DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Cort Haus]

FFS Lori, you're obsessing over a mix tape when it's practically irrelevant compared to the real problem, which has already been clearly defined as the person who buys *nothing*.

Cockney has already explained how these kind of tapes are more likely to generate sales than to lose them, but this kind of sensible argument gets lost in the noise of people erecting enormous strawmen and trying to equate mostly harmless scenarios with the problem of an entire generation than think that all music should be free for entirely selfish reasons and 'justify' this with a load of bull**** to prop up their free-lunch sense of dubious entitlement.

[Kuciwalker]

What part of IMO don't you understand? I don't consider it false comparison. I consider IP the same as a tangible product. Both require effort to produce. I give value to that effort. The fact that one also requires something tangible doesn't matter to me.

And it doesn't matter that "it doesn't matter to you", because you still have explained which of the steps in @246 you object to. Seemingly, if "it doesn't matter" then you are claiming that the consequences of piracy are irrelevant to its morality; do you really believe that?

You're taking advantage of that effort without paying for it.

Why is that wrong? What negative consequences ensue if I "take advantage" of this effort without paying for it?

[Cort Haus]

And another thing - the software example of MS giving away dev tools to students is an excellent example of how the fact that the marginal costs of an extra unit being ~zero *can* enable the forces of production to be enhanced. I'm sure that Marx would have devoted at least a couple of chapters of his latest volume of Kapital to enthuse about how progressive it was, and quite rightly too.

Tools are lumps of capital though, with the capacity to combine with labour to create further wealth, and therefore not the same kind of goods as end-user products like music, literature and certain types of software, such as games, which are similar to music economically speaking (albeit with shorter lifetimes due to platform obsolescence), whereas business software is also capital, like any other industrial tool, although not as economically powerful as a development tool.

Leaving aside models for distribution of dev tools and bespoke software though - any domestic or commercial product that offers some kind of utility to a potentially wide number of end users (for commerce or pleasure) can, once completed, be theoretically distributed to as many users as might want it with a marginal cost of zero. This is a potentially good thing, as people intuitively understand when they make free copies, but economically a bad thing, as the market fails to compensate the producer of the content for their work.

A hypothetical communist society might be able to work a distribution model using an arguably grotesque system of taxing everyone to pay certain state-sponsored content providers, but the market really struggles to get the hidden hand working here. I'd love to see Smith 'n Marx discuss this one.

[Kuciwalker]

What is the definition of morality? Everyone has there own definition. Who's is right.

For ****'s sake, man, *their *whose.

Lacking GOD on earth to judge, we have to use the Law.

Bingo! We reveal the mystery behind rah's strange logic: he is conflating law and morality!

Or we have to disregard the rule of law on everything. To pick an choose reduces the law to meaningless.

Arbitrary list of things rah probably supports that were/are against the law:

1) the American Revolution.
2) treason against Nazi Germany
3) driving 5 miles over the speed limit

Are all laws right or moral. Of course not, but then you should be working to change the law. I break the law on a few things because I don't agree with the law, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I'm doing something illegal that others may determine are immoral.

"Someone may think it is immoral" is a long way away from "it is immoral". You just admitted that the law and morality are not the same thing, which means that you have to explain the inference "it's illegal" -> "it's immoral" in terms of the consequences of illegality. (e.g. widespread disregard for the law in areas where it only slightly diverges from morality will lead to widespread disregard for the law when it coincides with morality.)

Also note that "it's against the law" is completely different from your previously stated reason, viz. "you're taking advantage of effort without paying for it".

[Kuciwalker]

A hypothetical communist society might be able to work a distribution model using an arguably grotesque system of taxing everyone to pay certain state-sponsored content providers, but the market really struggles to get the hidden hand working here. I'd love to see Smith 'n Marx discuss this one.

Uh, this issue hasn't exactly been ignored by economics. Welcome to page 1 of this thread when KH mentioned public goods.

[rah]

Yeah, in hindsight I shouldn't have started on the legal/moral comparison.

So I'll just keep it simple.
I believe pirating of IP is wrong. I'm really shocked that so many younger people don't consider it wrong and rationalize what I consider outright stealing. You're right, I just don't get it.

[Sir Og]

For me pirating is not always wrong.
And it certainly isn't any wronger than companies releasing a stupid movie/game/software/music which you pay money for and later have no way of getting your money back.

In a perfect system all IP will be 100% free for use and users will pay as much as they like for whatever IP they have used and liked and would like to get funding so that there is more similar work in the future.

The fact is that people who make quality products have no issues with piracy. People who have problems with piracy are the ones who package **** in shiny boxes and are pissed that they no longer can get away with that.

There is also the problem of pricing. Prices in poorer countries are ridiculously high in comparison to the average income of the people in said country. It is extremely stupid to price an OS at 1/12 of average annual income. (as is the case with Windows in Bulgaria and surely other countries)

[Lorizael]

...but this kind of sensible argument gets lost in the noise of people erecting enormous strawmen...

