70 replies to this topic

[CJ]

The only topic I found about this was 3 years old and full of silly messages, so I thought I might actualize the debate on piracy, especially after all the new laws and stuff...

So basically, what are your thoughts about piracy and file sharing, as well as your opinion about what some governments are doing to stop it?

[Libains]

Funny you should mention this, I plan to do my dissertation on this for the next uni year. On a fundamentally simple level: no, it should not be done. I have a far more wide-ranging view than that, but it'd be interesting to see what others think before I wade into the ethical and legal debate

[Camille]

since the digital media is a very young and new thing, it also brings with it a whole new way of thinking that old values have no real grasp on. it does not make sense to hold back and charge people for a product like programs, films and even games when there is literally an infinite supply of it. never before in history has this been the case (even water is pretty hard to get sometimes) and the old way of thinking and dealing with products and matter simply does not comply with this new philosophy. take this, for instant: i couldn't possibly sell anyone that lives in the desert a handful of sand, regardless of the effort i may have put into the gathering of the sand. in this new age, digital media is very much like this. in this vast ocean of limitless information and knowledge it is simply absurd to charge anything for something that is essentially a part of the whole. i wouldn't sell anyone's internal organs to them, now would i? if people complain that they don't get payed what they deserve, they should stand still for a moment and think about the very thing that they are creating. the digital medium is no simple thing to understand but the only thing that is for sure and that truly matters in this discussion is that it is essentially non-existant. it does not physically exist and that is all. ideas and stories used to be passed on and only a fool would give another man money or anything else of actual value for one of these stories or ideas.

here is how i see things: instead of depending on success to develop games, people should be encouraged and stimulated to create games/films/programs from an artistic, functional or entertaining point of view. there would be no adversary and the only ultimate goal would be intellectual enrichment, beauty, work and entertainment/distraction. instead of depending on success to further develop these games, films and the like, studios and individuals would get equal grants for each branch and they'd be encouraged to work creatively to achieve otherwise costly businesses. reviews and public opinion would then determine quality of said products and would control the continuation of grants which would eventually turn off people looking for easy living or just people with plain bad ideas/low quality of work.

i couldn't imagine myself ever wanting huge success or ludicrous amounts of money for a successful game. i live by the simple logic i stated above and would never force anyone to give me anything in return of what i do if they weren't able to. i would encourage donations but would never put a value on a product that is essentially a bunch of electrical pulses and some disc space.

i might draw a lot of hate/disgrace with this thinking but it's what i firmly have come to believe in after many years of thinking over and analyzing the subject. in the end, we're all here to help each other as a race and i see no long term benefit in the further classification and separation of people and humanity. greed is not the way to go.

C.

Edited by Camille, 18 April 2011 - 17:30.

[Golan]

I don't see much controversy there. Digital media is a product like everything else, if the creator wishes to charge money for it he/she has every right to do so; "acquiring" digital media by circumventing the creator's/publisher's defined way of distribution, including both commercial and non-commercial, is theft of intellectual property, fraud, whatever, just as it would be with any "real" product.

Our entire economy is based on money, more specifically the value assigned to every product, work etc, trying to justify excluding a single sector from it because it's oh-so-convenient-to-just-DL-it-and-it's-just-a-copy-I'm-not-stealing-anything-no-harm-done is just bullshit.

[sarcasm]Hey, why not go into the next bookstore and simply photograph every page of that new book you wanted? I'm sure the people there will understand.[/sarcasm]

Edited by Golan, 18 April 2011 - 19:05.

[Ion Cannon!]

If your going to base the grants on public opinion look forward to Twilight the COD series. Furthermore it would result in bland games, accessible to all. There is also the issue with basing it on public opinion, how does that work? From review sites? they are a tiny minority of the public, from users comments on forums? again a tiny minority. If each person who has access to the content gets to "vote" so to speak you also create extra administration and logistics, which nobody wants or needs.

Your idea is idealistic but it will not work in practice.

I have no problem paying for a good product my problem is with the distribution. The artist gets a small cut and the publisher gets a lot. This is similar in the music buisiness with record companys taking a large cut. There is also the problem of these managerial types, be it publishers or record companies, influencing the final product in an effort to get more sales, this has to stop as it usually results in rushed sub par games, or changes to an album or album structure.

The future, at least for games is distribution systems like steam. Valve take a cut because they host and provide the bandwidth, but most of it still goes to the developer. If the developer recieves the majority of the cut they can then also focus on what they want to do, not what their publisher wants.

