Pirates Ahoy!

[Aaron Drake]

Well, there are a number of issues that must be considered in your example.  Firstly, there's the issue of counterfeiting.  I'm no legal expert by any means, so correct me if I'm wrong: For software/digial files, I believe it's legal to make copies if you own the rights to the original.  However, with counterfeiting, I don't think it matters if you own the orignal $50 bill or not; it's still illegal to make a copy.  

Secondly, to reiterate my earlier statement, it's not really accurate to say that you own a piece of the bill.  Your money didn't buy it; the government's did.  (Say you rent movies at Blockbuster.  The money you spend on the rental then goes to buy a DVD.  Did you pay for that DVD?  Not really.  The money is no longer yours once you give it to Blockbuster.  Blockbuster's money went to pay for that DVD, not yours.  Therefore since your tax dollars are no longer yours once you give them to the government, you do not own a piece of the bill.)

If, however, it were legal to counterfeit money, and you paid to have the copy made, then that would be legal and more arguably ethical.  However, when you rip tracks from a library's CD, you are not paying for them, and you do not own them. Therefore, it is not OK to do so.

[Travis]

Well, from what I understand is that there are several different licensing options that SIU can choose.  It's not exactly racketeering when you have a choice about it.

For example, some ISP's offer two internet access plans:
1) a per-minute internet access plan, where you're charged a certain amount for every minute you spend online, OR
2) an unlimited access plan, where you pay a fixed rate per month

So now, is the 2nd option racketeering?  I mean, you're forced to pay, regardless of how much you use the internet, and even if you don't have a computer!  

It'd be pretty dumb to say that option #2 is inherently worse than option #1, though.  (Even if you're not online 24/7, option #2 still may be cheaper overall than option #1).
It all depends on your needs.

I don't think that situation is much different than MS's licensing plans.  SIU might be charged for every network line (similar to the unlimited internet plan), but it could be much cheaper in the end than paying for just the systems with only MS stuff on them (similar to per-minute internet plan).

[Aaron Drake]

One other interesting aspect of piracy that hasn't been mentioned is how it can potentially help artists.  

I have heard of many bands by reading about them & by word of mouth, and I've wanted to hear some of their material.  So, admittedly, I got on Kazaa & downloaded some of their songs, which eventually led to me buying their album(s).  

Piracy can function as a way of giving out free samples, however illegal it may be.  That's why smart bands are starting to allow visitors of their website to stream most or even all of the songs off of their albums.  

Pretty good marketing strategy for both the artists and the consumers if you ask me.

[Guest]

Here is my take on piracy...
I have no problems with piracy for the sheer fact that so few companies have complete control on entire industries.  I dont know how many people saw that program on MTV about how the artists get thier money, but sales off of CD's wasnt where their money was earned.  Majority of that money goes to the record labels.  Artists make the most out of their money through the concerts and tours that they put on.  It's a no brainer as to why its the labels that are lobbying so hard for anti-piracy laws.  Only the bands that produce other artists are supporting the laws.  So whose really losing out on the money, cause bands certainly dont lose publicity from online trading.  As far as software is concerned, for me, its an ethical thing as to why I dont care about software piracy.  If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.  Unfortunately propritary code is what keeps buisnesses making money.  Ultimatly make me some money too :) (knock on wood)  Its greedy people that make software piracy an issue.  Overly its greedy company CEO's that truely see the cash.  Need I mention names?  Like most things in this country its corporations that are the big fish, who lobby the law makers to cause companies like napster to fall.  But no matter the laws, there will always be some sort of FTP ring, or some channel on IRC where pirated software will be free for all that know how to find it, and there will always be people smart enough to to get around any anti-piracy code in software/hardware.

[Aaron Drake]

Like most things in this country its corporations that are the big fish, who lobby the law makers to cause companies like napster to fall.

Well, the laws Napster broke were already in place before Napster started up.  Corporations didn't push to have laws created that would make Napster illegal.  From what I've read, a judge recently ruled that companies like Morpheus which connect to Gnutella or things like it are not breaking the law because they merely connect users to a p2p network.  From what I understand, Napster worked differently, and was therefore deemed illegal.

And it is indeed true that there will always be piracy.  If people get desparate enough, they can always hold a microphone up to speakers and record directly from them.  Crude, but it will probably always get the job done.

[Josh]

How I am able to sleep at night is this: If I had the money I would buy the stuff I pirate now. Or if I was charged a cheaper rate closer to actully cost.

I think if Peer to Peer network charged you per song or file...like maybe $0.50, I would be so broke right. Peer to Peer can really change the way the world works. Just think if you could hear an artist's song while he/she was still working on it in the studio.

[Jim Sodam]

If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.

They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it?  I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.

