Piracy in the Go industry.

uPWarrior · **#381**

RobertJasiek wrote:

As said before, fair use (citation of reasonably small parts)

You are saying that copying entire game records is "reasonably small parts"?
Approximately what percentage of the game record is not included in the database?

I just want to show you that your moral higher ground is not that higher.

p2501 · **#382**

TMark wrote:

John Fairbairn has added far more value to the Go community, both through his translations, books and the GoGoD Encyclopaedia than all of the kiddie critics who have annoyed him together.

Changed it a little bit.

His departure is our loss.

RobertJasiek · **#383**

TMark wrote:

John Fairbairn has added far more value to the Go community, both through his translations, books and the GoGoD Encyclopaedia than any of the kiddie critics who have annoyed him.

This is a big understatement (especially useful is, e.g., his introduction of dynamic perception of concepts to the West) but it has no relevance for the database copyright question. Relevant for the GoGoD database are his and your extraordinary time and effort invested in it.

RobertJasiek · **#384**

uPWarrior wrote:

You are saying that copying entire game records is "reasonably small parts"?

For the third time: I am saying that a single game's move sequence is (outside Japan) not copyright-protected.

Quote:

I just want to show you that your moral higher ground is not that higher.

Read and understand all I wrote earlier in this thread.

nagano · **#385**

Zombie wrote:

His basic point is that you set the computer to accept data, which is akin to putting a book on display. Someone reads it, done is done, kind of. If you read it really to the letter and assume pure greed (without malicious intent as such), there's not much of an argument to be made if you want to be really anal about it.
The presence of a firewall or a password lock or whatever would obviously be a different matter entirely, that's a very clear statement of "you are not allowed to do this".

I understand, but I don't think this makes any difference. If you leave your front door unlocked, does this give someone the right to enter your house? I think not. The implication seems to be that by allowing your computer to receive information and respond to it, that you have implicitly agreed to allow someone to gain access to your computer by use of these means. But this misses the mark. If you found a lost laptop in public, do you automatically have the right to snoop through the owner's files if he did not bother to set a password, or if you're good at cracking passwords? No. How is doing so remotely any different? While the owner may have set up the computer to communicate over a network, this is only agreeing to share very specific information, not the general contents of the computer. This is analogous to arguing that you have the right to enter a house by picking the lock simply because it has uncovered windows, and therefore, some of the information is set up to be "shared" with the outside. Again I will stress the point that goods, be they scarce or non-scarce, can be owned as individual copies (thus they cannot be trespassed against), but no one can hold a monopoly right over the idea of the good.

nagano · **#386**

Balance wrote:

Piracy is a political movement. The Pirate Party received 7.13% of the total Swedish votes in the 2009 European Parliament elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_(Sweden)

I don't think the forum should take a political stance one way or another, nor help people break the current laws.
However, if the forum continues to allow political discussions, then people will have to accept that some have opinions contrary to their own.

This is of course only my personal opinion. :grumpy:

Intellectual property is a political movement. It has its origin in censorship. The Licensing Act of 1662 was, like earlier acts, intended to suppress the publishing of "seditious material" or anything else the government disapproved of. It placed the Stationers' Company in charge of a monopoly over printing, which kept any other company from printing copies of a particular text once it was accepted by Stationers', but it also charged them with assuring censorship. The act was very unpopular among authors, who were at the mercy of the company, and because of this the Act was not renewed in 1694. The Stationers' Company continued to advocate for the return of their monopoly powers, but their efforts were unsuccessful. They therefore decided to change their strategy, by trying to convince Parliament and the public that licensing was good for authors. This effort culminated in the Statute of Anne, which granted copyrights to authors, not for their benefit, but to restrict competition between publishing houses.

hyperpape · **#387**

nagano wrote:

Zombie wrote:

His basic point is that you set the computer to accept data, which is akin to putting a book on display. Someone reads it, done is done, kind of. If you read it really to the letter and assume pure greed (without malicious intent as such), there's not much of an argument to be made if you want to be really anal about it.
The presence of a firewall or a password lock or whatever would obviously be a different matter entirely, that's a very clear statement of "you are not allowed to do this".

