Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Thoughts on "Piracy".
40hz:
Theft is a case where the thief deprives the victim, of something.
Copyright infringement does not necessarily lead to deprivation.
-eleman (November 27, 2014, 05:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
Great points! :Thmbsup:
-Renegade (November 27, 2014, 07:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
More like great rationalizations, but there you go. :-\
BTW: the Obama administration probably has a job for you, gentlemen. They love the art of "nuancing" definitions as much as you do. :P ;)
4wd:
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. -Renegade (November 27, 2014, 07:30 AM)
--- End quote ---
No, but the problem is mine - I'm trying to explain something but unfortunately I can't get the terms I want to use correct or I'm not using the correct terms.
As soon as I can get it straight in my head I'll you know. :)
The interesting thing is whether something is right/wrong or ethical/unethical or moral/immoral/amoral or something along those lines. That's the direction I'm trying to steer the conversation in.
--- End quote ---
And unfortunately that's where you lose me because those terms have close to zero meaning for me.
Theft is a case where the thief deprives the victim, of something.
Copyright infringement does not necessarily lead to deprivation.
-eleman (November 27, 2014, 05:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
Great points! :Thmbsup:
--- End quote ---
So getting back to your Netflix scenario:
a) Are the copyright holders being deprived?
They're still getting paid.
b) Is the content distributor being deprived?
They're still getting paid.
c) Are the people using VPNs breaking Australian Copyright Law, (which, while it has some elements of the USA DMCA, is not identical)?
Interesting question.
d) Are they breaking anything?
Netflix T & C by not being in a country that Netflix serves.
e) How about Netflix?
Are they not breaking the T & C of their contracts with the copyright holders by supplying material to "unauthorised" (for want of a better word) users?
So, are the people in Australia using VPNs to access Netflix or Hulu in the USA "pirates"?
Who knows but according to the Australian Federal Government in 2011:
A spokesperson for Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Australian last week: “In relation to the use of VPNs by Australians to access services such as Hulu and Netflix, on the limited information provided there does not appear to be an infringement of copyright law in Australia.”
--- End quote ---
This, (AFAIK), is classed as parallel import and in Australia, you're free to parallel import any item, (providing it's legal to own/use, etc), without restriction since about 2000, (I believe the only two items exempted were books and cars but I think that changed for books).
That still holds true to this day ... so who is really at fault here?
1) The people using VPNs and false information to deceive Netflix?
That's not piracy, that's receiving by deception.
2) Netflix, (and other content distributers), for not abiding by their contracts with content providers?
They should be policing who has access ... but they don't want the responsibility.
Until the Australian Federal Government makes a ruling one way or the other, or it's tested in an Australian Court of Law, the subject of whether or not these people are pirates is pretty much irrelevant.
AFA the content providers are concerned they are, AFA the Government are concerned they're not - take your pick.
You seem to have jumped on the side of the content providers ... me, I don't care.
So my original reply to your Netflix post still stands except my remark about 'summary execution under DMCA' was wrong.
Renegade:
BTW: the Obama administration probably has a job for you, gentlemen. They love the art of "nuancing" definitions as much as you do. :P ;)
-40hz (November 27, 2014, 10:23 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh come on! It's all good fun!
The interesting thing is whether something is right/wrong or ethical/unethical or moral/immoral/amoral or something along those lines. That's the direction I'm trying to steer the conversation in.
--- End quote ---
And unfortunately that's where you lose me because those terms have close to zero meaning for me.
-4wd (November 27, 2014, 12:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's not a very common position to take, but I understand it.
You seem to have jumped on the side of the content providers ... me, I don't care.
-4wd (November 27, 2014, 12:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, that? No. I was merely trying to point out the absurdity of laws.
So my original reply to your Netflix post still stands except my remark about 'summary execution under DMCA' was wrong.
-4wd (November 27, 2014, 12:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Don't be so quick to retract there about summary execution! :D It's just a few strokes of a pen away at any given time!
One of the problems with piracy/copying is that while a lot of people will certainly jump on it being wrong, nobody ever seems to be able to articulate why very well, or to address counterfactuals very well.
