This Service Could Dismantle Copyright Forever (Hands On With Kim Dotcom’s New Mega)

[Mark R]

How is it different? The owner of the content makes it available, under specific terms and conditions. If you're obtaining a copy without the agreement of the owner, how is that different from stealing his car?

The difference is the incremental cost of making an additional copy available.

A car has a significant cost to produce and to handle, in addition to the R&D costs, etc.
A digital download has almost zero cost to produce and handle, once the R&D costs have been sunk.

If a pirate makes an infringing copy of material that they were never going to acquire legally (e.g. a professional app like 3D studio or Photoshop), then the producer has suffered no loss. There was no expenditure in the creation of the additional copy, as it was produced by a 3rd party. There is also no financial loss, as the pirate would never have been a genuine customer.

So, copyright infringement (unlike theft) has the possibility of not causing any loss to the owner of the copyright.

In practice, the above argument is contrived. There are few materials, where a person making an infringing copy can honestly admit that they would never purchase or license legally. There are legal avenues available, such as authorized download stores, selling reasonably priced piece-wise downloads (e.g. itunes), there are pay-per-view services and there are ad-supported online streaming services (e.g. youtube) where the a substantial amount of pirated content could be obained legally at modest cost, but with appropriate reward to the creator.

In reality, piracy almost always causes a financial loss to the creator - but the key difference is that the financial loss is not definite.

 

[sixone]

because if you steal his car, he no longer has his car and is out the value of the car.

if you pirate his software, he still has his software and hasn't lost anything.

it has been explained numerous times in this thread already.

and again, i'm not condoning piracy as it being okay or anything, simply stating that theft and pirating are 2 different things, both of which are wrong.

False. He's lost the control over his product, and the ability to negotiate the terms under which he'll share it with you and whoever you decide to share his product with. The price of those two things is the price you would have paid to obtain it.

 

[Lonyo]

Traditional physical theft = reduction in value of what the seller/owner has (his assets are reduced due to the loss of the object)
e.g. has $100, would make $5 profit from a sale, object costs $20. Now he has $80 rather than $105 if it's stolen.

Electronic piracy theft = lack of gain in the value of the seller (he loses out on pure profit)
Has $100, profit of $5, has $100 instead of $105.

This ignores sunk costs of design/creation, which is distributed among all items/copies of items.

The main argument is that once one person has a copy, they can then redistribute this a basically infinite number of times, depriving the person of further future profits in addition to that initial profit.
Stealing a physical object is a one time thing for that item, and you can't deprive of future continued products unless you continue to steal the items over and over.

 

[Fenixgoon]

This does not give pirates the right to enjoy the product for free.

99.9%? absolutely.

but it's ridiculous when day-zero DRM prevents you from playing a game you legitimately purchased.

"oh look, this warez version functions flawlessly"

it's like the SMBC comic about game of thrones. it's why netflix is popular. they provide a simple, legitimate method of content delivery for which people are willing to pay.

 

[purbeast0]

False. He's lost the control over his product, and the ability to negotiate the terms under which he'll share it with you and whoever you decide to share his product with. The price of those two things is the price you would have paid to obtain it.

yea but just because you pirate does NOT mean you were intending to purchase said item, so the person may not be out any money at all.

but if you steal a car, whether you would have purchased it or not, the original owner is out the value of the car.

i seriously do not understand why people can't grasp that, while both being bad and wrong, they are not the same thing.

i know this is different, but one of my mobile apps i sold for 99 cents and had sold probably 500 or so total in the first month it was out. i then got a dmca notice from capcom because i used their artwork (was my first app did not realize i could not do it) and they told me to not sell it. so i made it free.

i then had over 50k downloads of my app after it became free.

do i think that i would have had 50k purchases if it was 99 cents? hell no. people like free things just because it is free. does NOT mean they have any intention of purchasing it had they had to.

and i know i would not have sold 50k for 99 cents each because i have 4 mobile apps out there that are pay, and it isnt even CLOSE to those numbers, and they are basically the same type of app for different games.

again, i know this isn't the same as pirating since it is legally free in this instance, but i'm just pointing out the fact that just because people grab things for free (pirate) does not mean they would have purchased it in the first place.

 

[Sahakiel]

Created content is nothing more than a conglomeration of ideas. In the past, those ideas needed a physical medium, so copyrights were enforced by regulating those media.
With the cost of digital so cheap and growing exponentially cheaper, it is no longer economical to charge for the medium. The cost of one hour of time from one random guy off the street exceeds the cost of distribution for most digital work. This is why music and software got pushed into the bargain bin and why video is well on its way to follow suit.

