted that it’s wrong based on the following.
1. It is wrong because the law says so
2. It is wrong because I’ll be left without a job
3. It is wrong because less content will be created.
I’ve countered all three of these claims before and my refutations remain unchallenged. You are merely restating your refuted assertion at this point.
Why is it absurd?
The explosion in creative content in the last years is the proof to the contrary. It is plainly obvious that too many people do not need monetary compensation in order to create.
That’s fine. Content creators have always had that prerogative. The internet allows them to reach much larger audiences than before. But their content is still protected by copyright unless they explicitly release it into the public domain.
1. Promotion of content is much better done through free distribution
Whether or not that’s true is irrelevant. It’s the owner of the copyright who gets to decide.
2. Copyrights make it harder to create more content.
I don’t see where you get that from. Copyright protects existing content and gives incentive to create new content.
You’ve asserted that it’s wrong based on the following.
1. It is wrong because the law says so
2. It is wrong because I’ll be left without a job
3. It is wrong because less content will be created.
Actually, point 1, yes. Points 2 and 3, no. I’ve asserted that it’s wrong because the law says so and because it’s immoral. Points 2 and 3 are negative side effects that highlight the immorality of piracy.
Why is it absurd?
It’s the same as walking through an unlocked door into someone’s house just because the door is unlocked. Unfortunately, too many people don’t see it that way. At the end of the day, all justifications for piracy fall flat. The reality is that it’s human nature to take the easy road and get something for nothing, then try to justify it after the fact to avoid guilt.
This is a relatively recent development and it was not always done this way. Another example of the law becoming contrary to the spirit.
I just gave you an example. I can give you more.
Just because something is the law, does not make it right. Slavery was legal under the law once. Women were not allowed to vote under the law once.
Times change and the law changes with them.
I’ve also refuted poitns 2 and 3 already.
Quite a weak analogy. File sharing is nothing like trespassing and trespassing itself has conditions.
Another assertion.
I claim that the reality is that content producers are too lazy to think of other business plans to monetize their work and they rather have the law protect their obsolete business model to the detriment of all humanity.
My assertion against your assertion then, once more. Our respective arguments are above.
I claim that the reality is that content producers are too lazy to think of other business plans to monetize their work and they rather have the law protect their obsolete business model to the detriment of all humanity.
This implies, to me, that the consumer has the right to dictate how content is distributed and used. And this is the heart of the issue. What gives the consumer such a right? I agree that producers need to find alternative business plans in order to meet the shifting market demands. That’s what this post is about after all. But the right to determine when and how a copyrighted work can be copied and distributed should always belong to the producer, no matter the business model. Consumers who copy and distribute without permission are violating the spirit of copyright just as much as the heavyhanded corporations who implement draconian DRM measures.
In a perfect world, consumers would respect the right of producers and there’d be no need for alternative business models or DRM. But as long as consumers believe they somehow have the right to freely distribute the fruits of someone else’s labor, things are going to get worse for all. Alternative business models do not always work in the interest of the consumer.
Draconian DRM is on one end of the spectrum, piracy on the other. Both extremes are wrong. The middle is where we need to be, where producers respect the right of consumers to freely use the content they purchase (no more of the ridiculous concept of ‘licensing’ content) while consumers respect the right of producers to choose how their content is to be distributed. If you want to copy music you have legally purchased to multiple computers and devices that you own, you should have that right. But you should not have the right to distribute copies to others without the copyright owner’s permission, as that then becomes distribution.
Once again, how content is distributed is outside the scope of copyrights. Copyrights were not created to define who can distribute what but rather limited who could distribute (in a time where distribution was rather difficult) in order to boost creativity.
If your question is if content providers should be paid for their work, then I agree that they should. At that point it becomes a philosophical issue on how to shift the paradigm so that people who enjoy a piece of work are willing to support it.
Once again, I direct you to the Free Software movement. They are giving their work away for free and request nothing. However in a moral ethical society, anyone who used free software would donate what the software was worth to him. Even 1$ from every user should be quite sufficient in the long run.
If you are trying to shift the paradigm that people should be paying what the content producer requires, then you’ve already lost the game. You feel that as a content producer you should be the one that sets the price and this is indeed how it works with tangible & scarce goods. It is not the same as infinite immaterial goods however.
If urge you to fight for increasing awareness but in a way that will benefit both you (if you will let it) and the world.
In a perfect world, content producers would be happy to allow distribution in the hands of the consumers and consumers would be ethical enough to support the content producers they enjoy.
You keep asserting that things will only get worse for all if this continues but you have not backed it up.
I dissagree. You should have the right to distribute copies to others.
Once again, how content is distributed is outside the scope of copyrights.
You cannot copy and distribute a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. That’s why people get sued for plagiarism and why people who profit above a certain monetary amount by selling copyrighted work without consent are tried in criminal court.
Once again, I direct you to the Free Software movement. They are giving their work away for free and request nothing.
