This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Morality of Torrenting....

Post by Squishalot

And the rules she came up for her restaurant are a little much for the area she's in.

Actually, it's not. There are plenty of people who are willing to abide by set rules. Just not enough to stay profitable. Kinda like where we're going to get to with piracy, where less and less people are going to be happy to abide by set rules, and eventually, the companies will get sick of it and shut their doors. Is it any wonder that the gaming world is getting slowly absorbed by Vivendi and EA? Indie game developers wouldn't be selling out to the big companies if they could actually make money from their games, no?

But there's still the fact that if she's that tired of it, why not get someone else to manage it and just sit back and count the money she's raking in? Closing the doors due to personal dislike of the customers is an almost childish move.

Because it's not just a personal dislike of the customers, it's an affront to her philosophy of life. It'd be like asking you to rake the money in from boat rentals knowing that it's being used to support illegal whaling.

If they can't bring it home because they didn't have a container, then it will just go to waste because she refuses to give out "doggy bags".

Not quite. If they can't bring it home because they didn't have a container, they'd be kicked out before they could order in the first instance.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Nathanyal

If they can't bring it home because they didn't have a container, then it will just go to waste because she refuses to give out "doggy bags".

Not quite. If they can't bring it home because they didn't have a container, they'd be kicked out before they could order in the first instance.
But how do they (those working) know if they (the customer) will eat it all or not? Like when people say "My eyes were bigger than my stomach", they think they could eat what they got but couldn't after all. But they would gladly take it home but can't because they don't have their container.

I have gone out to eat at some places, and order a little more than what I could eat. But I thought I could eat it all as I didn't eat much else that day.

Post by fenomas

As an aside, why is it that the customer is always right, unless they're the customer of an entertainment company in which case they're wrong and if you demand anything better than what they want to deliver, you're spoiled and entitled and morally reprehensible?

That's silly. Nobody calls customers spoiled or entitled for requesting better service. We call them that when they take what they want on their own terms because the seller's terms didn't meet their expectations. If a movie is too expensive the sensible response is not to go. If the movies are just so damned good that people just have to find torrents because they couldn't possibly wait until it comes to cable, then it's not clear to me why a high price isn't justified.

Also, as I noted previously, your premise rather falls down when it comes to people stealing apps that can be purchased absurdly easily for a nominal price like a dollar. How is sharing defensible when the content can't get any cheaper or more convenient?

Post by Squishalot

I think Adamsm was right calling it childish. This is how it appears to me:

Customers: We like what you're selling, but not how you're selling it.

Their response: If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Fixed for you. I see no reason why any business should be at the whim of customers without any respect for the rules and regulations of an institution, especially in a competitive enterprise like retail services. That's also the reason why I respect the fact that companies like Blizzard are introducing internet-access requirements for their games like Diablo 3, even if I don't like it. If I don't like it enough, I simply won't buy the game, as I have with FF3 for Android (because I think the idea of a tablet game which requires internet access is absurd).

But how do they (those working) know if they (the customer) will eat it all or not? Like when people say "My eyes were bigger than my stomach", they think they could eat what they got but couldn't after all. But they would gladly take it home but can't because they don't have their container.

They don't know, but one of the rules is that you can't dine unless you have your container around in case you can't finish. That's what I mean by being kicked out before they could order.

Imagine that your container is your membership pass. That's how I sort of envisage it - you have to show it before you're let in.

Post by Nathanyal

They don't know, but one of the rules is that you can't dine unless you have your container around in case you can't finish. That's what I mean by being kicked out before they could order.

Imagine that your container is your membership pass. That's how I sort of envisage it - you have to show it before you're let in.

Okay, I can imagine that. But having to always bring the container with you is a bit tedious imo. The only rules I read were the ones they had in that article, which I guess isn't all the rules they have.

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Magician22773

Recent non-entertainment company example here - if you can't follow a few rules set by whoever you're buying from, I don't think you deserve the product.

To each their own. It is her resturant, and she can run it, or run it into the ground, as she see's fit. Is actaully a pretty viable business market. Making a club or resturant "exclusive" with outrageous rules will actually draw a type of customer to it.

I actually did smomething similar several years ago with my business. I had a pretty good sized electrical contracting business that did very well during the building boom. We wired everything from basic starter homes to several retail chain stores...with Abercrombie & Fitch being one of my bigger clients.

