I want to know your thoughts on file sharing

[sandwiches]

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.

Well, this goes back to my point on morals. I would say that child inappropriate contentography causes harm and thus is immoral. Not the transfer of pictures themselves but the act of making those pictures. However, if we do not punish those who do transmit those pictures, we run the risk of them feeling encouraged to make more, thus causing more harm. I don't believe that downloading has a risk in copying the original song or transmitting the information, thus I see it as moral.

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.

I wouldn't know the numbers, to be honest. However, I think a big problem I have is the fact that I don't see so-called lost sales or lost profit as such. If they could point to some evidence that, had the pirate not copied their data they would've made more money, I'd be more inclined to believe this.

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.

I think there should be restrictions on data when it can be objectively shown to cause harm.

 

[sandwiches]

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?

I'm not sure where we'll end up. I wonder for instance, what will my nephew and other kids being born now think about file sharing as they will have grown up in a world where information is much more available to them for much cheaper than it used to be (sometimes free!) A lot of young kids are already used to downloading music and movies for free. Is this a bad thing? Will this kill industries? I personally think it will kill the industries as they exist now and that this change will be for the better.

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.

Risk plays a part but also the hassle of cracking it every time was part of it. =P

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.

I have to say that I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't really care about his privacy a whole lot. Maybe I've missed the point but I don't see why privacy is so important. It is interesting to mention that the concept of privacy is much more prevalent in Western cultures.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

The link's on the post there but here it is again:
Income Tax Page

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, this goes back to my point on morals. I would say that child inappropriate contentography causes harm and thus is immoral. Not the transfer of pictures themselves but the act of making those pictures. However, if we do not punish those who do transmit those pictures, we run the risk of them feeling encouraged to make more, thus causing more harm. I don't believe that downloading has a risk in copying the original song or transmitting the information, thus I see it as moral.

While selling some data that is harmful to create, merely allowing the transfer would not seem to. It would seem that by creating a free supply that cost nothing, demand would be reduced, thus less people would be willing to pay for it.

I wouldn't know the numbers, to be honest. However, I think a big problem I have is the fact that I don't see so-called lost sales or lost profit as such. If they could point to some evidence that, had the pirate not copied their data they would've made more money, I'd be more inclined to believe this.

There are some who would not have bought it, there are some who would have. But if there weren't penalties for copying it, then those who would buy won't instead. The issue is not do pirates hurt the sales now, but if they lessened the penalties, more would buyers would pirate instead.

I think there should be restrictions on data when it can be objectively shown to cause harm.

What is the objective harm standard? Do you have objective proof that the mere transfer of some data (say the previously discussed kind) actually causes harm. While we can easily show that the production causes harm, what about the mere transfer. Selling would increase demand, but mere transfer? Putting more of some data out for free would seem to reduce demand for the product, not increase it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I have to say that I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't really care about his privacy a whole lot. Maybe I've missed the point but I don't see why privacy is so important. It is interesting to mention that the concept of privacy is much more prevalent in Western cultures.

Probably has to do with how much we try to get the one up one each other compared to more collectivist cultures which work together. Let a secret slip, even one that logically is not the least bit bad, and people will use it to shame and degrade you.

 

[sandwiches]

While selling some data that is harmful to create, merely allowing the transfer would not seem to. It would seem that by creating a free supply that cost nothing, demand would be reduced, thus less people would be willing to pay for it.

There are some who would not have bought it, there are some who would have. But if there weren't penalties for copying it, then those who would buy won't instead. The issue is not do pirates hurt the sales now, but if they lessened the penalties, more would buyers would pirate instead.

I can't speculate on who would've bought and who wouldn't have. I can only say who has bought it and who hasn't. Would I have bought Adobe CS3 instead if I hadn't pirated it? Would I have bought CS4, if I hadn't pirated CS3? Maybe... Maybe not.

We can only go by what has happened, not what would've happened. Because it we go by what could've happened then I could make two points:
1) It may very well be the case the some people only bought some data because they pirated in the past. I know it's been the case for me in more than a few ocassions.
2) Some pirates only pirate to spite "the Man" or the "big corporations" due to their DRM or prices.

So, if we're going by speculations, then I can imagine that some sales would've been lost if piracy didn't exist and some sales would've been gained if DRM schemes and penalties were a bit less draconian and harsh.

