Beyond the Fourth Wall
Where webcomic readers conspire
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Downloading what do you think of it?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Beyond the Fourth Wall Forum Index -> Controversy Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
erikjust
Supporting Role


Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 69

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:35 am    Post subject: Downloading what do you think of it? Reply with quote

Downloading: Way of the Future or Something that Must be Stopped?

Almost every time a new movie or piece of music comes out, we hear about how movie and music companies are losing millions because of downloading. They are screaming for the perpetrators to be caught and even sent to jail.

When I hear such a thing, I canīt help but to think of an old proverb I once heard: “In a storm one man builds a shelter while another one builds a windmill,” or something like that.

When then taking into perspective that the Internet was created for the very purpose of sharing information, are the different companies simply fighting a losing battle, and will their refusal to adapt to this new day and age be their undoing in the end?

Thatīs just my thought; What do you think? Is downloading something that should be stopped at all costs, or is it the way of the future? Must companies either adapt to it or die a slow and painful death?


Last edited by erikjust on Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tuxedobob
Major Character


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think if your first language isn't English, you should just use an online translator.

If it is, you need help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erikjust
Supporting Role


Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 69

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well i ran it through Word doesnīt seem to be a problem whit it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ntoonz
Minor Character


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Temperance, MI

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Downloading what do you think of it? Reply with quote

With, not whit. But that's the tip of the iceberg. Let's see if we can do a little polishing here:

erikjust wrote:
Downloading: Way of the Future or Something that Must be Stopped?

Almost every time a new movie or piece of music comes out, we hear about how movie and music companies are losing millions because of downloading. They are screaming for the perpetrators to be caught and even sent to jail.

When I hear such a thing, I canīt help but to think of an old proverb I once heard: “In a storm one man builds a shelter while another one builds a windmill,” or something like that.

When then taking into perspective that the internet was created for the very purpose of sharing information, are the different companies simply fighting a losing battle, and will their refusal to adapt to this new day and age be their undoing in the end?

Thatīs just my thought; What do you think? Is downloading something that should be stopped at all costs, or is it the way of the future? Must companies either adapt to it or die a slow and painful death?


The key is shorter sentences, and punctuation. Makes things a lot clearer. And don't rely on spell check. Your typos may be real words - just not the ones you need to communicate what you want.
_________________
Licensed online comic macquettes! Get 'em at www.ntoonz.com
and join the adventure at http://rangers.comicgenesis.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ntoonz
Minor Character


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Temperance, MI

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, now that I've put you through that, you deserve an answer.

When file sharing first became an issue, I must admit I had to laugh, in only out of a sense of schadenfreude. I mean, for years these music companies have been selling the message of "Take what you can get - Stick it to the Man - Buck the System" and similar veins of thought. Now suddenly, millions of kids start doing what the industry has been selling to them, and the industry panics, and out come the lawyers. "Stick it to the Man - just not US!"

Not that file sharing was new. The technology just improved. Before that, it was kids making mixes on cassette tape from the radio.

What do I think about file sharing? It's theft - when you don't have permission. When you do, it's an alternate form of distribution. On the supply side, some will embrace it, some will fight it. On the demand side, some will respect others' property, and only download what they're allowed to, and some won't respect anything, and steal whatever they can.
_________________
Licensed online comic macquettes! Get 'em at www.ntoonz.com
and join the adventure at http://rangers.comicgenesis.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TFBW
Deus Ex Machina


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1254
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take exception to the term "theft" or "stealing" being used to describe any kind of copyright infringement. Theft of tangible property is an entirely different kettle of fish to the copying of intangibles. The incumbent market forces which make their profits by selling us such intangibles want the moral high ground, though, and like to frame the debate in such a way that their opponents must defend "theft" as a fair act. For that reason alone, I wish them a swift demise. Doubly so for industries (like those represented by the RIAA and MPAA) which have made much of their conspicuous profits by unscrupulous and unconscionable exploitation of the creative minds behind their products.

Regardless of the lopsided debate on the morality of sharing, I see that a shift to online distribution of most intangibles will be inevitable. The Internet is simply too good at what it does to ignore it. The process will probably take a while, mostly thanks to the incumbent market forces doing all they can to resist change, but the Internet is now competing against forms of distribution such as radio/TV broadcast, and with the Internet you get a low barrier to entry and global reach. Internet radio would be huge already if it weren't for the incumbents flexing their lobbying power to buy discriminatory copyright licensing laws.

