Comcast Kills Business Model of Piracy Settlement Firm

[Modred189]

There are higher laws than that of the state. I cannot stress the importance of this; rights are, by definition, inalienable and if you use the state as your sole source of rights, then you don't truly have rights because every right (including things like the right to life) is subject to the revocation or change at the whims of the dictators that run the state.

There is no natural law justification for imaginary property. Someone who arranges the bits on their hard drive in a certain fashion has not violated anyone's actual rights. Arranging the bits on your hard drive in a similar fashion to the arrangement of someone else's bits doesn't make those bits disappear from their hard drive. I have seen no valid argument justifying imaginary property because every argument I've seen is based on either an emotional argument (argumentum ad passiones), appeal to authority, or entitlement (namely that there is a right to make a profit rather than a right to seek a profit).

That's all nice. But we live in a society dictated by the laws of the state, and these laws (though abused like any other human construct) have real societal value. Furthermore, as a denizen of that state, you are held liable for the violation of those laws. Now, the state allows for a hands off solution to violations (settlements), but the law is the law, and you can't just choose to ignore it.

And you can't ignore the argument for IP rights: By restricting the rights of others, you are increasing the amount of innovation in society as a whole, which is a greater net benefit than the lost right to copy.

 

[c3141hf]

That's all nice. But we live in a society dictated by the laws of the state, and these laws (though abused like any other human construct) have real societal value. Furthermore, as a denizen of that state, you are held liable for the violation of those laws. Now, the state allows for a hands off solution to violations (settlements), but the law is the law, and you can't just choose to ignore it.

And you can't ignore the argument for IP rights: By restricting the rights of others, you are increasing the amount of innovation in society as a whole, which is a greater net benefit than the lost right to copy.

I have yet to see any proof of this vaunted "increase in innovation" that imaginary property is supposed to provide.

All I see is bottom-feeding shysters getting rich and computers suing each other rather than innovating. In fact, I would state that imaginary property has the exact opposite effect and decreases innovation.

 

[Modred189]

I have yet to see any proof of this vaunted "increase in innovation" that imaginary property is supposed to provide.

All I see is bottom-feeding shysters getting rich and computers suing each other rather than innovating. In fact, I would state that imaginary property has the exact opposite effect and decreases innovation.

Here's your analogy:

There are two Conestoga Wagons headed west (A and B wagons). Wagon A leaves first and comes to a hard to cross river. After some searching, it comes to a ford. It sets up shop, building an Inn and stable for future travelers, and provides other services. It charges for them.

Wagon B comes up on the new settlement and for some reason moves on, not using the ford (could be because the owner thinks he can do better, run it better, or doesn't want to pay the toll to use the ford).
After some searching, he comes across a great location for a bridge. He builds it, and a similar Inn etc, and sets up shop, much lie the owner of the ford. Now, both serve the same purpose; crossing the river. But, they have different benefits. The ford is more direct, but unlike the bridge, isn't as safe and isn't open in the winter. You can imagine other benefits and drawbacks.

IP behaves the same way. If we allow copying, as soon as someone finds a solution, everyone will simply use that solution. There is no reason to make a better one. If you can't make money off an improvement, why make it? That's how the market works. However, if you prevent people form copying the original solution, forcing them to make new and different solutions you get three effects: more solutions, better solutions and ancillary solutions/technologies.
More solutions is better because solutions to problems are rarely one size fits all. Better solutions are good for obvious reasons. ANd ancillary solutions are those technologies created by accident, or on the way to a solution to the original problem. (Think post-it notes and teflon).

Without impediments to copying, proliferation of new solutions and better solutions is MUCH slower. Furthermore, those solutions tend to be kept secret at incredible costs. As a result, no one can work form them as templates. After all, remember, if you take a patented invention (a public and publicized invention) and improve it, you are not infringing.
It's a net win for everyone but those who don't want to innovate, improve, find new solutions or pay those who have created them already.

 

[c3141hf]

Here's your analogy:

There are two Conestoga Wagons headed west (A and B wagons). Wagon A leaves first and comes to a hard to cross river. After some searching, it comes to a ford. It sets up shop, building an Inn and stable for future travelers, and provides other services. It charges for them.

Wagon B comes up on the new settlement and for some reason moves on, not using the ford (could be because the owner thinks he can do better, run it better, or doesn't want to pay the toll to use the ford).
After some searching, he comes across a great location for a bridge. He builds it, and a similar Inn etc, and sets up shop, much lie the owner of the ford. Now, both serve the same purpose; crossing the river. But, they have different benefits. The ford is more direct, but unlike the bridge, isn't as safe and isn't open in the winter. You can imagine other benefits and drawbacks.

IP behaves the same way. If we allow copying, as soon as someone finds a solution, everyone will simply use that solution. There is no reason to make a better one. If you can't make money off an improvement, why make it? That's how the market works. However, if you prevent people form copying the original solution, forcing them to make new and different solutions you get three effects: more solutions, better solutions and ancillary solutions/technologies.
More solutions is better because solutions to problems are rarely one size fits all. Better solutions are good for obvious reasons. ANd ancillary solutions are those technologies created by accident, or on the way to a solution to the original problem. (Think post-it notes and teflon).

