Thoughts on P2P, Pirating, and the likes...

[source-maps]

I am not trying to be all high and mighty here. It just worries me that so many people have become so morally ambiguous about it. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you all really be ok with someone taking your hard work?

well, should you really ask that question to modders mayhem?

personally I don't mind pirating, and I rather see things like steam that makes the customer stop pirating by them selfs than the government telling me what I can and can't do (to a certain degree of course)

[MayheM]

Honestly... yes. Many of you guys want to get into the business. It is a valid question, which is why I posed it to this community in the first place. I am pretty sure you would be far less willing to let people take your hard work if your wallet was getting hit when people took it from you. I could be wrong, but if you are OK with people taking from you than you might as well just work fro free the rest of your life. Most people would not do the same...

I will agree I would rather companies do something to try and stop it rather than the government barge in and get involved. But there has to be and are laws in place to stop it. The fact of the matter is, it is illegal to take something that is not yours. I heard two students at my school talking about it a while ago. One said... "Isn't downloading things without buying them illegal." the other replied " it is only illegal if you share it." I walked out of my office walked up to him and said... "So, if I steal a car and give it to you, the police will not come and take it from you?" The answer is simple receiving stolen property is a crime. At least in the USA.

The problem is more that our society has gotten to a point where the line between legal and illegal has become blurred. I guess over the last two years I have begun to realize this. I have seen that while many say we have grown as a society, we have regressed in many ways. Someone said earlier they feel the way Linux distributes software is the way of the future. Open source is the way to go. Well we are nowhere near there. Instead we have a false sense of that idea, where users can go and download "free" software.

[Dionysos]

Honestly... yes. Many of you guys want to get into the business. It is a valid question, which is why I posed it to this community in the first place. I am pretty sure you would be far less willing to let people take your hard work if your wallet was getting hit when people took it from you. I could be wrong, but if you are OK with people taking from you than you might as well just work fro free the rest of your life. Most people would not do the same...

The open source community believes software should be free (generally speaking) and there are those who think the same applies for all information, be it auditory or otherwise. There are many people who simply believe differently from you.

I will agree I would rather companies do something to try and stop it rather than the government barge in and get involved. But there has to be and are laws in place to stop it.

The laws regulating intellectual (or immaterial) property have damaging consequences to society ranging from incredible expenditures on legal battles between corporations and in business in general (especially in the US, and especially damaging in the field of computer sciences), harassing and unjustifiably limiting customers in what they can do with their products (entertainment equipment, not even talking about the files themselves) to outright using the laws to create a situation where no one can be certain anymore whether they are breaking the law. This gives all the power to big corporations to sue and silence or suppress whoever they want (DMCA).

The fact of the matter is, it is illegal to take something that is not yours.

I think this is the crux of the matter, where opinions are simply divided. Some think thoughts, ideas and information can be owned, others don't. This varies from culture to culture (china is an example of a culture where this has for ages been seen as completely normal).

It should also be noted that "take" implies removing which is simply wrong. It's copying. The distinction is a big one and important, as it is always important to be precise in fundamental debates.

... The problem is more that our society has gotten to a point where the line between legal and illegal has become blurred....

The problem is that some people have a differing opinions about the possibility of owning abstract things, ideas, than you. Legal and illegal as defined by the current laws have seldom been in complete accordance with people's conception of right and wrong throughout all of history, and laws are subject to constant change. Intellectual property is a pretty new concept historically and imo has been proven ineffectual and harmful to society, all the way from the first incarnations of the publishing business to the first steam machines and their development to todays music business and IT.

[MayheM]

The fact of the matter is, just because you feel it should be free, does not make is so. If someone feels killing another person should be legal, does that mean they should be aloud to kill?

While intellectual property is far more difficult to keep track of a product is not. Music, games, software, and movies are all tangible things that can be seen and or heard. They are not longer intellectual property but have now become physical property.

I agree that there are differencing opinions on the matter. But that does not mean those who believe it is stealing should have to deal with those who don't taking their shit. The principal of rights are that an individuals right end where another individual right begin. A person has a right to their own property, and if someone takes it their rights have been infringed upon. It is a matter of that person caring or not. If you take from someone who does not care if you take from then, then there is no harm done. However if you take from someone who does care, you have done wrong. You may feel differently, but the persons whose property you took has the final say.

Your point on the word take is arguing semantics.

I am intrigued as to how the open source community plans to live. Do people spend money to go to school to learn how to create games in order to give it away? My point is, how far does this go? When do we get to a point in society where we feel we have a right to whatever we want? When do we get to a point when we can walk into a store and just take? Would you walk into a store now and take a CD off the shelf and walk out the door? Or do the same with a video game or software? If you can tell me you would, than I will allow you to tell me...

"The open source community believes software should be free (generally speaking) and there are those who think the same applies for all information, be it auditory or otherwise. There are many people who simply believe differently from you."

[source-maps]

simple, you give them service in return for being a customer.. this is how open source software makes their money (Suse Linux or any of the many other distributions for example)

very similar to how Valve provides a service after you bought the product.. it stimulates buying the product.. heck Tf2 would be free if it weren't their 'only way of punishing cheaters'

[Dionysos]

The fact of the matter is, just because you feel it should be free, does not make is so. If someone feels killing another person should be legal, does that mean they should be aloud to kill?

