PDA

View Full Version : Internet piracy



mrken
12-09-2008, 11:30 AM
Elsewhere on this forum and on others, the topic of illegal downloads is being talked about. To some it is a topic not worth discussing, to others it is seen as a crime, or even a sin. I would like to bring this topic out of the corners and into the forefront to discuss it in the open. With the spotlight on it here perhaps it will become known for what it is. I did say perhaps because I sometimes find even when all aspects of an issue are known people may still choose to ignore the truths about it because the truth may not be popular enough to be popular.

Some see illegal downloads as a small crime or sin, equal with speeding or swearing, others see it as a right because they don’t think they will be caught, or because they can do it, or even others do it because they don’t really care about how it will affect the owners of that intellectual property, just how it will benefit themselves. Yes, it may be wrong, but it’s not so bad. Everyone does it, so it’s ok. The other side of the coin is, it is wrong and all who do it are doing wrong.

I can see both sides of this issue and I stand on my side. Some may stand with me but I stand alone as one person against what is wrong. I don’t make excuses and I don’t cast my judgments as final and damming. I do, however, make my judgments, and form my opinions, and do what is right by my moral compass. I don’t expect others to live by my choices, but I do chose to share with others traditional values that were taught by our parent’s and their parent’s. The past is gone, but we don’t have to forget it because it is more fun to do what we want because it benefits us personally. It is ok to do what is right in spite of our times I think.

So, what do you think? Am I too old and too out of touch with society? Am I an evil person for making judgments about peoples actions? I don't really care about the negative aspects this has on our hobby so much as I care about what is happening to the world in general, but this is a sign of our times.

jade von delioch
12-09-2008, 11:55 AM
I think it depends on what is being download and for what reason..
Movies and Music: you could do the same thing (as we once did) when you would make a copy of something that you borrowed from a friend or video store.
RPGs: I tend to do this with only old, no longer in print games.. For those ones that are new, i see no problem if you download the game just to check it out or take it for a test drive. Its like borrowing it from the library. Maybe more game companies should have their books in the library.
Software: I don't trust cracked software. tends to have too many possible problems or hidden traps.

So i guess what thins comes down to is how the product is used and how new it is. Would it be concidered out dated or public domain (by the traditional copy right code).

Freejack
12-09-2008, 01:14 PM
Do you rip mp3's from your CD collection? I have over 100 gigs of music from something like 2,500 CDs that either I've bought, my wife has, or mom's CDs that I received when she passed. So I have the physical media for 99.% of the songs in my 100GB+ collection of music. My wife has purchased about 100 songs from iTunes so we don't have that physical media and I recorded a song (the Komeni one from the late 70's) from an online college radio station.

I have ripped a few DVDs from my collection so I can watch them on the laptop without having to drag a bunch of DVDs with me when I'm on vacation.

So using that logic, if I have the physical media (the books), why couldn't I download the PDFs, CFMs, or other digital media? Because it's harder to "rip" books, it's more convenient to download them from someone who's already ripped it.

With that said, I have purchased the Paranoia and Flashbacks PDFs, the All Flesh Must Be Eaten core book and one of the expansions (forget which off hand), and all the Shadowrun 4th Edition PDFs.

Carl

tesral
12-09-2008, 02:04 PM
The difference between illegal and immoral. Big business has been buying law by the box car load. I don't think anyone sees the MIAA and the RIAA as good guys truly defending anything in any way that is right to do.

This has given copyright a bad name. By being disrespectful of the customers they have caused the customer to not respect them or the law they have bought. They cheapen the law by making everyone a criminal. Once you do that all law suffers, not the just the law you bought.

I believe in copyright. I believe in the limited copyright as seen by the founders 20 years. I don't believe that lifetime +70 years is moral. It might be legal, but it isn't moral. A creator of something should have the right to profit form that something. However I don't believe his or her heirs or corporate shills have any such right.

That said the way to fight it is to lobby your congress critter to get it changed. To nail the *IAA to the wall every time they abuse the law or outright break the law (Which they do, frequently)

The recording industry does not have the right to their business model. Laws bought to protect that business model are immoral.

MortonStromgal
12-09-2008, 02:23 PM
I believe in copyright. I believe in the limited copyright as seen by the founders 20 years. I don't believe that lifetime +70 years is moral. It might be legal, but it isn't moral. A creator of something should have the right to profit form that something. However I don't believe his or her heirs or corporate shills have any such right.


Well its currently 50 years with one 50 year renewal. Honestly in the days of the internet I would say 4-10 years with a 4-10 year renewal is acceptable. If you can't make your money back in 20 years tough... Just think of the benefits of it entering public domain :D nice dream.

MinipainterUS
12-09-2008, 03:04 PM
As someone who derives a significant portion of my income by selling copyrighted work, you know which side of this argument I am on. All the arguments I have heard in favor of this theft are, at the end of the day, self serving justifications for taking something that is not theirs by right of purchase. The argument that most arouses my ire - "The artist gets far less of the profit than the manufacturer" - All the more reason to not deprive me of my nickel.

Bearfoot_Adam
12-09-2008, 03:39 PM
My thought is that if it is no longer in print then it is OK. when you are only dealing with used books then the idea of value is arguable. The artists and writer and evil publishers already made their buck. When I am stuck between paying a 100 dollars for a used copy because some weirdo thinks it's actually worth it or downloading it for free it is an easy option. I've found this most with old changeling books. People who have their books on sale for years because they think their shadow court book is more valuable then it is. My other problem is a PDF to me is a last resort. I just like the feel of paper. Now if any one knows if you are able to buy a pdf and have someone like lulu print it for you let me know because I would be all about that.

mrken
12-09-2008, 04:01 PM
I have to agree that the music industry is paving the road of law to benefit themselves which hurts their customers. What they are doing is in my opinion wrong. Like Freejack, I have a huge music library, in open reel, cassette, vinyl, CD’s and mp3’s. I think I have already paid for this music, well, I thought I was paying to own the music I paid for and possess, but the music industry thinks I am only buying the use of the music and must continue to pay for the use of it if the format is changed. I am not truly sure why I need to purchase the music every time the format changes. I have bought Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon on Open Reel, Cassette, Vinyl and CD. How many times do I have to pay for the album I first bought back in the seventies? I can’t answer that, but there should be a limit, I think.

I do see the point. But, there are two sides of this coin. Perhaps the music industry should charge a fee for changing the format like the computer industry charges for the upgrades we purchase. How many times have I paid Microsoft for MS Office, or their Operating System? I think I have three different versions of Office. And now days I have to buy multiple copies of each OS. Microsoft has made a ton of money off my family, no wonder we are so poor. You should see the stacks of CD’s we have. I tossed the cardboard boxes when my mother-in-law moved in and I needed more space, three garbage cans of boxes after they were broke down. That represented a LOT of money to me (I didn’t count how many thousands of dollars). I was aghast when I drug them out of the house to the curb. We could have so much money if I just stole them all, and just stole all the programs we don’t have but wish we did. But we don’t, we make do with what we can afford.

tesral
12-09-2008, 04:11 PM
I do see the point. But, there are two sides of this coin. Perhaps the music industry should charge a fee for changing the format like the computer industry charges for the upgrades we purchase. How many times have I paid Microsoft for MS Office, or their Operating System? I think I have three different versions of Office. And now days I have to buy multiple copies of each OS. Microsoft has made a ton of money off my family, no wonder we are so poor. You should see the stacks of CD’s we have. I tossed the cardboard boxes when my mother-in-law moved in and I needed more space, three garbage cans of boxes after they were broke down. That represented a LOT of money to me (I didn’t count how many thousands of dollars). I was aghast when I drug them out of the house to the curb. We could have so much money if I just stole them all, and just stole all the programs we don’t have but wish we did. But we don’t, we make do with what we can afford.

Format shifting? If I can shift the format I will and do. I bought the album, the program etc. If I want top move it from floppy to CD, I move it. Vinyl to digital? Yup, can and will. From CD to wave on the hard drive, can and do. I own the copy, I'll move it when and where I please. Mp3, wave ogg vorbis, or wax cylinder, it's mine.

BTW, I have not given Microsloth a red cent in over five years. I download one copy of openSUSE and legally use it on every computer in the house. Likewise Open Office. No pirated software on my computer. Both my laptop and desktop machines are totally free of any microsoft branding. I do not and will not pay the microsoft tax.

Valdar
12-09-2008, 04:19 PM
The difference between illegal and immoral.

Exactly. Immoral is up to your individual beliefs, and nobody's opinion on the matter is any more valid than anyone else's. Unfortunately, illegal is also none too clear, and is determined case-by-case in the courts.

For the morality of the issue, I confess I haven't heard any good arguments one way or the other. People who are downloading songs and PDFs are clearly getting something for nothing, so claims of "freedom" are a little hollow, but industries pointing to that as lost revenue are equally specious in their claims, since how many of those songs would have been paid for if they couldn't have been pirated?

Ultimately, whatever the ethics, I think that the components of the industry that adapt to the new reality will thrive, and the ones that cling to the old ways will wither. Look at webcomics- I don't have figures, but the ones that are selling their content are probably making chump change, and the big strips are making their money on advertising and merchandise. Similarly, I believe that the bands that use P2P as free advertising, and get their revenue from merch and concerts, will be the model for profitability in the future. Either that or satellite radio will take off, and bands will get revenue from subscription fees.

I wouldn't be surprised if someday CDs become known as the "collector's edition" of the music, and the default way to get music will be downloading or digital radio.

Etarnon
12-09-2008, 05:49 PM
"All the arguments I have heard in favor of this theft are, at the end of the day, self serving justifications for taking something that is not theirs."

Agreed.

tesral
12-09-2008, 06:45 PM
"All the arguments I have heard in favor of this theft are, at the end of the day, self serving justifications for taking something that is not theirs."

Agreed.

What exactly is being stolen? Stealing means I take something from you, I remove value, deprive you of the use of something.

Files copy. If I copy a file you have I deprive you of nothing. You still have the use of the file. No matter how illegal it is made, by the definition of "stealing" nothing has been stolen. You are still in possession of your property, it has not been spoiled, it has not been made less valuable.

The definitions are out of date. However the recording Industry wishes to redefine stealing as doing anything with the IP without their permission, including copying it from your CD to your mp3 player, or taking bought mp3s and burning them to CD.

IMHO more reasonable people are not so defining it. Once I have bought the use of a bit of IP it does not matter how I use it. I can put a copy on every machine I own, as long as that original is still in my possession.

At one point the RIAA tried to shut down the sale of used CDs saying the didn't "grant" a license to pass on the recording. The courts laughed at them. The Betamax decision affirmed your right to copy for your own use. The *IAA has tried to get around that with the DMCA, making it illegal to "bypass copy protection". Mind you any copy protection makes it illegal to call a product a "CD" as the red book standard is held by Phillps, and they have said so.

99% of so called "copy protection" is worthless if I drop a disk in my computer. Why? It's aimed at windows and I don't. So the copy protection simply does not exist for my computer. DRM is again pointless. It only hampers those trying to do things like they should. As Eric Raymond (http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/) said. "Making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet". In the Linix community we say. "There are two DVD codexes. The legal one and the one that works." Yes, the legal Linux codex is so hampered by DRM it will not function correctly. So, to play DVDs on my computer I have to become a criminal? Is that right? DVDs I have legally bought and paid for. So the MIAA through their machinations has deprived me of the use of my DVDs. they have effectively stolen them from me.

Wrong isn't so cut and dried.

1958Fury
12-09-2008, 07:33 PM
Personally, I don't mind exploring alternatives to Capitalism. It may be inevitable anyway, what with technology taking away more and more jobs. In order for individual citizens to survive in a world that simply doesn't have enough work for them to do, we may have to rethink Capitalism as we currently know it. We may be on the verge of a true Technocracy, something previously only seen in sci-fi. But that's the future. At the moment, we have Capitalism. Maybe not for everyone reading this board, but I'd guess that most of this board's visitors live in Capitalist countries. In a Capitalist society, artists must be paid for their work. Period. If they can't get money, they starve to death, at which point their work kind of suffers. One way or another, money has to make it from the user of the product, to the creator of the product, or else there won't be any incentive to make future products.

Many pirates see themselves as real life Robin Hoods, but that's a silly analogy. Robin Hood fought to feed impovrished citizens who couldn't afford to survive otherwise. Pirates help themselves to free movies and computer games. There is simply no comparison.

Which is not to say my hands are clean. With computer games for example, sometimes they make it difficult not to be at least a little bit of a pirate.

I'm a huge advocate of "try before you buy". As long as there's a demo available, or you can rent it, then there's no problem. But if there's no other way to try before you buy, then I have no problems with someone finding a hacked copy... as long as they treat it like a demo. Get through the first level, decide if you want to play more of it, delete the hacked copy and buy the darn thing. So, about 10 years ago, a friend of mine gave me a cracked copy of "The Sims". The original Sims did not have a demo available (or at least not at the time), and we'd always been curious about it, but there was no way we were going to pay retail sight unseen. We installed the copy, loved it, went out and bought it, followed by about $300 worth of expansion packs, sequels, and spin-offs. Without that cracked copy, we never would have bought it.

Of course, that didn't stop the same company from angering the entire video game community with Spore's DRM debacle.

Also, the original NeverWinter Nights had a form of copy protection that made the disc incompatible with some CD drives. I had a legal copy of the game, but to run it, I had to download a legally ambiguous "No-CD" patch. Of course, eventually NWN was officially updated to where it no longer required the CD to run.


For the morality of the issue, I confess I haven't heard any good arguments one way or the other. People who are downloading songs and PDFs are clearly getting something for nothing, so claims of "freedom" are a little hollow, but industries pointing to that as lost revenue are equally specious in their claims, since how many of those songs would have been paid for if they couldn't have been pirated?
I do agree that pirated copies are not the same as lost revenue. Whenever I see a report that says, "The record industry lost $100 million dollars last year to pirated MP3s", I want to ask them where they get those numbers. Because a lot of these people would never have paid for the CDs. For many pirates, the choices are NOT "get it free or buy the CD," but rather "get it free or go without." That doesn't make piracy right or justifiable, but still, "3 million people downloaded our MP3 illegally" does not in any way mean, "3 million people would have bought our album if MP3s had never been invented."


My thought is that if it is no longer in print then it is OK.
If you really want to play a game that came out on a long dead console, and there's currently no legal way to play it, then I for one can't really fault you for downloading an emulator/ROM. But if the game then becomes available - like on Gametap or on Wii's virtual console - then you should delete the ROM and go through the proper channels.


Well its currently 50 years with one 50 year renewal. Honestly in the days of the internet I would say 4-10 years with a 4-10 year renewal is acceptable. If you can't make your money back in 20 years tough... Just think of the benefits of it entering public domain nice dream.
As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), but copyright arises automatically when you create the work, not when you try to sell it. It can take years to get the attention of a publisher. Your copyright could expire while you're trying to get it published. Heck, I've got folders full of short stories I wrote in high school, and that's more than 10 years ago. I'd like to think I'd still be allowed to profit from them, should I ever find someone who wanted to publish them.

jade von delioch
12-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Well its currently 50 years with one 50 year renewal. Honestly in the days of the internet I would say 4-10 years with a 4-10 year renewal is acceptable. If you can't make your money back in 20 years tough... Just think of the benefits of it entering public domain :D nice dream.
Actuallyits higher than that, thanks to Disney. Mickey mouse was about to go Public domain so the company paid and pushed a bill through to get the time limit higher. Hense why its now a life time Plus..

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

Grimwell
12-09-2008, 11:48 PM
I'll try to keep it simple, as I think most folks know exactly where I stand.

Piracy is the wrong answer. Period. In my book. You do not grow devil horns when you pirate, but you are doing the wrong thing.

Burying the debate in the splitting of hairs as to what theft is, semantics about a copy not being theft, and stating that the law is out of touch do little to move me.

At the end of the day, the Western society bases the exchange of goods around the idea that people who have something of worth are to be compensated when that something passes into the hands of others.

People who bypass this compensation are guilty of theft, minor or not, and it's very cut and dry in my eyes. They may very well be comfortable in their blanket of reasons, but that does not mean I have to be.

My last point that I would like to make before I do walk away from this conversation.

We seem to be at a decision point here. One that we are not in a position to make. The question to be decided is "Is Pen and Paper Games a forum where piracy and methods of piracy are to be a tolerated topic, or is it a place where piracy is not welcome or discussed?"

My experience has taught me that discussing piracy as acceptable is a slippery slope that always ends up in a site where people trade torrents or jacked PDF's. I do not wish to participate in such a community, which is why I am very clear and vocal in my objection to it being discussed here. That might give some of you folks a little insight into my behavior -- but the thing is, I'm not the person to answer.

That answer comes from Farcaster, not us. These are his forums and I will cede to his decision for his website.

Debating this back and forth is pointless. We aren't about to convince each other of anything. :)

Etarnon
12-10-2008, 02:10 AM
a slippery slope that always ends up in a site where people trade torrents or jacked PDF's

Agreed.

And I don't deal with such places.

So who's first, to get the ball rolling? Because that's where this is going.

Penandpaperpirate.com

pfft.

And I was told this was a great place. I say keep it clean.

mrken
12-10-2008, 08:53 AM
Agreed.

Freejack
12-10-2008, 09:24 AM
Wow. That degenerated quickly. So, I'll be over here reading the Ghost Cartels PDF that I purchased from BattleCorps last month.

Carl

GoddessGood
12-10-2008, 10:25 AM
I'm part of another forum who practices deletion of posts mentioning piracy or pirating of materials. I'm not sure how many mods that would take in a forum like P&PG, but it seems to work there. For flagrant abuse of the forum rule not bring that sort of discussion to the forum, I believe members are banned for a time.

I would support a policy such as this one, should the proper admin support be available.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 10:31 AM
I knew there was a reason I avoided this thread...

boulet
12-10-2008, 10:33 AM
Let he who never got possessed by nerd fury cast the first stone :)

MortonStromgal
12-10-2008, 10:36 AM
As someone who derives a significant portion of my income by selling copyrighted work,

And how long would you give yourself to make money off a product before opening it up to public domain? What from your perspective is reasonable? I point to Michael Jackson getting paid every time the radio wants to use the Beetles as the extreme stupid end of the scale. I'm all for you and the company who pays you getting paid for a reasonable amount of time for the work you do. Microsoft still owning MS-DOS I find silly. Windows 98 they can keep for a few more years but really software from 85' should enter public domain, they had plenty of time to make money on it. Middle Earth should also be clear and free for people to use for derived works by now, but its not.


What exactly is being stolen? Stealing means I take something from you, I remove value, deprive you of the use of something.


You have stolen time and money. Think of it more like stealing a service than an item. Someones time and money went into developing it and thats what you have taken because they have set a price for their time and someone has put in an investment hoping to turn a profit. What you have have done is basically hired a plumber to install a nice new sink and when he sends you the bill, decided his work wasn't worth it and not paid the bill. He lost his day of time installing your sink and was never compensated. You may not agree with the price of the bill but it is the price he is charging none the less.



The definitions are out of date. However the recording Industry wishes to redefine stealing as doing anything with the IP without their permission, including copying it from your CD to your mp3 player, or taking bought mp3s and burning them to CD.


See and thats the scary part is I'm all behind people getting paid a reasonable amount in a reasonable amount of time. The market can usually define a reasonable amount but the market will define a reasonable amount of time as until we stop paying for it which then defeats the purpose of even having public domain. You may as well never have a derived work because no one will buy it by then. Also if you put in a year of your life into making something should you get a return on that year for 80 years?



