South Africans pirate more software

[Xarog]

We agree on quite a bit then.

Well that's a good start.

Mentation has numerouos aspects, of which only a handful are legally significant. These and a few more also are concerned with morality and ethics. Though law, morality and ethics all deal with the notion of "justice", they are not the same, as you of course well know. All along I saw your remarks as ranging broader than just the jurisprudential aspect.

Nothing I disagree with here.

If we are to restrict the discussion to just the (positive) law (as in statute, court decisions, treaty or custom), then it's rather passe.

You misunderstand my purpose. Looking at the laws as they stand shows what the people who enacted the law were thinking. You will note, historically, that the concept of ownership of ideas was foreign to people. Thus it is wrong to point to the existence of the law as proof that people think that ideas should be ownable.

We also know the law lags here, and it's very difficult to codify abstractions. I'm more dorectoly concerned with the philosophical and moral issues around "IP", hence my remarks.

Fair enough. But then the debate should centre around the merits of the argument rather than the legality of the behaviour. Claiming that piracy is wrong is vastly different from claiming that piracy is theft.

Thoughts are not the same as intellectual property, even legally understood. I'm not aware of anyone asserting proprietal rights for thoughts per se. As you probably know, that is not the basis of proprietal claims to creative works, compositions and inventions.

What is being asserted here is that the the content of those thoughts, as made manifest in this world, can be controlled including the replication of those thoughts. You cannot have a copyright without thoughts. It is not the paper or the ink on the paper of a book which holds the copyright - it's the meaning of the actual words; i.e. the thoughts they convey when someone reads them.

Regarding misappropriation: The issue is not appropriation or transfer per se, but rather unconsented appropriation.

This presumes that it is something someone can consent to (or withold consent to). If there is no capacity to give or withold consent, then the point is moot, and this is why the discussion needs to revolve around whether or not a human being has such a right in the first place.

This is where that (intangible) aspect of mentation we call intention enters, and it is critically important when deciding the ethical and hopefully legal issues around IP transfers, not only the the party that appropriates, but firstly in the party in which the title is vested.

You can consent to me killing a beggar on the street, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to give consent in the matter. So the question once again revolves around : why should someone be given the power to give or withold consent with regards to the use of ideas, or the way that products using those ideas are used?

In the end, though, we must choose between a system that recognises and respects title to intellectual artefacts (in the technical sense of human creative works), or one which sees such artefacts as essentially incapable of appropriation (in the sense of rendering them into property, whether by way of ownership or possession).

It is my submission that the former is to be preferred in all respects: moral, ethical, legal and practical.

I disagree. One can also state that intellecual artefacts are incapable of appropriation, BUT, to also grant the developer of those artefacts exclusive use of those artefacts with regard to economic activity. That was the original intention behind the creation of the various patent and copyright laws. Even today, these rights are only granted for a *limited* period of time.

In my opinion, any alternative to this system would result in a practical situation which would only serve as a burden to the human community as a whole, much like the utter rejection of the concept of property, and much like treating the right to property as an absolute.

And furthermore, there is no inherent reason why a person who develops an intellectual artefact could not profit from it under this system, and niether is anyone burdened by an overly burdensome interpretation of property. I submit it is akin to having your cake AND eating it, and therefore it is by FAR the most desireable solution.

 

[<moLe>]

how are you going to convince a nation that suffers intolerable amounts of brutal crimes (think farm murders, rape's, telkom etc) that copy a dvd is also a crime...think about it, the scale of things is pretty fcking out of preportion

 

[Arthur]

You misunderstand my purpose. Looking at the laws as they stand shows what the people who enacted the law were thinking. You will note, historically, that the concept of ownership of ideas was foreign to people. Thus it is wrong to point to the existence of the law as proof that people think that ideas should be ownable.

It's not an idea itself that is owned (nor is an idea qua idea even ownable). That shorthand expression needs to be unpacked a little further. Rather, it is the creative expression of the ideas as instantiated in a unique assemblage of connected intangible elements (aural, visual, symbolic language, etc). It is precisely the specifically individual and human element, which requires a recognisable skill, expertise, insight, talent (and such like) that we identify as valuable, and because it is 'produced' by a person, it is properly recognised as a propertia worth fostering. And therefore also protecting legally.

