View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Robert Fraser Wrote:
> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
> 
> > Robert Fraser wrote:
> >  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
> > of the
> > > law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
> > > lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
> > > material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
> > > things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.
> > 
> > Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
> > the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
> > language).
> > 
> > stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
> > whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
> > you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
> > since there's nothing to steal.
> 
> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
> or should have that right.
> 
This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.

> I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
> justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on occasion
> download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
> about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
> no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
> bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.

It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is relative) to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When you buy a CD with 14 shitty songs because you are exposed to advertising of one good one, why don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This is more stealing than "pirating" because you are actually mislead to buy something that you would normally not buy because it sucks.

I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who works for 150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with these) that she has to pay MS 500$ for their software that is what? Pixels? Bytes? What?

Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are not losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society where everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show gratitude by paying.

Regards,
bobef
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:14:32 +0400, bobef <bobef@nosmap-abv.bg> wrote:

> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>
>> > Robert Fraser wrote:
>> >  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the  
>> letter
>> > of the
>> > > law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars  
>> every day are
>> > > lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal  
>> copyrighted
>> > > material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties  
>> for
>> > > things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and  
>> damaging.
>> >
>> > Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>> > the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>> > language).
>> >
>> > stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>> > whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
>> > you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal  
>> anything
>> > since there's nothing to steal.
>>
>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of  
>> "steal,"
>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the  
>> right
>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
>> or should have that right.
>>
> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also  
> comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is  
> "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It  
> is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy  
> and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is  
> actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem  
> is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
>
>> I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
>> justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on  
>> occasion
>> download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
>> about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
>> no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
>> bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.
>
> It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from  
> anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is  
> relative) to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When  
> you buy a CD with 14 shitty songs because you are exposed to advertising  
> of one good one, why don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This is more  
> stealing than "pirating" because you are actually mislead to buy  
> something that you would normally not buy because it sucks.
>
> I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who  
> works for 150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with these)  
> that she has to pay MS 500$ for their software that is what? Pixels?  
> Bytes? What?
>
> Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing  
> anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are  
> not losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't  
> lose a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the  
> first place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would  
> share because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society  
> where everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show  
> gratitude by paying.
>
> Regards,
> bobef

Can't stand away of the topic.

My company was making PSP game and it leaks to the pirate bay two weeks  
before official release. Isn't it a stealing? Did my company give someone  
a permission to redistribute its software? Yes, you can't buy the game  
officially for a time being, but so can't others. Is it an excuse for you?  
There is an agreement between us and a publisher, they have a schedule and  
can't put a game in a wrong timeline. It's a bussiness, some marketing  
needs to be done, hard copies be made and transfered all over the world  
etc.

A game was something we were working on for more that half a year, lots of  
effort were put in it. Do we deserve a payment and respect?

In fact, a game was downloaded about 500.000 times before it got to the  
shelves. And about a 100.000 copies were sold _in total_. We got no profit  
just because everything out there are so poor and can't afford a licensed  
copy. What the hell you were thinking about before buying a handheld? An  
answer is - you are just too greedy and don't respect others efforts.  
Shame on you.

As a result we don't make PSP games anymore and you don't get any games  
from us. And from lots of other developers, too. You harm not only  
yourself, but many of the other fair people who _do_ pay for their  
entertainment.

My old good PSOne has the following text upon loading many of the games -  
I remember it word-by-word:
"Piracy harms consumers as well as legitimate developers, publishers and  
retailers." So true.
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
bobef wrote:
> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
>>> of the
>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
>>>> lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
>>>> material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
>>>> things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.
>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>>> the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>>> language).
>>>
>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>> whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
>>> you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
>>> since there's nothing to steal.
>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
>> or should have that right.
>>
> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
> 

Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have no 
respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software. He'll 
be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't deserve 
 the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods 
enjoy. He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you 
dash his dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out 
and find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!

Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't 
give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something 
someone else has created without the creator's permission. I'm sure we 
can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you 
for it, then I am well within my right to do so. How is it that when my 
creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right? I've heard 
this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to me. 
True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing a 
physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the 
time and effort I put into it. It takes a heck of a lot longer to 
develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a 
chair. So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same 
right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide 
if my product should be freely available?

And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap. 
Software is not information. It's a product.
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
bobef wrote:

> Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
> anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are not
> losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose
> a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first
> place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share
> because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society where
> everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show gratitude
> by paying.

So in effect you are saying that software developers expecting to live of it
are silly, because the rest in general are dishonest?


-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Koroskin Denis wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:14:32 +0400, bobef <bobef@nosmap-abv.bg> wrote:
> 
>> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>>
>>> > Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> >  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
>>> letter
>>> > of the
>>> > > law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
>>> every day are
>>> > > lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
>>> copyrighted
>>> > > material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter
>>> penalties for
>>> > > things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread
>>> and damaging.
>>> >
>>> > Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>>> > the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>>> > language).
>>> >
>>> > stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>> > whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
>>> > you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal
>>> anything
>>> > since there's nothing to steal.
>>>
>>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
>>> "steal,"
>>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
>>> right
>>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
>>> or should have that right.
>>>
>> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
>> also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
>> "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
>> It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
>> copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
>> is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
>> problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
>>
>>> I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
>>> justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on
>>> occasion
>>> download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
>>> about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
>>> no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
>>> bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.
>>
>> It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from
>> anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is
>> relative) to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When
>> you buy a CD with 14 shitty songs because you are exposed to
>> advertising of one good one, why don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This
>> is more stealing than "pirating" because you are actually mislead to
>> buy something that you would normally not buy because it sucks.
>>
>> I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who
>> works for 150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with
>> these) that she has to pay MS 500$ for their software that is what?
>> Pixels? Bytes? What?
>>
>> Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
>> anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are
>> not losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you
>> can't lose a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold
>> anything in the first place. If authors were more conscious (less
>> greedy) they would share because if the users were more conscious
>> (less living in a society where everyone wants to *make you* pay for
>> something) they would show gratitude by paying.
>>
>> Regards,
>> bobef
> 
> Can't stand away of the topic.
> 
> My company was making PSP game and it leaks to the pirate bay two weeks
> before official release. Isn't it a stealing?

