cyb - cyberpunk

As I grow up I see the value in paying for things. That said I still pirate music, but any chance I get I will pay for the albums I download.

All software except possibly enterprise software. Software should only be licensed to corporations generating wealth through it, not to consumers doing personal or small-scale commercial use.

This applies to digital media as well. Music, movies, games, literature. Information should not be contained. And it wouldn't be if it wasn't for anti-capitalist intervention by the state. The laws should be nonexistent in regards to sharing information.

Society would suffer as it always have, but our culture will be further empowered.

>And it wouldn't be if it wasn't for anti-capitalist intervention by the state.

What do you mean by this?

I buy things if I liked them. For example if I like all or most of the songs on an album I'll buy it, but otherwise it gets added to the playlist.

TV shows and movies are almost always on Netflix/prime but if its not I'll pirate

Books I usually pirate under principal that I could go to the library, but if I want a physical copy for my shelf I'll buy it.

>>18747
>Should all data really be free?
As the CCC always says:
Protect personal information, free public information.

Much used software? Free it. Your IP address? Protect. Important work of art? Free it.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to paying for music etc. if my money benefits the creators. I have however no interest in paying money to megacorps, whose only goal is squeezing more money out of me and other consumers, either, which is why I pirate a lot of things.

>>18757
I also think physical copies of things are overrated. We should as a society learn how to keep digital data safe instead.

>Should all data really be free?
Yes. All useful data should be free.

>Do you pirate?
Never, but my waifu does it all the time.

>Do you personally think it is morally okay to do this, if you do, how can you justify this?
My waifu lives in a country where the currency is very weak compared to the USD. Most people can't even dream of earning USD 12,000 a year, and there are heavy taxes for imported goods (nearly +100%), so there is almost no legitimate market for most stuff. People can't pay for it. An unlocked iPhone 6 costs two average monthly wages. I kid you not.

Companies know this, so the majority of them doesn't even know where her country is located. They ignore her. So my waifu ignores them in return.

>In your opinion, do you think laws should be more relaxed about pirating/file-sharing?
Yes, I do. I don't care about what happens to videogames and movies, but all knowledge and technology should be free.

>how do you think they should be changed
Wishful thinking: no copyright laws at all.

Realistic thinking: companies can use their patents for 20 years, so they get their money back and earn a nice sum. Afer that, patents expire and the invention becomes patrimony of humanity.

Please excuse my poor English.

yes, and I think its okay. When someone buys something its theirs to do wih whatever they wish. This means its also theirs to share, and if its theirs to share, and they do, I also have every right to take what they're sharing.

I have not and I would never pirate anything. Though my waifu does all the time. She thinks that money is precious and should be saved wherever possible.

I think if you're monied you have an obligation to donate towards the software and data that you consume, but otherwise the software and data should be free and freely usable, with the exception of, as >>18752 state enterprise software. I think the way Unreal Engine 4 is handling stuff is great. The engine is free and you can freely use it until you make over like 30k dollars, then the engine takes a percentage of profit.

I also think that it's acceptable to charge for certain forms of entertainment, but only if you make it clear that it will be free after a time frame. For example it's fine to charge for a video game, so long as it's made free after maybe 1 year to at most 3 or 5. That being said I haven't pirated a video game in ages with the except of F.T.L Faster Than Light, which a friend gave to me on a flash drive then I promptly bought. That's probably because I'm super passionate about video games and think they have the potential to pull modern art away from garbage like Pollock, Warhol, Piss jesus and covering buildings in plastic to a more Renaissance like state where good art is a mix of creative prowess, ingenuity, and technical skill.

>>18770
>only if you make it clear that it will be free after a time frame

The problem is that what you're saying makes no sense except if you take distorted copyright law loopholes as the moral/ethical standard. There simply doesn't exist a publicly released videogame that "isn't free," and you also can't "buy" a game either.
That's not some radical philosophy speaking, it's what corporate distributors and producer say: you're renting a license to access copyrighted files. It's the only way they can get away with it because you're obviously not buying anything.

They just conveniently call it a "purchase" for marketing purposes - i.e. keep up the sham that you're paying for a commodity and not the use of a service. Because any idiot can see that accessing files doesn't require any permission or money, but it sure works if you suggest there's some legal and moral line in the sand when it comes to distribution, though there never was.

It's not a question about buying/pirating. It's donating or not donating. You have access to the videogame or album or whatever easily and for free, how can anyone force a price onto it? Only through social conditioning.
A developer can kindly request that users donate to him, especially within in the first year of release, but he's in absolutely no position to demand it. Who demands donations? How would anyone get away with that?

Oops, we let it happen, and we're gonna be embarrassed as fuarrrk about it in 20 years.

I don't really think in terms of morals, or maybe I just have trouble. The question of whether something is "OK" or not always confuses me when someone asks, because that could depend on many different factors known and unknown, and it's usually that I find it irrelevant.
Being that "I am the most important person" and that I value my happiness and wants and needs above all others, I have no problem with pirating anything that I pirate.