‘Free’ software is free as in ‘libre’, not necessarily free as in ‘gratis’. The poster child of free software licenses is the GPL. It does not prohibit charging for software, but requires that the source be available with the executable. The free part comes from allowing anyone to modify the source, package it up anew, and distribute it how they like (free or for a price) as long as they, too, adhere to the terms of the license. As a result, the GPL is also the most polarizing of the open source licenses.
Regardless, the original copyright owner retains the copyright to the original source. The GPL explicitly requires that the original copyright notice be maintained in all derivative works. The important part is that it is the copyright owner who gets to decide if that original work is ‘gratis’ or commercial. The license establishes the right of consumers of GPL software to modify and redistribute it.
I’m not arguing that copyright owners don’t have the right to distribute their content gratis, nor that they shouldn’t allow others to copy and distribute it themselves. I’m arguing that it is a choice. Those who choose to profit from their work while prohibiting others from distributing it also have that right. If no one buys their content, they’ll either change their business model or go out of business. That’s how free markets work. The intentional copying and distribution of content which the copyright holder expressly does not want copied and distributed without consent is not the work of free market forces, but a blatant disregard of producer rights. Consumers aren’t the only ones with rights, you know.
If you are trying to shift the paradigm that people should be paying what the content producer requires, then you’ve already lost the game. You feel that as a content producer you should be the one that sets the price and this is indeed how it works with tangible & scarce goods. It is not the same as infinite immaterial goods however.
It absolutely is the same. How is it that the craftsman who handcrafts a wooden chair is entitled to sell his creations to support himself but the author of a book, or the creator of a video game, is not? Are you going to tell me that because some goods can be reproduced bit for bit, the people who create those goods have no right to charge for it? If the day ever comes when we can reproduce, atom for atom, that handcrafted chair, do all producers of physical goods lose their right to profit from their work as well?
I dissagree. You should have the right to distribute copies to others.
And that’s why this problem won’t go away. Too many people think it’s OK to steal.
You’re performing a circular argument.
*Distributing is wrong because copyrights say so
*Copyrights say so because distribution is wrong.
Either argue if it is wrong or not or what the spirits of copyrights. Do not jump constantly from one to the other in order to justify them.
Copyright are about promoting the creation of new intellectual works. As long as that is done better without copyrights, then the purpose of copyrights is obsolete.
…I can’t believe you presumed to give me a lecture about what free software is…
To cut a long story short. The GPL was created because copyrgiths are wrong. It is meant to work around copyrights, which is why it’s called copyleft.
If copyrights did not exist, there would be no need for the GPL.
Oh, and no. The original creator of GPL work cannot decide if it’s gratis or commercial. Source code under the GPL is always gratis and libre.
GPL is GPL. If you create a game with GPL and distribute it, I can take the code, as it is, compile it and sell it and you can’t do anything about it.
Consumer rights trump developer rights however.
Really? So how much taxes are you paying for your intellectual property?
You pay taxes for the rest of your (tangible) property, it’s only fair that you’ll pay taxes for IP as well.
Funny that you brought this example.
No, but they will also not have the right to complain that people are copying and distributing that chair without their consent. You see, the actual, original chair, stays with them but everyone in the world can now easily have a perfect handcrafted chair for free.
The poor chair designer is going to go out of business unless he finds another business model. The whole world benefits from zero cost homemade chairs.
Well, I can’t convince you to stop shooting yourself in the foot so I guess I’d better stop wasting time.
Correction. Someone can sell you the source code, but cannot stop you from giving it for free from then on.
…I can’t believe you presumed to give me a lecture about what free software is…
I have no idea who you are or what you know about the GPL and free software. Besides, this isn’t a technical blog so I can’t expect everyone reading this blog to know what the GPL or free software are. If I’m explaining things that you are familiar with or understand, I’m not lecturing or trying to insult your intelligence.
The GPL was created because copyrgiths are wrong. It is meant to work around copyrights, which is why it’s called copyleft.
From the GPL page:
And from the GPLv3:
The GPL does not ‘work around’ copyright. What it does is guarantee that if a copyright holder decides to grant others the right to freely copy, modify, and distribute his software, those others cannot arbitrarily decide to make it closed source or prohibit redistribution. It ensures that anyone getting a copy of the software is free to modify, copy and redistribute it no matter how many times it has been repackaged and modified by the time they get it.
You’re performing a circular argument.
*Distributing is wrong because copyrights say so
*Copyrights say so because distribution is wrong.
Either argue if it is wrong or not or what the spirits of copyrights. Do not jump constantly from one to the other in order to justify them.
I don’t see where I said ‘Copyrights say so because distribution is wrong’. These reasons are not exclusive of each other. What I’ve been arguing is that distributing someone else’s work is wrong because copyright law says so and because it’s immoral. Just as stealing is wrong because it’s illegal and immoral. They are wrong both legally and morally.
