ITT, We whine about how bad humanity is (especially white peoples), and rip off

[P3nT4gR4m]

I used to tape a lot of pirate stuff that my mates dad brought home from saudi. Hong kong people never ever bought music as far as I'm aware.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I used to tape a lot of pirate stuff that my mates dad brought home from saudi. Hong kong people never ever bought music as far as I'm aware.

So, we agree that you < Hong Kong, population-wise, right?

[P3nT4gR4m]

For sake of argument I'll go along with that

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For sake of argument I'll go along with that

Now, can these massive hordes of people download faster, or tape faster?

Bear in mind that we are only talking about one (1) city, so far.

[P3nT4gR4m]

takes about half the time to record as it does to listen to. Download rate may be slightly faster, even on an overloaded network like gnut or kazza. Much slower most of the time if using peer to peer.

[Triple Zero]

so, how many times do you think albums are copied compared to how many times they are sold? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?

does it then matter if you download another CD you weren't going to buy anyway?

ok, that question most probably made you go UNNNNNG inside, sorry for that. i'd still like the answer though, cause i'm having a real tough time wrapping my head around this.

i'm a computer science student. in Dutch, literally translated, an "informatician". information is my passion, my business and my expertise.

what i don't get is this, we are totally building all the infrastructure, we are creating the technology, we are connecting everthing to the global network and send information at immense speeds anywhere. because of this the individual is getting more power than ever. and then suddenly we aren't allowed to use it. wtf.

the entire concept of "property" has been centered about one thing for as long as mankind, and probably even before that, anybody knows. that of exclusivity. you don't even notice it, until it's taken away.
if i have an apple, then you don't. you can take the apple from me and i don't have it any longer. (contrast to the weather-prediction example in my previous post)
computers, digital technology and the global network have completely turned this picture upside-down: information is not a physical object!!
it behaves completely different and this is IMO not a difference that should be quickly overlooked!
it is the fundamental difference of information compared to physical stuff, that it can be copied without any (significant) extra cost. by applying copyright, digital rights management or plainly said, "copy protections", you stifle this property of information and try to turn it into a regular physical object.
except that this will plainly simply not work in the end (information is not going to let itself tied like that -- but that's just my speculation), you are also crippling the technology that made this digital age possible in the first place.

remember what LHX said a while ago about how the term "anti-biotics" should give people the creeps? well (and i don't intend to put words into his mouth here) the term "copy-protection" is for me the same to information.

now, on the other hand. i can understand the moral and ethical problems with copying a work of art freely like that.

hey, i wouldn't like it either if a customer of mine would copy the website i developed for them and gave it away to another customer.
the fact that they couldn't do it if they wanted, or they wouldn't need me for developing a website in the first place isn't the complete solution.
the fact that i made a custom-tailored website specially for them is also not the complete solution.
the fact that - as LMNO sometimes said - you can't compare micro to macro scale like that and the difference is several orders of magnitude, might be a big part of the solution but even that is not it.
i would give it up though, i would, if that was what it would take to set information free.

i also draw cartoons. maybe one day i will put them together into a book. the book will be the physical item i might be selling. but what if someone would copy my cartoons from my website and publish them somewhere else? they are in fact already online, and nobody has done so. why would they, as they are already available for free. the book is just for people who'd like to hold the physical object.
now, what if some big asshole company would take my cartoons, publish them into a book and make loads of moneys with it? that would suck big time imho. but there are again differences. first, companies aren't people. i don't like any company, but i like some people. second there's a complete inversion of scale here. we have one entity that is copying stuff and selling it to -say- millions. compare to filesharing, where there's millions of entities copying stuff but not selling anything.
on the other hand, if information would be truly free, i might even settle for that, perhaps. the big company would perform some kind of newspaper function "what kind of cool stuff has been released this week", and with nearly 7 billion people on this earth that would be enough cool stuff.

as you can see i'm kind of torn apart between two ideals. i can see the moral/ethical problems, but on the other hand i really feel strongly about this information thing, and it's most probably the thing that's going to win anyway, by sheer numbers (and other, more complex, factors) so we might as well start thinking about how to reconcile with that notion.

love to hear your ideas on this (besides calling me a stealing bastard)

[P3nT4gR4m]

We're arguing about capitalism here again. Under the present system it's morally dubious to deprive an artist of his right to earn. In an ideal world the artists would be fed, housed and shit and therefore free to create which is what we want the sonofabitch to do in the first place. But his art would not be sold at the end - it would be released into the world for the rest of society to benefit from.

