Stealing Adventures

[NonEntity as guest]

Let's just put it that I found Wolf's reasoning to be less than logical and less than consistent. But then, that is generally true of all of us, so you must make up your own judgement

- NonE

[Neo]

Let's see if the communist-victim-citizens pirate Adventures some day. Here are extracts from a recent article of the 'Net.

BEIJING (AP) - By ALEXA OLESEN

Chinese leaders, under pressure from the United States and the country's other
trading partners, have promised repeatedly to stamp out the country's rampant
piracy of goods ranging from books and movies to drugs and designer clothes.

China is regarded as the world's biggest source of illegally copied goods ranging
from Hollywood movies and Microsoft Corp. software to Ralph Lauren designer
shirts and Callaway golf clubs.

Estimates of potential lost sales to legitimate producers worldwide range from
$16 billion to as much as $50 billion a year. China's own producers of music,
software and other goods say they also suffer huge losses.

Nevertheless, counterfeit goods are still widely available in Chinese shops. It is
estimated that 70 percent of pirated products coming into the United States
originate in China.

[sagas4]

Neo,

I think that would be one tool that the communist-victim-citizens would want to pirate; however, once the communist-totalitarian-leaders found out they would likely embrace strict copyright enforcement selectively for that item.

[Neo]

Maybe Marc should 'pirate' is own work by giving anyone who sells a copy a cut.

[lordjustice]

neo said:

Estimates of potential lost sales to legitimate producers worldwide range from
$16 billion to as much as $50 billion a year. China's own producers of music,
software and other goods say they also suffer huge losses.

The music and software industries use similar statistics. It's important to remember that these statistics are always inflated, at least a little. One major reason is that the studies assume that each "pirated" item sold equals a lost sale for the company. This is not entirely true, because it leaves out instances where a "consumer" would *not* have purchased the item at the regular price, but the pirated copy is within his or her budget. So to assume that purchases of pirated items directly equals lost sales of the original items is a fallacy.

[Darren Dirt]

That's very true, a lot of these stats ignore the reality that a lot of people choose to either experience the creative work by:
(a) borrowing it from a friend/the library, and return it once done, never to own a copy themselves.
(b) renting it from Blockbuster or the like, again returning it once done, never to own a copy themselves.

So a lot of those "pirates" are simply doing a different version of (a) or (b) - they would have borrowed it from elsewhere, not bought it, it's just a question of method/technology that made it possible.

Not saying anything about the morality/ethics of this, just saying the above is not taken into account with the claims of "lost revenue".

Personally, I bought the Firefly DVD after borrowing the first disc from a friend. And if I had borrowed a copy of the film "Supernova" I would not have bought a copy. So maybe all this legal huffing and puffing is really all about making sure people still keep on spending $ on crap?

[markh10]

I forget BBC so I quote 'Guest' here...

What is being stolen? The text? The ideas behind the text? Both are silly. Money from you? This is unprovable, because you cannot prove he would pay if he couldn't get it free. If he sells it after he acquired it, THEN he would be stealing profits you should be getting.

....The thing that is stolen is the same thing that is purchased. The act of stealing, is in subverting the property right itself, from Marc to the end user. Directly, correctly attributing 'the thing' is perhaps an intellectual excercise worthy of your time, however, perhaps a more fundamental philosophical discussion as to whether the verb, to steal, actually describes any thing, or act (not anything) is a more foundational starting point.

Given certain points of existence, and escaping exestential essoterics, the thing stolen is the thing otherwise obtained by exchange. The theft occurs where there is disagreement, not agreement. Acting against Marc's wishes is the act of theft, and yes, he does exchange something for something, otherwise there would be no need to take something without a return to Marc.

Just my .02

[Rizzotherat]

markh10 said:

I forget BBC so I quote 'Guest' here...