Without impediments to copying, proliferation of new solutions and better solutions is MUCH slower. Furthermore, those solutions tend to be kept secret at incredible costs. As a result, no one can work form them as templates. After all, remember, if you take a patented invention (a public and publicized invention) and improve it, you are not infringing.
It's a net win for everyone but those who don't want to innovate, improve, find new solutions or pay those who have created them already.

Because until someone copies the solution, you have a natural monopoly. And because anyone can eventually copy it, you have an incentive to keep innovating in order to stay ahead.

Imaginary property discourages innovation by providing a state-imposed monopoly. Someone can merely sit on their laurels and do nothing, safe in the knowledge that the state will use violent force to prevent someone else from innovating further on that which they created.

 

[Modred189]

Because until someone copies the solution, you have a natural monopoly. And because anyone can eventually copy it, you have an incentive to keep innovating in order to stay ahead.
Imaginary property discourages innovation by providing a state-imposed monopoly. Someone can merely sit on their laurels and do nothing, safe in the knowledge that the state will use violent force to prevent someone else from innovating further on that which they created.

This might have been true when copying took time and a lot of money. That's not true any more. Most products can be reverse engineered within days and copies rolled out in weeks or months (think SUPER expensive pharmaceuticals, or pretty much any mechanical device, and essentially any software). There's no way, given the costs of startup, R&D, etc, for the original creator to stay in business. There's no ability to realize on the investment. Take Drug X. Because of the costs of getting the drug to market, the incredible cost of past failed formulations, the costs of testing etc, it takes a few years to break even. Yet, your average chemistry phd candidate can copy that drug relatively easily, and perfect a copy within a few weeks.

Or a movie. Let's assume for a moment that Movie X is not pirated in theaters. It makes money there. But on DAY ONE, as soon as the DVD/BluRay is released, it's pirated by millions. Say 4 people buy it, and 4 million download it in a system where there is no (c). How do you see that being fair, profitable or sustainable? It's worse than that, though. IN a system with no (c) law, the original movie reels can be copied in a night. So, one theater in a town buys a copy, makes copies for other theaters and sells them. THose other theaters then don't have to give ticket sale proceeds to the original company. As a result, the production company could never make back the amount of money spent to make the film.

I understand what you're saying, but in most/all modern industries, it's unsustainable. Copying is too easy, cheap and fast while innovation becomes too hard and too expensive.

 

[McFry]

On one level, yes. On a rational level, no. Because the police ar part of the government.

These "settlements" come from an agency that's part of no government.

What are you talking about? They will sue you in a court of law which our gov't has established as a means for prosecution. Thats it. Rightscorp isnt showing up on your doorstop with mercenaries and throwing you in the back of an unmarked van.

 

[McFry]

Using the court system is a use of force. If you refuse to comply with the demands of the jack-booted extortionists, they send the gestapo after you.

So what exactly do you think should be the consequence of committing a crime then?

 

[Modred189]

So what exactly do you think should be the consequence of infringing on someone's rights?

ftfy, copyright in this context is not a crime.

 

[c3141hf]

This might have been true when copying took time and a lot of money. That's not true any more. Most products can be reverse engineered within days and copies rolled out in weeks or months (think SUPER expensive pharmaceuticals, or pretty much any mechanical device, and essentially any software). There's no way, given the costs of startup, R&D, etc, for the original creator to stay in business. There's no ability to realize on the investment. Take Drug X. Because of the costs of getting the drug to market, the incredible cost of past failed formulations, the costs of testing etc, it takes a few years to break even. Yet, your average chemistry phd candidate can copy that drug relatively easily, and perfect a copy within a few weeks.

Or a movie. Let's assume for a moment that Movie X is not pirated in theaters. It makes money there. But on DAY ONE, as soon as the DVD/BluRay is released, it's pirated by millions. Say 4 people buy it, and 4 million download it in a system where there is no (c). How do you see that being fair, profitable or sustainable? It's worse than that, though. IN a system with no (c) law, the original movie reels can be copied in a night. So, one theater in a town buys a copy, makes copies for other theaters and sells them. THose other theaters then don't have to give ticket sale proceeds to the original company. As a result, the production company could never make back the amount of money spent to make the film.

I understand what you're saying, but in most/all modern industries, it's unsustainable. Copying is too easy, cheap and fast while innovation becomes too hard and too expensive.

1.Most people don't have the kind of setup that a movie theater does. Watching on a large screen with a very powerful audio setup is not the same as watching on a (comparatively) small television in your house.

2.Downloading movies from the Pirate Bay is less convenient then buying them. Most people aren't going to know how to properly use a BitTorrent client and then you have to worry about malware risks. In addition, BitTorrent is considerably slower than doing a direct download or streaming it.