So, to play DVDs on my computer I have to become a criminal? Is that right? DVDs I have legally bought and paid for. So the MIAA through their machinations has deprived me of the use of my DVDs. they have effectively stolen them from me.


That was a funny interview with the head of the MPAA and how you can't legally play a DVD on Linux. (His answer was to buy a DVD player) Part of this is they charge companies to put the codec on things, seeing how many Linux distros are free you would loose money because you have to pay the MPAA to put the codec on your machine. If your purchasing DVDs you have to use them on a DVD player that they made some money on. This has been the format for years but the idea of a free OS on a machine that can translate any digital medium to another digital medium was never concidered. Now they have to go back and rethink because they are still making money on the DVDs Linux users buy but not on the players. They also make money on blank DVDs because you "may" put a movie on them. By that logic they will start getting money off of computer hardware eventually.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 10:39 AM
Let he who never got possessed by nerd fury cast the first stone :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ORJ_P9waao

tesral
12-10-2008, 11:36 AM
You have stolen time and money. Think of it more like stealing a service than an item.


And that is where the debate needs to open. There is a strong undercurrent here that if you are willing to debate the issue them you're in bed with criminals seizing ships off the horn of Africa. Those are pirates. I think people that have had encounters with real pirates would laugh at the idea that some kid downloading Nine Inch Nails is a "pirate". He isn't doing the right thing, but he's not a pirate.

The terms of what is property in the digital world and to what extent it should be protected and to what extent your rights to use said property should be protected are valid issues for debate. The digital medium changes everything. After all if I loan you the use of my dead tree DMG, I don't have the use of my DMG while you have it, it is one copy. If I loan you my PDF DMG it is automagically duplicated. Suddenly through the miracle of the digital format there is another copy. Traditional copyright and first sale are not prepared to deal with this little issue very well.

Is it moral to hold the copyright to a book and refuse to publish it? The publisher will not release the copyright and will not publish the book. It is moral to hold works hostage?

Life plus 70 years is the US copyright duration. By my thinking that is way too long. Works before 1923 are in the public domain. I can legally rip a book published in 1913 apart scan it and put it on the web. However Google is doing it for me. I won't go to the trouble. Project Gutenberg has been doing this for years. I have supported that project with my bucks.

The recording industry would love to destroy your right of first sale, you right of fair use and your right to copy for your own use. All protected under law. Yes, it is legal to rip your CD to mp3, or to burn you mp3s to CD. As long as you don't sell them or pass them around you are on a firm legal footing.

So I own the album, but lacking riping software. I download it in mp3 format. Did I do wrong? It's is legal for me to own that mp3. Does the source matter?

Why not your books? I've got the DMG right here. I have the flat bed scanner. I have all day. I want a nice portable copy for my computer, and not lug the heavy books around. Why not the same rights I have with recordings?

Is it wrong to get the electronic copy from someone else that has already done the work?

There are matters that need debate, not the fiat of law bought by those that want to lock down everything in every format forever. I'm not declaring this of that action right or unright. I am saying we need, as a society, to discuss it. I am not advocating no copyright. I am not advocating copyright forever. But digital media changes the whole question of what is a copy. It needs public discourse.

Sascha
12-10-2008, 11:45 AM
Actuallyits higher than that, thanks to Disney. Mickey mouse was about to go Public domain so the company paid and pushed a bill through to get the time limit higher. Hense why its now a life time Plus..

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

The delicious irony of the Mouse is that they've been profiting off public domain characters for years.

(Though, there's an argument that Steamboat Willie, and thus the Mickey Mouse character, is currently out of copyright - LA Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/business/fi-mickey22))

Mead
12-10-2008, 11:59 AM
Ah, the internet motto: Never let a good discussion get in the way of histrionics.

Life*Angel*
12-10-2008, 12:29 PM
well here look at it on a price range maybe..... if the artist does well and travels, he makes a considerable amount of money,... and thats only after like one gig. but cd's, the artist makes a wopping 30 cents to every cd sold....(that is just a rough guess) if it is "stealing" everyone is so worried about..... then i have yet to tell u this......

what do you do with pennies and nickles that are usleless in your pockets? (well assuming your an averge careless american) u toss the loose change in a well for a wish or toss it to a bum on the street cornor. when i buy those cd's (and yes i buy them, i even buy records still) the money that goes to the artist is meaningless..... thats his "loose change" that he tosses in the well on his way to buy a new ferrari.

in if morals you are all woriied about i will say one thing my mom told me..... "its a full time job taking care of yourself" so dont worry about the "piracy" of others. the artist money comes from the concerts they perform, commercials they do, and other forms of adds, not the cd's they make.

with that said..... i have my perception of right and wring.... and you have yours. lets both stick to whatever "right" we believe and let us go and kill some more zombies. :-)

Bearfoot_Adam
12-10-2008, 12:38 PM
We seem to be at a decision point here. One that we are not in a position to make. The question to be decided is "Is Pen and Paper Games a forum where piracy and methods of piracy are to be a tolerated topic, or is it a place where piracy is not welcome or discussed?"

My experience has taught me that discussing piracy as acceptable is a slippery slope that always ends up in a site where people trade torrents or jacked PDF's. I do not wish to participate in such a community, which is why I am very clear and vocal in my objection to it being discussed here. That might give some of you folks a little insight into my behavior -- but the thing is, I'm not the person to answer.

That answer comes from Farcaster, not us. These are his forums and I will cede to his decision for his website.


One thing that I deeply respect about this forum was a couple months ago a poster asked where he could get some downloaded software program. Within hours Farcaster locked up the forum and said that this space was for discussing gaming and related issues, not how to break the law. Way to go Farcaster and please keep up the good work.

Life*Angel*
12-10-2008, 12:39 PM
besides if anything.....i would love for these kids to "steal" my music it promotes my music.... then they come to my concerts and i make more off that concert then i would have if they bought that one cd.

like when i was young i sneaked out a batman comic from my older brothers shelf..... since then (and to this day) i would love to meet batman. the simple little writings was not enough. as i am sure just one song from your fav. band will not really suffice your craving.

"if u feed them they will come" i would rather have "them" pay 50 $ a ticket and make bank..... rather than 10 $ a cd case and make that whooping change that i use to buy my toliet paper.......

(dont take this as an attak, its only my opinion....and as i have learned....opinions are like butt holes....we all got them and they all stink.)

1958Fury
12-10-2008, 01:20 PM
besides if anything.....i would love for these kids to "steal" my music it promotes my music.... then they come to my concerts and i make more off that concert then i would have if they bought that one cd.

Or perhaps they hold the concerts to promote the CD sales.

Sascha
12-10-2008, 01:55 PM
Or perhaps they hold the concerts to promote the CD sales.
For the most part, yes, they do ... however, the CD royalties are pretty weak for a new act (there was a YouTube video of Dick Dale talking about the situation, though sadly it's been flagged private; something like 35 cents per disc went to the artist); live shows were a much better source of revenue for an artist. Now, artists have far less expensive methods for self-distribution and the label is losing its "neccessity" status (not to say the label is outdated, just not the only game in town anymore).


Yes, it is legal to rip your CD to mp3, or to burn you mp3s to CD. As long as you don't sell them or pass them around you are on a firm legal footing.
According to this Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html?nav=hcmodule) article, the RIAA is disputing that ...

"In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

Edit: Just saw the date on that article, heh; search-fu used on the RIAA (http://www.riaa.org/faq.php) site turns up this little nugget:
"11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD? Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally..."

Webhead
12-10-2008, 02:05 PM
..."In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

What a load. Pure and total load. I think we have a new world record...

1958Fury
12-10-2008, 02:18 PM
What a load. Pure and total load. I think we have a new world record...

Agreed. I don't believe in "something for nothing", but if I pay good money for a song, I'm darn well going to convert it into whatever format makes it easiest to listen to.

Sascha
12-10-2008, 02:21 PM
Yeah, as soon as they get one position shut down, they act like it was never said ... /thumbs up, guys

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-10-2008, 02:23 PM
Well, I almost feel responsible for this thread :rolleyes:

How many people on this forum have literally never transgressed? have never committed a crime?

actually, some of the people here strike me as being rather enthusiastically straight-edge and blameless.;)

I understand that Dungeons&Dragons-Industrial-Complex is a financially ravenous beast, and that it may altogether die if I do not feed it. When I have literally no money, my local libraries are not stocked, someone has stolen the DnD books from the library, I will preview the books in pdf format, with every intention of buying them some day.

My parents have been in the civil service for a long time, and have each dealt with many patent attorneys representing both pharmaceutical industries and weapons technologies. I respect pharmaceutical patents without question. I am not sure where I stand on Nixonian weapons technologies. but either are more real to me than MickeyMouse iconography.

If I became a musician or a game designer, my parents would openly profess their opinions that I do not have a 'real job' and make frequent inquiries into when and how my 'real job' will begin.
I disagree of course. I value the work of musicians, film producers and WotC. But perhaps because of the way I was raised, I value that sort of IP less than pharmaceutical agent/fab process patents or microchip fab patents, say.
also
I sense a great deal of animosity towards myself and other previewers and purveyors of pdfs.

I am absolutely sure that those of you who had military service/civic duty etc feel some kind of fiery hot hatred towards kids like me who never served, seem to take everything for granted, don't respect 'freedom', read the Quaran and the Economist, watch al-jazeera and BBC World in equal measure, debauch and philosophize seemingly at once, and have no right or place in your world of american flags, bald eagles, and national anthems. I probably dont. I am perhaps grossly immature.

I am sure that I am despised and detested by everyone who is patriotic. The way the people who served in Vietnam hated the people who stayed in their comfy universities, debauched and protested. Im sure.

The important thing is that I can totally see and understand how you hate me and why. I probably deserve the hatred.

Grimwell
12-10-2008, 02:51 PM
I really don't think this is about hatred man.

I served, you didn't, so what? That's not something to hate over.

It's a singular issue: Some of us do not pirate and have no interest in participating in a message board where piracy is an accepted topic. That does not mean that people need to be dragged into the streets if they pirate, it means we desire a different sort of conversation.

Nobody is perfect, by any means. It's not about perfection. It's just an issue that can be divisive, and obviously is at this particular moment in this particular community. I certainly hope that nobody hates anyone else here over this. That's beyond me.

1958Fury
12-10-2008, 03:00 PM
It's a singular issue: Some of us do not pirate and have no interest in participating in a message board where piracy is an accepted topic. That does not mean that people need to be dragged into the streets if they pirate, it means we desire a different sort of conversation.

Of course it's Farcaster's call, but I don't see why it should be beyond discussion. It's an important issue, and can have a major effect on the gaming industry. Now, if someone were to post, "I can get you any pdfs you want, just send me a message!" or "Here's a site where you can get all kinds of illegal material!" ...I would expect those posts to be deleted, and the poster sternly warned, if not immediately banned.

But discussing the issue of piracy itself is not the same as having a message board that condones (or participates in) piracy. And if you personally don't wish to discuss something, you always have the freedom to read a different thread.

Webhead
12-10-2008, 03:09 PM
...I certainly hope that nobody hates anyone else here over this...

As do I. There are so very few things worthy of something as fruitlessly self-destructive as hatred. Intelligent conversation among fellows is not one of them.

Life*Angel*
12-10-2008, 03:17 PM
it could be argued either way....make cd's to promote the concerts where the money is.... or concerts to promote cd's.....

either way that was not my point.... where i was trying to imply was the fact that cd's are not an artists money maker. he/she knows that and so do we.

its just another way to say " hey look mom im famous"
i was simply saying that moey is where the crowds are.:)

but i do see your point:D

Life*Angel*
12-10-2008, 03:20 PM
no one hates anyone..... some may not see eye to eye..... but as i recall, thats what make people great. so a little bit of points being statded here and there is not a bad thing.

lets just not bring out the "your mama jokes" agreed?:lol:

Soft Serve
12-10-2008, 03:25 PM
You can't tell me they didn't expect it and had no clue people were downloading music.

Just think of it this way. Your overpriced pay for the internet/cable bills are also paying for your music addiction and your gaming habits. :p

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-10-2008, 04:07 PM
Oh, I was just saying that I would be able to understand and sympathize if anyone did dislike me for CR violation.
I never meant to offend anyone with my rant, just to elucidate my perspective.
I was saying that I can see that it is unfair and hurtful to pirate and that I harbor self-castigating and self-reproachful feelings every time I do it.

about the analogy of people breaking into homes and cars to steal things; I'm sure that those people feel terribly guilty about their conduct, and are compelled by forces that cannot be reasoned around or bargained with (mental illness, substance problems, dire economic circumstance) and I think that that is a poor or unbefitting analogy to soft-piracy

tesral
12-10-2008, 05:11 PM
"In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

Edit: Just saw the date on that article, heh; search-fu used on the RIAA (http://www.riaa.org/faq.php) site turns up this little nugget:
"11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD? Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally..."

I can say without irony that the RIAA wants to charge you for the song stuck in your head. They would love to get playback to the point were you had to kick them some money every time you ran the record.

It does not make it right or legal, but they have money, lots of lawyers and are more than willing to bend the law or even break it to make you pay, whether you own them or not.

I am all in favor of an artist getting their fair due. But the RIAA has gone way too far and is now an evil outfit that needs to stop. I don't care how many songs get illegally downloaded their legalistic bulling, extortionist tactics, and out right lies cannot be justified and need to stop. They are hurting people and frankly are copyright's worse "friends".

The RIAA is rather like someone supporting nonviolence by beating people up. I can support nonviolence and in the same breath condemn such behavior. Part of copyright is the right of the consumer and public to use the copyrighted material. Also part of copyright is the fact is is intended to end. You where intended to get 20 years to benefit from your work and then it entered the public domain. The RIAA stands for no rights for the consumer and for copyright to never end. I oppose that.

placebosonly
12-10-2008, 07:06 PM
I got part of the way through the 2nd page before i couldnt take it anymore and had to speak up and
i personally am an artist so i do have some copywrites so dont think im an artist hater but i personally I THINK COPYWRITING IS WRONG pure and simple "artist's would starve" is bull they would get another job like a real artist would and secondly i dont pirate so again dont think im trying to "justify" anything to someone else i just want you all to understand ideas belong to the world no matter who came up with them, the idea that you deserve something for your ideas is ludicris you owe your ideas to the betterment of mankind and what someone said about us approaching becoming a technocracy like in scifi...maybe who knows but we wont get there with the ghost of walt disney and bill gates owning the world, the opinions in this post some were good and valid others were judgemental
oh and before you ask why i have copywrites to begin with since i am "so against them" its because i didnt want anyone to benifit from them, and btw my copywrites have free licenses to be used without my permission

tesral
12-10-2008, 10:36 PM
oh and before you ask why i have copywrites to begin with since i am "so against them" its because i didnt want anyone to benifit from them, and btw my copywrites have free licenses to be used without my permission

OK, there is "Copyleft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft)" and the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) that fit right up your alley. However, I do believe that those that create should get to benefit from their creations and that is what copyright, as intended, is for. Both to allow the creator to gain benefit and to allow such works to eventually benefit everyone by free distribution i nthe public domain. Free as in speech, not free as in beer.

The problem is that this principle that you get sole benefit for a period of time with the understanding that it becomes public domain has been corrupted. Large corporations have bought law to extend that period of sole benefit beyond all reason, and are attempting to overturn fair use and the right of first sale. I have no doubt that when the end of copyright is again is sight Disney will once again deploy the lobbyists to extend it, once again.

They are breaking the law in doing so as well. Feet need to be held to the fire.

On the other hand if someone wishes to place their work directly into the public domain it is their right to do so. But I accept that for those that do not wish to do so that is valid as well and should be respected. My only demand is that copyright be rolled back to what it was intended to be, not an eternal license to profit.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-11-2008, 01:26 AM
I believe in copyright. I believe in the limited copyright as seen by the founders 20 years. I don't believe that lifetime +70 years is moral. It might be legal, but it isn't moral. A creator of something should have the right to profit form that something. However I don't believe his or her heirs or corporate shills have any such right.

Many businesses will automatically 'acquire' any intellectual property that an employee creates. Even outside of the business. apparently, my father has written a textbook on the physics of various types of black holes and gravitational singularities, but will not publish or even talk about it until he retires, lest he risk losing all the IP rights to his employer. It depends on the job though. A programmer, statistician, mathematician, biotech R&D worker, or a pharmacological chemist, etc, are more likely to have his/her ideas 'acquired' than a check-out clerk at a grocery store.

I do not think that (as a few people have suggested earlier) society in general is in decline, or that it is becoming decadent and indolent or whatnot. Society is certainly changing, as it ever has been. I personally do not place a great deal of trust in human nature itself. We are, by our innate genetic predisposition, social and altruistic, and yet we are also acquisitive, controlling, and avaricious. (tend to be)

so it makes sense that these silly humans would want to:
a) maximize their profits and personal gain from intellectual property
(via mickey mouse legislation / power-lobbying etc.)
b) obtain remunerative resources (IP) at a lesser cost or no cost if it is perceived as beneficial or somehow gainful

I could make caveman or hunter-gatherer analogies at this point but I think you all get it..

Sascha
12-11-2008, 09:46 AM
On the other hand if someone wishes to place their work directly into the public domain it is their right to do so. But I accept that for those that do not wish to do so that is valid as well and should be respected. My only demand is that copyright be rolled back to what it was intended to be, not an eternal license to profit.
This. Right here. The original application was 14 years, plus another 14 if the artist was a) still alive, and b) wished it. It was not, as it is currently, assumed copyrighted the minute idea becomes fixed in medium (it also specifically failed to cover foreign works, for which I'd make concession).

There's a few scenes in This Film Is Not Yet Rated, the Kirby Dick documentary about the MPAA's ratings system, wherein he finds out the ratings board made and held copies of the film - something he was guaranteed would not happen. Hilarity ensues. (There are also scenes with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann, where he discusses Disney's role in copyright, as well as the effectiveness of DRM technologies. Kinda creepy precedents set, those.)

Sascha
12-11-2008, 10:11 AM
I could make caveman or hunter-gatherer analogies at this point but I think you all get it..
I followed you up to here. What analogies are there between food foragers and copyright?

1958Fury
12-11-2008, 10:14 AM
So, why do we get so worked up over Disney copyrights? Have you been working on an erotic Mickey Mouse novel, and you're just waiting for the opportunity to legally publish it?

Seriously, though, it doesn't matter. If you want the laws changed, then by all means work to change them. But in the meantime, "I disagree with the law" is not an excuse to break it. It is not a valid justification for piracy. And personally, I wouldn't be so open to admitting my law-breaking habits on a public forum, especially when there's a good chance the admins disagree with you.

mrken
12-11-2008, 10:19 AM
I disagree with laws that I will not disregard.

placebosonly
12-11-2008, 01:13 PM
My only demand is that copyright be rolled back to what it was intended to be, not an eternal license to profit.

agreed

tesral
12-11-2008, 01:18 PM
So, why do we get so worked up over Disney copyrights? Have you been working on an erotic Mickey Mouse novel, and you're just waiting for the opportunity to legally publish it?

The deal there is Mickey Mouse is covered under a thing called "Trademark". If you tried totally original Mickey and Minnie porn you would be eyebrow deep in Disney lawyers before you finished posting it to the net.

