On the morality of copyright.

[incal11]

Update:Several things for you to keep in mind :
-copyright does not mean intellectual property, lack of copyright does not mean "permission for everyone to plagiarize".
-Since an idea should remain it's author's intellectual property, it means that though a particular work may be in the public domain an artist can still claim to be the only one with the right to develop a franchise. There's no reason said artist could not still receive donations for his older works.
-A Copyright is not a Patent, an idea does not always have a material application (other than making the creator richer) but at which point the material application of an idea becomes patentable ? this can be discussed.
-The hard work of artists and companies backing them will always be compensated by most grateful people. Please, please, please, read the links I provide before going on saying "but they have to be paid for their hard work"
-The length of time at which copyrights should be reduced, before an idea becomes part of the public domain, can be discussed.
More points may follow...

Hello Escapists.

Most of us have been raised to believe that "pirating" is always harmfull and evil, and that anyone questioning this is no better than a deluded pot smoker. I'm calling this general attitude no less than a misguided belief, so strongly (and tragically) rooted in our culture that it's difficult to talk about the act of sharing freely.
The history of copyright started with the printing of books, and the internet is simply the next step. You could say that the more easily an idea is shared, the more restrictive copyrights laws needs to be.
I agree that authors deserve compensation for a good work, that's why I don't pirate recent games, this aside, should our access to culture be limited by our fortune ? (Yes I include video games, but I mean Culture in general).

There is an argument going that publishers established copyright laws only so they could print books in limited quantities for high prices, and that copyright laws are actually a barrier to economic progress, we can discuss that too :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
Some more sources :
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10054438-62.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4831-net-music-piracy-does-not-harm-record-sales.html
Copyrights' evolution :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg
It has always been my opinion that older games should be part of the public domain. For example, if you want to pay GoG.com for a stable version of an old game for your system it is okay, but you shouldn't think any less of those who don't, regardless of the laws. Also, it seems to me that "the life of the author plus 50 years" is simply ridiculous.
Recently I found this interesting article :
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/sharing-is-legitimate
Principal arguments:
-sharing still is very usefull, and counterbalance centralized media that would have you concentrate on a small number of work.
-Publishers get you to concentrate on a small number of works by stigmatizing file sharing, thus limiting your own ability to create.
-Freer access to more media would allow more artists to rise from their state of passive consumers, making for a richer culture, and an even more profitable entertainment market.
-Sharing should be a basic human right. I know how this last one looks, but you should think about it this way: if you want to share something that is yours, you should have the unquestionable right to do so. Obviously copyrights are there to limit or take away this liberty, is it right ? is it wrong ? and how ?

it would be nice if you took the time of reading it all, including the links, before answering.
Thanks for your time.

 

[NotSoNimble]

Another Pirate thread?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

Nope.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

Get a job. Pay to play.

You claim you can't buy old games?

Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

 

[incal11]

Another Pirate thread?

You did not read any of it seriously, right ?

Free access to more media allows artists to rise, eh?

Yes, and how is it wrong exactly ? Being forced (tricked) to concentrate on a relatively small number of work, like you most probably are, is akin to being locked in a small grey room since your birth. would you get more creative living like that?

Stealing should be a basic human right?

My whole point is that in most cases it is not stealing and why, I and the links I give explain in details why you are brainwashed into thinking this way.

It's just selfish, greedy, the world revolves around only you type of ideals.

What is selfish and greedy is copyright itself, as it is now, and the way it has been implanted into our culture.

Get a job. Pay to play.

Conceited brat.

You claim you can't buy old games?
Name the game, I will give you a link since you are lazy.

You made no effort to understand anything I say, come back when you grow up.
You completely misjudge me, if you have the patience, though I doubt it from the way you write, you could read the discussion I already had on this subject:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.233751-Defunct-GOG-com-Promises-Statement-and-Downloads-Within-Days?page=2#8339483

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

At some point I think it kinda "easy" to say that the rules and law can be bypassed.
Let say for example there a Movie I want I can name 5 way to get it without me paying directly.
1) A friend buy it/record it, borrow it "forever" to me
2) Movie play on the tv and I record it
3) Torrent
4) Stream it
5) rent it then copy it

Isn't it that all aspect of what I said can be considered stealing? What so difference from borrowing it from someone or downloading it, I just bypassed a step. I would say that the laws and kinda not strong against that.
Yes to some point sharing can be beneficial, never I would have bought an X movie before that my friend borrowed me that X movie.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Sharing should be a human right? The day some homeless guy demands that it's his right to half of my cheeseburger is the day that I punch a homeless man for demanding half of my cheeseburger.

 

[Irridium]

I believe if you payed for the game/movie/music, then you can do whatever you want with it.

The company has their money, you have the product. At that point they should have no business with it at all. Doesn't matter if you bought it physically or digitally, its yours.

The EULA says otherwise, but since its only revealed to you after you buy the product and are installing it, its doesn't mean shit.

