A lot are ad supported, so while you may not be paying for them with $, you're still paying for them by viewing content that people that give the app creators $ want you to see

9/19/2012 9:48:40 AM

Firstly, I said all free apps on my phone; not all free apps in the market. Secondly, obviously not, but the point is still valid. Most people don't pay for free content.

9/19/2012 9:48:55 AM

most people have no morals

maybe this libertarian thing won't work after all

9/19/2012 9:52:41 AM

Taking free stuff for free isn't a morality issue.

9/19/2012 9:54:40 AM

it is when the creator asks for voluntary compensation proportionate to the value of the content

that's what we've been talking about the whole time, you were just slow to get there

see: in rainbows

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM. Reason : start creating valuable content - get paid]

9/19/2012 9:57:11 AM

First time you've mentioned voluntary payment aka donations.

And still, the content is free. Free is free. Not immoral to take free content for fee, even if donations are accepted.

9/19/2012 10:02:05 AM

if you truly believe that most of your other beliefs don't scale

congratulations, you suck

9/19/2012 10:04:13 AM

I'm just saying how the world operates. Most people don't pay for free content.

9/19/2012 10:06:44 AM

your belief system doesn't scale

you lose

9/19/2012 10:07:16 AM

Quote :

"So if someone writes a book, and sells one book, and everyone else copies it, how does the writer, the editor, the publisher, and all of the manufacturers involved get paid? "

We have no obligation to ensure that everyone involved in a product gets paid.

How did they get paid before the printing press? Oh, that's right, they didn't. Businesses are birthed and crushed as new technologies emerge. It's not our responsibility to protect these with laws. I don't know what kind of creative economy free copying will create, but it's not my problem. Whatever emerges is what we get.

Cry me a river.

9/19/2012 10:36:28 AM

You might not, but the company does, seeing as how they have to pay, thus they pass those costs down the line, ending up at you. And it's the company's right to have their product protected from theft and to charge you to use it.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 10:40:15 AM

Quote :

"And it's the company's right to have their product protected from theft and to charge you to use it."

Theft or copying?

9/19/2012 10:44:14 AM

It's theft.

9/19/2012 10:45:13 AM

There is a youtube video I would like to share with you...

9/19/2012 10:46:44 AM

That video is equivalent to riding unicorns to Sunday brunch.

9/19/2012 10:47:38 AM

Quote :

"And it's the company's right to have their product protected from theft copying and to charge you to use it.""

It is not.

9/19/2012 10:48:23 AM

I create a product. I want to be paid for others to use my product. If you use my product without paying for it, you are stealing. Theft.

9/19/2012 10:49:33 AM

It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. And it's just as illegal.

9/19/2012 10:57:34 AM

law != right

9/19/2012 11:01:58 AM

wdprice is kinda dumb

9/19/2012 11:05:19 AM

Quote :

"I have no intention of buying a BMW, so I'll just steal it."

that's a pretty dumb comparison and completely unrelated to my comment

i made it very clear that in a case where nothing was physically taken (theft) and the IP owner was not deprived of money in any way (ie. the copier would not have purchased the content in the first place, nor are they selling their copy or copies of their copy to those who would otherwise pay for said content), i was curious as to how one thought the owner hand been wrong

as mrfrog noted, it's impossible to ascertain the "prior intention"...but at the same time, i could argue that the person knows whether they would or would not have paid for the content, so the inability to determine intention is only relevant in cases of prosecution, not in terms of personal morality

Quote :

"I create a product. I want to be paid for others to use my product. If you use my product without paying for it, you are stealing. Theft."

i gave my younger brother my CD player when i bought my first MP3 player...by your logic, my brother stole the CD player

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 11:08:43 AM

You guys are right. Content producers shouldn't be paid for their products.

^ talking about a dumb comparison

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 11:11 AM. Reason : /]

9/19/2012 11:11:00 AM

Quote :

" talking about a dumb comparison"

says the guy who compared stealing a BMW to downloading content

look, it's not MY fault that you don't understand what it is you want to say...or that you believe such stupid things if you are indeed saying exactly what you mean

9/19/2012 11:13:02 AM

The video game industry has gone after the practice of selling used games, since they discovered it cut a big part out of their sales. The problem is that they're right. If you look at something like Netflix or even old Blockbuster, they had to go through the proper legal channels and negotiations in order to allow serial use of a product.

Serial use is legally different from copying, but ethically it's not.

9/19/2012 11:14:47 AM

Quote :

"The video game industry has gone after the practice of selling used games, since they discovered it cut a big part out of their sales. The problem is that they're right. If you look at something like Netflix or even old Blockbuster, they had to go through the proper legal channels and negotiations in order to allow serial use of a product. Serial use is legally different from copying, but ethically it's not."

and that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that annoys me about the other side of the content ownership debate...they're saying that you're paying $60 to RENT the product for an indefinite amount of time...but it's never really yours

9/19/2012 11:18:13 AM

If you want another example of different expectations about serial use:

When I buy a product, use it, then sell it on ebay, I don't have a strong expectation that I'll be able to deduct the sell price from my taxes. Many people would have this expectation. The difference is whether you consider the sell value to be your own "consumption" or not. I mean, you went to the store and paid the retail price. Why should that be any less consumption than the guy who stands next to you and buys it with no resale intention?

in terms of illegality
full purchase and throw away < serial use < copying

But I wasn't speaking of legality for most of what I wrote, same with the video.

