The very real distinction is that one is copying a copyrighted work and the other is not. :p
The distinction, therefore, is purely a legal construct; not a moral one; and the distinction does not help put money in the copyright holders hand (rather the opposite)
If one takes an absolute stance (as some are doing) then free distrubution of copyrightable material is wrong. It should not matter, to one taking that stance, that the copyrightable material is shared, sold, or copied.
Now maybe there are very honest souls who would not dare read a second hand book for fear of the author not being paid......
If I lend somebody a book after I have read it; and that person reads the book; the author has lost a sale. Umpteen people can read that book; and the author has lost umpteen sales. It then goes to a second hand bookshop, where it is sold, and the author still doesn't get paid.
This is why copyright law, in such circumstances, is an ass
The distinction, therefore, is purely a legal construct; not a moral one; and the distinction does not help put money in the copyright holders hand (rather the opposite)
If one takes an absolute stance (as some are doing) then free distrubution of copyrightable material is wrong. It should not matter, to one taking that stance, that the copyrightable material is shared, sold, or copied.
Now maybe there are very honest souls who would not dare read a second hand book for fear of the author not being paid......
If I lend somebody a book after I have read it; and that person reads the book; the author has lost a sale. Umpteen people can read that book; and the author has lost umpteen sales. It then goes to a second hand bookshop, where it is sold, and the author still doesn't get paid.
This is why copyright law, in such circumstances, is an ass
Does a library make a payment to the author every time his book has been borrowed?
What you've mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
If I lend somebody a book after I have read it; and that person reads the book; the author has lost a sale. Umpteen people can read that book; and the author has lost umpteen sales. It then goes to a second hand bookshop, where it is sold, and the author still doesn't get paid.
The author hasn't "lost a sale" any more than record companies do when someone downloads an mp3. I'd have thought as a filthy pirate you'd be well aware of that :p
This is why copyright law, in such circumstances, is an ass
Copyright law has nothing to do with it though. It protects the right to make copies, that's all. It doesn't include the copy you make in your head when you read the book. :)
The distinction, therefore, is purely a legal construct; not a moral one; and the distinction does not help put money in the copyright holders hand (rather the opposite)
I wish people would leave morality out of these discussions because it's largely irrelvant. Unless you're going to actually start tearing the fabric of the legal system apart and rewrite it it doesn't matter what your individual morals are.
All laws are purely legal constructs and might is right. International copyright law isn't going to change because of people whining about their opinions on morality on internet forums.
The distinction, therefore, is purely a legal construct; not a moral one; and the distinction does not help put money in the copyright holders hand (rather the opposite)
If one takes an absolute stance (as some are doing) then free distrubution of copyrightable material is wrong. It should not matter, to one taking that stance, that the copyrightable material is shared, sold, or copied.
Now maybe there are very honest souls who would not dare read a second hand book for fear of the author not being paid......
If I lend somebody a book after I have read it; and that person reads the book; the author has lost a sale. Umpteen people can read that book; and the author has lost umpteen sales. It then goes to a second hand bookshop, where it is sold, and the author still doesn't get paid.
This is why copyright law, in such circumstances, is an ass
Please explain how copyright law has been violated, better still please refer directly to which part of the law you feel has been broken.
Lets stop mucking about, please provide some links to exactly which laws have been broken.
Does a library make a payment to the author every time his book has been borrowed?
Sort of, local authorities make an annual payment to authors through the Public Lending Rights system based on the amount of times their books have been borrowed from their libraries . Its not a huge amount (around 6p per loan) and I think its capped to a certain amount per author per title per year.
We have a previous argument that it was NOT okay to take a copy of somebody's game and use that copy (because, presumably, the copyright holder was losing out on a sale). But that it was okay to share the original tape amongst other users.
The "lost sale" is a weak argument, because there is no guarantee in any case that an author would have made a sale in the 1st place. Hence it's impossible to determine that any sale was 'lost'. But...
so there is no real distinction between sharing one copy and distributing copies.