Fair enough. But then the debate should centre around the merits of the argument rather than the legality of the behaviour. Claiming that piracy is wrong is vastly different from claiming that piracy is theft.

Theft is not only a legal offence. It is firstly a moral offence, which is after all why we give expression to it in the legal system. I did not and do not restrict its use to the merely legal.

What is being asserted here is that the the content of those thoughts, as made manifest in this world, can be controlled including the replication of those thoughts. You cannot have a copyright without thoughts. It is not the paper or the ink on the paper of a book which holds the copyright - it's the meaning of the actual words; i.e. the thoughts they convey when someone reads them.

"Thoughts" is not granular enough to arrive at a more precise understanding of what is going on. Though thoughts are necessary, they are not sufficient. As I said above, it's the creative and unique assemblage of connected intellectual elements that constitute the form of the copyright. The component immaterial elements (eg word meanings) do not thmselves make up the form.

This presumes that it is something someone can consent to (or withold consent to). If there is no capacity to give or withold consent, then the point is moot, and this is why the discussion needs to revolve around whether or not a human being has such a right in the first place.

Of course, and I recognise that quite clearly and explicitly above. It is only when one has established a title (eg ownership, possession or usus) that the issue of consented transfer arises. Intellectual work and goods are analogous to physical work and goods, though of course the latter are immaterial.

The first issue is whether someone can have title to the product of their work (which is goal-directed effort, though we can greatly expand on this, of course). Whence does a person's title to their physical labour arise? Analogously, intellectual work gives rise to title, and just as with physical work, that title is economically, legally, socially and morally significant.

You can consent to me killing a beggar on the street, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to give consent in the matter. So the question once again revolves around : why should someone be given the power to give or withold consent with regards to the use of ideas, or the way that products using those ideas are used?

No I can't consent to you killing a beggar. I can agree, approve, encourage, persuade, and so on, but that is not the same as consent. Neither can you have a right to kill a beggar or anyone else, nor can you seek anyone's consent to do so, for that woul require that they have such right or title; neither can another consent to your illegal action, though they can of course be an accomplice, demure to it, concur with your decision, or even fail in their duty of care should there be such (thus incurring a moral delictual fault, if not a legal one). Once right or title is established, the issue of consent arises, including the nature and extent of the capacity for consent. (Yes, words to have meanings.)

I disagree. One can also state that intellecual artefacts are incapable of appropriation, BUT, to also grant the developer of those artefacts exclusive use of those artefacts with regard to economic activity. That was the original intention behind the creation of the various patent and copyright laws. Even today, these rights are only granted for a *limited* period of time.

Either you contradict yourself, or you are drawing a distinction without a difference. On what moral or rational grounds do you grant a developer exclusive (even if limited) use for economic activity and at the same time hold that he has no title? Without an implied pre-existing moral right or title, granting such exclusivity would be whimsical and therefore unjust to others or society at large.

In my opinion, any alternative to this system would result in a practical situation which would only serve as a burden to the human community as a whole, much like the utter rejection of the concept of property, and much like treating the right to property as an absolute.

And furthermore, there is no inherent reason why a person who develops an intellectual artefact could not profit from it under this system, and niether is anyone burdened by an overly burdensome interpretation of property. I submit it is akin to having your cake AND eating it, and therefore it is by FAR the most desireable solution.

Of course property rights are not absolute, and I have never suggested otherwise. We are now moving into the private vs collective ownership (capitalism vs communism) debate. In the end, your suggested system weakens and even vitiates private property rights, even rights over physical property, because you do not have a consistently applied schema of how any property rights arise in the first place.

I think long experience has shown that a strong and stable regime of private property is the most effective, the most just, and the most moral arrangement in the social disposition of economically significant goods and values. They are suspended or violated only in dire emergencies, and society should always act to strengthen rather than mitigate those rights, because they arise from the very identity of man as a rational animal, whose flourishing requires liberty. And liberty is based on individual title to self and the fruits of its labour, and these ontologically precede the state or society in general.

