Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Hurt Locker Downloaders to be sued

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Hurt Locker Downloaders to be sued
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Sector7G

Joined: 24 May 2008

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:30 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Sector7G wrote:

I think we are talking about two different things here. I think everyone on the board agrees that the penalties for the little guy caught illegally downloading are too severe. There really is no argument there.

I'm arguing they should be non-existent, and that both downloading and profit-free sharing files of any variety should not be a legal offense. Copyright laws should protect others from using your work for profit, not from downloading it for personal use or sharing it with others.

Sector7G wrote:

Not one of them is willingly giving its property away.

From my perspective, files on the internet are not theirs to give, and the government supporting them in insisting otherwise is an example of government over-reach.

That's an interesting perspective, and I am not sure what you base it on, so I don't really know how to argue against it. But it sounds like you feel that once something gets to the internet, no matter how it gets there, all bets are off - any exclusivity rights are lost.

Sector7G wrote:

Each and every company cited above as an example of an innovative company is shooting for 100% compliance with the exclusive rights of their property, even if they know that goal is unattainable.

My point was rather that they've found various solutions to incentivize people to pay them for services. More such solutions exists, and corporate America should be forced to rely on those solutions, rather than litigating against common citizens in hopes of scaring people into compliance.

Can you give me one example of an incentive that would cause people to pay for a service when they knew that they could get if for free without fear of prosecution? And on the flip side, what would cause a person who is already downloading without paying even though they could face heavy fines to suddenly start buying when that deterrent is taken away?

Sector7G wrote:

I don't think any one of them is any more or less anti-consumer than the others, but not one of them is altruistic

I agree, and I don't expect altrusim. That's why it's important that the law be changed, so that their lack of altruism doesn't lead to the legal harassment of common citizens. These companies have proven that companies can look after themselves without over-zealous copyright law, and that fact should inform legislation on the matter.

No one is forcing these people to download without paying. If they stop they will not suddenly become an injured party. They would not be losing anything they were entitled to in the first place.

Sector7G wrote:

You guys are rightfully applauding companies like Apple for building a better mousetrap, but they expect to get paid for each and every mousetrap. And rightfully so.

And that's good. The problem is when companies -- instead of innovating new and better "mousetraps" to lure in customers -- resort to essentially bribing politicians to write the law in their favor, then start using that law to bully customers in hopes of scaring them. That's what I oppose.

Yes but my point is that no matter how great their mousetrap is no one will buy it if they know they can get it for free without any fear of penalty.

Believe me Fox, I am no fan of government over reach either, but I don't see how they are the bogeyman here.

Just curious. How do you feel about illegally hooking up cable into a private home for private not for profit viewing?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:14 am Post subject:

Sector7G wrote:

Fox wrote:

Sector7G wrote:

From my perspective, files on the internet are not theirs to give, and the government supporting them in insisting otherwise is an example of government over-reach.

That's an interesting perspective, and I am not sure what you base it on, so I don't really know how to argue against it. But it sounds like you feel that once something gets to the internet, no matter how it gets there, all bets are off - any exclusivity rights are lost.

It has nothing to do with the internet inherently (although the internet is the innovation that brought the issue to the forefront so prominently), but rather with the concept of what copyright should entail. I find the idea that copyright laws should give the "creator" of an idea, device, program, or so forth complete control on a level that actually trumps other people's tangible property rights to be beyond questionable. I don't see how it benefits society at all, but I can think of ways it harms it.

The point of copyright laws are to encourage creation by giving certain rights to the creator, but it's not an all-or-nothing thing. We can give them exclusive rights to financially profit from their idea while denying them the right to sue individuals who download their music, programs, etc for personal use. This would retain the benefits of the copyright system (encouraging creativity, allowing corporations or individuals to take action against others using their ideas for profit) while avoiding the downsides (such as individuals being legally harassed by corporations simply because they configured their computer a certain way).

I think exclusivity with regards to profit-generating activity for a certain period of time is reasonable, but that doesn't mean we have to take it a step further and start bringing the law down on people who make copies for personal use, share with their friends, or even share with strangers. My computer should be 100% mine, and that includes any data that is on it, as data is just a computer configuration, not some sort of tangible object.

Sector7G wrote:

Can you give me one example of an incentive that would cause people to pay for a service when they knew that they could get if for free without fear of prosecution? And on the flip side, what would cause a person who is already downloading without paying even though they could face heavy fines to suddenly start buying when that deterrent is taken away?