Yeah there is: the # of people enjoying it at the same time. Compare for example this:
A) I buy a rare photo print, xerox a stack of copies from it, and cover a wall in my house with that. Author was paid 1x, and for 99% of the time that's 1 person (and perhaps a few friends) enjoying that photo.
Or B) I buy a rare photo print, xerox a stack of copies from it, distribute those copies throughout the entire town, and everyone sticks it on their wall. Author was paid 1x, and for 99% of the time, that's the entire town (and their friends!) enjoying that photo.
Most people will agree that from a moral standpoint, A) should be okay, but B) is not very nice. Why?
Let's say an author produces something that 1000 people use & enjoy everyday. And that a total $$ amount X would (by most people) be considered a fair reward for the author's work.
If 1000 users each cough up 1/1000th X, author should be fine.
But if I distribute 100 illegal/free copies among those users, that leaves 1000 users but only 900 users coughing up money. Not fair from those 100 users not paying their share, but still using & enjoying the work every day. Not fair if the other 900 users have to cough up same total amount of X. Not fair to the author, if those 900 users each cough up 1/1000th X (because that's their fair share).
Imho the right thing to do is if each of those 1000 users cough up a fair share of that X total amount.
There's ways to determine what a reasonable reward X should be for an author. There's ways to estimate # of users. But what's lacking @ the moment, is an easy way, for a regular user of some random work, to determine his/her fair share, pay that, and be sure that the author receives the bulk of that payment. Or that once enough time has passed, the author has received X (and then some!), the public can enjoy the work as they wish.
Maybe KickStarter type funding models would work. Maybe authors kicking their work out for free with a "donate plz" button on their site would work (you're right... probably not :sad: ). Maybe free-to-play, with downloadable, paid-for extra's would work. Maybe low-overhead, community-run organisations that do the math, distribute proceeds to authors, and users pay to, would work.
I dunno. But one thing is clear: the current model where RIAA-style organisations determine what money flows into whose pockets, definitely does not work. Read: not in a manner that's fair to authors, or consumers. More options & experimentation would be welcome. Preferably some reward / payment systems that can co-exist with the old ways to reward authors.
one programme - two machines owned by different people, two locations. Big companies frown upon that now; they limit installations, or you need a multi-user license (which often limits the number of copies of the programme that can runnning at any one time)
Not a swerve. You just don't understand. It's still one copy, running on one machine. It doesn't leave the house. The friends come to visit, play the game, have a natter, and then leave. That's the intention of the software.
There's no reason two people can't sit down and play that one running copy of a two player game is there. That's the point of it.
Yup, you got it. That's what I what I was referring to. :) Weesam just assumed that friends were bringing games round. Nope they didn't. I had the games.
Sort of, local authorities make an annual payment to authors through the Public Lending Rights system based on the amount of times their books have been borrowed from their libraries . Its not a huge amount (around 6p per loan) and I think its capped to a certain amount per author per title per year.
Actually I realised after I made the post that a better reply would have been to mention second hand book shops. I suspect (without know the facts) that they don't pass on any of the profits to authors.
As I said earlier copyright law is all about reproducing copyrighted works not the moving on of the physical product.
I firmly believe that anyone who steals either a physical object, an idea, or a copyrighted object, they should have their testicles removed ( if they have any in the first place ) then they should be hung, drawn, and quartered, then their heads should be displayed on spikes at traitors gate. The rest of the remains should be roasted and fed to starving orphans, it makes sense !
Every time I read that the oldest person in the world has died, I have to do a quick check to see it isn't ME..........