Given enough time, though, local radio/TV broadcasts will become niche affairs, and sales of physical media like CD and DVD will be driven down to near-cost by the availability of online content at little or no cost. Market dynamics will change to accommodate this: it may spell the end of the hundred-million-dollar blockbuster movie, or manufactured pop stars, but the market will find a new equilibrium. People want to download this stuff. They don't want to be tied to a schedule by TV or radio, and they don't want to be tied to the bundling constraints of music-by-the-album. When artists start to break ranks with the incumbent market forces and give the people what they want, there'll be no stopping it.

Mark my words: one day soon, professional grade graphic novelists will be publishing their stuff online for free, too.

Yep... any day now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ntoonz
Minor Character


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Temperance, MI

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course one can justify theft in any number of ways. "He's got so much he won't miss it" is probably one of the oldest rationales, and particularly convenient in this case. And while I like to see corporate giants brought to their knees as much as the next guy, by forces they're ill prepared to adjust to and unwilling to adopt, the justification doesn't change the nature of the action. In other words, theft is theft, even if no one likes the guy being thieved off of.

Now I have to branch this off into two different directions.

COPYRIGHT: You've identified two different elements of copyright infringement. One is theft of intellectual property - Art Garfunkel writes a song, and I take and pass it off as one I wrote. The other is theft of remuneration - Art Garfunkel writes a song, and I sell it to half a billion people without paying him one red cent for his efforts. That one, I'll grant, is a lot more nebulous. What if I do pay Art a percentage, but it's not enough? What if it was enough when Art wrote the song, but now that it's become wildly popular, he wants more? Is he entitled to more? And, correspondingly, does Art's percentage drop back to the original level once the song's no longer popular?

MUSIC INDUSTRY: What's likely to kill the corporate giants is not just the ease of distribution. It's becoming increasingly easier to make quality product without relying on the corporate infrastructure. Artists are becoming increasingly able to cut out the whole middleman and market directly.
_________________
Licensed online comic macquettes! Get 'em at www.ntoonz.com
and join the adventure at http://rangers.comicgenesis.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TFBW
Deus Ex Machina


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1254
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I refuse completely, utterly, and without limitation or qualification of any sort, to acknowledge any kind of copyright infringement as "theft". In order for something to be "theft", the object must be of a kind where your possession of the object necessarily deprives me of its benefit. If you steal money out of my bank account, that's money I had, but no longer have thanks to your actions. That's theft.

Contrast this with the two kinds of copyright infringement you have identified. The first, plagiarism, is not theft because the original author of the song (or whatever) still has possession of it. If you had stolen a manuscript, or a recording, or an instrument, that would have been theft. If you merely come to know the song, and tell others that you wrote it, you are a liar and a plagiarist, and you probably deserve to be punished for it, but you are not a thief.

The second violation that you identify is the sale of unauthorised reproductions. There's probably more than one violation in that, and many enactments of copyright law consider it a criminal offence to engage in "piracy" of this sort. (I don't much like "piracy" as a term of copyright infringement either, but I don't object too strenuously to its use in this sense.) Let's simplify the matter by saying that you made copies of a song and gave them away for free, rather than selling them. Did you steal anything from the artist? The answer is no: nothing has gone missing from the artist's possession, and it is not possible to identify the stolen item and return it to the rightful owner. There has been no theft.

The usual argument in this latter case is that the copyright infringer is a thief because he has deprived the artist of potential revenue. But potential revenue is hypothetical by nature, so it's not a real theft, only a hypothetical one based on an assumed alternate series of events in which the recipients of the copies paid for them. So what has been stolen? An imaginary alternate future? How ridiculous! Precisely nothing has been stolen -- only copyright infringement has occurred.

Copyright is a recent historical concept, and it's basis is not a moral one. Yes, there are and have been certain parties willing to defend copyright as though it were the moral equivalent of property, but most have realised that ideas can be copied without diminishing the original. These days, however, so many individuals and corporations are dependent on the legal construct of copyright for their income or profits, it's almost impossible to discuss the subject in a pragmatic, detached manner, evaluating its general benefit to society (which was the original intended effect of copyright law in the USA, among other places) rather than considering only the benefit of those who earn money through it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ntoonz
Minor Character


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Temperance, MI

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're splitting hairs, and we all appreciate your attempt to make us feel better.

Following your logic, though, I can easily steal your money out of the bank and not call it theft. If it was electronically deposited, you never owned it. It was ever actual money - just numbers on a printout. You weren't using it. You might have had plans for it, but who knows when - or for what? Some imaginary future project? In addition, what you had was in Australian dollars, presumably, which are useless in the US, and what I would now have would be US dollars, which are useless in Australia. If I were to return them to you, you'd be unable to do anything with them. So what have I stolen from you? Precisely nothing.