What is being stolen? The text? The ideas behind the text? Both are silly. Money from you? This is unprovable, because you cannot prove he would pay if he couldn't get it free. If he sells it after he acquired it, THEN he would be stealing profits you should be getting.

....The thing that is stolen is the same thing that is purchased. The act of stealing, is in subverting the property right itself, from Marc to the end user. Directly, correctly attributing 'the thing' is perhaps an intellectual excercise worthy of your time, however, perhaps a more fundamental philosophical discussion as to whether the verb, to steal, actually describes any thing, or act (not anything) is a more foundational starting point.

Given certain points of existence, and escaping exestential essoterics, the thing stolen is the thing otherwise obtained by exchange. The theft occurs where there is disagreement, not agreement. Acting against Marc's wishes is the act of theft, and yes, he does exchange something for something, otherwise there would be no need to take something without a return to Marc.

Just my .02

Your .02 is worth more than .02

Very well stated and I whole heartedly agree with you, especially what you said about the disagreement/agreement. Mr. Stevens exchanges something for something. And his something is very valuable.

[NonEntity]

In my quest ever to muddy the waters of intellectual clarity and temporal sanity, I present the following, a dissertation on why Stealing Adventures is not theft (or something like that...) Property Rights and Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K.Levine

[sagas4]

NonE,

That was a difficult yet interesting read. Difficult because I was turned off in the first paragraph. The government did not create the land either so who are they to say of how it is to be used other than the state/government wields a more concentrated organized imposing force to allow or disallow how land is to be utilized?

This is what disgusts me. Government and the force the people of it wield is automatically accepted as a given, and no one (Except for a few on forums like this one) dare question to see whether the premise of the argument is faulty or not. I would say that where the writer of the article knows it or not, by the end he just made a case for no government as well as no copyright law.

[marc stevens]

nonentity said:

In my quest ever to muddy the waters of intellectual clarity and temporal sanity, I present the following, a dissertation on why Stealing Adventures is not theft (or something like that...) Property Rights and Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K.Levine

So. would it be theft if you attach your name to Adventures, have copies printed and then sell those copies?

[NonEntity]

Interesting question, Marc. It certainly would be unethical. It would be fraud. As to theft, I don't think so according to the game theory guy's interpretation. Did you read the article? I found it quite interesting.

I'm not doing this to deprive you of anything, by the way... I hope you know. I just find the entire subject VERY interesting. Most of my life I have made my living from "intellectual property," so I DO view this with some personal perspective. I've ALSO noticed that many people whose lives depend on the concept of "intellectual property" are often very cavalier with OTHER people's "intellectual property," which I've always found to be an interesting bit of hypocrisy. (And I am most certainly not trying to include you in that statement, it is just an observation I've had over the years...)

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

I suggest that anyone who has even hinted that it's morally ok to "steal" AiLL should buy a new copy or two from Marc, today -- after all, isn't there some updates/revisions/corrections Marc? Okay, I'm not quite totally serious, but he's being *extremely* patient and understanding with the discussion of this issue, when it really strikes to the heart of what he spends his time doing in order to feed his family. It's not like he's Alex Jones and saying every third post "BUY MY BOOK!"... Actually, I wonder in the hundreds of threads in here, how often has Marc said anything more aggressive than "If you read my book, you'll understand what so-and-so just said".

Quite simply, I suggest, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you..." (not BEFORE they do unto YOU, as some seem to believe!)

[NonEntity]

I concur, Darren. Marc is a stand-up guy and is worthy of all of our support. I hope that you didn't take anything I've said to be contrary to that sentiment. As I said, these issues apply to me as well, and I like to understand the world around me, that is why I love Marc's site and his ideas. He QUESTIONS the perceived reality. So do I. This is good. As I've said, these issues are really tough ones. They have been for a long time.

-NonE

[judgemental]

nonentity said:

He QUESTIONS the perceived reality. So do I. This is good.

-NonE

Good ? ? ? You have my vote for understatement of the year eternity ;D ;D

J M