I firmly believe that anyone who steals either a physical object, an idea, or a copyrighted object, they should have their testicles removed ( if they have any in the first place ) then they should be hung, drawn, and quartered, then their heads should be displayed on spikes at traitors gate. The rest of the remains should be roasted and fed to starving orphans, it makes sense !
not harsh enough imo...I bet most will end up re-offending
I firmly believe that anyone who steals either a physical object, an idea, or a copyrighted object, they should have their testicles removed ( if they have any in the first place ) then they should be hung, drawn, and quartered, then their heads should be displayed on spikes at traitors gate. The rest of the remains should be roasted and fed to starving orphans, it makes sense !
You've consistently taken a moral high ground on this that is self-contradictory.
If the correct "moral" standpoint is that the author of a copyrightable works gets paid for a user using that work; then the method or place of delivery is moot.
As far as the copyright holder's bank balance is concerned; it does not matter if you copy the game for your friend, or invite him round to play it. The end result is: one sale, more than one user.
What is the practical difference (to the copyright holder) between me going to somebody's house to play a video game, or them sending it to me over the net to play?
Its why the law is an ass. It tries to make a line in the sand that "this behaviour is okay, that behaviour is not"; when to the end user, the behaviour is essentially, the same.
So we now have a quagmire of single-user licenses, single site, multi-user-single site etc. A mess...
Everybody has a innate notion of the difference between stealing (ideas), and using and distributing (ideas). It is why so many peope do not see using copyrightable material (without paying) as theft. One knows that stealing a physical product - a book - is theft; but that giving a book to somebody, is not. In both cases, the author is not paid.
(The BMI came down recently on people playing the radio at work, because multiple people were listening to the same song; so the royalties would need to be greater.)
The worst part of the crime is that someone thinks that they are so important that they are entitled to anything they want, greed and inflated egos are what is wrong in the world today.
Every time I read that the oldest person in the world has died, I have to do a quick check to see it isn't ME..........
So we now have a quagmire of single-user licenses, single site, multi-user-single site etc. A mess...
It's not a mess, it's very clear what you can and can't do.
I write software for businesses and public sector. It is very clear what you can and can't do. I have 3 councils using one installation as it saves them licensing money for example.
What they can't do is take my software and give it away as they see fit. Because that is my copyright.
What they can do if they wanted is reverse engineer the software and create their own as long as it's not implying that it's my brand. But the costs involved there would be out of most peoples budget range.
What is the practical difference (to the copyright holder) between me going to somebody's house to play a video game, or them sending it to me over the net to play?
The difference is that in the former case, there's a non-zero chance that you might later choose to buy a copy, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to your friend's house.
It's not a mess, it's very clear what you can and can't do.
If something is clear, it should be able to be explained to a layman in a few simple, plain English sentences.
You seen most "terms and conditions" nowadays?
They are not clear, they are a mess.
I doubt very many people know what they are agreeing to, when say, clicking to agree the T&C on iTunes (or some equivalent service).
Its over 50 pages long; and presumably, every word is required to keep Apple, and the user, on the right side of copyright law. Very clear.
This is the problem with the definition of "sharing"; which was attempted to be explained in very simple terms (ie the difference between sharing your copy of a book or a game with a friend, and copying it for them) has become so complicated in the internet age, that it takes 50 pages of legalese to attempt to define it.
The difference is that in the former case, there's a non-zero chance that you might later choose to buy a copy, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to your friend's house.
well, there is a non-zero chance of buying the product in both scenarios!
But that is irrelvent to the point of the author defintely being paid for use
Legal contracts usually are, but this isn't a problem with copyright law.
There are plenty of complicated little bits of copyright law especially when you're dealing internationally which is why companies need actual professional copyright lawyers rather than just reading wikipedia. However for the majority of the time it really is incredibly simple. You must not make copies of someone else's work without permission.
well, there is a non-zero chance of buying the product in both scenarios!
*sigh*
Yes, there is a baseline chance in both cases. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, because you asked "what's the difference between X and Y", not "what's the same about X and Y".
On top of the baseline chance, there is an EXTRA chance that someone will be pushed to buy their own copy of a game to avoid the inconvenience of going to someone else's house. As a result, an author is justified in tolerating that legal version of sharing but not the illegal version.
