Piracy

[Diagoras]

I think Diagoras is arguing that Obsidian should use the success of Kickstarter to consider switching to a commission-based economic model. When artists work for commission, they get paid up-front (commissioned) to produce a creative work. This is how professional portrait painters make money. And none of this relies on a government-funded set of laws, which seems to be Diagoras' criticism of the current copyright model.

 

I agree with all your points, but I want to clarify: I'm not anti-copyright. Well, it might be better to say I'm not anti-government meddling in the creative economy. But I am skeptical of the long run justification for copyright, and I'm uncertain if there's really enough evidence for the necessity of copyright law - especially considering some of the downsides.

 

For example: why don't we just have the government fund artists? What really is the point of the cumbersome middleman of copyright in this whole arrangement? I could understand it when intellectual property was very similar to physical property and the point was to deal with publishing costs, but nowadays it seems like "tipping the scales" of rivalry and excludability is beyond almost any government action.

 

ie. Why not just admit that entertainment media, delivered as a product, is a public good with all that entails? Media companies themselves are already starting to admit that, as evidenced by their shifting monetization models.

[alanschu]

Yes, it does. The marginal theory of value indicates that the value of goods is determined by the price people pay for it. Obviously, there is some negligible time and effort value involved, but the price of digital goods in and of themselves is at or near zero.

 

Value is different than price. Consumers will always seek to pay less than the value they place on an item. Otherwise it's not worth the price.

 

This is fundamental to how people motivate their purchasing decisions. There's microscale influences which may cause hesitation when the price is below the value threshold, but this is how people pay their price, and it's why things like Steam sales are so effective. Coupling it with a finite offer, people will pick up games based on the justification of "If I do play it, it'll probably be worth $3!"

 

People will not pay more for something than the value they place on it. Note that the value placed on an object is not static.

 

On the other hand, the labor theory of value is advanced by Marxists, and claims (roughly) that the value of goods is equivalent to the labor input. I was pointing out that unless you're a Marxist, saying "People work hard on games and thus deserve money" makes no sense.

 

Nope, this isn't what I was saying at all. This is just a red herring. Determining whether or not someone feels any moral justification is irrelevant to this, however. When I discuss purchasing products and supporting an industry that I am interested in, it's trivial to recognize that leeching off of it undermines the entire industry and ultimately hurts me in the end. You've even acknowledged this. As such, a moral implication is not hard to connect when it's someone that has put time into the game, if I wish to experience it, subverting their wishes of compensation simply because it can be acquired for free only serves to provide disincentive to provide said goods simply because people are not able to invest their time doing so simply because the opportunity cost of doing so is prohibitive. Especially if it starts compromising basic needs.

 

This doesn't mean that the value of a product is equivalent to labour input. If someone spends the same amount of effort making something highly desirable to me, I am placing higher value on it and am willing to pay more for it. If another person spends the same amount of effort making something I feel is worthless, they won't get a penny from me. Nor should they. I'm not giving them money simply because they put effort into it, nor do I think that anyone should. This is different than taking something that I do find desirable and paying nothing for it (without the consent of the author) simply because I can. Under this line of thinking, theft has no moral implications either. Being purely utilitarian, if you can steal something you want, you should.

 

Tragedy of the commons is still heavily influenced by morality. It can only be determined a tragedy if some sort of "right/wrong" is ascribed to the action being taken.

 

 

I was addressing the idea that things typically get rules put against it because society deems it so. If our society highly valued cheating and lying, it wouldn't be considered immoral to do so.

 

Yes, but those aren't law, are they? Copyright is a specific law with a specific purpose based on a specific chain of reasoning. Moral discussions are entirely relevant - we don't have copyright because artists inherently deserve to have monetization done on their behalf or something.

 

Depends. Lying under oath breaks a law. There are situations where cheating will get you legal trouble as well. That something is a Law is more a reflection of a society's current morals. It's just been codified. If people unanimously agreed that free access and distribution to all information was a good thing, Copyright Law wouldn't exist.