This isn't an ideal world tho. Artists have to compromise their integrity by order of corporations cowtowing to the bottom line. And I can't afford to give handouts to every starving artist I listen to, especially when their shit is available for free. I aint prepared to live in silence or listen to the same cd over and over but, if it wasn't available to download I may buy slightly more but the bottom line is I'd spend more time listening to the radio. Either way artist starves.

[B_M_W]

so, how many times do you think albums are copied compared to how many times they are sold? 10 times? 100 times? 1000 times?

does it then matter if you download another CD you weren't going to buy anyway?

ok, that question most probably made you go UNNNNNG inside, sorry for that. i'd still like the answer though, cause i'm having a real tough time wrapping my head around this.

i'm a computer science student. in Dutch, literally translated, an "informatician". information is my passion, my business and my expertise.

what i don't get is this, we are totally building all the infrastructure, we are creating the technology, we are connecting everthing to the global network and send information at immense speeds anywhere. because of this the individual is getting more power than ever. and then suddenly we aren't allowed to use it. wtf.

the entire concept of "property" has been centered about one thing for as long as mankind, and probably even before that, anybody knows. that of exclusivity. you don't even notice it, until it's taken away.
if i have an apple, then you don't. you can take the apple from me and i don't have it any longer. (contrast to the weather-prediction example in my previous post)
computers, digital technology and the global network have completely turned this picture upside-down: information is not a physical object!!
it behaves completely different and this is IMO not a difference that should be quickly overlooked!
it is the fundamental difference of information compared to physical stuff, that it can be copied without any (significant) extra cost. by applying copyright, digital rights management or plainly said, "copy protections", you stifle this property of information and try to turn it into a regular physical object.
except that this will plainly simply not work in the end (information is not going to let itself tied like that -- but that's just my speculation), you are also crippling the technology that made this digital age possible in the first place.

remember what LHX said a while ago about how the term "anti-biotics" should give people the creeps? well (and i don't intend to put words into his mouth here) the term "copy-protection" is for me the same to information.

now, on the other hand. i can understand the moral and ethical problems with copying a work of art freely like that.

hey, i wouldn't like it either if a customer of mine would copy the website i developed for them and gave it away to another customer.
the fact that they couldn't do it if they wanted, or they wouldn't need me for developing a website in the first place isn't the complete solution.
the fact that i made a custom-tailored website specially for them is also not the complete solution.
the fact that - as LMNO sometimes said - you can't compare micro to macro scale like that and the difference is several orders of magnitude, might be a big part of the solution but even that is not it.
i would give it up though, i would, if that was what it would take to set information free.

i also draw cartoons. maybe one day i will put them together into a book. the book will be the physical item i might be selling. but what if someone would copy my cartoons from my website and publish them somewhere else? they are in fact already online, and nobody has done so. why would they, as they are already available for free. the book is just for people who'd like to hold the physical object.
now, what if some big asshole company would take my cartoons, publish them into a book and make loads of moneys with it? that would suck big time imho. but there are again differences. first, companies aren't people. i don't like any company, but i like some people. second there's a complete inversion of scale here. we have one entity that is copying stuff and selling it to -say- millions. compare to filesharing, where there's millions of entities copying stuff but not selling anything.
on the other hand, if information would be truly free, i might even settle for that, perhaps. the big company would perform some kind of newspaper function "what kind of cool stuff has been released this week", and with nearly 7 billion people on this earth that would be enough cool stuff.

as you can see i'm kind of torn apart between two ideals. i can see the moral/ethical problems, but on the other hand i really feel strongly about this information thing, and it's most probably the thing that's going to win anyway, by sheer numbers (and other, more complex, factors) so we might as well start thinking about how to reconcile with that notion.

love to hear your ideas on this (besides calling me a stealing bastard)

I also feel very strongly that information should be a free resource. But the clinch point comes when you try to draw the line between the free resource of information and the noncentralized and nonphysical source of information that becomes media as software. There is this huge gray area where the two are basically inseparable. A computer program is really nothing but lines of code, information that when inserted into a computer superstructure becomes a process. The same thing happens when media (pictures, music, etc) are changed to a digital format; all of their makeup becomes code. And then, when you set this code, this information, loose on the internet in large amounts, scattering and decentralizing it until it becomes non-physical, can we really still talk of it as "property"?

The real problem, I think, is our basic understanding of information. At its base state, to call something intellectual property, what does that even mean? I read something online, that information is then inside me. Does that mean that the person who wrote it is in ownership of me then? Thats how strange some of this sounds!

To me, it comes down to two things: Respect and money. Respect indicates that I credit the originator of information, or as close as I can get. Money indicates that the originator of information should be the one who gains monetarily from it, unless they pass that gain on to someone else. However, for me, there is a colloraly: if the originator does not choose to gain monetarily (to sell), or ceases to gain monetarily from the information, then that information should become free, in the sense that it should be allowed to be freely passed in between individuals. The credit is still due to the originator, but since they are not selling, then the issue of money should become moot.

