And while hacker-types and pirate-types are definitely not coterminous categories, piracy and hacking are closely connected. The Observant Commuter drew our attention to this several posts back.
Which brings us to the question of copyright.
Books, music, movies, software, drugs--all these can be and are copyrighted.
Does copyright undermine or increase creativity? Does pirated software infringe on property rights? And if so, how so? Does the blame lie with the person who uploaded a file to a torrent site, the person who downloads and benefits from it, or both--and why? Is copyright defensible in theory, but is the 21st century way of doing copyright a step too far? What do you think? Please create a comment on this post, no later than 12/6 at 1:00 PM (AKA Captain Seafoam Green's breakfast hour).
Some things to think with:
A theoretically-sophisticated argument that copyright is not justifiable in its current form:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/morallyjustified.pdf
Two simpler perspectives on intellectual property:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/InsightMag_com_symp_printable.htm
About piratebay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay
A movie (one hour long)
Seafoam and I have similar breakfast hours :)
ReplyDeleteI'm of mixed mind on this. Piracy robs SOME people of hard earned living money. Yet most piracy seems to be of products that are vastly popular and from sources that are quite money to begin with. That doesn't make it "right" but it minimizes damage done. Piracy is, imho, wrong at it's base point.
However, companies regularly put out rather shitty products, or incompatable ones. I've tried products that did not have demos available before via torrent, and if it holds up for quality (or just works without glitches in my particular system), I buy it. This applies, for me, to trying software, video games and music. In the case of music, I find that the music industry regularly pushes complete crap on the market. I listen, if it sucks, it gets deleted and not purchased. Artists I like I purchase to support.
This makes me a grey-area person. Yes, I might even say I steal those items. Yet my actions result in purchases that might not have happened otherwise. Poor products do not get purchased. I don't keep them either, for obvious reasons.
I also think that "protecting" copyright goes WAY too far sometimes. Youtube has had videos that show performances of song and dance, which either has the music muted, or was entirely removed due to overzealous copyright infringement enforcement. That's just to the point of ridiculousness. Persecuting people for minor downloads such as a movie with OUTRAGEOUS fines is also just plain old assh*lery.
Then there is DRM. I buy a game, even if I own 20 different computers, I feel it is wrong to be limited to installing 2-3 times. It's MINE. So I get around that in theory by downloading or hacking it to be DRM free, and use that iso. Let's say I download it, so, it is pirated. I own the actual game. Is my action a crime? I use a PS3 simulator on my computer and download and iso of a game I own. Is that piracy, especially if that particular game has no limiting DRM? This can be argued to be "fair use". Copying itself is not the crime, or we wouldn't have DVRs and photocopiers. Fair Use!
Then there is asinine things like this, in 2001 - http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-939333.html?tag=fd_top
the RIAA was trying to involve itself in "hijacking a terrorism bill" because it would limit tactics they planned to use to "get back" at pirate, to wit -
they were planning to "hack back" -
"These tactics include:
• interdiction, in which a copyright owner floods a file swapper with false requests so that downloads can't get through;
• redirection, in which a file swapper might be pointed to a site that doesn't actually have the files they're looking for;
• and spoofing, in which a corrupt or otherwise undesirable file masquerades as a song, movie or other file that people are seeking.
Use of some of these tactics might be deemed illegal today under common law, state statutes, or the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Berman said.
File-swapping companies criticized the proposed legislation, saying it opened the door for copyright holders to launch "cyber warfare" on consumers."
I think copyright is pretty straightforward word and it should be respected based on its content. We sometimes forget that the word copyright is a legal concept that protects the original creator of his/her work.
ReplyDeletePirated software not only infringes on property rights, it's also a serious problem. For example, piracy may contain dangerous code as in hidden malicious viruses that could cause considerable damage not only to a personal computer, but in a corporate network as well.
Those who knowingly upload and download copyright material, should be held responsible. The way I see it, it is the identical comparison in receiving stolen property. This is why I am a big fan of OpenSource or freeware material because it grants users the right to use it, study it, change it and improve its design through the availability of its source code.
Let's not forget that torrent sites, are extremely risky and there is no guarantee that you will receive a virus-free download.
Copyright protects those who work so hard to finish their Master's thesis paper of 100+ pages. Copyright protects the small business programing companies who only wish to compete against the big corporations, copyright is your friend. Without copyright protection, we might as well claim work of others or create viruses within pirated software and infect the innocent consumer..YOU!
Copyright can be a positive thing, BUT:
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that a number of measures that allegedly exist to prevent piracy actually encourage it (SecuROM DRM for example; I own a game that uses it and after losing one optical drive to the scheme was 'forced' to find a crack that would allow my legit copies to work).
Consider Sony's disastrous attempt at copy-protection for their music CDs...
In its basic form, copyright is a good thing as it protects specific inventions and ideas. However, we have companies going after the fair-use and parody provisions of the law and basically saying "anything that even remotely resembles our widget/etc is infringement!"
I don't see much wrong with torrenting a DRM workaround for a game which I purchased. I own the game and have a reasonable expectation of it NOT destroying my system(either by disabling hardware or creating unpluggable security holes).
ReplyDeleteI have a USB dongle that lets me rip Nintendo DS game saves to my computer so I'm able to restore them in case the original save file gets corrupted (the save file is keyed in a way that it must be written back to the exact same cartridge). Is that piracy? Some might say yes because there are DS emulators (although you still need the game and a system to create the save file in the first place), but there are also plenty of people who use it strictly as a legal backup method.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, Captain Seafoam Green doesn't eat breakfast just like General Angry Red, eating breakfast shows weakness.
