Ethics Of Peer To Peer

From Piercing the peer–to–peer myths An examination of the Canadian experience (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/)

Both the Copyright Board of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada have ruled that private copying may include peer–to–peer music downloads [24]. This interpretation is consistent with both the technologically neutral language found in the legislation as well as with many similar private copying systems in Europe.

24. Copyright Board of Canada, 2003. Copyright Board’s Private Copying 2003–2004 Decision (12 December 2003), at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/c12122003-b.pdf, accessed 28 March 2005; and BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe (F.C.), [2004] 3 F.C. 241, 2004 FC 488, at http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2004/2004fc488.html, accessed 28 March 2005.

[delete slightly incorrect comment... although there are some flames, there's some reasonable discourse as well... caveat lector]

From VideosWorthWatching

(PeerToPeer is the way to get videos since CDs and DVDs are ZombieTechnologies. It also enables behaviour which would be categorically insane in any other economic regime. For example, getting a movie you watched as a kid so you can replay your favourite 15 minutes.)

It's also theft if you don't pay the folks who create it. If you download Firefly without paying for it you're actually harming something you claim to like. And don't delete this, Richard. You get your say, I get mine. -- EricHodges

Actually, the economic regime Richard wants is Southeast Asia. I was in Jakarta a couple of days ago and oh boy, you have never seen as many dirt cheap - on average, $0.50 - bootleg DVDs as I did there, including every current theater release. -- EarleMartin

I have a very low opinion of "intellectual property" and the ludicrous notion that you can "steal" it. The mistaken analogy of "stealing" intellectual artefacts is as risible as that of "pirating" (with full raping and plunder). Intellectual artefacts can be trashed and destroyed, but the only thing about them that can be stolen is due credit. Come on Eric, you made ConceptsOutOfContext, you should know this shit. -- rk

Here's what I know: A TV show like Firefly or a movie like Serenity won't be created without a significant chance to turn a profit. By not paying for it you reduce the profit and discourage future investment and creation. "Due credit" doesn't buy groceries or film stock. -- EH

Yeah, yeah, same argument that's made against FreeSoftware, scientific research, internet publishing and amateur theater productions. Which is why none of these things exist, despite the fact that in the last 20 years internet publishing has grown to be as large as pulp publishing and will probably supplant it within another 20. Come on, Eric, do you seriously expect anyone here to buy it?

For a counter-example, see Red vs Blue at http://www.redvsblue.com

If you're really interested in the topic, go read AttentionEconomy.

Yes, I expect people who understand economics and ethics to "buy it". -- EH

People like RichardStallman and MichaelGoldhaber? Don't come back until you've read that article and have something intelligent to say about it. And consider this little tidbit, it doesn't matter a whit to me whether the free software ethics and attention economy economics are ultimately correct. What matters is that they're plausible. That's enough for me to tell you to take your condemnation and self-righteous attitude and shove them up your ass. -- rk

Welcome to 1997. -- EH

If you don't see how calling me a thief and unethical is grossly offensive and insulting then you really ought to have your head examined. I merely employed TitForTat. And I remind you that you're the one who restored your ludicrous insults after I deleted them.

If you don't see how downloading Firefly from a p2p network is theft, you really ought to think about how something like Firefly comes to exist. -- EH

You're repeating yourself. So I'll do the same. Read AttentionEconomy and RMS' philosophical essays about the FreeSoftware ethos and don't come back until you have something intelligent to say about them.

I have read them. They don't justify theft. If Fox and Whedon decided to copyleft Firefly and give it away to increase their attention capital, then it wouldn't be theft. They haven't, so it is. -- EH

Unlicensed copying isn't theft you wanker. The fact that our fucked up legal systems don't make a distinction between them isn't evidence that there isn't a distinction to be made. Or that the distinction isn't fundamental and crucial, since theft of physical objects is a sensible and meaningful concept whereas theft of intellectual artefacts is ludicrous, meaningless and insane.

And since you've just admitted that your sin isn't gross ignorance but deliberate idiocy, I'll give you a good metaphorical kick in the ass and say sayonara!

It's at this point in the argument where I usually ask you what you do for a living and you decline to answer. If you earn your living from the sale of intellectual property, then our "fucked up legal system" is what keeps food on your table. If you answer we'll know if you're a hypocrite as well as a thief. -- EH

I have never and will never derive income from the sale of "intellectual property". I've already stated this and stated it clearly. And if you knew anything about me, you wouldn't hold out the vain hope that I'm a hypocrite.

So how do you make your living? Do you till the soil? Do you bow-fish sturgeon? -- EH

Just cause you got me to speak up by libeling me doesn't mean I'm interested in any further discussion. Sayonara sucker.