Disney buys the grief because they are the ones pushing the hardest for eternal copyright. I don't care about Disney works per say. However the fallout from their particular greed is that nothing moves into the public domain, as it should.



Seriously, though, it doesn't matter. If you want the laws changed, then by all means work to change them. But in the meantime, "I disagree with the law" is not an excuse to break it. It is not a valid justification for piracy. And personally, I wouldn't be so open to admitting my law-breaking habits on a public forum, especially when there's a good chance the admins disagree with you.

When has it been suggested that one break the law? I will say that on certain moral grounds one should break the law, nay for moral reasons must break the law. Copyright is not one of them. No one is being denied their basic human rights because of copyright. No one has a right to a huge Metalica collection for free, no matter how they might feel about it. But, just because it is "the law" does not make it right, moral or even justifiable. As quoted from Charles Dickens: "The law is an ass." Laws are made by fallible, even at times, evil men and when they work against the basic rights possessed by every human they must be broken, fought against, and put down. However, I'll say it again, the copyright issue is not one of those cases. It's wrong, it needs to change, but it's not oppressing anyone. No deep moral wrongs are being done here that require civil disobedience.

Second, it is not so easy to get the law changed when you have people with lots of money pushing the other way. You need the weight of numbers to push against the few with money. In a perfect world sufficient people would write their congress critters and the law would change. However the world is not perfect and it takes more than that.

BTW congress.org (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/?state=MI&azip=48126&bzip=1785&district=14). Find your congress critters, hold their feet to the fire. Pushing no issue, just in general. Be loud, be heard, be a nuisance.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-11-2008, 01:28 PM
I followed you up to here. What analogies are there between food foragers and copyright?


this is an imperfect analogy, because economics is n^ more complicated at this point, but I will try.

If you think of a copyright as a means of protecting potentially profitable resources from others in your society. The sorts of assets that had once promised an increased probability of extended genetic lineage were rather mundane; nutrients, safety, (and in the case of genetic crossing-over related procreation), partners with whom to cross over genes. we now have these very abstract species of currency and assets that confer a more favorable outcome and greater probability of protracted and evolving genetic lineage. Out-competing the other genes? absolutely!
Even though humans have one of the lowest levels of genetic variability (for any species) and we are astonishingly genetically homogeneous, Eusocial animals like ourselves that tend to form larger mutually beneficial 'social organisms' and create hierarchies and niches within the society, will often function together to out compete other societies for resources, regardless of the constituent genomes in the society. Termites do it, Chimps do it, Mole Rats do it, Wasps do it. I think Hyenas do it. Are copyrights abstract extensions of competition for resources? maybe.

I dont even know if i answered your question :( lol

Farcaster
12-11-2008, 07:20 PM
First, I'm sorry I haven't weighed in on this post sooner as people have obviously been curious as to the site's position on the matter. I've been a bit busy with the whole new baby thing though, so I think I should get a free pass :D


The question to be decided is "Is Pen and Paper Games a forum where piracy and methods of piracy are to be a tolerated topic, or is it a place where piracy is not welcome or discussed?" ... My experience has taught me that discussing piracy as acceptable is a slippery slope that always ends up in a site where people trade torrents or jacked PDF's.

I've been very clear on this in the past, and I'll be very clear now. Using this site for anything illegal, including the distribution of copyrighted material or linking to any sites where copyrighted material can be illicitly obtained will not be tolerated. I have added this to the forum rules pinned in the Announcements area so that it is clear.

I do not, however, want to step in and quash even the debate of copyrights. I don't see anything wrong with the discussion itself, as long as it is clear that we're debating the merits of the laws and not whether one should break them or not. Considering the public nature of these forums though, I would recommend against admitting to illicit activities whether you agree with the law or not.


The digital medium changes everything. After all if I loan you the use of my dead tree DMG, I don't have the use of my DMG while you have it, it is one copy. If I loan you my PDF DMG it is automagically duplicated. Suddenly through the miracle of the digital format there is another copy. Traditional copyright and first sale are not prepared to deal with this little issue very well.

I'm not sure what the law is on the matter. From a purely ethical standpoint, it would seem to me that just as you are loosing the use of a book when you lend it, you should also not retain the use to a digital version. So, I would think the correct way to handle that would be to put the PDF on transferable media and remove it from your computer for the period of time that it is outside of your control.


Is it moral to hold the copyright to a book and refuse to publish it? The publisher will not release the copyright and will not publish the book. It is moral to hold works hostage?

If the author wants to publish it and the publisher is holding it back, then I would agree that it is not moral for the publisher to have created a contract that would allow them to do that in the first place. Does the public have a right to the material though just because it has been created? No.


So I own the album, but lacking riping software. I download it in mp3 format. Did I do wrong? It's is legal for me to own that mp3. Does the source matter?
Morally speaking, you may not be in the wrong for acquiring a digital copy, however the source of the copy is in the wrong. Even if they somehow verified that you were allowed to own a digital copy, they certainly don't have the authority to distribute the copy.


Why not your books? I've got the DMG right here. I have the flat bed scanner... Why not the same rights I have with recordings? .. Is it wrong to get the electronic copy from someone else that has already done the work?
Same answer as the one I stated above.




When I have literally no money, my local libraries are not stocked, someone has stolen the DnD books from the library, I will preview the books in pdf format, with every intention of buying them some day.
Then you are ethically and legally in the wrong in doing so. Just because you do not have the money for something does not mean that you are entitled to it by any means necessary. We are still, after all, talking about a luxury and not a right.

tesral
12-11-2008, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure what the law is on the matter. From a purely ethical standpoint, it would seem to me that just as you are loosing the use of a book when you lend it, you should also not retain the use to a digital version. So, I would think the correct way to handle that would be to put the PDF on transferable media and remove it from your computer for the period of time that it is outside of your control.


I'm not sure that is a viable option. I know that DRM is not a viable option. I'll not go into the technical details here but suffice to say that the main function of DRM is to make it difficult or not impossible for legal owner of media to use said media. Making bits uncopyable is like making water not wet. To use the media you have to copy it to the RAM of the computer or device that is using the media. DRM, in every case has proven to interfere with that necessary function or be totally useless as a copy protection device.

As a computer hobbyist I stand firmly against DRM for that reason. It is either useless in its stated function, or makes the media useless for it's stated function. It's a bad idea.

Digital media changes the very nature of such things as "borrowing", it alters the nature of the first sale principle. I don't know what the final answer is, but I know that DRM and "music taxes" are not the answer.

Technically if I borrow a disk form the Library nothing stops me from making a perfect digital copy, and returning it. We will agree that it is not ethical to do so. However the perfectly legal copy of Grip I own for perfectly legal reasons. I like to rip my disks to the computer. can be used to rip disks I don't own as well.

The industry answer is to make Grip and programs like it illegal. I strongly disagree. Should we outlaw baseball because a baseball bat can be used for crime?

In the long run you cannot stop behavior with laws. Laws have never protected anything. You right now in your home are not protected by the law. All the law can do is respond if you are harmed. Proactive laws do harm in their own right by assuming that anyone in X position is going to be guilty of Y behavior. A violation of their civil rights. I've carried a knife every day since I left high school and in 33 years I have yet to commit a crime with it. I have saved a life with it. Should I be forbidden to carry a knife because I might commit a crime?

People need to get positive examples and be given positive reasons for doing the right thing. Right now the RIAA and MIAA are doing just about everything in their power to assure people will do the wrong thing, if for no other reason that to thumb their noses at said organizations for the harm they are doing. Two wrongs to not make a right, but people will do it.

Freejack
12-11-2008, 08:51 PM
One of the problems with the RIAA is their backwards thinking. Instead of trying to figure out a way to profit, they're standing on the banks of the river created when the dam broke, yelling at it. They're able to snag a few branches from the passing waters but the rest of the water is passing them by.

Carl

Valdar
12-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Personally, I say let the RIAA bury itself. Sooner or later people will figure out that their mass-market, power-chord-driven, vague-lyrics music isn't worth the fifty bucks per album that they want you to eventually pay for it.

There are too many musicians that are desperate for their stuff to be heard. Some of them are probably playing venues for free in your home town- check out http://www.openmikes.org for listings. Some are bad, some are good, but it's all free, and you're free to decide what music you like, independent of the RIAA, rather than the radio offering the ten songs that their format allows them to play...

MortonStromgal
12-12-2008, 11:08 AM
I agree the RIAA which was formed in a silly way to begin with (protect big record labels... why can't they protect themselves?) has try to "win" by controlling the air waves for years and coming up with a format that gives them your $ while having to invest a minimum $ amount themselves. Kick backs to radio stations for playing certain songs at particular times. Its worked and worked well... till the internet comes around and people get used to free flowing ideas not comming down to them from the TV or Radio, this has allowed small groups of like minded individuals to discuss their ideas across the globe and pick up new followers. While some of these groups could be concidered bad the ones that will live on are the ones that will make sense and be forward thinkers of society. In the Cathedral and the Bazzare (awesome series of essays, you can read it for free here http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ (http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/) ) Eric Ramond said something similar to "after open source wins the software market over the next target will be music" not a direct quote, honestly it may be in another book of his as i cant seam to find it.

Sascha
12-12-2008, 11:44 AM
this is an imperfect analogy, because economics is n^ more complicated at this point, but I will try.

If you think of a copyright as a means of protecting potentially profitable resources from others in your society. The sorts of assets that had once promised an increased probability of extended genetic lineage were rather mundane; nutrients, safety, (and in the case of genetic crossing-over related procreation), partners with whom to cross over genes. we now have these very abstract species of currency and assets that confer a more favorable outcome and greater probability of protracted and evolving genetic lineage. Out-competing the other genes? absolutely!
Even though humans have one of the lowest levels of genetic variability (for any species) and we are astonishingly genetically homogeneous, Eusocial animals like ourselves that tend to form larger mutually beneficial 'social organisms' and create hierarchies and niches within the society, will often function together to out compete other societies for resources, regardless of the constituent genomes in the society. Termites do it, Chimps do it, Mole Rats do it, Wasps do it. I think Hyenas do it. Are copyrights abstract extensions of competition for resources? maybe.

I dont even know if i answered your question :( lol
Ah, so it's less of a model of subsistence, and more the collective means of survival; I think I understand now.

To be more on-topic, should copyright, as a means of protecting and limiting access to a finite resource, *not* be subject to changing social and environmental states? A major argument from many of the rights-holders is that advances in technology should be subject to outdated copyright statutes, which is where digital rights management (DRM) fits in, as well as proposed Three Strikes-style denial of internet (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/mpaa-obama) (for *allegations* only, mind you, not convictions). From the EFF response to the MPAA's terms to the Obama transition team:

"Next up:
"MPAA views recent efforts by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom to protect content on-line and facilitate inter-industry cooperation as useful models.
Here, the MPAA is advocating for a number of things, the most problematic of which is a "three strikes" internet termination policy (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/03/three-strikes-three-countries). This would require ISPs to terminate customers' internet accounts upon a rights-holder's repeat allegation of copyright ingfringement. This could be done potentially without any due process or judicial review. A three-strikes policy was recently adopted by legislation in France, where all ISPs are now banned from providing blacklisted citizens with internet access for up to one year.
Because three-strikes policies do not guarantee due process or judicial oversight of whether the accusations of copyright infringement are valid, they effectively grant the content industry the ability to exile any individual they want from the internet. Lest we forget, there is a history of innocents getting caught up in these anti-piracy dragnets (http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later). (Copyfighter Cory Doctorow has wondered what would happen if the MPAA's erroneous notices were subject to a similar three-strikes law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/01/internet.copyright).)"

tesral
12-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Just kicked my congress critters again. It is a good essay.

Edward
12-12-2008, 02:31 PM
I do think there needs to be serious discussion of copyright reform. Almost everyone agrees that the copyright and patent system is broken and needs to be replaced. Of course, some groups want a more liberal system, some want a more restrictive one, and some want no system at all. Judging by proposals in Congress, we'll probably end up with a more restrictive system.

I believe the current system is unconstitutional. (I'm referring to the U.S. system; I can't claim to know much about international copyright and patent law.) The Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The key phrase here is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Any system that does not promote the progress of science is clearly unconstitutional.

The current system does not promote the progress of science. Rather, it suppresses innovation and research. The patent system is particularly insidious. In theory, patents are supposed to be a repository of knowledge for the use of inventors. The idea is that inventors can search the patent pool for ideas they would like to use, and pay the patent holder for the right to do so. In reality, inventors are terrified of even looking at a patent, because they're afraid they'll be accused of stealing from it. If they try to license it, it's quite likely the patent holder will refuse, because it was taken out to block competition. Many lawyers advise their clients that they should never conduct a patent search and never read a patent.

And then we get to the subject of business-method patents. Exactly how does it promote science to grant Amazon.com a monopoly on purchasing items with a single click? Looks unconstitutional to me.

The copyright system is not as bad, but it's close. Consider the basic concept of copyright: It is illegal to copy a work without the consent of the author. This is a terrible idea, and seems designed to ensure that vast numbers of works will be lost.

Historically, most works from most periods of history have been lost. Take Classical Greece, for example. We have only a small fraction of the works created by Classical Greek writers. Those that have survived have done so only because they were copied time and again. What if the Greeks had had the concept of copyright? We probably wouldn't have any at all.

Works that have survived two thousand years represent a small fraction of the whole. How many of today's works are likely to survive two thousand years? A much smaller fraction. Most won't even survive a century. Copyright is one of the main reasons for this. (Digitization is the other.) Remember, the concept of copyright was developed to suppress creative works, not to promote them. It still serves that purpose.

Some artists believe they should have the right to destroy their work, even if that work has already been disseminated. I disagree. Granting artists control of their works, and compensating them for those works, is not the purpose of the copyright system (at least in theory), but rather a means to an end. The avowed purpose of the system is the advancement of science. Destroying creative works does not advance science.

Remember also that the rights holder often is not the artist. Consider scientific articles as an example. Traditionally, scientists submit their work to a scientific journal and receive a small fee. The journal holds the copyright. If by any chance the article proves to be highly profitable, the journal receives all of that profit. What has the journal done to earn this profit? In some cases they didn't even edit or review the article; peer review is often conducted on a volunteer basis for little or no compensation. The journal may have done nothing more than distribute the article. If the article is not profitable, the journal may decide never to republish it, and it may be lost, because the writer does not have the right to distribute it.

I'm not advocating piracy. I don't pirate, because I believe strongly that artists should be compensated for their work, and payment of royalties is the method that is currently in place. I'm an aspiring writer myself. But there are many ways artists could be compensated; the current system is only one. Anyone interested in the subject has probably read dozens of proposals, none of which have ever been seriously considered.


Personally, I don't mind exploring alternatives to Capitalism.

Let's not confuse the copyright and patent system with capitalism. The two have nothing to do with each other, and in fact are in direct conflict. The basic principle of capitalism is that it is the government's responsibility to preserve competition. Copyright and patent grant monopolies to creators of artistic works. A true capitalist system would not have any monopolies. (The concept of a "natural monopoly" is outdated and no longer applies, if it ever did.)

Life*Angel*
12-12-2008, 04:43 PM
let me ask this ( for arguments sake )

if you were the artist that makes a good amount of money based on the concerts you perform...... what does it matter to you..... if some of the people who are a little less fortunate to afford to go buy your brand new shiney album......

you now have a fan who will more than likley spread the word about his new found "artist"

is it the money you want? so now its not about the music, or the ethics involved, its your greed in making every penny u can...

or is it "morals"..... well i stated this a while ago but i fear my words fell on deaf ears.... IT IS A FULL TIME JOB TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF...

is piracy wrong? debateable yes.....but you cant sit there and say that those who do are ALWAYS in the wrong

Mindbomb
12-12-2008, 06:48 PM
I can't weigh-in on the last 5 pages of posts but as far as my opinion goes I can say that as a musician my art is a 'performing art' not an enduring visual/audio art. While I do record in order to copyright and to leave something for my kids to have when I'm gone to remember me by I believe that if you're playing/writing/recording to make money you're in it for the wrong reasons and countless other big namers agree with this point of view as numerous musicians have began giving away and in some cases 'illegally pirating' their own music. A performance on the other hand cannot be pirated and cannot be reproduced no matter how scripted the event is. If you know about the history of music you'll recall that recordings were made for the listeners to be able to hear the artists that they may possibly go see on any given night.

Furthermore if your basis of morals is from the law of whichever country you live in than you may as well have no morals altogether. As far as getting gaming books illegally it's of no use to me other than to see if I'll like them as a tool just like my local library or bookstore will allow me to browse. I'll not use digital only books in my games as I don't enjoy reading from the screen all the time.

Now movies on the other hand have no other medium available to us and if you would like to continue to see more of them than you must pay for the ones you want to see to keep the money available to make more.

I believe (although I'm not sure) that software becomes 'abandonware' after the companies producing it go out of business so if you aren't opposed to using the older software just never buy anthing new from the companies and they'll eventually fail,(lol) although this doesn't give them any incentive to make any better software for future use so the market should work itself out there too.

frank634
12-15-2008, 09:57 AM
Wow mrken, you hit a sore subject with me. So I will put my two cents in on this.

First, at my table, if you own the book, I don't care if you have a PDF of it, but YOU MUST OWN THE BOOK. I have the same fealing with everything else. (music as well).

Here are my thoughts:
The only way these companies make money is to sell the product. If people are sharing these or copying them and giving them away, the is no way to make money. Therefore they go out of business.

Honestly, I don't want WOTC, or any of the other companies to go out of business because people are too cheap to purchase the product. They rather STEAL it from the companies.

The bull I hear alot is "I will eventually get the book, cd, or whatever". This is stupid. I am sure everybody knows somebody that has a downloaded book or song they did not pay for. Did they EVER get the media. MOST of the time, not. My response is: then go to the bookstore and listen to your songs or see your books there, like you are supposed to do.

Skunkape
12-15-2008, 10:45 AM
Wow mrken, you hit a sore subject with me. So I will put my two cents in on this.

First, at my table, if you own the book, I don't care if you have a PDF of it, but YOU MUST OWN THE BOOK. I have the same fealing with everything else. (music as well).

Here are my thoughts:
The only way these companies make money is to sell the product. If people are sharing these or copying them and giving them away, the is no way to make money. Therefore they go out of business.

Honestly, I don't want WOTC, or any of the other companies to go out of business because people are too cheap to purchase the product. They rather STEAL it from the companies.

The bull I hear alot is "I will eventually get the book, cd, or whatever". This is stupid. I am sure everybody knows somebody that has a downloaded book or song they did not pay for. Did they EVER get the media. MOST of the time, not. My response is: then go to the bookstore and listen to your songs or see your books there, like you are supposed to do.

My first response might have been a misinterpretation of your statement so I'm changing it. By your first statement, you mean you must own a set of the rules to have a PDF/copy of said rules, correct?

Therefore, if the rules are free, then you can have a PDF of those rules, but if I don't own the rules, I'll be able to play the game, correct? You don't mean that in order to play the game, I must own a set of the rules, I'll be able to borrow them from someone at the table from time to time, correct?

Farcaster
12-15-2008, 10:48 AM
I can't agree with the everyone must own a set of rules to play the game.

Skunk, I don't think that he was trying to say that everyone needs to own a copy of the rulebooks to play the game. If I understood correctly, I think he's saying that instead of using an illegal copy, you should buy the book.

