Warez, and Direct Download

Originally posted by wang
Yes thats right JIM, but also ask your sister how much of a tightass video store owners are. We cant have a new release for the first 2 weeks of its release at my store, when most customers ask about it.

I can't speak for the owners that I don't know. I do know that the store my sister works at gets the new releases in a few days before they go on sale or can be rented. They usually break open a few copies so that the employees can see them and have them back before the release date.

I am not saying that what I do with CAD software should be considered totally correct, but there is no other way to do it. Many companies will give you a test copy, but there are usually features that are turned off. First I am not going to reccomend that someone spend thousands of dollars to purchase software unless I am sure that it will do what is required of it. I believe that I shouldn't be able to profit off of someone else's work unless they are compensated. That is why I use a properly licensed program to do work that I am being paid for, even though I may have a pirated program that will do the job easier.

I first started downloading pirated copies of CAD programs when I was working through a temp service. I didn't know what the demand would be when I had finished my current contract and wanted to keep myself marketable. In my opinion I consider myself as doing a small service to the companies that make the software that I use. If there is no one who can operate the program, how many copies are they going to sell? I did refuse to use pirated software at the places I worked and refused more that one temp contract when I was told that it was required. The service I was with backed me up on it. I have done jobs using the bootleg software just to show a company who was considering buying the program what it could do and how they would benefit from it, but I never took payment for those jobs.

Piracy is a tricky issue but i'll tackle it from the consumers sides of things.
I think all out piracy is wrong, and the companies do lose out. If you're fairly well off and earn a decent living, and pirate everything, even the stuff you love such as the matrix series, then they lose out.
If you buy the things you KNOW you love, and pirate the other stuff you don't really care about, it changes things abit.
We all know theres alot of movies and games we would definately never buy, regardless of whether we pirate them or not. The difference is will you pirate things you know you would buy if piracy was not possible?

[edit on 26-1-2006 by T0by]

Originally posted by T0by
Piracy is a tricky issue but i'll tackle it from the consumers sides of things.
I think all out piracy is wrong, and the companies do lose out. If you're fairly well off and earn a decent living, and pirate everything, even the stuff you love such as the matrix series, then they lose out.
If you buy the things you KNOW you love, and pirate the other stuff you don't really care about, it changes things abit.
We all know theres alot of movies and games we would definately never buy, regardless of whether we pirate them or not. The difference is will you pirate things you know you would buy if piracy was not possible?

[edit on 26-1-2006 by T0by]

I know that I don't have $6,000 to $25,000 for a seat of CAD software to learn how to use it. If you add in $1,000 + per year to recieve updates it can get expensive fast. A business can write most of that off taxes as an operating expense. I can't.

You can get absolutely anything you want anytime you want with Warez. It won't be shut down. Crackers/Hackers force the software companies to further their technology, and people will always be there to crack and reverse engineer; it is essentially a very healthy cycle, IMO. Free software would perhaps limit some warez, but I doubt it. It is a tech thing: who's the best, who's the smartest, who can one up the next guy, who births the next generation.

It's great. It's also a feeling of liberation to those who feel like they're in the grip of the quite 'evil' monetary system. Getting stuff, in advance, for free, makes one feel like they are pulling one over on the greedy 'man'. Does it lose companies and individuals of their deserved income? Yes, somewhat. But software and intellectual rights licensing is a bit fried, i think.

Anyway, the future is smarter software companies, and smarter geeks stealing the warez!

Mcory that is exactly right, they are getting deprived of "potenial revenue"
but that doesnt mean that they were exatly going to make the revenue in the first place. As many have stated, people would not go out and buy it in the first place. They i think a loosing very few "potenial customers" through piracy.

Also the person who stated that there will always be geeks to try to crack warez, you are right but also a tad wrong. Games are getting harder to crack these days, especialy due to programs like StarForce. I had a deviant rip of the new prince of persia game a while ago, i had to literaly unplugg the power to my dvd-rom to get it to play. Deviance, or no other group could crack the Starforce protection. Also go readTrusted Computing , wiki doesnt have much on it but, major pc companies are trying to make so that computer hardware wont be able to play pirated software.

i use these sorts of things (i use bit torrent files)...

i use them for: music cds, movies, programs, and tv shows...

i will continue to use them until i get fined or the like...

Originally posted by wang
Mcory that is exactly right, they are getting deprived of "potenial revenue"
but that doesnt mean that they were exatly going to make the revenue in the first place. As many have stated, people would not go out and buy it in the first place. They i think a loosing very few "potenial customers" through piracy.