 

[Empiricism Philosopher]

Most of the public does not know how to get pirated software or movies and in that sense because it has to be well hidden from law.

Look if there was no law against it no one would buy legal stuff and programmers spending 4years of study to get good jobs lose their money for their hard work. You can however not say "I pirate cause this and this" and that would make it right. Piracy is a crime for a reason as much as not paying your T.V license or traffic fine. The law is there to protect the people. The consumer is not and I stress not entitled to have media or any material possession by birth right and must earn it by providing money for it just as you pay for a doctors health care(you are not entitled to have someone slave for you).

However you look at it, you just don't care or feel bad because you think some is getting money and yes there are loads of companies making money but many don't because their main products can be copied freely of the web. People won't buy something they want/need if they can get it for free even if you think it is just you and it won't hurt any one, you are still selfish.

Companies should lower prices because of competition and a free market naturally and not be forced to increase prices to make a living of the law abiding bunch. Why do you think someone would spend year’s developing a game, software or a movie because you think it is entitled to you? No these people do it for the maximum money even if they have allot of it. Take away or cap a person’s potential to wealth in a capitalist driven world and the world will stop producing quality high end skilled products or people willing to go that direction.

 

[Xarog]

It's not an idea itself that is owned (nor is an idea qua idea even ownable). That shorthand expression needs to be unpacked a little further. Rather, it is the creative expression of the ideas as instantiated in a unique assemblage of connected intangible elements (aural, visual, symbolic language, etc). It is precisely the specifically individual and human element, which requires a recognisable skill, expertise, insight, talent (and such like) that we identify as valuable, and because it is 'produced' by a person, it is properly recognised as a propertia worth fostering. And therefore also protecting legally.

Ok, whether or not it can be legally protected is quite different from your claim that it is protected. To the first, I will simply say that I do not agree. To the second I will say that the original intention of those who passed the laws does not suggest that they sought to protect something which they felt individuals had a right to, and therefore the legal protection occurs by happenstance rather than intent.

Theft is not only a legal offence. It is firstly a moral offence, which is after all why we give expression to it in the legal system. I did not and do not restrict its use to the merely legal.

I do not say that something that is not a crime is not wrong. However, calling something a theft when we are discussing the legality of behaviour, imo, should restrict theft to the legal definition first. If there is a wrongness which the legal definition does not cover, then explain that wrongness without resorting to the use of the word.

However, I do think theft is wrong, but I do NOT think that filesharing etc. is wrong, and so therefore you will never get me to agree that they are both theft, because that would, by definition, make both wrong. That only serves to muddy the debate waters.

"Thoughts" is not granular enough to arrive at a more precise understanding of what is going on. Though thoughts are necessary, they are not sufficient. As I said above, it's the creative and unique assemblage of connected intellectual elements that constitute the form of the copyright. The component immaterial elements (eg word meanings) do not thmselves make up the form.

It is the arrangement of thoughts which forms the essential content which the right purportedly (according to you anyway) protects, because a different arrangement of thoughts cannot also be protected by the same copyright.

Of course, and I recognise that quite clearly and explicitly above. It is only when one has established a title (eg ownership, possession or usus) that the issue of consented transfer arises. Intellectual work and goods are analogous to physical work and goods, though of course the latter are immaterial.

And as you can clearly see, I disagree with you on the latter part. The only reason that I think that property rights are needed with regards to material objects is purely because there is a tangible finite limit to the number of copies there can be. if I could wave a magic wand and freely replicate chairs, my position would be that I only had a right to a specific instance of a chair, and that I would not have any right to hold against anyone who zapped my chair with his duplicating ray and made himself a copy.

The fact that immaterial "objects" can be replicated so freely is precisely why they are fundamentally different to material things.

The first issue is whether someone can have title to the product of their work (which is goal-directed effort, though we can greatly expand on this, of course). Whence does a person's title to their physical labour arise? Analogously, intellectual work gives rise to title, and just as with physical work, that title is economically, legally, socially and morally significant.