What is the objective harm standard? Do you have objective proof that the mere transfer of some data (say the previously discussed kind) actually causes harm. While we can easily show that the production causes harm, what about the mere transfer. Selling would increase demand, but mere transfer? Putting more of some data out for free would seem to reduce demand for the product, not increase it.

I don't have an objective harm standard. I use what I see as harm. It's my subjective measure. I don't think any transfer of data IN AND OF ITSELF is harmful. I think there's benefits and disadvantages for piracy but, personally, I see no benefit to transmitting child inappropriate contentography for instance.

Demand doesn't decrease merely because supply increases. Demand might remain the same while supply increases until saturation occurs. However, if there isn't enough exposure through piracy could demand maybe not be as high as it could? What about another thing, when I make my files in PSD or AI format, I am inadvertently creating a demand for Adobe products and possibly helping in establishing the standard. Would this standard in the industry be as strong if it weren't for the support of pirates creating files that require or work best on Adobe products?

All this is speculation on our part. How do we measure this?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I can't speculate on who would've bought and who wouldn't have. I can only say who has bought it and who hasn't. Would I have bought Adobe CS3 instead if I hadn't pirated it? Would I have bought CS4, if I hadn't pirated CS3? Maybe... Maybe not.

We can only go by what has happened, not what would've happened. Because it we go by what could've happened then I could make two points:
1) It may very well be the case the some people only bought some data because they pirated in the past. I know it's been the case for me in more than a few ocassions.
2) Some pirates only pirate to spite "the Man" or the "big corporations" due to their DRM or prices.

So, if we're going by speculations, then I can imagine that some sales would've been lost if piracy didn't exist and some sales would've been gained if DRM schemes and penalties were a bit less draconian and harsh.

I'm talking if there was no penalties, if all copying without buying was legal. Would companies need to buy Photoshop? People have already admitted they consider risk when they buy/pirate something. By reducing risk, we increase these people's chance to pirate.

I don't have an objective harm standard. I use what I see as harm. It's my subjective measure.

Then it becomes a question of what do those with the power to make law see as harmful.

I don't think any transfer of data IN AND OF ITSELF is harmful. I think there's benefits and disadvantages for piracy but, personally, I see no benefit to transmitting child inappropriate contentography for instance.

Demand doesn't decrease merely because supply increases.

Unfilled demand does. If people want X waters, and I give them X - n waters, then they only have n unfilled demand for water. Thus, someone producing water would only produce n before saturation occurs, and considering n < X, they produce less water. If the production of water causes some amount of harm, n harm is less than X harm.

Demand might remain the same while supply increases until saturation occurs.

Perhaps there is enough to already cause saturation.

However, if there isn't enough exposure through piracy could demand maybe not be as high as it could? What about another thing, when I make my files in PSD or AI format, I am inadvertently creating a demand for Adobe products and possibly helping in establishing the standard. Would this standard in the industry be as strong if it weren't for the support of pirates creating files that require or work best on Adobe products?

Would anyone buy it if there was no risk associated with using a pirated copy?

All this is speculation on our part. How do we measure this?

Build an economic model with risk included in the decision making process, see if people buy more or less depending upon is risk is positive or zero.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm talking if there was no penalties, if all copying without buying was legal. Would companies need to buy Photoshop? People have already admitted they consider risk when they buy/pirate something. By reducing risk, we increase these people's chance to pirate.

I'm not sure but people pay a lot for support, access to online resources unavailable to pirates, quick, convenient, and painless updates and upgrades, etc. The convenience and value-added services might be enough to convince some people to buy. How many people? I'm not sure.. I'm assuming it must be enough if huge projects like MySQL can survive off their sales of their enterprise version and support contracts while giving away the version that some 80% of all websites use.

Then it becomes a question of what do those with the power to make law see as harmful.

Sure, but I believe the cat's out of the bag and there's no practical and moral (non-harmful) way to enforce the laws as they are now. What's more harmful and immoral, a 12-year-old child who downloads her favorite songs without paying or a multi-million corporation who sues her for $150,000? To be fair, they did settle for "only" $3,000. However this is only one example. They've sued a 90-year-old lady who didn't even own a computer, a dead woman, an 8-year-old, and a hospitalized teenager with over $100,000 in hospital bills for downloading 10 songs.

Unfilled demand does. If people want X waters, and I give them X - n waters, then they only have n unfilled demand for water. Thus, someone producing water would only produce n before saturation occurs, and considering n < X, they produce less water. If the production of water causes some amount of harm, n harm is less than X harm. Perhaps there is enough to already cause saturation.