If I had money to buy something that I thought was "worth" it, then I would not pirate it. But I don't have much money and there are an awful lot of things I want to experience. Having over 15TB of data I can't imagine how it would cost me to have purchased all this stuff, and then how much of this stuff would have been unavailable for purchase or just very difficult to do so, and then how much would only legally exist in a physical form, much long forgotten.

I wish thing people could create whatever they wanted and not worry about money. That's why I like seeing platforms like Pateron and Kickstarter being used responsibly.

I think we shouldn't need piracy because we have licenses for free art[1], software[2] and scientific publications[3].
Science papers should be free and easy to access, and international laws enforcing this would be good but that won't happen, Aaron (and maybe other people too) died fighting for that[4].
We can make free digital data and give money directly to artists, programmers and scientists using web services.

[1]Creative Commons license
https://archive.org/details/netlabels
http://www.actsofsilence.com/netlabels/
>>>/art/1111
[2]GPL, MIT and BSD licenses
[3]http://arxiv.org/
http://paperswelove.org/
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy

>>18767
I agree with you, except
>Realistic thinking:
I have a couple problems with this.
>companies can use their patents for 20 years, so they get their money back and earn a nice sum
That usually happens in the first week, piracy and all they still get their money back, and they still would even if the product went to the public domain 6 months after its release. Still they have rights over it until 70 years after the author dies. It's hard to reason with greed.
That's for record labels and the like, if you mean companies that make the content they sell, eg Dreamworks, then I think it's ok for them to do what they want with it. But they have to be smarter if they want to keep people from sharing.
By the way, are you >>18847?

patents and copyrights infringe upon the free-market. If they're going to exist, the time limit must be reduced considerably, or they must exist for documentation purposes only (like an artist's work being credited to them).

Non-fiction books like the Mortimer, Vogel, AoE should be cheaper in my opinion. But who am I to judge, I don't have any money so I "borrow" them online to read on my ereader. They are well worth their prices but I just can't afford it. I'd sell my books for cheap; Practical Electronics is also cheap as hell and has a ton of information, why can't others be like that.

Fiction in general and music should be payed for my it's fans because that's what keeps a series alive and it's not as anyone would have the right to be entertained unlike the right to have access to (well sorted and explained) information. You will always find excuses to not pay for fiction but if you don't care that a series might die it's fine. I mean I download music that's up on youtube too, especially game OSTs. The last time I've bought an album was years ago and it was the Infernocop OST or Slayer or something. I download anime too, because I don't care if a series dies most of the time, I rather like manga anyways. But the things I do care about I buy, if they're not expensive as hell.

>>18761
>I also think physical copies of things are overrated. We should as a society learn how to keep digital data safe instead.

I must disagree, to some degree at least. Perhaps for my own self, I do not need to keep all of the documents that I have in a hard form, but I think for archival purposes you cannot really beat having a physical copy -- In a sense a physical copy is protection of the digital copy, for it is a single source from which you can creat additional copies.

This sentiment comes perhaps in part from the overal control over digital copies that is excericsed by online library like things over their collections. I have worked at an archive, and my colleges there and I generally were appaled by some other libraries which, at the expense of their physicall collections expand into having digital access. Access--not control.

It would probably be different if they had the documents on their own severs, but they generally do not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiFDLuhIq7M

Pretty much related. Nice wallpaper so my chummers won't be mean to me for posting "libertarian" stuff.

I see nothing wrong with pirating and in fact I think it's a good thing. I shouldn't have to pay for anything I can pirate anyway but porky thinks he knows best. We're gonna roast that pig someday.

>>18747

>Instant access to all information?

It can be done with all information that individuals choose to make freely available.

>Will it ever be "free"?

Doubtful.

>For that you'd need "free" infrastructure.

"Free" infrastructure would require a physical rebuild that would merge self-sustaining Power, Processing, and Communication into Singular Units controlled by the user, in a self-supporting stand-alone configuration or an expanding ad-hoc configuration.

>Singular Units make a great currency, as they require physical infrastructure to exist.

>Individuals perform functions to obtain Singular Units.

>A necessary function would be the expansion of the physical infrastructure supporting Singular Units, thereby increasing the resources of all connected Singular Units.

>>18747
How I aquire digital content:
1. Pirate it
2. Try it
3. If it isn't good, remove content
4. If it is good, remove content, buy the content legally or donate to creator of content
5. If too poor to buy/donate, advertise the good content on social media/among peers

Yes it's flawed but it works for me.

>Should all data really be free?
Some data can be... considered harmful. Social security numbers, passport scans and other private info generally shouldn't be available, not even by money. Same goes for tech. Though I like weapons much, I think sharing info about very potent new weapon systems (that are not public knowledge yet) can be harmful to society.

>Do you pirate?
For anything digital, I never pay.