Unfortunately, we'll probably never really know how many people really would go out and buy it or not. It's easy to do, and generally free (or at least the cost is something you'd be paying anyways, your internet connection.) Had I never discovered the joys of the internet, I may well have spent the endless hours that would've been online working and earning the money to buy the CDs that contained the songs I wanted. If there were no Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, whatever, I might've decided I'd be a "good citizen" and bought them legitimately--even if it meant I'd have to wait until I'd saved enough or the cost went down.

Honestly, and I say this to myself as well, but there is no way to justify it. Whether it's as big an issue as they make it out to be, or whether they really aren't "losing" anything by someone downloading a song or a movie or a software application, it's still stealing. You can say it doesn't cost them anything, you're still not paying for it. You can say you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, then why do you want it period--if it's worth having, isn't it worth paying for? And if it's not worth paying for, why is it worth having?

Believe me, the only reason I stopped using the p2p programs was because I was caught up in the scare mongering going on and I didn't want to get popped. Even then I've still used them once or twice for a couple of songs or some software I'd never be able to afford without spending so much time working I'd never have a chance to use it. I'm just playing devil's advocate; I honestly don't really care if Warner Bros or Sony "lost" $2M last quarter because people don't want to pay for the crap they put out to sell CDs.

There is no need to be scared just dont download mainstream music , if you take a look at what music companies and the riaa are going after its generally mainstream because thats where they make their money.

Besides apart from that who still listens to the mainstream stuff ?

www.musiccdsettlement.com...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/entertainment/printable523833.shtml

Dont you just love it when they pull the money out of your pocket ?

On the other hand if your like me , i love electronic music and collect a lot of radio and dj sets, you have nothing to be worried about because there is no big money to be made from underground music

i think what you might possibly (an it is a small possible) start seeing especially in the movie industry is what you are seeing with Napster and iTunes. the big cinema companies could take their DVDs and encode them like people in the scene do and sell them online allowing you to download them after paying your $20. with broadband connections it could be feasible and it could also boost the DVDR market and give it some actual legitamacy other than homemade movies and other various things.

the question would then be regulating copying it.. but if done right it could be profitable.

Originally posted by Arkane
i think what you might possibly (an it is a small possible) start seeing especially in the movie industry is what you are seeing with Napster and iTunes. the big cinema companies could take their DVDs and encode them like people in the scene do and sell them online allowing you to download them after paying your $20. with broadband connections it could be feasible and it could also boost the DVDR market and give it some actual legitamacy other than homemade movies and other various things.

the question would then be regulating copying it.. but if done right it could be profitable.

I think that you have a great idea, with one small exception. The video store owners. If you release a movie for download, what incentive is there for the video rental people to promote the movie?

Video stores will soon be obselete.


If you make a car, what incentive is there for buggy whip makers?


Businesses do not have a right to make a profit, they have to earn it.

the video stores have always been a middle man in the business world. granted they give you the option of renting rather than buying which costs alot less but selling downloadable movies online would cut out the middle man and give the cinema company direct profit from their product.

they get profit from their product currently but it is just like any manufacturer out there. they sell their product to a distributor at a low cost and then the distributor sells to the contractors or in this case the general public. i have no idea what WalMart buys a DVD for but they definetly make a profit off of it when they sell it. otherwise they wouldn't sell it.

if this is done by the cinema companies individually, they could setup their own store for downloading. or they could set it up with another distributor like iTunes who would then make a commission off of each movie sold.

in any case, people might be more apt to buy a higher quality movie and download rather than download the bad quality cam releases or search everywhere for the DVDR release which is not common.

in any case, the video stores will always have a place in the business world but it probably wont be as big as it has been ever again. it is getting attacked on all sides it seems these days even by cable TV providers and satellite providers who allow you to rent a movie out of a list of them like Starz and HBO which also deters alot of people from going to the video store to rent a movie. even Netflix is working the video stores over. all it is is a case of the traditional way becoming obsolete.

I agree that the middle-men are on the way out. People thrive on convenience, and it's much easier to watch cable/satellite and download from the net.

As for new hardware and software encryption, it is all absolutely crackable. Once a technology is more widespread, whatever type of protection it is, it will be cracked wide open. It mostly comes down to software, and even the required hardware for protection schemes can be bypassed. Give the crackers time, they'll crack it. And then the software companies will up the ante and release the uncrackable software. Which will be cracked before too much time has past. Rogue programmers live for this type of thing.

The situation is only complicated if you accept the corporate ethics. I base my actions on two principles: the creators of useful or worthwhile things should be able to earn a fair profit, and people should not be deprived unless it harms someone or something else.

Copying music, movies, or whatever doesn't harm anyone else. Copying likely provides benefit to you and others, so copying is good. If you believe the creator deserves more money, you should take actions to give the creator more money. These can include buying the product, buying another product made by the same creator, or directly donating to the creator.

Doing otherwise is supporting economies of fear. People should not have to fear somone to buy from them. This doesn't make any sense. Most people are plenty capable of honestly paying for an honest service.