3.The film studios could require anyone receiving a copy of the film to sign a contract saying that they won't share it with anyone. This is not the same thing as copyright because it relies on a voluntary contract rather than an imposed set of restrictions on someone who didn't agree to them. Anyone sharing the film with someone unauthorized would be in breach of contract.

So what exactly do you think should be the consequence of committing a crime then?

Anything that doesn't involve violating someone else's tangible rights is not a crime, regardless of if the state says so.

 

[Modred189]

1.Most people don't have the kind of setup that a movie theater does. Watching on a large screen with a very powerful audio setup is not the same as watching on a (comparatively) small television in your house.

2.Downloading movies from the Pirate Bay is less convenient then buying them. Most people aren't going to know how to properly use a BitTorrent client and then you have to worry about malware risks. In addition, BitTorrent is considerably slower than doing a direct download or streaming it.

3.The film studios could require anyone receiving a copy of the film to sign a contract saying that they won't share it with anyone. This is not the same thing as copyright because it relies on a voluntary contract rather than an imposed set of restrictions on someone who didn't agree to them. Anyone sharing the film with someone unauthorized would be in breach of contract.

1. Irrelevant. People think Netflix is good 1080p quality. THey don't care.
2. Irrelevant. My statement was a hypothetical in a world with no copyright. Thechnical limitations are irrelevant and easily circumscribed.
3. There's no practical difference between that and copyright, at least between the parties to the sale of the movie to the theater. In both cases, violations are enforced by the (civil) courts. It's just terribly less efficient.

The big difference, though, is the limitations of contract law and privity. See, anyone who buys/acquires the movie from the original purchaser is not privy to the contract, and thus not bound by it. Thus all those buyers can then distribute the movie with no fear of lawsuit or consequence. It only takes ONE person to distribute a copy and the cat's out of the bag. The movie company still loses everything.
As a result, an individual need only sell enough copies of the pirated movie to cover his liquidated damages due in the lawsuit (assuming he loses the suit), and he'll make a significant profit while the movie company will never recoup the costs of production, let alone make enough to invest in a sequel or cover the costs of failed ventures, overhead, operating costs etc. The exact same holds when it comes to DVD/BluRay distribution. It only takes the leak of ONE copy (which would be a contracts damages amount of , say, $50) for the movie company to lose ALL income from the sales of that product.

Additionally, such a system would require contracts between every single theater and the distribution company. Since judridictions differ, and since every theater owner's situation differs as to personal need, local price effects, local controlling laws etc, each contract would have to be separately negotiated. That's impractical on our nation's scale.

 

[McFry]

Anything that doesn't involve violating someone else's tangible rights is not a crime, regardless of if the state says so.

The work they put into developing the product is tangible. That is what you are paying for.

 

[McFry]

ftfy, copyright in this context is not a crime.

I dont care about the context, which actually does apply. If I steal a dvd from the store and the store caught me on camera, they cannot call the police to come arrest me because that would be extortion?

 

[c3141hf]

1. Irrelevant. People think Netflix is good 1080p quality. THey don't care.
2. Irrelevant. My statement was a hypothetical in a world with no copyright. Thechnical limitations are irrelevant and easily circumscribed.
3. There's no practical difference between that and copyright, at least between the parties to the sale of the movie to the theater. In both cases, violations are enforced by the (civil) courts. It's just terribly less efficient.

The practical difference is that a contract can't be enforced upon someone who didn't agree to it. That is what makes it ethical.

The big difference, though, is the limitations of contract law and privity. See, anyone who buys/acquires the movie from the original purchaser is not privy to the contract, and thus not bound by it. Thus all those buyers can then distribute the movie with no fear of lawsuit or consequence. It only takes ONE person to distribute a copy and the cat's out of the bag. The movie company still loses everything.

It is immoral to enforce such terms on someone who never agreed to them. The contract would simply have to provide penalties sufficient to discourage someone from leaking the material.

As a result, an individual need only sell enough copies of the pirated movie to cover his liquidated damages due in the lawsuit (assuming he loses the suit), and he'll make a significant profit while the movie company will never recoup the costs of production, let alone make enough to invest in a sequel or cover the costs of failed ventures, overhead, operating costs etc. The exact same holds when it comes to DVD/BluRay distribution. It only takes the leak of ONE copy (which would be a contracts damages amount of , say, $50) for the movie company to lose ALL income from the sales of that product.

Or you could simply make a contract that says all proceeds from sales of material you leaked go to the movie studio.

One leaked copy is not going to cause a movie studio to loose *ALL* income from a sale. Anyone can go on TPB now and get any bluray they want. Despite that, people still buy bluray discs in droves because it is often times more convenient to simply buy the bluray disc rather than dealing with BitTorrent, risking malware and potentially wasting your time downloading something that turns out to be a crappy quality rip. If you think the fact that the state doesn't like people downloading stuff from TPB discourages people from doing it, you are deluded.