As for piracy? Well I'm a bit grey on the matter.

Times where I believe its wrong:

If you can buy it(you have the money, its sold near you, ect) - you can buy it, stop being a prick. Either buy it, or go without.
To "demo" it, and if you like you buy - nine times out of ten, you don't make it to the store. Most of the time you play/watch/listen to the whole thing, then declare you don't like it. If you didn't like it why would you play/watch/listen all the way through?(this does not apply to the select few who actually do buy the game/movie/music after you pirate it)
To "stick it to the man" - this is just a stupid reason and causing far more harm than good.
Because the Publisher "doesn't deserve the money" - I know, and your right, they don't deserve your money, but the people who actually make the stuff do. And your hurting them as much as your hurting the Publisher.

Times where I can go either way:

If its not sold in your area/hilariously overpriced - The first part your not really depriving them of sales, since they don't sell it in your area in the first place. Its the only way you can get the thing. Second part applies to quite a few nations, where the games cost as much as a month's salary. Harder to say "go without", but still a very grey area for me.

Times where I'm fine with it:

Backup copy - So long as you don't give the copy/make more to give to anyone, its fine. Shit happens, and its nice to have a backup.
Getting past DRM - You bought the game/movie/song/album, you should be able to watch/listen/play it. The Publisher got the money, and if you can't access it/enjoy it because of what they did, I have no problems with bypassing it in order to enjoy the product you payed for.
Its no longer available, save for outragous prices on eBay - speaks for itself really. If its out of print, and not sold anywhere, no one suffers if you get the pirated copy. However if you can still buy it at a reasonable price, do so.

Those are my views on the matter. Well piracy at least.

As for sharing, well its just sharing. If doing it online is wrong then sharing it with a friends in real life is also wrong, which means good luck prosecuting them because the entire population does that.

 

[Modus Operandi]

I think it's worth re-iterating a few basic facts.

1) Sharing and stealing are antonyms. Regardless of their moral aspects, the two actions are fundamentally opposite. It's like calling chastity belts "rape".

2) Personal profit and widespread development in any creative field are also opposites. Again, moral aspects don't factor into it, it's a simple fact that an individual is always fundamentally against others (the rest of society). It's called competition and is an integral part of all living things in nature. But just like the point of criminal laws is to balance the cruder competition (stop individual people committing crimes against others and also keep the masses from violently enforcing their will on people who are different), copyright laws should be about balancing the interests of the individual with the interests of others.

it seems to me that "the life of the author plus 50 years" is simply ridiculous.

Just a bit of trivia: In our country it's 70 years after author's death (the last living author if the work was a joint creation), and any years that the work was banned by the government (between the Russian empire, Nazi Germany and the USSR we've been occupied by oppressive regimes for most of the time since Word War I) don't count. As a result we have books that are easily over 100 or even 200 years old and are still copyrighted.

 

[Wolfram23]

File sharing is legal in Canada. Yay!

I don't think it's good to pirate new games. If it's a game you want to play you should buy it. However, there's definitely a point where getting it for free should be legit. For example, I have an iPhone app with 101 classic novels. I've read Captain Blood, Count of Monte Cristo, Princess of Mars, The Gods of Mars, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Three Musketeers, Treasure Island, The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Time Machine... etc... these are all older books where the copyright expired so they are free to be distributed and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge.

It's my opinion that NES, SNES, and even N64 and PSOne games should all be free by this point. On PC, games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Sim City etc should be free. Basically, let's give it a 10-15 year life and then your time to reap profits is over.

As far as other forms of media, I know it's not illegal for me to download songs and movies here. USA has tried to pressure Canada into making it illegal, but we've stood up for ourselves so far.

 

[gl1koz3]

I can't imagine anything that would save us from problems with sharing that doesn't bomb us back ten centuries.

 

[PhiMed]

My question is why you think games should be different from other forms of media when it comes to copyright. "The life of the author plus fifty years" applies to literature, music, movies, etc. Why should games become public domain earlier than those other forms of media? What makes games a special case, other than the fact that they're expensive and you want them? Also, if "old games" are to be public domain, then at what point is a game "old"? Twenty years? Ten? Five? How old does a game need to be before you feel you're entitled to enjoy it for free, in order to experience culture?

You seemed to make a brief argument against copyright in general, and that's certainly a topic that could spark some pretty high-minded discussion. The individual's ability to experience a work of art has always struggled to balance with the artist's right to be compensated for creating it. Unfortunately, you kind of devolved into just saying you should be able to pirate (or share, in your terminology) games.

 

[Keava]

As much as it all sounds pretty nifty on paper and in theory, the reality of life is a bit different.

There is loads of games you can play for free, freeware, open source or demos. You have access to them, you can share them as much as you want, you can play them without paying a dime. They are already available to you and everyone else. If you don't want to pay for your entertainment you can stick to that.