I'll leave off with a couple essays, both titled "Against Intellectual Property" for anyone that wants a more serious treatment of the topic:
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
It's rather long at 71 pages. No excerpts.
This one is rather short though:
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/95psa.html
There is a strong case for opposing intellectual property. There are a number of negative consequences of the ownership of information, such as retarding of innovation and exploitation of poor countries. Most of the usual arguments for intellectual property do not hold up under scrutiny. In particular, the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas provides no justification for ownership of ideas. The alternative to intellectual property is that intellectual products not be owned, as in the case of everyday language. Strategies against intellectual property include civil disobedience, promotion of non-owned information, and fostering of a more cooperative society.
--- End quote ---
But, I suppose I've played the Devil's Advocate enough, and it's about worn out now.
40hz:
What IP does is create the opportunity for "walk-away income" which is saying it allows someone to separate income from hours.
A popular lecturer has only so many hours in a year in which he/he can make money lecturing. And so many venues in which to do it.
Record the seminar on a video, and the money earned is not directly linked to the lecturer's presence. And the venue becomes what is most convenient to the listener. No need to run out somewhere to hear something you want to hear. You can put in on when and where you wish - and listen to it as many times as you want. Big benefit to the listener that's not possible otherwise.
Put the same information in a book and it has the potential to reach millions and doesn't require sophisticated technology to access it. Big benefit for the less financially well off - or those in less advanced environments - yet still retains the benefits of the recorded seminar.
Publish electronically and the buyer gets all of the above plus the convenience of instant access. Benefit again.
Pirate any of the above and the lecturer gets zero for all the additional benefits provided. His/her income opportunities are reduced to what can be made by doing a live presentation. Their income once again becomes tied to physical hours. Furthermore, the pirated copies have the potential to reduce what might have otherwise been a valuable product to a commodity. Why pay for it at all when you can get it for free?
Basically, the creator of intellectual property is once again reduced to swapping hours of lifetime for dollars on a one-to-one basis. Which serves to put an absolute cap on one's earning potential even under the most ideal set of circumstances.
But it gets worse. With the commoditization of IP something else bad happens. Piracy serves to drive out professionals. Because once you can no longer make a living, the only people that can afford to pursue an activity are the wealthy and the amateurs.
If you look at literature prior to the 20th century, writing was the playground of the wealthy and privileged. And the books reflected the interests and biases of those who wrote them. Books were written by "the establishment" and preached establishment politics and mores. It wasn't until independent publishers started making inexpensive books and pamphlets (and paying authors) that differing viewpoints got more broadly into circulation - sometimes with disruptive ideas that reshaped the societies themselves.
Pirating IP isn't liberating. It does little more than reduce people that create IP to an hourly wage since it destroys the opportunity for walk-away income. Which on turn puts a cap on creative earnings. Which eventually kills off professionalism and gives the stage to the amateurs and the idle. Because why would anybody with an ounce of brains want to go through all the trouble of being creative when they could just get a job doing something a lot easier. And likely for the same (or more) money?
Pirating is a game changer. But not in the way some people think. What it mostly does is switch the formula for who is doing the screwing. It used to be the studios and record labels who were ripping off the talent. Now it's their fans.
Yeah...that's so much better.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@Ren - you still didn't answer my earlier question about whether or not you felt there would be harm if I were to crack your software and start giving it away to as many people as I could. And also encourage them to do the same. Because if I read some of what you're saying correctly, by your calculus and rationale, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong or hurting you in the slightest. In fact, from an anarchist (or libertarian or whatever) viewpoint it seems I'm almost morally bound to do exactly that.
Y'know..."Power to the People - off The Man" and all that other 60s stuff dudes like this used to go on and on about?
(And mostly in coffee shops or Student Union buildings.) :P
TaoPhoenix:
Good post 40hz. I want to drift this slightly sideways that the "college model" is under fire from all this. Typical "entry level" college semesters are jut batches of 40 lectures per course per year. For X thousands of dollars.
I've remarked here and there, just release the set of lectures, and the only "value" is about ten questions per semester.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version