 

 

In this case I'd disagree. As a content creator, the advantages around the ideals of copyright pretty clearly serve to help provide me with some security that the motivation for substantial financial reward is a potential outcome. You can argue until the cows come home if this is actually accomplished with current copyright laws, but the I disagree that it's not about morality. When I realized I wanted to become a content creator is when I decided that I should stop pirating because it's not something that I would want done to stuff I made. Given that I was able to experience an ethical conflict with my actions, it's trivial that it's a moral consideration. If it wasn't, people couldn't be morally influenced by it.

 

Again, I'm talking about the reason behind the law. Your private actions can be for whatever reason, but I'm talking about the reason that we'll take people who copy things without permission and lock them in jail for years. We don't do that because of your desire to make money - as cool of a guy as you may be. We do it for a compelling economic purpose to society as a whole.

 

The problem with this is that Law's aren't created by non-human automatons. They are created by human beings and it's impossible for them to not implicate their morals into it. It's why there was no issue with slavery at one point (the power brokers had no issues with it. There was no moral implication at the time), but eventually that changed.

 

Laws are also simply used as messaging during socialization. I have no doubt that there are people that do not pirate simply because there's a Law against it, and by virtue of the Law's existence there's a moral lesson imposed: "Copyright infringement is bad. Don't do it."

 

 

This is why, to use game development, game developers themselves often implement ways to undermine piracy (and have been doing so for decades) to help monetize the product. If a pirated/bootlegged copy was unusable, then the pirated user would then have to reevaluate whether or not they wanted to play the game with the cost of a legitimate copy and determine if the expected value obtained is worth the cost. Of course, this DOES cause issues for the legitimate owners, especially with more modern forms of DRM. Which is, perhaps paradoxically, despite being a content creator my stance has significantly softened on DRM.

 

Yeah, I think we can agree that DRM is a very bad monetization route. SAAS, crowdfunding, microtransactions show way more promise.

 

Crowd funding works now, but the jury is still out on it IMO. It should be noted that there are laws in places to protect against fraud (which is a very serious risk with crowd funding). This is done for financial reasons as well, but it still has a moral foundation: "It's wrong to take people's money in trust and not deliver on what was promised." I'm waiting for some high profile ****storms that happen when crowd funded games aren't what some contributor's imagination told him he was promised.

 

SASS and microtransactions are systems that certainly feel their share of resistance right now. Unfortunately by their very means they end up becoming exclusive, which means people WILL be left out. But yes, they are often done to help combat piracy (and second hand sales), although depending on who you ask, stuff like SAAS is just another type of DRM.

Edited December 6, 2012 by alanschu

[anubite]

Well, profit is useful for growing a company and becoming self-sustaining and solvent and such, but even if a kickstarter game generates no profit, it should be fine for the company really, it just means they can't catch a break and need to immediately do some fund-raising via kickstarter for their second game to stay out of bankruptcy. In theory, all development costs should be covered by kickstarter funding. Granted, this obviously isn't probably the practical case, but debts incurred while using kickstarter funds should be relatively small, or I'd say the company failed to estimate its operating costs when they did their first fundraiser, which isn't a fault of the system.

 

I must be misunderstanding you, are you saying that you don't think that Obsidian would want to or need to generate revenue through sales of PE?

 

If you are I completely disagree with you, the profit from sales does go into keeping a company stable but any company would also want to make money from the years spent on the game, they would want to improve there quality of life and become individually wealthier. Like almost everyone who works aspires to become. I can guarantee you if PE sells badly, which I believe is almost impossible, Obsidian won't make another one. And frankly you can't blame because where is the financial incentive for there years of hard work on the project?

 

Finally pirating is a negative influence on the sales and development on PC gaming, it is a scourge and we should be opposed to it under any circumstances

 

What I said is perfectly clear. If Obsidian makes no profit, it's not really a bad thing, well, it is - companies that get their products funded for them SHOULD be making profit but it's not like the Obsidian is going to fall off a cliff if that were to happen. I just described to you the result of such a scenario in plain English.

 

I am not actually suggesting Obsidian throw away any potential profit, but that with Kickstarter, their concerns for solvency and success should be abated. If they manage the 4 million well and can get at least as many people to buy the game on Steam as those who kickstarted it, they made a profit of 4 million dollars and funded a portion of the company for a reasonable amount of time for "nothing". Not many businesses get such opportunities.

 

Companies should make profit, at least under a capitalistic system where you believe capitalism to be a positive sum game. In such a system, profits mean that capitalism is working, the economy is growing, and things are improving. We like things that improve and grow because that perpetuates capitalism and human society, furthering all of our ends.

