Ripping & Piracy Double standard?

That was quite an amusing thread. I was going to post there but I held back, I've brought up warez and cracking there before and they all (with all too few exceptions) seem to think that that is somehow different.

To be fair, I've downloaded a few MP3's but most, probably greater than 80%, are songs I already own on vinyl or I can't find otherwise. I'm not a saint but I bought every peice of software I use (except the freeware obviously)

I would be suprised if you could find one person who hasn't ripped off some copyrighted thing. How about a movie onto a VCR.

I agree. I think the irony Eric's pointing out is that people being so up in arms to nearly a violent point about ripping would probably argue that there's nothing wrong with stealing software.

I'll have to check out the thread, actually happened?

That thread was all very timely considering my News item and associated threads there attempting to 'convince' those abusers of copyright exactly what Artist's Copyright is all about.
I posted the same News item here but I doubt anyone even noticed...

I'm not going to go all the way through all of my history of comments on all of these threads...I have penned literally reems of comment 'explaining' the issue.
I only wish the admins would develop a little more backbone and come forward with an 'Official' stance other than that explained in the rules of upload.

This is a world-wide universal issue that affects each and every on-line artist, irrespective of media.

Yes, hypocrisy is rife, particularly with the 'Photoshop costs too much, so....'-brigade that makes up a fair proportion of the student youth.

As for MP3's and their download/double standard, I couldn't agree more....but what I am trying to do there is convince those wall makers who use photographs by others without consent, to left their game....get approval, or just don't upload.

To their credit, a significant number of 'artists' there are removing work that violates policy, and every single one removed is just one little step in the right direction...

[and I said I wasn't going to write tomes again..]...

Agreed with the MP3-thing. People somehow don't treat mp3's as anything that could be "copyrighted". I admit that I, too, have downloaded a couple of MP3s, but mostly as a "try-out" feature. I'd download a couple of songs from a particular artist, and then if I like it, I go and buy the CD, If I don't. Well, DEL is a wonderful key

Relevant thing, on the account of "what is piracy, and what is not".

A Person buys a piece of software, say, Program A. Only place he can get it, is the computer-store nearby. It sells it only as a localized (non-english) version. That person uses only all-english OS and don't want to install localized software, so he downloads a version off the 'net and uses a "crack" to get it to work. Is this piracy? He owns the original software, but it is of different language.

Personally, I don't think that counts as piracy, but does anybody have any knowledge, that is that _legally_ piracy?

\Nite - "can't rain all the time"

Now THAT'S a good one...
Like me having computer games, but using a no-cd 'patch' so I don't tie up the cd-rom with the original disk....strictly speaking it's against the copyright of the product you bought, as it's a non-included feature...

I 'like' to see it as enhanced functionality that 'should' be allowed...

That all depends on the license terms Nite77.

I do believe in the sanctity of intellectual property, but I also believe in reason. For example, I believe that Photoshop is a great piece of software, it's expensive, but if you like it you should buy it. Download a warez version, try it out for a few weeks, that's fine by me, but if at the end of the day, you're not prepared to part with the cash, there are many free or cheaper alternatives. To take it in the other direction, I believe that the US government went way too far with the DMCA bill, and they're going to take it even further with the CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act - http://www.stoppoliceware.org), which will demand that all hardware capable of playing digital media contains anti-piracy hardware. What this means in theory is that if you buy a CD or DVD, you won't be able to rip it and share it with people online. What this actually means in practise though is that if you buy a CD, you won't be able to tape it to listen to in your car, or put it on your MP3 player. It the same as was done with CSS in DVDs, but enforced legally, going so far as to specify that you won't be able to buy a hard disk that does not contain copyright protection hardware. Realistically, it's just a matter of time before this gets cracked, even if it does get in (remember CSS on DVDs - the unbreakable protection?), but this is protection of intellectual property taken to the extreme, and the scary part is that it may well pass, causing the US to fall behind the rest of the world technologically, and even going so far as to make non-compliant operating systems illegal ($500,000 fine and 5 years hard time for using Linux?). A balance must be struck. Intellectual property should be protected, but within reason, even the status quo leans too heavily towards large corporate entities such as the MPAA with enough money to throw at lawyers and "campaign contributions" to bend the law to their will. I expect matters to get worse before they get better, but where there's a will, there will always be a way.

AJC

The difference between warez and ripping is claiming authorship. I do not claim I wrote Photoshop, yet my copy is illegally obtained (note the "copy": non-original). When it comes to ripping, people claim something is theirs. They made it (they say).

See the difference?

crae -

There is no difference to see. In both cases the offender is profiting by the the unauthorized use of another's intellectual property. In the case of ripping the author is being denied recognition as author. In the case of warez, the author is not being compensated for the use of the property and therfore is not getting credit for authorship. The compensation may be different, but the result is the same. Both cases are stealing.