Fundamentally, the very concept of controlling created content is physically absurd. One can't physically control ideas or memories. Well, not yet, anyway. Wait until we have the means to remotely erase somebody's brain.

The only method to control created works has always been through the courts and history has shown that legal control over created works has always failed. The same legal controls that make it illegal to xerox an entire book are the same legal controls that make it illegal for newspapers (they still exist) to print illegal content. For example: In some countries, news that makes the government look less than god-like.
So, until we all have a means of erasing thoughts from other people, copyright is doomed to fail.

Time and time again I have seen my own ideas and creations copied, taken, mangled, and re-sold. It's only frustrating when you're still young and think you own the world. Once you mature to the point where you understand the concept of responsibility, you understand you don't have any rights to anything you give or sell away. The recipient assumes responsibility once the transaction completes.
A related concept that most people seem to have trouble grasping is how nothing has any economic value except during a transaction.

And, yes, there is that whole "3D printing" problem growing in the shadows. If I remember right, the Star Trek universe already provided an answer to that question.


Oh, and consider this a notice that you are not allowed to copy, quote or use any part of my post without my express written permission. Yes, I am serious, and, yes, I wish you good luck.

 

[sixone]

yea but just because you pirate does NOT mean you were intending to purchase said item, so the person may not be out any money at all.

And if the owner donated his product to you, he's not out any money at all.

The point is, he's not obligated to give it away. By pirating it, you've deprived the owner of the right to choose. You've made him your slave, by stealing his work and his effort.

 

[purbeast0]

And if the owner donated his product to you, he's not out any money at all.

The point is, he's not obligated to give it away. By pirating it, you've deprived the owner of the right to choose. You've made him your slave, by stealing his work and his effort.

what are you talking about donating?

and no one is arguing your 2nd point. as i stated 10x in this thread, pirating is bad. it is just not the same as theft of physical property. that is why there are 2 different laws, because they are different.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

yea but just because you pirate does NOT mean you were intending to purchase said item, so the person may not be out any money at all.

This argument uses the fallacy of ignoring percentages and large numbers.

It's like saying this: "Well, I got drunk and drove home and nothing bad happened". Sure, that could well be true, but when 10,000 people do it, some percentage of people will have a bad outcome.

Same here: one person may pirate something that, without the option of stealing it, they wouldn't have paid for. But of 10,000 people, some percentage would have bought it.

This doesn't even get into the ethical aspects.

 

[bigpimpatl]

yea but just because you pirate does NOT mean you were intending to purchase said item, so the person may not be out any money at all.

but if you steal a car, whether you would have purchased it or not, the original owner is out the value of the car.

i seriously do not understand why people can't grasp that, while both being bad and wrong, they are not the same thing.

i know this is different, but one of my mobile apps i sold for 99 cents and had sold probably 500 or so total in the first month it was out. i then got a dmca notice from capcom because i used their artwork (was my first app did not realize i could not do it) and they told me to not sell it. so i made it free.

i then had over 50k downloads of my app after it became free.

do i think that i would have had 50k purchases if it was 99 cents? hell no. people like free things just because it is free. does NOT mean they have any intention of purchasing it had they had to.

and i know i would not have sold 50k for 99 cents each because i have 4 mobile apps out there that are pay, and it isnt even CLOSE to those numbers, and they are basically the same type of app for different games.

again, i know this isn't the same as pirating since it is legally free in this instance, but i'm just pointing out the fact that just because people grab things for free (pirate) does not mean they would have purchased it in the first place.

stop using your personal anecdotes to justify your position. You and lxskllr's position has all been backed by up your personal experience every time you've been cornered. Just because YOU have this experience and feeling does not speak for all people in your situation.

I really don't care to use the technical terms or legal definitions so I'll just make it very clear: When you pirate you gain something for nothing. In the real world there are very very few products or services that you can get for free without having to either a) pay for it or b) contribute back in some way. I don't care if you call it theft or copyright. The bottom line is you contributed nothing and gained something. At best, this is dishonest and worse is stealing.

Once you come to grips with the above, we can discuss the rest of the issue. Yes there are a lot of problems with our current model. But I can already foresee the justification of pirating (evil corps, greedy producers, "creative accounting") and avalanche of anecdotal information that is totally irrelevant. These are all straw-men in an attempt to dance around the real issue here.