 

But there are more theories on how economies should work, than that. Obsidian making a small amount of profit is not necessarily a bad thing at all. If Obsidian can stay solvent, I think that's all they care about? Unless the executives behind Obsidian want to make bigger games, hire more people, or raise their own salaries. I get the impression they just like doing the work they do, getting a decent salary doing the wonderful jobs they have, under such "harmonious" circumstances, piracy should be of minor note anyway, because the game is supported and letting more users gain access to PE, even if it's via some illegitimate route, could be of great boon to Obsidian. Consider all the young teenagers without credit cards that might be future RPG addicts in their twenties or thirties. I'm sure a large amount of pirates are minors without the ears of their parents, I'm also sure a large amount of pirates are not native English speakers, who live in countries with low incomes. In ten years, such incomes could rise dramatically and we might see Obsidian's products financially backed by such 'veteran' consumers of Obsidian's games.

 

Tim Schafer has admitted to being a pirate and even did so during his kickstarter campaign.

 

Thus, I don't view piracy as necessarily a negative. Even if you believe in zero sum economics, piracy is still growing your business.... provided it doesn't get out of control.

 

And since you cannot possibly control piracy (as I think many people have stated), why resist it? Why even care about it? I think piracy is an issue of finesse vs strength. Strong people want to clap their hands around things and not let them go, but people with finesse understand that true control requires patience and calm analysis. People with finesse try to manipulate events, not control them. Hell, even Obsidian's games talk about this sort of thing. The discussion of piracy is completely moot. Even companies like Ubisoft, who go on DRM rampages, should just be ignored. If you like their products even after suffering through the hassle of getting one to work, support them. If you don't like their games, stop supporting them.

 

Of course, I can understand passion. But there is a time and a place for it. Piracy serves an economic purpose, it's just a part of the system. It's not a new thing at all.

Edited December 7, 2012 by anubite

[alanschu]

And since you cannot possibly control piracy (as I think many people have stated), why resist it? Why even care about it? I think piracy is an issue of finesse vs strength. Strong people want to clap their hands around things and not let them go, but people with finesse understand that true control requires patience and calm analysis. People with finesse try to manipulate events, not control them. Hell, even Obsidian's games talk about this sort of thing.

 

To echo on what Diagoras was mentioning, we are already starting to see this with alternative monetization methods. Software as a service, microtransactions, and so forth.

[Malcador]

I could see it. My understanding comes from second hand accounts, in that I had a roommate that actively torrented a lot. Was frustrating to have my bandwidth compromised for it! XD.

 

Most of my exposure to western piracy is through p2p methods.

 

Well if that was a Uni roommate that's what that bandwidth is for, rampant copyright violation I'd hope your exposure to piracy was just P2P, otherwise you'd be like a member of RELOADED or something (although that would be amusing)

[anubite]

And since you cannot possibly control piracy (as I think many people have stated), why resist it? Why even care about it? I think piracy is an issue of finesse vs strength. Strong people want to clap their hands around things and not let them go, but people with finesse understand that true control requires patience and calm analysis. People with finesse try to manipulate events, not control them. Hell, even Obsidian's games talk about this sort of thing.

 

To echo on what Diagoras was mentioning, we are already starting to see this with alternative monetization methods. Software as a service, microtransactions, and so forth.

 

Certainly, a service-based industry is much harder to "pirate". That is side-stepping the issue, though not all industries can (or even should) be service-based. Steam I don't think would be quite as successful as a subscription service, but does many things to correctly tackle piracy, even if it's just one big annoying DRM itself.

Edited December 7, 2012 by anubite

[Amentep]

If you don't want people to copy it, don't sell it to them.

 

But isn't the whole point that the pirates are copying that which wasn't sold to them?

 

Ergo your response is that the only safe way not to have people take your work without compensating you for it to not create the work in the first place?

 

One thing that doesn't get enough attention is the fact that copyright is supposed to last for a limited amount of time -- in the United States, it was 14 years. I seem to recall that you could make a one-time renewal so that it would last a total of 28 years, at most. The American Constitution states that copyright should be "for limited times" but, unfortunately, the US government believes that this length of time can be extended retroactively. This has been abused by copyright holders, so that the term now effectively lasts forever. Personally, I think that 14 years is more than enough time to profit from a creative work.