[Ryan DonCarlos]

yeah I would never have money of my own again either.  I find that piracy is wrong but just about everyone does or has done it in the past.  I don;t promote it but I do it.
no one will ever be able to stop it as long as there is music there will be ways to steal it so the fact that it is on computers is highly irrelevant.  My idea is this when it comes to stealing music. If you download music for your own personal enjoyment it is ok, if you turn around and sell it for money then you are a criminal.

-=[Fate]=-

[Ryan DonCarlos]

yeah ok so i hit the post button twice somehow and I can't delete my post so I'm just going to say whatever I want to say

here it goes.
whatever I want to say

thanks
-=[Fate]=-

I know I'm a newbie and I'm sure there is some button I am not seeing for deleting a post.

[Ryan Lintker]

Secondly, to reiterate my earlier statement, it's not really accurate to say that you own a piece of the bill. Your money didn't buy it; the government's did.

I don't buy that.  I believe Abraham Lincoln may have said it best at the end of the Gettysburg Address "....that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."  I do believe that as Americans it is our government, and what the government owns is owned by the people.  Maybe if more people felt that way, government owned property would get more respect, and the whole country would be a nicer place.

While I do believe that shared ownership is implied, I don't think that gives a person the right to copy or rip materials obtained from the library.  When two or more people own something together, usually only one can use it at one time.  Sharing ownership of something doesn't always mean that each party involve gets possession concurrently.

Does anybody know what the law would say about downloading mp3's to replace worn out or damaged cassette tapes?  I know that I have a few that were either left on the dash, had something spilled on them, or were put in an angry tape player that ate 'em up.  Should a person be able to replace them without buying the cd?

[bill corcoran]

Jim wrote:

If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.

They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it?  I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.

You're making a couple of poor assumptions there, buddy.  First of all, "open source" doesn't necessarily mean the software is free of charge.  It means that the source of the code is disclosed freely.  You can still charge a fee for the software, and you can still license it.  Sure open source software is often GPL'd, and it would be easy to rip off software to which you could obtain the source code, but that's not the point.

Secondly, who says you can't get paid to develop open source software?  Rather than pay a software company for some restricted license on a piece of closed source software, why not employ workers who can find/write/maintain/deploy open source software?  This would give total control firm, and may better suit their specific requirements.  Sounds to me like you could get paid to develop free software.

I think the comment "If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at." meant that collaborative efforts might have a synergistic effect.

[William Grim]

Okay, I've got to say something here.

If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's relevant to the issue and not something that doesn't make any sense.

The earlier example of Iraq's people choosing their leader meaning they deserve him is not even closely related to a music artist choosing to get screwed over by their record companies.  If you're going to make an analogy like that, then I could make one saying something like (assuming this was a bill that was introduced into the House): "If you're going to ban the use of termicides because it can cause death, then we need to ban automobiles too, because it can cause death."

On the surface, that analogy I made seems okay; they both cause death.  However, looking closer, there are several more differences than similiarities.

I don't understand how a guy who kills his own people and "friends" and has plans to kill other people is even remotely close to someone who is ripping off people who live in a free country that can freely work in some other industry.  Plus, I doubt that guy was "elected" in all the time; dictatorships only make it seem like they're elected into power.

I make the same argument about the $50 bill analogy.  How is a cheap $50 bill the same as an mp3?  If you can give me lots of similarities and differences for me all tabulated up, then maybe I'll believe your analogy.

[Michael Kennedy]

Heh, heh.

My anology made sense after I hung out with Jack Daniels for a couple of hours the other night.  Now it does't.  I wish I hadn't posted it, to be honest.   :-D

[Aaron Drake]

Actually, after more consideration, I have decided that making an mp3 out of a WAV on a library’s CD might be OK.  Consider this: You are legally allowed to make copies of pages in a library’s book for educational purposes.  So, you could argue that since you wanted to make a copy of a song for educational purposes (to hear what it sounds like :-P), it would be OK to make a copy.

[Jim Sodam]

bill wrote:

Jim wrote:

If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at.

They would be nowhere, how many software developers do you think there would be if no one got paid to do it?  I'm pretty sure most open source developers also have jobs where they get paid.

You're making a couple of poor assumptions there, buddy.  First of all, "open source" doesn't necessarily mean the software is free of charge.  It means that the source of the code is disclosed freely.  You can still charge a fee for the software, and you can still license it.  Sure open source software is often GPL'd, and it would be easy to rip off software to which you could obtain the source code, but that's not the point.

Secondly, who says you can't get paid to develop open source software?  Rather than pay a software company for some restricted license on a piece of closed source software, why not employ workers who can find/write/maintain/deploy open source software?  This would give total control firm, and may better suit their specific requirements.  Sounds to me like you could get paid to develop free software.

I think the comment "If all programming was open source, imagine where the levels of software design could be at." meant that collaborative efforts might have a synergistic effect.

I didn't make any assumptions, buddy. ;-)

I was talking about the real world, how many successful companies are there that sell open source software?

Anyway, this isn't even on topic...