An example: Nintendo discontinued production of the NES in 1995. As such, all console software and cartridge software in their original format are no longer being produced. Since they cannot be purchased, free sharing of them should be allowed. Thus I support the free sharing of NES emulators and roms.

Those are my ideas.

[Mourning Star]

To me, it comes down to two things: Respect and money. Respect indicates that I credit the originator of information, or as close as I can get. Money indicates that the originator of information should be the one who gains monetarily from it, unless they pass that gain on to someone else. However, for me, there is a colloraly: if the originator does not choose to gain monetarily (to sell), or ceases to gain monetarily from the information, then that information should become free, in the sense that it should be allowed to be freely passed in between individuals. The credit is still due to the originator, but since they are not selling, then the issue of money should become moot.

I can certainly agree with this, and here is a thought that I have to add to it...

On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead.  I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind.  So who am I stealing from?  The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him.  And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Look...all you need to do to see a world in which there is no intellectual property is to visit Bulgaria.

Is that what you want?

[Triple Zero]

bulgaria, you say? have you in fact ever been there?

Session Start (Mordred): Tue Jan 09 09:37:24 2007
[09:38.17] 000: some american guy (generally clever guy though) in a discussion about intellectual property:

> Look...all you need to do to see a world in which there is no intellectual property is to visit
> Bulgaria.

> Is that what you want?

except that i'm gonna ask him if he's ever actually *been* to bulgaria, would you like to add a comment perhaps?
[09:39.01] Mordred: Heh, he's both right and not right.
Of course there is legislation for IP
[09:39.18] Mordred: And of course there are many cases of successfullly protected IP
[09:39.24] 000: (btw you need to interpret this in a very cynical mode)
[09:39.35] Mordred: and of course there is piracy
[09:39.47] Mordred: I don't think it's much different than any other country actually
[09:40.23] Mordred: A few years ago it was even better, we had huge .bg-only accessible "free" servers where everyone could have a 1-2G account to upload warez
[09:40.50] Mordred: now they reverted to torrents, but there are still tons of publicly known warez ones
[09:41.00] 000: i think he was more trying to refer to bulgaria as "some poor east european country" in a kind of Borat-style way
[09:41.12] Mordred: in a sense, piracy is common knowledge, not a part of the underground or something
[09:41.20] 000: well, same here
[09:41.30] Mordred: Ah well, he's not unright about that too
[09:42.06] Mordred: Interesting though, our biggest torrent tracker has a policy of NOT allowing .bg software on the tracker
[09:43.02] 000: so, you would say "just look at Bulgaria" is a good argument for intellectual property?
[09:44.27] Mordred: Yeah, a passable one. Still, you may ask him if he's been here )
I wonder if Moldova really doesn't have copyright laws as Fjalar states
[09:44.44] Mordred: if so, they would be an even better example
[09:44.53] 000: hehehe
[09:45.07] Mordred: But generally, yes, everyone pirates.
Don't tell anyone that I do, though ;P~
[09:45.30] Mordred: Btw i know of enough firms, that use some unlicensed soft as well :/
[09:45.49] Mordred: So it's really a part of the culture, you might saw
[09:45.51] Mordred: *say
[09:46.06] 000: well it seems the propaganda machines in the usa might actually work and cause people to actually reconsider downloading music (cause that's what we were talking about, not software)
[09:46.59] Mordred: Well, for music there are even pay sites, maybe they are even legal
But generally everyone with a computer and a taste for music downloads it for free
[09:47.38] Mordred: Last CD I bought was only because it was Bulgarian, and I really liked it and the guitarist is the brother of a colegue
[09:48.46] Mordred: try this:
(Link: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=66582462)http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=66582462
[09:49.01] Mordred: The squeaky sounding instrument is a Bulgarian bagpipe
[09:49.05] 000: but, looking at Moldavia, you would agree that not having intellectual property laws will bring a country down into cultural savagery and failing economies?
[09:49.41] 000:
[09:49.49] Mordred: On the contrary, I think piracy is very boosting for an economy
[09:50.19] Mordred: Do you think all the bright kids can afford to buy visual studio, photoshop, illustrator, 3d max, maya
[09:51.12] 000: well definitely not when you're only 14 or something, which is when you should start learning it if you wanna become real good [music is pretty good btw, esp when the guitars kick in]

