I want to know your thoughts on file sharing

[sandwiches]

Seeing as how my time is valuable the hoops one has jump through to find "free" stuff on bittorrent, etc is alot more expensive than just doing an itunes down load for a buck. You could chew up 8-9 hrs just reformating your hard drive to deal with viruses and at 8-9 hrs at 40$/hr thats like 360$, I will just pay my 20$ for the DVD or 1$ for a song or just listen to pandora or online radio.

Now MS office or autocad thats another story, however you can always just register for a class for a few hundred bucks (since your going to have to learn how to use the software anyways) and get 1000$ software at student rate for like 100$ and then you get tech support.

I have found the "free" stuff is not really free, if it takes me longer than 2 min to hunt and peck around for something thats worth 1$ then its not worth it. Pandora is cool because I can listen to music while im doing a training class or working on my Masters degree homework and if I like a song I can just click on it and it adds it to a list and im guessing I can just purchase the list on itunes in a few clicks then I have it in my truck and I dont have to mess around with bit torrants (I so hate bittorrants, the web sites look like spam and unless you have a friend that knows of the super secret ones you going no where fast).

Sin seems good on the surface but it ends up costing us more in the end than just doing things lagitimatly in the first place. If your broke you can just listen to pandora and not buy the songs, heck I have been listening to it for months and have built up a like list but still have not actually bought anything yet.

I sorta agree with you. When deciding HOW to acquire a game, program, music, book, etc. I weight three things: Risk, price, and convenience.

For instance, I buy so many games through Steam and my iPhone App Store because the risk AND convenience immensely outweigh the penalty of the price. However, if you're getting viruses from music and videos, with all due respect, you're doing it wrong. Applications and games are another thing entirely, though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is a new one for me. How am I invading the author's privacy by COPYING a file from some random person's computer?

Same way it is to read my journal without my permission. Now, perhaps my journal is a bit more personal, but my files, be they a game or a file of whom I have a crush on, are both mine to share with whom I wish. If I only wish to share with those who have entered a certain contract with me, be that for money or be that a non-disclosure agreement, so be it.

The basic idea is it is my creation and you are not allowed to interact with it beyond the limitations I set, which is in the EULA.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yep. Selfishly and arbitrarily, I believe that those who truly love their art will do it regardless of how much they get paid. There's millions of artists out there already making great music, paintings, drawings, books, video games, programs, etc. So, to me the old argument of "If people stop paying for music, then no one will make music" is complete bullcorn, specially in this day and age when the barriers to entry have never been lower.

But I doubt people would not pay the money needed to learn how to program complex systems if they did not expect to make money. There is no way I can spend eight hours of my day programming and not get some compensation, not unless someone is giving me free food, housing, and spending money. People will still do these things as a hobby, but getting an OS as a hobby when no one is getting paid to program isn't going to be pretty. Yes, people do open source work all the time, but this is because most of them get paid to do some form of programming, meaning they can spend their free time applying their skills they practice at their job doing free work. If we didn't get paid, then programmers would have far less practice at their skills because they would have to take up some other job at the same time.

 

[highlife]

I sorta agree with you. When deciding HOW to acquire a game, program, music, book, etc. I weight three things: Risk, price, and convenience.

For instance, I buy so many games through Steam and my iPhone App Store because the risk AND convenience immensely outweigh the penalty of the price. However, if you're getting viruses from music and videos, with all due respect, you're doing it wrong. Applications and games are another thing entirely, though.

Yea I have a friend who is savy at all that stuff, I get bogged down in the minucha, he has an FTP server I will get on once in a great while but for me its just easier to pay a few bucks and be done with it, I have not played a video game since the last zelda game for wii and I can find text books on amazon used for significantly less, sometimes I just like having the hard back that way its on a shelf and I can always get to it. Plus there is a moral aspect to it as well.

 

[sandwiches]

Same way it is to read my journal without my permission. Now, perhaps my journal is a bit more personal, but my files, be they a game or a file of whom I have a crush on, are both mine to share with whom I wish. If I only wish to share with those who have entered a certain contract with me, be that for money or be that a non-disclosure agreement, so be it.