Skunkape
12-15-2008, 10:49 AM
Skunk, I don't think that he was trying to say that everyone needs to own a copy of the rulebooks to play the game. If I understood correctly, I think he's saying that instead of using an illegal copy, you should buy the book.

Yeah, I got that, changed my post accordingly, but you posted before I got my change in.:D

Freejack
12-15-2008, 11:24 AM
Wow mrken, you hit a sore subject with me. So I will put my two cents in on this.

First, at my table, if you own the book, I don't care if you have a PDF of it, but YOU MUST OWN THE BOOK. I have the same fealing with everything else. (music as well).

Now wait here. I own the PDF to Ghost Cartels and just haven't purchased the dead-tree version yet. I own the PDF to Digital Grimoire and it'll _never_ be a printed version (digital only).

Are you telling me that if I've only purchased PDFs of the rules (such as my upcoming purchase of Cthulhtech), I won't be allowed at your table?

So how do you prove I have a legitimate copy of the rules? The ones from Drive Thru RPG are watermarked. So if you check my copy of Paranoia, you'll see my name and order number. Same if you check my copy of All Flesh Must Be Eaten. But the ones I purchased directly from Catalyst through their shop aren't watermarked. Do I need to have printed copies of all my invoices?

It sounds like your solution is I don't get to play if I have the PDF but don't have a hard copy of the rules.

Carl

Edit: rephrased my last sentence.

And the PDF of Ghost Cartels (and many others) were only available as a PDF for a month or so before the printed copy was available (just FYI).

Carl

nijineko
12-15-2008, 01:31 PM
in the day where both electronic only, and print only, and both... insisting that one possess a specific version is no longer applicable.

i've noticed in my observations, that people who make enough money to afford it, purchase the materials, even at a sacrifice. those that don't, tend to borrow until they do have the money, then they purchase it. the rest qualify as thieves, without quibble.

Life*Angel*
12-15-2008, 02:26 PM
thieves..... or people who "spread" the wealth.......like robin hood :biggrin:
no im jk......i suppose i see your point and would somewhat agree.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-15-2008, 02:33 PM
hmmm, no matter how well-intentioned or philosophical a persons piracy is, or no matter how deferentially, remorsefully, sympathetically or respectfully piracy is conducted, it is still piracy and it "hurts someone"

That is why I am morally in the wrong.

and jesus will fire magical numinous lightning at me and I will burn in the extra-planar realm called "hell" for all of eternity and my agonized wails will fall upon the deaf ears of my impish tormentors. :(

BTW:

hey guys, I found this really cool sight where you can download the Library of Congress in audiobook format! ;)

nijineko
12-15-2008, 03:49 PM
and jesus will fire magical numinous lightning at me and I will burn in the extra-planar realm called "hell" for all of eternity and my agonized wails will fall upon the deaf ears of my impish tormentors. :(

actually, no. jesus doesn't go in for the lightning strikes too often. and hell is a limited-time ticket. "eternity" is one of God's names... so "eternal punishment" just means "God's punishment", and once the sins are payed for, you're out. not the best way to go by a long shot... but not quite the worst possible option either. there is at least one thing worse than hell.

Life*Angel*
12-15-2008, 04:27 PM
and jesus will fire magical numinous lightning at me and I will burn in the extra-planar realm called "hell" for all of eternity and my agonized wails will fall upon the deaf ears of my impish tormentors.


actually, no. jesus doesn't go in for the lightning strikes too often. and hell is a limited-time ticket. "eternity" is one of God's names... so "eternal punishment" just means "God's punishment", and once the sins are payed for, you're out. not the best way to go by a long shot... but not quite the worst possible option either. there is at least one thing worse than hell.



...:confused:... so in other words you two are saying...
piracy=sin
jesus=lightning
extra-planar=hell

so piracy+extra-planar= you are now going to hell because u sined
& jesus may or may not strike you w/ lightning.......depends on his mood....

i miss anything?

Farcaster
12-15-2008, 04:44 PM
Let's move this topic away from religious discussion, please. No good can come of it.

tesral
12-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Let's move this topic away from religious discussion, please. No good can come of it.

Agreed. Copyright, it seems, is fractious enough.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-16-2008, 12:05 AM
ooops! sorry

mrken
12-16-2008, 08:52 AM
You guys are so silly. :lol:

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 10:11 AM
hmmm......bad joke..... sorry farcaster.......

thought a little sarcasm ( i know i cant spell but its so early idc) might lighten the mood....bad choice though.

ok....so answer me this..... everyone is talking so hardly about morals...
(now i do have them and i dont "steal") but explain in better detail what you mean when u say it is moraly wrong. maybe it is "moraly" wrong to you, but not everyone believes the same as you..... so please explain what u mean when u say "morals"

mrken
12-16-2008, 10:15 AM
mor⋅al

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M06/M0605600)  /ˈmɔrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) [mawr-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, mor-] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immoral&db=luna) ): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support. 8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty. –noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. 10. the embodiment or type of something. 11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
Origin:
1300–50; ME < L mōrālis, equiv. to mōr- (s. of mōs) usage, custom + -ālis -al (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-al&db=luna) 1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png




Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 11:03 AM
mor⋅al

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M06/M0605600)  /ˈmɔrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) [mawr-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, mor-] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

But who defines "right" and "wrong"? The problem with most definitions of "moral" is that people on both sides of a dispute still believe that they are morally right. Most evil people do not know they're evil, and throughout history, many terrible crimes have been committed in the name of a deity. Criminals will often justify what they do until they feel they're not only in the right, but even feel it's their duty to do the crime.

So in this case, one side will say it's morally wrong to copy something instead of buying it. The other side will say it's morally wrong to give money to a company that has done so many evil deeds. (And again, words like "evil" are as ambiguous and POV-dependent as "moral".)

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 11:32 AM
So in this case, one side will say it's morally wrong to copy something instead of buying it. The other side will say it's morally wrong to give money to a company that has done so many evil deeds. (And again, words like "evil" are as ambiguous and POV-dependent as "moral".).

so then there is no wrong or right....(what i have been trying to say this whole time)
so you cant say im wrong or right.....

Edward
12-16-2008, 11:51 AM
But who defines "right" and "wrong"?

If somebody doesn't, then you can't have civil society. All societies are based on either a) the concept of right and wrong (or good and evil, if you prefer) or b) an honor system such as bushido.


(And again, words like "evil" are as ambiguous and POV-dependent as "moral".)Not really. There's been a lot of discussion of the meaning of good and evil throughout history, but if you consider the arguments carefully, there's really not that much disagreement among those who accept the concept. You can boil it down to this.

Good is selflessness.

Evil is selfishness.

Of course, you can't be wholly selfless (i.e. wholly good) and survive, because you have to look after yourself at least to the extent of making sure you have the basic necessities. But even if humans can't be completely good or completely evil, it's important to strive for good, because the alternative is a purely rational moral system, which inevitably becomes purely selfish.

Certainly people have argued over the meaning of good and evil, usually in an attempt to justify whatever they've already decided to do. Religious and ideological conflicts are the most prominent examples. Take Naziism and eugenics, which are of course closely linked. Their advocates argued that what they were doing (such as exterminating Jews or the disabled) was for the greater good. But they were really pushing for what they perceived as best for their own group, and justifying doing evil with the argument that the end justifies the means (a fundamentally selfish argument which can justify anything). The arguments advanced by Communism operate along the same lines; we must do what is best for one group (the "Proletariat") at the expense of everyone else (who we'll probably need to liquidate; they're easy to identify because they oppose our program and/or wear glasses). The Thirty Years War was similar; Protestants and Catholics were each pushing for what was best for their own group, without considering the good of the whole. Even combatants who were ideologically motivated (and many were not) acted strictly in the interests of their own group.

Good and evil are very simple concepts at their heart. It isn't difficult to tell them apart; it's just inconvenient to do so.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

.

so then there is no wrong or right....(what i have been trying to say this whole time)
so you cant say im wrong or right.....

Bingo.

If you reject the concept of right and wrong, anything goes, and society collapses.

tesral
12-16-2008, 11:51 AM
But who defines "right" and "wrong"? )

Simple definition. Wrong is anything that hurts someone. I consider anyone that is claiming moral right while hurting anyone is stinking full of it. Nuff said.

The issue here is how much copyright is enough copyright?

I contend that no one save the creator has a "right" to benefit from his or her work, therefor no copyright should extend beyond the life of the creator. If I had my way corporations would be stripped of the quasi-person "rights" They could not "hold" patents and copyrights. Only people could do that. So if a corporation wanted to have patent they would have to have a license form them patent holder, a person. Copyright would stay with the creator. It could be assigned to a given publisher for a period of time, but never outright sold.

What is Micheal Jackson doing with the Beatles catalog? He neither produced or wrote any of that work. AISI he has no more right to "own" it that does Bozo the Clown. The corporation should not be able to sell that work, it should have revered to the surviving Beatles themselves. And when they are dead to the public domain. As the law stands it will be locked away from the public domain forever.

The law needs changing. You cannot harm John Lennon, he is dead. I'm afraid that Yoko is not entiled to John's copyrights, even if she did marry him, they should have revered to the Public domain on his death. But, currently the law says otherwise.

Now the RIAA is claiming that ever song file copied is"harming" them to the tune of over 300 dollars each song each time. That is plain malarkey as I can buy (if I was stupid) any of those songs for much lower rates. They want to end fair use, they want to end first sale. They have been employing illegal tactics to use the legal system to extort people they cannot even begin to prove have done anything. In one case they even managed to drag a laser printer into British court for "downloading music files"

They have stated they should not be held to legal proof because that takes too long. the MIAA recently stated it wanted to sniff every single packet on the web for illegal downloads. They were told to go away.

Their methods are suspect at the very least, their actions despicable. They need to be stopped, period. They are doing harm.

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 11:55 AM
.

so then there is no wrong or right....(what i have been trying to say this whole time)
so you cant say im wrong or right.....

It's not that there is no wrong or right. It's just that wrong and right aren't universal concepts. Most of us (I hope) can agree that murder is wrong. But you'll find opinions more divided on issues like gay marriage or abortion, and both sides will feel they are morally right.

With piracy, I think it's fairly cut-and-dried. They created it, they should be allowed to control the distribution. Other issues - fair use, length of copyright, etc - are a little more gray, and the laws will change from time to time anyway.

Downloading and using an unauthorized PDF of an older game system that is now unavailable - that's gray. But 4e? To me, that's obviously wrong. The 4e PHB is widely available and easy to find in stores, and if you can't afford it yet, then I'm sorry, but you can't have it yet.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 12:03 PM
If somebody doesn't, then you can't have civil society.

If you reject the concept of right and wrong, anything goes, and society collapses.


there are definitions to those who need closer..... just like many definitions, but people still do the opposite. ( i wont get into that. its a different disscusion)

just cause its defined as something does not make it what "it is"
society can call it whatever they like.....but each person in society defines it (to themself) a little different than thier neighbor.
so in this case there is no concept of right and wrong, only belief of what might be "right" and what might be "wrong"

so i ask again.....is piracy really wrong?... ( i only use the term piracy because that was the headline of the form, and ill stick to the title).

mrken
12-16-2008, 12:07 PM
There will be a day when someone will stand there with you looking you in the eye and will judge your morals, right or wrong. Until that day you will have to be your own judge. You will be the sole judge of whether you are being or doing morally right or wrong. You will be the only one responsible for your actions. You will do the deed or not do the deed. Those who believe in anarchy or evil deeds will do them while those who believe in good and moral deeds will do them. Each one of us will reap the rewards of our actions here in this life whether good or bad. And doing good does not guarantee a good reward, at least not here in this life. Sometimes you will get the dirty end of the stick if you do good and sometimes there will be a pot of gold for those who do the most vile of deeds. You get to pick which way you will act and will take the reward whatever it may be. Choosing the Right, is it's own reward; at least in this life time. And if you don't believe in God, you get to run amuck your entire lifetime thinking there is no consequence for your actions. Will be a rough day if you are wrong. On the other hand, if I do what I think is right according to the teachings of my moral instructors in church and there is no God, well, guess I just spent my entire life doing good with no reward but a good feeling I had my entire life. I have pretty much enjoyed my life and so have you I assume, guess we will have to wait for the final verdict. :)
--- Merged from Double Post ---
People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, 'If you keep a lot of rules I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing.' I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other. -C.S. Lewis (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=839), Mere Christianity

There is a perennial and unobtrusive view that morality consists in such things as telling the truth, paying one's debts, respecting one's parents and doing no voluntary harm to anyone. Those are all things easy to say and hard to do; they do not attract much attention, and win little honor in the world. -Allan Bloom (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=1005)

The terrible immoralities are the cunning ones hiding behind masks of morality, such as exploiting people while pretending to help them. -Vernon Howard (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=1596)

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -Dante Alighieri (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=775)

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 12:17 PM
It's not that there is no wrong or right. It's just that wrong and right aren't universal concepts. Most of us (I hope) can agree that murder is wrong.

i agree murder is wrong...... but i suppose i am giving my attention to the reason behind it.....rather than the action itself.

say a kid "murders" his father.......but the father was beating both him and his mother....and the mom would not testify against him..... and the corrupt system we hold would not punish him based on a little childs confession. now the father goes at the kid again for trying to "tell" on him. he starts to beat the kid sensless, and the mother only watches in horror. then when the father turns to the mother.....the kid grabs a knife and stabs him one in the back.....now what.... was he morally wrong? it seems to me that he was protecting his mother and himself ( a natural instinct ) now piracy might not have the same gravity as this story, but the idea is the same...... you need to look at thier reason behind it rather than just the action itself. ( compassion and understanding before judgement)
--- Merged from Double Post ---

There will be a day when someone will stand there with you looking you in the eye and will judge your morals, right or wrong. Until that day you will have to be your own judge.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -Dante Alighieri (http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=775)

you believe what you believe.... as well as others will believe what they believe....

they punishments people may or may not recieve should not be an issue to anyone. you make clear your point of what you think is right and wrong, and you let them decide. not everyone can believe the same thing.....so when one says you will be punsished...... its cant be considered.

you cant force your understanding on someone, "stealing for the sake of stealing"...IN MY OPINION (not fact) is wrong. but those with a reason behind it.....then you can not judge them.....its not your place to do so.

even if you think they are wrong.

mrken
12-16-2008, 12:18 PM
If somebody doesn't, then you can't have civil society. All societies are based on either a) the concept of right and wrong (or good and evil, if you prefer) or b) an honor system such as bushido.

Good and evil are very simple concepts at their heart. It isn't difficult to tell them apart; it's just inconvenient to do so.

Bingo.

If you reject the concept of right and wrong, anything goes, and society collapses.


For the most part we have legislated our moral code. We call them laws. They haven't been totally legislated because our fore fathers did not want to legislate religion as a whole, just the moral parts. If you want a legislated religion you need to go to Saudi Arabia where they have Sharia.

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 12:26 PM
If somebody doesn't, then you can't have civil society. All societies are based on either a) the concept of right and wrong (or good and evil, if you prefer) or b) an honor system such as bushido.


The problem with that concept is that people confuse "good and evil" with "legal and illegal", and then we end up living in a theocracy. I'm all for laws that protect citizens from murder, theft, etc. But you don't need a moral code to come up with those laws, just some common sense. Way too often we have laws passed that having nothing to do with protecting people, but rather promote one religion's moral code over another.


Simple definition. Wrong is anything that hurts someone. I consider anyone that is claiming moral right while hurting anyone is stinking full of it. Nuff said.

Now that's more like it. And yet there's thousands of concepts that many people consider "wrong", even though they harm no one.


i agree murder is wrong...... but i suppose i am giving my attention to the reason behind it.....rather than the action itself.


I didn't say "killing" is wrong, just that "murder" is wrong. For purposes of my above post, I'm talking about flat-out murder, killing for selfish reasons. For more complicated killings, we have all sorts of neat terms like involuntary manslaughter, self defense, etc.

mrken
12-16-2008, 12:30 PM
Simple definition. Wrong is anything that hurts someone. I consider anyone that is claiming moral right while hurting anyone is stinking full of it. Nuff said.

The issue here is how much copyright is enough copyright?

I contend that no one save the creator has a "right" to benefit from his or her work, therefor no copyright should extend beyond the life of the creator. If I had my way corporations would be stripped of the quasi-person "rights" They could not "hold" patents and copyrights. Only people could do that. So if a corporation wanted to have patent they would have to have a license form them patent holder, a person. Copyright would stay with the creator. It could be assigned to a given publisher for a period of time, but never outright sold.

What is Micheal Jackson doing with the Beatles catalog? He neither produced or wrote any of that work. AISI he has no more right to "own" it that does Bozo the Clown. The corporation should not be able to sell that work, it should have revered to the surviving Beatles themselves. And when they are dead to the public domain. As the law stands it will be locked away from the public domain forever.

The law needs changing. You cannot harm John Lennon, he is dead. I'm afraid that Yoko is not entiled to John's copyrights, even if she did marry him, they should have revered to the Public domain on his death. But, currently the law says otherwise.

Now the RIAA is claiming that ever song file copied is"harming" them to the tune of over 300 dollars each song each time. That is plain malarkey as I can buy (if I was stupid) any of those songs for much lower rates. They want to end fair use, they want to end first sale. They have been employing illegal tactics to use the legal system to extort people they cannot even begin to prove have done anything. In one case they even managed to drag a laser printer into British court for "downloading music files"

They have stated they should not be held to legal proof because that takes too long. the MIAA recently stated it wanted to sniff every single packet on the web for illegal downloads. They were told to go away.

Their methods are suspect at the very least, their actions despicable. They need to be stopped, period. They are doing harm.


Tesral, you make me think again. You do have your points and I must say I would be hard pressed to argue with you on this point. What is the chance we could start a movement?

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 12:31 PM
so then u do admit for certain reasons......
same with piracy

tesral
12-16-2008, 12:43 PM
Tesral, you make me think again. You do have your points and I must say I would be hard pressed to argue with you on this point. What is the chance we could start a movement?

There is a movement, Google it. I am neither the first nor the last person to recognize the used bull feed the *IAA have been spreading around. The goods thing is that they are being dragged kicking ans screaming into court o prove their claims and their methods are being questioned by judges. When people put their backs up and challenge them they fold.

Now this said the actions of the *IAA do not justify violating anyone's copyright. Two wrongs do not make a right and that holds here.

"Principles and morals are not followed because "they" do, or do not do. Principles and morals are followed because they are the right and good thing to do, not due to the action or to cause the reaction of others. That is the nature of true enlightenment. Morals are first for one's self." --The Tao of Phoenix (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/garden/tao.html)

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 12:43 PM
I didn't say "killing" is wrong, just that "murder" is wrong. For purposes of my above post, I'm talking about flat-out murder, killing for selfish reasons. For more complicated killings, we have all sorts of neat terms like involuntary manslaughter, self defense, etc.

so then you agree that there is resons behind it

Edward
12-16-2008, 12:53 PM
Wow. This topic has really taken off.


The issue here is how much copyright is enough copyright?

I contend that no one save the creator has a "right" to benefit from his or her work, therefor no copyright should extend beyond the life of the creator. If I had my way corporations would be stripped of the quasi-person "rights" They could not "hold" patents and copyrights. Only people could do that. So if a corporation wanted to have patent they would have to have a license form them patent holder, a person. Copyright would stay with the creator. It could be assigned to a given publisher for a period of time, but never outright sold.