This is why people find it so tedious to argue with you. You're constantly moving the goalposts.
"what's the difference between having one apple and having two apples?"
"one apple, which is a non-zero number of apples"
"aah, but you have a non-zero number of apples in the other scenario as well!"
You must not make copies of someone else's work without permission
But that is not the end of the law is it? The law not only talks about copying, it talks about use; distribution; re-distribution and broadcasting
We are in a situation where taxi-drivers now need to buy a permit to pay their radios, in case a customer is listening, and the copyright holder of a song misses out on a royalty (but a chav can go down the street blasting music from his GTI)
That is why your simplistic defintion cannot work, and why terms and conditions are labyrinthine.
I haven't moved the goalposts at all; my position has been the same. Whereas what you are doing, is making shallow points, that do not investigate the essence of the argument; that is the value and worth of a copyright law.
Copyright law, as it stands, is mostly unworkable, mostly uneforceable; and thankfully mostly ignored (even by those that pretend to uphold it; casting the first stone and all that).
The principle behind it is flawed and not fit for the digital age.
When you sign terms and conditions, you are giving your personal information to a private company to use as they wish. That's not a fair deal. I would say the right to remain anonymous when using information from the net trumps any copyright holder's rights. That's a personal judgment, but a lot of people, including law-makers, think the same http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953/
The notion that intellectual works require more protection than manual or craft labour is a nonsense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It protects big interests, wealth hoarders, and not wealth creators. If we limited the hypocrisy about people's earnings, we would be outraged that real wealth creators work for a pittance; and utterly unconcerned about people who sell ideas.
There are good arguments, and plenty of evidence, that copyright stifles creativity by limiting the exchange of ideas. Imagine if Tim Berners Lee took the selfish attitude : he gave away his idea, because he believed that good ideas are to be shared; that is the point of an idea. You are using a medium that is open to all. And this allows the exchange of ideas amongst people that have never, and would never likely have, access to these ideas.
Comments
I assume you mean "were you a prefect".
No prefects at comprehensive schools...
There were prefects at mine...the pricks. :smile:
No VHS porn doing the rounds either though. Could there be a connection??
I assume dragging a "what the butler saw" machine behind the bike sheds was fairly conspicuous so got confiscated pretty quick ;)
You ever seen six 14 year old kids drag one of them machines? You can't be very conspicuous about it...
The distinction, therefore, is purely a legal construct; not a moral one; and the distinction does not help put money in the copyright holders hand (rather the opposite)
If one takes an absolute stance (as some are doing) then free distrubution of copyrightable material is wrong. It should not matter, to one taking that stance, that the copyrightable material is shared, sold, or copied.
Now maybe there are very honest souls who would not dare read a second hand book for fear of the author not being paid......
If I lend somebody a book after I have read it; and that person reads the book; the author has lost a sale. Umpteen people can read that book; and the author has lost umpteen sales. It then goes to a second hand bookshop, where it is sold, and the author still doesn't get paid.
This is why copyright law, in such circumstances, is an ass
What you've mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright law has nothing to do with it though. It protects the right to make copies, that's all. It doesn't include the copy you make in your head when you read the book. :)
I wish people would leave morality out of these discussions because it's largely irrelvant. Unless you're going to actually start tearing the fabric of the legal system apart and rewrite it it doesn't matter what your individual morals are.
All laws are purely legal constructs and might is right. International copyright law isn't going to change because of people whining about their opinions on morality on internet forums.
Lets stop mucking about, please provide some links to exactly which laws have been broken.
Sort of, local authorities make an annual payment to authors through the Public Lending Rights system based on the amount of times their books have been borrowed from their libraries . Its not a huge amount (around 6p per loan) and I think its capped to a certain amount per author per title per year.
Everyone has a crap game inside them, let yours out!