ReplyDeleteCopyrights, to be honest, there might actually be less piracy in the PC gaming industry (or at least increased sales) if they removed DRM crap like SecureRom, limited installs and diskchecks. (to add onto what Loudmouth/Observant said). There is a whole movement against games with DRM crap and there are plenty of games I refuse to buy if they have Securom (for Limited installs the game needs to be super awesome and disk checks I don't really care too much about)
Fighting a problem that will be impossible to defeat will only make it stronger. The harder they try the more people fight it and the more people will avoid buying their DRM crap. Hell some people will just crack the game because they wanted to.
I used to cd crack many of my own games, just because I hated a disk check. Now that breaks the EULA (Not 100% sure but its somewhere in there but I am sorry I don't like reading 70 pages of text to find out what I can and can't do). Did I harm the company by buying their game and then modifying it to suit my desires, no. Did I piss them off and break their rules ya sure.
Then there is the copyright issue on music and movies, I see this as a whole new front. I saw a streamed "Movie" where I really liked the soundtrack; I legally downloaded the soundtrack from Amazon for money. Then there are other areas where I buy merchandize from bands I wouldn't have, only because I was able to hear their stuff.
As a side note Drugs are patented and are covered under Patent laws. Talking Patents we just opened up another rabbit hole. Where the reverse happens EG the Patent Reform Act of 2006.
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2006
Even the big boys steal from each other
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/10/25/yes-google-stole-from-apple-and-thats-a-good-thing/
/End incoherent blog post
SecuROM makes me long for the old days of antipiracy where the game asked a question from a page of the manual.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem with EULAs is that in order to agree or disagree, you need to break the seal on the game to install it; so even if you don't agree you're still unable to get your money back. Some stores won't let you return it even if the inner seals are intact. I bought Spore when it first came out, didn't have a capable computer for a few months, learned of the DRM, decided I didn't want to risk my 'baby' for a game that would be two playthroughs if that so never even broke the seals. The store refused to take the return citing 'you could have pirated the game'--please tell me how I could copy the discs without breaking the seals.
You mentioned drug patents; what about 'gene patents' like a few of the big companies are trying to do now? Basically one entity trying to grab a patent for something that a huge number of people on the planet already have--hmm, does this mean they could be sued into oblivion for prior art?
I hate it when my brain works faster than my fingers...
ReplyDelete"Yes, I might even say I steal those items. Yet my actions result in purchases that might not have happened otherwise."
I do the same. Completely legal? Maybe not. Ethical? I delete torrents when I get the legitimate article. If said torrent is of media that can't be obtained any other way...I'm keeping it. I do not, however, rehost it.
"I also think that "protecting" copyright goes WAY too far sometimes. Youtube has had videos that show performances of song and dance, which either has the music muted, or was entirely removed due to overzealous copyright infringement enforcement. That's just to the point of ridiculousness."
Indeed. BBC seems to be a prime example with the older Doctor Who episodes (many of which I only managed to see thanks to YT; gone now). Moons ago, I found a dance mix of Peter Howell's Doctor Who theme. Proper credit was given to the original source, it was posted as a fan tribute. Fast forward a month or two, and the link to the video was gone. The only explanation that YT gave was "removed due to a copyright violation" (or similar).
For another example, ever once in awhile Sony tries to flex its muscles with one of the larger Ghostbusters fan sites. The claim? Always some form of copyright infringement (the creator of the franchise has repeatedly told the studio to leave the fansites alone, without them the property probably wouldn't be around 27 years later). There's no money being made, save for licensed items the site sells and donations to to help pay for bandwidth. I just think that the studio is mad because it's not making THEM any money.
For the most part, I am on board with what everybody has said, but there are a few arguments that a lot of pirates make that I can't get behind.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's okay to ethically justify pirating things because you're afraid you'll end up buying a bad game, or a bad album, isn't a demo etc. There are tools available to get an idea of whether the game will be enjoyable or not. Maybe it doesn't give you a definitive answer on whether you'll join the game or not, but I believe as a consumer, if you're not willing to take that risk, then save your money and don't play the game.
I've also heard a lot of pirates justify pirating because a game has DRM. If you're unhappy with the product Sony, Ubisoft, or whatever are releasing, don't buy their game. Just because you're unhappy with their product doesn't give you the right to take it free of charge.
Finally, a lot of pirates justify that they'd never buy the content they pirate anyway, so the company isn't losing any money. I'm not sure if I completely buy that rhetoric. I think the problem is digital goods are undervalued. People might have trouble justifying spending $50 on a PC game, when they know they can get it for free, but if you take away that option, and the difference between being able to play the game and not is $50, I think you'll find a lot more people would be willing to shell out. I admit this is a bit speculative on my part, although the anecdotal evidence I've come across shows that there might be some truth to it.
I think piracy is having a poor on the gaming market. I think its becoming harder and harder to make money in the market with piracy as rampant as it is. Smaller developers have trouble competing in the market, and the bigger developers are more comfortable reusing the same IP because at least they know they'll make money. A few developers aren't even considering the PC as a solid platform, because piracy makes it too risky an investment. Instead, developers develop games for the console, and do a half-assed job at porting to the PC. Take away piracy, make the PC a viable platform, and I think developers look at this differently.
On the other hand, copyrighting has been handled very poorly by a handful of companies, and I think they need to take a step back and considering fighting piracy in another manner. Take a look at this flow chart : http://www.kulturpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/piracy-flowchart.jpg
There are companies like Steam that do use DRM but do it in an unobtrusive way, and they have had great success. But when companies such have UbiSoft or Sony go ahead and mangle their product, I believe they are only encouraging piracy.
Finally, I am a strong believer that once you purchase something, you should be able to do whatever you like with it. If you want to use a no CD crack, you should be able to. If you want to put Linux onto your PS3, you should be able to.