View Full Version : Copyright laws: Sharing / copying TV programmes / software.
Beowulf
4th-July-2006, 09:53 AM
5 steps to unhappiness :(
download bitcomet - install - use to search for stuff - download - watch PC struggle under all the virus and malware attacks
technically bitcomet/azeaus/bit tornado etc although themselves are legal programs downloading TV programs from the web is not legal. I know technically it's no different from sharing a Video tape of a Tv show but from a legal standpoint it's a gray area.
And besides, my PC at home is like fort knox.. firewalls (hard and soft), Av software, Malware ,snooper and ad-ware removal programs, encryption programs, secure delete programs etc etc.. I have had "mixed" fortunes with peer to peer programs. out of the few downloads I've tried I'd say about 1/2 were infected with something or another nasty. Luckily nothing has yet to penetrate my shields.
I personally (and were it possible) would ban all these peer to peer networking programs.. but then that's just me.. and it's a moot point anyway you cant disable it without adversely affecting the rest of the net.
Dreadful Scathe
4th-July-2006, 11:02 AM
Its illegal to ever go faster than 70 in a car too remember ;) Sharing video and audio files you have legitimate access too (because they are already on your TV or radio) is what the internet is there for.
Explain to me why dowloading a video that you usually tape is 'wrong' if taping it isnt? :confused:
Beowulf
4th-July-2006, 11:40 AM
Its illegal to ever go faster than 70 in a car too
Explain to me why dowloading a video that you usually tape is 'wrong' if taping it isnt? :confused:
As I don't drive I don't do that either. :rolleyes:
and TECHNICALLY videotaping of tv programs is against the copyright of the broadcasters.. Think of TV as Pay per view Streaming entertainment. Your licence allows you to watch whats on TV. However, this is one of these loosely (as in so loose it's untied) applied laws that it's considered non existant.
As broadcasters pay to get their programs developed and broadcast they then have the option to sell that broadcast on a DVD or VHS later.. Think about going to see a live concert then bootlegging your own Album. same thing.
Although most TV's don't have a bouncer / roadie on hand to break your fingers and smash your tape recorder if you try it.
Like copying cd's to mp3 for own use it's accepted that this goes on and is generally accepted to be legal .. even though technically it's not.
I'm dealing in TECHNICALLITIES here.. I can't imagine FAST or FACT coming down hard on someone for taping corrie.
And if you drive faster than 70 mph then shame on you.. :wink: :whistle:
Piracy is one my my major gripes.. as a software engineer/ computer programmer by trade and as a hobby. I used to have my own website of shareware apps that I ROUTINELY found hacked or with key gens on the web. despite me continually rewriting the code, making it harder to crack etc.. the crackers just saw it as a challenge. So I sorted them out.. I withdrew all my programs from the web.
I take a dim view on piracy and copyright infringement. I don't even own a copied CD.
Dreadful Scathe
4th-July-2006, 12:52 PM
As I don't drive I don't do that either. :rolleyes:
Yes I know from the other thread, thats why I winked at you. Do stop going on about it :rolleyes:
Think of TV as Pay per view Streaming entertainment.
The law has always seen videoing as "time shifting" i.e. watching tv at another time, downloading from the internet is no different - as long as you COULD have watched it on TV you had paid for.
As broadcasters pay to get their programs developed and broadcast they then have the option to sell that broadcast on a DVD or VHS later.. Think about going to see a live concert then bootlegging your own Album. same thing.
Poppycock good sir. DVDs are sold for people who may not necessarily have seen the program, if you are happy with your taped copy, than fine - keep it, but you wont get the dvd extras.
You dont often watch a live band in your own home so the analogy is like comparing cheesecake to old socks.
Although most TV's don't have a bouncer / roadie on hand to break your fingers and smash your tape recorder if you try it.
yeah right, what exactly are video recorders for then? When they first came out a film on video would cost you £75 or thereabouts which was why lending libraries were so big in the 80's and if that was the main use, why have a recording ability. Recorders are for recording TV, always have been.
Piracy is one my my major gripes.. as a software engineer/ computer programmer by trade and as a hobby. I used to have my own website of shareware apps that I ROUTINELY found hacked or with key gens on the web. despite me continually rewriting the code, making it harder to crack etc.. the crackers just saw it as a challenge. So I sorted them out.. I withdrew all my programs from the web.
Piracy is inevitable, not many can afford to buy everything they would ever possibly use at any one time, especially when its a quick fix e.g. a one off file recovery. Piracy drives hardware sales (e.g. ZX Spectrum, Amiga, Playstation ). Piracy brings customers to good programs by enabling them to try it, something that shops stopped doing years ago. Its a shame you feel you lost custom due to piracy but i doubt that was the case, how many of the people using a keygen would actually have paid you money? Not many at all is my bet. Overall, piracy is not a bad thing. Computer software goes up in price for bigger profits which, in the past, has often caused piracy. With security measures that is lessened again somewhat, there is a happy balance in place.
Piracy can be listening to a live concert from over the wall or can be downloading a computer game you just want to have a look at - whats the difference. You didnt intend to pay for either. Wheres the harm ;)
I take a dim view on piracy and copyright infringement. I don't even own a copied CD.
Ooh controversial..discuss :)
Beowulf
4th-July-2006, 01:30 PM
hehe well we'll agree to disagree then :)
I'm no angel (or no angle either.. what i originally typed!) I do "backup" my purchased wma tracks ,and convert my DVD's to a format I can watch on my pocket PC.
I'm not some moral crusader or anything. I dont' mind people taping programs (I mean.. who doesn't.. well apart from me.. only because I don't own a video recorder.. if I miss it.. I miss it) I just don't like these P2P networks .. theya re a major security risk IMHO and not worth the hassle. Downloading of TV from the net is a gray area. And Why others probably have no problem with this , some do. Just playing devils advocate ;)
Friendly banter? Discuss ;)
ducasi
4th-July-2006, 01:42 PM
And besides, my PC at home is like fort knox.. firewalls (hard and soft), Av software, Malware ,snooper and ad-ware removal programs, encryption programs, secure delete programs etc etc.. I have had "mixed" fortunes with peer to peer programs. out of the few downloads I've tried I'd say about 1/2 were infected with something or another nasty. Luckily nothing has yet to penetrate my shields. Buy a Mac and you wouldn't need to! :rolleyes:
Yliander
4th-July-2006, 01:54 PM
yeah right, what exactly are video recorders for then? When they first came out a film on video would cost you £75 or thereabouts which was why lending libraries were so big in the 80's and if that was the main use, why have a recording ability. Recorders are for recording TV, always have been. actually just because a company makes something that is able to do something - doesn't mean that doing that with it is legal.
ipods were readily available for sometime in Australia - before there was any legal way of putting music on them unless you had a UK or American Credit card.
guns are legal and they are capable of killing people - this does not make that use of them legal.
Video Recorders have always? had the cabability to record tv - but that use is generally not legal.
A legal use would be to record your own home video onto VHS
Dreadful Scathe
4th-July-2006, 02:33 PM
actually just because a company makes something that is able to do something - doesn't mean that doing that with it is legal.
When the first video recorder was brought out the company was sued because of the possibility of copying video, but timeshifting TV you were entitled to watch was seen as a valid use. The legal limitation is that technically you cannot give your tapes to anyone else, its for personal use only. Similar copyright "loopholes" are in place for other things, you can photocopy a certain amount of pages from a book before its illegal etc..
All of this is to do with copyright though.
guns are legal and they are capable of killing people - this does not make that use of them legal.
killing someone is hardly a copyright issue - unless you're a lawyer for Wolfram and Hart or something ;)
Video Recorders have always? had the cabability to record tv - but that use is generally not legal.
A legal use would be to record your own home video onto VHS
Not what they came out in wouldnt - how would you have done it? The primary use for video (video 2000, beta, vhs or whatever) was to tape TV - if that had not been legal they would never have been sold.
Yliander
4th-July-2006, 02:39 PM
Not what they came out in wouldnt - how would you have done it? The primary use for video (video 2000, beta, vhs or whatever) was to tape TV - if that had not been legal they would never have been sold. in many cases it's not illegal to sell something if it's use is illegal ie a bong - it's legal to sell them but not to use it.
just because something can do a certain thing doesn't mean that to do that is legal.
straycat
4th-July-2006, 03:17 PM
Buy a Mac and you wouldn't need to! :rolleyes:
This is blatantly untrue. I own a Mac, and my PC still needs all the firewalls / AV software etc that it can get!!!