I am against piracy in many forms, though not all. I will sometimes aquire music to see if I like it, then if I do, I'll buy it. I have never done that with a PC game though, although I have aquired some older games which I had previously lost.

[Camille]

Quote

but it will not work in practice.

and i never claimed it would either. also, i believe your point of "twilight and CoD" is merely the result of the very system that i despise. if it were for my system, we'd probably never have seen such things happening in the first place. i know it's nearly impossible to change a settled system but one can always think for himself and work towards different goals.

@golan: have you actually read what i wrote or just dismissed it as hippy bullcrap? i tried to explain why i thought that digital media are exactly not a product. maybe my metaphor is not appropriate or you simply think i'm wrong, either way i'd like to know in a bit more depth than "it's like that and nothing ever changes".

Quote

Our entire economy is based on money, more specifically the value assigned to every product, work etc, trying to justify excluding a single sector from it because it's oh-so-convenient-to-just-DL-it-and-it's-just-a-copy-I'm-not-stealing-anything-no-harm-done is just bullshit.

believe me, i'm not only excluding the part about digital media, but since this topic is not about that, i won't go there. also, WHY is it bullshit? i do not see any arguments. the facts are that they ARE copies and that there ARE an endless amount of them. i do not see how paying whatsoever for something that's in such abundance makes any sense. i understand the concept of paying for things that are actually there, but this is a whole new concept. can you really classify digital media as products when they don't actually physically exist?

[Golan]

Camille, my post wasn't in reply to you, it was a general statement. Thank you for seeing your own point in it, though.

Your view of digital media is wrong. When buying digital media, you aren't paying for the physical copy (disks, bits, whatever), you are paying for its intellectual content. This is the reason that today, you are actually charged for licenses to use a program while the program itself is free of charge. Digital data isn't sand, it's the act of creating entire castles out of it.
I'm sorry, but claiming that something exists endlessly when someone obviously first has to put hundreds or thousands of hours of hard work into it is simply bullshit. I cannot put it any more sophisticated.

Really, it's nice that you despise our system so much and you are free to do so. That doesn't change the fact that it is the status quo and people have to pay their bills.

Edited by Golan, 18 April 2011 - 20:19.

[Camille]

Golan, on 18 Apr 2011, 20:12, said:

Really, it's nice that you despise our system so much and you are free to do so. That doesn't change the fact that it is the status quo and people have to pay their bills.

i know, and it's very sad. i guess it's mainly a feeling of being forced into labor because---YOU HAVE TO. i mean, it's not even about survival anymore. here we are, paying fictional bills for something we never may have wanted in the first place, earning money for a job that is meaningless and has no connection to reality and the spending that money to shit we don't need and virtual copies of stuff we're basically forced to like through our education. you know what, yes, i fucking hate it. and i guess ignorance is bliss. too bad i just can not bring myself to be so ignorant, things sure would be a whole goddamn easier, not having to doubt anything and all.

to me, it's all just paid slavery and the whole debate about digital media could very well just be the epitome of the absurdity that's going on.

Quote

when someone obviously first has to put hundreds or thousands of hours of hard work into it

Quote

Digital data isn't sand

the earth spent millions of years refining those grains of sand, they're priceless!! i see no reason why a developer should be paid for every copy, won't a single, but sufficient fund suffice? does everything need to be in function of profit?

[Golan]

Now you are turning the issue on its head. If you feel that digital media is "shit we don't need", then don't get it. If you do get it, then fucking pay the people that made it, because for most of them money isn't "shit we don't need" but indeed the thing that feeds their families in the end.

I've specified above why the sand metaphor is nonsense and the issue you are constructing here doesn't even reflect the little bit it has in common with digital media. Also,if you don't know, certain types of "sand" are indeed becoming increasingly valuable.
If you pirate digital media, then people still are not getting "a single, but sufficient fund". You can't just reap the benefits of your perfect world order (*cough*) without it existing first.

Edited by Golan, 18 April 2011 - 21:06.

[Camille]

i know this is a heated debate but we're still a nice and friendly forum. it would be great if you could not throw words like "nonsense" and "bullshit" at everything i say. you probably think you're right (so do i) but there's always room for some kindness.

anyone got any other views on the matter? it'd be interesting to see some fresh ideas for a change.