----------

BMW: thanks, it seems i actually got my point across (hard for me sometimes on complicated subjects like these). about respect, money and property, according to the law it means this:
- you create a "work". this "work" must be based upon an original idea (in addition there is some kind of rule for "derived works" which i forgot), and placed on a physical medium (meaning if you just have an idea but don't implement it, you have no copyright even though you might have come up with it first)
- once you did this, you may write "copyright 2007" next to it, which doesn't really carry any legal value (though maybe it does in the US, i'm not sure) but in any way serves as a reminder that the work is copyrighted (which it is anyway by default) and when it was made.
- now, you automatically attain two rights:
1. the copyright, which is split into two other rights i explained above. you can transfer copyright by matter of licenses (contracts), which can also happen implicitly (for example if you do a job for a company, the copyright might automatically transfer to them even without the contract stating this).
the copyright is mostly about money, since you charge people for the license.
notice btw copyright says nothing about using the "work". in fact even, if the copyright conflicts with the "intended use" of the "work", the "intended use" takes precedence. one exception is computer software, of which the "intended use" is to copy it to the RAM of a computer in order to run it, some software companies were very smart in court and now this copying is considered a copyright-protected act, which means according to law you are not allowed to run any software without an explicit license.
music on the other hand doesn't have this exception, and you are in fact explicitly allowed to make home-copies of your music, in order to play your CDs on a cassetteplayer as well.
also note, that the copying of music is the illegal bit. once you have acquired MP3s illegally, there's no law for taking them away from you (because according to law it is not stealing, as the original author still possesses the copyright), and also no law preventing you from playing them and listening to them. you may not, however make copies of them.
this means there is no such things as "illegal MP3s". anyway i'm digressing.
2. the second right, is the maker's right. this one is about the respect. it is a right you can NOT transfer to anybody. you have made something, you have made it and nobody is going to take that away from you. even if you are a ghost writer for somebody else, you could come claiming 20 years later "hey i wrote that" and if you can prove it you would be legally entitled to get the credit for it. the law doesn't do much more than stopping people from claiming the honour or putting their name under something they haven't made. if, for example in the case of ghost writers, the maker decides not to make a big fuss about it, that is fine as well.
notice that "maker's right" is separate from "copyright", but both are part of IP laws.

(i am not a lawyer, and part of the stuff i explained may be specific to dutch IP laws and slightly different in other places)

[AFK]

On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead.  I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind.  So who am I stealing from?  The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him.  And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...

So where should the profits of dead musicians go?  Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?  And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay? 

[hunter s.durden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_gy48cBl-g  -  song

It's Know it All by Lagwagon from the albumn Trashed



This is kinda off topic, but this song sums up how I feel about people who hate any band that get's signed by a big label and makes money. Just thought i'd stick this thought here.


Lyrics-
KNOW IT ALL
Look at the world in disbelief You used to follow - now you lead College has enlightened you And you are proud to be different And like different bands - different types You ain't nobody's fool It's like certain bands remind you of someone you hated 'Cause they didn't wear the right clothing And there's only one true fashion Alot of the bands on the college charts are great bands until they get signed. Then you hate them It's such bullshit - you used to love them you hypocrite I remember you and I listening to bands that we liked Only the songs mattered to you But now you're a D.J. and preaching that hype "Corporate Rock Sucks" "You know, college radio enlightens you" It's supposed to serve as a means to expose new bands without prejudice, but it makes no sense Safe harbor for the underground 'Til the alternative becomes the popular sound The bands are good 'til they make enough cash to eat food and get a pad Then they're sold out and their music is clich?© Because talent's exclusive to bands without pay Know it all - Did you really listen to that song? Could you ever write what you call wrong?

[B_M_W]

On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead.  I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind.  So who am I stealing from?  The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him.  And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...

So where should the profits of dead musicians go?  Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?  And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay? 

Any copyrighted material comes into public domain after a number of years anyway. 100, or something like that. Gaspar Sanz wrote Canarios near the end of the 17th century. That music is in the public domain, which means I can record it and sell the recording without having to ask for permission. But no, I don't think that death should cancel out any monetary gain, if the artist has passed on that to another individual.

[Mourning Star]

On the concept of music, let us say that the artist in question is dead.  I give the Example of one of my favourite musicians Elliott Smith, he's been dead for a few years now, so if I choose to download his music instead of purchase his back catalog, am I hurting him? no, am I hurting his family? no, he didn't leave one behind.  So who am I stealing from?  The record company that will hold the rights to this man's creativity for the next 20 years or so, and continue to profit off him.  And fuck a record company that gains further profits off the death of their artists...

So where should the profits of dead musicians go?  Are you suggesting that when an artist dies their music should be free?  And are you also suggesting that taking advantage of someone who is dead is okay? 

Taking advantage?  I don't see it that way...

But James O'Barr put it better than I can...

"One owes respect to the living, to the dead, one owes only truth."