>Do you personally think it is morally okay to do this, if you do, how can you justify this?
It was never about morality. There is nothing to justify. Intellectual "property" is just a way for companies to keep their profit. Ideas or art or words cannot be property by definition because once they were created, creator don't own anything. You don't own words that combine into sentences. And of all things, creator only benefits from pirating, because it advertises creation. Its just the damn middleman that want his share.
Paying/donating directly to creator should be encouraged too.

>>18909
Libertarianism is aight.

>>18916
>Some data can be... considered harmful. Social security numbers, passport scans and other private info generally shouldn't be available, not even by money
When one discusses the freedom of data, it usually means data that is intended to be viewed by the public is viewable by ANY of the public. It does not mean that that private data is viewable. The public is equal by nature, and thus there shouldn't be any kind of hierarchical system that only allows access to some, and not others, based on some arbitrary give/take system, like money or information (in the form of say, a social media system, where you can't access public information without first making an account).
However, at the same time, certain barriers are usually still allowed by the same advocates, like that of 'merit' or 'interest', where it would be fine to say, put something on the tor network, even if the most naive user wouldn't be interested/capable of navigating to it.

It also doesn't mean that, if you put up something, then it has to known to anyone and everyone. Rather, if you stumble onto some webpage with useful content, and this website is meant to be seen by anyone who wishes to see it, then you should be fully able to access that content. But you can still have, say, an IRC that isn't publicly available.

Of course, things become muddled when things turn to content ''in general'', since the original idea comes from MIT hackers discussing the freedom of software creations and academic works. They were specifically talking about things that were fully and freely available, to those of a particular school or those willing to spend money. But they weren't referring to having to keep their hard drives on a public drive, for anyone to access. The general idea was more about ''if it's freely accessible, then it should be FREELY accessible.'' In other words, if you've given it to me, it should be mine to use as I wish to use it. And if you mean to allow anyone to use it, then you should allow ''anyone'' to use it.

But you can still have closed-off communities acting of their own accord, or software you just distribute to friends.

My rules with pirating are the following:

Software - Never. The main reason I use open source software is that proprietary software is soykaf and can't be trusted. I don't actually know of any software I would want to pirate as I don't play gaymes.

Movies - Always. Most movies are just propaganda for the current dominant memes in society. I may watch them for entertainment but I won't give them money

Music - Depends. I'm happy to support an artist I like but they are few and far between.

>>18747
The value of a digital good is next to nothing; any restrictions put on its access is purely artificial and should be dismantled or at the very least set aside. Convenience shouldn't shroud our ability to access data; we need to remove the stigma surrounding donating outright to content-creators themselves by creating a system that enables the opposite attitude.

>>18931
>The value of a digital good is next to nothing
This is false; software, and information, and other meta-systems with no concrete form obviously still have value, in either utility or fundamental purpose.
However, the reproduction of digital goods has (more or less) no cost associated with it.
Any cost that might be applied should only apply to the initial production of the good, in which case there is a very real consumed good: time & effort. Paying for this service, the very construction, is entirely reasonable.
Paying for the reproduction of the infinitely and freely reproduced is entirely unreasonable.
Which, then, is why we need to remove the stigma surrounding donation.

>>18935
oh sorry I meant to say "shelf life", not value.

I agree with you.

The preferred term is filesharing, not piracy

I pirated everything when I was younger and did not have a job with stable income. I believe the exposure to lots of media greatly expanded my thinking, which I am thankful for - but purely ethically, it wasn't right.

Now I pay for things if it is easy to do so. It's simple to get the music I listen to in any format under the sun in seconds. I prefer physical copies of books anyway. Games are usually cheap - AAA titles are full price, but they also costed more to make. I don't think there is any justification for pirating things you can purchase easily. Simultaneously, though, I think if you cannot afford these things but really love them, you should do it anyway.

The exception: I actually pirate or stream all of my movies. There's absolutely no good, centralized service for paying to download movies. The best experience I had was with Louis CK's specials: go to his website, pay x dollars with paypal, and get a download link to whatever format you want. I'd pay for all movies if it was that simple.

>>18747
I pay for things a lot more than what I used to. When you're younger, you are an entitled soykaf . As you get older, you realize to get quality you have to buy it. Like I buy my hommusexual comics instead of downloading them because either I can't find them or they're terrible quality. Gotta love class comics, unf <3 money well wasted.

I don't pirate via torrents and the like, but if I want something from a site, I figure out how to extract it.

I believe if you earn it through hard work or technical prowess, it's yours. Ethical? No, but that is how my mind operates. It's like my position of TPP or net neutrality -- I think less about trying to change the world and more how I can adapt to it to continue my way of life. Laws are other people's problem.

very casual pirating, mostly anime, a few music album each year, some books, small stuff really

>>18907
>for archival purposes you cannot really beat having a physical copy -- In a sense a physical copy is protection of the digital copy, for it is a single source from which you can creat additional copies.
That is true.

