Veddy Interesting

[the_gneech]

Snagged from punktiger ... free downloads, artist's rights, etc..

Although it currently only applies directly to the music industry, it's not that far a leap to stuff that concerns me in a very direct and personal manner, so I found it very interesting. :)

-The Gneech

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

"I'm talking about more obvious cases here. Let's say you discovered a 12 year-old had cracked his copy of your software and was using it, more for a hobby than much else as he's not experienced enough to understand it all; would you press charges or not?"

The short answer is "Yes". Juvenile court is where this sort of thing is handled. The example you chose is obvious, but not for the reasons you expected. When I was twelve, I had been in business for myself two years, and had moved out of the house. Your hypothetical person has the capability to crack the security system on the software -- he understands enough. And who indeed "understands it all" -- certainly not me. ;)

You seem to be equating "12 years old" with "innocent" -- it does not match my own recollections. ;)

But if my own security system had been easily compromised, my revenue would have dropped by perhaps 75% -- except for one factor: I would have pulled the product from the market. It would no longer be worthwhile to write and support. I ultimately did so years later for other reasons, focusing on the unreliability of Windows at that time.

I don't think that "ease of copying", which is now true of music and had been true of software for some time, automatically equates to "inalienable right to copy". And there is a large distinction between "copy for me" and "copy for my two, or two thousand, friends".

The record companies do not have a "monopoly", it seems to me, unless you are playing with definitions. I have produced and sold CDs, and have sponsored a couple of music groups. So, your definition would have to include me as a "record company". ;)

===|================/ Level Head

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

When I was twelve, I had been in business for myself two years, and had moved out of the house.
---------------------

...and you see that as the general state of the situation today? :p
I mean, you have extremes in all areas, but if you start putting up security measures by their standards, you might just hang yourself and be done with it. "Oh! Someone could walk down the street and shoot me! Quick, make a law that bans walking down the street!"

(*)We're not discussing changing the laws to be more lenient towards juvenile pirates here, we're discussing whether or not the laws/actions based on the current findings are right or not [aka, if the findings themselves are valid].

Are there people who only use pirated software, even when they can afford it? Yes.
Are there people that never use pirated software? Yes.
Are there people that use pirated software, but pay for the ones they think are worth it? Yes.

We can both recite a ton of examples from all of those categories, the question here is, which is the majority one. And unless #1 represents more than 50%, the current laws are already questionable, as you're statistically more probable to punish loyal customer for testing a product than you are to punish those that deserve it.
But again I digress, a nod towards (*).




Okay, let's see if I can pull together a reason why I keep bringing this up. The current copyright/software/sharing/streaming-related bills/laws are on based on statistics that determine how damaging the activity is. And all of these statistics are relying on the existing laws not to be questioned. AKA, if all pirates are BAD, then the figures must make sense, right? One copy pirated means one copy's profits lost.
But if we allow for the possibility that not all software piracy is in fact damaging for business [people that couldn't afford it to start with (this has nothing to do with deciding which person is which, just that there ARE people like that), people that use it for convenience's sake and not because they think it worth it (IE proves this is a strong factor),...] and can in fact sometimes be a positive thing [education about the product for future users (3D software), commercial value for software that has no demos], then those finding begin appearing very very high. Certainly too high to be realistic. And if that is so, does this make the current efforts valid?
This goes double for music, where getting known is the biggest hurdle to overcome and P2Ps are a godsend. I have a lot of artists` [exp: Lennie Moore] and smaller publishing companies` sites [exp: Alternative Tentacles] bookmarked and all of them carry MP3s of their works, in some cases, ALL of their works.
If MP3 sharing is bad for 50 artists but good for 50 000, doesn't it at least deserve a second though?

--------------------
The record companies do not have a "monopoly", it seems to me, unless you are playing with definitions. I have produced and sold CDs, and have sponsored a couple of music groups. So, your definition would have to include me as a "record company". ;)
--------------------

I was refering to the RIAA there actually. Which has a reputation for screwing their artists over or wouldn't you know it, yet is being listened to as the definitive voice of "the music industry".

[level-head.livejournal.com]

"...and you see that as the general state of the situation today?"

No. But you asked what I would do. I answered truthfully, and explained a bit.

Your comments contain several suggestions that copyright laws are based on the current surveys of likely harm. They are not, and in fact the concept of copyright goes back well over a century.

Loyal customers are not harmed, that I can see. Products are often offered on a try-before you buy basis, and in fact that's what I did. Money-back guarantees are also quite common -- although piracy has reduced this and may eliminate it for music and software -- punishing the loyal customers, it seems to me.

But I think the essential question is simple: Do you think that it is acceptable to distribute copyrighted creative work to others?

===|==============/ Level Head

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

If it's not doing any commercial harm, yes. Anything that benefits the majority without hurting individuals is okay in my book, I don't care much for hurt feelings. If using a pirated copy of Windows in a 3rd world country makes someone computer literate, then it was worth the violation.
*shrug*
Tree huggin` hippie, what can I say. :)

Re:

[level-head.livejournal.com]

True story:
I negotiated with that third world country, enticed by the prospect of selling 4,000 copies of my software. I wrote it, busted my butt on it, and then they simply obtained one pirated copy, which went to 4,000 sites.

But I was a "corporation", not an "individual", so fortunately I could not be harmed. And besides, I do good work, so I am sure that some individuals became more computer literate as a result.

===|==============/ Level Head

[unciaa.livejournal.com]

Hm, did I make an extra paragraph or something? I thought I was refering to the people that couldn't afford such a thing. Or should I restate my stance in every setnance to make it clearer?
I'm not talking ease of such an analysis, I'm not talking changing laws, I'm talking about the ONE possible person that could POSSIBLY not afford such a thing but would benefit from it. In such an, apparently extremely unlikely event, I'd have no problem with that person using it.

Or perhaps I should be more specific, also stating their sex, age, date of birth and genetic sequence before my point isn't turned around like so many rotten vegetables? Really now...

Your sole counter argument seems to be "it's hard to decide what someone can or cannot afford, so let's bunch them all up in a single bag". It seems to me that judging on someone's murder motives is infinitely more complex than determining their monetary status but hey, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps we should ask insurance companies to do it, they seem to have a good grasp of people evaluation...