" Piracy "

[mukund_nadkarni]

Legally, you own it in the same way.

Yes, but is that legal status correct. Is digital data the same as a car or a house? Can a house or car be copied in the same way that digital data can be? Does copying digital data result in physical loss of data? If anything the 'owner' might loose, is the earning potential of that he 'owns'. Regrettable, but not illegal. Then again, the companies and corporations at the fore front of fighting piracy, how much are they losing, if anything?

Anyways a cartoon I came across at the TPB homepage. Sums it up nicely.

 

[Themer]

Of course the current status that piracy is illegal is right. A company has made something and you buy for the rights to use it, don't see how you can argue about whether this is right or not.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

A company has made something and you buy for the rights to use it, don't see how you can argue about whether this is right or not.

Well, what you are saying is, if I am interpreting it correctly, that if I have some article to sell that I'm very much allowed to sell it. Which is of course right. But imagine if it were possible for you to have the same thing I have made without ever taking that thing from me. Are you a thief to have it then? The law says so. Of course I disagree!

mukund_nadkarni added 5 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Just imagine, all those people in poor countries who die because medicines are expensive were to be able to magically copy all the medicines they need. The pharma companies will be up in arms over the loss of revenue. But does this make the people thieves? Don't think so.

This example might not be directly related to music and software piracy, but the logic is similar.

 

[Themer]

Well, what you are saying is, if I am interpreting it correctly, that if I have some article to sell that I'm very much allowed to sell it. Which is of course right. But imagine if it were possible for you to have the same thing I have made without ever taking that thing from me. Are you a thief to have it then? The law says so. Of course I disagree!

If you wrote that article and were selling it then I would see it as illegal for me to say copy it then give it to someone else as this is preventing you from getting the money for a product that you made and I copied without your permisson.

I see the same for Software if you wrote a program and had it copyrighted then I was to copy it onto another disk and give it to someone, or send it over the internet without your permisson in my eyes that is stealing something from you without buying the persmisson to own it.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

If you wrote that article and were selling it then I would see it as illegal for me to say copy it then give it to someone else as this is preventing you from getting the money for a product that you made and I copied without your permisson.

I see the same for Software if you wrote a program and had it copyrighted then I was to copy it onto another disk and give it to someone, or send it over the internet without your permisson in my eyes that is stealing something from you without buying the persmisson to own it.

Well, I'm very much making an assumption here that by 'piracy' one means sending copies of something that has been bought at least once. As far as I know that is the way it works. Also, the act of sending/copying something I have, without me either sharing it with you or selling it to you is not possible as yet. If it were, even then, it wouldn't count as stealing/cheating, unless it was something private or fraudulent or something you expect to claim as your work when it is mine. As for sharing, I think it's not entirely unfair to expect the person you share your article with to ask for your permission before he share's it with others. But if I 'sell' it to you, I'm afraid you should be free to do as you please with it. Making copies thereof need not require permission. When you say " buying the persmisson to own it", does it not include the permission to copy? It would if I were buying something. I do think that it is very much a fundamental right of mine to be able to copy and share anything I buy. And that is the way piracy works, doesn't it? Some one buys a copy, then shares it with others. Now thanks to present day technology/softwares that others basically means the whole world! That's another reason why the vodka analogy doesn't work. When you buy vodka, do you share it with others? You don't have to, but you are certainly free to do so.

 

[Sureshot]

Well, what you are saying is, if I am interpreting it correctly, that if I have some article to sell that I'm very much allowed to sell it. Which is of course right. But imagine if it were possible for you to have the same thing I have made without ever taking that thing from me. Are you a thief to have it then? The law says so. Of course I disagree!

mukund_nadkarni added 5 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Just imagine, all those people in poor countries who die because medicines are expensive were to be able to magically copy all the medicines they need. The pharma companies will be up in arms over the loss of revenue. But does this make the people thieves? Don't think so.

This example might not be directly related to music and software piracy, but the logic is similar.