Yes, I can, and I can do so with total, honest certainty, because it involves me. I pirate software, and I'm not at all ashamed of it. I also feel totally confident I'll never be prosecuted for it. None the less, I purchase software from Stardock (a company I mentioned earlier), despite the fact that Stardock doesn't actually copy protect its materials. The reason I do this is because Stardock has found an incentive structure that works with regards to me. Their client ensures I can access my software easily on any computer, it ensures for me that I'm always working with the latest, most up-to-date version, and it makes purchase and download easy and virus free. All these things together are minor, but they add up to a package that makes me -- and other Stardock customers -- pay for the service.

Another example is the Xbox. With a mod chip, your Xbox can play downloaded games. I could have this done, and never pay for another Xbox game again. I don't, though, because Microsoft has provided an incentive for me to keep playing with an un-modded box: it's online services. They're convenient and enjoyable, and modding my Xbox risks me getting cut off from them. Even if that happened I could still keep using my Xbox, but I value Microsoft's service, so I don't do it.

I pay for things I don't have to, and I'm a person with no ethical issues with piracy at all, in combination with the ability to pirate more or less anything I want. What holds true for me will hold even more true for much of the population. This is why I can state with such certainty that these laws as applied to individuals simply aren't necessary. Under my proposed system, distribution websites would still be valid targets too, so it's not like the content of the internet would actually change. The only difference would be that individuals could no longer be legally harassed for using bittorrent and its like.

Sector7G wrote:

No one is forcing these people to download without paying. If they stop they will not suddenly become an injured party. They would not be losing anything they were entitled to in the first place.

They become an injured party insofar as their right to use their actual property is trumped by someone else's abstract right to an idea. I think it's fair to categorize that infringement as an injury. I should be able to click any link on the internet I want, and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. I should be able to run any program I can find on the internet on my computer, and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. I should be able to share any data I possess with my friends -- or even with strangers -- and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. These are infringements upon freedom, and I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to see those freedoms sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit margins.

Sector7G wrote:

Yes but my point is that no matter how great their mousetrap is no one will buy it if they know they can get it for free without any fear of penalty.

And yet, I do just that, so how can you say it with such certainty? This is just another example of corporate propaganda that the public has been sold on. "We need these absolute rights to abstract ideas. We need the ability to legally harass average citizens who use bittorrent, limewire, or so forth. If we didn't have it, no one would pay for anything and everything would fall apart!" It's simply not true, though. Clever business models will triumph, and dinosaurian business models which rely on scare tactics will fail. It's the free market at its best.

I can get water from my tap virtually for free, but I regularly buy bottled water, because it's a convenient service. The same is true with regards to music, movies, programs, and so forth: it goes beyond the core product and into providing good service.

Sector7G wrote:

Just curious. How do you feel about illegally hooking up cable into a private home for private not for profit viewing?

As far as I'm aware, that requires physically tampering with corporate property, which is justifiably illegal. You should have the right to use your own property however you wish, but that doesn't extend to cable company property.

On the other hand, if your neighbor gets cable and uses his own equipment to "pipe the signal to you," I feel the limit of how the cable company should be able to legally respond is by cutting off the original customer's service. I also feel that the British tendency to prosecute people for viewing broadcasted television without a TV license is wrong. Broadcasting into their homes and then telling them they have no right to intercept the signal without your permission is ridiculous.

Sector7G

Joined: 24 May 2008

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:57 pm Post subject:

"Fox wrote:

Quote:

This would retain the benefits of the copyright system (encouraging creativity, allowing corporations or individuals to take action against others using their ideas for profit) while avoiding the downsides (such as individuals being legally harassed by corporations simply because they configured their computer a certain way).

My computer should be 100% mine, and that includes any data that is on it, as data is just a computer configuration, not some sort of tangible object.

Fox, this "computer configuration" defense is really a stretch, and if you were to ultimately convince me that these copyright laws are unduly harsh and an assault on personal freedoms, then you would need to come up with a better reason than that. There are limits to what one has the right to do with personal property, such as not using it to facilitate a crime. I know, you say downloading should not be a crime, that is what we are debating, but you have to find another way to convince me. This is pretty much a circular argument.