I was mostly thinking about films, where some people think DVDs are a physical copy. It's complete BS. If you want a physical copy of a movie that is fairly resistant to rot for archival purposes you need like a film reel or something, DVDs will unravel in a time period as short as 10-20 years

>>18952
it depends what you are doing and your budget. Not all of us can afford to have controlled environment bunkers to store canisters of film forever, and if you need access to the source relatively regularly a DVD is going to last you much longer as you don't get degradation from copying or reading from it

If i pay for a product and or service i expect that it should not have limits placed on it.

>>18954
hmm but i think keeping it on a NAS is still much cheaper and will keep longer.

>>18954
Well, there is difference between storing something in an archive, and storing something for yourself. I do not mind storing my photographs and school work and whatever digitally. I do this for a lot of my own items. Sure they are backed up in multiple places but all is digital in many places.

But from my experience working in an archive, things are in many ways different. For one, there are more resources, but there are also other important details. In some cases, things are being put away for a long time, and often, people have thoughts like you: DVD's are great, compact. THey last a long time and can be rel=played later when we need them.

The thing is, today you may say DVD's, but some time ago, they did not do DVD's. Where I work there were several types of nifty digital archives used historically, and, you know what? Today they are a horrible pain to access. Laser disk players, anyone?

Part of this is that the archive I have most experience with was poorly managed for a while. Ideally we would know where the player for the laser discs was stored, and we would have upgraded the format. But over time things were lost and now it is difficult to even determine what is storred in some media because of formating.

I am not against archives using digital media, far from it. There is a great advantage in accessibility that can be provided by keeping digital copies of materials. Particularly with the internet it is far easier to give a copy of a book or a film than to try to arrange to come and browse through an archive and read something there. But if you have a hard copy, you can always make another digital copy. If, in thirty years, the only copy you can find of something is a deprecated, low resolution scan of a movie, stored on an obsolete physical hard drive, you may have a very difficult time to access it.

>Better to have both.

> 1) Should all data really be free?

No. Certain data however should be free. Data, like every product, that benefits society as a whole in a great way, like e.g. medicines, agar techniques or fundamentally needed products should be FOSS. Art or Products that don't fall under this category should not be free if the creator doesn't want it to be free. I have nothing against buying something if the price I pay for it actually helps the creator and not a terrifyingly big and greedy network of corps. So unless I can walk up to Rory Gallagher's grave, dig him up and shove my 9,99$ for A Blue Day for Blues up his dead genius ass, I'm not paying a dime, which is most of the time the case when dealing with media that isn't completely/mostly indie (and not shit).

> 2) Do you pirate?

99,9% of the time. And with TPP coming up we might be going to face a drought in the bay, I hoard as much as I can for the time until (e.g.) i2p catches on.

> 3) Do you personally think it is morally okay to do this, if you do, how can you justify this?

Yes. I'm fuarrrking poor and see 1)


> 4) In your opinion, do you think laws should be more relaxed about pirating/file-sharing?

Not necessarily on file sharing, but the should be transformed in a way, that file sharing isn't necessary anymore, since everything that holds a great value is free and you don't have to worry about not supporting the actual developers, idea or even the product itself and possibly helping to build power-monopoles when buying something with a price tag on it. see 1)

> 5) how do you think they should be changed

No copyright for products/ideas/etc. that are detrimental to society/humanity as a whole; restricted, fair and not abusable copyright for everything else. Without any copyright at all, the whole data/media sector would collapse.

>>18948

That's similar to what I believe. I really don't have the energy or the desire to try to change anything about "the system", which is historically speaking futile, probably because the problem is the discord between humans being animals and an intelligent "higher" beings at the same time, letting us develop amazing technology, but letting us be misguided by greed, hate and other illogical, animalistic behaviours.

My philosophy is, to make the best of it, live life to the fullest until I my lifelyhood is taken from me and then die with the knowledge, that I haven't wasted a single day, because I enjoyed every single one as much as I could. Why waste life trying to make a change instead of accepting the flaws of the world we life in and be as happy with it as we can ?

>>18898
>Science papers should be free and easy to access, and international laws enforcing this would be good but that won't happen, Aaron (and maybe other people too) died fighting for that[4].

That's a damn shame about what happened to Aaron.

Deciding to lock someone up in a cage for 35 years and a fine of $1 million dollars Just for downloading academic journal articles. Shows how fuarrrked up the laws are. They're willing to take 35 years of someones life for something like this.

I still don't understand why MIT did nothing to help him.

>>19021
MIT wanted to stop the prosecution too.

The thing is the papers Aaron wanted to bring to the public were the results from publically funded research. Which JSTOR for some reason (?) had possession of, and were charging cash for.

So really Aaron was just bringing the papers *back* to the public.

>>19021
I had to watch the documentary again to remember the name of the company that held the papers and man, it's worse than tear gas for me. Found bad news about the current state of Jstor.
>Registered readers may read up to three articles online every two weeks, but may not print or download PDFs.

>I still don't understand why MIT did nothing to help him.
To keep their public image, I guess. Not everyone at MIT is a MIT hacker. What I don't understand is why didn't (AFAIK) the students at MIT push for the higher-ups to drop charges.