 

It was 14 years in the 1790; this was changed to 28 years in 1831 then 28 + 28 in 1909. I think it stands at 120/95 years for Work for Hire and 70 years after the authors death now. (Note, however, pretty much any work prior to 1920 has fallen out of copyright before the extensions were made with some exceptions, iirc).

 

I really prefer the authors death guideline to be honest (man, with 14 years, 44 Stephen King books would be in the public domain...)

[Zoraptor]

Steam I don't think would be quite as successful as a subscription service

Steam is explicitly a subscription service, per their SSA ("Steam Subscriber Agreement") which everyone who uses it has to accept. It has no subscription fee at this point of time, as with every provision subject to change at any time with sole recourse being to launch a class action lawsuit cancel your subscription.

[alanschu]

And since you cannot possibly control piracy (as I think many people have stated), why resist it? Why even care about it? I think piracy is an issue of finesse vs strength. Strong people want to clap their hands around things and not let them go, but people with finesse understand that true control requires patience and calm analysis. People with finesse try to manipulate events, not control them. Hell, even Obsidian's games talk about this sort of thing.

 

To echo on what Diagoras was mentioning, we are already starting to see this with alternative monetization methods. Software as a service, microtransactions, and so forth.

 

Certainly, a service-based industry is much harder to "pirate". That is side-stepping the issue, though not all industries can (or even should) be service-based. Steam I don't think would be quite as successful as a subscription service, but does many things to correctly tackle piracy, even if it's just one big annoying DRM itself.

 

 

Steam, in and of itself, still provides a service. While some of the hardcore may dislike it, it does do things like autopatch, assist developers with things like achievement integration (and other Steamworks benefits), is a product delivery mechanism, and incorporates things that I find useful like the Steam overlay (although they were even nice enough to make that available for non-steam games). In many ways Steam provides a service both to PC gamers, as we ll as PC developers.

 

It doesn't need to be monetarily subscription based in order to be a service.

Edited December 7, 2012 by alanschu

[Diagoras]

Value is different than price. Consumers will always seek to pay less than the value they place on an item. Otherwise it's not worth the price.

 

No, price determines value. Under marginal theory of value, there is no objective "value" floating out in the cosmos that differs from price. The value of a good is determined by the price the market puts on it.

 

Nope, this isn't what I was saying at all. This is just a red herring. Determining whether or not someone feels any moral justification is irrelevant to this, however. When I discuss purchasing products and supporting an industry that I am interested in, it's trivial to recognize that leeching off of it undermines the entire industry and ultimately hurts me in the end. You've even acknowledged this. As such, a moral implication is not hard to connect when it's someone that has put time into the game, if I wish to experience it, subverting their wishes of compensation simply because it can be acquired for free only serves to provide disincentive to provide said goods simply because people are not able to invest their time doing so simply because the opportunity cost of doing so is prohibitive. Especially if it starts compromising basic needs.

 

This is all well and good, but I'm failing to see what it has to do with copyright.

 

This doesn't mean that the value of a product is equivalent to labour input. If someone spends the same amount of effort making something highly desirable to me, I am placing higher value on it and am willing to pay more for it. If another person spends the same amount of effort making something I feel is worthless, they won't get a penny from me. Nor should they. I'm not giving them money simply because they put effort into it, nor do I think that anyone should. This is different than taking something that I do find desirable and paying nothing for it (without the consent of the author) simply because I can.

 

First, this isn't a taking. That would be theft. This is copying.

 

You probably like air. A lot. You don't pay the owners of forests for the oxygen they produce.

 

You might walk past an outdoor orchestra and enjoy their music. You don't pay them for it.

 

And both of those things are probably less rivalrous and excludable than IP. Just let that crazy fact sink in for a second.

 

You really can't pick and choose the way you are. Under labor theory of value, the price paid for something should be equivalent to the effort required to create it. Under maginal theory of value, goods are worth what the market prices them at, making monetization key to making a profit. Unless some other rights are being violated, you don't get paid just for making things. You have to figure out how to turn something useful into something profitable.