To invade your privacy what's being accessed has to be private. A song published on the internet, radio, TV, Youtube, iTunes is NOT private.

The basic idea is it is my creation and you are not allowed to interact with it beyond the limitations I set, which is in the EULA.

That's a different thing entirely and has nothing to do with privacy. Those are copyright laws and whether they're ethical or not is another matter entirely.

 

[sandwiches]

But I doubt people would not pay the money needed to learn how to program complex systems if they did not expect to make money.

You're a couple decades behind. Welcome to the amazing age of Open Source! People creating amazingly complex and elaborate things just for the fun of it! If you're like 42% of all internet users, then you are already using a robust, complex, very polished piece of software called Firefox.

There is no way I can spend eight hours of my day programming and not get some compensation, not unless someone is giving me free food, housing, and spending money.

Luckily, you're not everyone.

People will still do these things as a hobby, but getting an OS as a hobby when no one is getting paid to program isn't going to be pretty. Yes, people do open source work all the time, but this is because most of them get paid to do some form of programming, meaning they can spend their free time applying their skills they practice at their job doing free work. If we didn't get paid, then programmers would have far less practice at their skills because they would have to take up some other job at the same time.

Are you a programmer because what you're saying definitely does not apply to me or the majority of programmers I have worked and still work with?

Personally, I've worked on OS software and I've done artwork and given it out for free. That is not to say that everyone can or should. I am simply saying that the world will not come to a crashing halt if random people don't pay for all information.

 

[sandwiches]

Yea I have a friend who is savy at all that stuff, I get bogged down in the minucha, he has an FTP server I will get on once in a great while but for me its just easier to pay a few bucks and be done with it, I have not played a video game since the last zelda game for wii and I can find text books on amazon used for significantly less, sometimes I just like having the hard back that way its on a shelf and I can always get to it. Plus there is a moral aspect to it as well.

Well, like I said, those who have an ethical or moral opposition to it, don't have to engage in it. I simply do not find it immoral or unethical.

 

[JadeTigress]

I sorta agree with you. When deciding HOW to acquire a game, program, music, book, etc. I weight three things: Risk, price, and convenience.

For instance, I buy so many games through Steam and my iPhone App Store because the risk AND convenience immensely outweigh the penalty of the price. However, if you're getting viruses from music and videos, with all due respect, you're doing it wrong. Applications and games are another thing entirely, though.

That's a good way to look at it.

But I jailbroke my iPod touch, so I'm stealing from the App Store, too. Though I was never going to spend the money on the apps in the first place, so according to some people on here I'm not stealing. I can live with that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

To invade your privacy what's being accessed has to be private. A song published on the internet, radio, TV, Youtube, iTunes is NOT private.

If I didn't give the sharer permission to put the song out there it is an invasion of my privacy. Radio, TV, iTunes etc will all have permission to publish. Youtube? You frequently see files taken down because the owner hadn't given permission.

 

[sandwiches]

If I didn't give the sharer permission to put the song out there it is an invasion of my privacy. Radio, TV, iTunes etc will all have permission to publish. Youtube? You frequently see files taken down because the owner hadn't given permission.

I don't really get the whole fad lately of equivocating every breach or transgression as invasions of privacy. Using something without permission is not the same as invasions of privacy. It seems just like another excuse to demonize downloading data.

 

[lawtonfogle]

To invade your privacy what's being accessed has to be private. A song published on the internet, radio, TV, Youtube, iTunes is NOT private.

If I put something online but put up protections so only 5 of my closest friends have access to it, then it is private. Even if I make it public but then decide to remove it, it is still private. Even if I give you access to read it once before removing access. A song is just the next step up.

That's a different thing entirely and has nothing to do with privacy. Those are copyright laws and whether they're ethical or not is another matter entirely.

In that my creation is private to myself and those I allow access to it. Just because I let 10 people see my diary, even if I charge them a fee, doesn't make it not private.

 

[lawtonfogle]

You're a couple decades behind. Welcome to the amazing age of Open Source! People creating amazingly complex and elaborate things just for the fun of it! If you're like 42% of all internet users, then you are already using a robust, complex, very polished piece of software called Firefox.