Additionally, such a system would require contracts between every single theater and the distribution company. Since judridictions differ, and since every theater owner's situation differs as to personal need, local price effects, local controlling laws etc, each contract would have to be separately negotiated. That's impractical on our nation's scale.

Those are statist problems. In an ancap society, there would be an economic incentive to harmonize and create uniform standards for contracts between various regions so that companies and people could effectively enter into contracts.

The work they put into developing the product is tangible. That is what you are paying for.

But simply working on something does not give you the right to use violence against someone who works on something similar. The work may be tangible but there is no tangible right to control an idea because ideas are not scarce like tangible property (in that one can "copy" an idea an unlimited number of times without depriving the original person who came up with that idea of the use of said idea. On the other hand, if I take your car, you no longer have use of it.)

 

[Modred189]

The practical difference is that a contract can't be enforced upon someone who didn't agree to it. That is what makes it ethical. It is immoral to enforce such terms on someone who never agreed to them. The contract would simply have to provide penalties sufficient to discourage someone from leaking the material.

Or you could simply make a contract that says all proceeds from sales of material you leaked go to the movie studio.

Your reliance on the contract is misplaced. What happens when someone simply makes it available for free? Guess what? Contracts are enforced by... THE STATE. Without the state to enforce the contract (yes, by force), what benefit do people have to abide by them? It's more efficient to get things for free than agree to a contract.

One leaked copy is not going to cause a movie studio to loose *ALL* income from a sale. Anyone can go on TPB now and get any bluray they want. Despite that, people still buy bluray discs in droves because it is often times more convenient to simply buy the bluray disc rather than dealing with BitTorrent, risking malware and potentially wasting your time downloading something that turns out to be a crappy quality rip. If you think the fact that the state doesn't like people downloading stuff from TPB discourages people from doing it, you are deluded.

You can introduce all of the technological technicalities you want, but they don't always apply, and are therefore irrelevant.
What about books? eBooks can be reproduced with 100% fidelity. Same with photos and other 2d artistic creations. With the advent of 3d scanning and printing, so too can physical artistic creations. Utilitarian items like tools and other mechanical devices can also be reproduced with 100% accuracy (or close enough not to matter).
You also choose to ignore the examples of pharmaceuticals, which cost millions to create/fine tune/discover, but are easily reverse engineered and produced en masse for a fraction of the cost and time by anyone with VERY simple chemistry equipment.

How do you prevent those without a contract from abusing the system? When I buy Rx drugs from the pharmacy, I do so from the pharmacy, not from the producer. So I have no privity of contract with them. SO I have no reason to abide by their agreement with the pharmacist. Similarly, the pharmacist can reverse engineer the drug and supplant their legitimate supply with their own creations, ramping their own profits at the expense of the necessarily ignorant populace and drug creator.

Shoot, all I have to do as a competitor is have someone get a prescription, and now I can take the drug, make my own and destroy the creator's ability to recoup R&D costs.

Those are statist problems. In an ancap society, there would be an economic incentive to harmonize and create uniform standards for contracts between various regions so that companies and people could effectively enter into contracts.

No. What you are aksing for is for humanity to stop being humans. Humans are profit seekers. Power seekers. Winners. People do not give up looking for cracks in their opponent to exploit. It's human nature; darwinism at its most basic. If you ask people to simple agree not to take advantage of one another, you're going to be disappointed.

But simply working on something does not give you the right to use violence against someone who works on something similar.

That's correct and it doesn't now.

The work may be tangible but there is no tangible right to control an idea because ideas are not scarce like tangible property (in that one can "copy" an idea an unlimited number of times without depriving the original person who came up with that idea of the use of said idea. On the other hand, if I take your car, you no longer have use of it.)

That's true, but under the current IP laws, there is no legal right to control an idea either, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Current IP laws protect the embodiment of ideas. Creations resulting from effort, sacrifice, specialization, education and insight. In your system, how does someone be compensated when all I have to do is acquire the results of their work and copy it for my own profit? And when anyone can do that, where's the economic gain from doing any creation at all?

 

[McFry]

But simply working on something does not give you the right to use violence against someone who works on something similar. The work may be tangible but there is no tangible right to control an idea because ideas are not scarce like tangible property (in that one can "copy" an idea an unlimited number of times without depriving the original person who came up with that idea of the use of said idea. On the other hand, if I take your car, you no longer have use of it.)

It has nothing to do with controlling an idea. Much in the same way we are buying "licenses to use" certain software and not "the software itself", when you watch a movie you did not pay for you took advantage of the blood sweat n' tears that went into producing it. They arent selling you the photons that are beamed into your eyes upon watching it. It would be no different than if you hired someone to build your house and provided them with all of the materials, then refused to pay them because "you didnt lose any lumber or nails". The manual labor is what you are paying for when you watch a movie.