 

This is the reason the first wave of Internet startups failed - many of them had good ideas, and millions of customers, but no paying customers. They were unable to monetize a very useful product or service. It wasn't the customer's fault for not throwing money at the websites, it was the startup's fault for not monetizing their product.

 

I recommend reading up on marginalism in general, and marginal theory of value in particular, if you want to know more.

 

Under this line of thinking, theft has no moral implications either. Being purely utilitarian, if you can steal something you want, you should.

 

...no. Theft violates people's natural right to property. No one has a natural right to not be copied. And I have no idea where utilitarianism came from.

 

Tragedy of the commons is still heavily influenced by morality. It can only be determined a tragedy if some sort of "right/wrong" is ascribed to the action being taken.

 

...or by looking at economic outcomes. Which is how it's normally determined.

 

Even if you decide that economic outcomes are a moral judgement, that sort of reductio ad absurdum is inane. You can reduce any and all laws ever passed down to some incredibly simplistic moral judgement, and then decide that regulations on the length of scissors in a barbershop is a sign of society's deep hatred of long scissors. That's got nothing to do with my point, which is that copyright is an economically targeted and justified law like other economic interventions, rather than an explicitly moralistic law like blasphemy laws. Appealing to vague moralistic arguments about copyright makes about as much sense as doing the same to justify stimulus spending - the argument isn't about morality (we all like strong economies) but about economic effectiveness.

 

This also ignores that copyright itself is on the moral defensive, its existence reducing consumer rights. It's justfied despite being an infringement on people's rights due to a perceived compelling economic interest for the public as a whole.

 

As I said originally: copyright doesn't exist to benefit rightsholders, it exists to benefit the public. It's a privilege granted to those who hold copyright specifically due to the economic benefits, as opposed to a right inherent to creators/publishers. In discussions online, it's surprising how many people think that copyright is the default state, as opposed to reality where the burden of proof is on it.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

But isn't the whole point that the pirates are copying that which wasn't sold to them?

 

Yes, but it was sold to someone else, or how else did they get it? That person then distributes what they bought for free.

 

All else being equal, if you want to keep something secret keep it secret. If you put it out in public, it won't be a secret any more. Business models predicated on putting thiings out in public and insisting that no one else talk about it/copy it/share it are not very good ones. At least, not until you get the iron fist of government involved.

 

Ergo your response is that the only safe way not to have people take your work without compensating you for it to not create the work in the first place?

 

I was talking about the hypothetical abstract (IIRC) rather than our actual world, responding to the idea that there's an inherent right to control what other people do with your goods once they're in their hands. You should note that we're not discussing taking, but copying, which doesn't violate property rights. Anyway, refer to the ongoing conversation about monetization to see possible answers to this question. In short, there are other ways to monetize entertainment media than to use the government to force everyone to pretend that they're like physical goods.

 

I really prefer the authors death guideline to be honest

 

Could you say why? Especially given the purpose of copyright?

[alanschu]

No, price determines value. Under marginal theory of value, there is no objective "value" floating out in the cosmos that differs from price. The value of a good is determined by the price the market puts on it.

 

This is just wrong. Sorry. People desire something, they place a value on it. If something imposes a cost (price) that they do not wish to pay, they don't acquire said good. If something has a cost that is less than the perceived value they do.

 

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Economic value is a measure of the benefit that an economic actor is able to gain from good or service. It is generally measured relative to units of currency, and the interpretation is therefore "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service"?

 

Note that economic value is *not* the same as market price. If a consumer is willing to buy a good, it implies that the customer places a higher value on the good than the market price. The difference between the value to the consumer and the market price is called "consumer surplus". It is easy to see situations where the actual value is considerably larger than the market price: purchase of drinking water is one example.

 

 

Just think about it, instead of blindly ascribing to neoclassical models. The entire concept of a product going on sale is to place the price below the value someone places on the product. In actual reality, it is typically impossible to always precisely set it at the specific marginal value where the supply and demand curves perfectly intersect. This results in either consumer or producer surplus. Pirating game software is not an example of acquiring a product that provides no value. It's an example of the consumer maximizing their consumer surplus. They are getting more value for their dollar, because they have an implicit value on the game software.

 

Here's another thought experiment. Say you like steak. You're willing to pay $10 for a steak. If you come across a producer that is willing to sell a steak to you for $2, you'll happily buy it. It doesn't mean that you now value steak at $2. You just received a consumer surplus of $8.

