Copy Rights

[wazzz]

hey guys i have an assignment about ComputerEthics  and stuffs
so i would like to make a survey about in your Opinion as an atheist in that issue
infact it's about software-Copyrights
we can't deny that there's crackers and hackers that they make demo into full functioned program it's like magic :hail:  

[curiosityandthecat]

All I have to say is this: build a better mousetrap and nature builds a better mouse.

[Hitsumei]

This is a difficult issue -- but I hold the position that there isn't sufficient evidence that piracy hurts distributor revenues, it is just assumed to, and many have put forward some very good arguments for it actually increasing over all revenues.

To give examples, the piracy of Japanese animation and manga is arguably what started, and without a doubt what continues to fuel the market for anime and manga in the west. Publishers cannot put out material fast enough, and westerns learn about, watch, and buy DVDs, movies, merchandise, and other paraphernalia of their favorite anime or manga that without piracy they would likely not be aware of, let alone know anything about it and be willing to spend their money on it, and when they finally do come out in the west, and in English, hype and anticipation is already present, and requires no building, or any degree of advertising. Of course Japan is not as anal with their copyright laws as western distributors. So I will move on to them.

Canada -- where I live --  is often referred to as the "piracy haven of the world" by publishers and distributors, because of our nearly nonexistent laws against it. It has been asserted that some 70% of all piracy online takes place in Canada, by our 34 million population. This is not supported to my knowledge, but it would be interesting if it were true, as American distributors find their largest foreign revenues per capita in Canada, and second largest dollar amount.

It has also been noted that leaked videos online, such as the premiere of Battle Star Galaxtica, did not damage that show in anyway, but made it a highly anticipated hit before it even aired, making it so popularity, and hype was already built before its first air date.

So I do not buy the assertions that piracy is damaging anyone, and there are good arguments that it is actually helping them. The major fallacy is in the assumption that every person who pirates something will never spend any money on it, or even by word of mouth share their satisfaction with someone who will.

All that aside, even if it did cost them revenues, these are not things that were illegal in the past. The copyright laws have been redefined, overblown, and extended much farther than they reasonably should be. This is why not every country has signed on to them, and I hope that Canada never does. Trading, or giving away something that you paid for has never been illegal in the past. If I rent a movie, and invite my friend to watch it with me, am I breaking the law because they didn't pay for it? What if a teacher rents one for their class to see? Their entire school? When does this become illegal? It's a slippery slope.

Setting intellectual property laws so that someone cannot steal your ideas, and make money off of them, or present them as their own is entirely reasonable. Extending them so that you control what people do, who they show, and if a person can give away what they have bought from you, is not.

[Ihateyoumike]

I find a way to watch the shows and movies I want, or listen to the music I want, through the internet. If I don't like the material, I will not support it. If I like it, I will purchase the CD/DVD. I think I've also turned alot of people on to tv shows/movies/musicians who would have never spent their money on them before.
I don't need to find a reason to justify it though, I know it's technically "wrong" (where I live, at least) but I do it anyway.

[AlP]

I don't think breaking copyright law is "wrong" by any stretch of the imagination. That's not just because I think that "wrong" is a rather unimportant word. Copyright infringement is generally dealt with in civil courts rather then criminal courts in the US and other countries. It's not so much about ethics in my opinion, it's more about damages, for example if a copyright owner loses sales.

I think copyright laws are useful. Without them it would be very difficult for a copyright owner to profit. Then, for example, a lot of very interesting books might not get written. Likewise for trademarks and patents. But I do have an issue with these laws being abused, for example in the patenting of abstract knowledge.

[liveyoungdiefast]

I think people deserve some compensation, both in money and in credit for making a program. Or in the case of downloading P2P, that mostly revolves around music. But easy availability makes downloading inevitable. I'd like to innovate it, there should be a few major hosts of all kinds of files, that pay a person to share their file on their network a fixed amount. And then users of the network could recieve files for free and owners of the network could profit from advertising and could also profit from people buying their own parts of the network to have ad and spam free sharing. That type of solution would allow people to profit off their creations, but would also allow everyone to share them for free.

 The point: those who would rather complain than innovate are at fault for their own losses.

 Personally I'm an unrepentant downloader.

[curiosityandthecat]

As far as music goes, if you want to support a musician buying albums is the worst way to do it. Go to the concerts, buy a tshirt, and you've supported him/her/them 100 times more than the purchase of one album. More bang for your buck, essentially.

[Tom62]

Artists and programmers should be paid well for their creative works. However, they only receive a fraction of the total earnings. Some products are just too damn expensive.  In some case the copy rights go too far. Like with the the infamous "look and feel" trials of the early eighties or the Unix vs Linux trial between SCO and IBM a couple of years ago.

[Jolly Sapper]

I'll agree that some types of copyright violation are wrong, there are others that are less than or not at all wrong.

Wrong:
I buy a CD and immediately burn 400 copies that I sell for 50% of what the CD retails for legitimately.

Right:
A group of video game enthusaists who are software savy decide to do something (in my opinion) is awsome, like use the Doom3 engine to make an updated version of System Shock 2.  Only a pack of rabid lawyers are released by EA games (who owns the "copyright" to System Shock) to bust up the attempt by this group of individuals who were working on their own time, with no expectation of compensation, on something that they enjoyed, for others who would enjoy it.

Wrong:
I copy a term paper found in the internets and turn it in on my own.

Right:
Ripping the ROMS of every Atari 2600 game ever made and setting them free for download on the internets.


There have been cases where the attempts to thwart copyright infringement seem to do more to either hurt the copyright owner, the legitimate users, or the brand way more than any act of piracy.  (For instance, Sony BMG using a rootkit to get their Digital Copyright Management software to work on some of their music CD's.)