I understand, but I don't think this makes any difference. If you leave your front door unlocked, does this give someone the right to enter your house? I think not.

Agreed this far. Neither locking your door nor installing a password on your computer changes your rights on a strict libertarian understanding.

Quote:

The implication seems to be that by allowing your computer to receive information and respond to it, that you have implicitly agreed to allow someone to gain access to your computer by use of these means. But this misses the mark. If you found a lost laptop in public, do you automatically have the right to snoop through the owner's files if he did not bother to set a password, or if you're good at cracking passwords? No. How is doing so remotely any different? While the owner may have set up the computer to communicate over a network, this is only agreeing to share very specific information, not the general contents of the computer.

Exactly what information are you agreeing to share? And how is that agreement established? In the actual world, they're established by case law and precedent. But neither of those explanations are available to you.

Quote:

This is analogous to arguing that you have the right to enter a house by picking the lock simply because it has uncovered windows, and therefore, some of the information is set up to be "shared" with the outside. Again I will stress the point that goods, be they scarce or non-scarce, can be owned as individual copies (thus they cannot be trespassed against), but no one can hold a monopoly right over the idea of the good.

This is the disanalogy I see. My house is my own. By default, you cannot do anything to it. If you are a handyman, I might give you a narrowly circumscribed right to make a specific modification, which is demarcated from other things you might do by the physical characteristics of what you are doing ("open this door, not that door..."). When you connect your computer to a network, it communicates by a simple protocol (or couple of protocols) which all reduce to a model of sending information or messages from one computer to another. Arguing that computer hacking is a crime requires you to effectively say that some messages are ok, but not others. I doubt such a distinction can be rationalized in terms of property rights. It comes down to much mushier things, like privacy, trade secrets, and simple utility.

speedchase · **#388**

My understanding is that you can't hack my computer and say oh well you set it up to receive messages anyway and you can't make a distinction between different types of messages", for the same reason that I can't spray poison at you and say "when you are breathing, you accept chemicals from the air anyway and you can't make a distinction between different types of chemicals."

daal · **#389**

hyperpape wrote:

nagano wrote:

The implication seems to be that by allowing your computer to receive information and respond to it, that you have implicitly agreed to allow someone to gain access to your computer by use of these means. But this misses the mark. If you found a lost laptop in public, do you automatically have the right to snoop through the owner's files if he did not bother to set a password, or if you're good at cracking passwords? No. How is doing so remotely any different? While the owner may have set up the computer to communicate over a network, this is only agreeing to share very specific information, not the general contents of the computer.

Exactly what information are you agreeing to share? And how is that agreement established? In the actual world, they're established by case law and precedent. But neither of those explanations are available to you.

Quote:

This is analogous to arguing that you have the right to enter a house by picking the lock simply because it has uncovered windows, and therefore, some of the information is set up to be "shared" with the outside. Again I will stress the point that goods, be they scarce or non-scarce, can be owned as individual copies (thus they cannot be trespassed against), but no one can hold a monopoly right over the idea of the good.

This is the disanalogy I see. My house is my own. By default, you cannot do anything to it. If you are a handyman, I might give you a narrowly circumscribed right to make a specific modification, which is demarcated from other things you might do by the physical characteristics of what you are doing ("open this door, not that door..."). When you connect your computer to a network, it communicates by a simple protocol (or couple of protocols) which all reduce to a model of sending information or messages from one computer to another. Arguing that computer hacking is a crime requires you to effectively say that some messages are ok, but not others. I doubt such a distinction can be rationalized in terms of property rights. It comes down to much mushier things, like privacy, trade secrets, and simple utility.