Yeah there is: the # of people enjoying it at the same time. Compare for example this:
A) I buy a rare photo print, xerox a stack of copies from it, and cover a wall in my house with that. Author was paid 1x, and for 99% of the time that's 1 person (and perhaps a few friends) enjoying that photo.
Or B) I buy a rare photo print, xerox a stack of copies from it, distribute those copies throughout the entire town, and everyone sticks it on their wall. Author was paid 1x, and for 99% of the time, that's the entire town (and their friends!) enjoying that photo.
Most people will agree that from a moral standpoint, A) should be okay, but B) is not very nice. Why?
Let's say an author produces something that 1000 people use & enjoy everyday. And that a total $$ amount X would (by most people) be considered a fair reward for the author's work.
If 1000 users each cough up 1/1000th X, author should be fine.
But if I distribute 100 illegal/free copies among those users, that leaves 1000 users but only 900 users coughing up money. Not fair from those 100 users not paying their share, but still using & enjoying the work every day. Not fair if the other 900 users have to cough up same total amount of X. Not fair to the author, if those 900 users each cough up 1/1000th X (because that's their fair share).
Imho the right thing to do is if each of those 1000 users cough up a fair share of that X total amount.
There's ways to determine what a reasonable reward X should be for an author. There's ways to estimate # of users. But what's lacking @ the moment, is an easy way, for a regular user of some random work, to determine his/her fair share, pay that, and be sure that the author receives the bulk of that payment. Or that once enough time has passed, the author has received X (and then some!), the public can enjoy the work as they wish.
Maybe KickStarter type funding models would work. Maybe authors kicking their work out for free with a "donate plz" button on their site would work (you're right... probably not :sad: ). Maybe free-to-play, with downloadable, paid-for extra's would work. Maybe low-overhead, community-run organisations that do the math, distribute proceeds to authors, and users pay to, would work.
I dunno. But one thing is clear: the current model where RIAA-style organisations determine what money flows into whose pockets, definitely does not work. Read: not in a manner that's fair to authors, or consumers. More options & experimentation would be welcome. Preferably some reward / payment systems that can co-exist with the old ways to reward authors.
Not a swerve. You just don't understand. It's still one copy, running on one machine. It doesn't leave the house. The friends come to visit, play the game, have a natter, and then leave. That's the intention of the software.
Yup, you got it. That's what I what I was referring to. :) Weesam just assumed that friends were bringing games round. Nope they didn't. I had the games.
As I said earlier copyright law is all about reproducing copyrighted works not the moving on of the physical product.
not harsh enough imo...I bet most will end up re-offending
Looking forward to your other reforms.
Well, quite;
Congratulations, a two word answer !
Although technically it still includes the word " Well " !
I didn't assume anything.
You've consistently taken a moral high ground on this that is self-contradictory.
If the correct "moral" standpoint is that the author of a copyrightable works gets paid for a user using that work; then the method or place of delivery is moot.
As far as the copyright holder's bank balance is concerned; it does not matter if you copy the game for your friend, or invite him round to play it. The end result is: one sale, more than one user.
What is the practical difference (to the copyright holder) between me going to somebody's house to play a video game, or them sending it to me over the net to play?
Its why the law is an ass. It tries to make a line in the sand that "this behaviour is okay, that behaviour is not"; when to the end user, the behaviour is essentially, the same.
So we now have a quagmire of single-user licenses, single site, multi-user-single site etc. A mess...
Everybody has a innate notion of the difference between stealing (ideas), and using and distributing (ideas). It is why so many peope do not see using copyrightable material (without paying) as theft. One knows that stealing a physical product - a book - is theft; but that giving a book to somebody, is not. In both cases, the author is not paid.
(The BMI came down recently on people playing the radio at work, because multiple people were listening to the same song; so the royalties would need to be greater.)
I'm fairly certain that on the wrongness scale, the climate is probably what's wrong with the world today.
D.
It's not a mess, it's very clear what you can and can't do.