1) Not necessarily, if he had made the same thing and could prove he made it without knowledge of your product, he wouldn't be in violation of copyright (Had you copyrighted your product in the first place). All copyright protects the method, rather than the finished product iirc.

I think a lot of people grossly underestimate how much companies lose. From

2) Yes, it still makes them thieves. But you can't compare a circumstance like that to the theft of digital data. It's an awful comparison as you are comparing the lives of people to the earning potential of others. You just can't do that. Irrelevant to the topic.

The Cost of Movie Piracy to the U.S | TorrentFreak

Study: Software piracy costs $34 billion - CNET News

May be interested.

That said, figures only mean so much. With or without those figures, I don't believe piracy can ever be vindicated.

 

[sohum]

I really don't know how to interpret those figures, to be honest. By reporting "losses due to piracy", companies are assuming that people would buy their products in a perfect world with no piracy. This is grossly incorrect because the whole reason the black market of piracy exists in the first place is because the supply doesn't match the demand. In a world where piracy was perfectly prevented, those copies of software/movies/music that resulted in a "loss" would, for the most part, not even be in the revenue because purchasers would follow the demand curve and probably go open-source.

Sureshot, you say piracy can never be vindicated. As a test, let's say that "fair use" laws were expanded to allow people to share music with their friends in a digital format. That would make music piracy of one kind (sharing ripped discs online) legal. Would you consider that to be a gross failure of the legal system? I am basically wondering if your views are shaped by or shaped independent of the actual laws.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

1) Not necessarily, if he had made the same thing and could prove he made it without knowledge of your product, he wouldn't be in violation of copyright (Had you copyrighted your product in the first place). All copyright protects the method, rather than the finished product iirc.

I think a lot of people grossly underestimate how much companies lose. From

2) Yes, it still makes them thieves. But you can't compare a circumstance like that to the theft of digital data. It's an awful comparison as you are comparing the lives of people to the earning potential of others. You just can't do that. Irrelevant to the topic.

The Cost of Movie Piracy to the U.S | TorrentFreak

Study: Software piracy costs $34 billion - CNET News

May be interested.

That said, figures only mean so much. With or without those figures, I don't believe piracy can ever be vindicated.

As regards point 1, that is a different situation on it's own, not really related to piracy.

As regards point 2, well the point is about freedom of choice. If the people had a choice of getting those medicines by copying, then in my book they won't be thieves, the laws of the day and popular opinion not withstanding. As I had mentioned myself in the post, you really can't take that example as it is and compare it to piracy.

As for the figures, as Sohum mentions, those figures take into account a share of the market that in all probability wouldn't exist in the first place if there were no piracy. They are merely calculating the amount of piracy and quoting that as their losses, which is, in my humble opinion, absolute bollocks!

Would you consider that to be a gross failure of the legal system? I am basically wondering if your views are shaped by or shaped independent of the actual laws

If it is law that one must rely on making a judgment as to whether something is right or wrong, then I guess a fundamental requirement to that would be that the laws never change. Quite plainly that is not so. Over the past century there have been many things that were considered illegal but are legal now. A lot of what was 'wrong' and illegal earlier is wrong no more. Many of those that were pilloried for their then 'illegal' and 'incorrect' opinions and conduct do indeed stand vindicated today.

EDIT:

Thought I'll post this comment from the CNET link above.

Where did they get these numbers? I have a hard time believing that if all piracy ended tomorrow that suddenly software makers would earn $34 BILLION more dollars.

Would they?

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

I was looking at this article just now -

DailyTech - EU to Require Microsoft to Offer Competitors' Browsers With WIndows

And tbh, I now feel for MS, and see how they have to overprice their softwares to some extent. I haven't seen ONE such big piece of software which retains such huge compatibility with all sorts of PC's, and not seen ONE big software which supports limitless third party software. YET, EU fines MS saying that "It monoplises the market".

Tell me, is being successful, doing monoply? No, I don't think so. If they want to bundle a browser with their Windows to make it a complete software, then?