I suppose you could say that the nature of the title is the same, but that the simple fact of the difference in the way they exist means that they are treated differently. Physical labour and work would only be relevant regarding that *particular* item. If anyone took that item, and without causing damage to that item, made a copy of that item, I would not think that there had been an innate wrong. (Let's presume that the chair was publicly accessable for argument's sake).

No I can't consent to you killing a beggar. I can agree, approve, encourage, persuade, and so on, but that is not the same as consent. Neither can you have a right to kill a beggar or anyone else, nor can you seek anyone's consent to do so, for that woul require that they have such right or title; neither can another consent to your illegal action, though they can of course be an accomplice, demure to it, concur with your decision, or even fail in their duty of care should there be such (thus incurring a moral delictual fault, if not a legal one). Once right or title is established, the issue of consent arises, including the nature and extent of the capacity for consent. (Yes, words to have meanings.)

It's an aside, but I do believe a person has a right to control the manner of their death. Anyway, it looks like we agree that for there to be consent, there must first exist a title which grants consent (I think).

Either you contradict yourself, or you are drawing a distinction without a difference. On what moral or rational grounds do you grant a developer exclusive (even if limited) use for economic activity and at the same time hold that he has no title? Without an implied pre-existing moral right or title, granting such exclusivity would be whimsical and therefore unjust to others or society at large.

New ideas benefit people. To grant people a limited period of time to have the exclusive right to use an idea to engage in economic activity promotes the production of new ideas. The restriction ultimately benefits everyone, because everyone will eventually enjoy the idea beyond it's initial exposure. I suppose you could say it's not a position of principle, but of pragmatism. (It also gives people a limited ability to develop stuff to make money, which seems to be the sticking point that many people have against those who would copy material that is copyrighted.)

Of course property rights are not absolute, and I have never suggested otherwise. We are now moving into the private vs collective ownership (capitalism vs communism) debate. In the end, your suggested system weakens and even vitiates private property rights, even rights over physical property, because you do not have a consistently applied schema of how any property rights arise in the first place.

The system is entirely consistent, it's just that you have misunderstood it slightly. As for private vs. collective ownership, niether ideal is suitable.

I think long experience has shown that a strong and stable regime of private property is the most effective, the most just, and the most moral arrangement in the social disposition of economically significant goods and values. They are suspended or violated only in dire emergencies, and society should always act to strengthen rather than mitigate those rights, because they arise from the very identity of man as a rational animal, whose flourishing requires liberty. And liberty is based on individual title to self and the fruits of its labour, and these ontologically precede the state or society in general.

I would have to disagree with this. I think in the next 30-40 years it will become blatantly obvious just how much damage this method of behaviour is towards the earth as a whole in terms of our own ability to survive on the planet. A method of working which threatens to cause our own extinction has to be a seriously flawed one.

I do not advocate a private ownership system nor a collective ownership system. The two ideals need to be blended together while also taking long-term viability of the species into consideration, and this is something that is sorely lacking in all our current systems.

I am all for the promotion of individual rights and I think that the human right to learn and to express oneself must surely be one of the most basic and fundamental rights that there are. But all economic activity has to be tested against whether or not it benefits the common good precisely because economic rights have no meaning without the existence of a community. "Rights" which can (and are) habitually harmful to the very thing which gives them meaning can only be regarded as stupid. Monopolies are almost universally destructive and I do not think it is justified to give people a monopoly over an expression of an idea just because they happened to come up with it first, especially not when there is room for them to be renumerated for their effort without having to resort to such a monopoly.

 

[Empiricism Philosopher]

Piracy is like walking "skelm" into a movie theater and watching with out paying. Piracy is not about owning sure, files sharing is legal by all means, but using the unpaid for program is illegal if you did not pay for it enough said.

 

[Xarog]

Piracy is like walking "skelm" into a movie theater and watching with out paying. Piracy is not about owning sure, files sharing is legal by all means, but using the unpaid for program is illegal if you did not pay for it enough said.

Actually, law suits regarding file sharing revolves around *distributing* copyrighted material to others without permission. To my knowledge there has never ever been a case where someone was sued for aquiring the product for their own personal use.