Speaking of enormous strawmen...

...an entire generation than think that all music should be free for entirely selfish reasons and 'justify' this with a load of bull**** to prop up their free-lunch sense of dubious entitlement.

[Cort Haus]

No it isn't. It is precisely the problem.

I wonder if Sir Og, for example, thinks that his boss, or customers should have the option to pay him for the work he has done for them depending on whether they feel like it or not.

[Lorizael]

His boss already does have the option. It's called firing him.

[Lorizael]

The problem with intellectual property is that it's significantly more nebulous than actual property. If you steal a Snickers bar from a convenience store, it's pretty clear that you've stolen actual property in that Snickers bar.

Now, let's say I pay a monthly fee for cable service and on Thursdays the super rad show Big Bang Theory comes on. But for the past month I haven't been able to watch it because I've been creating my own intellectual property. So, if I record the episodes on a VCR and watch them later, hardly anyone would say that I've stolen any property. But if suddenly I download those same episodes - for which I've already paid a monthly fee to watch - from some shady website on the internet, then I have stolen property. Bluh?

[rah]

Yes, lori, there is a large gray area there. If you use a VCR to record it and watch it later, you recorded a version that you paid for. If you record it from a shady website it's not a version you paid for. I slightly agree with you that since you did pay a monthly fee you have paid something for it so downloading it elsewhere should be ok. But using that argument, any over the air network broadcast should be fair game since I could have recorded it. But in that case, the payment was made by an advertiser. I'm not sure I want to go that far. Or a song has been broadcast over the air so it's now fair game to.

For books or computer games, it's a little less gray, for me anyway, since I'm the one always paying. If I bought a book or a computer game, I don't have a problem with downloading an electronic copy or a no cd-hack type thing.

For me it comes down to, "does the owner of the IP get payed?" I'm not going to consider the 'used' side since that really can confuse things, especially when it's not something physical.

The, "Enough other have paid so we don't need to" doesn't fly with me.

But every example we discuss there seems that there can be a similar example that's just slightly different enough to swing the scale the other way which will make us not seem to be consistent.

[Asher]

Yes, lori, there is a large gray area there. If you use a VCR to record it and watch it later, you recorded a version that you paid for.

Just FYI, HC's favourite law (DMCA) means it can be illegal to record broadcast television.

The broadcast provider need only set the "broadcast flag" on the transmission, and you have heavy restrictions in how you can use it. For instance, no fast forwarding through commercials, no recording, etc.

The DMCA makes it a crime to ignore or bypass the broadcast flag.

You can still make and buy equipment without support for the broadcast flag currently, but the US Republicans have made efforts to force all devices to enforce Broadcast Flags. FCC, under GW's Administration, originally forced this, requiring all manufacturers support it. Then the US courts ruled that the FCC could not dictate how devices are manufactured.

But have no fear, the Republicans to the rescue!!!

They amended the laws which granted the FCC additional permission to dictate that all manufacturers support the Broadcast Flag.

That law never ended up getting passed for some unrelated reason, IIRC. But it's probably going to come back again soon.

USA -- freedom for the everyman*.

*everyman is defined as corporate interests

[Kidlicious]

And answers like (They like to have stuff and they don't want others to have it?) is no excuse for stealing.

It wasn't meant as an excuse for stealing. Remember that I don't think it's stealing, so why would I be making an excuse for stealing.

My comment wasn't about those who you say are stealing but about those who consider themselves as victims. I wonder why they (and I'm talking about the rich) are so worried about poor people having the same thing that they do even though they are still plenty rich.

[Sir Og]

No it isn't. It is precisely the problem.

I wonder if Sir Og, for example, thinks that his boss, or customers should have the option to pay him for the work he has done for them depending on whether they feel like it or not.

If I am to ever write a piece of software for example and decide to distribute it. It would be made free with an option for people to pay as much as they feel like paying if that software is useful for them. If what I have made is any good I am sure that there will be plenty of people paying. And I will have no issues with people who try the s thing for free. If my product is good all those people would be spreading the word which will lead to some actual sales.
There are currently numerous examples of people doing a show on youtube for free with an option for the viewers to pay. The ones who have a good product are making some quite nice money.

Also in my work right now if I create some software that saves the company $1000, the company does not have to pay me $1000 because I am a regular employee with a specified wage/salary and nothing obligates them to do this. I also don't expect them to pay me the full $1000 because it it wasn't for the company there would be no $1000 to be made. I would expect however some fraction of that in the form of a bonus, wage increase or some perks. If they don't do that my motivation would drop and I would consider leaving, which is the equivalent of stopping support for a free program when you see that there are no people who are interested and willing to pay something for what you are doing.