[Wizard]

I'll skip over your theories Camille, if only to avoid drawing more criticism to them. On the face of it, my opinion is rather hypocritical. Piracy and file sharing, on pretty much any level, is totally wrong. That said, I, like most of us, do it. I try to avoid major IPs and stick to individual artists works on an infrequent basis. Although there is one exception to that rule.

But my use of filesharing networks isn't supported by any obscure notion that what I do is justified. I simply find it easier and cheaper to do it, nor do I believe I am entitled to the products just because I might not want to pay what is being charged. I know that I am breaking the law, as I do when I am breaking the speed limit. I don't expect to be caught but it's a possiblity and if/when that occurs I'll have to live with the consequences.

[Golan]

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 6:37, said:

i know this is a heated debate but we're still a nice and friendly forum. it would be great if you could not throw words like "nonsense" and "bullshit" at everything i say. you probably think you're right (so do i) but there's always room for some kindness.

You are advocating for stealing the work of people like me, that's not what I'd call nice and friendly in the first place. Throwing around implications of ignorance doesn't fit the bill either.
Nonsense is the perfect description for your metaphor - it doesn't make sense. Digital media is not an entropic material of which there are thousands of tons available in the world or part of your own being like organs, it's the very opposite; order imposed on the unsubstantial sea of entropic bits by someone else.*

I mean come on, you are even admitting that people need to get money for it and deserve it. That's the entire point of your "grant funds to works people like" idea - it's also the entire point of "paying money for things you get" idea currently in use, only that this system is less centralized and does exactly what you advocate for without requiring a bureaucratic intermediate instance and offering much less chance of corruption and manipulation - unless people don't pay and pirate instead.

*On a totally unrelated side note, yes, Earth should be "paid" for what we take from it in the sense of environmental compensation for substantial interference.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 10:32.

[Camille]

so basically you're still just saying i'm wrong and you're right? i do not find that very helpful in the philosopher's corner kind of discussion.

to me and to a whole lot of people it makes a lot of god-damned sense.

Quote

Digital media is not an entropic material of which there are thousands of tons available in the world

and yet there are a metaphorical thousands of tons available. your model of sale of property or produce does not apply to this medium.

[Golan]

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 11:16, said:

so basically you're still just saying i'm wrong and you're right? i do not find that very helpful in the philosopher's corner kind of discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression of giving a short but in itself consistent reasoning why your view is wrong or unreasonable given the circumstances. You don't seem to have bothered with it much aside from minding a few unfriendly words.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 11:16, said:

sto me and to a whole lot of people it makes a lot of god-damned sense.

Then perhaps you should try to get it across without metaphors. And in short, if possible.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 11:16, said:

Quote

Digital media is not an entropic material of which there are thousands of tons available in the world

and yet there are a metaphorical thousands of tons available. your model of sale of property or produce does not apply to this medium.

"My" model of sale of property? I was specifically not talking about physical property or the data carriers but the intellectual content. Intellectual content which isn't metaphorically or otherwise available thousands of times. The intellectual content does indeed have to be produced and as such it has intrinsic value, for which creators can expect a compensation when giving it away (known as "selling" in my model FYI).
Yes, copies can be made pretty much for free. But there is a limited demand for everything (simply because there is a limited number of people), thus there will be a limited amount of copies (licensees to be more specific) and as such it is very well possible to project the value of the intellectual content in a software to the cost of a copy. This is the reason why you don't pay the multi-million budgets it took to make said "digital media" for every license but only a fraction of it.
That is, if you pay for it and don't just steal it.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 16:33.

[Camille]

Golan, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:40, said:

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 11:16, said:

so basically you're still just saying i'm wrong and you're right? i do not find that very helpful in the philosopher's corner kind of discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression of giving a short but in itself consistent reasoning why your view is wrong or unreasonable given the circumstances. You don't seem to have bothered with it much aside from minding a few unfriendly words.

i have a feeling this is going nowhere...

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 11:16, said:

sto me and to a whole lot of people it makes a lot of god-damned sense.

Then perhaps you should try to get it across without metaphors. And in short, if possible.

[Golan]

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:58, said:

i have a feeling this is going nowhere...

We seem to be talking quite a lot.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:58, said:

why would i do that? the matter is nor short nor simple to explain so i'll gladly make use of any metaphor to get my point across.