The RIAA and to some extent the MPAA don't seem to believe their companies are providing an honest service. They feel they can only be profitable by cheating people. Maybe, they unjustifiably think badly of themselves. However, there is probably some truth to their personal indictments of themselves.

Originally posted by crontab
The situation is only complicated if you accept the corporate ethics. I base my actions on two principles: the creators of useful or worthwhile things should be able to earn a fair profit, and people should not be deprived unless it harms someone or something else.

Copying music, movies, or whatever doesn't harm anyone else. Copying likely provides benefit to you and others, so copying is good. If you believe the creator deserves more money, you should take actions to give the creator more money. These can include buying the product, buying another product made by the same creator, or directly donating to the creator.

Doing otherwise is supporting economies of fear. People should not have to fear somone to buy from them. This doesn't make any sense. Most people are plenty capable of honestly paying for an honest service.

The RIAA and to some extent the MPAA don't seem to believe their companies are providing an honest service. They feel they can only be profitable by cheating people. Maybe, they unjustifiably think badly of themselves. However, there is probably some truth to their personal indictments of themselves.

I don't agree with you on this one. You definition of worthwhile things is alot different than mine. I see music and movies as very worthwile things. They give most people a much needed break from the monotony of real life and are very much a part of American culture and many others as well. You saying copying music and movies doesnt harm anyone is completely false. It actually hurts alot of people in the industries that are involved in countless aspects of putting a movie together or an album together. Essentially by copying these kinds of things and NOT paying the author for his work, you are putting people out of a job.

You may not agree with the philosophy behind big corporations and a capitalistic society and there are parts that I agree with you on. But let's say for example you owned a bread store. You make loaves of bread and sell them to customers who need bread. Bread is probably a "worthwhile" thing to make a profit on because most people eat it in some form or another to survive. You have an employee stealing bread behind your back and selling it for a cheaper price on the street. Is this not wrong?

The real question here is "what is "intellectual property""? Perhaps that is the discussion we should be having. Can ideas be made the proprietary "property" of someone, indeed someone besides the person who came up with the original idea?

I read the other day that a Cellular provider has patented the use of emoticons in electronic communications. Now, this company didn't invent emoticons, nobody who works for the company has invented emoticons, in fact, nobody even KNOWS who invented emoticons. But thanks to our model of "intellectual property", we may soon have to pay every time we use one of those little smileys: :-)

If the current intellectual property law was in effect at the turn of the 20th century, there'd only be one car company today, or every car manufacturer would have to pay a license fee to the first person who patented the notion of putting an internal combustion engine on 4 wheels (in fact, that notion HAS been patented, and it's altogether possible that there will be an effort to enforce that patent someday).

Further, there are now companies who don't produce anything beyond thousands of ridiculous patents a year, a patent on "clicking an icon on a computer screen" for example. Then, they file suit against some fat company like Dell, hoping that the threat of being tied up in court will cause Dell to settle the suit for 6 figures. And they do this over, and over and over. And, they're successful doing this.

And this type of abuse is happening in a whole host of industries, from the music industry to software to manufacturing and communications. There is a mad scramble to lock down ideas as if they were little oil wells that could be capped and piped.

There was a time when an artist, or writer or inventor was responsible for figuring out a way to profit from his work. Mozart played concerts, DaVinci helped the Medici generals build war engines, rag-time composers sold sheet music. There was no concept of the idea as currency. If you wanted tgo make money from your idea, you had to "make it work".

I don't know if this is the answer, but it's worth having the conversation. What is "Intellectual Property"?

Originally posted by Arkane
I don't agree with you on this one. You definition of worthwhile things is alot different than mine. I see music and movies as very worthwile things. They give most people a much needed break from the monotony of real life and are very much a part of American culture and many others as well. You saying copying music and movies doesnt harm anyone is completely false.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Suppose, I believe a movie studio is charging three times more than the fair price for a dvd. I'm not willing to pay the price for a movie, but I believe in paying a fair price. So, I have two choices a) Buy 0 movies. b) Download 4 movies from p2p and buy two movies.

Under scenario A, the movie industry gets $0 revenue, and under scenario b, the movie industry gets $20 in revenue. No one benefits under scenario a. I don't get to see the movie, and the movie studio makes no money. Under scenario b, I get to see 6 movies movies, and the movie industry gets paid.

Why should I go for scenario a? In situations like these fear-based legalistic ethics are working to keep people from doing what is natural, which benefits everyone. The industry lobbying organizations gread is endless and they believe they can bully more money out of people. Stalin tried to do the same thing to Russian peasants, and despite the cruelty, it wasn't very effective.

We need to recognize fair profits, and allow economies to work. Undue, tyranical interference with people's business is both abusive and ineffective.

