Quote from: estar;945422Also note there are not copyright equivalent of small claims. It not possible to either sue or prosecute an individual infringing an author's copyright if it just a one or two copies. There is the DMCA which allows infringing material to be taken down rather quickly.

DMCA is almost completely useless as anything taken down can be immediately put up again by someone with a new account.

If you report a link via DMCA to Google (for linking to it), they will remove it - but then provide a link to Chilling Effects, that in turn links to the content, and provides notice of your request (often exposing your email address in the process). Quite often the offending sites aren't located in any jurisdiction that would honor a DMCA take down notice.

Draconian methods such as 'three strikes' or requiring major providers to block connections to IP pirating sites seems to be the only way to block casual piracy. Making it illegal with extremely stiff penalties to allow ad networks to generate revenue off of pirate sites might help as well. Removing any profit opportunities would decrease IP theft quite a bit.

Unfortunately, I think the lack of legal protection is one major reason why the software industry is moving to a subscription model. The inability of people to keep their hands off has the consequence that software is becoming monitored and metered.

The subscription model also is more profitable. People may hem and haw about dropping $50, but $5/month is chump change...even after they forget month after month they aren't even using the software they bought.

Quote from: Spinachcat;951526The subscription model also is more profitable. People may hem and haw about dropping $50, but $5/month is chump change...even after they forget month after month they aren't even using the software they bought.

Yes, sadly human psychology favors this model over buying to own, and it's a major factor in the increasing economic inequality we're seeing. Because the %1 all make their money through ownership, not work, so they're unlikely to sell where they can lease instead. And if you don't own something you can't exactly determine what to do with it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;951132When you're able to benefit from an economy you're more likely to respect and participate in it.

This is a lesson more economists need to take to heart.

What - economists should base their theories around most thieves being poor people?  I thought that that was racist or something.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;951609What - economists should base their theories around most thieves being poor people?  I thought that that was racist or something.

Rich people just have other, fancier, ways of stealing... and the money to pay lawyers to get them off.

Quote from: Simlasa;951635... and the money to pay lawyers to get them off.

I think you mean prostitutes

Ba-DUMP-BUMP

Thanks folks, i'm here all week

Quote from: Spinachcat;951526The subscription model also is more profitable. People may hem and haw about dropping $50, but $5/month is chump change...even after they forget month after month they aren't even using the software they bought.

I agree - and also finding a way (in some industries) to make it palatable to big business.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;951572Yes, sadly human psychology favors this model over buying to own, and it's a major factor in the increasing economic inequality we're seeing. Because the %1 all make their money through ownership, not work, so they're unlikely to sell where they can lease instead. And if you don't own something you can't exactly determine what to do with it.

When it is possible to say no, and adults choose not to, who is to say it is wrong?

I personally find it disturbing that so much tech now is effectively a month-to-month rental service, and to enforce this, tech incorporates communications frameworks that could in turn be used to violate my privacy or remotely take over the hardware I do own.

Quote from: Lynn;951770When it is possible to say no, and adults choose not to, who is to say it is wrong?

I am, when it makes it impossible to say yes.

For example, I can't buy the software/hardware I use anymore even if I wanted to.

Quote from: Lynn;951770I personally find it disturbing that so much tech now is effectively a month-to-month rental service, and to enforce this, tech incorporates communications frameworks that could in turn be used to violate my privacy or remotely take over the hardware I do own.

First book #Amazon ever deleted from people's #Kindles was #1984.

If that didn't send the message, I'm not sure what will.

I don't normally bother weighing in on piracy discussions these days but, fuck it, why not.

I used to pirate fairly frequently years ago, when my income was extremely limited. TV, movies, occasionally PC games, occasionally RPGs. I always endeavoured to pay for stuff that I appreciated, with most of my cash going towards DVDs of TV series I really enjoyed. RPG piracy was limited to stuff that I had an interest in playing, as a try before you buy. To my best recollection, I've never run a game where I didn't obtain the rules legally, although a few of the 3E D&D splats I used I did not own legal copies thereof.

I feel no remorse for my behaviour, as no one was harmed by my actions. My actions were questionable legally, but I have no moral qualms whatsoever about my what I did. My life was enriched, at no cost to anyone else.

As my income increased, so did my expenditure on entertainment. I'm quite happy to pay the NFL Network for access to games in Australia, though I could get them via torrent. I have Netflx and cable. I paid for Pandora, until it started to bore me. I'll happily just throw what available money I have at a content creator I appreciate. I very occasionally still download RPG materials via torrent to check them out, but I'm at least as likely to just buy the pdf, and then also buy the hard copy if I really like it and intend to run it.