First, I said if someone downloads Firefly without paying for it that's theft. I didn't say you downloaded it. Did you? If you downloaded Firefly without paying for it that fits the legal definition of theft. Therefore if you downloaded it without paying for it then calling you a thief wouldn't be libel. -- EH

Um, hasn't anybody ever heard of tech support? Of service-providers? Of somebody getting paid to create some non-trivial tool because a very few people actually need it?

Perhaps a little story would be appropriate.

I broke my bike... back shifter stopped working. I take it in the the mechanic. I watch him do his thing. "Oh, was it just that screw?" "Yes; give it a little twist, everything lines up nicely, you're good to go. The trick is to set it to the lowest gear, adjust, set to the highest gear, adjust again.". I thank him, and pay him, take my bike and go.

Next week, I ask a friend if he wants to go out biking. "No, my shifter's screwed". So I take a look. Looks like the same problem I had.

Am I stealing from the mechanic if I tell him how to fix it? Or should I be required by law to refer him to the mechanic unless the mechanic has specifically stated otherwise?

Now tell me, what exactly is the difference between my 'pirating' this bike-shifter-fixing algorithm, and my 'pirating' a defragmentation tool? If that mechanic teaches me everything he knows about bikes, am I pirating when I then teach my friend everything I know about bikes?

-- WilliamUnderwood (troubleshooter, service-provider, bread-winning-open-source programmer)

Tell me how sharing this knowledge of bike mechanics (freely given to you) is like sharing Firefly (protected under copyright law and sold for profit)?

The problem, Liam, is that Eric thinks that ethics and moral philosophy have something to do with the legal system. He's got a vested interest in the legal system, especially copyright law, and he thinks this vested interest automatically means that copyright is perfectly just and legitimate. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that theft is not a legal concept but a moral one. And especially that someone who practices unlicensed copying is not a thief, no matter how much the legal system and large corporations are intent on labelling them that way. He especially refuses to acknowledge the fact that people have a right to dissent from this quite insane perception of reality even though it makes them into criminals (though not thieves). Even though those same people constitute the majority of the population of the first world and all of the population of the third world. And he will never, ever use separate terms for the very different concepts of theft and illegal copying because Eric is a LanguageAbuser with a vested interest in twisting clear and useful communication to his advantage.

It's not that Eric doesn't understand the philosophical and moral arguments for sharing. It's that he doesn't care. He only cares about the law, even if said law is clearly immoral, unjust and illegitimate.

In addition, Eric is a troll who pretends to not understand the really basic concepts and arguments which RMS, and you, have put forth in an attempt to convince others to waste their time. In the following, he advances the ludicrous, unworkable and quite insane notion that sharing is to be regulated by permissions.

If I give you something that is mine, that's sharing. If I give you something that isn't mine, that's distributing stolen goods. If you take something that is mine without my permission, that's stealing. I'm not arguing against sharing. It's nice to share. If William's bike mechanic wants to share his wisdom, that's great. If you want to share what you know or what you make, that's great too. But don't pretend that because someone's creation is digitally reproducible that it somehow belongs to everyone. -- EH

And what happens if I just happened to see the mechanic working on it? Does he then have a right to demand that I not use what I have seen? To use it, but to not let anyone else see?

Interestingly, current law would be analogous to having a black box over the appropriate section of my bike, which I'm simply not allowed to look in.

Of course it doesn't belong to everyone. It belongs to nobody. In an appropriate formal system, it follows from the axioms. Are we to start copyrighting logical derivations? Are we to require that people making use of Fermat's Last Theorem to either licence the proof from Frey et al or write their own proof? And from where? First principles?

I have a machine sitting in front of me. Current law states that there are certain configurations which are simply illegal for me to put it in, without having a licence to it. I reject this.

-- cwillu

There seems to be a duel going on here between two somewhat-abolutist positions:

There has to be a reasonable position between the two poles.

There isn't and there doesn't need to be. Why should people of the latter view compromise when their position is clearly winning important ground even now? Why should they compromise when it's pretty damned clear to everyone that technology advances will only serve to make their position more attractive and entrenched, as well as protect its believers from legal persecution? And in any case, how can there possibly be any compromise when the latter position derives directly from fundamental philosophical principles?

We're winning, and we're winning over people and institutions we consider evil so why the hell should we compromise with the losers? In fact, our total annihilation of the opposite camp can't come fast enough for my tastes, which is why I'm dedicating myself to advancing super-distribution technology.

Some points for consideration:

[*]

The underlying rationale for copyright law (that people will admit to in polite company, anyway - it could be argued that the real rationale for copyright law is simply to allow the well-heeled to fleece the public), is that it is necessary to "advance the useful arts and sciences" by providing benefits to authors and inventors (the latter being mainly covered with patent law). In other words, copyright is intended to serve a public purpose. In times past, where recording of anything was a expensive, laborious task (often which produced copies which were decidedly inferior), it could be argued that the "monopoly" rights granted by copyright law were appropriate - it primarily was a restraint against unscrupulous publishers. Nowadays, with the brunt of the restraint felt more by the public, the "monopoly" rights granted by copyright law might no longer serve a public benefit, but instead serve only to provide windfall benefits to authors, publishers, etc. at the public expense.