Quote:

Yes, I can, and I can do so with total, honest certainty, because it involves me. I pirate software, and I'm not at all ashamed of it. I also feel totally confident I'll never be prosecuted for it. None the less, I purchase software from Stardock (a company I mentioned earlier), despite the fact that Stardock doesn't actually copy protect its materials. The reason I do this is because Stardock has found an incentive structure that works with regards to me. Their client ensures I can access my software easily on any computer, it ensures for me that I'm always working with the latest, most up-to-date version, and it makes purchase and download easy and virus free. All these things together are minor, but they add up to a package that makes me -- and other Stardock customers -- pay for the service.

Another example is the Xbox. With a mod chip, your Xbox can play downloaded games. I could have this done, and never pay for another Xbox game again. I don't, though, because Microsoft has provided an incentive for me to keep playing with an un-modded box: it's online services. They're convenient and enjoyable, and modding my Xbox risks me getting cut off from them. Even if that happened I could still keep using my Xbox, but I value Microsoft's service, so I don't do it. I pay for things I don't have to, and I'm a person with no ethical issues with piracy at all, in combination with the ability to pirate more or less anything I want. What holds true for me will hold even more true for much of the population. This is why I can state with such certainty that these laws as applied to individuals simply aren't necessary. Under my proposed system, distribution websites would still be valid targets too, so it's not like the content of the internet would actually change. The only difference would be that individuals could no longer be legally harassed for using bittorrent and its like.

So you pay for things when it is convenient, and you don't when it's not. Not sure how that justifies it. And how does this guarantee this would hold even more true for others?Plus, you even suggest that the threat of being cut off from services is one reason you pay.

Quote:

They become an injured party insofar as their right to use their actual property is trumped by someone else's abstract right to an ideaI think it's fair to categorize that infringement as an injury. I should be able to click any link on the internet I want, and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. I should be able to run any program I can find on the internet on my computer, and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. I should be able to share any data I possess with my friends -- or even with strangers -- and I refuse to tolerate the government telling me otherwise. .

How is the "right" to do anything you want with your computer, including infringing on the rights of others, any less of an abstract idea?

Quote:

These are infringements upon freedom, and I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to see those freedoms sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit margins.

Yes it's easy to condemn the greedy corporations, but there are small indy companies that find it hard to compete when their content is put out for free.

Quote:

Clever business models will triumph, and dinosaurian business models which rely on scare tactics will fail. It's the free market at its best.

I agree, but laws against copyright infringement of intellectual property are no less valid than laws against theft of actual property. You make some great points, but still have not convinced me otherwise.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

[l My computer should be 100% mine, and that includes any data that is on it, as data is just a computer configuration, not some sort of tangible object.

.

"any data"?

So let's say you worked for the U.S government military and you were somehow able to access and download sensitive military data on to your computer.

Does that data then become yours and you can do what you want with it...including selling it to a third party nation?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Fox wrote:

[l My computer should be 100% mine, and that includes any data that is on it, as data is just a computer configuration, not some sort of tangible object.

.

Given my stance on the military, I think it's fairly understandable that I'm against the concept of state secrets. Government should be open and transparent.

That doesn't have anything to do with copyright laws, though, and is an entirely separate discussion, so I hope you'll take my brief answer as a sufficient explanation of my stance on the matter.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject:

Sector7G wrote:

"Fox wrote:

Quote:

I'm not trying to convince you personally, I'm just explaining my case. You can object all you like, but the fact remains that programs are not objects, and that fact has to be constantly reinforced in light of the fact that so many people erroneously believe they can be "stolen".

Sector7G wrote:

There are limits to what one has the right to do with personal property, such as not using it to facilitate a crime. I know, you say downloading should not be a crime, that is what we are debating, but you have to find another way to convince me. This is pretty much a circular argument.

Justification is required for something to be a crime, not for something to not be a crime. I'm not here to prove downloading files shouldn't be a crime, I'm here to attack the arguments used to defend the idea that it should be a crime. Anything without sufficient justification to be a crime defaults to non-criminal, so I need no positive case of my own, only to highlight the incredibly weak arguments in favor of our current, draconian copyright laws. To that extent, I have:

1) Put forth the fact that programs (or songs, or movies, etc) are not objects in their own right, and thus cannot be "stolen" (I know you recognize the differnence between theft and copyright violation, but plenty of people don't).
2) Emphasized the importance of allowing citizens do to what they wish with their private property, so long as it doesn't directly harm others.
3) Explained why I feel downloading a file should not be considered harm (losing hypothetical profits you never had and can never prove you'd receive is not a type of harm, and that's the closest I've ever seen pro-war on copyright violation people come to showing downloading files causes harm).
4) Demonstrated that businesses can function successfully without relying on draconian copyright laws (using real world examples).
5) Put forward a more moderate idea which retains the bulk of the benefits of copyright law while shedding the flaw of needlessly harming private individuals who are not engaging in for-profit activity.