On the other end of spectrum you have games that were done for living. People with talent and skill spend their 8hours/day, sometimes more to create a product. How is it different from clerks, construction man or any other job you can imagine? Why should they give their stuff away while others don't? Would you expect being handed a car, house, or a dinner at fancy restaurant for free just because it's a cultural good and helps to promote the creator? Would you, personally, work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for months for free? Doubt it.

Now, there is also another point of view. One with which i can agree to extent. It mainly is directed at music industry for now however. I's based on the idea of patronage society where artist displays their works, in a fashion similar to all those street performers/musicians and openly asks for tips so they can keep doing their work without having to look for a second job to make a living.

Spoiler: Here's example of the argument, by Amanda Palmer, during her speech in Harvard

The problem with it is that society is not exactly ready for such model in wide scale. Too many people would and will abuse it to get 'stuff for free'. Until the mentality among the end-users changes don't expect the creators to go all out for it.

 

[Desaari]

Sharing should be a human right? The day some homeless guy demands that it's his right to half of my cheeseburger is the day that I punch a homeless man for demanding half of my cheeseburger.

Terrible analogy; a better one would be that you wish to share half of your cheeseburger with a homeless guy, but that it's illegal to do so because the guy who made the burger isn't getting any extra money. Even that's not a good analogy though, because data can be copied indefinitely. That's why it's copyright infringment and not stealing like stupid people believe.

 

[Pielikey]

I can agree with piracy on certain occasions. If you plan on cracking a demo or pirating a game, you should consider whether or not the developer deserved the money.

For instance, if you pirated a game like Modern Warfare 2, I don't think the developers earned it and actually did $59.95 worth of work (I played the free weekend, felt more like the price should be $30). However, pirating a game like Minecraft is bad because it's really fun, it's only like 10 dollars, if nobody buys his game he doesn't get to eat. Another example is a game like Team Fortress 2. The developers did plenty more than $20 of work on the game, (are still doing work, even!) and I believe Valve earned the money.

Pirating is generally bad and illegal for reasons which I'm sure the other users will tell you, but in my mind the purchase or pirating of a game should come down to "Did the developers earn my hard-earned cash?"

(Keep in mind I've never pirated a game, though)

tl;dr Pirate games by big corporate studios that don't deserve the full $50 on one game but stealing indie games that are actually good and reasonably priced is for baby-eaters and kitten-stompers

 

[incal11]

file sharing copyrighted works is wrong, if you own the copyright that is fine, if you dont, dont do it. end of story. goodnight.

also reported this thread for supporting illegal file sharing. enjoy.

Hm. Did you give my post more than a passing glance ?
It's about the concept of copyright itself, and how it got so deeply rooted in you...
This thread does not support file sharing per se, it's about the morality of it, which some mods expressed was alright to discuss, please do not lock or delete this thread

Getting late here, I'll look into the other answers later.

 

[superbatranger]

Times where I can go either way:

If its not sold in your area/hilariously overpriced - The first part your not really depriving them of sales, since they don't sell it in your area in the first place. Its the only way you can get the thing. Second part applies to quite a few nations, where the games cost as much as a month's salary. Harder to say "go without", but still a very grey area for me.

Times where I'm fine with it:

Backup copy - So long as you don't give the copy/make more to give to anyone, its fine. Shit happens, and its nice to have a backup.
Getting past DRM - You bought the game/movie/song/album, you should be able to watch/listen/play it. The Publisher got the money, and if you can't access it/enjoy it because of what they did, I have no problems with bypassing it in order to enjoy the product you payed for.
Its no longer available, save for outragous prices on eBay - speaks for itself really. If its out of print, and not sold anywhere, no one suffers if you get the pirated copy. However if you can still buy it at a reasonable price, do so.

Those are my views on the matter. Well piracy at least.

As for sharing, well its just sharing. If doing it online is wrong then sharing it with a friends in real life is also wrong, which means good luck prosecuting them because the entire population does that.

I'm in that exact situation. Sometimes it takes months for a game to be released here, and when it does, it costs over 100 dollars. That's the main reason why piracy is so rampant here. I can go to the mall and there'd be 10 kiosks selling pirated games. Best part? They're right in front of the stores that sell the original copies. Pay 100+ dollars for an original, or 15 for one that is pirated. Most people here go for the cheaper alternative.

I almost started doing the same thing, but then I realized the risk outweighed the award. Now, I have a job, and I get around 500 dollars every paycheck. Because of that, I can now buy the originals without having to worry about my wallet so much.

Also, when I was younger, they taught me that "Sharing was caring", but now they say it's wrong.

 

[Desaari]

Piracy isn't stealing, no, but it is still copyright infringement which, like it or not, is still illegal. Now obviously game developers need to make their money somehow, otherwise their company will go bust and they won't be able to produce any more games, that's common sense. Luckily for us all, publishers are starting to get cut out of the production cycle with the advent of digital distribution, so perhaps the situation will get better over time.