Cabe, I could point out that you seem to think you have given the definitive answer to the problem of piracy by citing just a handful of sources that cconcur with your own opinions, and bring other sources to the table that counter your opinions, but at the end of the day would it change your opinions? I doubt it very much, as the evidence we could both provide is extremely limited, so what is the point. It would just become a game of tit for tat. Good on you for taking the time to find those sources, you obviously put more into it than me, and I think this is what you have been craving all along. Feel better now? If you want to know why i havent bothered to source data that concurs with my opinions, it's because I know that ALL data is incredibly open to intepretation, and often weighted on one side or the other towards either side of the argument. This has been pointed out many times here by others as well as myself, something you seem to have ignored in your little quest to berate me. EDIT: As for the growing up slur, I think you need to grow a set of balls, and realise that not everything in life is free. You also need to realise that digital media is NO different from any other commercial product, and when I say ANY I do mean ANY. If it has value attached to it we have the choice to buy it or not, we shouldn't have the choice to obtain it illegally - regardless of whether we think it's fair pricing, we like the company or product or not. Grow up yourself, and realise we don't live in some utopia where people just create for the enjoyment of others (correction: those who do so have the opportunity to do so by not placing copyright on their materials).
I would have lost what you should have paid to use them, since that isn't free. I know that because, as the copyright holder I set the fee for usage. It looks free for you because (I'm sure) you have no idea how usage rights and circulation fee are calculated. Yes the act of copying the file is free, but the right to do so isn't, hence the term copyright.
a perfect analogy that works because its related to copyright. i get a book from the library, i photocopy it, and take book back. i then photocopy the photocopy 100 times, and pass it on to 100 people. i haven't paid for the book, i have only paid for the paper, and ink/toner. i would be guilty of copyright infringement, and be liable to the copyright holder, because the work belongs to someone else. digital works are no different
The commercial value you ascribe to your work is artificial - you could pick any value you like. In reality it's commercially worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. (If your work is good then its real value lies in its benefit to society).
This is correct, and any business will survive on whether it's client base sees the product/ service value as worthy or not. Having said this though, just because I don't agree with the price this doesn't mean that I can just take the image/ CD/ DVD / game etc. and use it anyway. If someone places too high a value on their work, then it will fail. It doesn't give people the right to infringe copyright though. This is where your logic is way off the mark. I may be wrong, but you seem to be implying that if someone places too high a value on their product or service, then it is morally right that people can ignore the value placed on it by the author, and just obtain it anyway.
yes so if people don't buy it, it's up to the copyright holder to reduce the price if he so wishes. thats what copyright is about, giving the holder the right to distribute as he see's fit. and protecting that right. yes it's a legalised monopoly, but was brought in to protect the copyright holders earnings. it may need updating a bit, but its general rule, still applies, the copyright holder has the right to choose who, what, how and why, the works are distributed. if you dont think its worth what they are asking, barter, or dont buy it.
My argument was primarily with the amount Johnny claims he would have lost. If he values the photo at £5 then he feels he's lost £5. If he values the photo at £50,000 then he feels he's lost £50,000. He won't have actually lost this amount, just as I won't have gained this amount. I will have gained a copy of a photo, he will have lost nothing.
You can't feed the cats with the benifit to society. Even DaVinci knew that. Are you an artist? Because I know ALOT of artists that would agree with you, but still want to get paid for their art. It's funny that you should bring art up. If an artist makes one painting, it's worth quite a lot. I know this because I buy rather a lot of art. The value lies in it being an only copy. But, I do not own the copyright to the art. I have a tacit understanding with the artist that they won't make more copies, there by devaluing their future work; just as I am not allowed to make copies thereby devaluing their future work. I have what is know as an exclusive usage right (which, btw, is how I sell most of my images). If the artist does a limited run, the individual prints are worth less, but the over all value might be higher then one copy. The value depending on how many copies are sold. Now if the artwork is used on a post card, the value of each copy is very low, but the overall value is huge considering the postcards will be sold for many years. The same for digital copies, and where the value of that 50 million copies you made lies. That is how artists make a living. The exact same (basic) model applies to digital copies. And explains the value of copyrights.