MartinHarper
4th-July-2006, 03:50 PM
I personally (and were it possible) would ban all these peer to peer networking programs.. but then that's just me.
A computer game I purchased uses a peer-to-peer network to distribute its patches, based off BitTorrent. This saves them a vast amount of bandwidth and hardware, and delivers a better and cheaper service to its customers. It wraps up the peer-to-peer stuff in its own front end to give a better customer experience, of course.
El Salsero Gringo
4th-July-2006, 04:18 PM
So I sorted them out.. I withdrew all my programs from the web. Nose, face, cutting off, to spite one's - perhaps? I take it you're not a big fan of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation?
Video Recorders have always? had the cabability to record tv - but that use is generally not legal.It is a now well-established principle in UK law that recording a broadcast programme to 'time-shift' it is not a transgression of the rights of the copyright holder.
Comparisons with guns, shooting people, speeding and so on are just silly.
bigdjiver
4th-July-2006, 04:28 PM
...Piracy is inevitable, not many can afford to buy everything they would ever possibly use at any one time, especially when its a quick fix e.g. a one off file recovery. Piracy drives hardware sales (e.g. ZX Spectrum, Amiga, Playstation ). Piracy brings customers to good programs by enabling them to try it, something that shops stopped doing years ago. Its a shame you feel you lost custom due to piracy but i doubt that was the case, how many of the people using a keygen would actually have paid you money? Not many at all is my bet...The commercial programs I wrote sold for £900 a time. A big incentive to steal. There were demo versions available to try, so that excuse failed. Selling dongles with the package put the production costs up 3000% and added to the programmimg costs. As usual the law-abiding had to pay for the crooks. Probably everybody that would have bought a cracked copy would have bought the real thing, because it was demonstrably worth far more. One feature of the package effectively made a drilling machine work 15% faster, with 25% less wear and tear. These machines started at £35,000. The "can't afford it" argument failed too.
Dreadful Scathe
4th-July-2006, 04:49 PM
The commercial programs I wrote sold for £900 a time. A big incentive to steal. There were demo versions available to try, so that excuse failed. Selling dongles with the package put the production costs up 3000% and added to the programmimg costs. As usual the law-abiding had to pay for the crooks. Probably everybody that would have bought a cracked copy would have bought the real thing, because it was demonstrably worth far more. One feature of the package effectively made a drilling machine work 15% faster, with 25% less wear and tear. These machines started at £35,000. The "can't afford it" argument failed too.
In your example, fair enough. Theres no excuse for corporate copying, as its just another business cost that should be accounted for - if its too expensive they should go with other software. My arguments were aimed at the home pc market, hobbyists and the like - people who look at software just to look at software.
El Salsero Gringo
4th-July-2006, 05:09 PM
The commercial programs I wrote sold for £900 a time. A big incentive to steal. There were demo versions available to try, so that excuse failed. Selling dongles with the package put the production costs up 3000% and added to the programmimg costs. As usual the law-abiding had to pay for the crooks. Probably everybody that would have bought a cracked copy would have bought the real thing, because it was demonstrably worth far more. One feature of the package effectively made a drilling machine work 15% faster, with 25% less wear and tear. These machines started at £35,000. The "can't afford it" argument failed too.I'd argue that it's not a £900 price tag that's the incentive to copy (and I don't subscribe to the 'copying is theft' argument that the recording and software industries like to foist on us). If the software is so valuable, then the legit businesses that are prepared to pay at all would likely pay more than £900. Those that pirate it will do so whatever the price.
Do you have any real information about how widespread the pirated use of your software is/was?
n your example, fair enough. Theres no excuse for corporate copying, as its just another business cost that should be accounted for - if its too expensive they should go with other software. My arguments were aimed at the home pc market, hobbyists and the like - people who look at software just to look at software.How can you draw a distinction between hobbyists and businesses? ("businesses use software but they don't enjoy it...")
bigdjiver
4th-July-2006, 05:25 PM
...Do you have any real information about how widespread the pirated use of your software is/was?... ("businesses use software but they don't enjoy it...")As far as I am aware nobody broke it, that would probably imply that nobody tried. We were fortunate in having a limited market and only doing direct selling, so the pirates probably never even heard of it. Korea was a big market of ours, and people I know came back with suitcases full of pirated software from there. (ditto Singapore, Hong Kong.)
ducasi
4th-July-2006, 05:33 PM
This is blatantly untrue. I own a Mac, and my PC still needs all the firewalls / AV software etc that it can get!!!
Ah, sorry, missed step 2... throw out PCs running windows. :nice:
straycat
4th-July-2006, 05:38 PM
Ah, sorry, missed step 2... throw out PCs running windows. :nice:
Alas - I still needs it for testing websites, and running Halflife 2.
Well - I will need it for that one day when I get a chance to play it. And when I get a new monitor (current one won't turn on)
Oh - and for running allTunes.
I reserve the Mac for doing anything useful :cool:
straycat
4th-July-2006, 05:58 PM
Its a shame you feel you lost custom due to piracy but i doubt that was the case, how many of the people using a keygen would actually have paid you money? Not many at all is my bet.
I can sympathise with Beowulf on this - I have written shareware which was cracked & pirated, and I definitely felt the sting. I don't know how many more would have bought had it not been cracked, but...
1) The general attitude that piracy is not a bad thing encourages more and more people to do it.
2) The easy availability of serial numbers / cracks etc does likewise.
3) More and more we are finding ways to justify what is basically petty theft. How far do we want to take this?
4) If I spend 2000 hours writing a piece of software, and some kid (who confesses to using it five hours a day) refuses to pay twenty quid to run it on his thousand pound computer because it's "too expensive" (this one was far too common).... well - it illustrates points 1, 2 & 3 nicely. And guess what? I don't want him to have it.
Overall, piracy is not a bad thing. Computer software goes up in price for bigger profits which, in the past, has often caused piracy. With security measures that is lessened again somewhat, there is a happy balance in place.
Which is basically trying to label the software companies as being in the wrong, therefore deserving to have their software stolen? Software can be a precarious business. Sure - some companies sell overpriced rubbish (M$) - but I still don't see that justifies theft, or makes it right in any way... you wouldn't apply that logic to shoplifting the boxed product direct from the company, so how can you apply it in other ways?
El Salsero Gringo
4th-July-2006, 07:00 PM
Which is basically trying to label the software companies as being in the wrong, therefore deserving to have their software stolen? Software can be a precarious business. Sure - some companies sell overpriced rubbish (M$) - but I still don't see that justifies theft, or makes it right in any way... you wouldn't apply that logic to shoplifting the boxed product direct from the company, so how can you apply it in other ways?It's not stealing, and it's not theft. The concept of theft doesn't apply when something can be duplicated at zero cost. I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but dont use the language that the recording industry and software industries have managed to con on everyone if ever you want to think about the subject in an unbiased manner.
bigdjiver
4th-July-2006, 07:26 PM
It's not stealing, and it's not theft. The concept of theft doesn't apply when something can be duplicated at zero cost. I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but dont use the language that the recording industry and software industries have managed to con on everyone if ever you want to think about the subject in an unbiased manner.It cannot be generated at zero cost. According to your logic the package I wrote could have sold 1 copy, and the company I worked for would have gone into liquidation a good few years earlier, and it would be just fine. Intellectual property rights are at the root of our prosperity.
El Salsero Gringo
4th-July-2006, 07:32 PM
It cannot be generated at zero cost.No that's quite true. But the marginal cost of supply is effectively zero. Exactly zero, in the case of internet downloads.
According to your logic the package I wrote could have sold 1 copy, and the company I worked for would have gone into liquidation a good few years earlier, and it would be just fine.No, that doesn't follow from what I said in the slightest.
Intellectual property rights are at the root of our prosperity.And I think *that* is one of the most tendentious and least accurate statements I have ever read on this forum.
bigdjiver
4th-July-2006, 08:53 PM
No that's quite true. But the marginal cost of supply is effectively zero. Exactly zero, in the case of internet downloads.You cannot download a physical dongle. Cost of delivery = 1 floppy disk, 1 dongle, postage and customs fees to Korea, China, Japa, Singapore, whatever.