 

[sixone]

what are you talking about donating?

and no one is arguing your 2nd point. as i stated 10x in this thread, pirating is bad. it is just not the same as theft of physical property. that is why there are 2 different laws, because they are different.

And there are different laws for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

Someone's still dead.

 

[imagoon]

And there are different laws for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

Someone's still dead.

And for different reasons also.

There is a legal difference for:
Premeditation
In the moment
Accidental
Negligent actions resulting in death etc.

A person died, but the gravity of the situation changes based on the class. If you planned out an entire 'mission' to kill someone, that is a fully different scenario than a crime of passion, and yet different if you ran them over with your car because they jumped out with out looking both ways.

Same as theft dealing with the current 'value' of items. Theft laws don't care about the future value of the item(s) they care about it right now.

Stealing a $50,000 BMW now is one class, stealing it in 20 years when is worth $250 is another.

Same concept with copy infringement. For these cases the law doesn't directly care about the future losses. They care about the "now." In most cases the copy infringement losses are figured out later to scale sentencing.

If I draw something and someone steals the paper, I am out the present value of the paper. If they copy the paper, I still have the original and can still sell it. That is the difference.

Moving in to the future value, yes piracy can result in a loss because some percentage of people who got a free copy would have bought it. However that is considered at sentencing [damages hearing] for the scale not for the actual crime of copyright infringement.

 

[purbeast0]

stop using your personal anecdotes to justify your position. You and lxskllr's position has all been backed by up your personal experience every time you've been cornered. Just because YOU have this experience and feeling does not speak for all people in your situation.

I really don't care to use the technical terms or legal definitions so I'll just make it very clear: When you pirate you gain something for nothing. In the real world there are very very few products or services that you can get for free without having to either a) pay for it or b) contribute back in some way. I don't care if you call it theft or copyright. The bottom line is you contributed nothing and gained something. At best, this is dishonest and worse is stealing.

Once you come to grips with the above, we can discuss the rest of the issue. Yes there are a lot of problems with our current model. But I can already foresee the justification of pirating (evil corps, greedy producers, "creative accounting") and avalanche of anecdotal information that is totally irrelevant. These are all straw-men in an attempt to dance around the real issue here.

again, not sure why you all keep talking as though i'm saying pirating is okay, because it isn't. it is simply different than theft of physical property.

 

[Markbnj]

And yet, if I recall correctly, the court said Napster WAS liable for the illegal activity of its users and had to remove content or block it if asked and, when they couldn't do that, they wound up declaring bankruptcy. This could go the same route. Just because Mega says they are not liable for something doesn't make it so.

Napster was probably a bad example, come to think of it. But the court will enforce the rules that Congress makes, so when discussing this area I think the influences on, and actions of, that body are more relevant than legal precedent. The point remains that the middlemen were never the infringing parties. Plaintiff's lawyers went after them as the enablers with the deep pockets. Under the current scheme Dotcom is building, they would have a harder time making that case. If simply allowing users to exchange data makes you liable the whole Internet has a problem.

 

[SMOGZINN]

False. He's lost the control over his product, and the ability to negotiate the terms under which he'll share it with you and whoever you decide to share his product with. The price of those two things is the price you would have paid to obtain it.

The control of his product was an illusion to begin with. You can't control information. It has been tried throughout history, and it always fails.

 

[bigpimpatl]

again, not sure why you all keep talking as though i'm saying pirating is okay, because it isn't. it is simply different than theft of physical property.

The underlying issue in both is fundamentally the same. That is you getting something for nothing. You can disagree about the value or nature of said object all you want, but it doesn't negate this basic fact.

I understand this property issue, but it really doesn't change much. Nor should 1's and 0's (the future of our world) operate under different assumptions and rules simply because we can't hold them. Data is or will be worth more than physical objects. It is completely silly then to say "See, I didn't deprive that person of his property, he still has it." You have though, through lost sales or lower value by sharing with others, either for profit or not.

I know we typically talk about music and movies with piracy but it affects way more than that like software, patents, trademarks, or any other intellectual property. I'm not willing to throw those things away just so I can listen to the latest song.

As far as Kim Dotcom's latest venture, this is simply matching the extreme nature of the old and luddite group that is the RIAA and MPAA. They've had years to come up with a suitable model that protects them and their customers. But these fat cats would rather sue old granny then do real work. It's a damn shame everything in society has to be so extreme.

 

[bigpimpatl]

The control of his product was an illusion to begin with. You can't control information. It has been tried throughout history, and it always fails.

what an unimaginative, broad, and blanket statement to make.