 

[c3141hf]

It has nothing to do with controlling an idea. Much in the same way we are buying "licenses to use" certain software and not "the software itself", when you watch a movie you did not pay for you took advantage of the blood sweat n' tears that went into producing it. They arent selling you the photons that are beamed into your eyes upon watching it. It would be no different than if you hired someone to build your house and provided them with all of the materials, then refused to pay them because "you didnt lose any lumber or nails". The manual labor is what you are paying for when you watch a movie.

Argumentum ad passiones. I am not buying blood and sweat, I am buying a series of bits that cause the pixels on the screen to arrange themselves in a certain fashion and the speaker cones to vibrate in a certain fashion. The amount of work that may or may not have gone into something is not a logical argument for a violent state-imposed monopoly but an emotional one based on ignorance of where actual property rights derive from.

No. What you are aksing for is for humanity to stop being humans. Humans are profit seekers. Power seekers. Winners. People do not give up looking for cracks in their opponent to exploit. It's human nature; darwinism at its most basic. If you ask people to simple agree not to take advantage of one another, you're going to be disappointed.

And it is in the best interest of said humans to make it possible to do business and earn profit. That means standardization.

I disagree with your characterization of humanity. Humans, uncorrupted by the state and its absolute power, are generally good and are capable of accomplishing amazing things. It is the state that corrupts humanity.

That's true, but under the current IP laws, there is no legal right to control an idea either, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Current IP laws protect the embodiment of ideas. Creations resulting from effort, sacrifice, specialization, education and insight. In your system, how does someone be compensated when all I have to do is acquire the results of their work and copy it for my own profit? And when anyone can do that, where's the economic gain from doing any creation at all?

Another emotional, rather than logical, argument. There is no practical difference between controlling an idea and the mythical "embodiment" of said idea; if I can't include hyperlinks in my program because it is patented, for all intensive purposes, whatever aggressor patented hyperlinks controls that idea (and yes, this actually happened).

 

[Modred189]

I dont care about the context, which actually does apply. If I steal a dvd from the store and the store caught me on camera, they cannot call the police to come arrest me because that would be extortion?

That is not copyright infringement. You did not make a copy. That's just left.

 

[Modred189]

And it is in the best interest of said humans to make it possible to do business and earn profit. That means standardization.

I disagree with your characterization of humanity. Humans, uncorrupted by the state and its absolute power, are generally good and are capable of accomplishing amazing things. It is the state that corrupts humanity.

This is patently (pun Lols) and demonstrably untrue. The nature of every animal is success and domination of its peers. It's why man became an agrarian people from hunter-gatherer nomads. It's why dogs, lions, wasps and countless other species exhibit social hierarchies and countless other examples in human and animal evolution.
And it all stems from one thing: inequality. As much as people might want to say otherwise, no man is created equal. Some are faster some are smarter some are stronger. Into each man his strength so too his speciality. Some men are gifted with talents making them good at manual labor. Other men are gifted with talents that enable them to succeed at intellectual ventures. As a result those men will undertake careers that are oriented towards their strengths. After all no man derives pleasure from things he is bad at and from an evolutionary standpoint women do not want to meet with men who are bad at things.

This drives everything. Some men work with their hands some men work with their minds and some men are good at organizing the work of others.
Because an organized society is more efficient and more successful and more resilient than a disorganized society evolution favors organization. Again, this can be seen in countless and myriad examples throughout the animal bacterial/fungal and plant kingdoms.

The natural state of life's organization. That does not exclude humanity. We are not special. Over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution the natural state of man is hierarchy. Organization and social structure. Government.

Intellectual-property rights are direct derivatives of this natural state. The efficiency and organization and return on investment imparted upon a society by such rights, to a point, increase innovation, increase the number of solutions to be given problem, and increase the chances that that society is able to come up with a better solution then the society that is its neighbor.
So, the very premise of your solution to the problem, contracts, is unenforceable without a government, A point I've mentioned before but you have suspiciously ignored.. Besides that, government is the natural state of man, and as a result your solution is untenable and is antithetical to the human condition.
Your view on humanity is nice, but ultimately it is utopian. It is impossible. You would have to rewrite the very DNA of our species.

 

[McFry]

So I was waiting for someone to invoke the "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred" argument. You consider stealing a loaf of bread to be theft because now the store has one less loaf of bread on the aisle. You do not consider copying a movie to be theft because the original is still there, but therein lies your misunderstanding of what you are actually purchasing. You arent paying for the physical medium of the delivery device, or even the electronic one in the event you download it online. You are paying for a service, for someone to go out and create a movie using cameras and actors. You are paying for their time much in the way you pay for any other number of services that are time based. You cant walk out of a doctors office without paying for your an examination because "he still has hands". The whole argument of "you are neither more or less whole than before" is clearly false. You're still stuck in this mindset that the only thing worth paying for is a tangible product that you can consume like food and water.

Do you feel you should be able to steal electricity form the city because the electrons sent to your house are returned back to their origin in their original state? Of course not, because you arent buying electricity, you are merely paying for them to pump it to your house and back.