To be clear, I do believe that overall piracy is hurting the big production companies and record labels. However, I see this a positive movement overall. Many artists have embraced this and shed their old labels and started marketing more directly to the consumer and seeing greater returns as they have less middlemen to pay, for instance. I think this little shake up in the industry is necessary one to remove the old cobwebs of stagnation that has been the status quo for so many decades. It's about time for a little rebellion, in my opinion and I think content authors will come out the better for it, in the end.

Would anyone buy it if there was no risk associated with using a pirated copy?

I'm not sure. However, I know there have been several different companies in different media that have experimented with different payment schemes. For instance, Stardock, a developer, doesn't use DRM in their games and players have actively responded positively and buy the game in thanks for this move. Webcomic sites give their comics for free and depend on income from ads, sales of t-shirts and other branded products and they do well. Radiohead gave one of their albums for free on the net and offered a version you could buy with little goodies. This was the result:

In October 2008, a report from Warner Chappell revealed that although most people paid nothing for the download, pre-release sales were more profitable than the total money from sales of Hail to the Thief. The report also stated that the discbox sold 100,000 copies.

Build an economic model with risk included in the decision making process, see if people buy more or less depending upon is risk is positive or zero.

That's a good idea but I think it'd be harder to implement in real life than it is on paper.

A little addendum:

I believe that the information industries are completely missing the point and opportunities available today. They'll eventually get it but by then, the industry landscape will look very different. Meanwhile, they try to force their old systems and pricing structures into a system that simply will not support it. So, instead of antagonizing their customers, they need to realize that people will sometimes buy things out of loyalty of simply because they feel they've been treated fairly or have gotten a deal and exploit that. Instead they're going around suing people for ridiculous amounts of money to try and scare people away from pirating but all they do is create a environment of hostility where people feel even more justified in doing what they're doing because the companies come out as bad guys. Long story short, they need to find ways to adapt and realize they might never be able to profit like they used to.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Sure, but I believe the cat's out of the bag and there's no practical and moral (non-harmful) way to enforce the laws as they are now. What's more harmful and immoral, a 12-year-old child who downloads her favorite songs without paying or a multi-million corporation who sues her for $150,000? To be fair, they did settle for "only" $3,000. However this is only one example. They've sued a 90-year-old lady who didn't even own a computer, a dead woman, an 8-year-old, and a hospitalized teenager with over $100,000 in hospital bills for downloading 10 songs.

There are obvious cases where laws are badly applied, either due to the wording or due to a 'evil' nature of the prosecutors. Granted, many in the anti-piracy business are downright evil.

To be clear, I do believe that overall piracy is hurting the big production companies and record labels. However, I see this a positive movement overall. Many artists have embraced this and shed their old labels and started marketing more directly to the consumer and seeing greater returns as they have less middlemen to pay, for instance. I think this little shake up in the industry is necessary one to remove the old cobwebs of stagnation that has been the status quo for so many decades. It's about time for a little rebellion, in my opinion and I think content authors will come out the better for it, in the end.


I'm not sure. However, I know there have been several different companies in different media that have experimented with different payment schemes. For instance, Stardock, a developer, doesn't use DRM in their games and players have actively responded positively and buy the game in thanks for this move.

Didn't Spore become become one of the most pirated games just because of the crazy DRM? There is of course a balance, but I think going to the point where copying is fully legal isn't it. At least, there are a number of questions to answer first, for example do people react the same with loyalty/ect. in a society running of such a principal.

Also, businesses will try to maximize their profits in the realm of their knowledge. Will they make more money making everything free?

 

[sandwiches]

There are obvious cases where laws are badly applied, either due to the wording or due to a 'evil' nature of the prosecutors. Granted, many in the anti-piracy business are downright evil.

Didn't Spore become become one of the most pirated games just because of the crazy DRM?

Oh yes. It was nuts.

There is of course a balance, but I think going to the point where copying is fully legal isn't it. At least, there are a number of questions to answer first, for example do people react the same with loyalty/ect. in a society running of such a principal.

Also, businesses will try to maximize their profits in the realm of their knowledge. Will they make more money making everything free?

I have a feeling, and nothing but a feeling, that what will happen is that information in and of itself will lose value. We'll start placing the true worth to things we cannot acquire through mere downloading. Support, convenience, speed, customer service, live performances, physical goodies, online resources, etc.