Those who work on Firefox get paid somewhere for some of their work. If they never were paid for their work, then their primary 'bread winning skill' isn't programming, and thus they are unlikely to make anywhere near as decent programs, especially those of a large scale.

Luckily, you're not everyone.

Yeah, I'm not rich enough to just not have to do work which I get paid for. I can program for fun, but that can only happen once I am making enough money to support myself.

Are you a programmer because what you're saying definitely does not apply to me or the majority of programmers I have worked and still work with?

You know good programmers who have never been paid for their skills with a computer? These individuals probably have some source of income/wealth that means they don't need a regular income.

Personally, I've worked on OS software and I've done artwork and given it out for free.

Has all your work been for free? I doubt it. Would you still be able to be anywhere near as dedicated to programming if all you work was free?

That is not to say that everyone can or should. I am simply saying that the world will not come to a crashing halt if random people don't pay for all information.

And I am saying that some people must pay for some of the information. For example, if only a few dozen people bought Minecraft, would it be where it is today? Definitely not.

 

[sandwiches]

If I put something online but put up protections so only 5 of my closest friends have access to it, then it is private. Even if I make it public but then decide to remove it, it is still private. Even if I give you access to read it once before removing access. A song is just the next step up.

In that my creation is private to myself and those I allow access to it. Just because I let 10 people see my diary, even if I charge them a fee, doesn't make it not private.

This will get more deeply into the rights of authors over information but it usually does in these discussions.

Is it private when your friend gave me access? It was his bits and bytes I accessed and copied not yours. It was his hard drive, not yours. It was internet connection I connected through, not yours. How did I invade anything of yours? I connected to your friend, with his permission, accessed his hard drive, and copied data on it.

 

[sandwiches]

Those who work on Firefox get paid somewhere for some of their work. If they never were paid for their work, then their primary 'bread winning skill' isn't programming, and thus they are unlikely to make anywhere near as decent programs, especially those of a large scale.

The vast majority people who work on the Mozilla project code are mostly volunteers and those who get paid are paid for by donations. So, here we have both people will to donate their time and those willing to donate money to the project. Again, just a good example of a successful, noncommercial project.

Yeah, I'm not rich enough to just not have to do work which I get paid for. I can program for fun, but that can only happen once I am making enough money to support myself.

You know good programmers who have never been paid for their skills with a computer? These individuals probably have some source of income/wealth that means they don't need a regular income.

No. I meant that the stuff that we work on for our everyday jobs is rarely related to the OS stuff we work on on the side.

Has all your work been for free? I doubt it. Would you still be able to be anywhere near as dedicated to programming if all you work was free?

No. But you're missing my point that there are people who produce music, books, programs, etc without that being their source of income.

And I am saying that some people must pay for some of the information. For example, if only a few dozen people bought Minecraft, would it be where it is today? Definitely not.

And that touches on another very important part of my belief in all this: If it's worth it, people will pay for it. For instance, I paid for it because I loved it and desired to support the developer. I've played that game for about the equivalent of a full month (30 or so 24-hour days) for 15 bucks. It was worth it.

For instance, I've also paid for Adobe CS4 but I used to pirate it. I had the money and because of my job, it was safer to buy, plus it's a great program that I used so much. There's probably thousands of people who download it for free, but Adobe is still in business and they certainly will not make more money by making it less accessible or suing pirates. You think a kid who can't even buy a $15 CD will have the thousands to cover his infringement fees? You think that kid will be more likely to buy it in the future?

Bottom line, I think data is a very new, gray area now that we're realizing that there's little difference between a song, book, video game, spreadsheet application, movie, photograph, etc. I can only imagine the craziness if we ever develop anything like the replicator from Star Trek. Imagine downloading entire plans that will construct you a new car, chair, watch, clothes, etc.

 

[highlife]

This will get more deeply into the rights of authors over information but it usually does in these discussions.

Is it private when your friend gave me access? It was his bits and bytes I accessed and copied not yours. It was his hard drive, not yours. It was internet connection I connected through, not yours. How did I invade anything of yours? I connected to your friend, with his permission, accessed his hard drive, and copied data on it.