I mean, I feel so enraged, and see how these foolish fines impose overpricing sometimes.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't include their browser in Windows or include other browsers in it too. Haven't they put in work to create Windows in the first place? Has Opera or Firefox created their own OS? So I feel MS is doing the right thing. And why hasn't Apple been fined too?

 

[Spiritinthesky]

We have a guy come in our pub selling all the latest films on DVD, well before they hit the shops. I've bought one, I would like to add.

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

Exactly, this is what makes me Angry. Apple are far more guilty of this - heck they don't even allow third party apps for iPhone (Until recently, and even now under strict restrictions) even though the iPhone has 70% market share of smartphones!

Happens the same with Mac. Why won't they fine Apple because of bundling Safari with it?

And why is IT an offence anyways. If MS want to complete their software suite, they may do so, and make it better. Does that mean I fine FireFox for having built in downloads and doing monoply when Internet Download Manager exists?

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

I'm not sure that the Microsoft case is that straightforward. Surely no court will impose such strict penalties unless they were justified. As for Apple, well it's not really a monopoly, maybe some areas, but surely not in the same way as Microsoft. Also I don't think the ruling against Microsoft is a ruling against monopolies as such. Surely there is an offence committed here. Not sure about the details of the case, but I find it highly unlikely that EU courts imposed fines on Microsoft for nothing.

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

Well they fined them around $2.4bn last time for "not offering free support to other developers to make software for windows". Although I don't find this ruling too faulty, free may be going a bit too far. Would Symbian give free support to third party developers for their OS? Would Apple give free support for third parties to develop apps for Mac / iPhone?

But the current ruling, i.e fining them for bundling IE with Windows is completely rubbish. IE is not only a product, its an important component of Windows, on whose rendering engine many third party apps rely to save the mess from every software making one. For example, it would be stupid for Norton to make Gamespy its own rendering engine just to render pages inside their software - they use IE for that. Even Windows update uses IE.

Moreover, not bundling IE and bundling around 5 different browsers with Windows is only going to cause more confusion and problems for the end consumer. Atm its as easy as installing Windows and going with IE for a first hand internet experience, out of the box.

 

[Sureshot]

I really don't know how to interpret those figures, to be honest. By reporting "losses due to piracy", companies are assuming that people would buy their products in a perfect world with no piracy. This is grossly incorrect because the whole reason the black market of piracy exists in the first place is because the supply doesn't match the demand. In a world where piracy was perfectly prevented, those copies of software/movies/music that resulted in a "loss" would, for the most part, not even be in the revenue because purchasers would follow the demand curve and probably go open-source.

Sureshot, you say piracy can never be vindicated. As a test, let's say that "fair use" laws were expanded to allow people to share music with their friends in a digital format. That would make music piracy of one kind (sharing ripped discs online) legal. Would you consider that to be a gross failure of the legal system? I am basically wondering if your views are shaped by or shaped independent of the actual laws.

My views are on people getting an item without paying for it and without the consent of the owner of that item.

I'd say my views are shaped independent of the actual laws, but using them at the same time, if that makes sense. If the fair use laws were to be expanded to legally allow sharing of ripped discs online, I think it would be detrimental to the creators of that music (Personally, I could never say, "I love this band, yet I won't pay for their music."), so yes I'd consider it a failure of the legal system as product protection has to be in place.

As for those figures, you are both right, they are tosh and impossible to decipher the accuracy of, bit pointless of me posting them. Oh well.

As regards point 2, well the point is about freedom of choice. If the people had a choice of getting those medicines by copying, then in my book they won't be thieves, the laws of the day and popular opinion not withstanding. As I had mentioned myself in the post, you really can't take that example as it is and compare it to piracy.

Not to sound aggressive, but why use the example, then?

So you think people have a freedom of choice as to whether they pay for a Game or Album or not?

My views withstanding, I fully accept that the music and gaming industry is changing rapidly as to how it is paid for and used. It's going digital whether people like it or not.