No, that doesn't follow from what I said in the slightest.And I think *that* is one of the most tendentious and least accurate statements I have ever read on this forum.
Fact 1: When I left the software I wrote was the major profit source for the company. The only other department making a profit was maintenance. Without that income the company would have gone into liquidation far sooner.
Fact 2.: If somebody had successfully cracked the software from the first copy sold they could easily have found all of our customers by consulting the trade directories as present in every library in this country. It would be an easy sale.
Customer on phone:- "Do you know of any software that does conversion from ____?" (This means that they have not read our sales literature. The conversion facility was an very occasional and comparitively minor benefit of the package.)
MD: "We have a a package that does just that, and a whole lot more. It costs £900+VAT"
Customer:"Wow, that's a lot." .... "I shall have to have it."
I asked for a rise on the basis of that conversation. My boss was leaning on his Mercedes at the time, playing with a newly acquired Sat-Nav device for his aeroplane. He told me that he could not afford one at the moment. It did not seem like the truth at the time.
I had the misfortune to work for another company that had its software stolen even before its first sale, and that company disappeared very soon after. The critical conclusive evidence was not admissible in court.
Because the big corporations throw lots of hype and BS at us and our politicians, it does not follow that their arguments about intellectual property have no basis in fact. Dyson, for one, would not exist without that protection. The huge profits exist only because of that protection. If that protection did not exist, neither the huge companies, nor most of their products, would exist.
El Salsero Gringo
4th-July-2006, 09:27 PM
You cannot download a physical dongle. Cost of delivery = 1 floppy disk, 1 dongle, postage and customs fees to Korea, China, Japa, Singapore, whatever.The only purpose of the dongle is to artificially raise the marginal cost of the software. There's no need for it. I don't see therefore that it affects the argument. It's certainly the case that compared with manufactured goods, cars, hardware and so on, software has zero marginal cost.
Fact 1....
Fact 2....
Customer on phone.....
I asked for a rise....
etc
A few examples of (mis)management of a software company do not a cogent argument make.
Because the big corporations throw lots of hype and BS at us and our politicians, it does not follow that their arguments about intellectual property have no basis in fact. Dyson, for one, would not exist without that protection. The huge profits exist only because of that protection. If that protection did not exist, neither the huge companies, nor most of their products, would exist.Well now that's not strictly true is it? Linux and the output of the free software (free as in speech not as in beer yada yada yada) movement are products of an approach to intellectual property entirely opposite to the one you espouse. One example does not make an argument - but a counterexample certainly can destroy one.
frodo
4th-July-2006, 10:56 PM
No that's quite true. But the marginal cost of supply is effectively zero. Exactly zero, in the case of internet downloadsBeing pendantic, the marginal cost of a particular download may be exactly zero, but while generally very small it may not be generally zero.
Intellectual property rights are at the root of our prosperity.And I think *that* is one of the most tendentious and least accurate statements I have ever read on this forum
It seems a reasonably arguable proposition :confused:.
I doubt it would be generally disputed that technology and inventions are at the root of our prosperity.
Whether inventions discovered only because of protection, or discovered more quickly are cumulatively most significant may not be clear.
bigdjiver
4th-July-2006, 11:03 PM
The only purpose of the dongle is to artificially raise the marginal cost of the software. There's no need for it. Anything one can write in code, one can decode. It just needs brains and time. That is why there is so much hacked software around. A dongle can have its code hidden in a microprocessors eprom. This too can be cracked, but the technology involved costs, and that puts it beyond the vast majority of hackers. Whilst the profits from the software were vital to the company, there were so many far more easy and lucrative targets out there that a hacker working for resale would prefer to attack those. If you can persuade Microsoft that you know how to protect their software without such measures I believe that you could become extremely rich.
Linux and the output of the free software (free as in speech not as in beer yada yada yada) movement are products of an approach to intellectual property entirely opposite to the one you espouse. Linux owed much to those who worked for love, and rely on their income from the protected model to keep them alive whilst they work on it. It is the nature of programmers. A program that I wrote in a weekend for the love of it because I thought it would be useful and gave me practise in the use of recursion (Critical Path) now lies at the heart of a large companies operations. All I got for that was an Honorary "Software of the Year" award from my boss, after I had left. The travelling salesman algorithm I came up with was done for love. The money I used to live with came from the protected economic model. The major money making operations that rely on the work done by the Linux pioneers (Sony Playstation is one, I believe) very much rely on the protectionist model.
One example does not make an argument - but a counterexample certainly can destroy one. So, supply me with an example of where piracy has been proven to benefit the pirated.
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 08:16 AM
How can you draw a distinction between hobbyists and businesses? ("businesses use software but they don't enjoy it...")
My distinction is between people that use software for a living and people that have and use computers for leisure.
straycat
5th-July-2006, 08:41 AM
It's not stealing, and it's not theft. The concept of theft doesn't apply when something can be duplicated at zero cost.
Thank you for your example :cool:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Redefine it, and it doesn't seem wrong. Don't like the idea of stealing something? Call is something else, and do it anyway with a clearer conscience.
I couldn't have illustrated it better myself. Thank you again. :worthy:
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 08:46 AM
Being pendantic, the marginal cost of a particular download may be exactly zero, but while generally very small it may not be generally zero.
It seems a reasonably arguable proposition :confused:.
I doubt it would be generally disputed that technology and inventions are at the root of our prosperity.And I'm not disputing that intellectual 'property' lies at the root of our prosperity (although your vocabulary - treating knowledge as 'property' that can be owned like a knife a fork shows either that you sit on one side of the argument or more likely that you haven't thought about it sufficiently). I don't believe that intellectual 'property' rights are the root cause of prosperity, as bidjiver said.
A program that I wrote in a weekend for the love of it because I thought it would be useful and gave me practise in the use of recursion (Critical Path) now lies at the heart of a large companies operations. All I got for that was an Honorary "Software of the Year" award from my boss, after I had left. The travelling salesman algorithm I came up with was done for love. The money I used to live with came from the protected economic model.The fact that your income came from the protectionist model doesn't mean it's the only, or even the best route.
Linux owed much to those who worked for love, and rely on their income from the protected model to keep them alive whilst they work on it.Actually that's not true. Most contributors to the Linux project are paid to do so full time by the companies they work for; there is a rich income stream in the Free Software model for those that are interested to tap it.
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 08:48 AM
I take it you're not a big fan of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation?.
I never said that. I'm a great fan of the freeware, Open source, and GNU project mindsets. :mad:
My Software site had LOTS of FREEWARE utilities on there. Stuff I'm still willing to give out.. however, I had put a lot of time and effort into a couple of my larger applications and felt that a modest recompense was called for if it was being used. I had a FREE version of the same software on my website, just with a limited feature set.
Why should I tolerate someone ripping me off? Suppose you ran a bakers. You baked lots and lots of free iced buns to give away to the customers, but spent a lot of time baking a wedding cake to sell and some low life comes in and decided to pilfer the cake? (odd analogy but it's early) You'd be a bit P*ssed off. :angry:
So don't paint me as some miserly tightfisted bill gates wannabe. I have wholeheartedly embraced the GNU project and freeware mentality. The majority of the software I had on my website was FREE , but obviously Free isn't good enough for some people.. they seem to think if its software they have the god given right to rip you off.
And I'm sorry.. if you STEAL software that I'VE Written .. yeah I'd say that's THEFT. I earn my living from computer programming.. why don't I give my services away for free.. I suppose I can always beg for scraps from the people who use the software to their benefit. :angry:
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 08:51 AM
. If you can persuade Microsoft that you know how to protect their software without such measures I believe that you could become extremely rich.
Its interesting that the 2nd biggest software company in the world has no protection in any of their software and has it all freely downloadable from their web site (http://otn.oracle.com). They dont see the need for protection Whilst the software is not for your average home user, neither was your companies software by the sound of it.
Also, why is the shareware market so successful? Companies have been successful from people choosing to pay for something they didnt 'need' to pay for. A good example, as they have a histroy section on their site, is the company behind ultraedit (www.ultraedit.com).