 

 

The price for something is based on an estimate from the aggregate value of the market as a means of maximizing revenue/profits. Ideally the price point of everything is sold at the exact value that someone is willing to pay (for obvious reasons this doesn't happen in practice). So unless you are suggesting that everyone that goes and buys a product for X dollars all values it equally, it's a bogus statement.

 

 

I recommend reading up on marginalism in general, and marginal theory of value in particular, if you want to know more.

 

I have. You apply it too rigidly (in a neoclassical way) and incorrectly equate marginal value for actual value. Air is readily available and in such a large supply that it's marginal value is worth nothing. It's actual value is quite high. Deny yourself some air for a few minutes, however, and see if you still consider it something of no marginal value. By extension, if piracy were to be eradicated, lets see if all those people that pirate games feel that games have no marginal value. The foundation of marginalism is built around things like the water-diamond paradox. If something truly had no value, it's marginal value would always be zero.

 

Marginalism also encompasses the marginal benefit associated with your decisions beyond just the product. There is marginal benefit to purchasing computer software because it provides financial compensation to said software creator, which then encourages the future production of goods that I demand. I directly benefit from doing so, and is a part of the marginal benefit I receive from purchasing a game rather than pirating it (This is a point you even acknowledged by the way). Even then, marginalism influences how we make our decisions based on assessing the marginal value of a decision against the marginal cost of making said decision. Which is exactly what pirates do. The marginal value to any individual is non-zero, and significantly greater than the marginal cost (which, as you say, is negligible).

 

As marginalism focuses on marginal value/cost, it's the marginal value that equates to the price, not the actual value. Marginalists acknowledge this with things like the water-diamond paradox, in which it's explicitly stated that the value of water is significantly greater than the value of a diamond, yet the price of diamonds is much more than water. If value = price, then you contradict the claims put forth by the marginal theory of value.

 

Finally, if the value of a video game was truly 0, then the marginal benefit of obtaining it would be zero. For people to actively seek to acquire an item that provides no actual marginal benefit (which is what you're claiming if the value of something that is free is truly zero), is contrary to what the marginalism suggests in how people justify their decisions from an economical point of view.

 

 

I think it pretty clear that I don't believe in all the neoclassical explanations of value (since a neoclassical perspective is value = price), and subscribe more to the models of subjective theory of value. Although, I tend to prefer to combine elements of both the intrinsic and subjective theories of value. Subjective assessment of value is important, but if the subjective value of said good can only be made and sold at a price point that is below the intrinsic components to produce said good, then it's not a viable commodity (for now at least). It's trivial to point out that there's no point in selling something for $80 if it costs you $100 to make it. You either have to find a way to lower the cost of making it, or you find a way to change how people value the product so they are willing to pay more money for it (this is pretty much what De Beers did).

 

 

...no. Theft violates people's natural right to property. No one has a natural right to not be copied. And I have no idea where utilitarianism came from.

 

Natural rights are defined by human beings, the same way as laws (legal rights). The reason why some people consider it a natural right is literally because John Locke said it was and some power brokers agreed with him. It's also an idea that has been challenged (especially when compared to the right to life and liberty).

 

 

Yes, but it was sold to someone else, or how else did they get it? That person then distributes what they bought for free.

 

This would be true if the source of piracy always came from a sold good. Do you think that day one piracy (or even prerelease piracy) is a result of someone legitimately buying a game and cracking it, then distributing it?

Edited December 8, 2012 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

I'd say we are at an impasse.

 

Diagoras, what do you do for a living? I just have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that my hard work would be so vulnerable to copying, and I'm not even in a particularly creative industry. I mean nothing personal, I appreciate your candor about this topic and your persistence about consumer rights.

[alanschu]

I'd say we are at an impasse.

 

Fair. At this point it's different schools of thoughts arguing and we might as well be a couple of stuffy economists that disagree on the other's model.

[Spider]

Either way, I have to applaud you for being so civil about it. It's been an interesting discussion to follow, and discussions relating to piracy usually get out of hand with name calling. This one didn't and it's been a nice change.

[alanschu]

And here I was thinking I was being a bit of an ass!