Nope.

> Did my company give
> someone a permission to redistribute its software?

Nope, but I don't see how that changes the terminology.

> Yes, you can't buy
> the game officially for a time being, but so can't others. Is it an
> excuse for you? There is an agreement between us and a publisher, they
> have a schedule and can't put a game in a wrong timeline. It's a
> bussiness, some marketing needs to be done, hard copies be made and
> transfered all over the world etc.
> 
> A game was something we were working on for more that half a year, lots
> of effort were put in it. Do we deserve a payment and respect?
> 

Nope. That's the free market - you "deserve" nothing implicitly.

> In fact, a game was downloaded about 500.000 times before it got to the
> shelves. And about a 100.000 copies were sold _in total_. We got no
> profit just because everything out there are so poor and can't afford a
> licensed copy. What the hell you were thinking about before buying a
> handheld? An answer is - you are just too greedy and don't respect
> others efforts. Shame on you.

How did this become about us?

> 
> As a result we don't make PSP games anymore and you don't get any games
> from us. And from lots of other developers, too. You harm not only
> yourself, but many of the other fair people who _do_ pay for their
> entertainment.

Again, when did this become personal?

> 
> My old good PSOne has the following text upon loading many of the games
> - I remember it word-by-word:
> "Piracy harms consumers as well as legitimate developers, publishers and
> retailers." So true.

Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

I wish you'd remember that more.
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Mike Parker wrote:
> bobef wrote:
>> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
>>>> letter
>>>> of the
>>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
>>>>> every day are
>>>>> lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
>>>>> copyrighted
>>>>> material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties
>>>>> for
>>>>> things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and
>>>>> damaging.
>>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>>>> the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>>>> language).
>>>>
>>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>>> whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
>>>> you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal
>>>> anything
>>>> since there's nothing to steal.
>>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
>>> "steal,"
>>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
>>> right
>>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
>>> or should have that right.
>>>
>> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
>> also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
>> "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
>> It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
>> copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
>> is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
>> problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
>>
> 
> Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have no
> respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software. He'll
> be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't deserve
>  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods enjoy.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".

> He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you dash his
> dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out and find
> another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!

There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional arguments. Guess which yours is.

> 
> Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't
> give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something
> someone else has created without the creator's permission.

This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).

The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a certain period of time. It does not exist "by default".

> I'm sure we
> can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you
> for it, then I am well within my right to do so.

Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE SAME. THING.

> How is it that when my
> creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?

Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of times.

> I've heard
> this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to me.
> True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing a
> physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the
> time and effort I put into it.

Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your physical goods?

> It takes a heck of a lot longer to
> develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
> chair.

Maybe for cheap chairs.

> So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same
> right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide
> if my product should be freely available?
> 
See above.

> And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap.
> Software is not information. It's a product.

Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
"downs" <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g84gml$1rb1$1@digitalmars.com...

> Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively 
> novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I 
> cannot point at a source for that claim).

Oh don't give me that bullshit.  If anything, another company came up with 
the idea and MS bought them out ;)
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

> bobef wrote:
> 
> > Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
> > anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are not
> > losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose
> > a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first
> > place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share
> > because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society where
> > everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show gratitude
> > by paying.
> 
> So in effect you are saying that software developers expecting to live of it
> are silly, because the rest in general are dishonest?
> 
> 

Haha. I didn't say they are silly. But it is a fact that people in general are dishonest so it becomes harder (as many other things) :) I am saying that developers need to adapt. If they treat software as chairs they may fail to live of their work. I am developer and I live (mostly) of it so it still possible.

Dishonest or not this is not stealing. It sucks if you make a lot of effort for something and nobody buys it, I know. But fist of all examine the quality of what you are selling. People are not buying effort but results. Then if you think (I don't mean personally you) you are selling a good product and people are still pirating it, then the dishonesty could be the case. And then the one who did the effort becomes emotional and all of that, but at the end everyone should be happy, because at least one of the parties got something (without depriving the other party of anything). It is better for someone to make use of the work, although he didn't buy it, than neither using it nor buying it.

And the important point that is somehow related to the topic: this licensing stuff IMO is waste of time. Nobody can blame Phobos/Tango for stealing because nothing is stolen. But I think Walter has point about corporate lawyers and all of that, because these people care only about the money, not about the logic about stealing or not stealing. Lol.

Regards,
bobef
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
"downs" <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g84gml$1rb1$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> It takes a heck of a lot longer to
>> develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
>> chair.
>
> Maybe for cheap chairs.

You must have so ******* fancy chairs in your house, sorry.. erm..  palace.

;-)
August 15, 2008
Re: The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)
Hello downs,

> Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a
> relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at
> MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).


Maybe this one:

http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home