LaserGuy wrote:Out of curiousity, what is your position on DRM as far as this is concerned? Companies aren't required to disclose what type of DRM they use (and generally go out of their way not to), either on the box or in the EULA. Especially if you use Linux, it's pretty easy to run afoul of DRM protections even for legitimate usage since most of them assume you're using Windows.
I think I read that there is some sort of legal thing as to why Linux doesn't come with something that will properly play DVDs. I had to download VLC media player seperately in order to watch my movies. And there was a Prince of Persia game I saw in the store some years ago that said it didn't work with all DVD players (I forget if it stated it was due to copy protection or not, but I believe that was the reason).
There's truth in advertising laws, there's labeling requirement laws, and things like viruses are illegal to distribute
. So I'd say there's already case that software makers can't put whatever they want in their code (such as formating your hard drive), and that some things they put in they'd have to list on the packaging whether it be considered DRM or other parts of the software. Are current laws inadequate to deal with DRM/etc.? Quite possibly.
Malice wrote:That's not just their loss, that's your loss, in the event that you would have really enjoyed that movie. Why the hell should the competence or incompetence of the marketing department be the end-all, be-all in terms of your enjoyment of entertainment?
No, it's their loss. I can buy something else instead, maybe a different movie, or put the money towards a bicycle or something else. It's not that the marketing department should be the end-all be all, it's that their packaging didn't provide what I'd consider even a minimum amount of information. Vote with your dollars and all that. If you feel "try before you buy" is the only way you'd buy something, there are ways to do that legitimately, though not always for the specific product you're interested in. If you only want to pay for products who's sellers offer
"try before you pay", find products that offer that particular method of sales promotion
Malice wrote:Regardless, copyright does not exist to make authors feel comfortable; it exists to promote a full and open culture, where "full" requires that artists get paid for their work, and "open" requires that after a certain point they do not. Traditionally "a certain point" is x number of years after publication, mandated by law; pirates propose that "a certain point" is x number of people paying willingly, a number allowed to shift based on the quality and popularity of the work (not to mention the price point, distribution system, etc.).
If one agrees with the "after X number of people pay" concept they can run a kickstarter
campaign or similar and post their work in the public domain (or at least license it as free to duplicate) if enough people contribute. Isn't it nice to have new and varied choices in how to distribute one's work?
Assume that 1 person distributes ten thousand copies of a book through Pirate Bay; of the ten thousand downloaders, half of them proceed to buy the book. There are also five thousand people who buy the book sight unseen, read it, and lend it each to one friend. Through the former process, the author has earned 5000 * (cover price); through the latter process, the author has earned 5000 * (cover price). In both cases, 10,000 people have read the book. Is there a moral difference between these two scenarios? Should the author care about which process happens? Should we listen to the author's preference?
There are rules that are in place for how one may obtain the fruits of another's labor. I happen to think that drawing the line between the creator's interests and the public's interests at the creator's exclusive right to make copies
, with the public's right to do as they wish otherwise with them
) is a fair one. Would you suggest a different line be drawn? If you think copyrights are inadequate to protect the creator's interest, would you argue in favor of droit de suite
? If you think creators shouldn't have copyright, what rights (if any) would you grant them?
Creators decide whether to make their work and how to sell it on the basis of the rules that are in place. When people break those rules, it adds uncertainty to an already uncertain venture. It also shows the creator that others disregard his efforts to the point of feeling entitled to copies of his work regardless of their intentions to pay, or to otherwise follow the rules as established to obtain a legitimate copy; work which, while others are under no obligation to pay for, he was equally under no obligation to create in the first place
. Why should the creator assume that illegitimate copies turn into sales? Even if they did, who says that money is the only
thing a creator cares about
Perhaps a creator doesn't want more copies in production at all, even if they were paid for. Maybe they have plans to make a touched-up version of their work, and would rather the copy with horrible spelling errors slowly died off. Or maybe a visual artist made a run of 1500 prints, and sold those on the basis of promising customers he wouldn't produce more than that. In that case customers bought it under the assumption they could hang it in their house and guests could admire it without them having seen it 1000 times before, and customers
don't want illegitimate copies made. Or maybe an author is simply waiting for market conditions to make doing another run profitable, but if people keep subverting the book's out of print status through illegal copies those conditions will never come.
Another point, is that in making an illegal copy one is implicitly saying, "There are not enough copies of this work to satisfy demand, and an additional copy has value
." Now, maybe that additional value isn't enough that one would pay for it, and that's fine, you didn't want it that much or you couldn't afford it or whatnot. But someone else, similarly lacking a copy, may feel that the value of an additional copy in existence is worth paying for.
The absurdity of copyright law has actually led to proposals that library ebooks "expire" (and delete themselves) after x number of reads, which is ridiculous, and only goes to show the stupidity of forcing artificial scarcity onto unlimited goods.
I'd propose that the folks at the library would be foolish to purchase books that delete themselves after being read a certain number of times. And honestly, half the books I check out I don't even end up reading, and I'd doubt I'm the only one like this, making it doubly so.