Unless the original author gave this friend permission to re-distribute the work that would very clearly be copy right infringment (assuming there is a copyright) and would also be consider an invasion of privacy. It would be like an ex lover posting homeade inappropriate content on the internet of which he/she never gave permission, I believe there have been legal precidences set for stuff like that.

Also when I correspond via email for work related stuff the person I sent the email to can be sued if he redistribues that information (assuming the information is sensitive or the release causes soem undesirable consequence). The only reason people are not being prosecuted is because so many people are doing it and its nearly impossible to trace, however, that does not change the moral aspect of it.

It would be nice if everyone stopped paying their IRS taxes since there is nothing immoral about not paying them since there is no law saying we have to, so it makes the enforcement authoritarian and illegal and if everyone were doing it theres no way they could handle it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This will get more deeply into the rights of authors over information but it usually does in these discussions.

Is it private when your friend gave me access? It was his bits and bytes I accessed and copied not yours. It was his hard drive, not yours. It was internet connection I connected through, not yours. How did I invade anything of yours? I connected to your friend, with his permission, accessed his hard drive, and copied data on it.

Well, the deep question here is how can we legally treat numbers. I'm sure you are aware, but for the sake of others, all data is represented by a pattern of bit. There is a one to one matching between this pattern and a number. Thus, any program you ever buy, any image, online book, or music, is at the very core, a number. So, can we put legal restrictions on numbers? To answer this question, I will momentarily step away from copying/torrenting into a much darker subject concerning data.

My question is simply, is it ever 'right' to legally restrict a number from being shared or known. If the answer is no, then there is not debate over copying, because in the end you are only sharing a number (and knowledge of the algorithm to turn that number into a usable good, but even without that knowledge you can still guess in most cases. As such, I will bring up for consideration one of the, if not the, worse set of numbers that exist.

All photos stored on a computer are, in the end, numbers. Now, most any photo format can be opened by an image editor (Gimp, Photoshop, ect.). Now, what exactly are the worse forms of images in existence? Sadistic child inappropriate contentography/gore. In the end, all of these images, of which I think we can all agree upon are created by the most evil of means, are horrible. So, should there be any restriction on transmitting these numbers? I'll respond yes. I doubt many will disagree.


Now, since we have established that it is 'right' for limits to be placed upon the sharing of numbers, it only becomes a question of when should this be placed. This is an extremely complex task, but simplified one may say when the sharing causes has greater risk than not sharing. Leaking certain documents can cause harm, but there is reasonable more harm not leaking.

In the realm of produced media, a certain level of sharing actually produces less risk. For example, the pirating of Photoshop potentially causing more legitimate customers. But too much pirating causes a great deal of harm. Since it can be very difficult to pinpoint the optimal level of piracy or free sharing, especially in a law that is applied to all forms of produced media, it is best to give the power to determine that to those who have the most interest of an optimal sharing point, namely those who benefit from the increase use of a product. Of course, few companies will settle on the optima point of sharing and instead just go for an all out ban, but this is to a large extent because even trying to do an all out ban, people do far more sharing that is optimal.


Of course, if you think there should be no legal restrictions on numbers what so ever, then there is little I can do to convince you because we basically derive our views from different axioms. But as I mentioned before, I highly doubt someone truly supports not banning at least some numbers from being shared.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The vast majority people who work on the Mozilla project code are mostly volunteers and those who get paid are paid for by donations. So, here we have both people will to donate their time and those willing to donate money to the project. Again, just a good example of a successful, noncommercial project.

Those volunteers likely have some other jobs they do get paid for, allowing them to volunteer, right?

No. I meant that the stuff that we work on for our everyday jobs is rarely related to the OS stuff we work on on the side.

I would suspect they are both related to programming and practice in one improves performance in the other, perhaps not by as much as it does in its own subsection.

No. But you're missing my point that there are people who produce music, books, programs, etc without that being their source of income.

Yes, but in many cases they use the same (or closely related) skills to get their income.

And that touches on another very important part of my belief in all this: If it's worth it, people will pay for it. For instance, I paid for it because I loved it and desired to support the developer. I've played that game for about the equivalent of a full month (30 or so 24-hour days) for 15 bucks. It was worth it.

Most people probably will, but will that hold true if we all adopt a more free sharing view?