>>19022
>MIT wanted to stop the prosecution too.
The MIT Police started the whole mess filming Aaron and pressing charges.
>On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent.
And they stood as neutral as elves when it went from MIT vs Aaron to FBI vs Aaron.
>Which JSTOR for some reason (?) had possession of
They posed as publishers, but there must've been more to that to get scientists to agree to paywalling access to the results of their investigations.

All quotes are from Wikipedia.

Afterthought: I didn't know about Aaron until he died, there must be new Aarons that we don't know of right now.

If the spirit of the internet is to survive, it must co-exist with piracy. There is no method that can be used to reliably prevent piracy that cannot also be used to enforce censorship.

I pirate pretty much all of my entertainment, I can't think of the last time I paid for something digital. I think that all data should be free simply because we should be more concerned with educating and enjoying great things as a society rather than trying to make as much money off of something as possible. Laws really need to be more relaxed because it doesn't really harm anyone except the people that can afford to be harmed. People making good indie things generally aren't in it for the money anyway but people will still be willing to pay for it.

>>19026
>but there must've been more to that to get scientists to agree to paywalling access to the results of their investigations.
"scientific research" is fuarrrked up in many ways.
Researchers get coerced into giving up the publishing rights of their research to these companies in exchange for peer-reviews (Never mind that these have often shown to be shallow).
Since this is the "only" way to get your work spread, and thus the "only" way to get quoted in other research (the apparent value of every researcher seems to be easily quantifiable by this number...), they foolishly budge under the pressure.
If everyone would just use a free system from now on, this wouldn't be a problem at all.
But this whole fiasco is memetic in nature, and won't die so quickly.

>>19037
Much of research relies on being awarded a grant, which is given by convincing the grantor that the research will be productive towards their needs. Beyond not being able to conduct research for things that value cannot be convincingly quantified, this condition can be a powerful tool for censorship. Case in point - cannabis research.

As scientific insight becomes much more specific and complex, this barrier becomes more and more prominent.

>>19037
>>19043
If Jstor had the political contacts necessary to push in favor/against passing a certain law that benefits/perjudices scientific research, they could use that and offer a deal to investigation centres trading the copyrights over the journals for political support.
I don't know if they did that, but it's being done by other organizations. Source: the documentary about Aaron.

>>19022
>MIT wanted to stop the prosecution too.

What makes you say that? AFAIK, after they arrested him they stood on the sidelines expressing no help or support for him. They even refused to release the documents that lead their decision into making the arrest.

>Swartz's attorneys have requested that all pretrial discovery documents be made public, a move which MIT opposed.[180] Swartz allies have criticized MIT for its opposition to releasing the evidence without redactions.[181]

What idiots fail to understand about 'voting with your wallet' is that it's a question of incentive generation. It's not as simple as "I like thing -> I pay artificial MSRP"

>>18914
The flaw is that you're evaluating the decision to purchase based on your income and not expected outcome. How it should be:
>1. Pirate
>2. It's good
>>a. You wish to create more good
>>>i. Financially incentivize the creator through a monetary demonstration of interest - i.e. purchase/donate
>>>ii. Financially incentivize the creator through a non-monetary generation of attention - i.e. positive viral
>>b. You don't wish to create more good -> see 4b
>3. It's good but you don't expect a relevant return on your investment - e.g. creator is not getting money from sales, or creator has sold out, etc. -> see 4b
>4. It's bad
>>a. Financially disincentivize the creator by mitigating his income - i.e. negative viral
>>b. Do Nothing

>>19022
>The thing is the papers Aaron wanted to bring to the public were the results from publically funded research. Which JSTOR for some reason (?) had possession of, and were charging cash for.

>So really Aaron was just bringing the papers *back* to the public.

This sounds like a kickstarted videogame. Funded entirely by public donation, then sold for private profit. Then cracked and given back to the public. Except only the last guys are acting immorally.

>>18909
It was cool Hiro linked to him on 4chan. Enjoyed watching that a lot, thought it just made me sad and angry.

>>19069
I fuarrrking love this entire post. From the image to the content. A+ to you anon.

>>19069
I personally think it work better if you have to pay for something up front but are free to return it for full refund for any reason. It is ultimately the same result in the end but the difference is it allows the creator to set whatever price model they feel is fair and it means that if someone buys the content and is ambivalent to it they can get their money back, but if they are too lazy to decide if they like it or not they hurt them self not the creator.

Part of the funny thing with a lot of science papers, is that, really, you are not paying the creators of the papers, the researchers see none of the profit, just the publishing groups and the distributors.

Often, if you ask you can just get the paper from the scientist gratis.

>>19095
As I see it, this would be somewhat unhelpful. I might buy a game or a movie, and 99% of the time, I use it, get what I want from it, and I return it. From that model, I might pay, say, 30USD for a movie. Take it for a week and claim my 30USD so I can go get something else. Ultimatley the artist sees little income.