9/19/2012 11:18:39 AM

The great misconception is that copyright is somehow supposed to be equal to the rights of physical property; in fact it is of a different form, because it deals with the right to copy rather than the right to hold a physical object.

BTW, in the CD-player example, the doctrine of first sale applies: After you purchase an item from a retailer, if you sell off or give away that item (without copying it, so that you no longer have the item you had purchased), copyright law does not apply.
(Issues with the doctrine of first sale arise with smartphone apps, books for some eReaders, and video-game DLC, which now are not so easily transferrable after the first sale.)


EDIT: You don't gain all the rights associated with a work just by buying it at retail; for example, it costs much more to buy an educational DVD for showing in class than to buy a DVD for home viewing.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason : copyright is more complicated than "no warez plz"

9/19/2012 11:18:50 AM

Quote :

"books for some eReaders"

eBooks are a fairly new product, and as such, they have the lowest level of ownership of just about anything out there. Because their rise corresponded with the rise of corresponding devices, it was possible for industry to apply the rights scheme as they pleased, and they did.

Not only can you not transfer most eBooks, but you don't own them indefinitely. In a decade they'll probably be gone. When the hardware changes, they may just not allow migration, or they might just stop blessing the DRM with their approval.

I'm not against the implementation of this business model. No one should be. If a consumer is fine with buying such a temporary product and someone wants to market it like that, then be my guest. But I don't support enforcing the agreement with the force of law.

9/19/2012 11:24:12 AM

BUT WITHOUT LAWS THERE WOULD BE NO MORALS

9/19/2012 11:30:10 AM

that video and most of this thread brings the

and yes, copying/distributing material that the recipients would have otherwise had to pay for is essentially stealing. do most of us do it? of course.

9/19/2012 11:32:24 AM

The argument for freedom of copying isn't a legal argument!

It's a religious argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism

Quote :

"The Church, based in Sweden, has been officially recognized by the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency ("kammarkollegiet") as a religious community"

9/19/2012 11:32:35 AM

thank God for laws! they are how i know what is right and what is wrong!

9/19/2012 11:43:07 AM

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/09/30/radiohead/

Quote :

" It’s not like Radiohead’s living in a different world. But they’re playing by a different rule book. One that says the money flows from the music, that people have to believe in you, that you’ve got to treat them right.Shit, you can barely get a ticket to a Radiohead show. The venues aren’t big and the demand is incredible. They’re doing it all wrong, don’t they see??Well, obviously they don’t.This is big news. This says the major labels are fucked. Untrustworthy with a worthless business model. Radiohead doesn’t seem to care if the music is free. Not that they believe it will be. Because believers will give you ALL THEIR MONEY!This is the industry’s worst nightmare. Superstar band, THE superstar band, forging ahead by its own wits. Proving that others can too. And they will.This is what happens when you sell twenty dollar CDs with one good track and sue your customers for trading P2P. This is what happens when you believe you’re ENTITLED to your business. This is what happens when music is a second-class citizen only interested in the bottom line."

9/19/2012 11:58:43 AM

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/10/27/stunting/

Quote :

" Let’s get a handle on this.  Let’s recognize that the old guard’s power has been stripped, or will be soon.  Doug Morris.  Terrestrial radio…  They’re at best, network TV.  Going from 92% of the audience to 31% as cable took hold.It’s not about SAVING the business, it’s about BUILDING A NEW ONE!And it’s gonna take a FUCK of a lot of effort.  With so much clutter in the marketplace, gaining traction is almost impossible.  You’ve got to start with the music.  The music must touch souls.  It must sell itself.It’s not about developing artists slowly, it’s LITERALLY THE ONLY WAY!  Goose it, and you burn everybody out right up front.The new century, the new world is here.  Let’s stop asking how we can save the old one.Presently music is free.  Will people pay for it in the future?  How much?  If you’re an act, that’s not your number one priority.  The act has ALWAYS had a 360 degree model, sharing in ALL revenue streams…  But now the act is in charge.  People who service the acts are the ones who will survive as businessmen in the future.  The Clive Davis model is just the opposite.  And it won’t last.If you’re not willing to work for peanuts.  If you’re not willing to convert fans one by one.  If you’re not in it for the long haul…then you’ve got no future in this business.  And I didn’t decide this, the customer did.  The customer who was mistreated forever.  Who can now not only sample EVERY act’s music online for free (they call that MySpace), but has gratifying alternative entertainment options. Hell, just ask them.  What’s better…  Britney’s new record or HALO 3?"