Huh? I was only using your figures. If you are losing 10% of your sales in a channel who's only outlet is the sales of one product line, then even a net figure would show a 10% loss. Which is it... 10% or 0.1%? Your the one quoting figures, not me I'm arguing from a moral standpoint primarily. However, if someone steels your work, and uses it in a commercial venture, and earns £50,000 from it, it can be demonstrated in court that the £50,000 is actually yours as the copyright holder. If the person who stole your image, and used it, then earned nothing... does that mean he never stole it, just because no money was lost? I'm sorry, but the very act of someone distributing and copying your hard work is illegal, unfair, and just downright wrong, even if NO money was lost/earned as a result. Copyright laws are also there to protect INTELLECTUAL property.. not just to protect earnings. As a photographer who's been at the receiving end of having work ripped off I promise you that money has nothing to do with it. It's someone taking what's not theirs, and doing with it what they are not entitled to do. Basically, the images are MINE, not theirs, just as the software is THEIRS and not YOURS, so if you want that software, you pay for a license to use it, and abide by the limitations set down in that license, or you don't use it. Simple as that. There IS no grey area despite what you all think. Even if you think there SHOULD be a grey are, there actually isn't, so deal with it. You want a game, you buy a game. You want to trial it, you download a demo. No demo? Tough titties. These are facts, and until such a time as Copyright laws are bent to accommodate the views for piracy in this thread (God forbid that should actually happen, as being under the remit of the Digital Economy Act now, this would have massive negative, and far reaching consequences for other digital media, especially still image) you are all farting into the wind. If you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it. I'm usually not one for riding my moral horse roughshod over people, but this is one arena where I am happy to. Buy it, or steal it. Your choice. I chose to buy. What's galling me more than anything, is the fact that people try to alter the public perception of what they are doing. By saying they actually do buy the game if it's good, so technically that makes it morally sound; they appease their conscience. To me, that's hypocrisy. Just say it. "I steal software in order to trial it in situations where I otherwise can't". I'd have more respect if you just came out and said it. Others in here have done just that, and while I disagree, I respect their honesty and integrity, but the sheer amount of self-justification for software theft in here is outrageous. Clearly most of you don't even see it as such, which is the truly frightening thing. So by these standards, someone can take one of my images, do with it what they will, and so long as they pay me any moneys due should they earn from it, then that's ok? I'm sorry it's not. It's MY image, not yours, and you WILL use it for purposes I grant you a license for only, or I will drag you before a court of law and financially rape you... AS IS MY RIGHT TO DO SO! I see no difference between my medium and others. I make the work, I own the intellectual property, and it's up to me, and me alone to decide how it is used, and what it is worth. If you disagree, then look elsewhere by all means, but disagreeing with me doesn't make stealing my work any more legal.
I can see how the commercial value of art might be determined this way. But I maintain that this is not the true value of the work of art. I would hope that you value the paintings you have bought, not for their £ value, but for their artistic value. Re: the cats needing to be fed - No-one is forcing you to make your living this way. I can see that it is beneficial to you to be paid each time someone copies your work, what I can't see is how this makes it a moral entitlement.
It's not. The morality lies in you abiding by the laws of the society that you live in. and since most societies believe in the value of a copyright in one form or another, you have to respect that or be be held accountable. Which is why we have laws, courts, lawyers, and jails (or in this case, fines). All societies have people who produce ideas, and we value those ideas. You may not, but you are a tiny minority. So you are saying that there is no point in creating art, since you can just make as many copies as you want? Now you are arguing my point. A song, a picture, a movie, code...they all exist because we value people who create and have given them a legal structure to encourage them. I use this structure as do many, and one you undermine every time you make a "free" copy of my copyrighted work.
The morality of abiding by the laws of the land is a different question entirely (although I have to ask: would you obey the law no matter what it dictated?). I was coming more from the angle of what the law should be in respect of copyright.
Just in case there is any doubt.......I fully agree 110% with this!! I think those who justify piracy on any level are no better than the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and tries to make stupid excuses for it!
Until the majority share your opinion, and an act is passed in parlaiment, you still have the moral obligation to abide by those rules. Otherwise, you risk facing the consequences of your actions. The same applies for dope smoking, or any other "trivial" crime we may not agree with on a personal level.
I'm talking about what the laws protect, not the reason for their inception, which dates back to the 18th century as a matter of fact (some would argue the 15th century), but the reality is this: They protect the moral and intellectual rights of authors, and their rights to control the distribution of the works created. That is what they DO.. that's why they are there. They are not there to encourage the creation of art (although they probably do as a result of protecting said artists, and was indeed a strong reason for having them in the first palce). Don't bother with the Wiki page on Copyright, it's got more holes in it than a sieve. http://www.copyrighthistory.com/ Buy that when it's available (if not already.. not been keeping abreast of this lately), as it will be the definitive work on the history of copyright law.... or you coudl just borrow it off a friend and photocopy it Anyway... this is by the by... whatever the reason for copyright laws coming to be, the fact is they are there to protect the author, and I for one give thanks every day that they are there.
To answer you honestly, I'm not perfect, no. But I do subscribe to the Ghandi/Nexxo theory of humanity. I speed, I like to go fast. But I try my best to be a better person everyday and live such that I better the world around me. So I only speed when there aren't too many cars around. It's a flaw, and I'm working on it. I also chastise kids who swear in front of ladies. But I don't think that is against the law. And I put too much butter in my risotto, again not against the law, but it's not healthy. I also talk back to my mother.