Of course, in the recent ruling in Eldridge vs Ashcroft (the lawsuit claiming that the Sonny Bono act, which extended copyright terms, was unconstitutional - a claim which was denied by the US Supreme Court) decimated somehat that philosophy. While the Court didn't dispose of the "public purpose" argument completely; they gave Congress a wide latitude to determine just what the "public purpose" is; not surprisingly, Congress seems to view the "public purpose" as congruent with the interests of the same publishers who lavish them with campaign contributions.

If we are to assume that copyright laws ought to serve the public purpose first; and that other interests (such as compensating authors) are only to be served as necessary to benefit the public, then what is the answer?

Don't know about Jakarta, but I was in Hong Kong recently and the situation there is similar. Software, music, movies are widely available in inexpensive, illegally-copied forms - the authorities generally look the other way (though they engage in the occasional "crackdown" to mollify critics of this state of affairs - crackdowns which generally result in slaps on the wrist and are written off as a cost of doing business of the merchants peddling this stuff). Yet Hong Kong has a thriving film and music industry; it's film industry is (I believe) third in total output (number of films produced), behind only Hollywood (#2) and India (#1). It seems that the content industries there thrive despite widespread "piracy" of their products. When crackdowns occur, it's often at the behest of foreign companies (Microsoft, US movie studios, etc.) rather than the local producers.

The answer, the only possible answer to anyone who understands the evolving technology and economics (peer-to-peer, cryptography, machinaea software, the AttentionEconomy), is to do away with copyright entirely. Intellectual property law isn't necessary for the advancement of any arts. Not literature, not scientific research, not software, not music, and very, very soon it won't be necessary for movie-making either.

Once the notion of intellectual property is done away with, we can proceed to defend intellectual possessions by some socio-technical system wherein attention and credit is directed to original authors. But this is entirely optional since current social custom and technical systems already do a very good job of protecting authors' intellectual possessions.

"...windfall benefits to authors, publishers, etc. at the public expense."

Huh? Windfall? Public expense? Most authors make crap. How are their benefits any more "at the public expense" than any other line of work?

Note that publishers are grouped in there as well... we're not talking about all authors, we're talking about the group which makes insane amounts of cash of the hard work/cash of others. Artists get screwed over by copyright and related laws too.

Ah, now I see. It's just the rich authors and publishers who don't need copyright protection. That makes total sense now.

The benefits are at public expense because the public are responsible for paying law enforcement crackdowns, and in the case of copyrights they don't get any real benefit from it. The only way it helps them is by encouraging authors, publishers, and the like to produce. And it's questionable whether it really does.

But how is that different from the cost of law enforcement crackdowns on wire fraud or embezzlement?

The existence of intellectual property is already a practical rather than moral measure. This is because an author doesn't lose anything when his work is copied besides the chance to gain something; if you weren't going to buy, there's a net benefit. When push comes to shove, it's generally agreed intellectual property is a measure taken to encourage authors and researchers to produce. The question, then, is if having the public to subsidize them in this manner is ok.

No one buys what they can get for free, so we're not really talking about losing the chance to gain something. We're talking about ensuring that nothing can be gained. And losing the chance to gain something is nothing to be ignored. The chance to gain something fuels our entire economy. Without a potential for profit there is no research, developement, exploration or investment. If a product has no immediate or potential economic value then only the wealthy can afford to invest their time in its production.

That would just be losing the chance to gain something on a larger scale, but I'm not saying it should be ignored. I'm saying it may not be worth restricting what people can access through imposed force - creating an artificial scarcity, in a very real sense. Besides, I don't believe your predictions are more than a worst-worst-case scenario. Research, development, exploration, and investment have done fine without such protectionism in some industries, and are hindered by it in others. It takes money to create and enforce copyrights. As for art, I know people who remember when the cassette tape meant the death of the music industry, yet few people now question its use and the industry survives. They can adapt, when required to; the question here is if it's right to enforce the status quo at our expense.

Yes, it's right. The benefit is much greater than the cost. Without intellectual property there's ultimately no way to profit from intellectual work. What industries are you talking about where IP isn't protected?

Most industries as a matter of fact, since most industries function on the basis of trade secrets law (even Microsoft works on the basis of abusing trade secrets law) and not IP law. As for research, the new propertarianism in the USA's research universities is visibly stifling it.

Trade secrets are intellectual property. I'm aware of how secrecy in scientific research stifles it, but that isn't the issue at hand. Exchanging copies of Firefly on a p2p net isn't going to help find a cure for cancer. What industries have "done fine" without protecting their intellectual property?