(Some companies do shoot themselves in the foot with this and release limited and restrcited products and charge money to unlock it, that sort of blackmail is inadvisable at best - people just go elsewhere (the free and pro version idea works fine, feels like less of a con.)
Intellectual property rights are at the root of our prosperity.
Wow. People do tend to come up with the same ideas at particular points in time, like the 5 or so people that all "invented the TV" no one is claiming IP rights for that thank goodness. Nowadays we have "ordering something with 1 click on a website" protected by a patent, the Da Vinci Code auther being sued for copying anothers book when eveything in it could have come from many sources..these are all related to the central idea that ideas themselves are 'owned'. IP rights stifle innovation.
To quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property).
Some consider that the expansion of intellectual property laws upsets the balance between encouraging and facilitating creativity and innovation, and the dissemination of new ideas and creations into the public domain for the common good. They consider that as most new ideas are simply derived from other ideas, intellectual property laws tend to reduce the overall level of creative and scientific advancement in society. They argue that innovation and competition is in effect stifled by expanding IP laws, as litiguous IP rights holders aggressively or frivolously seek to protect their portfolios.
So not only do i heartily disagree that IP is the "root of our prosperity", I also would say it benefits no one except a few corporate companies.
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 09:00 AM
And I'm sorry.. if you STEAL software that I'VE Written .. yeah I'd say that's THEFT.
The only thing you are being deprived of is income, not a physical product. Its not theft as far as the law is concerned. No different to someone passing round a book they've bought to all of their friends - is that theft of the book? Is some pulp nonsense like the 'Da Vinci Code' not evidence enough for you that the systems works as it is ? :) If its good enough and unique enough, you'll make your money.
It would be nice if software developers could get paid for every single person that had used their software but as thats never been the case for every song, book, magazine, video or anything else - why would software be unique in this?
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 09:07 AM
The only thing you are being deprived of is income, not a physical product. Its not theft as far as the law is concerned. ?
So if I hacked into your place of employment and changed the bank transfer details to pay all your wage into my account I'm not stealling.. After it's JUST INCOME not a physical product after all.
When I wrote that software I was in a very ow paid job. I could have put a $$$ price on everypiece of software I wrote but I gave the majority of it away. I gave free support via email and implemented users feature requests.
Sure the low life scum that decided to rip me off didn't steal anything physical. Just my time, my effort, my patience and my tolereance of people who are so blinkered to think that software piracy is a victimless crime.
here have my kidneys as well. After all I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks they need them more than me and can't afford to buy their own.
:angry:
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 09:15 AM
The only thing you are being deprived of is income, ...Quite.
straycat
5th-July-2006, 09:22 AM
here have my kidneys as well. After all I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks they need them more than me and can't afford to buy their own.
:angry:
Thank you - that's very kind. I don't actually need them, you understand - I just want to distribute pieces of them to anyone who asks, because your kidneys should be free to everyone, dammit!!!
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 09:26 AM
So if I hacked into your place of employment and changed the bank transfer details to pay all your wage into my account I'm not stealling.. After it's JUST INCOME not a physical product after all.
er..you would be stealing money. Piracy is a copyright issue, there is no way to know if the person copying your software would have actually paid for it if the copy wasnt available. So you MAY lose income but it also, if the people see the software and like it, you may GAIN income. So my point about income is that it would be the only thing you are possiblly going to lose not that you actually would in every instance
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 09:27 AM
Thank you - that's very kind. I don't actually need them, you understand - I just want to distribute pieces of them to anyone who asks, because your kidneys should be free to everyone, dammit!!!
unless you have a star trek-esq matter replicator its hardly the same thing is it :rolleyes:
straycat
5th-July-2006, 09:33 AM
No different to someone passing round a book they've bought to all of their friends - is that theft of the book?
No. But if someone was to make multiple physical copies of the book, and you took one and read it, then yes. That's breaking the copyright. That's theft.
If someone was to, say, scan that book in (assuming it's still under copyright), and distribute it electronically via IRC... then for you to download it would be theft. (And yes, people do do this, and on a vast scale)
So it is with software.
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 10:10 AM
No. But if someone was to make multiple physical copies of the book, and you took one and read it, then yes. That's breaking the copyright. That's theft.
If someone was to, say, scan that book in (assuming it's still under copyright), and distribute it electronically via IRC... then for you to download it would be theft. (And yes, people do do this, and on a vast scale)
So it is with software.
thanks Straycat! :respect: :yeah:
I'm leaving this thread now.. it's not good for my blood pressure.. bulging veins in my forehead is not a good look for me ;) :rofl: I'm off to the calmer areas in the Cakes Thread !! :clap: :drool:
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 10:31 AM
Wow. Looks like the pigopolists (to borrow a word) have got us all tied up in knots. It's true though - take ownership of the vocabulary and you own the debate too.
From the Theft Act (1968):
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."
If you copy a computer program, you can't possible deprive the owner of it. So much as the great software houses would like you to believe, it's not theft. End of story.
Time we started giving words back their correct meaning; when you do that it's amazing how fast the red mist lifts.
And I'm sorry.. if you STEAL software that I'VE Written .. yeah I'd say that's THEFT.Call it what you like - but that don't make it so.
TA Guy
5th-July-2006, 10:39 AM
So, supply me with an example of where piracy has been proven to benefit the pirated.
I'm pretty much of the opinion the only reason you can download music on the web from iTunes etc now is because the music companies were forced into persuing the line of distribution by the piracy of P2P programs.
Even tho that was technically possible long before popular P2P, they had no incentive whatsoever to do that before P2P. They made huge profits and wielded huge amounts of power (via lobbying). And they had the whole thing tied up in copyright laws really designed for something completely different and corrupt politcians happily accepting the latest freebie to Florida to 'Investigate', with the aid of a sunny beach, loadsa babes in bikinis and 7 course dinners, the latest claim that CD's are too expensive. LOL LOL LOL.
I respect the law as much as the next person, but sometimes it's an ass.
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 10:48 AM
So, supply me with an example of where piracy has been proven to benefit the pirated.Well now that's an interesting, if misleading question. One might as well ask how cheap imported coal from Poland helped the UK coal mining industry - or how the motor-car helped the horse trade. Both these industries tried (with or without government help) to throw up barriers to progress - both lost - and here we are, very much better off for it.
In the long run, it matters not one whit how much a technical advance or social movement benefits or disadvantages a single pressure group. What counts is what it does for all of us together.
straycat
5th-July-2006, 10:55 AM
From the Theft Act (1968):
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."
1968. Hmmm. Anyway. Morally, it is theft. Legally, it can be called a few things, including copyright theft - but however you choose to paint it, it is a criminal act.
Putting this in a little more personal perspective. I consider many of the music companies to be thieves. I consider the whole suing-p2p-filesharers thing to be a useless hypocritical waste of time and money. I consider much of the IP debate (the aforementioned patenting of the 1-click idea, for example) to be ridiculous.
I just don't see how that gives me a personal right to steal from others (and yes, I'm going to continue using that word in this context)
Anyway - I think I'll follow Beowulf's example at this point. My blood isn't boiling, but I've said all I want to say.
No cake though - I'm trying to lose weight.
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 11:01 AM
1968. Hmmm. Anyway. Morally, it is theft. Legally, it can be called a few things, including copyright theftWell, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group.
Anyway - I think I'll follow Beowulf's example at this point. My blood isn't boiling, but I've said all I want to say.In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 11:09 AM
...In the long run, it matters not one whit how much a technical advance or social movement benefits or disadvantages a single pressure group. What counts is what it does for all of us together. That is pretty much how some of the arguments for slavery and the fuedal system went. "You suffer, but we prosper."
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 11:14 AM
Well, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group. In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.
No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.
Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth. I'm sitting here looking at the dilbert cartoon behind my desk..
Pointy haired Boss "I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy.. it's just a bunch of typing and half the words were spelled wrong. And don't get me started on your over use of colons!"
Dilbert "They remind me of you sir.."
Very very apt.
and anyway.. if i wanted to do the whole "La la la, I'm not listening" thing.. I do it easier than that.. clicks ignore user.. how CUTE is that?
I hope you are happy in your job and some low life doesn't come on line to tell you how pointless your whole life is.. have a f***ing good one.