Hmm, to be honest I had the thought if crae, too when I first read this... If I downloaded an MP3 for example, I wouldn't upload it to another site and claim it as my own created piece of music...

Nevertheless, I wrote to the girl insulted on devart a few weeks before about a picture she uploaded, which I had downloaded about 1 year ago and I knew for sure she was not the author. If You would have seen her answer by mail to my note, well... I notice some real bad manners of younger people over there (I'm 35...). The last case was some guy ripping my sountox-theme and calling me a lamer, when I said he could have asked for permission...

c242...
It all depends on who uploads the MP3 to the net in the first place....IF it was the actual artist, or his 'agent' then you'd be free to DL it.
If, as is usually the case, it is someone other than the artist who uploads it, then dissemination of the copyrighted object has already taken place without authority, and it is not legal to DL it either....let alone re-upload it...

I think what really got me was the way that everyone jumped in and started flaming this girl. She knew what she did was wrong. I doubt that there is anyone on these boards that didn't illegally use something at some point, so how can they justify tearing her apart like that? She screwed up. She got caught. She said she was sorry. The image was removed. I believe she even wrote an apology to the photographer, and he accepted it, so why do people keep flaming her? I think that people keep forgetting that there are "humans" behind all this. As humans, we have a tendency to screw up now and then. We all do it. To keep flaming her after she apologized, after she said that she learned from it, and after she was banned, is, well, disturbing. It looks like vultures on the freshly dead.

Of course it is illegal in the first place... My point was that You can't quite compare the use of warez to rips. Both are bad, yes... Hmm, to bad english is not my first language. Sometimes I'm simply missing the right words...

@JavaBrain : I read most of the thread now and I'm with You, some people were a bit too harsh...

My dad taught me (oh god...here we go ) 'The Golden Rule' How would you like it if the shoe was on the other foot? What if you where an artist and somebody ripped your work? What if you where the author of some software and people are downloading it for free/cracking it when you are trying to make a living out of it? (usual answer: "But Bill Gates is soooo rich he won't miss it" I'm sure he won't but what about all the others that are involved in the coding etc? the retailers who sell it etc.

AJCrowley,
you said
"...but where there's a will, there will always be a way"
O, yes, you are right, this is true, but for both sides

Craeonics has a point.
Although all of these are illegal, the difference between ripping, MP3ing and warezing ( ) is the claim of authorship.
For example, downloading an MP3 version of "Let it be" is quite different than recording a new version of it, changing the words to "Leave it be" instead, and then distribute it as your own.

Ah, someone who understands. People always come to the conclusion that both cases are stealing (which is true) and then look no further (which is black/white thinking).

Doesn't the law set out to make things black and white?

Black/white thinking? That's interesting. When the offence could conceivably effect you personally (a rip) its heinous, when it is unlikely to ever effect you (loss of a license fee) its petty.

When one uses illegally obtained software its the same thing as someone porting a skin of yours without your permission. They may even give you credit but you have lost control of your it. Why is that any diffeerent?

Another thought, how much of the price of a piece of software is to recover the lost revenue from pirating? Probably not a problem to those who pirate since they don't pay either way. But I don't particularly care to subsidize theft.

No one is arguing that both are wrong and illegal.
They are just two different issue altogther, with nothing in common other than both are wrong and illegal.

It's like saying that red and blue are the same. Yes, they are both colours, but yet, they are different.

"Doesn't the law set out to make things black and white?"

by Woodbridge


The law also says speeding is wrong. Yet it isn't treated the same way as a planned murder.

jcg: If everyone stopped using illegal copies of Photoshop do you really think that Adobe would drop the price? Part of what makes MS Word THE starndard for word processing (I've seen figures stating 95% of all office, real world office not MS Office, documents are done using MS Word) is the fact that so many people made copies and took it home.

Would Photoshop still be the graphics standard if there weren't illegal copies floating around? How many people decide to buy it because they tried a copy at home first? How many people learn to do graphics from copies and then go on to buy it when they become professional?

I am not trying to say using illegal copies is correct, I just wanted to ask some questions for people to think about.

Back to this black and white thing. The older I get the more I don't see things as black and white. Take the hacking community. Many tools that were developed by the hacking community are now seen as common administrator tools. The differances between the evil network cracking versions and tools for the resourceful net admin are one was often made by a teeneager sitting in his room and having it on your computer is sometimes considered probable cause by law enforcement types. The other was made by a software company and knowing how to use it might land you a job.

Griffinme: "The older I get the more I don't see things as black and white."

I know, I say often that age broadens your sight to a whole spectrum of shades of grey you never knew existed before.