You're only tweaking the current system. Yes, what you're proposing is better than what we have now, but it's still broken. We need to build a new system from scratch.

Of course, tweaking the current system is more likely to happen than a complete rewrite, but the tweaks aren't going to be along the lines of what you want; they're going to be along the lines of what Microsoft wants (which isn't quite as bad as what the RIAA wants). Since neither of our proposals is going anywhere, we might as well dream big. :)


With piracy, I think it's fairly cut-and-dried. They created it, they should be allowed to control the distribution.

I disagree. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to allow creators to control the distribution of their works. Yes, creators should benefit, and they should certainly receive credit, but they should not have control.

Should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to control the distribution of life-saving drugs (as they can today) no matter how many people die? If so, why? The argument that innovation depends on patent or copyright is remarkably weak. These concepts didn't exist until recently; innovation thrived without them.


society can call it whatever they like.....but each person in society defines it (to themself) a little different than thier neighbor.
so in this case there is no concept of right and wrong, only belief of what might be "right" and what might be "wrong"

Actually, neither a single individual nor society itself defines right and wrong. They are absolute concepts; they exist independently of us. If the tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, it still makes a sound.

We all strive for understanding of right and wrong. We don't quite get there; the human mind isn't perfect and probably can't achieve perfect understanding.

We grow all our lives. If we strive to improve our understanding, then we become better people. We learn something about how our understanding was flawed. We also realize that our understanding isn't perfect today, but it's at least a little better than it was yesterday. If we don't strive to improve our understanding, we sink into moral decay. We might end up in prison, or we might become a CEO, but either way we're likely to be bitter and angry. Striving for good is its own reward, because we have to move forward or back; we can't stand still.


I'm all for laws that protect citizens from murder, theft, etc.

You're legislating morality. You believe that murder and theft are wrong, even when directed against minorities. Most people throughout history have disagreed with you. Many (perhaps most) people today disagree with you.

The concept of equal protection under the law was a truly radical concept, and it is not universally accepted. If you want to reject morality as the basis for laws, then you have to go with consensus. The consensus in the U.S. is that murder and theft are wrong. This probably isn't the consensus in the world, so a theoretical world government based on consensus could not have such laws.

If I wanted to argue from a purely logical standpoint (which I don't), I could build a very convincing argument that you need to persecute minorities. Many societies have had unprotected groups who could be freely killed, raped, and plundered. Some societies still do, in fact if not in theory. Persecuting Jews did wonders to unite Nazi Germany. If we discard morality and consider only what is best for the majority, Nazi propaganda looks very convincing.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 12:58 PM
Actually, neither a single individual nor society itself defines right and wrong. They are absolute concepts; they exist independently of us. If the tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, it still makes a sound.

.

independently.....maybe.....but since birth you were not really given concepts of right and wrong...... you learned them. therefore defined by a person who believed in thier own standerds of right and wrong.

since then i have, and i am sure you have too, twaked the beliefs we were taught and molded our own beliefs.....so in a sense it was defined by "individuals"
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Wow. This topic has really taken off.

I disagree. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to allow creators to control the distribution of their works. Yes, creators should benefit, and they should certainly receive credit, but they should not have control.



i do agree on this statment

Farcaster
12-16-2008, 01:02 PM
I disagree. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to allow creators to control the distribution of their works. Yes, creators should benefit, and they should certainly receive credit, but they should not have control...Should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to control the distribution of life-saving drugs (as they can today) no matter how many people die?

First of all, you're cutting too broad a stroke across the issue. Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, and a book versus "life saving medication" are as close together as apples and cars (not even as close as oranges).

That being said, I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread. So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 01:10 PM
First of all, you're cutting too broad a stroke across the issue. Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, and a book versus "life saving medication" are as close together as apples and cars (not even as close as oranges).

That being said, I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread. So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom.

well ( and i dont mean to make you upset.....i am actually far from that) but if u create a life saving medicine, but i cant pay for it now.....but my little girl is dying, who are you or anyone esle to say i cant have it?

you made it to share with the world right???
or did you do it so you can hang it up on your wall as a trophie?

it sounds selfish when one says that i wont share cause its mine!....well thats fine,..... ill find another method to get it. ( again i am only arguing a point, as we all are, and by the way farcaster that young child looks amazingly cute... i wish the best for your family :biggrin:)

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 01:24 PM
That being said, I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread. So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom.

Exactly.


so then you agree that there is resons behind it

Sure, there can be circumstances in which killing is justified, maybe even necessary. It's a lot harder to come up with a similar instance for piracy, though. Try telling a jury that you downloaded an MP3 in self defense.

mrken
12-16-2008, 01:51 PM
so then u do admit for certain reasons......
same with piracy


:) Life Angel, I hope you wasn't pointing your finger at me. Personally speaking, I am fairly good at discerning the difference between right and wrong. I do not do a lot of things U may do. I simply put this question forward as a means to get many who frequent this board and have questions along this line. Many like yourself have not given this much thought simply because those they hang with don't question this practice. The question has never come up perhaps. It is just taken as the thing to do without any questions.

My response to Tesral was because he has inspected the gray areas within the question and saw some things that seem to be wrong. He has in my opinion discerned the difference between right and wrong. If things are as he says they are (and I am inclined to believe he is because of my questioning on this very same issue) then he may be one we should listen to with intent in this regard. As black and white as some things seem, there is almost always a bit of gray close to the edges.

Questioning and investigating all things is the way to truth in anything. If something does not hold up to the piercing light of the truth seeker, well, so be it. The truth be told and damn the consequences. I would rather know the truth than believe a lie.

Farcaster
12-16-2008, 02:03 PM
I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread. So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom.


well ( and i dont mean to make you upset.....i am actually far from that) but if u create a life saving medicine, but i cant pay for it now.....but my little girl is dying, who are you or anyone esle to say i cant have it?

I guess you didn't read my post very carefully. I am not discussing patenting medicine and copyrighting in the same wide swath that others seem wont to do. They are not the same thing. Read my quotes again. I am only talking about the right of an author (or more broadly, entertainers in general) to limit the distribution of their work.

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 02:19 PM
Actually, neither a single individual nor society itself defines right and wrong. They are absolute concepts; they exist independently of us.

I don't see how. Most issues have so many shades of gray, that most issues have too many pros and cons for there to be an absolute right or wrong. If you're religious, then sure, whatever your God believes is right or wrong could be considered the absolute. But we need definitions that are independent of religion, lest religion be forced on people. And besides, many religious sects disagree with each other on a lot of issues.


If the tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, it still makes a sound.

Off-topic, but I've heard this one argued differently. The tree makes a vibration, but that vibration isn't converted into a sound unless it is picked up by an ear (or other recording device). I can't vouch for this one; it's just something I heard.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 02:20 PM
:) Life Angel, I hope you wasn't pointing your finger at me. Personally speaking, I am fairly good at discerning the difference between right and wrong. I do not do a lot of things U may do.

so were assuming that i do these things?......
i thought i said ( I DONT) but i could be mistaken......
but its all gravy for me....... you do what you believe as i will for what i believe..... and well stay out of eachothers buisness.:rolleyes:

tesral
12-16-2008, 02:21 PM
First of all, you're cutting too broad a stroke across the issue. Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, and a book versus "life saving medication" are as close together as apples and cars (not even as close as oranges).

That being said, I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread. So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom.

I'm going to yup-yup Farcaster here. Patents are not copyrights. Different animal, different problem. Copyright is what the thread is about. No one has ever died from the lack of Harry Potter, or ever will. (Unless of course they are shot with a copy of "The Goblet of Fire" in their jacket. Better than Dragonskin) However....

Yes, creators get to control their creation. I'm going to get mighty testy if you tell me that I don't control my own works. Control is what copyright is about, the right, to copy and distribute, or to not copy and not distribute if I so choose. I have never and will never agree that there should be no copyright. I agree with the principles of the GPL, but I don't place all my work under that license. It is my option and choice to use copyleft, but the deal with the GPL is it does not relinquish control. The GPL states the limits under which you can use and distribute my work. It is not public domain.

Public domain means that anyone can do anything with it. No limits.

GPL or copyleft means you can do limited things with it provided you pass on the GPL notice recognizing my rights and ownership of this work.

Copyright means that only those I designate can copy and distribute my work.

Simplified but workable definitions.

The problem is that copyright has been extended for too long. Works are at least in the U.S. intended to devolve into the public domain. That intent of the Founders has been thwarted by copyrights extending beyond any reasonable definition of "limited".

However even with that wrong embedded in law I cannot condone the bypassing of copyright on moral grounds. We are not taking civil rights here we are are not discussing treatment of our fellow beings. No one has the "right" to a book or a music recording.

Rights legal and moral are being violated by the RIAA and the MIAA, but that does not make violating the copyright moral in return. The proper thing is to shight the light of reason harsh and bright on the actions of these companies and those they stand for. Don't buy their products, refuse to traffic in their goods and point out theire actions to any and all that you encounter.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 02:23 PM
I guess you didn't read my post very carefully. I am not discussing patenting medicine and copyrighting in the same wide swath that others seem wont to do. They are not the same thing. Read my quotes again. I am only talking about the right of an author (or more broadly, entertainers in general) to limit the distribution of their work.


well then i was mistaken..... i suppose maybe a little more detail would have helped me to better understand.
i apologize for mis-calculating your last post.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I'm going to yup-yup Farcaster here. Patents are not copyrights. Different animal, different problem. Copyright is what the thread is about. No one has ever died from the lack of Harry Potter, or ever will. (Unless of course they are shot with a copy of "The Goblet of Fire" in their jacket. Better than Dragonskin) However....

Yes, creators get to control their creation. I'm going to get mighty testy if you tell me that I don't control my own works. Control is what copyright is about, the right, to copy and distribute, or to not copy and not distribute if I so choose. I have never and will never agree that there should be no copyright. I agree with the principles of the GPL, but I don't place all my work under that license. It is my option and choice to use copyleft, but the deal with the GPL is it does not relinquish control. The GPL states the limits under which you can use and distribute my work. It is not public domain.


i do not dissagree, you have the right to distribute what you want when you want....... all i am stating is that you can not get mad at those who pirate it just for the pleasure of enjoying your work...... your upset that someone actually pays attention to your work (how good it is can be debatable) neverthless..... why throw a temper at those who are admiring you in the first place....:confused:

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 02:31 PM
i do not dissagree, you have the right to distribute what you want when you want....... all i am stating is that you can not get mad at those who pirate it just for the pleasure of enjoying your work...... your upset that someone actually pays attention to your work (how good it is can be debatable) neverthless..... why throw a temper at those who are admiring you in the first place....:confused:

Because admiration doesn't put bread on the table?

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Because admiration doesn't put bread on the table?

bread....... so see now you are assumimg everyone is a thief.....
u know what happenes when you ass u me? well im sure you do...
people do buy it you and i both know that..... there are not as many thiefs as there are actual honest buyers...... again i love to see you prove me otherwise.....

so its not really the "bread issue" its greed........
--- Merged from Double Post ---
90% of the gamers on this page as well as many other pages have admited to be honest buyers..... so if we all are buying the things we want and not "pirating" then its not the.... well im struggiling for food...... its "im a greedy man/woman looking for money, and to hell with all of you who cant afford it.

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 02:42 PM
bread....... so see now you are assumimg everyone is a thief.....
u know what happenes when you ass u me? well im sure you do...
people do buy it you and i both know that..... there are not as many thiefs as there are actual honest buyers...... again i love to see you prove me otherwise.....

so its not really the "bread issue" its greed........

I don't think I get your point. So you're saying, that because some people do pay, that it's okay for other people not to? Who decides which people get to pay, and which don't have to?

If nobody pays, the artist starves. If some people pay but not others, it's unfair to those who pay. The only way for a system to be fair is to require everyone to pay.

Btw, some of this stuff doesn't make as much money as people think it does. There's plenty of published authors who are still living in poverty. A few extra book sales (instead of downloads) really can help in some cases.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 02:47 PM
I don't think I get your point. So you're saying, that because some people do pay, that it's okay for other people not to? Who decides which people get to pay, and which don't have to?

If nobody pays, the artist starves. If some people pay, it's unfair to those who pay. The only way for a system to be fair is to require everyone to pay.

Btw, some of this stuff doesn't make as much money as people think it does. There's plenty of published authors who are still living in poverty. A few extra book sales (instead of downloads) really can help in some cases.

other artist is not on topic.....this one inparticular makes a good amount.
and no one "decides" who pays......you should pay obviously.... but if i cant, then you say o well your now excluded from playing??? well thanks i buy what i can.... i apologize that i cant live up to someone who is "well-of" and i apologize for being born into a family where in the begening we stole to eat. since then i have become a little better off and have always payed for what i get. i suppose you neglect to see it because you have not lived it. no i dont "NEED" D&D or these books and what not........ but you take away a toy that a little kid stole to keep him happy, and say to his face your wrong.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
well we all can see different people live different lives...... those who have not had to live at a friends home cause there was no where to go have just a llittle different perspective than those who have.

i suppose your belief is off your experiance. and i must apologize once more. ( i see that my views are not so welcomed) and i fail to see why. nevertheless ill stick to my views and try to understand others.:redface:
--- Merged from Double Post ---


If some people pay but not others, it's unfair to those who pay. The only way for a system to be fair is to require everyone to pay.


...fair...:) is this just a revenge tactic to try and make an unfair world fair?.... its an unfair world....sorry

1958Fury
12-16-2008, 02:58 PM
i suppose you neglect to see it because you have not lived it.

Now who's making assumptions? I'm in pretty bad shape right now. This isn't the poorest I've ever been, but some months I do have to decide between bills and groceries. And believe me, $34.95 for a book is a big deal right now. I was lucky to get the 4e PHB - I got it with birthday money, and even then I probably should have thrown the money at bills.

I'm honestly not calling you a bad person, any of you. I can't honestly say I've never done anything illegal. I'm not judging anyone here. I believe piracy is wrong, but that doesn't mean I think those who have pirated are bad people.

Life*Angel*
12-16-2008, 03:06 PM
i suppose that is what i jumped at...... things are still very touchy with me about my familes past...i appologize for assuming also....

unfortunatly that is the meesage i recieve after reading everyones post. that people who have are bad people. and i promise on my mothers grave that i have not taken anything w/ out regret.

i know the situation fury..... believe me i do.....
piracy in the act is bad....you are correct on that..... but there are reasons. i suppose i am looking for a "exception" to the rule that has been said by many here that "piracy is bad"..... i regret to say i have taken from artists...... for a xmas gift 2 years ago for my brother. anything to see him believe in life and believe things would get better. and if i had to do yard work for people to save money to get him that mp3 and put music on it.......then i did it.

i am not saying you are bad either fury.... as i stated before...i was looking for an "exception" to everyones posts ( that seemed a little harsh judged)

tesral
12-16-2008, 03:54 PM
90% of the gamers on this page as well as many other pages have admited to be honest buyers..... so if we all are buying the things we want and not "pirating" then its not the.... well im struggiling for food...... its "im a greedy man/woman looking for money, and to hell with all of you who cant afford it.

So, I'm greedy if I ask you to pay me for displaying my hard won talents for your amusement.

It's a hard fact but no one has a right to any of this. The computer the forum, the internet, gaming books, none of it is a right.

If I don't pay the ISP I don't have internet access, if I don't fork over my hard earned bucks I don't get a computer. If I don't have the money for game books, no game books, and none of that is any kind of entitlement. The people that work at Lizards depend on those sales to feed their families.

Suggesting that you have a right to steal game books in PDF because you cannot afford to buy them is not justifiable.

Might I suggest the classic option of doing without. Lord knows I have. I wasn't always middle aged, have a good income. I did without plenty.

Farcaster
12-16-2008, 04:08 PM
people do buy it you and i both know that..... there are not as many thiefs as there are actual honest buyers...so its not really the "bread issue" its greed.

Life, are you aware of what the average author makes from their work? Let me break it down for you a bit. The typical fantasy/sci-fi author gets an advance on royalties from the publisher of somewhere around $5000-$10000. Note that this is an advance on the author's percentage of future sales of the book. For many authors, their sales royalties will never exceed the advance they received. Do you think it is greedy for the author to be a little miffed that people are stealing his work, then? Should he simply be elated that people are taking advantage of his labor without paying a dime? He should simply be happy that someone is "admiring" him? I call nonsense on that.




you should pay obviously.... but if i cant, then you say o well your now excluded from playing??? well thanks i buy what i can....

Let's make this more tangible. If PDFs and copiers didn't exist, would it be okay to steal a copy from the local bookstore? Obviously not. The difference is that with the PDF, you are simply stealing from the publisher and author(s) instead of an intermediary.


i apologize that i cant live up to someone who is "well-of" and i apologize for being born into a family where in the begening we stole to eat.

I don't think anyone is trying to make this personal, but you seem to be taking it so. Talking about starving families is taking the topic way off the mark and is simply adding drama and emotion. No one is starving because they can't afford to buy a copy of any book or RPG. Let's dial the drama back a bit.

MortonStromgal
12-16-2008, 04:39 PM
I grew up poor, poor enough there were years that the only gifts I got for Christmas were cardboard boxes or what distant relatives would send me. My parents had to thin the soup to make it look like more than was there (and they sometimes skiped meals). Our TV was black and white hand me down from goodwill that kinda got the big 3 stations if you did a little dance with the antenna (for the record this was in the 80s). The only heat in the house was one base board heater in the kitchen. The only AC was a window air conditioner in one bedroom. We were given old cars so we could have one from relatives. We never stole to eat, we could go down to the salvation army anytime and sit and listen to the preacher for a free meal. I was fortunate enough to be very young and by the time I was a teenager my dad had gone back to school and had a great career. I feel poor now, I've been supporting my wife and myself on my income for over a year in an expensive city. Unlike my parents we have cable, can buy a used car, and afford all our necessities and tons of rpg books I don't need. While I can sympathies with people who claim to have to steal to eat, I don't think that anyone is forced to do that in the USA. Its unpleasant but there are soup kitchens and other ways if your looking for otherways, unfortunatly when your in that kind of pressure your not always thinking of other ways just that you have a hungry child. I once had a ton of my stuff stolen and I hope it was by people who needed the money and not just to fund a drug habbit.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-16-2008, 08:06 PM
Poverty absolutely sucks, and being financially constrained really warps my morality lol!

I just caught up on all of your posts and wanted to respond to all of your analogies to life saving drugs and how the pharmaceutical industry is 'immoral' for not giving drugs to people for free. WOW!
I think this is a common misunderstanding people have about how drugs are made (research and development) and then approved (hard) and then manufactured (costly and low yield)

Researching a candidate pharmaceutical agent, developing it to be minimally toxic and strongly interactive with a target enzyme or protein (type of interaction varies) is HARD. Getting the drug approved takes FOREVER and is also expensive. then making the drug in such a way as to ensure safety, purity, and high yield ( ~20% final is high yield). is, well... expensive.

Do drug companies have magical money bags that give them free money to conduct all of these costly endeavors? unfortunately they do not.

If you want to create and manufacture a safe drug for millions of people for free, go ahead. knock yourself out!

I would applaud you and you would be knighted, canonized, and in the news

Edward
12-17-2008, 02:09 AM
First of all, you're cutting too broad a stroke across the issue. Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, and a book versus "life saving medication" are as close together as apples and cars (not even as close as oranges).

That being said, I would rather focus on the issue of copyrighting as it was originally framed in this thread.

