Topic: Piracy - page 3. (Read 6647 times)

I try to make games.

I agree with copyright laws... To some extent.



Someone asked here: Why musicians are "entitled" to be musicians and not have a crap job?

Well, copyright was invented, to solve this, in fact, the first copyright law was a text that stated on it that it was a contract:

Artist and scientist would work full time as artist and scientist, thus making more work for society.

Society would pay that people back.



So, I want to make games... but right now, noone want to pay me for that, so I have another job, and it is so time consuming that I stopped making games. Who loses? Well, everyone. Me, that make no games, and players, that have none of my games to play.

Copyright was SUPPOSED to be a win-win thing, unfortunately, corporations (always them...) screwed things up, specially by making the copyright be author life + lots of time.

Tell me, will Disney (the guy, not the company) create more stuff with the current copyright law? Well... NO, HE IS DEAD.

Or, will Tolkien write more? NO, HE IS FUCKING DEAD.


DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT CREATE.

So, WHY THE HELL COPYRIGHT LASTS WELL AFTER THEY DIE?



That is to start.



So, I think copyright has a good essence, but a really evil implementation. (also the same goes for other IP laws, like patents... software patenting, seriously? Or trademark... with trademark trolls that trademark a common word and whatnot... Although the trademark law is the less broken of those laws, and work fairly well).

Really what we need is some way for common people to compensate artists easily instead of relying on lawyers and middlemen. Like if artists could include a tiny address within the song metadata, and people could send a payment to that address with no involvement from a record company, the credit card companies, or the banks. 

Whenever one of my favorite artists releases an album for tips, I always pay. I just don't want insane prices, DRM, and to pay executives to tell us how damaging piracy is. If I could just use an app to donate proportionately to who I listen to, all the better. People now consume art so constantly, from anywhere, and there are so many more people, that this might even work better for artists than making the illegal version superior and treating us like garbage.

Does anyone currently offer legal (in the USA) donation-based music and accept Bitcoin? We could actually help solve this problem.

I know a lot of artists who draw really well, and put their stuff up online for free. They then take comision requests that they charge money for which they use to live off of. The free art is an advertisement; a demonstration of their skill. The custom job is what they get paid for.  Musicians can, and often do, get paid the same way. They give their music out for free to advertise their skill, a radio station can "hire" their skill if it's good enough, then the radio station pays them to keep producing music while advertising supports them playing it to everyone else for free. Likewise, I keep hearing that big name musicians make mst of their money from actually doing work at concerts as opposed to CD sales.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

Yeah, that's what we're implying.

Read the thread.

Here you fail to understand how FOSS software works. It is still under copyright. In fact, in many jurisdictions, copyright is automatic and the author is not able to renounce the copyright. In order to grant more freedoms than is traditionsally available under copyright law, the author releases the work under a license giving additional permission. One of the simplests licenses is the WTFPL.

One important thing to understand about permissive licenses is that if you disregard the license (for whatever reason), copyright law still applies with exemptions such "fair use" in the united states or "fair dealing" in commonwealth countries. IMO, the default copyright license still applies for proprietary software as well, even (especially) if you disregard the EULA. Since FOSS lincenses rely on copyright law, It is possible to pirate FOSS software. Typically, that involves distributing derivative works without releasing the source code.

On thing to watch out for is that some EULAs appear to be patent, rather than copyright licenses. One example of this is the Windows 7 EULA. It claims you agree to the license "by using the computer." Copyright laws  does not have this power, but stronger  patent law does. For example independent development is not a defence in patent disputes unless you can prove prior-art. Even if you can prove prior art, you are still liable for damages since granted patents enjoy a presumption of validity. For sufficiently complex software, it is probably trivial to get it to perform some kind of patented series of steps during its operation. In fact software patents are getting so ubiquitous, it is hard to write software avoiding them. To be safe, you would have to restrict yourself to 20 year old techniques.

The "would you copy a car" will be come a big issue in the comming century. The arguments for and against on both sides are exactly the same as for other things under copyright/patents/trademarks/integrated circuit topologies/ or database rights. Schlock Mercenary explains the end-game.

Back to the point:
People are social creatures. It is not enough to use some random peice of software, or watch some unknown movie. Due to network effects, we are generally expected to all use the same (proprietary) software, watch some portion of pop-culture, have a familiarity with the bible since it is referenced so often by other works, etc.

Copyright expires for a reason. As do patents. Trademarks don't expire because they exist for a different purpose: to prevent confusion in the marketplace.

I was serious when I said that ISP restrictions on copying restrict my ability to copy even if I have permission from the copyright holder. If you use certain protocols like bittorrent, you are presumed to be infringing copyright, despite the substantial non-infringing uses. When the ISP imposes bandwidth caps to get you to buy their "tripple play" (Internet, TV, Phone) bundle, it restricts my ability to author alternate Gnu/Lunix distros or participate in the Open Street Map project. Most residential ISPs restrict servers; meaning they are only selling you half an Internet connection (the IP protocol is inherently Peer to Peer). When I was shopping for a webhost, I was dismayed to learn that many of them are even more restrictive than ISPs (often exerting editorial control over your site).

Edit: Added Schlock Mercenary link, other minor corrections.

Okay, I get your argument now:  because you haven't found a way to get compensation for doing the things you love, you've gained the right to take from those who have. 

this times a million.

tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

this claim assumes people should have a right to make money from doing what they love instead of working 9-5 in a job they hate just like the rest of us. what makes musicians so special that they are exempt from the rat race?

i love romantic dinners and long walks on the beach. should i quit my job and start whinging about payment for it?

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

How does the cost of a blank CD benefit the musicians that get a 'tax' from it ?......ARE YOU KIDDING ?

+1 bitlane

lol @RandyFolds pirates indeed

How does the cost of ISP benefit creator of the Blueray though ?

you ow me nothing, you owe us a good laugh and a thread title change into something that doesn't put a "patch" on all of us arrr

do I owe you anything? your self-entitlement doesn't know borders, does it? =)

Perhaps it's time for our ISPs to dish out a few $$ back to the Establishment...similar to the Blank CD Tax ? (without raising our already high prices in the process.....lol)

Piracy, although free in concept, can in fact cost quite a bit to the person benefitting from it.

I personally pay about $150/month for a 100Mbit Unlimited Bandwidth/Unmonitored Internet Account, so even though it affords me the luxury of a few 1080p Bluray Rips per day......how are they FREE in the end ?

man, you don't get it do you...
who paid your schooling ? we all did, but you know that already...
what did you, supposedly, learn in your whole life ? a big part of all human knowledge, you obviously did not...
what you give us in return ? your intellectual "creations" based on our previous knowledge...
see where I'm getting at ?  

you can't build an "industry" on that and even try monetize the communications channel, discs, tape, mp3, whatever