Right. Silly. Of course it's your money, and of course I'd be a thief if I stole it from you.

I'm not saying it isn't frustrating. And overblown (people copyrighting their faces? I mean, come on!), and misused, and all those other things. I'm not saying it not galling to watch a bunch of suits get richer while all the grungy guys in blue jeans have to struggle along as best they can (not counting the rich ones who gunge up on purpose, of course). And we all may wind up making theft legal when we get fed up enough. But it's going to be theft nonetheless.
_________________
Licensed online comic macquettes! Get 'em at www.ntoonz.com
and join the adventure at http://rangers.comicgenesis.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tuxedobob
Major Character


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think TFBW's definition of theft is a classic one, and if you narrowly define theft as "I gain something and you lose something", then there really isn't a word to describe "I gain something unfairly but you don't lose anything."


Theft is defined as "the action or crime of stealing". Look up steal, and among other things, you get "dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own", with the example "accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying." Let's put those together and among other things, theft is the action or crime of dishonestly passing off another's ideas as your own. The other person still has their thoughts. So in this somewhat narrow definition, we have an example of a theft in which the person stolen from doesn't lose anything.

As for copyright, it's there to protect the artists, at least in theory, before you involve the large corporations. Scott has a copyright notice at the bottom of each of his pages. Would TFBW argue that it's not "theft" if I took the images, printed them into a book, and sold the book on my own? After all, Scott's not losing anything. And the situation doesn't change if I give the books away, either. In both cases, it's money that probably won't be spent buying the same books from Scott.

Now, this aside, the movie and record industry companies aren't exactly doing themselves a favor by trying to sue people for file sharing. Free samples are a good way to get people to buy something; supermarkets believe in this enough to pay people money to stand at a table and pass samples out on the weekends. For music, a free sample is what people listen to on the radio, or listen to from a friend or file sharing. Sure, some people take the free sample and never buy the product. Some people take lots of free samples and never buy anything. It seems a little funny to me that grocery stores are willing to take this risk, but the entertainment industry isn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Theta
Major Character


Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 487
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a historical note, it was Noah Webster who originally campaigned for copyright laws in the states, because until they got passed he couldn't profitably publish books.
_________________
The Stickromancer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TFBW
Deus Ex Machina


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1254
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ntoonz wrote:
You're splitting hairs, and we all appreciate your attempt to make us feel better.

It wasn't my intention to make anyone feel better. Copyright infringement is against the law, even if it isn't "theft". It's usually not a crime, in the technical sense, but you can be sued over it, in the same way you can be sued for libel. If you break copyright, you're not a thief for doing so, but you're still a lawbreaker.

ntoonz wrote:
Following your logic, though, I can easily steal your money out of the bank and not call it theft. If it was electronically deposited, you never owned it.

That doesn't follow my logic at all. If you were to follow my logic, your scenario would involve taking money out of my account without reducing the balance in my account. If you can do that, you'll hear no complaint from me, although I expect the banks will have something to say about fraud. Likewise, if you were able to take the single note of US currency I have in my travel wallet, and copy it without depriving me of it, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The authorities might have a word or two about counterfeiting, though. Heck, if you were able to snap your fingers and produce a copy of my old Volvo 240GL down to the last nut and bolt, and you drove off in it, I wouldn't complain. (Volvo might. I'm not sure they'd have legal grounds for it, though.)

Are you getting the idea? COPYING isn't THEFT, because you're MAKING a COPY. We just have laws against making copies of certain things. The most general of these is Copyright.

tuxedobob wrote:
Theft is defined as "the action or crime of stealing". Look up steal, and among other things, you get "dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own", with the example "accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying."

You're mixing meanings. Not all "stealing" is criminal. If I steal your thunder, I have not literally stolen anything, but it's still a perfectly valid turn of phrase in English. When you steal something, you are charged with theft. When you break copyright, you are not charged with theft, you are charged with copyright infringement.

tuxedobob wrote:
As for copyright, it's there to protect the artists, at least in theory...