 

[medicnick83]

The game prices also increase a crazy amount this year, no wonder piracy increased!

 

[Empiricism Philosopher]

Actually, law suits regarding file sharing revolves around *distributing* copyrighted material to others without permission. To my knowledge there has never ever been a case where someone was sued for aquiring the product for their own personal use.

So are you saying I may use a copy of windows xp legally but the guy that gave it to you is the bad guy?

 

[Xarog]

So are you saying I may use a copy of windows xp legally but the guy that gave it to you is the bad guy?

Pretty much.

 

[Empiricism Philosopher]

So you may host files as long as it does not have a cd key or a crack with it????
I want links or evidence !

 

[WoW]

Most of the public does not know how to get pirated software or movies and in that sense because it has to be well hidden from law.

Look if there was no law against it no one would buy legal stuff and programmers spending 4years of study to get good jobs lose their money for their hard work. You can however not say "I pirate cause this and this" and that would make it right. Piracy is a crime for a reason as much as not paying your T.V license or traffic fine. The law is there to protect the people. The consumer is not and I stress not entitled to have media or any material possession by birth right and must earn it by providing money for it just as you pay for a doctors health care(you are not entitled to have someone slave for you).

Piracy/sharing is rife in schools these days and growing.

In regards to laws, piracy laws are by big business to protect big business' pocket. Laws can be changed by the people to ensure that exploitation comes to an end.

 

[Empiricism Philosopher]

What about small companies and many game companies are losing billions O_O how do you even lose that much by over producing any ways?

 

[Arthur]

So are you saying I may use a copy of windows xp legally but the guy that gave it to you is the bad guy?

Current copyright law in almost all countries (there are 2-3 exceptions, like North Korea) prohibits you making a copy - that is why it is called copyright (ie it restricts the making of copies to the terms specified by the copyright owner). In many jurisdictions statute or the courts do allow an already-licenced user to make a backup copy for personal archival puposes, but generally for commercial software (such as Microsoft, Apple, etc, etc) you may not make a copy and host it on a server in a manner which allows others to download it, except with the express permission of the copyright holder. You need to read the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) to see the exact terms and conditions to which you agree (ie it becomes a matter of contract and not just copyright law) when you open or use the package.

 

[porchrat]

What about small companies and many game companies are losing billions O_O how do you even lose that much by over producing any ways?

How do you know they lose billions? No evidence has ever been provided by a truly independent third party to verify this, please stick to facts.

Most of the public does not know how to get pirated software or movies and in that sense because it has to be well hidden from law.

No, most people just aren't tech savvy enough, PirateBay is not exactly "well hidden" now is it?

Look if there was no law against it no one would buy legal stuff and programmers spending 4years of study to get good jobs lose their money for their hard work. You can however not say "I pirate cause this and this" and that would make it right. Piracy is a crime for a reason as much as not paying your T.V license or traffic fine. The law is there to protect the people. The consumer is not and I stress not entitled to have media or any material possession by birth right and must earn it by providing money for it just as you pay for a doctors health care(you are not entitled to have someone slave for you).

Actually our government provides free healthcare to those who can't afford it because it IS considered a right. That and water and electricity (in small amounts) are also provided for free, because once again it is considered a right.

That and you can't use a T.V. license as an example, it is a bad one, because that is a cost forced upon you based on whether or not you own a T.V., not whether or not you watch SABC. If you want to own a T.V. solely for the purpose of playing a game console on then you are still, by law, required to pay a T.V. license. That is like paying a tax on your internet connection because you could at some point use that connection to access music or films.

Or how about this: requiring you to pay a road toll each month regardless of whether or not you drive on that road, because you happen to live in the area and you own a car.

However you look at it, you just don't care or feel bad because you think some is getting money and yes there are loads of companies making money but many don't because their main products can be copied freely of the web. People won't buy something they want/need if they can get it for free even if you think it is just you and it won't hurt any one, you are still selfish.

Could you please provide us with the details of these companies that have gone out of business due to piracy? Along with evidence prooving that it was indeed piracy that caused the demise of that company and not some other factor.