 

[c3141hf]

So I was waiting for someone to invoke the "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred" argument. You consider stealing a loaf of bread to be theft because now the store has one less loaf of bread on the aisle. You do not consider copying a movie to be theft because the original is still there, but therein lies your misunderstanding of what you are actually purchasing. You arent paying for the physical medium of the delivery device, or even the electronic one in the event you download it online. You are paying for a service, for someone to go out and create a movie using cameras and actors. You are paying for their time much in the way you pay for any other number of services that are time based. You cant walk out of a doctors office without paying for your an examination because "he still has hands". The whole argument of "you are neither more or less whole than before" is clearly false. You're still stuck in this mindset that the only thing worth paying for is a tangible product that you can consume like food and water.

Do you feel you should be able to steal electricity form the city because the electrons sent to your house are returned back to their origin in their original state? Of course not, because you arent buying electricity, you are merely paying for them to pump it to your house and back.

Again, a false analogy. If I go to a doctor, then I am entering into a contract to pay him/her for their services. In addition, if the doctor is spending time with me, they are not spending time with anyone else. No such situation exists for imaginary property. I am not saying that content creators shouldn't be paid; I am merely stating that there is no ethical or moral justification for imaginary property.

Second, I don't (thankfully) get my electricity from the state, I get it from company. I have entered into a contract with them where upon they provide a connection to their electric grid and in exchange, I pay for electricity per kwh.

 

[Modred189]

With no state, who enforces the contract?

 

[c3141hf]

With no state, who enforces the contract?

http://jim.com/anarchy/

 

[Modred189]

Anarchy of any flavor is silly and naive. It's essentially inefficient, inconsistent and eventually, inevitably, evolves into government. Take your link, and it's proposed "protection contracts." The groups providing these services will, of course, compete. They will be expensive for a "good" protection agency, and cheap for "good enough." Some will use acceptable actions, others will not. Counter agencies will rise up in favor of those with less scruples, and because they have fewer moral limits, will be more powerful.

Either way, a few groups will succeed over the others, and will have control over the protection industry. At that point, they have the leverage to increase the scope of their contracts. Customers could either adhere to those new, more arduous contracts, or switch to a cheaper company with poorer service.

Eventually, this evolves into a government run by the protection service, but in a much more authoritarian and absolutist manner.


And you have STILL ignored the issue with a lack of IP rights. What happens when copying is easy, with perfect fidelity, yet the creation of the product is hard, extensive and time consuming? If pharmaceuticals are too complex, consider ebooks.

 

[teh_chem]

You guys arguing that movie acquisition via free downloads for otherwise-paid content is theft (or not theft), are forgetting that you NEVER buy a movie when you pay for it. It's not a condition of the movie being property or not being property. You're paying for the right to VIEW it under the agreement outlined by the content owner/creator, and you never own a thing in the process. Content owners have, in litigation, proven that a download (or upload) is lost revenue for those items, and have recouped those damages in courts--I agree, some of those uploads/downloads are some amount of lost revenue. Is every single illegal download of a movie lost revenue? No, some of the people who download a movie might never have paid to watch it. Unfortunately that can't be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court suit involving any of these situations.

Personally, I hope all of this absurd preoccupation with content "piracy" goes away, and content creators (and content owners) finally understand that people just want a good content-delivery system without draconian DRM. I'm happy to pay for movies/shows/music that I enjoy. And if I am not willing to pay for it, I just don't watch/listen to it. Netflix and Hulu easily supplement the content that I do pay for (outside of a Netflix subscription fee). Just don't use DRM that makes it virtually impossible for me to view my content in the way I'd like to, on whatever device I want to.

 

[Bladestorm]

Anarchy of any flavor is silly and naive. It's essentially inefficient, inconsistent and eventually, inevitably, evolves into government. Take your link, and it's proposed "protection contracts." The groups providing these services will, of course, compete. They will be expensive for a "good" protection agency, and cheap for "good enough." Some will use acceptable actions, others will not. Counter agencies will rise up in favor of those with less scruples, and because they have fewer moral limits, will be more powerful.

Either way, a few groups will succeed over the others, and will have control over the protection industry. At that point, they have the leverage to increase the scope of their contracts. Customers could either adhere to those new, more arduous contracts, or switch to a cheaper company with poorer service.

Eventually, this evolves into a government run by the protection service, but in a much more authoritarian and absolutist manner.


And you have STILL ignored the issue with a lack of IP rights. What happens when copying is easy, with perfect fidelity, yet the creation of the product is hard, extensive and time consuming? If pharmaceuticals are too complex, consider ebooks.

http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#ea

http://static.socialgo.com/cache/209153/assets/files/4d45cd8af1714-209153-CompleteLiberty.pdf

 

[McFry]

Again, a false analogy. If I go to a doctor, then I am entering into a contract to pay him/her for their services.

When you watch a movie you have entered into a contract to pay them for their services.