Meanwhile, there would still be people copiying and distributing the thing for free (or for advertising, as illegal torrents often are).

I am not sure that >>19069 had a perfect solution, in fact I rather doubt that there is a perfect sulution. People are complicated, and currently we are in the stage where, not only are we dealing with complcated people but with a rather new domain of digital communication and commerce. Things may take a while to figure out. Ideally, the current mindset might should be to experiment, play around in the new environment, make mistakes and take notes.

You try your plan, I can try something else. We can decide which is better when we have experience and perspective. Speculation can only get you so far.

>>18750
I pretty much feel this way, but the only thing I'll pirate is anime and anime music.

I don't think laws protecting copyright are dumb, people gotta protect what's theirs, and deserve to make money for their creations. I do think that if you buy a copy of something you should be legally allowed to do whatever you want with it, the fact it's technically not legal in the US to rip DVD's/Blurays is bull soykaf .

Side rant is I think free software developers deserve more money than they get for what they release, most free software is better than traditional software.

I pirate basically everything and anything. I can't justify it. I used to do it because "fuck society" and because I didn't have money, but now I use it to save money and to get the soykaf I want.

>>18747
>Should all data really be free?
Free as in free software? Yes, 99% of it shouldbe free.
Free as in free beer. Nah, I don't care about that TBH.
>Do you pirate?
I use only Linux ATM, so I am not pirating any software including games. What I do pirate is anime because there is no way that I can import the obscure soykaf I watch.

>Do you personally think it is morally okay to do this, if you do, how can you justify this?
What I don't like about piracy is that pirated copies of windows discourage people from using GNU/Linux. So while I used to think that pirating non-free software was ok, I am not so sure anymore.
>In your opinion, do you think laws should be more relaxed about pirating/file-sharing? If so, how do you think they should be changed, and how do you think it would effect society?
What I think is that microsoft should stop with its conspiracies, make uncrackable windows and stop relying on piracy to boost it's statistics.

Why should other people have the right to tell me how the bits are flipped on my hardware?

Do they get to tell me what I draw or trace when using a paper and pencil? Am I not allowed to draw Mickey Mouse if a fried describes him to me? If I draw a new cartoon character first, should I have the right to make everyone else pay me whenever they make a new drawing with the cartoon character?

Intellectual property laws are fascism with the only aim of unjustly siphoning money out of an unwitting society. They are toxic to community and toxic to collaboration. Yes, all information should be free. People don't create new information. It can't be created or destroyed. They just rearrange information, shuffle it around, copy it, and internalize it.

So when we can finally model exactly how the brain stores information, will I also not be allowed to have my physical neurological configuration in a certain way without paying license fees or memory rental charges?

If you need my money to keep "creating content" and I'm not already giving it to you or considering it, then there are either one of three things happening. Either I don't know about your "content," it isn't worth my money, or I'm poorer than you are.

In any of those cases, you don't gain the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my hardware in the privacy of my own home or with friends or on the bus or whatever.

You should be happy you're even able to create things worth watching/reading/whatever and that people are actually doing those things. The more you're concerned about your bank statement instead of your "content," the less I even care about your content.

If my co-worker buys a pizza, and he tries to charge me for a slice, I would say "thanks, but no thanks. you were going to buy that anyway, and you can't even share?" It would be crazy to think that if I, in response, pulled all the ingredients for making a pizza out of the work kitchen and made an almost exactly similar pizza that my coworker would then get to charge me for the my pizza that just came out of the oven.

The co-worker is the one who first showed that the pizza was a thing, and made me want pizza. The only reason he could pay for a pizza is because pizza ingredients can be combined in a certain way to make pizza. The idea that you can call this idea of combining physical states or a particular combination of physical states your property is ludicrous. It's thought policing, it's invasive, and it has no place in a free society.

>>19125
this

>>19126
/thread

>>19125
Why should other people have the right to tell me how atoms are flipped in my tea?

I mean srsly, I could have figured out how to make tea on my own, disregard the effort needed to produce and test the tea (and also maintain it in case of softwr)

>>19125
>People don't create new information. It can't be created or destroyed. They just rearrange information, shuffle it around, copy it, and internalize it.
what do you mean by this? do you mean to say that there are essential components of that information which are not only irreducible but also perpetual? then where do you think all this started from?
I read the other day that we create more information every two days than we've created in all of human history up to 2003. does this sound valid to you?

I'm broke as a joke and the money that comes my way usually goes to necessities. And not much interests me anymore. I've been in a slump for a while.

So the rare game that manages to entertain me for more than a few minutes is the one that deserves my money. Why would I pay $60 for a game that I might not even like? That's retarded.

I liked the industry better when it focused on shareware demos back in the late 90s and early 2000s. I liked trying before I buy. I liked saying "You know, this free demo has enough content to keep me busy for ages, so maybe I'll get the full version for Christmas or something." Right now the industry is focused instead on bleeding me dry, and that's something I can emphatically raise both middle fingers to.