No it's not -- at least not in the USA (and many other places). The constitutional article that enables copyright to be enacted in the USA states that the purpose of restrictions such as copyright is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". It is not there to protect artists: that's just supposed to be the means to the end of promoting the progress of science and useful arts. The USA is, however, well past the stage of building its constitution, and is now in the process of dismantling it. The courts in that country have recently decided to ignore that part of the constitution which gives the purpose of copyright, along with the "for limited times" phrase in the same article. In effect, the constitution may as well say, "to secure the exclusive Right to Writings and Discoveries." It's not like the actual Authors and Inventors are in control: they have to sell or assign their rights elsewhere. I am routinely expected to sign employment contracts which assign the rights to all my work, whether performed on the job or not, to my employer.

tuxedobob wrote:
Would TFBW argue that it's not "theft" if I took the images, printed them into a book, and sold the book on my own?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, I would argue that. Your act is that of copyright infringement, not the crime of theft. If you stole Scott's personal stash of Dreamland Chronicles books, that would be theft. We are talking about laws and their violation, so I am using the appropriate legal terms as best I can. Theft is one thing, copyright infringement is another. Stealing CDs from a shop is theft; buying CDs from a shop and making copies for your friends is copyright infringement. Both could easily land you in court, although the theft will be a criminal matter, prosecuted by the state, and the copyright infringement will be a civil matter, prosecuted by the copyright owner's lawyer.

Mein Gott, is our language so far gone that we are incapable of making this distinction any more? Can I not say that these laws are different in kind without people interpreting my words as, "copying stuff is okay because it's not stealing?" Is it too much to ask that copyright be treated as a thing of its own, distinct from other laws?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ntoonz
Minor Character


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Temperance, MI

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TFBW wrote:
The constitutional article that enables copyright to be enacted in the USA states that the purpose of restrictions such as copyright is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". It is not there to protect artists: that's just supposed to be the means to the end of promoting the progress of science and useful arts.


How is it meant to accomplish this?
_________________
Licensed online comic macquettes! Get 'em at www.ntoonz.com
and join the adventure at http://rangers.comicgenesis.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tuxedobob
Major Character


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TFBW, while your definitions are, technically, correct, the distinctions you're making really only matter in a court of law. If I were to copy Scott's website wholesale, and add a new section in which I scan in whatever extras you might find in the books, I highly doubt that he would come to me and yell, "You infringed the copyright on my comic!" I think it's much more likely he would say, "You stole my comic!" Likewise, while it may be technically true that you can go to court, lose a case, have to pay after being sued, and still not have committed a "crime", I think it's fair to say most people would go "huh?" at that one.

Also, "steal your thunder" and "steal your idea" are slightly different in meaning. Though, of the two, stealing your thunder is the one where you're more likely to no longer have it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TFBW
Deus Ex Machina


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1254
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ntoonz wrote:
How is it meant to accomplish this?

How is copyright law meant to accomplish the promotion of science and the useful arts? "By securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." And how's that supposed to help? Roughly speaking, if the authors and inventors get a limited time frame in which they have exclusive rights to their work, then they have greater power to profit off it in some way. The expiry of those rights is supposed to spur them on to further acts of creation and invention. Instead, we have corporate welfare where the duration of the exclusive use is retroactively extended every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the Public Domain.

This is the fact that's being overlooked here: the public has the inherent right to copy all this stuff. This constitutional clause grants congress the power to enact laws which temporarily suspend that right, ostensibly to serve the public good. In contrast, these retroactive extensions to copyright involve the rights of the public being suspended for the benefit of private corporations without any quid pro quo public benefit. Seriously, if copyright actually expired like it's supposed to on older works, we'd be allowed to share them online. Wouldn't that be great?

tuxedobob wrote:
TFBW, while your definitions are, technically, correct, the distinctions you're making really only matter in a court of law.

And a court of law is really the only place where the concept of "legality" applies, isn't it? And the only thing that makes copying of artistic works illegal is copyright law. As I've mentioned above, the public has the inherent right to make copies of things, and Copyright is a temporary suspension of that right which is supposed to exist for the public benefit.

This is yet another reason why copyright must be distinguished from stealing. Stealing (of the literal, criminal kind) would be morally wrong even if there were no law against it. You need a theory of morality in order to make a statement like that, so it's open to debate, but it seems like everyone here is using the expression "copyright infringement is theft" in order to convey the idea "copyright infringement is the moral equivalent of theft, and thus an inherent moral wrong". I therefore assume that I don't need to prove to anyone that theft is an inherent moral wrong: rather, we need to argue whether copyright law expresses a moral imperative or whether it's a pragmatic bargain, like a tax, in which the public submits to certain obligations in order to receive a benefit.