When the retail expansion boom ended, and the cheap, starter housing market began to dwindle, I downsized to a crew of only 3 people, myself included, and I began to seek out builders that built ultra high-end homes.

I refused to give "bids" on projects, only estimates. And I often told potential builders that if they wanted the cheapest and fastest electrical crew that I wasn't it. In fact, I let them know that I was probably the slowest and most expensive electrician they would ever have. But I guaranteed absolute perfection in my work.

And, until the ecomony collasped, I did quite well. On average, I charged as much as 5 times what I was charging when I was bidding jobs competitively. I wired houses for musicians and professional football players. I had homes featured in magizines, and participated in an "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" TV show. By marketing my company as something different and better than all the rest, I had builders that were willing to pay to use my services as a way to market their homes.

And, in all honestly, I wasn't doing much more than what I had done before. I had a little better quality control, and did some things like automation and lighting that I normally would not have done, but all in all, I just did a good job.

Post by Squishalot

That response works for restaurants where there is a choice, but not for media which is protected by copyright law and there is no other option for where to get it.

As opposed to physical items which are protected by trade practice laws?

What about copyright law do you believe is inherently unfair, and warrants breaking/ignoring, compared to every other law? I don't believe we've ever actually gotten down in to the nuts and bolts of the issue.

Post by fenomas

How exactly do you suggest that we tell a multi-billion dollar corporation "we like what you're selling, but not how you sell it" except by not supporting their methods but still showing interest in their product?
Uh, by seeing the movie for cheap at a dollar theater or from the rental place or netflix or iTunes or Google Play? Most movie theaters are still doing okay, so presumably the movies are worth the ticket price to lots of people. Just because you don't happen to be one of those people doesn't mean the system "owes" you a better deal. And if the content is so good that you can't wait for a lower price, the argument that a higher price is unreasonable isn't tenable.

Also, as I noted previously, your premise rather falls down when it comes to people stealing apps that can be purchased absurdly easily for a nominal price like a dollar. How is sharing defensible when the content can't get any cheaper or more convenient?

A little wasted money is still wasted money. The modern entertainment industry is designed to be a giant gamble. You buy the product, if you don't like it, tough, no refunds.
That's not the entertainment industry, it's the world. You don't get to taste a sandwich before you pay for it. You can ask a store to give you the option but demanding it is, to use your description, acting spoiled and entitled.

Now if you buy something and it's not what was advertised that's different - and you can easily get a refund, whether it's an app or a vacuum cleaner or whatever. (Both iOS and Android stores provide refunds.) But if the thing you bought is exactly what was advertised and you just don't like it as much as you thought you would, that's life. It doesn't make you some kind of victim entitled to restitution.

With file sharing, you pirate it, find out you like it, and you can chose to support the company by buying it afterwards. As I see it, the only people who lose out are the scammers.
Believe that if you like, but it's not true - paid apps with free trials get pirated just as much as ones without. And again, if "scammers" are involved you can easily get a refund regardless. It would be nice if most people using pirate app sites were trying-before-they-buy, but they aren't.

And in case that isn't clear enough: Give me a dollar and I might give you something you enjoy. What do you mean no? It's only a dollar!
Interesting how seamlessly the justification changed from content being too expensive to cost having nothing to do with it. The casual reader might almost suppose that your position in favor of sharing was predetermined regardless of the situation, and the justifications were being arbitrarily constructed case by case.

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

Is it any wonder that the gaming world is getting slowly absorbed by Vivendi and EA?

and the East India Company had to shoulder the burden after all the proles produced their own salt. Woe betide them.

Post by fenomas

Interesting how seamlessly the argument changed from piracy is killing the industry...
I've said nothing remotely like that. Are we discussing this or having a zinger contest? If it's the latter, I concede.

And how are you still not getting that duplicating something is not the same as removing something? I'm really struggling to see why this piece of information seems to bounce right off your head.
It hasn't bounced because you didn't throw it. You argued that sharing was justified here because consumers should have some kind of right to sample the content. If the argument is now that it's justified because the content is copyable that's a separate point.

Clearly you haven't tried to get a refund on music or PC games in the last 15+ years.
The threads may have been crossed but the reference there was to apps in app stores, as suggested by the subsequent bit you didn't quote about iTunes and Android stores giving refunds. (Which they do.)

Here are some that indicate you're dead wrong/lying:
Nice list dear, but two small problems: (1) I clearly referred to device apps and only one of your links appears to reference apps, and (2) the one link that is about apps more or less repeats exactly what I said.
However, the most interesting finding was the one where the "try before you buy" mentality was exposed as being a myth.