9/19/2012 12:04:37 PM

Quote :

"So if someone writes a book, and sells one book, and everyone else copies it, how does the writer, the editor, the publisher, and all of the manufacturers involved get paid? "

So, if someone invents an industrial farming system that marginalizes most crops and floods the market with cheap goods--how do the farmers get paid? If the printing press comes along and makes scribes obsolete what do the scribes do to get paid? If the record companies come along with a way to record sounds what do all the touring acts do to get paid? If refrigeration becomes cheap enough so that people can make their own ice at home what do the ice men that deliver the ice do to get paid? If automated trucking systems deliver goods at 1/3 the cost what do the truck drivers do to get paid?

I guess in your world the man that teaches a man to fish deserves all the fish.

Quote :

"If you remove copyright laws and make copying without consent legal, there would be no incentive to create as a profession."

Jesus I've never seen such horseshit... A poem:

Quote :

"A child is born into a world of phenomena all equal in their power to enslave, It sniffs — it sucks — it strokes its eyes over the whole uncountable range. Suddenly one strikes. Why? Moments snap together like magnets, forging a chain of shackles. Why? I can trace them. I can even, with time, pull them apart again. But why at the start they were ever magnetized at all — just those particular moments of experience and no others — I don't know."

People create because they get an obsession to fulfill a vision. No one that's any good does it for money. The money is icing on the cake.

9/19/2012 12:35:58 PM

Dude we get it, no one is arguing that business practices don't change with new technology. And as for Radiohead if they give away free music, that's their choice as the content creators and I can copy their music because the have given consent to it. However if Justin Bieber doesn't give you consent to copy his digital noise then doing so would be illegal.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/19/2012 1:03:39 PM

copying is not theft

9/19/2012 1:51:22 PM

Quote :

"Copying might not be theft, but it isn't harmless either. The best analogy is counterfeiting money. You aren't actually taking the money from anyone, but every person who does it hurts the market a little bit, and if enough people did it (or worse, if it were legal) it would crash the entire economy. "

9/19/2012 7:46:29 PM

I don't have any issue with copyrights as a concept, what is hugely problematic is the length of time things remain copyrighted. Indefinite ownership of intellectual property is ridiculous. Most things should go into public domain in less than a decade. It's certainly not the case that people should be paying to use the fucking happy birthday song. 95 years of copyright protection is just outlandish.

Why the hell should "Girlfriend" by Justin Bieber receive 75 more years of protection as intellectual property than the patent for a cancer drug?

Creators of intellectual property deserve to be paid for their work and deserve to have it protected, but not indefinitely. I do believe that rigorous enforcement of laws is necessary to encourage the creative process, but protection should probably be inversely proportional to number of units sold whether that's CDs or books, or whatever. Once something is broadly distributed to people and has become part of popular culture it stops belonging solely to it's creator.

I'm about as Libertarian as you can get, and even I can recognize that the concept of owning intellectual property is not as easy to wrangle as physical property and thus cannot be handled like other property rights law.

9/19/2012 8:37:01 PM

Quote :

"it would crash the entire economy"

HAHAHAhhahahahahahahahahaa

9/19/2012 9:03:49 PM

To those who think people shouldn't be able to ask to paid for producing content, answer me this:
What's the difference between asking to be paid for an MP3 and asking to be paid for a ticket to a concert?

9/19/2012 9:08:05 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference between asking to be paid for an MP3 and asking to be paid for a ticket to a concert?"

They are fundamentally different experiences?

The band is not present and performing their work in front of you every time you press play on your ipod?

9/19/2012 9:21:38 PM

[not sure if troll thread]

9/19/2012 9:22:57 PM

^^^^ uh, you honestly think people would continue producing high production-value content like AAA video games and blockbuster movies if they didn't get paid for it?

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM. Reason : I don't know what you are laughing at. You think everyone counterfeiting money would be fine?]

9/19/2012 9:24:31 PM

Quote :

"The band is not present and performing their work in front of you every time you press play on your ipod?"

So, was the band never performing their work when they recorded the MP3 that you played on your iPod? Should said band not be allowed to request that you pay them for that time?

9/19/2012 9:26:19 PM

You asked a stupid question and I answered your stupid question. That is all.

I don't have an ipod.

[Edited on September 19, 2012 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2012 9:27:20 PM

and your answer was moronic and subject to a giant lack of logical reasoning.

9/19/2012 9:30:31 PM

Saying a piece of digital data and a live performance are fundamentally different is moronic.

Okay chief.

9/19/2012 9:32:56 PM

no, they may be different, but your explanation for how they are different and why one deserves payment and the other doesn't was NOT logically sound. You said one required time, suggesting, then, that the other doesn't. Is it your contention that the band does NOT have to spend any time at all or do any performing whatsoever in order to make an MP3?

9/19/2012 9:34:47 PM

Where did I do anything of the sort?

YOU ASKED A QUESTION ESSENTIALLY WITHOUT CONTEXT. I SIMPLY ANSWERED IT, DEVOID OF WHATEVER BIASED SUBTEXT YOU APPARENTLY INTENDED.

i mad like bill o'reilly.

9/19/2012 9:39:36 PM