1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Piracy

Discussion in 'Software' started by Zinfandel, 2 Aug 2010.

  1. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    No, if a lightening bolt strikes my home and I can't work, it's not stealing. But using one of my images with out paying me for the usage license is. Or a song, or a piece of code, or a logo, or even an idea. The courts have been clear on the issue of people unknowingly using copyrighted material and removing it when requested. The act of knowingly doing it is stealing.

    This conversation is centered around large corporations and how people feel they are evil and how it's ok to use things without paying for them because they make so much money. But, it's also how many people make a living. My business is just me. Every time someone uses an image without my permission, it subtracts directly from my income; because they need to pay for the use. And that is how I pay my rent, my overhead, my insurances, my vacations...everything you get from your salary (assuming you have one). And, morally, that is what is at heart here. If you don't like the industries that are producing content, then don't buy it. But taking it without paying for it has direct consequences for people who spend time and energy producing it.

    Why is it that on a site where almost everything discussed, from music to technology, relies on people taking the time to sit down and develop an idea into something we love - yet hardly anyone here thinks that it's ok to make money from these ideas or that you should pay for them? Do you think that computer technology would have moved as fast if people didn't know they could make a living from the ideas that are in every piece of tech ever made?
     
  2. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    I'm not debating the morals and legal right/wrongs of piracy, I'm talking about the financial implications of piracy and the effect DRM has on it.

    Whether you believe it to ethical is up to the individual in question.
     
  3. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    The finacial implications are simple. While "insert evil empire of choice" might be able to absorb the losses, alongside many other large companies that rely on licensing, smaller ones can't. And we are seeing, in the photography/graphic design/film industries, that people are less likely to try and startup when they see so many failing because of the shift in the public's perception of value. and without them, we don't get the one in a thousand that ends up a "insert evil empire of choice".

    Look at it this way: If someone uses and image of mine from which I would have made $5,000 in usage rights over time, that would have been roughly 10% of my 2009 income (in an already bad year). With out DRM, I would never be able to stop them from using it or recoup that loss. That is a real scenario, but luckily I have a well written contracts and clients that honor them. This guy doesn't. And that is just one in 1,000 examples of how copyright infringement is a) common and b) causes real people losses.
     
    Last edited: 23 Aug 2010
  4. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    You're talking about a different market, they are not directly comparable. In terms of software my point stands.

    The majority of the time the gains from implementing DRM are offset by other factors.
     
  5. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    No they are, copyright infringement is the same for any thing that is copyrighted. and software piracy is the same thing as using a song without permission. Or are you suggesting that someone that downloads a program without paying for it would NEVER think of using an image with out paying for it.

    The idea is the same, and it's pervasive.
     
  6. roland777

    roland777 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that you're arguing from a point of self-interest. Have a read of the link posted by phulshof (and try to keep an open mind).
     
  7. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    The act is the same but the effects are different. For example, stealing a car is stealing just like stealing a bottle of coke from the shops is. However you can't directly compare them.


    Also there is the fact that when someone steal an image and uses it for a commercial purpose (like in the link you gave) it is quite a different ball game than if someone saved an image from your site onto their personal computer.
     
  8. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    Considering Johnny relies on selling his images to make a living, how should he be approaching the problems that copyright infringement present? Do you expect him to be taking images and releasing them into the public domain, free of charge? Or to just ignore the problems, and hope that it doesn't affect his profit margin?
     
  9. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    As stated before, not implementing a DRM solution is not the same as releasing something into the public domain.

    Answer me this:
    You can find the sources for the statistics in my previous post.
     
  10. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    The question wasn't put to you Cabe, I would prefer hearing what Roland has to say.

    FYI, Roland claimed that Johnny was somehow looking at piracy in the wrong way, even though it directly affects him.
     
  11. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    The question wan't even totally relevant. Copyright infringement for profit is not the same as piracy for personal use(which is the discussion at hand).
    If a studio found someone selling their game then they'd be stupid not to take legal action.

    Anyway, I asked a direct question to you on page 18 which was ignored, it's the same question as I have quoted in my previous post. Are you avoiding answering it because it does seem a little like that.

    Not trying to goad you or anything, I'm just interested in your point of view on the matter.
     
  12. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    Cabe, do you expect a pat on the back for the post in page 18, because you cited some loose studies that could indicate some benefits of piracy? I could just as easily cite others that suggest otherwise, but we would still be stuck in the same position, as there is NO conclusive evidence on either side of the coin. If there is anything we HAVE established it is that there simply isn't enough evidence. I did agree on that quite some time ago. As for goading, you have banged on about your post as if it provides all the evidence we need to see that piracy is not a problem. Unfortunately it isn't.

    As for the question I put to Roland, I think it is relevent. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't feel it was, and who are you to judge?
     
  13. roland777

    roland777 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question of copyright infringment is a moral one - but it has practical implications for Johnny ,that's why his logic is confused. If Johnny takes photos and people want to pay for them, then that's great. I don't however see that he has a moral right to make a living as a photographer, so if not enough people want to pay for his photos that is unfortunate (for him), but not morally wrong.
     
  14. Cabe6403

    Cabe6403 Supreme Commander

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    44
    How do you define 'loose' studies? Gamasutra is a well respected industry organisation created and run by developers in the video game industry.
    This is an article by members of the industry in question backed up by hard facts. I'm pretty sure that's more than just a 'loose study'.
    And the articles are not about "benefits of piracy", rather the opposite in fact. They are about how DRM is ineffective it's ability to reduce piracy. It was in direct reply to your comments that Elledan turning a blind eye to piracy was bad move.

    If I've 'banged' on about my post it's because, as you've said:
    But I haven't seen any reputable citations to that effect.

    And also, my question stands. Ignore the debate hanging around it if it helps, i'd still like an answer. I've asked directly a number of times for your opinion on the matter. I'm not claiming to know everything, I can only present my opinion and the reasons why I believe it. I'd like to know the opinion from the other side of the table in this matter.

     
  15. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    You seem to be missing the point also that choosing not to buy does not equate to obtaining illegally. I may see one of Johnny's images, may not like it, so I choose not to buy it. That's morally fine and I have absolutely no problem there.

    But you are saying that if someone wants to use the image, and do so without paying for the privilege then that's fine? Strange logic!

    So a car mechanic does not have the right to earn a living from his/ her skills, and the effort they put into delivering their service/ product then? Or how about a surgeon? They have knowledge and skills that they transfer into a viable and real commodity, are they morally wrong for doing so?
     
  16. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    Cabe, I'm refusing to answer your question, get over it. Whatever conclusions you wish to draw from this, that's the fact:D As I said, what's the point in providing citations to counter your claims, as they would be just as tenious as yours, and we would still be in disagreement. So sorry to burst your bubble, but I have better things to do than looking for evidence to counter your claims.
     
  17. roland777

    roland777 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Choosing not to buy has exactly the same financial impact on Johnny as obtaining illegally.
     
  18. stuartpb

    stuartpb Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    149
    I disagree with you on the point above, but for argument's sake, if there was no financial loss, then it would be morally OK to reproduce or obtain Johnny's images, without express consent being given?
     
  19. roland777

    roland777 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Sorry, forgot to answer the last part of your post)

    It costs a car mechanic each time he performs some work (in terms of time, materials used). It costs Johnny nothing each time someone copies one of his photographs - it was the original photograph that costs him something.
     
  20. roland777

    roland777 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, absolutely.
     

Share This Page