So let me be clear about this: I do not recognise copyright in the broad sense as any kind of inherent moral right for authors and creators. There are certain narrow aspects of copyright (usually classified as "moral rights"), such as the right to be identified as the author of a work, which I do consider inherent moral rights. The general restriction on the creation of duplicates and derived works, however, is not an inherent moral right. On the contrary, it is the inherent right of all individuals to make copies and derived works. If it were not so, then copyright ought not to be "for limited times", since ownership of real property exists in perpetuity. If copyright were an inherent moral right, then the artificial expiry of copyright would be the moral equivalent of confiscation of property. This is certainly the way that copyright interests (like the movie studios) like to portray the matter, but it's a dirty trick: they have conned us all into thinking that they are defending their rights rather than violating ours!

Retroactive copyright extensions are a lot like retroactive lease extensions on a house. It's like you leased out a house to someone for ten years, and at the end of that period the courts decide to retroactively extend the terms of the lease without giving you any more money. The lessor argues that the house is his, morally speaking, since he's occupied it for ten years, and it would be unfair to kick him out just because the lease is going to expire. This is ridiculous: that house is yours, not his. We are in exactly the same state in relation to many copyrighted works. The original terms of copyright law in the USA were fourteen years, renewable for an additional fourteen. These days, it's effectively indefinite thanks to retroactive extensions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Inu
Minor Character


Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hehehe, such controversy. I got caught up in the walls of text this forum and sometimes I can't figure out who's opinion is what. Can't say I have a lot to add onto what TFBW was talking about.

If you ask me there's three big things that are publicly released that are the most controversial copied items in today's world: Music, Motion Pictures, and Video Games. The originality from these things makes editing them generally just worse than their original, so people distribute the copies with absolutely minimal edit.

But...the big thing is, if something is publicly released, there is no true way to stop a person from copying it, and if they can copy it, they can redistribute it. Wait, they already sent us copies of their work! Music: CDs and MP3s. Motion Picture: VHS and DVD. Video Games, you get the idea. We bought the copy, so redistribution is easy, except maybe for Video Games. Stealing concept from video games is easy of course but the GAME ITSELF is difficult to copy.

So, STOPPING redistribution is impossible today. Thus, you will just have to accept it. Video game companies actually need the money in my opinion, but Music Companies and the Motion Picture industry don't. The latter are already rich and never needed the excess. If you look at Video game companies, they aren't rich and need the money to keep going.

I love that episode about file sharing on South Park. I keep telling myself when I think of that episode "So because we are file sharing, celebrities will have to wait a little while longer before they can afford that private jet. Heh, make em wait, they never needed a private jet to begin with. Maybe while they wait they'll realize they don't need it."
I kind of promote file sharing when I think of this. Almost a bad thing file sharing is, but not really. I mean, especially when you want to go get older work of a company that is no longer in distribution, file sharing is such an easy way to get it.

In fact, downloading may very well be the only way to get some things nowadays. Take a movie, TV show, video game, music, work of art, etc., that never got distributed to your country. Even if it got distributed, if from another country it may not be in your language so it wasn't worth the purchase. Or worse, the kind of format the item is in can't be seen or used with what you have in your country. Example: Japanese video games probably won't work on the American released system.
Downloading can sometimes be the only answer, and I am for it. It's quite more convenient too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erikjust
Supporting Role


Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 69

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we look a little at history people have ALWAYS complained about new things.

When tapes began to emerge there was a roar of anger from the musicians, who wanted the product OFF the market and it couldnīt be done fast enough.
Their argument was that people would start recording them at live concerts and sell it.
Then nobody would come to their concerts anymore and they would be ruined.

Then came the video: Now it was the tv-stations turn to scream foul play, people would record their broadcast and redistribute it and they would lose money.

Heck the same was true when the print was invented back in the middle ages suddenly Books wasnīt unique and only privilege to the rich and others who could afford a manuscript, now suddenly everyone could get one at no cost at all.

The list goes on and on in an almost endless spiral, sop in that sense the entire debate on how Downloading will be the doom of everything, is just the latest in a list that goes back a long way in time.

I have no doubt what so ever if a food replicator like the one they have in Star Trek is ever invented we will hear the same kind of cry from the farmers, the fishermen and so forth.
The arguments will be the same; this fiendish device is stealing food from our table and putting us out of a job.


Quote:
it may spell the end of the hundred-million-dollar blockbuster movie, or manufactured pop stars.