More generally you seem to be in this friend-of-my-enemy mindset where you're assuming that since I'm critical of sharing, and people who criticize sharing argue that piracy is killing the movie industry, I must feel the same way even if I haven't said so. Can you keep in mind that I'm someone you've promised to buy a beer and not do that? I've been pretty clear about my views here - what I care about is mainly independently-produced content, specifically games, and what I'm critical about is mainly the shallow entitlement lying behind the "I didn't like the terms offered so obviously I'm justified in substituting my own" line of thinking.

But I haven't said word one about piracy killing the movie industry, which I don't believe and wouldn't care a great deal about if I did. I only responded about movies at all because I think it's pretty transparently silly that people say movies are too expensive to consider paying the premium (i.e. theater) price, but simultaneously too valuable to consider waiting for the non-premium (i.e. rental) price.

Post by Squishalot

The length of them. The duration of copyright in the US has gone from 28 years (14 with the option to renew for another 14) to 70 years after the death of the creator thanks to the successful lobbying of the entertainment industries. This stifles creativity and has allowed monopolies to be created from the works of others, for example the older Disney cartoons which were around for hundreds of years in some cases before their cartoons, are now perpetually locked as their property preventing anyone from building on or remaking those works, which was how the entire company was founded in the first place.

Can you explain to me precisely how increasing the duration of copyright from 28 years to, perhaps, 100 years (being 70 + hypothetical median age until death) stifles copyright? If you're drawing on ideas that are 28 years old to produce new content, they're neither a) creative or b) innovative (being derivative works of others). If anything, the increase in copyright term allows people greater financial freedom to pursue truly creative / innovative ideas/products, because of the knowledge that their rights to those ideas/products will be protected.

That said, I fail to see how this relates to the copyright issue of piracy that we've been discussing.

Which raises a further point, that "after death" clause, that's just plain wrong. Why? Because at that point it's not anyone having to do with the work benefiting, it's huge companies that inherit or buy them which takes the power out of the cold dead hands of the people it was originally created to protect and (usually) gives it to one of the big 5. The massive amount of time after the deaths has made it possible for these huge companies to exist in the first place and allows them to continue to hoard ideas and make sure nobody but them can do anything with them.

As with above, if it's a copyright-able idea/product, then it's fair compensation for their cost of developing the idea/product. Suppose some guy creates the fictional world of Warcraft, at significant cost to themselves in terms of opportunity cost they could have spent working and earning a wage, the actual cost of materials to produce it, the cost of marketing it to publishers, etc.. Blizzard comes along and purchases the idea for a given price, with the knowledge that they will own the rights to it for a great deal of time.

Who are the laws intended to protect here? The content owner - the guy who created the idea, up until the point that he sells his content, at which point, the laws are intended to protect the new content owner (i.e. Blizzard, in this example). The fact that the guy who created the idea is dead or alive is irrelevant to who owns the content, and who deserves the rights to utilise that content. What is morally (or otherwise) wrong with companies owning rights to content? What does the concept of hoarding ideas have to do with piracy?

There are rules in relation to mining in Australia at least that relate to companies having rights over mining tenements - they can drill, explore, mine, etc., but they lose their rights if they stop utilising the tenement. Would you be objectionable if a company were to have to forego their rights to copyright content if they weren't acceptably utilising that copyright in a way that added value? (e.g. Disney not producing any more work / selling any more dvds in the Aladdin universe means that it's fair game for others to utilise, wheras Blizzard continuing to produce Warcraft-related content means that it's fairly copyrighted)

Overall, again, I fail to see how this relates to the copyright issue of piracy that we've been discussing.

It's created the new industry of Copyright trolls. 'Nuff said on that one.

The Wiki you've linked seems to suggest that copyright trolls in recent times have all failed at achieving their goals, just like domain squatters. Should the use of domain names be thrown out, because it created the new industry of Domain squatters? The fundamental benefits of the copyright philosophy outweigh the negligible cost of copyright trolling.

And again, I fail to see how this relates to the copyright issue of piracy that we've been discussing.

The cost of enforcement.

Are you seriously:

a) Comparing piracy to prostitution? (Note - at least prostitutes have ownership over their bodies, which is far more rights than pirates can claim to have over their content)

b) Comparing piracy to drug trafficking? (Again - at least drug dealers have ownership over their drugs, which is far more rights than pirates can claim to have over their content)

Note the key differences in the examples provided by Friedman and Phillips compared to piracy. In both their examples, the seller of a product has actual ownership rights over the product / service being sold.