Companies should lower prices because of competition and a free market naturally and not be forced to increase prices to make a living of the law abiding bunch. Why do you think someone would spend year’s developing a game, software or a movie because you think it is entitled to you? No these people do it for the maximum money even if they have allot of it. Take away or cap a person’s potential to wealth in a capitalist driven world and the world will stop producing quality high end skilled products or people willing to go that direction.

The problem is that the record labels seem to me, to be a cartel, meaning that they collude and fix prices essentially eliminating competition in order to maximise profits. You cannot tell me that they are competing, look at the profits they pull in each year. If they really wanted to compete we wouldn't be paying what we do for music. The music industry is not a free market, it is sort of like the way South African banks work, that too is not a true free market. The problem with this is that it also stifles progression and development because now that these companies can collude and fix prices there is no need to compete or come up with any innovative products, thus the industry stagnates.

People and markets do need to be regulated, otherwise you allow monopolies and cartels to be created. This is an extremely undesirable situation because under those circumstances both quality and innovation in products suffers. Just to prove my point, when was the last time you were offered anything truly revolutionary and innovative from Telkom?

 

[MraL]

I think pirating software will create more jobs... Both for those who are going to use it and for those who produces the fakes.

Agree
btw, what is considered piracy? I expect that excludes downloading movies which the SAFACT have confirmed at iweek last year is not illegal.

 

[porchrat]

btw, what is considered piracy? I expect that excludes downloading movies which the SAFACT have confirmed at iweek last year is not illegal.

Most of the stuff that happens off the coast of Somalia is considered piracy.

 

[PeterCH]

Agree on your last point. Also, as someone above posted, if you try and actually buy something and can't, pirating does become an option. I recently bought a copy of a new Garmin map. They SHIPPED it on CD! (a software company that does not offer downloads, crazy). So in the 8 weeks it took to arrive, I merrily used a copy I got off a news server.

But what I'm talking about is the psychology at work here. The same people who would not dream of walking into a PC shop and stealing a PC or a hard drive, are quite happy to pirate software.

There's something about the fact that it's a non-physical product (a MP3 or a software application) that somehow makes it more acceptable.

That's just the thing. It's NOT stealing.

Secondly the whole concept of copyright was abused by companies with paid shills and lobbyists to enact laws such as the ones which still keep Mickey Mouse property of Disney Corp even though Walt Disney is long dead and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty were themselves 'PIRATED' or 'STOLEN' from common folklore.

Then there are other issues. Take Windows for example, in the multiple versions M$ has produced, there have been numerous f-ups which have cost me a lot of time, money and nerves. Entire botnets which host kiddie pr0n and phishing sites exist because M$ (and other co's) have made such rubbish software - imagine a hardware maker (even not IT related - say car makers) making such rubbish, they'd be sued into oblivion or no-one would buy their junk. Is such junk worth R2000-3000?

 

[PeterCH]

You need to read the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) to see the exact terms and conditions to which you agree (ie it becomes a matter of contract and not just copyright law) when you open or use the package.

Local law takes precedence over the EULA - for example you may resell your OEM copy of Windows in the European Union and MS' EULA's restrictions are illegal and invalid, as an example. Corporate officers wishing to illegally force these restrictions can face imprisonment. MS can of course withdraw from the EU market but I doubt they'd do that. The EULA is not king, everywhere, even in the States there are Fair Use rights. MS is used as an illustrative example here.

 

[PeterCH]

So use the IP, but don't try and use it as a justification to steal the product.

It's NOT theft, it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Will MS, Adobe, Wordperfect and others compensate me for time lost, emotional distress and loss of money due to failures in their software? Heck, no. Will MS compensate me for the hundreds of bucks each year I have to waste on updateds, updates which are only necessary to keep the MS product from being invaded by viruses and worms. Heck, no.

Life is unjust, face it. People will pirate and if they do and would not have bought the product anyway, - no LOSS. Yeah it's a bit of a slap on the face for someone to use your product without paying - but ONLY if you know for sure.