Consumer rights trump developer rights however.
Sure, when it comes to price gouging and fair treatment. But the consumer does not have the right to take for free that which the producer has made available for cost.
You pay taxes for the rest of your (tangible) property, it’s only fair that you’ll pay taxes for IP as well.
Now you’re losing me. How often do you pay a chair tax? If you’re talking about a sales tax, that is only waiting for states to enshrine it in law. And the producer of digital products still has to pay the same income tax and other business related taxes that any other entrepreneur has to pay. Regardless, that has no bearing on the right of the producer to charge for his goods.
Someone can sell you the source code, but cannot stop you from giving it for free from then on.
I was talking about the software itself, not the source. You can charge as much as you’d like for the software. And actually, your first assertion about the source being both free and gratis were correct. You can only charge for the source in order to cover the costs of copying and shipping it to someone. If it’s available for download, it has to be gratis. See section 6b of the GPLv3.
No, but they will also not have the right to complain that people are copying and distributing that chair without their consent.
They have every right to do so, since they created the chair.
You see, the actual, original chair, stays with them but everyone in the world can now easily have a perfect handcrafted chair for free.
The original chair stays with them. So what? How does that make it right for the rest of the world to copy and distribute it? No one has the right to take something that I am selling, no matter if it is a physical, uncopyable chair or an easily reproduceable series of bits on a computer, without my express consent. As the creator of a product, I decide if it can be freely copied or not. I decide if it can be freely distributed or not. Nothing gives anyone else that right.
Which is pretty much what copyrights prevent. As I said before, if copyrights did not exist, there would have been no need for the GPL. The only reason it was created is because the copyrights give too much power on the creator and it goes against the four freedoms.
Copyrights were not created on moral reason, unlike other laws. Copyrights were created to promote creation of new art. There is nothing immoral about violating copyrights as long as this happens.
You pay tax for things which have a considerable value, like a car or a house. These things, even though you do not sell them, represent an asset of yours. Since you insist that intellectual and physical property are the same, it’s only fair to pay taxes for intellectual property assets as well which are possible to provide you with income for 70 years after your demise.
Here we disagree, once more.
If you want to have such power, you should not work with infinite intangible goods. The same laws do not apply to both.
In any case, there is no more point in continuing this discussion as we’re running around in circles and/or chasing red herrings.
I’ll part with you with one final link that you might find interesting.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1350531114.shtml
Which is pretty much what copyrights prevent.
No, copyright does not prevent that. It leaves the right with the copyright holder to grant permission for others to copy and distribute, where it should be. By releasing software under the GPL, the software creator is exercising his right as copyright holder to grant that permission to others. The GPL is there to ensure that no one else tries to exploit his generosity so that everyone who gets their hands on that software has the same right.
Copyrights were not created on moral reason, unlike other laws. Copyrights were created to promote creation of new art.
I am not saying that copyright was created for moral reasons. That’s twice now that you’ve said I am. What I am saying is that piracy is wrong because it’s illegal and immoral. It’s illegal because it violates copyright law. It’s immoral because it is a basic right of the creator to decide if the product can be copied or not. Anytime you violate someone’s rights you are in the territory of immorality.
You pay tax for things which have a considerable value, like a car or a house. These things, even though you do not sell them, represent an asset of yours.
Yes, you do. But there are numerous physical items on which you do not pay tax. I don’t see how you can compare software to real estate. It’s more like a TV, a kitchen table, or a sofa, all of which are things on which you do not pay property taxes. Besides which, it is not the producer of property who pays property taxes, but the consumer. So by your analogy, anyone buying copyrighted goods should be paying property tax.
Here we disagree, once more.
Then I would very much like to hear your reason(s). How does a person have the right to copy and distribute something that was created by another person, for which he did not pay, without the creator’s consent?
You keep drawing me into this converstation when there’s no end in sight…
I have to repeat myself: If copyrights did not exist, there would be no need for the GPL as it is now.
1. Law does not define morality. It’s the other way around.
2. I’ve already refuted the immorality of piracy.
No, it’s not a basic right. It’s a right granted by law, law that you yourself mentioned is not based on morality.
Trying to find similarities between tangible and intangible goods cannot be a perfect procedure (which is why claiming they are the same is plain wrong). IP has a value that remains with you, no matter to whom you sell it, unlike a chair or a sofa. It’s more like renting out a house.
- The good effects outweight the bad.
- Copying and Distributing digital goods do not create a tangible loss for the creator, only a potential loss.
- Distributing without consent is only wrong depending on the context.
You keep drawing me into this converstation when there’s no end in sight…
No one’s forcing you to reply. But we are both repeating ourselves by this point. Obviously we stand on opposite ends of this issue. You will never convince me that piracy is acceptable. And I will never convince you that the creator of a product has the inherent right to dictate how that product is copied and distributed by virtue of being the creator.
Post a Comment