It's really simple. Let's pretend that I've got a lot of money and you want to make a movie. Convince me to give you $10 million without paying back any of it. Go ahead, try.

It's really simple. Let's pretend that I don't need your stinking money to make a movie. Or let's pretend you have a brain instead of the black hole that's in your skull. Come on Eric, who gives a shit whether you can be convinced or not?

You aren't even going to try?

You want an economic model where movie producers get profits? How 'bout they make deals to provide films of guaranteed quality as soon as possible to theatres, sort of like they have now, and then people go see them in theatres because they want the large screen, loud noise, and dark lights, sort of like they do now? Are the home video sales that peer-to-peer threatens to cut out really so critical to keeping the movie industry afloat that they should have police protection?

Film is being replaced with digital projection. Most of the folks on this page seem to be arguing that makes it free for anyone to "share". We aren't just talking about video sales, but any distribution of the product. If it's OK to "share" the DVD, why isn't it OK for the projectionist to "share" a copy of the high res original?

It is ok. The theatres still have a monopoly on the theatric environment and an interest in timely and reliable delivery of new films, so they have a clientele and a reason to support the producers. More generally, you can make profit off of intellectual work without intellectual property rights by marketing services rather than goods. Delivery, quality guarantees, and technical support are all examples.

No, theaters don't have a monopoly. I can open a theater and show your movie without paying you a cent. Since I'm not paying for the movie I can show it cheaper than anyone who does and generate more profit (or less loss). I have an economic advantage because I don't pay the producers of the work. In that world only a fool would pay for a movie.

You could do that, but since the producers don't have any interest in giving you copies, it'll take you longer to get them. Some people won't want to wait, others will. Your competition would undoubtedly reduce the profits of the movie industry from their multi-million dollar revenue, but I don't think that's a matter that should concern the public police. VHS was supposed to finish the industry, and it didn't. There's no reason to think they couldn't adapt to this.

I don't have to get the movie from the producers. I can get them from the projectionist, the tech guys at the theater's ISP, the janitors at the studio, or anyone else who has access to the file. My competition wouldn't just reduce the profits of the movie industry. It would remove the potential for profit.

Just don't give the projectionist or janitors peer-to-peer access on the theatre's storage computer. Seriously, the problems here could be fixed with a little thought; if I had millions of dollars to spend on think-tanks, I'm pretty confident I could find a way to make a profitable company without relying on intellectual property. In the long run, that would be better, because copying technology is going to present a perennial threat. Unfortunately, most large companies are focused on short-term profits, and would rather fight technologies than adapt to them. But that doesn't make them unethical, or even show that they're as damaging as you claim. Once again, cassette tapes were originally heralded as the end of the music industry, but it's been fine.

Hold on. I thought information was going to be free. If it can't be owned and it can't be sold, how can you justify restricting access?

Except producers have just as much vested interest, and there are plenty of examples of them taking advantage of their control. And intellectual property rights aren't natural; they aren't supported by any philosophical or even religious ethics, and people are still having a very difficult time deciding what if anything they should entail. They're purely pragmatic, and you can't start off by assuming they should be enforced.

If they aren't dominant in today's economy, that's because they don't have to be, but it's wrong to consider the producers to the exclusion of the consumers.

And yet intellectual property rights demand that those capable of making copies, though they don't remove anything from the producers other than what might be, can't be allowed to. If you don't see how that restricts freedoms, I don't know what to tell you.

Most of the people here would say that the luddites were wrong to protect their industry by trying to block new technology and harass those who used it. Yet that's exactly what the publishing industry is doing with peer-to-peer, and it gets applauded. Go figure.

Convince me to give you $10 million without paying back any of it.

Simple one word answer: stock.

Why would I buy stock in something that can't be sold?

" No one buys what they can get for free, so we're not really talking about losing the chance to gain something. We're talking about ensuring that nothing can be gained. And losing the chance to gain something is nothing to be ignored. The chance to gain something fuels our entire economy. Without a potential for profit there is no research, developement, exploration or investment. If a product has no immediate or potential economic value then only the wealthy can afford to invest their time in its production. "

Hmm... I guess I should ask for my money back; I just finished putting several hundred dollars back into several projects which are open source or otherwise available for free.

There are many people who buy proprietary software, with the full knowledge that it is freely available via p2p, that the likelyhood that they ever are punished for such action is slim to nil, and that the punishment itself is likely to be no worse than the cost of buying the licence in the first place. In other words, they pay, and not because the owner wants to be paid.

The reasons can be varied; they may feel that it is morally correct to pay somebody when they gain advantage from somebody else's effort.

I feel the most important reason to pay is this: what's done is done. I don't pay an author for what he's done. I pay an author for what he may yet do.

EditText of this page (last edited November 8, 2005) or FindPage with title or text search