Because metaphors can be very limited and yours on that matter have been inapplicable so far. Keeping your point short is optional (as said), but having a quick outline instead of tons of linguistic devices that all come down to the same point really is more useful and saves us both a lot of time.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:58, said:

so you're saying knowledge is in fact not free? if we were on an abandoned island and you would've found out a way of making fire, you'd charge me three coconuts for it? i know that might not be the best example since the situation is so vastly different but to me it's more or less the same thing. imo no one has the right to draw a line and say "from this point on everything i come up with will need something in return before i tell it".

No, I'm saying it's a creators right to charge for their creation whatever they wish. This includes charging nothing, something I'd highly suggest in the situation you constructed.
BTW, you wanna force the poor guy to tell his ideas? How? The idea of being legally forced to say something really sounds awful. Like, totally totalitarian.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:58, said:

also, i hate to go that way but: don't i have the right to listen to music i like or view movies i enjoy simply because i can't pay for it? if at one point in my life i'd be in such a irrecoverable situation that i can't afford cd's, movies or games, does that mean i simply can't enjoy these things? might i add these things that are all around us at almost every time in our lives. you could say "oh, then you'll have to work harder..." but what if i can't work harder because i'm cripple? or because i'm a full-time student with no parents or family that lives off of social security? or because i simply don't have time because i already work all the time? or because my country's economy is down the shitter and no one gives a fuck?

Correct. This argument doesn't even address the properties of digital media by the way, so you could apply it to every other thing as well - is it okay to steal a car if you can't afford it? Perhaps Olympic gold because you aren't good enough to get it? Rob a bank because you can't earn enough money? Or, haha, get this, TAKE MONEY FOR WHAT YOU GIVE TO OTHERS BECAUSE YOU NEED IT TO LIVE? (You may answer every question individually. As a special bonus, one of them doesn't follow the pattern of the other three. Can you spot which?)
It'd be nice if we could give everyone everything. But we can't.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 16:58, said:

i'd say that's already reason enough for most of us* to do what we do, idealism aside.

pirates, ofc.[/b]

Well d'uh, it's also exactly the reason it's called stealing, idealism aside.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 17:37.

[Camille]

Quote

also, i hate to go that way but: don't i have the right to listen to music i like or view movies i enjoy simply because i can't pay for it? if at one point in my life i'd be in such a irrecoverable situation that i can't afford cd's, movies or games, does that mean i simply can't enjoy these things? might i add these things that are all around us at almost every time in our lives. you could say "oh, then you'll have to work harder..." but what if i can't work harder because i'm cripple? or because i'm a full-time student with no parents or family that lives off of social security? or because i simply don't have time because i already work all the time? or because my country's economy is down the shitter and no one gives a fuck?

Quote

Correct. This argument doesn't even address the properties of digital media by the way, so you could apply it to every other thing as well - is it okay to steal a car if you can't afford it? Perhaps Olympic gold because you aren't good enough to get it? Rob a bank because you can't earn enough money? Or, haha, get this, TAKE MONEY FOR WHAT YOU CREATED BECAUSE YOU NEED IT TO LIVE?

no no, once again, filesharing is NOT THE SAME THING as stealing a car or whatever else, it is not applicable on anything that is actual matter, that actually EXISTS. you can't be that narrow. you simply cannot physically copy a car. you CAN copy a book and you CAN copy a film. this is the only difference that renders the whole philosophy behind property meaningless. if we could copy food, we would and no one would ever be hungry again. we can copy good films ad infinitum and enrich people intellectually so there's literally no reason to be so bigoted and say it all needs compensation.

also, you can keep repeating that "it's theft because... it's theft". but that will hardly change anyone's mind.

Quote

It'd be nice if we could give everyone everything. But we can't.

gigglesnort. you're wrong, we can. not everything no, but that which is possible to give to everyone can be given to everyone and thus should be given to everyone. everybody's happy and the creators of the material don't even notice because there's more than enough people that can and WILL pay for it.

i wish i could redirect you to some discussions on thepiratebay, these folks have far better linguistic skills than me and could far better explain the overall views of file-sharers. but in all honesty i don't think you give a single damn. as long as your pockets filled righty-oh? bah, this mentality makes me sick.

[Golan]

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 17:56, said:

no no, once again, filesharing is NOT THE SAME THING as stealing a car or whatever else, it is not applicable on anything that is actual matter, that actually EXISTS. you can't be that narrow. you simply cannot physically copy a car. you CAN copy a book and you CAN copy a film. this is the only difference that renders the whole philosophy behind property meaningless. if we could copy food, we would and no one would ever be hungry again. we can copy good films ad infinitum and enrich people intellectually so there's literally no reason to be so bigoted and say it all needs compensation.