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 11:14 AM
... And they had the whole thing tied up in copyright laws really designed for something completely different and corrupt politcians ...Hogarth got miffed at people copying his work, and suggested a copyright law to Pitt, and was ignored.
Hogarth moved on to drawing cartoons atttacking political corruption.
Cheap copies became widely available.
We got our first copyright law.
straycat
5th-July-2006, 11:18 AM
Well, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group. In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.
Oh - I'm listening. I just fundementally disagree with you. I'm simply no longer responding. Apart from this post :cool: (la la la)
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 11:29 AM
No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.I think you've demonstrating a strong tendency to read into what I wrote what you'd like me to have said so you can argue with and be upset by it. I haven't anywhere said that I support software piracy; and I haven't said anything about software engineers either. I do think your view of economics is a bit suspect though.
Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth. I'm sitting here looking at the dilbert cartoon behind my desk..
Pointy haired Boss "I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy.. it's just a bunch of typing and half the words were spelled wrong. And don't get me started on your over use of colons!"
Dilbert "They remind me of you sir.."
Very very apt.
and anyway.. if i wanted to do the whole "La la la, I'm not listening" thing.. I do it easier than that.. clicks ignore user.. how CUTE is that?
I hope you are happy in your job and some low life doesn't come on line to tell you how pointless your whole life is.. have a f***ing good one.
You forgot to slam the door on your way out.
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 11:31 AM
Wow. Looks like the pigopolists (to borrow a word) have got us all tied up in knots. It's true though - take ownership of the vocabulary and you own the debate too.
From the Theft Act (1968):
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."
If you copy a computer program, you can't possible deprive the owner of it. So much as the great software houses would like you to believe, it's not theft. End of story.
Time we started giving words back their correct meaning; when you do that it's amazing how fast the red mist lifts.
Call it what you like - but that don't make it so.No, it is a case of Parliament calling it what it likes for legal purposes.
Someone might like to think that they had "borrowed" your car for 8 years, and it is OK if they then leave it in your driveway at the end of that time. I suspect that you would want be to be charged with theft.
If all you can find to agree with your proposition is politicians, then your argument is in deep ....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=theft
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 11:44 AM
No, it is a case of Parliament calling it what it likes for legal purposes.
Someone might like to think that they had "borrowed" your car for 8 years, and it is OK if they then leave it in your driveway at the end of that time. I suspect that you would want be to be charged with theft.That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.
If all you can find to agree with your proposition is politicians, then your argument is in deepNot if the politicians are correct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=theftIf all you can find to agree with your proposition is online dictionaries...
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 12:22 PM
That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.
And, in fact, if we are talking about downloads there is no cost at all in this duplication, not even a marginal one. Methinks bigdjiver has been reading "the politicians big book of obfuscation" :)
No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.
Certainly my argument has been about the shades of grey re:piracy - hardly the same as black = white. Where did you get "all software should be free" from? You're spiralling into the vast pit of nonsense from which there is no return. An ever fading "rant rant rant" echoing up from the depths is all that now marks your descent.
Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth.
How did you get that from anything ESG said , or me for that matter. Coincidentally I am currently a software developer. This thread has mainly been about the pros and cons of piracy, not armageddon. Get over yourself you drama queen, as DavidJames would say.*
*if I name drop maybe he'll join this conversation ;)
David Franklin
5th-July-2006, 01:03 PM
And, in fact, if we are talking about downloads there is no cost at all in this duplication, not even a marginal one. Methinks bigdjiver has been reading "the politicians big book of obfuscation" :)I'm slightly pieceing this together as I have one respondant to the thread killfiled, but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic. Which is not surprising; if you look at the act there are a few pages of details following the definition.
Now I am not a lawyer, but if you look at sections 4.1 and 6.1 of the 1968 act, it seems to me you could certainly argue the point that if B makes's a copy of A's software, then he has stolen the "right of A to sell a copy of that software to B". On the other hand, we have a separate copyright act, and (as far as I can tell on the 5 minutes I'm prepared to spend on this), the word "theft" does not appear in it. (I don't want to get into huge debates on the 1968 act; I'm perfectly happy to agree copying is not "theft" - I'm just saying it's not nearly so clear-cut as the one-line synopsis of the act might indicate).
In the UK, I don't believe that many software developers are greatly damaged by illegal copying - the vast majority of businesses don't do it, and the vast majority of individuals who do wouldn't pay for a proper copy. It is very different in the far east (since businesses will copy), and I suspect it is very different for shareware developers (since quite a few people would pay if they felt they had to - at least if your product is any good).
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 01:34 PM
but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic.
Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not. Their intent becomes irrelevant. Software downloads simply cannot deprive the owner from doing whatever they want with it, just as a big duplication gun could copy the car without the owner even caring that that had been done.
In the UK, I don't believe that many software developers are greatly damaged by illegal copying - the vast majority of businesses don't do it, and the vast majority of individuals who do wouldn't pay for a proper copy. It is very different in the far east (since businesses will copy), and I suspect it is very different for shareware developers (since quite a few people would pay if they felt they had to - at least if your product is any good).
totally agree.
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 01:51 PM
I'm slightly pieceing this together as I have one respondant to the thread killfiled,:flower:
but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic. Which is not surprising; if you look at the act there are a few pages of details following the definition.Whether or not it qualifies as theft is orthogonal to whether or not it is lawful - which is, if not orthogonal, at least oblique to whether it's moral, correct, or good for society.
Several of us on this thread agree that copying software isn't theft. The law agrees that copying software isn't theft. Theft (and 'stealing') are words loaded with negative connotations and agendas and are deliberately pushed upon us by those with a vested interest in controlling the way software and other intellectual property is exploited with a view to gaining money for themselves; not by those whose interests are the good of society as a whole.
Those who claim that copying a piece of software is "theft" would not, I suspect, say that photocopying a page of a book for research was stealing. They might say it was fair use (and I'd agree) but they wouldn't call it "fair use theft". On the other hand, steal part of a car and you're just as guilty of theft as if you'd stolen the whole thing. So there's a clear-cut difference between intellectual 'property' and physical property, and it's silly to apply rules that are written for one (the idea of theft) to the other in situations where they clearly don't apply.
So let's not allow words like "theif" and "steal" be dragged in to an argument about whether a particular form of copying is good, bad or indifferent. Let's call it copying - which it is - and then decide whether, and how, we allow it to happen, and what the results of it are.
Cruella
5th-July-2006, 01:58 PM
So let's not allow words like "theif" and "steal" be dragged in to an argument
:whistle:
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 02:00 PM
[calm mode engaged]
ok I've taken things out of context and blown things out of all proportion and probably picked things up the wrong way here.
I am no angel as I said previously. ESG rubbed me up the wrong way when he mentioned that I was not a fan of Free software/ GNU. I've created a LOT of free software and I did it out of fun and to spread the good will around. I put a lot of effort into my programming and when I developed something that I thought had a $$$ value I decided to put it up on ShareIT. Up until this point I was giving away free software apps similar (and in some ways superior) to other packages people were selling.
The reason i developed these packages in the first place was because I was living hand to mouth and couldn't afford the software so I wrote my own. I was charging a Pittance for my Shareware app. $5 IIRC, when other similar software packages were going for $50+
I had a cut down version available for free on my website but still people ripped off my one non freeware app. This came at a time when I was having difficulty putting food on the table. I got some sales but was never trying to become the next Bill Gates. I was selling my skill and my time and my effort .. not the random assortment of magnetic flux on a HDD platter !!
So I think you'll understand (or then again perhaps you wont) why I get so hot under the collar on this topic. They were not just Copying my files.. they were going out of their way to dissasemble and hack the protection code I put in.
I closed the site half out of spite and half because I was spending so much time and money trying to keep the hackers at bay I was no longer enjoying it nor could I afford it any more.
This was when I was a software engineer... with the LAUGHABLE annual salary of £8600 a year.. yeah before tax !
My work was unappreciated in the office, I was trying to use my skills to make a little more money and some people decided that they didn't want to pay me the money for them using the software I had written.
so Yes, I flew off the handle, yes I probably am a drama queen primadonna who should let it slip. Probably, so what. I had it tough.. is there a law against feeling bitter?