All of this combines in my mind to make any case in favor of prosecuting individuals using bittorrent incredibly weak. It has no social benefit, and in fact harms individuals needlessly. I've yet to see a single solid argument in favor of copyright law as it currently stands which trumps the above considerations.

Sector7G wrote:

So you pay for things when it is convenient, and you don't when it's not. Not sure how that justifies it.

It completely justifies it when we're not talking about physical objects. Stealing a toothbrush out of convenience is wrong because, in the process, you're denying the previous owner his toothbrush. Downloading a program doesn't subtract anything anyone previously had. We need a positive argument to prove that it's also wrong, and I've yet to see one that doesn't rely on current copyright law, which was written in favor of big business and to the detriment of the common man.

Yes, if a company wants us to pay for an intangible like a program, or music, or so forth, they should have to incentivize us somehow, be it through convenience, through a proprietary distribution format, or so forth. That's the free market in action, and it's a case I think the free market is well suited to.

Sector7G wrote:

And how does this guarantee this would hold even more true for others?

The proof is that it happens now. People all over the nation download songs, movies, and so forth. None the less, they still go to the movie theatres, they still buy music and go to concerts, they still buy games, and so on. Most people don't really believe they'll ever get charged with copyright violations; millions of people in the US alone pirate regularly. The proof that my system works is that, de facto, it's the system we use now. The only real difference is that in the current system, there's a lottery effect where individuals very occasionally get slapped with fines ranging from large to enormous. Again, I don't see the social benefit.

Sector7G wrote:

Plus, you even suggest that the threat of being cut off from services is one reason you pay.

A company threatening to no longer do business with you is totally valid, though. It's just another form of incentive. It's the laws that I object to. Companies can and should use any market-based means at their disposal to optimize their profits, and including cutting off problem customers from service is totally fine.

Sector7G wrote:

How is the "right" to do anything you want with your computer, including infringing on the rights of others, any less of an abstract idea?

It's a less abstract idea because it's your physical computer we're talking about. It's not an idea, it's a real thing, in your hands. How I configure my computer should be my business and no one else's.

Sector7G wrote:

Yes it's easy to condemn the greedy corporations, but there are small indy companies that find it hard to compete when their content is put out for free.

Tough luck, that's the free market. If I'm forced to make a choice, take freedom to configure my computer as I please and "indy companies" going out of business over draconian copyright laws and those companies staying in business. In reality, though, I don't think that choice is being forced upon us; my system would still sufficiently protected small businesses, since it would still prevent others from using their work for profit. So long as the small companies in question are sufficiently innovative to incentivize their customers to buy, they'll do just fine. If they aren't that innovative, the have the choice of either partnering with a big company that is (e.g. small game programming studios making games for XBOX), or going out of business. Whichever they choose, it's no matter to me, because I value our freedom to utilize our own property as we wish to be of more value to society than their business.

Sector7G wrote:

I think they are less valid. Laws against theft derive their justification from the fact that, if I steal something from you, you've lost it. That's real harm, and that real harm justifies the law. Copyright protection laws derive from nothing anywhere near as concrete. I can see some social benefit from preventing others from using your copyright work for profit (in order to give you some measure of reward for innovating, and thus to encourage it), but I see no social benefit in tyrannically preventing people from configuring their electronic devices as they wish, especially if you're able to make a profit without such laws. In fact, I see social harm in the latter.

Laws require strong justification. I think that strong justification is lacking with regards to current copyright law in its entirety.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject:

I think it's rather obvious that pirating media with the intent to use said media repeatedly and indefinitely without ever reimbursing the creator is equivalent to theft.

When I download music, I do so to test the product before I commit to buying it since most stores refuse to accept opened media, a practice that I cannot believe is allowed to continue. If it's music I enjoy, the physical CD will be in collection my next trip home. If it's music I do not enjoy and thus do not plan to purchase, I delete it from my computer and other media storage devices. To do otherwise would make me a thief.