People get money for their work. Money is a very physical thing, and in cases where its not, the things you buy from it very often are (obviously Digital Media has to be excluded here. Oh, the irony). If you claim their work and don't offer them the value it has in return, that's theft. You can't be that narrow minded to stick to defitions thousands of years old just because its convenient to you.
BTW, you can copy the idea behind a car. It's called industrial espionage. It's a crime as it's theft of "intellectual property" (loosely speaking).

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 17:56, said:

also, you can keep repeating that "it's theft because... it's theft". but that will hardly change anyone's mind.

Yeah, funny that things tend to be shaped like themselves. gigglesnort

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 17:56, said:

gigglesnort. you're wrong, we can. not everything no, but that which is possible to give to everyone can be given to everyone and thus should be given to everyone. everybody's happy and the creators of the material don't even notice because there's more than enough people that can and WILL pay for it.

Haha, gigglesnort, what fun. I'm laughing my ass of, nice-person-who-I'd-only-describe-with-the-best-of-words. We're all such nice and friendly persons on this nice and friendly forum, aren't we? Forgive me for calling your point bullshit earlier on, it obviously wasn't an adequate description.
Do you know why it's enough that other people are paying for it? Because they pay extra for what pirates don't pay for (which does not and is not required to imply that every pirated copy equals a copy that would be bought given no piracy). If you give everything technically possible to anyone, then it won't be available at all sooner or later (once saturation reaches a critical level), because the people creating it won't be able to afford a living. Because, gasp, it'd be nice if we could give everyone everything. But we can't.
Your very point is that it's right to pirate because it's possible. You haven't imposed a single restriction on this that would suggest preventing the saturation of non-paying "customers" to reach critical levels.

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 17:56, said:

i wish i could redirect you to some discussions on thepiratebay, these folks have far better linguistic skills than me and could far better explain the overall views of file-sharers. but in all honesty i don't think you give a single damn. as long as your pockets filled righty-oh? bah, this mentality makes me sick.

It's the content of your words that I doubt, not your linguistic skills. I'd be very happy in fact if you'd leave out any intricate linguistic constructions and just get to the point.
You are the one claiming things which you have done nothing for. I am claiming things for which I offer adequate exchange and only if someone actually wants to have what I offer under the conditions I propose. But obviously I'm a rich capitalistic idiot exploiting poor little babies and dancing on the graves of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not some poor student who has to live off the intellectual work he offers so that he can give away some of it for free. NoooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooo.

What a good thing that this is still a nice and friendly forum.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 18:57.

[Camille]

right. i'm obviously done talking to you.

your way of writing makes me want to punch my wall, which isn't a very good sign.

[Golan]

Camille, on 19 Apr 2011, 19:06, said:

your way of writing makes me want to punch my wall, which isn't a very good sign.

Finally something I can agree with from my POV. Good thing my wall is a bit away from my desk so we can actually go on talking if you want to. Good thing I HAVE a wall, come to think of it, seeing that you wouldn't pay me the money I need if you took my work.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 19:08.

[Camille]

you'd get the money voluntarily if you made something worthwhile.

[Golan]

Yeah, I know. That's why I charge people only for what they actually take from me, i.e. judge as worthwhile.

Otherwise their offer isn't worthwhile so they sure as hell won't get the my work voluntarily.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 19:14.

[Camille]

how about getting paid as a reward, instead of forcing people to pay a fixed sum?

[Golan]

How about you read my posts and realize that I didn't say people have to charge money? Only that it's their right to decide if and how to do so?

But to answer your questions, it's because nice-persons-who-I'd-only-describe-with-the-best-of-words think it's their right to just take it anyways. Because it won't hurt me if they don't pay as it's not actually theft.

Edited by Golan, 19 April 2011 - 19:18.

[Camille]

Quote

I charge people only for what they actually take from me

to me, that looks exactly the same as: here's a game but first, pay 60 bucks.

Quote

But to answer your questions, it's because nice-persons-who-I'd-only-describe-with-the-best-of-words think it's their right to just take it anyways. Because it won't hurt me if they don't pay as it's not actually theft.

you're right, it won't. i might, however, give generously once i know the product is of great use and i have the necessary funds. that way no one loses.

Edited by Camille, 19 April 2011 - 19:20.