I'm now paid a good wage for what I do.. I'm still hard up but that's mroe to do with the size of the mortgage I have than anything else. But I'd never go back to writing my own shareware software. I've written that off as a mugs game. I still download and register shareware if I like it.. If I can't find a tool that does what I want I'll write my own (recently finished a little app to search my Zen touch and remove duplicate MP3s according to various search criteria, and update ID3 tags etc.. but it's staying on my HDD) I've been jaded with my own experience.
sorry if I lost the plot .. but you did wave the red rag infront of me.
Yliander
5th-July-2006, 02:03 PM
That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.Just because a piece of software can be duplicated easily once it has been created doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost
Software developers spend a lot of time & money on developing their software As do car manufacturers for new cars
The difference is that in when you buy a car you pay for the materials you receive as well as something towards the R&D costs and something towards the profit margin
With software you pay for the material you receive – which is rather less than in the car example, R&D and the profit margin.
According to your theory no-one should pay for music as it’s so easily duplicated…..
As to Intellectual property – given the value this has for companies can be immeasurable – some ideas are amazing shifts in perspective – and why should the person who made this shift not be able to claim it as their’s? we let Einstein have his theories..
To develop something that you are granted a patent for is no easy thing – I know this having seen my father going through the process – the upside is that when the company he worked for at the time unfairly dismissed him they still had to pay him patent useable hehehehehe
And that is my incoherent 2 pence worth on this topic
David Franklin
5th-July-2006, 02:06 PM
Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not. It seems to me that the law as quoted would explicitly deny that "borrowing" is theft (the "permanently deprive" bit). Clearly that quote alone does not accurately define what is theft. In which case I see no prima facie reason to say that quote is sufficient to decide whether illicit copying of copyright material is theft.
Ghod knows I don't often agree with bigdjiver, but I think he made a fairly compelling argument that ESG's quote of the law was insufficient, because it led to absurd conclusions in an area unrelated to copyright law. I think you had no justification to criticise him simply because the area was unrelated - if anything I think it strengthens the argument.
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 02:16 PM
Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not. Their intent becomes irrelevant...
Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
From the Theft Act (1968):
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."The politicians are right, when it suits you, wrong when it suits you. Copyright acts have been approved by Parliaments for centuries, with far more expert and thorough argument that we can give it. The theft of Intellectual property is covered by separate legislation because of the huge diversity of instances involved. By its nature intellectual property implies innovation, and it is difficult to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. By making it a civil matter the individuals involved can take their case to a court and have a judge decide.
Software downloads simply cannot deprive the owner from doing whatever they want with it, ...They might want to earn money from it. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of software pirates want to permanently deprive the author of due payment for their services. The proponents of this argument are saying that you can work for others if they want to pay you, but you work for me for nothing. Please explain why other people should pay if it is alright not to, and if it is alright for everybody not to why that does not imply that the generators of inttelectual propoerty should work for nothing.
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 02:23 PM
Just because a piece of software can be duplicated easily once it has been created doesn’t mean that there isn’t a costWhich is why I was talking explicitly about the marginal cost. You can look it up in Wikipedia if you can be bothered, but - undeniably - the marginal cost of production of software is to all intents and purposes, zero. The disparity betwen the cost model and the income model is a good indicator that the way we currently pay for software is quite simply, broken.
According to your theory no-one should pay for music as it’s so easily duplicated…..If I had a theory that no-one should pay for software, then I would have a corresponding theory that no-one should pay for music. As it happens I don't hold either to be the case.
As to Intellectual property – given the value this has for companies can be immeasurablePart of the attraction of intellectual property for business is as something they can put on the balance sheet to fool investors. If the ridiculous IP protections that they've had built into case law were weakened then their balance sheets would plummet. To me that stinks of snake-oil peddling, not sound principles of accounting.
some ideas are amazing shifts in perspective – and why should the person who made this shift not be able to claim it as their’s? we let Einstein have his theories..We do indeed credit him with them, but we don't deny the rest of the planet the opportunity to know of them, or make equal use of them just because he thought of them first.
but I think he made a fairly compelling argument that ESG's quote of the law was insufficient, because it led to absurd conclusions in an area unrelated to copyright lawOn the side point about borrowing the car - if you could convince the jury that for eight years, you had always intended to return the car you had borrowed, then ipso facto you wouldn't be guilty of theft. No argument about whether the law defines the offence right or wrong - that is how it's defined. On the wider topic, that proves exactly what I've been saying. Let's decouple how we name the act from whether we consider it right or wrong. And let's do that from a neutral starting point by *not* calling it theft.
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 02:27 PM
If I had a theory that no-one should pay for software, then I would have a corresponding theory that no-one should pay for music. As it happens I don't hold either to be the case.
thank heavens for that :) :clap:
bigdjiver
5th-July-2006, 02:41 PM
... And let's do that from a neutral starting point by *not* calling it theft.And what then to we call this wrong thing that involves people taking something that they have no legal right to?
ducasi
5th-July-2006, 02:59 PM
The issue of car-theft, and "borrowing" versus stealing is covered by laws which prohibit "taking and driving away".
If you "borrow" a car without permission but return it, you're not "permanently depriving" the owner, so it's not theft, but you'll still get done for it.
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 03:00 PM
And what then to we call this {snip: wrong} thing that involves people taking something that they have no legal right to?I think 'copying' covers the ground quite nicely. Now, how would you convince a visitor from another planet that it's morally wrong and out to be unlawful? Who is it harming, and is that harm made up for by other benefits?
El Salsero Gringo
5th-July-2006, 03:13 PM
Incidentally, I've just realised another huge hypocrisy in the Pigopolists attempts to hoodwink us into equating intellectual property and physical property by talking about copying being "theft": they've no compunction about turning things the other way around when it suits them.
If you 'buy' a piece of software, you haven't bought it at all; what you're paying for is simply a licence to use it. You certainly don't get any of the usual consumer rights that come with a purchase. It can have any number of faults, can fail to live up to it's purpose, can cause huge consequential damage and so. Try telling someone who buys a car that if the brakes fail and cause an accident that them manufacturer washes their hands of responsibility!
Beowulf
5th-July-2006, 03:18 PM
If you 'buy' a piece of software, you haven't bought it at all; what you're paying for is simply a licence to use it. You certainly don't get any of the usual consumer rights that come with a purchase!
:yeah:
Actually That's something a Agree with!! If I BUY the software then it should be MINE not just a licence to use it. it's the same reason I convert my DRM protected purchased WMA tracks into free to copy MP3 and CD's .. Not so I can share them around but so I can , if I wish, play them on any of my MP3 enabled devices without need for getting new DRM activations on devices.
I can also back them up on DVD should my PC crash (and being a windows box.. something it does with some frequency!!)
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 11:29 PM
They might want to earn money from it.
Whos stopping them?
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of software pirates want to permanently deprive the author of due payment for their services.
I would say the vast majority would not have paid for the software anyway - its a very small minority who are out to get anything and everything for free.
Dreadful Scathe
5th-July-2006, 11:32 PM
And what then to we call this wrong thing that involves people taking something that they have no legal right to?
Call it "bob" if you like , but its not theft :)
bigdjiver
6th-July-2006, 01:03 AM
... Who is it harming, and is that harm made up for by other benefits?When the contract programmer stole, (sorry, copied), my code and went to work for the client, who then reneged on the contract, I felt that I had lost £8,000. My business partner lost much more, especially as he sued and lost. Some on the forum think that because I still had the code, which was useless to anybody else, I had lost nothing.
In theory that harm to us was compensated by benefits to them. (In practise their project failed because they lost me.) That is the extreme example - 1 customer.
Whilst developing my machine software I visited some of our British customers. All of them said that there was software on the market to do most features already, and all but one gave me cracked copies of various packages to prove it. There was a network of "I'll give you a package that is not mine, if you will give me a package that is not yours." I had very good reason to believe that if our package was cracked we would sell very few. As I said before, it ended up with profits from my software keeping the company afloat, at least for a time. There were very few British companies selling CNC machines to the far East. In our case pirating, (sorry copying) would have harmed individuals and the British economy.