This is an interesting time to be alive. We're seeing an evolution and revolution of information. We're changing our sense of value and morality when it comes to many long-established institutions and constructs. The next few decades, if not years, I believe will see more and more experimental forms of revenue that work ALONGSIDE people's good will and willingness to pay for what they perceive as valuable.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Oh yes. It was nuts.



I have a feeling, and nothing but a feeling, that what will happen is that information in and of itself will lose value. We'll start placing the true worth to things we cannot acquire through mere downloading. Support, convenience, speed, customer service, live performances, physical goodies, online resources, etc.

This is an interesting time to be alive. We're seeing an evolution and revolution of information. We're changing our sense of value and morality when it comes to many long-established institutions and constructs. The next few decades, if not years, I believe will see more and more experimental forms of revenue that work ALONGSIDE people's good will and willingness to pay for what they perceive as valuable.

I still say the death of privacy, data mining and machine learning, and a few other tidbits will be even more interesting than the how information works on a market side, because, in the end, information can only go so far. You still will need goods and services otherwise. Now, when all goods can be treated like information, once we get matter replicators or what have you, that is when the true revolution will begin. Saddly, I doubt that is within my time.

 

[Lockguy3000]

I used to "file share",
I became born again, and haven't down load since.
The temptation is still there,
but thank the Lord, I am free from that nasty habit.


When I perform a lockout,
and the person refuse to pay,
even though no physical object has been stolen,
it's still thief of service rendered.

Pay me my 100 dollars,
or I'll call the cops,
then put a lien on your home.

 

[sandwiches]

I used to "file share",
I became born again, and haven't down load since.
The temptation is still there,
but thank the Lord, I am free from that nasty habit.


When I perform a lockout,
and the person refuse to pay,
even though no physical object has been stolen,
it's still thief of service rendered.

Pay me my 100 dollars,
or I'll call the cops,
then put a lien on your home.

Luckily, copyright infringement isn't theft of service.

 

[sandwiches]

I still say the death of privacy, data mining and machine learning, and a few other tidbits will be even more interesting than the how information works on a market side, because, in the end, information can only go so far. You still will need goods and services otherwise. Now, when all goods can be treated like information, once we get matter replicators or what have you, that is when the true revolution will begin. Saddly, I doubt that is within my time.

It would be amazing to see. I can only imagine the craziness that would happen. The first thing I imagine would be that companies would lobby for the government to make those machines illegal.

 

[Asvin]

Downloading them for personal use? I think it's acceptable.. I myself have about 1 TB worth of movies on an external hard drive... I wouldn't sell it for profit though!

 

[selfinflikted]

Downloading them for personal use? I think it's acceptable.. I myself have about 1 TB worth of movies on an external hard drive... I wouldn't sell it for profit though!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if authorities somehow discovered that drive and found its contents, wouldn't they arrest you? Or fine you? Or something?

 

[Skavau]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if authorities somehow discovered that drive and found its contents, wouldn't they arrest you? Or fine you? Or something?

They'd have to demonstrate they know how you got it. But, in any case, here's a question for some:

I can record sound using stereo mix. Is it illegal for me to record youtube videos using stereo mix and then converting them into mp3 files, tagging them and ergo taking the track? Or if not, should it be? How could that be enforced?

 

[sandwiches]

They'd have to demonstrate they know how you got it. But, in any case, here's a question for some:

I can record sound using stereo mix. Is it illegal for me to record youtube videos using stereo mix and then converting them into mp3 files, tagging them and ergo taking the track? Or if not, should it be? How could that be enforced?

It is illegal as you weren't licensed to copy the song in that way. It'd be pretty much impossible to detect and it's pretty much unenforceable as such.

The main ways people usually get caught are when they sell their copies or when they're found out in the process of downloading the pirated information.

 

[selfinflikted]

The main ways people usually get caught are when they sell their copies or when they're found out in the process of downloading the pirated information.

Yep. My ex works at a local Coca-Cola bottling plant and a couple of his friend's (at work) kids got caught using Limewire to download music and such. Though they were not jailed, both families got hit with a $250,000 fine each. One of the many reasons I don't and will not be downloading illegal stuffs.

 

[Asvin]

Yep. My ex works at a local Coca-Cola bottling plant and a couple of his friend's (at work) kids got caught using Limewire to download music and such. Though they were not jailed, both families got hit with a $250,000 fine each. One of the many reasons I don't and will not be downloading illegal stuffs.

Or you could use your neighbor's un-protected WIFI setup like I do lol jk