If someone's control of a product was an illusion to begin with, then why did that person ever try to make such product or service in the first place? I'm not interested in any altruistic answer because that is simply not how the world works. And we aren't talking about revolutions here.

 

[ImpulsE69]

There are many use cases for "copies" that should be legal but are not, and that is what a majority of people have issues with. The powers that be have made sweeping laws and basically given scared everyone into giving them all this power over intangible "licenses" that should not be there.

You SHOULD be able to copy any content you have purchased, and use it any way you choose (short of selling it yourself) w/o it breaking the law. That includes freely downloading from the internet the same content due to that content no longer in my posession due to circumstances not in my control (such as computer crash/ it burned up..whatever).

As someone said earlier, stuff should not have indefinite copyrights just because some corporation might want to bring it back and milk it for cash long after the creators are dead.

Maybe using someones song in a youtube video is questionable, but really? You don't have better things to do than go after someone basically giving you free press?

The underlying problem is that in they're protecting the content, they've went way overboard into stupidity (and that's the lawyers faults). Many people here are not defending pirating, but defending the reasons that digital recreations should legally exist.

 

[Markbnj]

what an unimaginative, broad, and blanket statement to make.

If someone's control of a product was an illusion to begin with, then why did that person ever try to make such product or service in the first place? I'm not interested in any altruistic answer because that is simply not how the world works. And we aren't talking about revolutions here.

In broad terms, pure "knowledge" products like thoughts, expressions, musical melodies, lyrics, etc., didn't have much exchange value until means of reproduction became available. Even after the invention of writing, and later printing, it was difficult if not impossible to control distribution. Written and printed works have always been widely shared, and with little material return to their creators. Libraries buy volumes and loan them out to one patron after another, each presumably representing a lost sale.

So the state of things for many centuries up to the modern era was that the successful creators of intellectual property often lived better, or at least less laborious, lives than others, but they rarely grew wealthy from their efforts. Nor did they have any real control over copying and distribution of what they had made.

This goes double for musicians, of course, who as a class were reckoned somewhat below tanners on the social scale for most of human history. For all that time, up to the early 20th century, there was no means at all available for reproducing their work in a form that could be owned or shared. They sang their songs in some hall and if they were good they got some beer and meat and a place to sleep. After they left, people continued to sing their songs, and "share" them with their friends and families.

If you consider all that broad sweep of history, there is just one small sliver of time during which creators of intellectual property had strong control over the means of reproduction and distribution, from which they gained tremendous wealth in a short period of time, and that sliver coincides with the use of the LP record and the printed film. Records could be shared, but they could not be copied. If you wanted your own you had to buy it. Printed film couldn't even be shared. You had to pay to watch it in a theater. Much wealth was created by the holders of the keys to the artistic experiences people wanted to enjoy.

That all started to come to an end with the advent of the cassette recorder and the video recorder, and some of the older people here may remember how both industries howled about those innovations, as well as every other recording technology that has come along. Now, with the existence of cheap digital recording and trivially easy distribution music and video are back in essentially the same position as writing has always been: anyone with a modicum of skill can reproduce a performance and pass it on. It doesn't matter how I feel about it from a personal moral perspective. The hay ride is over, and it's never coming back again.

 

[silverpig]

And there are different laws for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

Someone's still dead.

People die of old age too. It's not a crime every time someone dies.

Theft : Murder :: Piracy : Cloning

Theft = you deprive someone of their physical property.
Murder = you deprive someone of their life.

Piracy = you copy someone's digital property.
Cloning = you copy someone's life... sorta

 

[sixone]

again, not sure why you all keep talking as though i'm saying pirating is okay, because it isn't. it is simply different than theft of physical property.

Not sure why you think that's a useful distinction. Theft is theft, regardless of the target.

 

[videogames101]

Not sure why you think that's a useful distinction. Theft is theft, regardless of the target.

Because legally, copyright infringement is not the same thing is theft. This is a fact. To call it theft, especially given the context of whether it's "legal" or not, is just incorrect, within our (The United States) legal system. I suppose if you live elsewhere that could be an exception, but hey.

 

[Printer Bandit]

mega cojones

 

[StinkyPinky]

What's all the fuss about? I'll finally have somewhere to store my linux iso's

 

[sixone]

Because legally, copyright infringement is not the same thing is theft. This is a fact. To call it theft, especially given the context of whether it's "legal" or not, is just incorrect, within our (The United States) legal system. I suppose if you live elsewhere that could be an exception, but hey.

Neither are defensible, legally or ethically. So again, why is that a useful distinction?