[Orchomene]

Just to add a bit on the limit of IP and copyright.

I'm working in applied mathematics and computer science. Well, I can develop an algorythm and will never have any copyright on it. Mathematics are not subject to this kind of protections. Thus, a hard algorythm that needed monthes to be developped and can take only weeks to be coded will give money only to the one that codes it.

In the end, since in Europe sciences labs get less and less money from governments, we need to shift from algo developpers to product developpers. Which is absolutly not our job (not that it is a bad job to do, just that there are a lot of people that do that better than scientists).

In the entertainment industry, the same shift appears too : more and more artists are self publishing to have the possibility to earn money from their work.

 

All in all, this copyright system, as it is done now is just reversing the industrialisation process that transformed artisanry into industry.

[Diagoras]

This is just wrong. Sorry. People desire something, they place a value on it. If something imposes a cost (price) that they do not wish to pay, they don't acquire said good. If something has a cost that is less than the perceived value they do.

 

To bring this back to the comment I was originally addressing:

 

You have a creator, and that creator asks for compensation for their creation. When you pirate, you ignore that basic idea. There is nothing good about that.

 

Seems to assert that merely creating something that someone else uses means you get compensated. I was pointing out that only the moralistic, intrinsic theories of value (namely LTV) assert that, and in our modern societies you only get paid by monetizing your labor - copyright being a monetization mechanism. Obviously, the rivalrous nature of physical goods means it's impossible to receive one without compensating the creator or stealing, so normally this isn't a problem. It's only with non-rivalrous intangibles that this breaks down. Can we agree on that?

 

BTW, we are going wildly off topic, but I wouldn't mind picking your brain a little on price/value/marginalism, as some of what you're saying is very different from what I was taught. For example, your take on marginalist's answer to the diamond-water paradox. Do you mind if I shoot you a PM? If you want to take a rain check, that's fine - this isn't exactly a thrilling topic.

 

Natural rights are defined by human beings, the same way as laws (legal rights). The reason why some people consider it a natural right is literally because John Locke said it was and some power brokers agreed with him. It's also an idea that has been challenged (especially when compared to the right to life and liberty).

 

How about property rights, then? As in, there is a clear difference between negative property rights (ie. don't steal) and state-mandated monopolies like copyright, both philosophically and legally.

 

This would be true if the source of piracy always came from a sold good. Do you think that day one piracy (or even prerelease piracy) is a result of someone legitimately buying a game and cracking it, then distributing it?

 

That would be pretty consistently morally objectionable, as it would involve theft or hacking into someone's system. So yeah, screw those guys.

 

And here I was thinking I was being a bit of an ass!

 

What? No, you've been awesome!

Edited December 9, 2012 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

Diagoras, what do you do for a living?

 

Software developer/student. I specialize at yelling at computers when they don't do what they're supposed to.

 

I just have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that my hard work would be so vulnerable to copying, and I'm not even in a particularly creative industry.

 

So do I. To be clear, I'm not decided on the question of copyright. But I do think that there is a need for serious reevaluation, given the original intent vs. the nature of the modern world. Specifically, the digital revolution has changed many of the assumptions that went into copyright about the distribution of media, which suggest that a different approach might be better adapted for the 21st century. What that different approach might look like (no government intervention, direct government funding, "copyleft", reduced scope copyright, etc.) is less clear.

 

I mean nothing personal, I appreciate your candor about this topic and your persistence about consumer rights.

 

Thanks. I appreciate you putting up with my giant, spastic walls of text.

[Amentep]

But isn't the whole point that the pirates are copying that which wasn't sold to them?

 

Yes, but it was sold to someone else, or how else did they get it? That person then distributes what they bought for free.

 

The first person could have stolen it. We've seen games leaked to the internet by finding and hacking a server before they were released. So I don't think it could be really assumed that anyone actually bought a copy.

 

Even if the first person bought a copy, what right do they have - other than that they can - to distribute a copy they've made (as opposed to selling their copy)?

 

All else being equal, if you want to keep something secret keep it secret. If you put it out in public, it won't be a secret any more. Business models predicated on putting thiings out in public and insisting that no one else talk about it/copy it/share it are not very good ones. At least, not until you get the iron fist of government involved.