Originally posted by crontab
You don't understand what I'm saying. Suppose, I believe a movie studio is charging three times more than the fair price for a dvd. I'm not willing to pay the price for a movie, but I believe in paying a fair price. So, I have two choices a) Buy 0 movies. b) Download 4 movies from p2p and buy two movies.

Under scenario A, the movie industry gets $0 revenue, and under scenario b, the movie industry gets $20 in revenue. No one benefits under scenario a. I don't get to see the movie, and the movie studio makes no money. Under scenario b, I get to see 6 movies movies, and the movie industry gets paid.

Why should I go for scenario a? In situations like these fear-based legalistic ethics are working to keep people from doing what is natural, which benefits everyone. The industry lobbying organizations gread is endless and they believe they can bully more money out of people. Stalin tried to do the same thing to Russian peasants, and despite the cruelty, it wasn't very effective.

We need to recognize fair profits, and allow economies to work. Undue, tyranical interference with people's business is both abusive and ineffective.

I disagree with this 100%. When you start talking about things like "fair profits" and "fair prices" this shows a leaning towards a Socialist society. If you don't think a price is fair then don't buy the product. When enough people feel the same way the prices will go down. In my opinion "what the market will bear" is the only fair price. Look at the trends in automobiles right now. With gas prices going up, people are starting to look at more efficient vehicles.

As far as intellectual property is concerned the laws governing it need to be changed. If you have created something new or have made a notable improvement to an existing item then you deserve a patent for it. I have read where a company has patented human DNA. All it takes is one lawyer with a bright idea and we will end up having to get a license to have children because otherwise we will be infringing on their patent.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I disagree with this 100%. When you start talking about things like "fair profits" and "fair prices" this shows a leaning towards a Socialist society. If you don't think a price is fair then don't buy the product. When enough people feel the same way the prices will go down. In my opinion "what the market will bear" is the only fair price. Look at the trends in automobiles right now. With gas prices going up, people are starting to look at more efficient vehicles.

All markets aren't magically 100% efficient. Some markets are efficient and others are highly inefficient. For a market to be efficient, it requires a lot participants, where no one has the ability to hoard or monopolize. Intellectual property grants the creator the exclusive rights to their work or invention. Furthermore, music often becomes so ingrained in our culture, that there is severe social pressure to listen to and perform certain music. For instance, Time Warner claims exclusive rights to the performance of "Happy Birthday"A.

Additionally, markets do not just magically set prices. Market makers set the prices, which they do more or less based on the supply and demand. However, the market makers get a cut, and they often have the potential to manipulate the market. For instance, businesses might charge different prices to different markets, or get higher spreads from certain producers. The most common examples of this would be child discount, elderly discount, student discount, corporate discount, etc. The music industry engages in similar practices by letting the radio play the music for cheap, and then selling it to consumers for lots of money. Additionally, the music industry is able to leverage their position as a market maker to bilk music producers with less political leverage.

However, it is not that easy for independent producers to avoid the large industries. Intellectual property enforcement requires expensive lawyers. The big players often can copy innovators work, and then put it off as their own. Their advantage as market makers, allows their work to beat the independents to market, and creates an environment where they can then use their intellectual property rights to keep independents off the market.

Not all economic activity is productive. In fact, some of the most profitable economic activity is often what is called rent-seeking behavior. The classic case would be a mafiosa or a politician, who demands money, threatening to dirty up your business, or revoke your permits. Unions and cartels could also be classified under this category. The other profitable activity is innovation and improved efficiency. However, rent-seeking behavior often dominates.

While direct the exchange of profits for goods or labor is often the best way to structure transactions, I believe other methods may be more appropiate where rent-seeking behavior reaches atrocious levels. This can take many forms, but the principle remains the same.

As far as intellectual property is concerned the laws governing it need to be changed. If you have created something new or have made a notable improvement to an existing item then you deserve a patent for it. I have read where a company has patented human DNA. All it takes is one lawyer with a bright idea and we will end up having to get a license to have children because otherwise we will be infringing on their patent.

I agree with what you are saying. The question I am asking is why should some lazy patent examiner, or some judge have the authority to make this decision. Why shouldn't the decision be more left up to individuals?

The issue is complicated because there is not always a clear distinction between an appropiate patent, and an inappropriate patent. If someone does lots of work to discover something about a portion of the human DNS, don't they deserve to be rewarded? However, if disney copies some traditional, should they have the right to sue other people who use the same traditional story? I don't think these issues can be properly resolved under our current intellectual property law regime.

There needs to be recognition of how much the various participants contributed to the project. I recognize that this isn't necessarily an easy determination. I think in many cases markets are the best determination of price. However, I don't think we should be dogmatically bound to market pricing, especially when the market is contrived, inefficient, and/or manipulatable by certain parties.