As we know it yes, but in time as you say the market will find a new equilibrium, and the blockbusters will return all though be it in a somewhat new form.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Inu
Minor Character


Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

erikjust wrote:
I have no doubt what so ever if a food replicator like the one they have in Star Trek is ever invented we will hear the same kind of cry from the farmers, the fishermen and so forth.
The arguments will be the same; this fiendish device is stealing food from our table and putting us out of a job.


Um...current day, isn't it true that fruit and veggies today are manufactured, not grown? Thus, didn't the farmers ALREADY get ripped off?

Anyway, organic food doesn't have a copyright. In fact, organic food is healthier than manufactured food so in a way, current day farmers and fishers aren't being ripped off and if food gets replicated like that, I bet organic will still be better as far as the effect on your body.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kurowoofwoof111
Supporting Role


Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inu wrote:

Um...current day, isn't it true that fruit and veggies today are manufactured, not grown? Thus, didn't the farmers ALREADY get ripped off?

No, food is still grown its still grown. I don't think its even possible to ''manufacture'' fruits an vegetables, and if it is, its not economical. And as for the farmers, while they may not be filthy rich, are doing much better than they were a year ago as a result of the price of food and demand for bio fuel. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis
_________________
日本語
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skrattybones
Bit Part


Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 8
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In terms of downloading music, how do you all feel about this little tidbit?

In Canada it is completely legal to download music using any method available. A law passed during the late 80s stated that the recording of music for personal use isn't illegal, so long as that music isn't then sold for personal profit. Basically, kids were recording mix tapes off the radio and Canada made sure it was cool to do it. When the digital age hit the law carried over, making it totally legal to download any music online so long as you don't turn around and try and sell it to make bank.

Being that I'm from Canada I probably have a very different set of morals in concern to this. I don't see any problems in downloading music, be it p2p programs or torrents.

I figured I'd toss that in and shake up the conversation a little bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TFBW
Deus Ex Machina


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1254
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skrattybones wrote:
In Canada it is completely legal to download music using any method available.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Those with the gold make the rules, and the ones making their gold out of copyright are pushing for ever-tighter controls on this sort of thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TFBW wrote:
Skrattybones wrote:
In Canada it is completely legal to download music using any method available.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Those with the gold make the rules, and the ones making their gold out of copyright are pushing for ever-tighter controls on this sort of thing.


And they keep failing. I can't count how many times I've seen Big Music try and get this law changed, but Canada won't budge.

It's great, because nobody can really figure out a way to do it -- the internet can't be policed worldwide the way any given country would police inside it's borders, and because Canada doesn't suffer from locked down by a handful of big ISPs it would take forever to get every single ISP to start tracking and enforcing any law.
Back to top
Skrattybones
Bit Part


Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 8
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That above post was me. Forgot to log in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bezman
Star of the Show


Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1163
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the theft or not part...
I thought of the similarity to radio transmissions.

Imagine this scenario:
Radio has recently been invented. Let's say that only one radio station exists, and they only broadcast news, to keep this scenario simple.
To partake, you must (for starters) buy one of their radio receivers. An investment. So they sell some.
Then as the years pass, receivers become easy and cheap to come by, and people living nearby the radio station find out that they can listen in on the transmissions for free!
Now the radio station goes furious and claims that they are "stealing" their broadcasts.

Isn't this scenario very much the same as what we are discussing?
File sharers do not STEAL anything. It does not change the access for the "legal" listeners, since they do not take away anything, just as little as the radio station "stealers" weaken the signal for the other listeners by just listening.

What we have here is an economical factor. The POTENTIAL income ratio is decreasing here. And that's why they yell. Their expensive equipment will now face a lower Return On Investment ratio than they had before.
Poor them. Cool Laughing
_________________
B cool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erikjust
Supporting Role


Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently you could say that the anti-piracy companies and Hollywood, to a certain degree, have gotten a VERY rude wake up call on what happens when you push enough people TOO far and they group into a mob mentality. The so called Operation Payback launched by Anonymous(We are Legion Razz) have put the aforementioned companies on the receiving end of much of the same tactics they have used against the filesheares.

A smaller article on the entire operation so far can be read here
http://alphavilleherald.com/2010/10/operation-payback-is-a-bitch-hactivism-at-the-dawn-of-copyright-controversies.html

You can also read some articles of it on Torrentfreak.

The real question here is Will Operation Payback do anybody any good will it make the anti pirate companies back of a little or might this have a chance of actually escalating into something worse?

Personally i hope that Operation Payback once its over and done will make Hollywood an the government start to think twice before doing anything that could piss of so many people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Beyond the Fourth Wall Forum Index -> Controversy Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group