Pirate first pay later.

>>19146
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29175/why-is-information-indestructible

Establishing that information isn't created is a bit tougher to do, but we can think about it this way:
Suppose everything is reducible to or is superimposed on the physical world. In the physical world, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It must be conserved, in some form or another. Now further suppose that, based on the link above, that information cannot be destroyed. Now suppose that in order to transform information at all (a subset of which might be copying, creation, etc.) it requires physical energy to do so, and finally assume that information can only subsist on a physical system involving energy. Therefore if information is created, it requires energy both to create it and to carry it. However, the sum total of energy in the universe never changes. But if new information gets created, then it requires there to be more energy in the universe to carry it, even if existing energy is responsible for creating it. Therefore, the sum total of energy in the universe changes, which is absurd.

Colloquially the "information" meant by more information being created every two days than we've created in all history up in 2003 is not the same thing. What is meant by that is "data" or "knowledge." When we measure things or come to know something, we aren't creating new information or adding data to the world, but coming to realize and familiarize ourselves with the information and data that was already there all along. Our averages and experiments just describe physical laws and phenomena that were there all along, they don't pop into existence as soon as the experiment concludes and the measurements are analyzed.

>>19141
Not sure what you're saying. I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay for things that they like. I'm saying that people don't deserve money from us into perpetuity for things that they made decades ago. Sure, if someone's work has value, they should be compensated for that. But it's hardly the job of the person making a copy of something they wouldn't have paid any money for otherwise. If I really need something done, and I can't do it myself or can't be bothered, I don't mind paying someone to do it; that doesn't mean paying them for something they did 30 years ago before I even needed something like that. The real entitled ones are the people who think they are capable of making something so valuable that they should do 4 months of work and then never have to work again.

>>19158
>suppose everything is reducible or is superimposed on the physical world
why/how can I do this?

>>19176
Parsimony.

Also, if you don't take that assumption to be the case (while I think the overwhelming evidence points to it), then that means that the argument just doesn't apply, not that the conclusion is incorrect.

I'm not really all that interested in making arguments for states of affairs in which physicalism or supervenience isn't the case though. The alternatives are simply too implausible to be all that interesting to me.

Now importantly, I'm not saying that only physical things exist. Sure there could be abstract objects and so on. But ultimately the least problematic metaphysics (in a lot of ways) relies on supervenience to account for these.

Yes and no, i think we sit fairly nicely right now.

If it were really all free, there would be a lot less people creating things. People wouldn't have as much time to work on things if it were not their job to do so. Developers usually can't live off of donations alone. This would mean development of soykaf would be a lot slower because it would be done on a hobby scale in peoples' spare time.

Though i don't think everything should be released free, but it should not be completely locked down either because that is like kicking dead whales down the beach . As long as there is still a chunk of people buying and not pirating then there will still be jobs for the creation of consumer 'data'. This allows people to buy stuff if they want to support a developer and draws cash from folks who can't be assed to download/crack things.

As far as laws go there should not be any about copying data for personal use. Or uploading/downloading copied data. It technically is not stealing. Nothing is destroyed or taken. Selling pirated material should be prosecuted though. That would be like copying the schematics of a product and marketing it as your own.

If you created content that took you a ton of effort to do, would you be okay with other people pirating your stuff?

>>19312
yeah, as long as capitalism continues to stand you have to pay some people to get the job done.

Then again, if said people already have plenty, why pay them another $20?

>>19409
Of course I'd care, but I dont care when I do it to others.

>>19409
>>19423
No. I wouldn't care. Why would I? Was I creating it just for the money? Am I that horrible of a person that I'm only creating content to most efficiently wring money out of individuals?

If you feel like you've been slighted because someone infringed your copyright for personal use, you should probably check your ego and reevaluate why you're making things to begin with, because it doesn't sound like you are making them for the betterment of the community or simply to make something great.

>>19125
>People don't create new information. It can't be created or destroyed. They just rearrange information, shuffle it around, copy it, and internalize it.

Just flipping random bits isn't going to get you a movie or a program. Information requires creative effort by PEOPLE.

>>18948
>>19006
My dad was a petty thief. Never could hold down a job. So, he just robbed, convenience stores, shops, small-time stuff. One time, he sat me down, he told me something I never forgot. He said, "Everyone steals. That's how it works. You think people out there are getting exactly what they deserve? No. They're getting paid over or under, but someone in the chain always gets bamboozled. I steal, son, but I don't get caught. That's my contract with society. Now if you can catch me stealing, I'll go to jail. But if you can't, then I've earned the money." I respected that, man.

Black and white statements about content ownership should be avoided because no real situation is clean cut.

In order for people to create quality content, they need to devote a lot of time to their craft with access to the necessary equipment.

There are many occupations where creators are not paid based on sales. For instance, university professors earn their living from the university and they get all the equipment they need, such as computers and a functioning workspace, from the university at no additional cost. Many corporations do not pay the content developers on how well their product sells, but instead offer a salary, benefits package, etc but they will provide their workers with the necessary resources to complete their job.

