Digital Piracy

Non sequiter, sir.

and What

Which part? The "Terms of use" bit? Read one. You didn't buy the game. Nor a copy of the game. You bought "the right to play a game." And that right is not transferable(as per the terms of use)...

If it's the other bit, you'll have to explain where the disconnect is...

The Earth Sheep, I don't understand what that video was supposed to mean.

So I'll give you this one:

[1]

It was both. No one cares if you lend a copy of a game to anyone, and people certainly do care if you duplicate copyrighted material.

Oh, I was just declaring my undying love for you (shall I compare thee to a summer's day?). You know, because we were saying the same things.

No, it's really not.

You're saying that you think it's morally unethical to consume content that you have not paid the creator for. You have not paid for the book you get out of the library, therefore, you should not partake in it.

That the library has paid the creator is irrelevant. The librarian can read the book as much as they want.

You're assuming that the package that the ideas come in is the important part and not the ideas themselves. Once you experience the ideas, it's done. It's consumed. You may want to keep the package so you can consume it again, but in most cases that doesn't happen.

A good example is this. Lets say me and my friend go splits on a PC game. It has a CD-key so we can't play it at the same time, but we use IM to organize when we play it. Say we work opposite shifts so it's easy. Is this ethical or unethical? Big Media would say that it's an illegal violation of copyright. In fact, they use DRM to try and prevent these things from happening. Do the same thing for any other form of media.

Like it or not, it's not the simultaneous aspect that we're fighting over. It's the idea that we should have a PPE (Pay per experience) model for culture. And that's something I object to for almost infinite reasons.

Edit: The POINT of all this, is that if piracy is a problem (I personally don't think it really is right now, but that's just my opinion), then things such as rentals and used media shops are much bigger problems, even though they're legal.

edited 19th Nov '11 10:18:58 PM by Karmakin

You know, I was just about to type up a gigantic essay adressing all of your points and counters, but I realized something that made me stop in my tracks...

Yes you did pay for it. If you don't live in the community where the library is, you have to pay for a library card in almost all cases, and if you do, the library is funded through your taxes.

Also, yes that is unethical. You bought one copy, it's for one person. If two people want to play it, you need to buy two copies.

Was it that I was going to say the same thing, probably before you?

edited 19th Nov '11 10:24:10 PM by TheEarthSheep

Likewise, if you buy a book, that's for one person. If two people want to read it, they should buy two books.

I agree..? What are you trying to say?

So lending a game to a friend or giving a pre-played game to a friend is also unethical?

Half correct again. No one cares if you lend a copy of a game to anyone, yes.

But no one cares if you duplicate a book(which is copyrighted material). They only care if you sell that duplicate of said book.

I'm not discussing video games anymore. I'm just going to continue to hammer pirating E-book versus Library. Because the only difference between the two is a library getting money. Which is cool and all, but if that is the reason for no piracy of books, then I don't ever want to hear shit about "developers/authors/publishers not getting money for their work." Because they aren't seeing a dime from those books being borrowed...

No..? What are you trying to say?

What I'm saying is that's the model that libraries (and rental stores for that matter) run under.

The actual point is that sharing culture and information runs deep in our society. Technology has made it more efficient, to be sure, and that may be very problematic, but ethically, there's very little difference.

Ok. To make this clear. If you're saying that consuming content without paying the creator is unethical. That makes any form of lending, sharing or secondary market unethical. Full stop. Either it is or it isn't.

edited 19th Nov '11 10:32:47 PM by Karmakin

...I realized that I'm signed into the wrong wireless network. No wonder my internet's been running so slowly!

I have to go turn myself into the police.

Is it just me, or is this entire argument based on a False Dichotomy between "prevent all piracy" and "allow all piracy"? The goal should be to prevent just enough piracy that development is still financially profitable.

(Of course, the question then becomes how to do this. That's a much, much iffier question.)

edited 19th Nov '11 10:30:42 PM by feotakahari

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it's illegal to share the game, and legal to run the library. That's all that matters.

I don't love you anymore.

I think all piracy should be gone, so it's not a 'false' dichotomy.

^ The question isn't whether it's legal. Laws can come and go pretty quickly. The question is whether it should be legal, and what sort of reforms should be pushed for.

They are playing the game without paying for it, and two people are playing a the same copy of a game. How is that any different than two people splitting the cost of a game and then splitting access to that game.

edited 19th Nov '11 10:34:41 PM by BigMadDraco

Regardless of whether you think it will change or not, you still can't do it until it does. That was my point.

Right, it's about the way things should be, not about the way things are.

One thing I'm strongly opposed to is medium bias in these things, where often people protect the sharibility of books more than other forms of media.

I suppose it's off-topic to debate the letter of the law versus the law's effects here, but I will note that a devout Christian is the last person I'd expect to argue the letter of the law, given how much emphasis Jesus placed on the spirit of it.

Edit: Okay, maybe my first edit was in bad taste. I'm sorry if I went too far.

edited 19th Nov '11 11:50:00 PM by feotakahari

Why would you bring that up...? And anyway, I think the argument is that while the law could be changed, there's value in obedience to the law while it's yet unchanged.

I would add that if the law is that lacking in provisions to share works of art and make it accessible, then it's time to change it.

edited 19th Nov '11 10:51:13 PM by abstractematics

After what seemed like hours (it was probably less than ten minutes) poring over dry legal text, the conclusions I have found are thus:

a) It is legal to lend a copy of a copyrighted work only insofar as you have destroyed all other copies owned by yourself.

b) Libraries are protected in order to promote the dissemination of art, note that this includes all forms of media, not just books. However, private individuals, as opposed to public libraries, do not have such protection.

Needless to say, this is my stance on what should be the case.

Oh snap!

@feo:

Again, we must look at how Valve fights it: Simply make people wanna buy it by slinging out new stuff on a regular basis, making things widely available with little-to-no hassle and by showing care for the customers.