To be honest, I don't see a big difference between patents and copyright, except in technical terms. Copyrights are not associated only with entertainment; they also cover -- and therefore restrict -- life-saving knowledge, medical and otherwise. However, I'll focus on copyright if you prefer.


So, does an author have the right to limit the distribution of his work. My answer to that is a resounding, yes! Who are you or anyone else to say that what someone creates belongs to everyone? That goes completely against the principles of freedom. The issue isn't who it belongs to, or who should profit from it. The issue is who determines what I can do with it after I've legally acquired it.

Artists have the right to determine whether to publish their work. Once they have published it, however, and I have legally acquired it by paying the artist, what gives the artist the right to tell me how I can use it?

I believe that allowing the creator of a work to dictate to others how they can use it goes completely against the principles of freedom.

Let me be clear: I'm not advocating piracy. Piracy is wrong, because we're a society of laws, and we have legal mechanisms for changing laws with which we disagree. Also, artists should profit from their work, and copyright is the mechanism currently in place to allow that. However, it's not a good mechanism, and we should take a hard look at alternatives. We (as a society) haven't done that.

Moreover, we need to keep in mind that Congress does not have authority to grant copyright except as permitted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution (the Copyright Clause).


The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and DiscoveriesIt's not covered by any of the more general clauses of the Constitution, so there could be no copyright if this clause didn't exist. Note particularly that it's not part of the Bill of Rights. Copyright is not a constitutional right; it's something Congress may grant at its discretion.

The key is this: Congress can only grant copyright to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Any copyright law which does not promote the progress of science and useful arts is unconstitutional and needs to be changed.

And it's quite clear that copyright does not promote the progress of science; it retards it. Once, scientists freely shared knowledge and exchanged ideas. This is no longer the case. Today, universities often restrict interaction and sharing between scholars because they don't want ideas to leak out until they can determine how to extract maximum profit from them. Scientific journals commonly own the rights to articles they publish; authors may not even have the right to provide copies to friends and colleagues. Scholars often find themselves bound in a straitjacket, unable to consult with peers without obtaining permission from administrators and editors.

Not every work is important to society, of course. Works which aren't science or "useful arts" cannot legally be covered by copyright. Anything which is so trivial that it doesn't matter whether it survives is not copyrightable anyway.

Remember also that copyright was never designed to compensate authors. It was invented by government and the publishing industry, and restricted the right to copy works to the government and government-approved publishers. It was intended to prevent authors from disseminating their works, which often contained dangerous ideas. Later, copyright was shifted from the government to authors. It's unfortunate that it wasn't abolished. Methods for compensating authors should be designed for that purpose, not adapted from a law intended to suppress knowledge.

I believe that the preservation of knowledge is one of the most serious problems facing society today. Historically, only a small fraction of works have survived to the present day. Most people believe this problem has been solved, but actually it has gotten worse. Few works created today are likely to survive long term; many won't survive the century. Copyright is one of the main reasons for this. (Digitization is the other.)


I don't see how. Most issues have so many shades of gray, that most issues have too many pros and cons for there to be an absolute right or wrong.

It's true that life isn't black and white, but most issues aren't that complicated. Usually, it's much more difficult to find the will to solve a problem than to find a way to solve it.

Every situation is different and must be judged on its own merits. We can't simply say "Killing is wrong" or "Killing is right" because no incident is quite the same as any other. However, if all else (including the circumstances of the individuals involved) is equal, then a specific killing that is wrong if committed by Person A is also wrong if committed by Person B. You and I may have different belief systems, but that doesn't make it okay for one of us and not the other. Our belief systems do not affect whether the killing was wrong; they only affect whether we believe it was wrong.

Truth is absolute, not relative. It does not depend on what we believe. Whether it is snowing does not depend on whether I believe it is snowing.


Off-topic, but I've heard this one argued differently. The tree makes a vibration, but that vibration isn't converted into a sound unless it is picked up by an ear (or other recording device). I can't vouch for this one; it's just something I heard.My understanding is that the fall of the tree generates a sound wave, which is a sound wave even if no one hears it. I'm not a physicist, though.


I'm going to yup-yup Farcaster here. Patents are not copyrights. Different animal, different problem.

As I said, I disagree, but I'm willing to restrict my arguments to copyright.


Yes, creators get to control their creation. I'm going to get mighty testy if you tell me that I don't control my own works. That's current law, yes, and I obey the law. If you're saying the law is based on a moral principle, I believe you're mistaken. As I said above, copyright law is not based on moral principles; it's entirely pragmatic. The Constitution establishes copyright for strictly practical reasons: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.


Control is what copyright is about, the right, to copy and distribute, or to not copy and not distribute if I so choose. I have never and will never agree that there should be no copyright.Yes, I understand your position. To clarify mine, I do believe in the moral rights of the author, but I don't believe authors should be able to harm society by restricting the flow of knowledge.

I believe authors should be compensated for their work.

I believe authors should receive credit for their work (including derivative works), and should not receive blame for the work of others. And I'm vehemently opposed to plagiarism.

I believe that society has a compelling interest in the preservation of knowledge for future generations, and this trumps any right of authors to prevent the dissemination of their published works.


I agree with the principles of the GPL, but I don't place all my work under that license. It is my option and choice to use copyleft, but the deal with the GPL is it does not relinquish control. The GPL states the limits under which you can use and distribute my work. It is not public domain.

Public domain means that anyone can do anything with it. No limits.

GPL or copyleft means you can do limited things with it provided you pass on the GPL notice recognizing my rights and ownership of this work.

Copyright means that only those I designate can copy and distribute my work.

Simplified but workable definitions.I'm familiar with public domain and various open-source licenses. I find them useful. That is, I find open-source licenses useful; I agree with you that public domain is dead. It may not even be possible to voluntarily release a work into the public domain, because the law makes no provision for this.


The problem is that copyright has been extended for too long. Works are at least in the U.S. intended to devolve into the public domain. That intent of the Founders has been thwarted by copyrights extending beyond any reasonable definition of "limited".I assume we all realize that this discussion is entirely academic. Neither your proposal nor mine is going to be implemented. Yours might have a slightly better chance than mine, since it's less radical; and if your proposal were on the ballot, I would vote for it. However, copyright law will almost certainly get stricter.


However even with that wrong embedded in law I cannot condone the bypassing of copyright on moral grounds. We are not taking civil rights here we are are not discussing treatment of our fellow beings. No one has the "right" to a book or a music recording.

Rights legal and moral are being violated by the RIAA and the MIAA, but that does not make violating the copyright moral in return. The proper thing is to shight the light of reason harsh and bright on the actions of these companies and those they stand for. Don't buy their products, refuse to traffic in their goods and point out theire actions to any and all that you encounter.Yes, that's what I do. I obey the law even when it's unconstitutional, but I push to change it. The tax code is a good parallel. Many people argue that the federal income tax system is unconstitutional and therefore we are not obligated to pay taxes. This is obvious nonsense. If you believe it's unconstitutional (or even if you just believe it's unfair, which it clearly is), push to get it changed. There's enough disgust and anger that tax reform will certainly happen eventually, and it will happen sooner if we push for it. And perhaps I'm wrong in believing that meaningful copyright reform won't pass; it wouldn't be the first time. It certainly won't happen if we don't work towards that goal.

The bottom line is that we live in a democracy. If we lived in a dictatorship, things would be different; but we don't have that excuse.


I just caught up on all of your posts and wanted to respond to all of your analogies to life saving drugs and how the pharmaceutical industry is 'immoral' for not giving drugs to people for free. WOW!

If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say that the pharmaceutical industry should give drugs to people for free. I said the system is broken and should be redesigned from scratch. (I was referring to the copyright and patent system, but the same thing applies to the health care system.)


I think this is a common misunderstanding people have about how drugs are made (research and development) and then approved (hard) and then manufactured (costly and low yield)

Researching a candidate pharmaceutical agent, developing it to be minimally toxic and strongly interactive with a target enzyme or protein (type of interaction varies) is HARD. Getting the drug approved takes FOREVER and is also expensive. then making the drug in such a way as to ensure safety, purity, and high yield ( ~20% final is high yield). is, well... expensive.There are a lot of problems with the current system, including the approval process. This is a separate issue from patents, though.


Do drug companies have magical money bags that give them free money to conduct all of these costly endeavors? unfortunately they do not.No, but they are the most profitable industry in the world. In a true capitalist system, no industry would be that profitable. Such massive profits come only from monopolies.


If you want to create and manufacture a safe drug for millions of people for free, go ahead. knock yourself out!There are nonprofits that develop low-cost drugs. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them and they usually aren't successful, because it's extremely difficult to work around the absurdly broad patent portfolios held by the pharmaceutical industry. Patents serve their intended purpose in this regard: They suppress competition.

Life*Angel*
12-17-2008, 09:26 AM
So, I'm greedy if I ask you to pay me for displaying my hard won talents for your amusement.


assumimng you have money...... and enough of it........ then yes i would consider you greedy...... if its your only line of work, and you are barely getting by......then no, but because i cant buy it will exclude me from the game? then its not greed its selfishness...

am i the only one who believes in something better and beyond money?
u need it to live....i get that..... but i would gladly give my "hard earned" work away to someone else if they wanted it.(selfless acts?)
--- Merged from Double Post ---


Might I suggest the classic option of doing without. Lord knows I have. I wasn't always middle aged, have a good income. I did without plenty.

i could your right.....never said i couldnt.....
but if your honestly telling me that i am sucha bad person because i cant live up to your standerds...(and idc if i can or cant) then i suppose point the finger and judge..
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Life, are you aware of what the average author makes from their work? Let me break it down for you a bit. The typical fantasy/sci-fi author gets an advance on royalties from the publisher of somewhere around $5000-$10000. Note that this is an advance on the author's percentage of future sales of the book. For many authors, their sales royalties will never exceed the advance they received. Do you think it is greedy for the author to be a little miffed that people are stealing his work, then? Should he simply be elated that people are taking advantage of his labor without paying a dime? He should simply be happy that someone is "admiring" him? I call nonsense on that.





Let's make this more tangible. If PDFs and copiers didn't exist, would it be okay to steal a copy from the local bookstore? Obviously not. The difference is that with the PDF, you are simply stealing from the publisher and author(s) instead of an intermediary.



I don't think anyone is trying to make this personal, but you seem to be taking it so. Talking about starving families is taking the topic way off the mark and is simply adding drama and emotion. No one is starving because they can't afford to buy a copy of any book or RPG. Let's dial the drama back a bit.


before i continue i will say this again for those who lack to read my posts all the way through... I said stealing is wrong... it is wrong and foul...... but it doesnt mean i didnt do it. i fail to see how you can judge a person and call him a thief because of a few choices he did. i know admeration wont always "feed thy needs" but he was poor and stole it for a little enjoyment in life, rather than giving up. i would start giving away my books to him. those who can buy it plz do....ill do the same.... and those who have nothing and take it..... you have done something wrong, but your reasons are your reasons i will not judge you on that.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I grew up poor, poor enough there were years that the only gifts I got for Christmas were cardboard boxes or what distant relatives would send me. My parents had to thin the soup to make it look like more than was there (and they sometimes skiped meals). Our TV was black and white hand me down from goodwill that kinda got the big 3 stations if you did a little dance with the antenna (for the record this was in the 80s). The only heat in the house was one base board heater in the kitchen. The only AC was a window air conditioner in one bedroom. We were given old cars so we could have one from relatives. We never stole to eat, we could go down to the salvation army anytime and sit and listen to the preacher for a free meal. I was fortunate enough to be very young and by the time I was a teenager my dad had gone back to school and had a great career. I feel poor now, I've been supporting my wife and myself on my income for over a year in an expensive city. Unlike my parents we have cable, can buy a used car, and afford all our necessities and tons of rpg books I don't need. While I can sympathies with people who claim to have to steal to eat, I don't think that anyone is forced to do that in the USA. Its unpleasant but there are soup kitchens and other ways if your looking for otherways, unfortunatly when your in that kind of pressure your not always thinking of other ways just that you have a hungry child. I once had a ton of my stuff stolen and I hope it was by people who needed the money and not just to fund a drug habbit.

i do too..... but if it was stolen it makes you angry just like the author would be.... but if it was by a parent to give to an even worse off child......can you still be angry?
--- Merged from Double Post ---


If you want to create and manufacture a safe drug for millions of people for free, go ahead. knock yourself out!

I would applaud you and you would be knighted, canonized, and in the news

so my acts are stupid???? because i believe in helping others..... i am looked at as strange?
--- Merged from Double Post ---


the issue isn't who it belongs to, or who should profit from it. The issue is who determines what i can do with it after i've legally acquired it.

Artists have the right to determine whether to publish their work. Once they have published it, however, and i have legally acquired it by paying the artist, what gives the artist the right to tell me how i can use it?

I believe that allowing the creator of a work to dictate to others how they can use it goes completely against the principles of freedom.


a g r e e d!

MortonStromgal
12-17-2008, 11:01 AM
i do too..... but if it was stolen it makes you angry just like the author would be.... but if it was by a parent to give to an even worse off child......can you still be angry?


I was very angry at first, working a minimum wage job saving for years to buy some of that stuff. One night I loose everything I ever worked for to get other than my $1500 truck. But then I realized that wasn't exactly true. Sure I lost things that could sell for a good chunk of cash (tv, computer, guitar worth more than my truck, etc) but they left my keep sakes, my cloths, and etc. It taught me a couple lessons 1. insurance seams expensive but its worth it when the bad happens. 2. don't put so much value in things. I have some nice stuff now but if someone stole it today while I would be sad I wouldn't be angry, more upset that they felt the need to steel rather than talk to me about their troubles.

On the drug thing... I think they are really cheap compared with the result of having a better life. Honestly if you can't afford your prescriptions something wrong. Not with the person who can't afford them but with their situation. Maybe their rent is too high or their employer doesn't offer benefits or they just like cable tv. Socializing medicine is an answer, so is forcing employers to chip in for benefits, as is rent control. I don't know the right answer but I don't think the $80 a month for pills is really the problem its about your don't have $80 extra.

On to patents... its amazing how the more patents your can push out the better your EBITA, even if they are silly patents which means more investor money for you and possibly a bonus check. Even IBM and Microsoft feel our current patent law is silly. However that does not mean either company wants to push the law in the people's favor.

Sascha
12-17-2008, 11:38 AM
To be honest, I don't see a big difference between patents and copyright, except in technical terms. Copyrights are not associated only with entertainment; they also cover -- and therefore restrict -- life-saving knowledge, medical and otherwise. However, I'll focus on copyright if you prefer.
From the United States Trademark and Patent Office FAQ (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#ptsc):
"What Are Patents, Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Copyrights? Some people confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, they are different and serve different purposes."


"...A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ... the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States."


"...A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product."

"...Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished."


Similar legal mechanisms, sure, but they're not all equal.

Life*Angel*
12-17-2008, 11:53 AM
I was very angry at first, working a minimum wage job saving for years to buy some of that stuff. One night I loose everything I ever worked for to get other than my $1500 truck. But then I realized that wasn't exactly true. Sure I lost things that could sell for a good chunk of cash (tv, computer, guitar worth more than my truck, etc) but they left my keep sakes, my cloths, and etc. It taught me a couple lessons 1. insurance seams expensive but its worth it when the bad happens. 2. don't put so much value in things. I have some nice stuff now but if someone stole it today while I would be sad I wouldn't be angry, more upset that they felt the need to steel rather than talk to me about their troubles.


its not so much that act........ its the reason behind it.....
you were mad...... but you relize that sometimes there are people who might appreciate it more....

all im saying is that you can blame thier actions.....but dont put down thier reason behind it... (especially if you dont understand)--- im not talking about you stormgal

Edward
12-17-2008, 01:01 PM
because i cant buy it will exclude me from the game?

Let me address this point directly. If you will be excluded from the game because you don't own certain books, then the game is not worth playing. A GM is never justified in requiring players to own certain books to be in his game, unless he knows that money is not a concern for any of his players. If a GM does require this and a player is not comfortable with it (for financial or other reasons), that player should drop out.

You don't have to play in one specific campaign. You can always obtain free materials and start your own. Even if there are no players in your area, I can't believe there isn't one single person in your town who would be interested in learning to play. You can build from there, and eventually your campaign will be just as large as the one from which you were excluded -- and much better.

If you're not willing to do this, then you should admit to yourself that you're pirating strictly for convenience, not out of any need. Don't lie to yourself about your reasons for piracy.

If anyone is interested in starting a campaign but can't find (legally) free materials (or needs advice about starting as a new GM), please start a thread. In fact, that might be a very useful thread anyway. I'm sure many people here would be happy to post links and suggestions. (If someone starts such a thread, please mention it on this thread; otherwise I may not notice it.) Anyone in this situation who isn't comfortable posting about it should feel free to message me; I'll be happy to help.


On the drug thing... I think they are really cheap compared with the result of having a better life. Honestly if you can't afford your prescriptions something wrong. Not with the person who can't afford them but with their situation. Maybe their rent is too high or their employer doesn't offer benefits or they just like cable tv. Socializing medicine is an answer, so is forcing employers to chip in for benefits, as is rent control. I don't know the right answer but I don't think the $80 a month for pills is really the problem its about your don't have $80 extra.

We're getting really off-topic here, but . . . many people pay a lot more than $80 per month for medicine. For a good number of low-income elderly, medicine is their single biggest expense -- more than rent, more than food. I know such people. Yes, something is seriously wrong: A patent system which blocks competition, discourages development of drugs which cure conditions rather than treating symptoms, and allows big business to control the drug market. The answer is patent reform.


Even IBM and Microsoft feel our current patent law is silly. However that does not mean either company wants to push the law in the people's favor.IBM and Microsoft don't care about us, and I would consider their proposals worse than the current system (particularly with regard to first-to-file: The first to file receives the patent, regardless of when the invention was made -- even if it was made 100 years ago). However, their proposals are not nearly as bad as those of the RIAA/MPAA.


From the United States Trademark and Patent Office FAQ:
"What Are Patents, Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Copyrights? Some people confuse patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, they are different and serve different purposes."


"...A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ... the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States."


"...A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product."

"...Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished."


Similar legal mechanisms, sure, but they're not all equal.

Yes, but the differences (between patent and copyright) are technical; I'd consider them insignificant at the conceptual level. No doubt the Patent Office sees a big difference, but they work almost entirely at the technical level. Trademark is another issue. (I'd like to replace trademark with stricter laws on poaching other people's brands. You shouldn't be able to control a term, but you shouldn't have to worry about another company trying to make people think that their products are your products; and you shouldn't have to pay a large amount of money to have this protection.)

tesral
12-17-2008, 01:06 PM
assumimng you have money...... and enough of it........ then yes i would consider you greedy...... if its your only line of work, and you are barely getting by......then no, but because i cant buy it will exclude me from the game? then its not greed its selfishness...

am i the only one who believes in something better and beyond money?
u need it to live....i get that..... but i would gladly give my "hard earned" work away to someone else if they wanted it.(selfless acts?)



And you call others judgmental? So what is the break point, at want point am I no longer entitled to profit from my new stuff? Please tell me so I can stop making new stuff at that point. I wouldn't want to be working for free here.

Second, who judges? This much and no more. Anything else is evil. Who judges? Because you just handed that person or persons the ticket to limitless power. I remind you that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As to money, dude, no one has come up with anything better. Economy is build into the human beast. Money wasn't invented by some weird evil person, it was invented by people trying to do normal life living stuff. Money is so built into people that if you try and remove it, they find something else to use as money. If you take away all money it will reappear. This has been demonstrated.