Your arguments about marginal cost are drivel. The marginal cost of the design of the Dyson cyclone design is zero. According to your logic Hoover would have done no harm by copying the first one. The marginal cost of many drugs is very low, after the costs of clinical trials have been met. Who would pay those costs if their competitors could copy and avoid them?
Ask your visitors from another planet if you can copy their technology, the marginal cost is zero.
Enough of this - I have realised that I have sigs disabled, and I now remember yours.
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 08:30 AM
The marginal cost of the design of the Dyson cyclone design is zero. According to your logic Hoover would have done no harm by copying the first one. The marginal cost of many drugs is very low, after the costs of clinical trials have been met. Who would pay those costs if their competitors could copy and avoid them?
Ask your visitors from another planet if you can copy their technology, the marginal cost is zero.
Enough of this - I have realised that I have sigs disabled, and I now remember yours.I don't have a signature.
You clearly don't understand the point about the marginal cost of software, so I'm going to explain it again.
The marginal cost of drugs is low - but not zero. When you buy a drug you buy a physical product. The formula for a drug is of no use because we don't each have our own drug manufacturing plant.
The marginal cost of the design of a dyson is zero - but Dyson don't sell the design, they sell you the physical product instead - whose marginal cost is *not* zero. And which is yours to dispose of as you please.
When you buy/licence software you aren't obtaining a physical product in any important sense. The marginal cost of software *is* zero - which makes the difference.
If someone writes a book then I can order it from my library - and at no cost to myself I can borrow it, read it, enjoy it and make use of the intellectual property contained in it. All for free. The author gets about a half-penny in public lending rights, a pretty derisory sum in view of the fact that it's virtually certain that I won't buy the book once I've read it. Why aren't these same people up in arms about that? Examine your prejudices about what's acceptable and what isn't, and then see how distorted this debate is.
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 08:34 AM
When the contract programmer stole, (sorry, copied), my code and went to work for the client, who then reneged on the contract, I felt that I had lost £8,000. My business partner lost much more, especially as he sued and lost. Some on the forum think that because I still had the code, which was useless to anybody else, I had lost nothing.
In theory that harm to us was compensated by benefits to them. (In practise their project failed because they lost me.) That is the extreme example - 1 customer.If anything, the more you tell about this whole sorry business, the more convinced I am that the whole Intellectual Property arena that we're involved is completely broken and needs to be rethought from scratch. All sorts of existing stiff penalties for breach of copyright, contract law and so on it clearly didn't help you did they? Time to do things different.
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 09:02 AM
So. We've established that bigdjiver and Beowulf1970 are both advocates of strong IP protection in law, and favour the software-as-product idea. Which is ironic, because they're the only people on this thread to have really suffered under this inane model. Clearly if their own experiences don't convince them that this concept is broken, nothing I or anyone can say in this thread is going to convince them.
Is anyone interested in discussing some better ways for for software engineers to earn money in return for their considerable talents and hard work?
Beowulf
6th-July-2006, 10:22 AM
Call it "bob" if you like , but its not theft :)
Starts a new Website..
Software Developers Against Bob !
PJH
6th-July-2006, 11:42 AM
So. We've established that bigdjiver and Beowulf1970 are both advocates of strong IP protection in law, and favour the software-as-product idea. Which is ironic, because they're the only people on this thread to have really suffered under this inane model. Clearly if their own experiences don't convince them that this concept is broken, nothing I or anyone can say in this thread is going to convince them.
Is anyone interested in discussing some better ways for for software engineers to earn money in return for their considerable talents and hard work?
Maybe also anyone who designs products and then finds the market is being flooded by cheap counterfeit copies made in China.
It is a shame if people stop producing products because they feel they don't get rewarded for their work. If someone hacked something I wrote maybe I'd be slightly pleased as it would say it was worth it, and maybe added to the productivity of the human race if more people are using it. Maybe it would motivate me to keep on releasing better versions, available from me, to get people to realise it is eaiser to buy it from me and get a bug free/better version.
ESG-what do you do for a living, so maybe someone could think of some example which would relate to affecting your living etc?
Dreadful Scathe
6th-July-2006, 12:54 PM
ESG-what do you do for a living, so maybe someone could think of some example which would relate to affecting your living etc?
What he does for a living is hardly relevant to what we discuss in this thread. Unless you want to create analogies to further confuse the issue and lead us round in circles :)
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 01:17 PM
ESG-what do you do for a living, so maybe someone could think of some example which would relate to affecting your living etc?I do a variety of things, none of which lends involves IP at the moment, which is just as well because I've never felt that that "How would you feel if you..." was a good method of argument.
When letters patent were created (17 century, wasn't it?) it was society's way (the monarchy's way, at that time) of encouraging both innovation and the *sharing* of intelectual property by granting a stricly limited monopoly for the exploitation of that knowledge.
But reading back through this thread I detect a hint (ok, more than a hint) of "I work hard and therefore society owes me a living." Well, sorry, buddy, but society doesn't owe anybody any such thing - and there's nothing personal or judgemental about that. I can create as much intellectual property as I like - I take photos, I write software, I could write songs or books - but unless I can exploit them commercially, I won't earn a penny from them.
So we invent this concept of copyright - invent, mind you - it didn't fall out of the sky - to assist people to benefit from the intangible results of their endeavour. And we parcel it up with all sorts of rules, laws, cultural mores, punishments for breaking those rules and so on. Then we riddle those rules with exceptions, like holes in a swiss cheese: fair use, private study, parody, public lending rights for instance.
But we have to remember that these are rules that we created. The vast quantities of money flowing into the software industry flow only because of those rules and laws. And those rules and laws are now creaking at the seams, ready to burst, even, because they are completely out of alignment with the economics of intellectual property in the 21st century. The rules don't fit. Evidence? You've got it here on this thread: first hand accounts of how despite best efforts, software gets cracked, shared and copied. There are plenty of laws against it - plenty of federations, and lawyers dedicated to preventing it - but do they make a ha'porth of difference? No.
So, uncomfortable as it might be to some - particularly those already earning, or trying to earn a living by exploiting the existing rules - it seems entirely appropriate to ask if there isn't a different and better way. There was no absolute rule that said that men with flags had to walk in front of the motor-car so they wouldn't frighten the horses. And the blacksmith trade would have been quite right to feel threatened by this new invention. "I'm a blacksmith - I work bloody hard, and this mechanical monster is going to prevent me from earning a living - and that's wrong" - I can hear the arguments now.
Finally (because this is turning in to a bit of an essay) don't let anyone pretend that changing the rules will reduce the quantity of innovation and invention. I'm sure there's much we could do to encourage new software authors, new composers and new authors with a bit of thought.
I don't expect this thread is going to change the world, but it is an interesting subject to talk about. Or at least it would be if we could keep our toys inside the pram, avoid strops and temper tantrums, and keep clear of anonymous negative rep. Anyone up for that challenge?
Beowulf
6th-July-2006, 01:21 PM
So. We've established that bigdjiver and Beowulf1970 are both advocates of strong IP protection in law, and favour the software-as-product idea
Well yes and no.. Yes I think my software is a product. you disagree So we can agree to disagree on that point.
I don't however think that all software should be licenced and tied up in red tape. I have done a lot of freeware open source coding. I've learnt a lot from others open source coding and I don't mind if someone see's my software and thinks to themselfs "I can make that better" I'm always learning.
Even if I've not released the source code.. if they take my ideas and develop them from scratch then I'm fine with that too. I mean, I've done it when I couldn't find an affordable program I liked, I'd look at a commercial app, see how it worked (without dissasembly of the code just looking at its functionallity) and then set about writing my own version.
Now I know that is really no different from me ripping off my software and removing any copy protection I may have added. the author of that software has lost potential income from me (I wrote my own software) and anyoen else who downloads my own software .. It may be better .. it may be worse, but either way he's not getting a POTENTIAL sale because I've done this.
What i am against is people who use / abuse my work with little or no effort on their behalf. in the example above I'm writting a computer application from scratch using my skills and my time. in the case of hackers/crackers they are mearly stripping off any software protection I may have added to use my software without limitation.
I would LOVE more software to be free / open source. but programmers need to earn a living SOMEHOW. if they cannot do this by selling their skills then I , for one, don't know a solution.