The entertainment industry is dying because of the mentality of computer users and the way computers are designed to handle and share files. Since computers were intended as a research tool, the designers had no concerns over content ownership. Sharing files is a breeze and you don't really feel it the same way you do when you're buying a banana, for instance. Many users adopt this same mentality and insist that all entertainment, which depends on sales to exist, be freely available.

In some contexts, people should have access to books under copyright for free. Those who cannot afford books that will educate them should be able to learn. Money should not hinder the quest for Truth. My problem with piracy is when people who can afford to buy entertainment choose not to because it destroys the entertainment industry when they have the option to support content creators.

As the entertainment industry shrinks, the quality of the content will drop. Consumers will have less choice as record companies stick with a small number of "safe bet" artists, instead of the older strategy of having a large roster of music artists where the bigger artists support the more avante-garde ones. Smart people will choose careers in other industries because they're safer bets. A career in music was never a very safe option, but now it is even more risky since one of the major revenue streams, recordings, shrinks every minute. The mechanism that allowed for content distribution also shrinks as record stores close their doors or sell less records.

If you can afford to buy it, you should buy it. There are times when I pirated music and movies, but that was because they were so rare I couldn't find them on disc for less than ten thousand dollars. No joke!

We all have access to great art for free. It's our responsibility to support those who create so that they may devote all of their time to doing just that to inspire a future generation of artists who can thrive in an economy that will support them.

>>19769
The thing is, file-sharing isn't hurting music producers as badly as the music business is.

Consider this: The business is rapidly moving over to streaming services like spotify or pandora, which is "free" and generally shafts artists, specifically small-time artists. The music industry is moving towards this not because of some reaction to file-sharing(which accounts for a very small amount of sales loss), but because it makes the labels more money. Once you get money and middlemen and all that soykaf into the equation it gets corrupted and the avant-garde gets shafted.

In the meantime, lots of really small-time artists -- who would never be known based on the "you would like this" rankings that streaming services have(because they're not big money-makers) -- get known and loved by the file-sharing community. The artists get what they want, which is an audience, and the listeners get what they want, which is music. The only thing missing is money, and these days with patreon and whatnot it's possible to live a basically minimum-wage life if you've got a fanbase in the tens-of-thousands range. Once you remove money from the equation life becomes oh so much simpler.

Pirate everything indiscriminately. Never buy anything u can get for free.
It's the only way to make sure.

All data should be free, because fundamentally it holds no value.
Think about The Library of Babel and what this story really means to literature as a whole.

>>19772

Yes - musicians should be grateful that their audience values them so much that they get paid as much as burger flippers at McDonald's for having thousands of devoted followers!

Streaming actually makes labels far less money that record sales for now. Those royalties are divided up in fractions of cents. I'm sure that'll change in the future as more services get started up. Artist discovery is a benefit of file sharing, but so is discovery through streaming, and of course, what your friends are listening to. (on an unrelated note Lady Gaga and a lot of the "big" artists actually lose money on their tours and find themselves in huge amounts of debt after touring because their managers screw them over or have bad money management skills)

Free downloads are not sales and the assertion that life becomes simpler without money is preposterous because we're all living in a capitalist society and having all your music on a bunch of servers somewhere for a bunch of leeches to download for free does not put food on the table of pay for electricity for your studio computer end of story

>>19796
>Yes - musicians should be grateful that their audience values them so much that they get paid as much as burger flippers at McDonald's for having thousands of devoted followers!

You think a label will give them any money?

>>18747
I'm low on money. I feel bad for the authors of the books I download for free, but I need them. It's either the books or food. Hopefully they'll help me get a proper job soon, then I'll buy some books to support the authors.

>>19797
At least read the post you're replying to before you pour the soykaf in the thread

>>18747
I think people have a right to make money off the soykaf they create,but only for so long. This actually benefits everyone as far as I can see, creators included. It forces them to not settle with resting on their laurels after they make one big hit, like how software developers are expected to make new releases, and under a lot of models you don't pay for every point release (could you imagine?)
the reason we're at the point where we even need to ask this is because we've forgotten copyright was intended to strike a balance between intellectual property and the public domain, and if you value access to knowledge and culture, you should probably lean towards protecting the public domain over entities like disney who are already more than capable of protecting themselves.

tl;dr I recognize that people have to be compensated fr their work, but after some period of time they have to give up the exclusive right to monetize the thing.

>>20197
check.

My waifu will pay for games if they're DRM free and respects the user, if not she pirates cracked DRM free games. She only uses libre software (which is usually free) but donates if it's good.

She thinks you should pay for it if it respects the users freedom and is reasonably priced. If not then weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen mateys!

>>18747
Copyright: Enforced by a near threat of retribution that is disproportionate to the crime of theft.

Copyleft: Enforced by a distant threat of retribution that is massively disproportionate to the 'crime' of producing a useful artifact.