Trying to be rid of money is a useless pipe dream. Those that have put forth plans to get rid of money end up reinventing money in the plan, but putting draconian controls on what you can do with said un-money. The plans themselves are as evil as anything I have ever seen.

It is a sad fact that life is not fair. Some people get more money than other people. Some people get life handed to them on a silver platter. Other people have to hardscrabble every inch of the way. Some people set their sights and work until they are wealthy. Others still sit in the dust an moan that life isn't fair. I'll give you three guesses which I do not respect and the first two do not count.

You can drive yourself crazy bewailing the unfairness of life, or get out there and live it.



Yes, but the differences (between patent and copyright) are technical; I'd consider them insignificant at the conceptual level. No doubt the Patent Office sees a big difference, but they work almost entirely at the technical level. Trademark is another issue. (I'd like to replace trademark with stricter laws on poaching other people's brands. You shouldn't be able to control a term, but you shouldn't have to worry about another company trying to make people think that their products are your products; and you shouldn't have to pay a large amount of money to have this protection.)

Actually they are not "technical" as you put it. If you can patent something, it is not copyrightable. If you have a copyright, it can't be patented.

An idea is not copyrightable. I cannot writing down an idea and copyright the idea itself, only my words describing the idea. You can take that idea and use it without a red cent to me.

However I can get a patent on a idea. (This by the way is something I would like to see changed. The patent office used to require working model of things to be patented. While I understand they discontinued that practice because they were bing buried in models, the ability to demonstrate a working model of your idea should be required to get a patent. Any demonstration of prior art at any time should invalidate a patent.

Edward
12-17-2008, 01:34 PM
So what is the break point, at want point am I no longer entitled to profit from my new stuff? Please tell me so I can stop making new stuff at that point. I wouldn't want to be working for free here.

One of the many suggestions for copyright reform is that a work should pass into the public domain either after a certain amount of time (perhaps 20 years) or after earning a certain amount of income (say $1 million), whichever comes first. Under this proposal, you would no longer be entitled to profit from your new work after it earns $1 million (which in a few cases might happen very quickly). This seems reasonable to me.


As to money, dude, no one has come up with anything better. Economy is build into the human beast. But there's no money in Star Trek. ;)

Seriously, perhaps money will disappear when we have effectively unlimited energy and the ability to convert energy to matter. If supply is infinite, price goes to zero.


Actually they are not "technical" as you put it. If you can patent something, it is not copyrightable. If you have a copyright, it can't be patented.Yes, but they serve the same purpose: To prevent anyone else from using your work without your permission. I don't believe anyone should need permission to use your work, though I don't object if they have to pay you for it. For example, if you write a book, I should be able to copy and sell that book without your permission, to ensure that it survives. I could agree to a system which requires me to sell it with the same quality standards that you yourself use (acid-free paper, etc.) and that requires me to pay you a set percentage (say, 5% of gross revenue). But you shouldn't be able to prohibit copies, because doing so guarantees that your work will be lost at some point.


However I can get a patent on a idea. (This by the way is something I would like to see changed. The patent office used to require working model of things to be patented. While I understand they discontinued that practice because they were bing buried in models, the ability to demonstrate a working model of your idea should be required to get a patent. Any demonstration of prior art at any time should invalidate a patent.I agree. The recent Bilski court ruling (assuming it is upheld) does improve things a little by changing the tests for patentability.

From Business Week:


While rulings over the years have used various tests to determine if a process qualifies for patenting, the Federal Circuit said the sole analysis should be the “machine-or-transformation” test – which requires showing that the claimed invention is either tied to a particular machine or that it transforms an “article” (such as a substance or data). At the same time, the majority opinion, joined by 9 of the 12 justices ruling in the case – acknowledged that “the widespread use of computers and the advent of the Internet” had begun to challenge the usefulness of such a test. The justices invited the U.S. Supreme Court to develop a new test for determining the kinds of inventions that should be eligible for patent protection, one that might better “accommodate emerging technologies.

tesral
12-17-2008, 01:40 PM
But there's no money in Star Trek.

Star Trek is a fantasy.

Your suggestion is idealistic, and like most such ideas would tend ot fail as they approach reality.

Life is not fair, and I have found that ideas to make life fair are in and of themselves more unfair than life would be without them.

Sascha
12-17-2008, 01:40 PM
Yes, but the differences (between patent and copyright) are technical; I'd consider them insignificant at the conceptual level. No doubt the Patent Office sees a big difference, but they work almost entirely at the technical level. Trademark is another issue. (I'd like to replace trademark with stricter laws on poaching other people's brands. You shouldn't be able to control a term, but you shouldn't have to worry about another company trying to make people think that their products are your products; and you shouldn't have to pay a large amount of money to have this protection.)
At the conceptual level, yes, they are nearly indistinguishable; it's that the copyfight is rather, um, not on the conceptual level. It's on the actual, day-to-day level, wherein consumer consideration is a far, far back burner to those of rights holders, or so many of them seem to believe - not even the artists who create a work, but those who hold the copyright to it.

Also, unlike trademarking and patents, copyright is *assumed* under U.S. law, since 1989. Published work or unpublished, an artist doesn't choose copyright; it's chosen for them as a default. Copyright and patent/trademark laws are actually different, from the start, even though the root concept (protecting intellectual property) is the same.

Edit: Bah, scooped by tesral :P

Edward
12-17-2008, 01:46 PM
Your suggestion is idealistic, and like most such ideas would tend ot fail as they approach reality.

Not a suggestion; a prediction. If certain technologies are developed (unlimited energy, energy-to-matter conversion, robot labor), then money is likely to disappear.

That assumes these technologies don't destroy us, of course. The tools necessary for an economy of superabundance can also be used for war.

Sascha
12-17-2008, 01:55 PM
Yes, but they serve the same purpose: To prevent anyone else from using your work without your permission. I don't believe anyone should need permission to use your work, though I don't object if they have to pay you for it. For example, if you write a book, I should be able to copy and sell that book without your permission, to ensure that it survives. I could agree to a system which requires me to sell it with the same quality standards that you yourself use (acid-free paper, etc.) and that requires me to pay you a set percentage (say, 5% of gross revenue). But you shouldn't be able to prohibit copies, because doing so guarantees that your work will be lost at some point.

So you'd advocate no copyright at all, then? Yet you want trademark protection? That's a new one on me. Interesting thought, though. I'll see if I have a response after lunch ;)

tesral
12-17-2008, 01:57 PM
Not a suggestion; a prediction. If certain technologies are developed (unlimited energy, energy-to-matter conversion, robot labor), then money is likely to disappear.

That assumes these technologies don't destroy us, of course. The tools necessary for an economy of superabundance can also be used for war.

Technology will never destroy man. It will be man himself if nature fails at the job.

I'm not holding my breath for such technologies to come along. After all fusion power has been 5 years away for the last 40 years of my life.

Farcaster
12-17-2008, 02:10 PM
One of the many suggestions for copyright reform is that a work should pass into the public domain either after a certain amount of time (perhaps 20 years) or after earning a certain amount of income (say $1 million), whichever comes first. Under this proposal, you would no longer be entitled to profit from your new work after it earns $1 million (which in a few cases might happen very quickly). This seems reasonable to me.

Cool, I guess that means you'd be just fine with getting up and going to work every day for free after you earn a certain amount. Perhaps there should also be a cap on how much you can earn for doing a particular job. So, although you work eight hours a day, your employer may need to cap your pay to only the first four hours. Sounds great! Sign me up!


But there's no money in Star Trek...Seriously, perhaps money will disappear when we have effectively unlimited energy and the ability to convert energy to matter. If supply is infinite, price goes to zero.
Star Trek is based on an idea of a utopian society that I do not believe we will ever see. What ST doesn't explain is how it keeps people motivated to innovate in a society that provides no rewards or incentives.


I don't believe anyone should need permission to use your work, though I don't object if they have to pay you for it. For example, if you write a book, I should be able to copy and sell that book without your permission, to ensure that it survives.
Wow! That is one of the more outlandish things I have ever heard. If you are going to effectively eliminate capitalism for authors, inventers, etc, I hope you are equally prepared to have your wages capped and controlled in this socialistic system you are imagining.

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-17-2008, 02:12 PM
Edward, i agree that the approval process is faulty, but it is also sort of necessary to ensure long-term safety and effectiveness for a drug. I could go on forever... but ill just respond to a few things




If you're referring to my posts, I didn't say that the pharmaceutical industry should give drugs to people for free. I said the system is broken and should be redesigned from scratch. (I was referring to the copyright and patent system, but the same thing applies to the health care system.)

There are a lot of problems with the current system, including the approval process. This is a separate issue from patents, though.

No, but they are the most profitable industry in the world. In a true capitalist system, no industry would be that profitable. Such massive profits come only from monopolies.

There are nonprofits that develop low-cost drugs. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them and they usually aren't successful, because it's extremely difficult to work around the absurdly broad patent portfolios held by the pharmaceutical industry. Patents serve their intended purpose in this regard: They suppress competition.


No, there are no non-profits that "develop low-cost drugs"

There are some that REDISTRIBUTE drugs at discount prices

no drug is "low-cost" to develop, the person who covers the cost may change, but not the cost.

Pharmaceutical monopolies are GOOD.
Would you rather have your Lipitor or Lisinopril or Insulin or Zocor manufactured in the pristine, immaculate facilities of Astra-Zeneca, GSK, and Merk,
or in some filthy, meth-lab-esque sweatshop in South East Asia?

I guess that depends on your standards.
Having worked myself in a critical path cancer drug research laboratory at the NIH (doing work to HELP REDUCE THE COST of drug research for pharmas) I can tell you that the cost is unbelievably high.

If the pharmaceutical industry is in fact the most robust industry in the United States, then consider also that they SPEND more money (to cover the cost of the tropical disease orphan drugs and inadequate Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for discount drugs) on more than just research, development, engineering fab processes, facilities, approval, clinical trial recruitment, lawyers to protect against idiots who try to kill themselves with drugs and fail and are angry,
protect themselves from angry people like Congressman Bart Stupak who blames the pharmaceutical industry for his son's suicide.. etc.

I love the pharmaceutical companies. because I understand them i guess.

But ABOUT PATENTS!!!!

the patent for a drug molecule is 17 years. not very long. this is so that generic versions of a drug can become available to the general public more quickly.

HOWEVER.. There have been many FDA and congressional investigations into the safety and purity of generics, and it turns out that generics are usually made in sketchy places overseas in Dioxin-fuming dickensian methlab type things, and are usually far less pure, safe, and effective than the "brand name drugs"

Life*Angel*
12-17-2008, 02:26 PM
Second, who judges? This much and no more. Anything else is evil. Who judges? Because you just handed that person or persons the ticket to limitless power. I remind you that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


what in the world are you talking about!?!?!?
ticket to limitless power????

all i said was that if i had worked hard for something and found that someone else can benifit from it more than i or anyone else..... i would gladly leet them have it....

i neglect to understand how random acts of kindness....(wich by the way we learned in 1st grade) can result to ultimate power.:confused:
--- Merged from Double Post ---


Wow! That is one of the more outlandish things I have ever heard. If you are going to effectively eliminate capitalism for authors, inventers, etc, I hope you are equally prepared to have your wages capped and controlled in this socialistic system you are imagining.

so you are saying we turn into a nation where everything is ruled by the original owner?

once i buy it from you....its mine, you no longer own this portion!

i sell you a car that i built with my bare hands and it took me a few years....does that mean i get to determine when you use it and where you can go and where you cant????

edward actually makes perfect sense....
im am a little lost as to what you mean farcaster......

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-17-2008, 02:35 PM
Technology will never destroy man. It will be man himself if nature fails at the job.

I'm not holding my breath for such technologies to come along. After all fusion power has been 5 years away for the last 40 years of my life.


LOL. cold fusion lol

agree. I am sick of neo-luddites and their silly anti-technology antics

and i am sick of these Matrix conspiracy theorists etc

human nature and life has changed little in it's essence over the past 40,000 years, except that its longer now.
But
If you ever wonder whether our lives are better for our technology
It helps to learn about how brief, brutal, and diseased life was only 500 years ago, only 200 years ago, even for the most 'developed civilizations'

I am Not a technocalypse person nor am I am singularitarian, I just think that human nature and life will change Less than we imagine regardless of the way technology changes around us.
There will still be joy and sorrow,
poverty and wealth,
pain and pleasure,
sorrow, loss, etc
love and hate,
struggle and aspiration

Farcaster
12-17-2008, 02:45 PM
i sell you a car that i built with my bare hands and it took me a few years....does that mean i get to determine when you use it and where you can go and where you cant????

No that is not what it means, because that is a false analogy. Can you keep a book you bought forever without discarding it? Absolutely. Can you take that car you bought in your example, make duplicates of it and start selling it on the market is closer to the correct analogy. And my answer would be, no, you should not be able to do that. However, that analogy leads us back into patent, which is AGAIN not what we are discussing here.

Life*Angel*
12-17-2008, 02:46 PM
And you call others judgmental? So what is the break point, at want point am I no longer entitled to profit from my new stuff? Please tell me so I can stop making new stuff at that point. I wouldn't want to be working for free here.


no one said you worked for free....... you fail ( yet again ) to understand what i am saying.

let me try and simplify it even more for you.....

i said it is fine to profit,....it is fine to recieve money for the things you make. i have agreed with nealrly EVERYTING ( and ill say it again for those who always seem to misunderstnad me... ) EVERYTHING that you have said about stealing.

the only difference we have is that i believe that you should sit back and maybe understand why people are "pirating" and its not always cause they are stupid thievs just being losers. maybe understand a few things before making you're judgements.

i am saying there is a reason for everything....and believe it or not (now this might come as a shock to you ) but not everyone who steals your "stuff" is bad.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

No that is not what it means, because that is a false analogy. Can you keep a book you bought forever without discarding it? Absolutely. Can you take that car you bought in your example, make duplicates of it and start selling it on the market is closer to the correct analogy. And my answer would be, no, you should not be able to do that. However, that analogy leads us back into patent, which is AGAIN not what we are discussing here.

hence why i have not said anything about a patent....but ok....

how does pirating it for MY OWN USE mean i am copying it?

and when i buy whatever it is your selling, your saying i can not share it with others???..... ( and by share i mean show.... let them have a taste of what it is,.... not "sell" )

Edward
12-17-2008, 03:33 PM
So you'd advocate no copyright at all, then? Yet you want trademark protection? That's a new one on me. Interesting thought, though. I'll see if I have a response after lunch

I would get rid of copyright, patent, and trademark altogether, and replace them with a completely new system.

I don't have a specific system in mind; there are many suggestions floating around on the web, and I'm willing to consider any reasonable idea. The main point I've been trying to make is that we should not accept the current system simply because it's been around a long time. We need a national discussion on copyright and patent reform, because the system is broken.


Cool, I guess that means you'd be just fine with getting up and going to work every day for free after you earn a certain amount. Perhaps there should also be a cap on how much you can earn for doing a particular job. So, although you work eight hours a day, your employer may need to cap your pay to only the first four hours. Sounds great! Sign me up!

Hardly a parallel case. The market sets a cap on how much you can earn for doing a particular job, because you don't have a monopoly. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Since the government is intervening in the free market to grant you a monopoly, the government must regulate that monopoly.

If you're arguing that your government-granted monopoly should be completely unrestricted, then you're essentially arguing that public domain should be abolished.


What ST doesn't explain is how it keeps people motivated to innovate in a society that provides no rewards or incentives.I don't take Star Trek seriously. However, if you're suggesting that money is the only possible reward or incentive, then you're mistaken. If that were the case, there would have been no creative work before copyright was introduced.

Authors were just as productive before copyright as after. If we suddenly went back to the status quo ante (which I'm not advocating), authors would continue to be just as productive.


Wow! That is one of the more outlandish things I have ever heard.Then you haven't read many proposals for copyright reform.


If you are going to effectively eliminate capitalism for authors, inventers, etc, I hope you are equally prepared to have your wages capped and controlled in this socialistic system you are imagining.Actually, copyright is socialistic. In capitalism, monopolies cannot exist. A true capitalist system would not have copyright.

You're supporting more government intervention in the economy. I'm supporting less.


Edward, i agree that the approval process is faulty, but it is also sort of necessary to ensure long-term safety and effectiveness for a drug.

Certainly. I didn't disagree; I said the approval process needs to be reformed. Evidently we can agree on that.


No, there are no non-profits that "develop low-cost drugs"There may not have been nonprofits doing original research in the past, but there are today. However, I don't know if they've had any notable successes. The biggest problem they face is working around the very broad patents held by the pharmaceutical industry.


no drug is "low-cost" to develop, the person who covers the cost may change, but not the cost.If you're saying it isn't possible to significantly reduce the cost of the development process, I disagree. A nonprofit could significantly reduce the cost simply by eliminating advertising, on which the drug companies spend a great deal of money.


Pharmaceutical monopolies are GOOD.I don't believe there's any such thing as a good monopoly. We could argue about whether monopolies might have been necessary at some point in the past, but they certainly aren't today.

Remember also that patent holders don't have to use their patents. They have the right to choose not to develop a drug, and to prevent anyone else from developing it. If it isn't profitable for them, but its development by someone else could cut into their profits from another product, then they have a fiduciary responsibility to block its development -- and they do.


Would you rather have your Lipitor or Lisinopril or Insulin or Zocor manufactured in the pristine, immaculate facilities of Astra-Zeneca, GSK, and Merk, or in some filthy, meth-lab-esque sweatshop in South East Asia?It's not one or the other. It's possible to have drugs manufactured in pristine, immaculate facilities run by nonprofits.

To be clear: I don't object to the existence of for-profit pharmaceutical companies. I object to the fact that the current system is heavily biased in their favor.


Having worked myself in a critical path cancer drug research laboratory at the NIH (doing work to HELP REDUCE THE COST of drug research for pharmas)That's certainly worthwhile work. I hope the results of such taxpayer-funded research are freely available to everyone on equal terms, rather than being preferentially provided to one group of companies (or, worse, being subject to patent).

I was indirectly involved in a software development project which was 100% funded by the government. On completion, the contractor doing the work owned the rights to the software. The government then leased it from them. This type of thing is common with both software and scientific research.


I can tell you that the cost is unbelievably high.I don't doubt it. But such costs need to be minimized (without sacrificing quality, of course). "Low cost" means "as low as possible."


If the pharmaceutical industry is in fact the most robust industry in the United States, then consider also that they SPEND more money (to cover the cost of the tropical disease orphan drugs and inadequate Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for discount drugs) on more than just research, development, engineering fab processes, facilities, approval, clinical trial recruitment, lawyers to protect against idiots who try to kill themselves with drugs and fail and are angry,
protect themselves from angry people like Congressman Bart Stupak who blames the pharmaceutical industry for his son's suicide.. etc.Yes, the costs are formidable. But pharmaceutical companies should have to compete on a level playing field; they should not be given special advantages such as subsidies and monopolies.

And yes, there are significant problems with the health-care system and the legal system. Unreasonable liaibility awards are a problem for everyone. That's a different issue, though.


the patent for a drug molecule is 17 years. not very long. 17 years is a very long time, considering the pace of technology.