I don't expect this thread is going to change the world, but it is an interesting subject to talk about. Or at least it would be if we could keep our toys inside the pram, avoid strops and temper tantrums, and keep clear of anonymous negative rep. Anyone up for that challenge?
ok I got heated earlier.. guilty as charged. And rest assured I've never neg repped anyone anonymous or otherwise.. I'd rather say I Like someone than go around saying I didn't. :cheers:
ducasi
6th-July-2006, 01:29 PM
What i am against is people who use / abuse my work with little or no effort on their behalf. in the example above I'm writting a computer application from scratch using my skills and my time. in the case of hackers/crackers they are mearly stripping off any software protection I may have added to use my software without limitation. They're using their skills and their time. And then sharing the fruits of their efforts. Don't you think they deserve some recompense? :wink:
Beowulf
6th-July-2006, 01:36 PM
They're using their skills and their time. And then sharing the fruits of their efforts. Don't you think they deserve some recompense? :wink:
hahaha watch it you.. :wink: where's my neg rep button :rofl: :clap:
Dreadful Scathe
6th-July-2006, 01:47 PM
if they take my ideas and develop them from scratch then I'm fine with that too. I mean, I've done it when I couldn't find an affordable program I liked, I'd look at a commercial app, see how it worked (without dissasembly of the code just looking at its functionallity) and then set about writing my own version.
That would be "reverse engineering" and in most cases, totally against the End User Licence of the software, and therfore "Piracy"*. Which is ironic really, as the modern PC industry would not have started when it did if it had not been for the reverse engineering of the first IBM PC . That started off the compatibles market that we have had ever since.
* In fact some companies, microsoft in particular, see buying legal software from abroad and selling it over here as "Piracy" too. They do love to be in control :)
, but either way he's not getting a POTENTIAL sale because I've done this.
What i am against is people who use / abuse my work with little or no effort on their behalf. in the example above I'm writting a computer application from scratch using my skills and my time. in the case of hackers/crackers they are mearly stripping off any software protection I may have added to use my software without limitation.
Is that really any different to reverse engineering? Do you judge it by the amount of effort involved? If they take 4 weeks to crack your software but you take only 3 to implement the look and feel and all practical features of someone elses software; are you still on a moral higher ground? Difficult one to call really.
I would LOVE more software to be free / open source. but programmers need to earn a living SOMEHOW. if they cannot do this by selling their skills then I , for one, don't know a solution.
It really is just down to - who wants what I have to sell and how much would they pay for it. If you get that wrong theres litle point in being bitter about it - that way leads to stupid laws and the later realisation that what you had was, in the first place, crap.
I would suggest that a company like Microsoft who have cornered the home PC OS market with some very dubious practices, have encouraged piracy by charging a premium for their software now that they know its pretty much NEEDED by a lot of people to do what they want to do with their computers.
At least with Linux and Mac OS's there are valid options for the future now.
As ESG said society doesnt owe anyone anything, so if a piece of software is heavily pirated and doesnt sell much -perhaps its simply not worth the money and/or is just not good/unique enough - thats certainly worth considering.
Popular stuff, marketed and priced well SELLS - there are plenty figures to support that, and plenty rich people to attest to it. Take the Grand Theft Auto games; heavily pirated by people who couldnt afford it, heavily sold to people who could - profitable for Rockstar Games and their distributor - hell yes!
ok I got heated earlier.. guilty as charged. And rest assured I've never neg repped anyone anonymous or otherwise.. I'd rather say I Like someone than go around saying I didn't. :cheers:
Neg rep is the domain of cowards who cant speak their mind in public ;)
It'll be so funny if I get neg repped for that comment ;)
Beowulf
6th-July-2006, 01:57 PM
you make some fair points.. Yes I agree that looking at a program and developing my own version is reverse engineering. It's a very gray area. I agree with you that the software industry would never have worked without it.
I mean we'd have ONE wordprocessing app, ONE spreadsheet, ONE Web browser etc.. I like to think that variety is good.. that being able to choose a feature set you like is good.
I see where you're coming from. From one perspective I'm just as bad as the guy who hacks programs. from another I'd writing code and and my code is being violated.
IMHO (only in my opinion) I still cannot get over the idea that if I deliberately sit down and break into a safe (metaphorically speaking) to access codes I can use to do X , Y or Z without paying for those codes then that's BAD(tm) however someone who looks at X, Y and Z and writes A, B and C that look and function KINDA like (but not an exact copy of) X,Y and Z then that's GOOD(tm) or at very least OK(tm)
It's a gray gray area. and you and I may never see eye to eye on this subject.. but I'll still buy you a beer at the next BFG ;)
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 02:07 PM
Here's an interesting example: I bought a widget from a company, basically a microcontroller attached to a ethernet port with a couple of other bits and pieces. It came with some software to achieve a particular task.
The company has a support site - full of requests from end-users to incorporate various functions into the next release of the (proprietary) software. These end users were technically competent, most of them incorporating this product as part of their own low-volume designs, or using it as a filler between two different industrial products.
I suggested that they should open-source the software so that other people could add features and extend it.
The reply was "No - we think the hardware is too easy to copy, and people will copy the software on to their own hardware and we'll lose sales."
My opinion was that - since the hardware was a very resonable price, about £30 - there was no reason for anyone to bother to copy it. In small quantities making up circuit-boards is expensive. (In large quantities there was no great impediment to rewriting the software from scratch, if anyone wanted to, on their own hardware.) Secondly if they allowed people to develop the software in new directions they would increase the demand for the hardware because new applications would be opened up that the company didn't have time to write the software for themselves.
I thought they were losing out by not looking at different ways of taking their skill set to market.
Beowulf
6th-July-2006, 02:24 PM
good point ESG.
I have to say that copying software is a lot easier than copying hardware (well with my limited soldering and electronic skills it is) but I see where you're coming from.
I've had cases of hardware/ software combos being thrown in a drawer because the company went bust. The hardware still works but only with OS X and Plugin Y etc etc. in that case Open sourcing the software would be ideal. but there is this mentality of distrust (I know i'm guilty of spreading it.. sorry for that!) among developers.
I still write software and still "reverse engineer" tools (if you read DS's post). but I no longer give out my software either for free or for financial gain. and it's all down to distrust. I mean in theory if I gave my software away free Open source, then I shouldn't mind what people do with it..except now in the back of my mind is the niggling doubt that some one might take my code, make it look pretty and then sell it on.. (probably just paranoia.. I'm a good programmer but I'm not UBER !! ;) ) I don't know.. I still have my Software website domain perhaps I should put up some source on it again.. ;)
David Franklin
6th-July-2006, 02:33 PM
As ESG said society doesnt owe anyone anything, so if a piece of software is heavily pirated and doesnt sell much -perhaps its simply not worth the money and/or is just not good/unique enough - thats certainly worth considering. Society doesn't owe anyone anything, so if a store is heavily shoplifted and doesn't sell much - perhaps its simply not worth the money and/or is just not good/unique enough - thats certainly worth considering. :devil:
azande
6th-July-2006, 02:34 PM
in the back of my mind is the niggling doubt that some one might take my code, make it look pretty and then sell it on.. (probably just paranoia.. I'm a good programmer but I'm not UBER !! ;) )
I thought the GPL would prevent this...
El Salsero Gringo
6th-July-2006, 02:38 PM
Society doesn't owe anyone anything, so if a store is heavily shoplifted and doesn't sell much - perhaps its simply not worth the money and/or is just not good/unique enough - thats certainly worth considering. :devil:True - that's what happened to my shop - not enough sales (not much shoplifting though) so I closed it.
I thought the GPL would prevent this...No, it explicitly allows that. But it does stop them from preventing anyone else from (freely) obtaining their code and modifying yet further - for sale or to give away.
Dreadful Scathe
6th-July-2006, 02:52 PM
Society doesn't owe anyone anything, so if a store is heavily shoplifted and doesn't sell much - perhaps its simply not worth the money and/or is just not good/unique enough - thats certainly worth considering. :devil:
indeed it is. I would doubt something not very useful would be shoplifted much though - if it is good but very overpriced than shoplifting may well be high but again, shoplifters are not the sort of people who would have bought it anyway.
However, physcial products are a whole different thing to non-physical like downloads - here you get shoplifters whose purpose might purely be to sell it on.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.