Look how damn well Steam is doing. As soon as someone makes a Steam for movies, they'll win. But they won't, because they'd make more money selling it on the new physical format every 10 years filled with unskippable adverts six months after it's out in the cinema (later if you're not American) and region locked to enforce it. As Gabe Newell put it, "Piracy is a service problem".

Cost of game development: ~$10m for single platform games and 18-28m for multi-platform ones. Modern Warfare 2 was high up at 50-60m.

Cost of movie development: $40-100m for an average movie, and easily over 200m for the big blockbusters.

Considering those costs, I don't think the Steam model is viable, because the end result will still be too expensive for users when the alternative is piracy. As you say, there are other legitimate means of getting access to movies cheaper than seeing them in cinemas, yet piracy is still rampant. What makes you think that the Steam model, which is essentially what Netflix and others are doing, will be successful for the entire industry?

You will be dead before anybody is allowed to retell or re-imagine the Star Wars or Harry Potter or story without them having to worry about being sued into destitution.

You know what? I'm not particularly concerned, considering that fan fiction and parody aren't restricted by copyright. I think it's a great thing that people can't make copies of Star Wars and sell it as their own product, because it will encourage them to come up with new ideas for themselves. Do you think that JK Rowling would have gone to all the effort of writing the Harry Potter series if people could just rip it off? I think that changing copyright laws to suit the mindset that you have would do a whole lot more to damage creativity and innovation than what we have today.

Post by fenomas

Can you explain to me precisely how increasing the duration of copyright from 28 years to, perhaps, 100 years (being 70 + hypothetical median age until death) stifles copyright?

Stifles creativity and culture, is the argument - made best here.

Post by 331902

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

pirates can claim to have over their content

This having may be called the natural or original ownership, as it is purely a physical relationship of man to the goods, independent of social relations between men or of a legal order. The significance of the legal concept of property lies just in this—that it differentiates between the physical has and the legal should have.

Not only honest but dishonest possessors, even robbers and thieves, may claim protection for their possession.

La propriété, c'est le vol!

Post by Squishalot

@ gamerunknown - that's just semantics. I can simply rephrase - that the prostitute and the drug dealer have both physical and legal ownership over their products, distinguishing it from the pirate.

Post by fenomas

@ gamerunknown - that's just semantics. I can simply rephrase - that the prostitute and the drug dealer have both physical and legal ownership over their products, distinguishing it from the pirate.

This is why, to me, talking about torrenting/piracy in terms of property and theft always leads to dead ends - with piracy there is no such thing as physical ownership, and the comparisons break down.

I hold that the only consistent way to look at the issue is in terms of licensing. When you use a game or an iPhone app off a warez site it's pretty unambiguous that you are violating someone's TOU - it's conceptually similar to what happens when you e.g. use GNU-licensed source code in a closed-source program. You haven't stolen anything, you've simply violated the terms under which the creator offered his work to be used.

And to me this is why the thing breaks down for TV shows. It's not obvious to me that someone can broadcast video over the public airwaves (so to speak), but also impose a license on how the content may be viewed. To me that seems akin to putting a piece of art on display in the park and saying nobody is allowed to photograph it.

Post by Squishalot

I hold that the only consistent way to look at the issue is in terms of licensing. When you use a game or an iPhone app off a warez site it's pretty unambiguous that you are violating someone's TOU - it's conceptually similar to what happens when you e.g. use GNU-licensed source code in a closed-source program. You haven't stolen anything, you've simply violated the terms under which the creator offered his work to be used.

The thing is, others in the past have espoused the idea that when you purchase a game, you own it in a property sense, and that TOUs aren't enforceable (which I disagree with).

And to me this is why the thing breaks down for TV shows. It's not obvious to me that someone can broadcast video over the public airwaves (so to speak), but also impose a license on how the content may be viewed. To me that seems akin to putting a piece of art on display in the park and saying nobody is allowed to photograph it.

I disagree - firstly, isn't most pirated content coming from cable TV channels? Secondly, there are licensing terms associated with free-to-air broadcasts in legislation generally. You can't dig up the flower beds at the park despite them being available for public viewing, despite the lack of explicit rules to say as much - there are underlying laws that restrict such behaviour.

Morality of Torrenting....

Post Reply