For instance, I've also paid for Adobe CS4 but I used to pirate it. I had the money and because of my job, it was safer to buy, plus it's a great program that I used so much. There's probably thousands of people who download it for free, but Adobe is still in business and they certainly will not make more money by making it less accessible or suing pirates. You think a kid who can't even buy a $15 CD will have the thousands to cover his infringement fees? You think that kid will be more likely to buy it in the future?

But in the end you buy it because there is a risk in not buying it for when you use it professionally. Yes, Adobe does benefit from the pirating because otherwise a large legal user base would have trained on Gimp instead and never have bought a legal copy, but it only benefits from this because at some point, the risk of not buying it becomes great enough that people decide to buy it.

Bottom line, I think data is a very new, gray area now that we're realizing that there's little difference between a song, book, video game, spreadsheet application, movie, photograph, etc. I can only imagine the craziness if we ever develop anything like the replicator from Star Trek. Imagine downloading entire plans that will construct you a new car, chair, watch, clothes, etc.

I think one of the scariest things in this area is our own DNA, which in the end can simply be encoded into data. What can people do once they have access to that? The other scary area is with companies like Axiom or how ever their name is spelled that stockpiles data on every single individual they can get their hands on, including data like where/when you make credit card purchases. These petabytes (perhaps even more) of data is useless to the average human, but as we craft better machine learning and data mining algorithms, we might be able to see the scariest trends emerge that violate privacy on a scale never before thought.

 

[sandwiches]

Unless the original author gave this friend permission to re-distribute the work that would very clearly be copy right infringment (assuming there is a copyright) and would also be consider an invasion of privacy. It would be like an ex lover posting homeade inappropriate content on the internet of which he/she never gave permission, I believe there have been legal precidences set for stuff like that.

I agree it'd copyright infringement but I don't see it as an invasion of privacy but it could very well be considered as such legally. I don't know that much about law.

Also when I correspond via email for work related stuff the person I sent the email to can be sued if he redistribues that information (assuming the information is sensitive or the release causes soem undesirable consequence). The only reason people are not being prosecuted is because so many people are doing it and its nearly impossible to trace, however, that does not change the moral aspect of it.

Sure, and I don't think it's immoral or unethical.

It would be nice if everyone stopped paying their IRS taxes since there is nothing immoral about not paying them since there is no law saying we have to, so it makes the enforcement authoritarian and illegal and if everyone were doing it theres no way they could handle it.

Actually, that's a myth and I've researched it a few times since I wondered that myself. However, if there truly was no law, there would be no reason to pay.

 

[highlife]

Those volunteers likely have some other jobs they do get paid for, allowing them to volunteer, right?

I would suspect they are both related to programming and practice in one improves performance in the other, perhaps not by as much as it does in its own subsection.


Yes, but in many cases they use the same (or closely related) skills to get their income.

Most people probably will, but will that hold true if we all adopt a more free sharing view?

But in the end you buy it because there is a risk in not buying it for when you use it professionally. Yes, Adobe does benefit from the pirating because otherwise a large legal user base would have trained on Gimp instead and never have bought a legal copy, but it only benefits from this because at some point, the risk of not buying it becomes great enough that people decide to buy it.


I think one of the scariest things in this area is our own DNA, which in the end can simply be encoded into data. What can people do once they have access to that? The other scary area is with companies like Axiom or how ever their name is spelled that stockpiles data on every single individual they can get their hands on, including data like where/when you make credit card purchases. These petabytes (perhaps even more) of data is useless to the average human, but as we craft better machine learning and data mining algorithms, we might be able to see the scariest trends emerge that violate privacy on a scale never before thought.

Not that scary, if things got to out of control an EMP pulse in the right place could put that to an end.

 

[highlife]

I agree it'd copyright infringement but I don't see it as an invasion of privacy but it could very well be considered as such legally. I don't know that much about law.


Sure, and I don't think it's immoral or unethical.



Actually, that's a myth and I've researched it a few times since I wondered that myself. However, if there truly was no law, there would be no reason to pay.

So there really is a law, do you have a link by any chance, I get wrapped up in the conspiricy theory sometimes and it would be nice to put this one to bed.