In addition, if the doctor is spending time with me, they are not spending time with anyone else.

Sure they are. But what is your point?

No such situation exists for imaginary property. I am not saying that content creators shouldn't be paid; I am merely stating that there is no ethical or moral justification for imaginary property.

Again, you arent paying for content or property, you are paying for the time it took to create it.

Second, I don't (thankfully) get my electricity from the state, I get it from company. I have entered into a contract with them where upon they provide a connection to their electric grid and in exchange, I pay for electricity per kwh.

Yes but much in the same way you can download a movie online by merely replicating the 1's and 0's, and therefore have not actually taken any physical medium away from them, your electricity is not being taken from the company, as the current returns back to the generators delivering it.

 

[teh_chem]

Yes but much in the same way you can download a movie online by merely replicating the 1's and 0's, and therefore have not actually taken any physical medium away from them, your electricity is not being taken from the company, as the current returns back to the generators delivering it.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Regardless, none of this has to do with someone taking physical property (theft). It's the non-licensed usage/viewing/listening of an item, which is still protected by civil and criminal laws. The fact that there's no tangible physical medium that the offender is personally stealing or in possession of doesn't change that fact. You (or others) might have the opinion (and I don't know if you do or don't, just using an example) that something doesn't have intrinsic value if it isn't a physical object; but what about all of the resources it took/takes to produce that service? While you're not "stealing" anything physical from the creator, you're still not compensating them for the content or service they're making available.

What makes someone entitled to use a paid-service or content free-of-charge?

 

[McFry]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Regardless, none of this has to do with someone taking physical property (theft). It's the non-licensed usage/viewing/listening of an item, which is still protected by civil and criminal laws. The fact that there's no tangible physical medium that the offender is personally stealing or in possession of doesn't change that fact. You (or others) might have the opinion (and I don't know if you do or don't, just using an example) that something doesn't have intrinsic value if it isn't a physical object; but what about all of the resources it took/takes to produce that service? While you're not "stealing" anything physical from the creator, you're still not compensating them for the content or service they're making available.

What makes someone entitled to use a paid-service or content free-of-charge?

Oh absolutely, I am on the side of content creators. The guy I was quoting was using the old "1's and 0's" excuse that he's not stealing something, he's merely replicating it, the original is still in place. He wouldnt steal bread from the bakery because now the bakery has one less loaf of bread on the shelf to sell. But he would download a movie because the original BluRay is still on the shelf at Walmart. I'm simply pointing to the fact that he doesnt understand what he's paying for.

I mean in a way it's good that he's at least trying to make excuses, it means he has a conscience. He knows stealing is wrong, and he knows pirating content he otherwise would have paid for is also wrong. He just does it anyway. This makes him feel guilty, so he tries to wrap himself in a warm blanket of lies so he doesnt have to feel like a scumbag for knowingly doing something wrong. Thus begins the endless semantics over what is and isnt property.

This is where I come in, because the debate was never about property in the first place. You are never going to win an argument with a software pirate if you let them manipulate the details by claiming you cant logically steal data or "thoughts". They know movies and music would cease to be produced if literally every single person on earth pirated it all, so they understand the logical fallacy in their line of thinking, but again they just dont care. What they're really after is free entertainment. So we change the argument on them, and inform them they are paying for labor, not content. We all agree labor has a value. Afterall even a pirate wouldnt work for free.

 

[teh_chem]

Oh absolutely, I am on the side of content creators. The guy I was quoting was using the old "1's and 0's" excuse that he's not stealing something, he's merely replicating it, the original is still in place. He wouldnt steal bread from the bakery because now the bakery has one less loaf of bread on the shelf to sell. But he would download a movie because the original BluRay is still on the shelf at Walmart. I'm simply pointing to the fact that he doesnt understand what he's paying for.

I mean in a way it's good that he's at least trying to make excuses, it means he has a conscience. He knows stealing is wrong, and he knows pirating content he otherwise would have paid for is also wrong. He just does it anyway. This makes him feel guilty, so he tries to wrap himself in a warm blanket of lies so he doesnt have to feel like a scumbag for knowingly doing something wrong. Thus begins the endless semantics over what is and isnt property.

This is where I come in, because the debate was never about property in the first place. You are never going to win an argument with a software pirate if you let them manipulate the details by claiming you cant logically steal data or "thoughts". They know movies and music would cease to be produced if literally every single person on earth pirated it all, so they understand the logical fallacy in their line of thinking, but again they just dont care. What they're really after is free entertainment. So we change the argument on them, and inform them they are paying for labor, not content. We all agree labor has a value. Afterall even a pirate wouldnt work for free.

Oh, yeah, I didn't mean my response to imply you meant otherwise; I mainly only quoted your bit about the power companies because I didn't understand what you meant. Everything else was a general response to the 'royal' us.