Of course not. In a democracy whatever the majority thinks is right (should) be determining what is legal, and that opinion should be based on reason and fact. But law has always been decided and changed by "what people feel".

While intellectual property is far more difficult to keep track of a product is not. Music, games, software, and movies are all tangible things that can be seen and or heard. They are not longer intellectual property but have now become physical property.

Tangible? Yeah, the information is there. Just as sound is carried on airwaves and a concept can be held in your mind. But that doesn't mean it's physical property. You're confusing the medium with the content. Information needs a physical medium. The question is whether that information in itself can be owned. Even the IP industry acknowledges this and doesn't sell you physical property and it doesn't own music as physical property but intellectual property. I don't see what your trying to say there.

I agree that there are differencing opinions on the matter. But that does not mean those who believe it is stealing should have to deal with those who don't taking their shit. The principal of rights are that an individuals right end where another individual right begin. A person has a right to their own property, and if someone takes it their rights have been infringed upon. It is a matter of that person caring or not. If you take from someone who does not care if you take from then, then there is no harm done. However if you take from someone who does care, you have done wrong. You may feel differently, but the persons whose property you took has the final say.

I'm repeating myself now, but you're confusing theft with the act of unlawful copying, and that's not just semantics. Of course you don't have to agree or take peoples shit, but that's beside the point. The point is whether information (not the medium it's carried on/in) can be property.

To make it clear; when you download an "IP", you don't steal anything, you don't remove anything, you don't directly make anyone poorer. What you might do is reduce *potential* to make money in a market. It's not a direct loss on whoever might want to sell what you copied, it's an indirect potential loss. Whether it's deserved or not isn't even an issue yet.

Your point on the word take is arguing semantics.

I am intrigued as to how the open source community plans to live.

What do you mean "plans to"? The internet (servers) is basically driven by it and it's been around for quite a while now. Red Hat is a company making money in spite of anyone being able to sell their OS themselves legally for instance. Most open source projects are funded by support, which makes sense and works. A real business doesn't just buy a software package, they need it supported and adjusted to their needs. The best support comes from those who developed that product.

...When do we get to a point when we can walk into a store and just take?

You're still not getting the fundamental difference. If a cake were a song, I could copy the cake and there would be two. I could also eat the cake without ever losing it. At the same time according to the prevalent system of IP, the baker would be compensated for every copied cake to recoup a one-time baking cost. Would he starve or would people pay him to come up with new cakes?

Would you walk into a store now and take a CD off the shelf and walk out the door? Or do the same with a video game or software? If you can tell me you would, than I will allow you to tell me...

I don't condone stealing/theft. The production cost of a physical object is tied to that object. When the object is lost, the owner loses the potential value it could have been sold for completely. Information doesn't work like that. It still has a production cost, but since it can be spread around pretty much without extra cost, more people get an incentive to encourage and support the creator to keep on making new things.

Anyways, seen from a utilitarian point of view and setting aside the philosophic question about whether information can be owned, history has shown that a lack of intellectual property can encourage innovation and the enforcement of IP actively hinders it.(Which is important since innovation is used as the main argument to defend IP rights.)

[nub]

If they embraced piracy, do you think you would be limited to being able to log into your account on only one computer at a time? That in and of itself is anti piracy.

No it isn't. There's "No-Steam" torrents of CSS and other Valve games out there, along with 3rd party games that require the Steam API, like Serious Sam HD and FEAR 2. The new account security features Valve have introduced wouldn't prevent piracy of Steam games, it's just there to make our Steam accounts more secure from hackers. Any game that uses its own anti-piracy software does so even if you get it on Steam. I'm pretty sure Ubisoft's anti-piracy crap works apart from Steam even if you bought their games from the Steam store. Valve doesn't impose any kind of anti-piracy of its own on games bought off Steam except for the Steam API itself (which, in the end, is simply for updating the game automatically and providing other Steam services while playing said game), and that was cracked ages ago.

I also never stated that piracy supported the Source community in any way. What I was trying to say is that Valve has a relatively neutral attitude towards piracy and they don't create unnecessary anti-piracy software for their products which create more hassle for users. I guess saying Valve "embraces" piracy is a little too strongly put.

But most games these days have demos, most software have demos to try out. The idea of "I want to learn it before I buy it" or "I want to beat the game before I decide if its worth paying for and the demo only gives me a few levels." Those are all ways to justify bad behavior.

I never said I would play the entire game after torrenting. I USED to do that, but not since I got my job. Not every game I end up buying has a demo. Demos have only just started becoming a popular theme, but there are still PC games that come out which never have a demo precede them, and it sucks ass for PC gamers who don't want to make the gamble.

A 30-day trial for software doesn't always allow a user to learn what they need to learn. Sure there's great student deals, but not everyone is a college student. Honestly, I don't see why it's a big deal to pirate software like Photoshop or 3DS Max when you're not even using it commercially. Why must I pay for a license when all I'm doing is modding? That's why I can appreciate personal learning edition software. Maya used to have (or maybe still has) a PLE you could download and use for free, and it was great if you wanted to learn how to use Maya, but not every program out there has such a thing; or it's so watered down it might as well just be a demo.