 

If the ultimate idea is to keep things secret than there wouldn't be anything shared to anyone, though. If the ultimate idea is that unique ideas should be shared then certainly there should be some rational reason why a person would share?

 

I really prefer the authors death guideline to be honest

 

Could you say why? Especially given the purpose of copyright?

 

Because it gives the author the benefit of their creation but still allows a reasonable window for the work to move into the public domain and thus be inspirational for derivative works.

[AGX-17]

No, price determines value. Under marginal theory of value, there is no objective "value" floating out in the cosmos that differs from price. The value of a good is determined by the price the market puts on it.

 

Value is subjective. People over-value their own posessions, and undervalue the posessions of others. Currency has value because people believe it has value. When people don't believe in its value, inflation or hyperinflation occur. The value of that currency is dictated by human emotion, not by markets or rational thought. Resource rich countries that should be vastly wealthy are impoverished and undeveloped because of human greed circumventng markets. Gold miners in west Africa sell the gold they mine at great personal risk and effort for far below the international market price. The market doesn't set the prices, the men who stand at the top of the market exploit them just like the oil industry exploits consumers. They're price makers, not price takers. They overprice their own posessions while demanding lower prices for the goods of others.

 

It's irrational, just as most human behavior is (contrary to the fallacious dogma of neoclassical/Hayekian economics and its proponents.) Conservative/Chicago/Austrian school economists continue to cling to outdated, early 19th century theory (which has been thoroughly disproved by two centuries of scientific research into biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other sciences,) that humans are perfectly rational, emotionless calculators of economic efficiency and utility, but humans are living creatures dominated by emotion. "Markets" are an abstract construct of human society and react irrationally to news all the time. Financial and commodity markets frequently panic irrationally over news without waiting to hear the whole story, and most often it turns out to not be anything to panic over. Markets react the same to a paper tiger as a real tiger.

 

I've said as much in another thread, just as I said this: Alfred Nobel never established a Nobel Prize for economics, for he believed (and rightly so,) that economics (at least at the time, I say this because more realistic, more scientifically sound schools of economic thought have emerged but the world of economics is still dominated by fallacious 19th century beliefs, thanks to the political conveniences it provides the ruling class,) was not a science, but a dogma.

 

The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" which is now commonly mistaken for a true Nobel Prize was established by a Swedish bank in 1968.

Edited December 10, 2012 by AGX-17

[Orogun01]

It addressed the point and was informative, cool post

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I've pirated a total amount of 10 games in my life. 5 of them I bought later. 5 of them were games without demos that I was on the fence and they turned out to be horrible(never finished them).

The reason I pirated them, is because as a student I live on a very tight budget. I can't afford to buy games I don't like over games I like. That said, I donated 50 dollars to Project: Eternity and I lived on noodles the rest of the month.

 

I don't find this morally wrong. The basis of our economical system is that the rational consumer works with a complete knowledge of the product and all the alternatives. Only then can the economy work efficiently. If the companies do not provide this information, then I'll find the information elsewhere. Naturally that does not happen. But the closer you get to complete information, the more efficient the market becomes.

 

And money I did not spend on the games I've pirated has been spent on other games I've bought. Because they were better.

 

And anyone claiming that every time I pirate they lose money are idiots. My bank account is close to empty after each month. There is no way I can pay more to these companies than I already am, so I pay those who have the best products. Lesson to be learned here? Make good ****.

 

Also:

http://www.forbes.co...never-kill-you/

Edited December 10, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks

[Hurlshort]

Ah, we got our first big sense of entitlement post in while, awesome

 

Your life will go on if you don't play the latest and greatest video games. What you are doing is completely morally wrong.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Of course my life won't end. My point was that I want to buy the good games. Not the bad ones. This way, the good developers are rewarded. The bad ones lose revenue, which they would not have gotten if they would've released a demo in the first place. It's either that or not buy anything at all or flipping a coin. As I said. I have pirated 10 games within my 15 year gaming carreer. I have lost count how many games I've bought. I've lost count of how many games I've lost while moving to different apartments and lending.

 

I have troubles feeling guilty.

 

However, I do consider people who pirate games, like them and then refuse to buy them to be jackasses. Every game I've pirated I've played a few hours max. Then stopped uninstalled and bought it, or just uninstalled it.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Lord of Lost Socks