 

[McFry]

Oh yeah, the electrical grid merely stipulates that electricity is another commodity we pay for that is not consumed. When you turn on a lightbulb in your house, you arent burning electrons away, you are simply circulating current through it. The electricity that is sent from the utility provider is returned to them. What you are paying for is the actual pumping of electricity to your house, not the electricity itself. Same thing with movies/music.

 

[teh_chem]

Oh yeah, the electrical grid merely stipulates that electricity is another commodity we pay for that is not consumed. When you turn on a lightbulb in your house, you arent burning electrons away, you are simply circulating current through it. The electricity that is sent from the utility provider is returned to them. What you are paying for is the actual pumping of electricity to your house, not the electricity itself. Same thing with movies/music.

Electricity (current) is consumed, and transformed into other energies such as heat, sound, and other vibrations (a majority of it is heat). However much current is "given" to your home due to household use, it is actually consumed; the power company gets nothing back and has to generate more.

 

[McFry]

Electricity (current) is consumed, and transformed into other energies such as heat, sound, and other vibrations (a majority of it is heat). However much current is "given" to your home due to household use, it is actually consumed; the power company gets nothing back and has to generate more.

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

 

[Ehren8879]

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

Would you say electrons are used to do work? and that work, in turn can generate heat, light, etc?

 

[Brak710]

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

I wonder why wires get hot when you put electricity through them...

 

[Modred189]

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

You're splitting hairs and doing no good for your argument...

 

[bexamous]

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

Electricity != electrons. Electricity == flow of charged particles. If they stop flowing you no longer have electricity. Doesn't mean the stop existing. They're just not flowing.

 

[c3141hf]

Oh absolutely, I am on the side of content creators. The guy I was quoting was using the old "1's and 0's" excuse that he's not stealing something, he's merely replicating it, the original is still in place. He wouldnt steal bread from the bakery because now the bakery has one less loaf of bread on the shelf to sell. But he would download a movie because the original BluRay is still on the shelf at Walmart. I'm simply pointing to the fact that he doesnt understand what he's paying for.

I mean in a way it's good that he's at least trying to make excuses, it means he has a conscience. He knows stealing is wrong, and he knows pirating content he otherwise would have paid for is also wrong. He just does it anyway. This makes him feel guilty, so he tries to wrap himself in a warm blanket of lies so he doesnt have to feel like a scumbag for knowingly doing something wrong. Thus begins the endless semantics over what is and isnt property.

This is where I come in, because the debate was never about property in the first place. You are never going to win an argument with a software pirate if you let them manipulate the details by claiming you cant logically steal data or "thoughts". They know movies and music would cease to be produced if literally every single person on earth pirated it all, so they understand the logical fallacy in their line of thinking, but again they just dont care. What they're really after is free entertainment. So we change the argument on them, and inform them they are paying for labor, not content. We all agree labor has a value. Afterall even a pirate wouldnt work for free.

I see we've moved onto strawman fallacies.

I have invested over $4000 in Steam games over the last 8 years. I subscribe to Netflix and I buy videos on Amazon. I do not do this because it is government sanctioned (I care very little about what government thinks, most of all, the US government) or because of some moral obligation (I am not going to shed a tear over some billion dollar corporation that engages in crony capitalism and gets state-sanctioned benefits; I am more sympathetic, however, towards indies). I do it because it is more convenient. Buying a game on Steam means I don't have to worry about slow download speeds, getting malware and I also get access to ongoing updates without the trouble of having to crack the game (plus I get access to the multiplayer servers).

 

[teh_chem]

Unfortunately no, this is a common misconception taught by highschool science teachers for decades. Electricity is not energy, and therefore electrons cannot be converted into heat.

Dude, with all due respect to the fact that we have similar opinions on copyright/pirating so far in this thread, your understanding of current and its consumption is completely wrong. The energy isn't destroyed (as I said, it's converted with most of it to heat--because pretty much all consumer products have electrical resistance, which is resistance to the flow of electrons, which produces heat), but the current is consumed; the electrons are not destroyed. You don't ever return current to the power company's grid (unless you have solar panels or something like that).

 

[itsgettingcold]

Comcast has been getting a lot better the past few years so this is a great news for all of us...well some of us!

 

[McFry]

Dude, with all due respect to the fact that we have similar opinions on copyright/pirating so far in this thread, your understanding of current and its consumption is completely wrong. The energy isn't destroyed (as I said, it's converted with most of it to heat--because pretty much all consumer products have electrical resistance, which is resistance to the flow of electrons, which produces heat), but the current is consumed; the electrons are not destroyed. You don't ever return current to the power company's grid (unless you have solar panels or something like that).

In order for current to flow a closed circuit must exist. This is why we have a positive and negative component to any circuit, and why your outlet has 2 poles on it. Afterall you couldnt connect a wire to half of your outlet and expect to light a bulb with it. The heat generated from electrical current is merely a biproduct of the friction from electrons running through it. The energy being converted into heat is simply kinetic energy from the electrons physically bumping into things. The electrons themselves are fully 100% intact and not converted into anything else at all.