That having been said, I think there's very little that companies should be legally allowed to do to prosecute such theft. There's no way to judge the intent of people who download music. Maybe the downloaders amass a collection of music and never listen to it just to be a digital rebel against the RIAA. Maybe they fully intend to purchase the music they like and never listen to the music they don't. Neither of these grouops are actually committing any form of theft, and thus should be free from prosecution. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to separate these people from jackasses who download, enjoy, and repeatedly use music, games, etc with no intent to ever pay for what they have used. These people are morally at fault, but, as the law cannot distinguish between them are the innocent, they should remain immune from prosecution.

Fox wrote:

Sector7G wrote:

Can you give me one example of an incentive that would cause people to pay for a service when they knew that they could get if for free without fear of prosecution?

Another example is the Xbox. With a mod chip, your Xbox can play downloaded games. I could have this done, and never pay for another Xbox game again. I don't, though, because Microsoft has provided an incentive for me to keep playing with an un-modded box: it's online services.

To be fair, this example does not match the criteria of his question. There is currently no method to acquire access to Xbox Live, the service you wish to use, without paying for it. The only appropriate comparison you could make would be between buying a retail copy of an Xbox game for offline play and using a pirated copy for offline play. Taking a trip to Yongsan or the Buy/Sell/Trade section of these forums will show that would be a poor comparison to make.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:39 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

Sector7G wrote:

Can you give me one example of an incentive that would cause people to pay for a service when they knew that they could get if for free without fear of prosecution?

I'm saying Microsoft incentivizes not pirating normal games through it's XBOX Live service, since pirating normal games requires modification that will end up getting your XBOX banned from the service. This is the reason I don't mod my XBOX; I want to continue using the Live service without risk of being banned. This is an incentive that uses a service in order to encourage people to buy the goods instead of pirating, and I think it works. Sure, it doesn't work infallibly, but infallibility isn't required for optimal social results.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:32 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

It's still not an example appropriate for his question. For this to be appropriate, there would have to exist some method by which people could safely access Xbox Live content without paying for it. Xbox Live is a service that cannot be pirated, but Sector7G is asking for an example a service that can be pirated but isn't. The offline content for the games can be pirated, and are, en masse.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:49 am Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

It's still not an example appropriate for his question. For this to be appropriate, there would have to exist some method by which people could safely access Xbox Live content without paying for it.

No there would not, because it's not Xbox Live content I'm discussing pirating, it's basic, disc-based Xbox 360 games. The Xbox service is relevent insofar as it creates an incentive to avoid modding your machine so that you can use pirated games, nothing more.

I don't pirate disc-based Xbox 360 games because it might result in me losing my Xbox Live services with the machine in question. The fact that Xbox Live itself cannot be pirated isn't important to the question of whether or not it acts as an incentive to avoid modding my machine so I can pirate.

It's like threatening to take away a child's candy if they break a rule. The candy isn't necessarily directly related to the rule itself, but it's something you can hold over them to encourage compliance.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:27 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

1) Their crime WAS NOT merely downloading and watching a movie. It was downloading and then distributing the movie. Please read the actual case complaint I linked to above if you doubt that is the gravamen of the plaintiff's allegations.

I understand that you seem to be coming at this primarily from a legal technicality perspective rather than an ethical one. To that extent, I understand why you're emphasizing that so strongly. I'll even admit that in total fairness to the legal case in question, yes, I should have written it the way you describe. However, from an ethical perspective (which is my primary concern; what the law is and what the law should be are very different things) I see utilizing bittorrent as no more offensive or wrong than making a mix CD for your friend, or lending him a movie, or one of another thousand potential every day activities that corporate America is -- through the agency of purchased politicians -- pushing towards the category of serious, prosecutable crime.

I get that. And that's fine, we don't have to agree entirely on copyright policy.

But when mere downloaders are brought into civil action for thousands of dollars of liability, I'll probably be with you, screaming my lungs out. Not least because it would be a subversion of the current copyright laws (IMO at least, because it is not entirely clear, but nobody has yet tried to claim streaming a download is a reproduction, probably because they are imagining an irate judge rebuffing their silly arguments).

In the meantime, everybody should use BitTorrent at their own peril. BitTorrent allows you to download, at the price of having to upload. That price is copyright infringement under current law.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe