Piracy in the Go industry.

[kirkmc]

Google "FLAC music store". You get nothing.

flac music store.jpg

Try not capitalizing.

None of those results are what I'm looking for either.

I've revised my requirement to be a store that sells flac, with even a tenth of the music I listen to.

Which, may I ask, is what kind of music?

[Solomon]

Not only are we derailing hard from the topic, but I feel like we're arguing for the sake of arguing on this FLAC topic and this is all rather pointless bantering. If Redundant can't find the music he likes in FLAC format outside of pirating, that's that. It's not hard to provide examples where piracy provides more convenience than legal means for a lot of things, including FLAC-format music. No need to continue this argument imo.

[Sheeple]

Not only are we derailing hard from the topic, but I feel like we're arguing for the sake of arguing on this FLAC topic and this is all rather pointless bantering. If Redundant can't find the music he likes in FLAC format outside of pirating, that's that. It's not hard to provide examples where piracy provides more convenience than legal means for a lot of things, including FLAC-format music. No need to continue this argument imo.

I think the fairest solution here is to have him provide a table of his 6TB collection with checkmarks for each songs availability in each store. If any store has 10% checkmarks he should be keelhauled.

[daniel_the_smith]

I think the fairest solution here is to have him provide a table of his 6TB collection with checkmarks for each songs availability in each store. If any store has 10% checkmarks he should be keelhauled.

Nice try RIAA

[Josh Hatch]

I just finished reading through this thread, yes the whole thing and it took a while but it's okay because I did go problems after every few posts.

I'd just like to say that I've read a number of John Fairbairn's other posts on this forum and I have his books The Go Consultants and Kamakura. I've enjoyed both books for their detailed commentaries on the games. I also plan to get the two books on Go Seigen's matches with Fujisawa Kuranosuke and Takagawa Kaku at some point as well. It's unfortunate that he doesn't want to continue posting on these forums or writing Go books. It's also disappointing to hear that the book on Jowa's game with Akaboshi Intetsu may not (will not? I don't really know the situation) get published. I've read the commentary on the game that is in Invincible but it's only a very small section of the book.

I think the problem Go book authors and publishers face is a problem faced by the entire community and it's not pirates but rather a lack of players. Until I started playing a couple years ago none of my friends had even heard of the game; they all knew about chess, not just what the game was but also how to play. Go is just too niche of a subject and that's more of a problem than losing a few potential sales to pirates. I don't know how to change that though.

[FlyingAxe]

It is funny when book writers make money from writing about other people's so-called "intellectual property" (the games they played, the move combinations they invented, etc.) and do not reimburse the players or their families, yet they complain about the "piracy". Hypocritical much?

Real piracy involves one side losing their property and another side gaining. But, as Einstein said, if you have an idea and share it with me (or I "steal" it from you), neither of us is poorer.

[RobertJasiek]

You mix up different kinds of information:
1) a book's contents, word by word, picture by picture
2) general conceptual ideas (such as a tesuji)
3) sequence of a played game
4) compilations of played games / tesujis, game by game, tesuji by tesuji

Western / international copyright law protects (1) and (4) but does not protect (2) and (3) (except maybe for a live broadcasting stream). Somebody said that Japanese copyright law also protects (3) within Japan, but I am not sure about that.

If somebody writes a crime novel, then the concept of crime novel is not protected (it is a general idea) but the particular plot and especially the text word by word are copyright protected.

[badukJr]

So, we can say that baduk is NOT a language, since a reproduced game would mean reproducing a passage which could be copyrighted, and its NOT art because reproducing artwork without an authors permission is also not allowed (unless specified by the artist otherwise)

It is just a game where we can take and split into pieces without the players consent and make money off of it!

Thanks for clearing it up John.

[RobertJasiek]

Good lawyers' joke but seriously: Making money from go requires the effort of teaching, writing (books) or compiling (game collections). Simply speaking, copyright then distinguishes effort (other than the joy of playing the game) from almost no effort (of copying a teaching lesson's video tape, a book or a game collection).

[speedchase]

So, we can say that baduk is NOT a language, since a reproduced game would mean reproducing a passage which could be copyrighted, and its NOT art because reproducing artwork without an authors permission is also not allowed (unless specified by the artist otherwise)

It is just a game where we can take and split into pieces without the players consent and make money off of it!

Thanks for clearing it up John.

First of all baduk is not a language from a legal point of view. this conversation isn't related to the other thread.

Secondly, what I really object to in your statement is the insinuation that it is easy to make money off of the game. people like Robert Jasiek put an incredible amount of work writting books and advancing knowledge in the west about go, it is not unreasonable that they want to get money from selling their books, instead of having their intellectual property stolen.

[FlyingAxe]

You mix up different kinds of information:
1) a book's contents, word by word, picture by picture
2) general conceptual ideas (such as a tesuji)
3) sequence of a played game
4) compilations of played games / tesujis, game by game, tesuji by tesuji

What is the fundamental difference between these kinds of information that makes some of them property and others not?

Western / international copyright law protects (1) and (4) but does not protect (2) and (3) (except maybe for a live broadcasting stream). Somebody said that Japanese copyright law also protects (3) within Japan, but I am not sure about that.

What difference does it make whether some law protects something or not? You are merely saying that a large organization with a lot of guns recognized something arbitrarily as "property" and decided to give monopoly to it. My uncle is a Russian mafia mobster who "recognizes" all possible shoe sales transactions in South Brooklyn as his property. He has a lot of guns too (admittedly, not as many as the Federal government). Therefore what?

Whether or not something is legal and whether or not something is moral have nothing to do with each other. There are plenty of cases from history when things were legal but not moral or illegal but moral. For example, American democratically elected state governments at some point recognized slaves as property, protected slavery by law, and recognized assisting slaves to escape as illegal. The first "patents" were actually permissions to rob foreign merchant ships that were granted by European governments at times of war.

Remember, every time you apply a law, you're applying force and violence. You're telling people what to do with their property (such as "you may not use your hard drive and the data on it in this particular way"). When you apply violence/force to someone, you better have a good reason for doing so. The only reason that I see is when you're defending your property or yourself from violence being applied to them. For instance, if I take your pencil, you can use force to take it back. Why? Because the pencil is scarce. Only one of us can use it. So, violence will be applied to one of us. So, let us choose the lesser of two evils and let the force NOT be applied to the one who has a better claim to the pencil.

But information is non-scarce. When I use your idea, that in no way prohibits your use of the same idea. So, scarcity cannot be used as justification.

Your sales will drop if I redistribute the contents of your book for free? Well, you don't own future potential sales. You don't own your potential customers, their money, and their potential custom. If I open a shop right next to yours, I am not "stealing" the customers from you, since you never owned them to begin with. When you're saying that information is property, you're saying that you own potential future business transactions. But that is clearly ridiculous, since it contradicts other people's ownership of themselves and their property.

In general, utilitarian arguments cannot be used as a basis for morality. Such arguments allow nine people to rip a tenth person apart and harvest his organs.

If somebody writes a crime novel, then the concept of crime novel is not protected (it is a general idea) but the particular plot and especially the text word by word are copyright protected.

Again, arbitrary distinction. You have to show that there is a fundamental difference between "going from A to B to destroy a source of great but dangerous power" and "hobbits Frodo and Sam going from Shire to Mordor to destroy the One Ring". The second is more specific. So?

[FlyingAxe]

[W]hat I really object to in your statement is the insinuation that it is easy to make money off of the game. people like Robert Jasiek put an incredible amount of work writting books and advancing knowledge in the west about go, it is not unreasonable that they want to get money from selling their books, instead of having their intellectual property stolen.

Whether or not it is easy to make something or difficult has not relevance as to whether that is his property. Imagine I walk into a forest and find a tree with a lot of berries. I work really hard to pick every berry off the tree. Then, suddenly, the owner of the forest comes about and tells me I am in fact standing in his property. The fact that I worked hard has no bearing on the fact that I worked hard on something that is not my property.

If I spend a lot of time re-copying Lord of the Rings, word by word, into my notebook, does it mean I own the information in the notebook? If I think really-really hard and write a book on well recognized tesujis, do I own those tesujis?

Having said that, if people work hard, they have the opportunity to sell their work. As the first seller, they have a good chance to make money from their product. People who come up with new fashion designs in Paris also work very hard. Yet, their work is not copyrighted (and fashion industry prospers). For more information on how creative workers can profit without intellectual monopolies, see here: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/07/ ... l-property

They have a right to be recognized as the authors of the work, and they can ask for donations to support them in their future endeavors. They do NOT have a natural, moral right to suppress other people's use of those people's own property. (They may have a pseudo-right, i.e., some arbitrary rule that was set up and is being enforced by a large organization with a lot of guns for political reasons.)


Also, let me ask you a question: if I read a lot of books on Go and then go and apply the knowledge to win a price (or to teach Go to kids in a local school), do I owe anything to the writers of the books (besides gratitude)? Let me repeat my previous question: does the writer of Kamakura owe nothing to Go Seigen and Kitani Minoru for using their completely new and very specific ideas? Why is it that the specific way of arranging black and white letters on paper is "property", but a specific way of arranging black and white stones on a somewhat thicker piece of wood is not?

[RBerenguel]

A perfect case for "don't feed the troll". Even if my view on IP laws may not be as close to the law as it should, Go book writers deserve their money.

[RobertJasiek]

What is the fundamental difference between these kinds of information that makes some of them property and others not?

Their different treatment by law.

What difference does it make whether some law protects something or not?

What is protected under law can be brought to jurisdiction.

legal but not moral or illegal but moral.

You are right that legality and morality are not always the same.

Remember, every time you apply a law, you're applying force and violence.

More than that is applied. People in civilisations under law create work under those conditions so that they can maintain their living. If there were civilisations with different law, then people would work differently or even work in entirely different areas to enable themselves to maintaing their living under those different circumstances. Which is theoretically entertaining but irrelevant under current international etc. copyright law.

You're telling people what to do with their property (such as "you may not use your hard drive and the data on it in this particular way").

If "you" is "the law" and "the legislative", yes.

When you apply violence/force to someone, you better have a good reason for doing so.

Force is a strong word. Copyright law usually issues fines rather than imprisonment. It requires being the manager of Rapidshare or whatever together with particularly aggressive behavioru to risk imprisonment.

The only reason that I see

That you want to see?:)

So, scarcity cannot be used as justification.

Who says that it is used as a justification?:)

Your sales will drop if I redistribute the contents of your book for free?

Pose the question to different authors and the answer will probably be different. In case of go book authors, the answer is very likely "yes".

If I open a shop right next to yours, I am not "stealing" the customers from you

Indeed. Have fun opening a book store in a street full of book stores!:)

When you're saying that information is property,

Me? There is a distinction between property and intellectual property. Information in general is not intellectual property but specific kinds of information (such as most commercial go books' contents) is.

you're saying that you own potential future business transactions

Not transactions are possessed but the money once the transaction will have been completed.

But that is clearly ridiculous, since it contradicts other people's ownership of themselves and their property.

Be serious.

Such arguments allow nine people to rip a tenth person apart and harvest his organs.

Advocating copyright is not robbing organs. Be serious.

Again, arbitrary distinction.

Maybe arbitrary but it is in the typical copyright laws.

[RobertJasiek]

If I spend a lot of time re-copying Lord of the Rings, word by word, into my notebook, does it mean I own the information in the notebook?

Read a typical copyright law and you will know the answer.

they can ask for donations to support them in their future endeavors.

Good idea. Please, donate some support to my future endeavors. If it suffices, I can then offer more free contents.

Also, let me ask you a question: if I read a lot of books on Go and then go and apply the knowledge to win a price (or to teach Go to kids in a local school), do I owe anything to the writers of the books (besides gratitude)?

No. You can even use your gained knowledge to write a summary of what you have learned and publish that as a new book.

Why is it that the specific way of arranging black and white letters on paper is "property", but a specific way of arranging black and white stones on a somewhat thicker piece of wood is not?

Because legislatives do not equally appreciate thicker pieces of wood?;)