I still pirate some music, but more and more I'll pay for it online if I can get it direct from the artist, and I'll gladly buy VIP tickets to a gig to support the band when they're in town, even though I have no particular interest in autographs and meet-and-greets. If VIP tickets aren't available and general admission is cheap, I'll most likely buy merch while I'm there.

The other factor that has increased my volume of legal media consumption is availability. Once I got access to Netflix, movies and TV acquired by torrent dropped almost to zero.

I do, and have always done, everything that I reasonably can to support content creators financially, and I am at peace with my decisions.

Some content creators have this idea that "I made this, so I have the moral right to say what's done with it and how it's distributed." This is simply not true. They have been given a legal right, but there is no inherent moral right that just because you created something, you continue to control it once you make it available to the public. The legal right is an artificial one; one that was not recognised or even considered for most of human history and, if sanity prevails, will not continue to exist in its current form for too much longer.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;952116Some content creators have this idea that "I made this, so I have the moral right to say what's done with it and how it's distributed." This is simply not true. They have been given a legal right, but there is no inherent moral right that just because you created something, you continue to control it once you make it available to the public. The legal right is an artificial one; one that was not recognised or even considered for most of human history and, if sanity prevails, will not continue to exist in its current form for too much longer.

I disagree about your moral argument but I think much more fundamental is a practical argument. How are authors of a work supposed to make a living if no one pays for it?

Jay Z and Beyonce still makes lots of money under the new model (although not what they would have before) but it is the mid-level and lower artists and authors who are prevented from making a decent living and hence given the opportunity to focus on their art and produce more of it. In books for instance the mid-list is rapidly disappearing.

When it comes to cultural products and the net people talk as if the socialist paradise has arrived but producers of culture still need to feed and clothe themselves, not to mention their families. I wonder how these same internet dreamers will feel when/if the net takes away their capacity to make a living?

There's so much legal free stuff out there that I don't see any need for piracy. Not that there was a real need anyway. I'm not an emaciated beggar on the streets of 1777 Paris who has to choose between dying or swiping a baguette. I'm a guy who sometimes gets bored on a Saturday evening.

With music, I have Spotify and Pandora. Oh no, there are ads, and I have to listen to the album in random order. But compared to the FM radio of my teens (which is still available as well), how can I complain? With respect to RPGs, there are tons of free games online. Want to play D&D?  OSRIC is free. The 5e Basic Rules & SRD are free. Pathfinder's also got a big chunk of free rules. I don't really pay much attention to other games, but it seems there are lots of free non-D&D-like RPGs out there, too. So it's not like you can't kill your Saturday by throwing dice without either spending a small fortune on books or pirating them.

Quote from: Voros;952125I disagree about your moral argument but I think much more fundamental is a practical argument. How are authors of a work supposed to make a living if no one pays for it?

+1

The primary purpose of both patents & copyrights are to encourage people to create new stuff.  Now - arguably they keep the rights for too long, but there is no doubt in my mind that they should exist.

Frankly - that's one of the biggest reasons that some countries have virtually no true inventors.  The people there are just as smart & often iterate current products awesomely - but they have no true new inventions because their country's intellectual property rights suck, so no one is motivated enough to work on it.

I'd argue that a strong intellectual property system is at the heart of how much people innovate.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;952133There's so much legal free stuff out there that I don't see any need for piracy. Not that there was a real need anyway. I'm not an emaciated beggar on the streets of 1777 Paris who has to choose between dying or swiping a baguette. I'm a guy who sometimes gets bored on a Saturday evening.

With music, I have Spotify and Pandora. Oh no, there are ads, and I have to listen to the album in random order. But compared to the FM radio of my teens (which is still available as well), how can I complain? With respect to RPGs, there are tons of free games online. Want to play D&D?  OSRIC is free. The 5e Basic Rules & SRD are free. Pathfinder's also got a big chunk of free rules. I don't really pay much attention to other games, but it seems there are lots of free non-D&D-like RPGs out there, too. So it's not like you can't kill your Saturday by throwing dice without either spending a small fortune on books or pirating them.

But... you don't understand.  They WANT them - and they don't want to pay for them.  That makes them morally superior to some capitalist pig who wants their money.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952136But... you don't understand.  They WANT them - and they don't want to pay for them.  That makes them morally superior to some capitalist pig who wants their money.

My favorites are the socialists who still want my money for their products. LOL :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tod13;952167My favorites are the socialists who still want my money for their products. LOL :rolleyes:

Well - there are certainly hypocrites of every philosophical stripe.