I write software for businesses and public sector. It is very clear what you can and can't do. I have 3 councils using one installation as it saves them licensing money for example.
What they can't do is take my software and give it away as they see fit. Because that is my copyright.
What they can do if they wanted is reverse engineer the software and create their own as long as it's not implying that it's my brand. But the costs involved there would be out of most peoples budget range.
The difference is that in the former case, there's a non-zero chance that you might later choose to buy a copy, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to your friend's house.
If something is clear, it should be able to be explained to a layman in a few simple, plain English sentences.
You seen most "terms and conditions" nowadays?
They are not clear, they are a mess.
I doubt very many people know what they are agreeing to, when say, clicking to agree the T&C on iTunes (or some equivalent service).
Its over 50 pages long; and presumably, every word is required to keep Apple, and the user, on the right side of copyright law. Very clear.
This is the problem with the definition of "sharing"; which was attempted to be explained in very simple terms (ie the difference between sharing your copy of a book or a game with a friend, and copying it for them) has become so complicated in the internet age, that it takes 50 pages of legalese to attempt to define it.
well, there is a non-zero chance of buying the product in both scenarios!
But that is irrelvent to the point of the author defintely being paid for use
You must not make copies of someone else's work without permission
how's that?
Legal contracts usually are, but this isn't a problem with copyright law.
There are plenty of complicated little bits of copyright law especially when you're dealing internationally which is why companies need actual professional copyright lawyers rather than just reading wikipedia. However for the majority of the time it really is incredibly simple. You must not make copies of someone else's work without permission.
*sigh*
Yes, there is a baseline chance in both cases. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, because you asked "what's the difference between X and Y", not "what's the same about X and Y".
On top of the baseline chance, there is an EXTRA chance that someone will be pushed to buy their own copy of a game to avoid the inconvenience of going to someone else's house. As a result, an author is justified in tolerating that legal version of sharing but not the illegal version.
This is why people find it so tedious to argue with you. You're constantly moving the goalposts.
"what's the difference between having one apple and having two apples?"
"one apple, which is a non-zero number of apples"
"aah, but you have a non-zero number of apples in the other scenario as well!"
well don't do it then, you silly boy.
The goalposts are not shifiting, you just can't focus on where they are, and have always been.
But that is not the end of the law is it? The law not only talks about copying, it talks about use; distribution; re-distribution and broadcasting
We are in a situation where taxi-drivers now need to buy a permit to pay their radios, in case a customer is listening, and the copyright holder of a song misses out on a royalty (but a chav can go down the street blasting music from his GTI)
That is why your simplistic defintion cannot work, and why terms and conditions are labyrinthine.
I haven't moved the goalposts at all; my position has been the same. Whereas what you are doing, is making shallow points, that do not investigate the essence of the argument; that is the value and worth of a copyright law.
Copyright law, as it stands, is mostly unworkable, mostly uneforceable; and thankfully mostly ignored (even by those that pretend to uphold it; casting the first stone and all that).
The principle behind it is flawed and not fit for the digital age.
When you sign terms and conditions, you are giving your personal information to a private company to use as they wish. That's not a fair deal. I would say the right to remain anonymous when using information from the net trumps any copyright holder's rights. That's a personal judgment, but a lot of people, including law-makers, think the same
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953/
The notion that intellectual works require more protection than manual or craft labour is a nonsense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It protects big interests, wealth hoarders, and not wealth creators. If we limited the hypocrisy about people's earnings, we would be outraged that real wealth creators work for a pittance; and utterly unconcerned about people who sell ideas.
There are good arguments, and plenty of evidence, that copyright stifles creativity by limiting the exchange of ideas. Imagine if Tim Berners Lee took the selfish attitude : he gave away his idea, because he believed that good ideas are to be shared; that is the point of an idea. You are using a medium that is open to all. And this allows the exchange of ideas amongst people that have never, and would never likely have, access to these ideas.