HOWEVER.. There have been many FDA and congressional investigations into the safety and purity of generics, and it turns out that generics are usually made in sketchy places overseas in Dioxin-fuming dickensian methlab type things, and are usually far less pure, safe, and effective than the "brand name drugs"I'm sure some are. This is a problem, obviously, and it needs to be solved. I don't think you're proposing to abolish generics, so another solution is needed. My solution would be to reform the FDA. The FDA supposedly already bans imports from countries with unsafe practices. This is their justification for banning imports from Canada.


I'll see if I have a response after lunch Um. Just to let you know, I probably won't be able to check the forum again until tonight or possibly tomorrow. I need to get some actual work done.

I usually don't read forums more than once per day. Of course, I usually don't get involved in flamewars, either.

Sascha
12-17-2008, 06:39 PM
I would get rid of copyright, patent, and trademark altogether, and replace them with a completely new system.
...
I don't have a specific system in mind; there are many suggestions floating around on the web, and I'm willing to consider any reasonable idea. The main point I've been trying to make is that we should not accept the current system simply because it's been around a long time. We need a national discussion on copyright and patent reform, because the system is broken.
Yes, the position of myself and others here is that copyright, as written, is rather broken; unfortunately, I don't see junking the current system and rewriting from scratch to be a worthwhile task, when we can undo several of the recently-passed (and by recent, I mean in the latter half of last century) addendums to the copyright code.


Actually, copyright is socialistic. In capitalism, monopolies cannot exist. A true capitalist system would not have copyright.
I'm confused; how can copyright be a socialist doctrine? Intellectual property is not being turned over for government control, when one applies for copyright. Unless you mean that any government involvement in any business practice is considered socialism, I don't see how that follows.


Of course, I usually don't get involved in flamewars, either.
Heh, compared to some of the other fora out there, this isn't even ringing a smoke detector.

Edward
12-17-2008, 08:41 PM
Yes, the position of myself and others here is that copyright, as written, is rather broken; unfortunately, I don't see junking the current system and rewriting from scratch to be a worthwhile task, when we can undo several of the recently-passed (and by recent, I mean in the latter half of last century) addendums to the copyright code.

I don't think we can. If you run for Congress on that platform, though, I'll vote for you.


I'm confused; how can copyright be a socialist doctrine? Intellectual property is not being turned over for government control, when one applies for copyright. Unless you mean that any government involvement in any business practice is considered socialism, I don't see how that follows.You're always going to have some degree of government regulation of business. And I wouldn't say copyright is outright socialism, but it definitely trends in that direction. (That's why I said socialistic rather than socialist. A bit pedantic, I know.)

In a socialist system, the government controls the economy and determines the players. Government-granted monopolies are a common feature of socialism. They don't have to be owned or directly controlled by the government; often the government grants them to favored groups (such as the RIAA and MPAA). Sometimes the lines between those groups and the government begins to blur (as with the RIAA being allowed to conduct raids and make arrests).

And yes, copyright is under government control to a significant degree. For example, SoundExchange (a government-authorized organization) claims the right to collect royalties on all published music, even if the artist objects. There is no way to opt out. There's a good chance that a similar quasi-governmental organization will be formed for printed works. It's not ludicrous to think that you could be charged with pirating your own work.

Welfare, of course, is a common feature of socialist economies. Often, copyright is used as a method of providing payments to artists, successful or not. For example, many countries have or are moving towards a tax on media (CD's and DVD's), Internet access, television, and even college tuition. These funds are used to provide payments to all artists. The primary goal is to support artists; the advancement of science is a low priority, if it's considered at all.


Heh, compared to some of the other fora out there, this isn't even ringing a smoke detector.Give it a bit more time . . . .

Life*Angel*
12-18-2008, 10:33 AM
lets not get to carried away..... :biggrin:

GoddessGood
12-18-2008, 11:01 AM
lets not get to carried away..... :biggrin:
/me looks at the 10 pages of this thread.

:lol: It's a little late for that, Angel.

Life*Angel*
12-18-2008, 11:19 AM
:lol:this is true.......

so i suppose ill say.....

lets not get mean :o

Grimwell
12-18-2008, 10:10 PM
But who defines "right" and "wrong"?

In all honesty?

Who has the bigger gun?

Right and wrong are decided, like history, by the victors or people with the power.

I could delve deeply into my philosophy minor work; but to be honest I prefer that in real life conversation format with friends and abundant snacks.

Thus the cliff notes version:

Right and wrong are concepts not fundamental truths of the universe. Their definition flexes into whatever the authority decides they are.

tesral
12-19-2008, 01:38 AM
In all honesty?

Who has the bigger gun?

Right and wrong are decided, like history, by the victors or people with the power.

I could delve deeply into my philosophy minor work; but to be honest I prefer that in real life conversation format with friends and abundant snacks.

Thus the cliff notes version:

Right and wrong are concepts not fundamental truths of the universe. Their definition flexes into whatever the authority decides they are.

My working definition, regardless of who has the bigger gun is "where is the harm?" Wrong is things that harm. Physical harm monetary harm, mental harm. Harming someone is wrong. It might not even be illegal, but it's still wrong. I will say it again. "Principles and morals are not followed because "they" do, or do not do. Principles and morals are followed because they are the right and good thing to do, not due to the action or to cause the reaction of others. That is the nature of true enlightenment. Morals are first for one's self." -- The Tao of Phoenix

And I will add: "Do not sit and complain. The wrongs of the world are never solved by complaint, only action. When you see wrong do not speak, act! The squeaky wheel gets the job." -- The Tao of Phoenix

Total Nerd v2.135 (final)
12-19-2008, 04:22 AM
tesral,

Agreed.

Etarnon
12-19-2008, 04:56 AM
I'm of the opinion that it is best to let sleeping topics lie. (while others will add in cheat and steal, to my chagrin.)

C'est la vie.

Mead
12-19-2008, 11:22 AM
And I'm of the opinion that talking about something isn't the same thing as practicing that something, endorsing it, or even condoning it.

Etarnon
12-19-2008, 02:00 PM
Scan the earlier threads, people are actively practicing it, even if not right here directly.

MortonStromgal
12-19-2008, 06:58 PM
And I'm of the opinion that talking about something isn't the same thing as practicing that something, endorsing it, or even condoning it.

What about NORWEB?

[edit] sorry mead but i cant read any of your posts without hearing "I have an IQ of 6000" while you have that picture up.

Mead
12-19-2008, 10:34 PM
What about NORWEB?

[edit] sorry mead but i cant read any of your posts without hearing "I have an IQ of 6000" while you have that picture up.

Your sausages, Morton, now cover 7/8 of the earth's surface.

andy.welbourn
03-08-2011, 05:40 PM
I'm mixed on this, on one hand I haven't always been an angel, but I always pay for software when I can afford it, especially for new game developers such as Blind Mind Studios, and Minecraft.

Unfortunately the games market has shot up with console sales over the last decade, this has seen the prices of games skyrocket (When they should have been shrinking) It's not unusual to see games for £50 and over, when not so long ago only the best games were sold for £30. All this has been is showing increasingly huge profits for large scale gaming companies.

I do want high quality games developers to reap rewards for what they make, but I flinch before buying an EA game, and while Ubisoft has brought out some fantastic games, I can only assume they actually hate the people who play their games based on the c*** they lumber with the software.

ashewyntr
03-08-2011, 08:11 PM
Eric Flint, author of the popular 1632 series, wrote a series of essays on the fallacies of copyright, DRM, and piracy. I highly recommend them to anyone interested in the copyright arguments. I think he may surprise people:
http://baens-universe.com/columns/Salvos_Against_Big_Brother

Bellum
03-08-2011, 08:30 PM
In a perfect world, I think the time limit of copyright would be related to the availability of original product. If something is out of print for long enough, it goes into public domain. As it is, I don't mind abandonware and similar stuff.

But piracy is theft. Unfortunately, because of the nature of copyright (it protects ideas, not anything physical or substantial), it's difficult to conceptualize the harm of piracy compared to, say, shoplifting. That doesn't mean to say that piracy is a victimless crime. The proliferation of internet piracy has destroyed the value of peoples ideas. I think it'll all come to a head eventually. The casualties will be either the collapse of the arts industries or more likely the last semblances of privacy and freedom on the internet.

ashewyntr
03-08-2011, 08:33 PM
Please, go read those Eric Flint essays. The damage we face isn't necessarily the collapse of creative freedom. It's more just the collapse of freedom, if we continue to go nuts over it.

Bellum
03-08-2011, 08:49 PM
I agree. I don't think art is going to go anywhere, because this pirate friendly atmosphere is unsustainable. Pirates like to think they will always exist, but the truth is, they won't. The future for us early internet pioneers is less than bright, and it's a future we brought on ourselves.

rabkala
03-08-2011, 10:50 PM
I have hacked this site several times. Wow, no one will pay for the information! Maybe crime doesn't pay...

Edward
03-09-2011, 04:15 AM
The arts existed long before copyright, which is a relatively recent concept. Art wouldn't be destroyed by the disappearance of effective copyright laws anymore than it was created by their passage.

Skunkape
03-09-2011, 08:39 AM
The arts existed long before copyright, which is a relatively recent concept. Art wouldn't be destroyed by the disappearance of effective copyright laws anymore than it was created by their passage.

Great point Edward!

Sascha
03-09-2011, 10:17 AM
Copyright's not really about art, given that things not art are covered (like this forum post).

(Also, two-year thread resurrection? Huh.)

Ampolitor
03-09-2011, 11:01 AM
I download stuff sometimes to check the book out, but the truth is at least for me is that a book on the computer is just not the same as a book in you hand so I've found myself buying more books now. If I like the book then I go out and buy it, I might not be the norm but like I said a pdf just can't replace a printed book for me. I think rpgs have made mor money off of me this way.

tesral
03-09-2011, 06:01 PM
Agreed. Books I need are never on PDF, I want a copy in my hands.

Dark
03-09-2011, 07:03 PM
Not that I have ever downloaded a illegal pdf I can see the way company's like WOTC with their ever increasing prices on their books why some people do. Besides one of the reasons I love Ebay most if not all my books I purchase I get from them. WOTC will never see another penny from this consumer ever again I'm letting some other err sucker spend his hard earned money find out it's crap and resell it for penny's on the dollar.

Farcaster
03-10-2011, 12:07 PM
Agreed. Books I need are never on PDF, I want a copy in my hands.

I feel the same way. I want to have my game manuals actually in-hand. But, as soon as I get a tablet -- later this month, gods willing -- that is going to change. I will still want the physical copy, but I also want to have a digital copy to use on my tablet. That'd make things so much easier when I'm not DM'ing at home.

Edward
03-10-2011, 02:46 PM
I can't see reading books on a tablet. I'd love to have a dedicated ebook reader, though -- one designed only for reading books at home, that doesn't try to compete with tablets.

ashewyntr
03-10-2011, 03:04 PM
There's always a color Nook. I have a good experience with PDF manuals on my iPad.

Farcaster
03-10-2011, 04:31 PM
There's always a color Nook. I have a good experience with PDF manuals on my iPad.

That's an option, but I think I want a multifunction device at this point. I already have a Kindle, which I am happy with for reading novels. Now, I want a device I can also use to easily flip through PDFs for reference material at the gaming table.

Edward
03-10-2011, 08:51 PM
I use a laptop for gaming, though I could see using a tablet in that role. I could see a tablet for people who read books on the go, too. I work from home, though, and I don't travel very often, so I can't see myself reading books on a tablet.

I've looked at the Kindle and the Nook, but both are too small. I don't care about portability, beyond being able to carry it around the house. I'd also like to get one for my parents, and they need large buttons and large text. I don't want Wi-Fi, either; I'd rather transfer books from my computer, and I don't want the merchant to be able to delete or modify my books.

The basic problem with ebook readers is that they're trying to compete with tablets. I don't believe they'll really take off until they give up trying to be all things to all people and focus on doing one thing really well.

Farcaster
03-11-2011, 01:21 AM
The basic problem with ebook readers is that they're trying to compete with tablets. I don't believe they'll really take off until they give up trying to be all things to all people and focus on doing one thing really well.

They are competing with each other in the market space, yes. I'm not sure how it will shake out, but honestly, I think the multifunction tablet will ultimately win over the single purpose device. Personally, I love my kindle. The small form factor and e-Ink technology make it a perfect device for casual reading. It fails though when it comes to reading through technical manuals, or flipping through other reference material. And that is what I want out of the tablet, in addition to being a solid all around device.

As to the future of tablets, I don't think single purpose devices are the answer, but I do think there is plenty of room a wide diversity of solutions -- in my never to be humble opinion anyway.

mrken
03-11-2011, 01:39 PM
E-books and e-readers don't cut it for me. It's not that I don't like them, because I think they are pretty cool. It's just that there are too many downsides for me to go that route. The way I read books is a little now, and a little then. Bookmarks are my friends. They are in most of my books I am currently reading. This way I can just pick it up and continue reading where ever I was reading. Plus, I would somehow delete books from the reader. No, I want my book to go back up on the shelf just in case I want to read them again.

As for gaming material, I like both methods, paper and pdf versions. Reading form a book means I can take it with me and find the material faster (cause I am a visual person, pictures or book covers relay a LOT of information from even across the room). But I want/need the pdf if available so I can cut and past into a new document to print out for game day reference.

As for music, had it not been for being able to listen to new music, I might never have bought any new music since, oh, maybe 1985. As it is, I get to buy from music stores all the time. Now my kids, they have sunk a LOT of my money into I-Tunes. I never knew they are so hard to transport for one computer to another. Daughter got a new computer and took us a week to figure out how to move all her music to her new computer. And now she has a new I-Pod. Yeah, same problem. And for as much money as she has conned out of her mother and me, you would think it would be easier. though, I think she is getting pretty good at it now. I-Tunes is now on a first name basis with her now. Hardly know her brother, he still buys CDs. lol

Farcaster
03-11-2011, 03:31 PM
E-books and e-readers don't cut it for me. It's not that I don't like them, because I think they are pretty cool. It's just that there are too many downsides for me to go that route. The way I read books is a little now, and a little then. Bookmarks are my friends. They are in most of my books I am currently reading. This way I can just pick it up and continue reading where ever I was reading. Plus, I would somehow delete books from the reader. No, I want my book to go back up on the shelf just in case I want to read them again.

Actually, what you just said makes you an ideal candidate for a Kindle. The kindle keeps track of your exact location in your book -- for all the books you are reading! That'd actually make things easier on you. And all your book purchases are stored online so that you can redownload them if you need to.

mrken
03-12-2011, 12:29 AM
Really, I understand the premise. But anything not on your computer really isn't yours. And anything on your computer is liable to disappear. :(

Bellum
03-13-2011, 01:21 PM
The arts existed long before copyright, which is a relatively recent concept. Art wouldn't be destroyed by the disappearance of effective copyright laws anymore than it was created by their passage.

Very true, good point. However, there is a big difference between someone drawing a deer on a cave wall and being a professional artist. Art as a viable industry would cease to exist without legal protection. This wasn't always an issue before, because illegal copying was never so easy.

tesral
03-14-2011, 01:38 AM
I disagree that art would vanish of legal protection didn't exist. Mind you I have had to deal with a plagiarist myself. We certainly do not require the kind of lock down that the big content owners desire. Not the content producers mind you, but the owners. Really why is the Tolkien estate trying to keep people from even using his name? He died in 1973. That was 38 years ago. At this point the only thing a copyright on Lord of the Rings is protecting are a bunch of people sucking off the dead tit of a creative genius, without producing a thing themselves. It is past time to make his works public domain. That is just one example.

Bellum
03-14-2011, 01:55 AM
Considering the work Christopher Tolkien put into getting his fathers work ready for publication posthumously, I'd hardly call him a freeloader. I don't really see a problem passing your property onto your children.

Mind you, I agree that copyright needs updating, but that's beside the point. Do you really think a company would be able to make money off an idea if they had no control over its reproduction in this day and age where reproduction is so easy? That idea has nothing to do with how long it takes for a work to go into the public domain, I'm talking about works that are released right now.

Sascha
03-14-2011, 09:10 AM
Disney's been pretty successful at it, over the past eighty- or ninety-some-odd years.

Bellum
03-14-2011, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. There was an internet 80 years ago?

Sascha
03-14-2011, 10:25 AM
Their business model has included profits from public domain ideas since inception. The rise of the internet doesn't impact their inability to prevent others from using those same ideas.

Bellum
03-15-2011, 12:11 AM
Well my point isn't really that you can't make money from things in the public domain, but that piracy has rapidly corroded the value of ideas in general. Before, just having the resources and infrastructure in place to get product out to people was largely enough, but that is increasingly not the case. The infrastructure is still important to support the artists (giving them an avenue to sell the product to lots of people), but it isn't so important for reproduction. All you need is a computer and a broadband connection.

EDIT:
Essentially, control over reproduction is more important now by far than it has ever been before, which is why you see so many companies taking draconian measures to try (futilely) and take that control. But that doesn't work. All it really does is make people more likely to pirate, which in turns devalues ideas even more and makes companies take even harsher controls. The end result of all this is probably going to be a crackdown on the internet; these multi-billion dollar industries certainly aren't going to just disappear. Seems like it may have already started?

You might read that and say "See! It's the corporations fault!". Not an invalid thought, though people pirate regardless. I think essentially we're all taking the roles have to take. The companies are obligated to do everything they can to protect their product, and the people have to take it for free simply because they can and it's so easy and because of the devaluing nature of piracy. Stepping back, it really does look like a forgone conclusion, and suddenly I'm hit with the sense that nobodies at fault and we're all machines following a set path and... Oh God, I need to stop there. That way leads to nothing but madness.

Skunkape
03-15-2011, 08:07 AM
I don't think the Internet is going to kill any companies through piracy. Humans will just adapt to ensure that their money making continues. I remember when the music industry freaked out when the 8 track tape came out, but it's many years later and we still have a music industry. Same happened with the cassette tape, guess what, still there.

Yes the Internet allows for a wider distribution of pirated whatever, be it music, movies, books, etc, but we also get Internet radio and movies from it, meaning pay for play. So while there's a means of getting pirated things easily, there's also a method to get those same items out to the public for profit in a much easier method. Oh yeah and a much cheaper method.

It's much more cost effective to create an mp3 of a song than it is to record it to 8 track, cassette, or CD/DVD!

I really don't see the hysteria from piracy that most corporations keep screaming, because while there are people who will pirate something, there are others who will gladly pay for that same something!

Sascha
03-15-2011, 09:58 AM
Well my point isn't really that you can't make money from things in the public domain, but that piracy has rapidly corroded the value of ideas in general. Before, just having the resources and infrastructure in place to get product out to people was largely enough, but that is increasingly not the case. The infrastructure is still important to support the artists (giving them an avenue to sell the product to lots of people), but it isn't so important for reproduction. All you need is a computer and a broadband connection.
Sort of. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, though; it protects a specific expression of an idea, set in a fixed medium. And the current structure doesn't always protect creators; it protects the copyright holder, which isn't necessarily the same entity. The problem is thinking of IP in the same terms as physical property, which it isn't; ideas are far more like services, than goods.

(Also, the hullabaloo over digital copies could be seen as a lesson from '84's Sony v. Universal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_I nc.), and I'm not convinced our culture took the right lesson to heart there ...)


I really don't see the hysteria from piracy that most corporations keep screaming, because while there are people who will pirate something, there are others who will gladly pay for that same something!
The irony is, sometimes these are the same people. For the same content.