I disagree, and think that Nagano's analogy is excellent. The house/handyman issue can be reduced in the same way that you reduce connecting a computer to a network to sending messages. What is a door anyway besides being the way to get in and out of a house? Whether the ownership of ideas is as simple as property rights or mushier, to me it boils down to a question of common decency. It's not decent to take what's on somebody else's computer without asking, and it's not decent to mass produce someone else's work without their permission. How to regulate it is a matter for professional muddlers.

hyperpape · **#390**

Balance wrote:

It should be observed by everybody that not only libertarians question Intellectual Property. Other people fight it as a part of a general struggle against capitalism. Some people claim to do it out of religious fervor. :-?

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

Definitely. I am a bit sour on it (though not completely against it) on grounds of economic efficiency. I'm just trying to lead Nagano down a rabbit hole.

nagano · **#391**

hyperpape wrote:

Balance wrote:

It should be observed by everybody that not only libertarians question Intellectual Property. Other people fight it as a part of a general struggle against capitalism. Some people claim to do it out of religious fervor. :-?

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

Definitely. I am a bit sour on it (though not completely against it) on grounds of economic efficiency. I'm just trying to lead Nagano down a rabbit hole.

Ah, I see. How's it working? ;-)

hyperpape wrote:

nagano wrote:

The implication seems to be that by allowing your computer to receive information and respond to it, that you have implicitly agreed to allow someone to gain access to your computer by use of these means. But this misses the mark. If you found a lost laptop in public, do you automatically have the right to snoop through the owner's files if he did not bother to set a password, or if you're good at cracking passwords? No. How is doing so remotely any different? While the owner may have set up the computer to communicate over a network, this is only agreeing to share very specific information, not the general contents of the computer.

Exactly what information are you agreeing to share? And how is that agreement established? In the actual world, they're established by case law and precedent. But neither of those explanations are available to you.

Why are neither of those explanations available to me? Even under anarcho-capitalism, there would be a system of private law that would interpret what is and is not a violation of legitimate property rights.

hyperpape wrote:

Quote:

This is analogous to arguing that you have the right to enter a house by picking the lock simply because it has uncovered windows, and therefore, some of the information is set up to be "shared" with the outside. Again I will stress the point that goods, be they scarce or non-scarce, can be owned as individual copies (thus they cannot be trespassed against), but no one can hold a monopoly right over the idea of the good.

This is the disanalogy I see. My house is my own. By default, you cannot do anything to it. If you are a handyman, I might give you a narrowly circumscribed right to make a specific modification, which is demarcated from other things you might do by the physical characteristics of what you are doing ("open this door, not that door..."). When you connect your computer to a network, it communicates by a simple protocol (or couple of protocols) which all reduce to a model of sending information or messages from one computer to another. Arguing that computer hacking is a crime requires you to effectively say that some messages are ok, but not others. I doubt such a distinction can be rationalized in terms of property rights. It comes down to much mushier things, like privacy, trade secrets, and simple utility.

Are you saying that if the handyman went to the opposite side of the house, found your social security card, and wrote down the number, he would not be liable if you had not told him not to do that specific thing? This seems to be your assertion with network protocols; that if you permit any action on your property, and do not expressly prohibit all others, then such an action is not a violation of any property right.

FlyingAxe · **#392**

daal wrote:

I disagree, and think that Nagano's analogy is excellent. The house/handyman issue can be reduced in the same way that you reduce connecting a computer to a network to sending messages. What is a door anyway besides being the way to get in and out of a house? Whether the ownership of ideas is as simple as property rights or mushier, to me it boils down to a question of common decency. It's not decent to take what's on somebody else's computer without asking, and it's not decent to mass produce someone else's work without their permission. How to regulate it is a matter for professional muddlers.

It's not the function of the law to regulate decency. It's the function of the law to regulate conflicts surrounding property rights. Decency is a very subjective, almost religious concept. One's views of decency should not be forced upon another.

For instance, if your brother owns a bookstore, and you're shopping for some books, it might be decent to stop by your brother's store first. But your brother has no rights to your custom; nor can he legitimately use force (his own or that of the government) to compel you to do the decent thing. There may also be other considerations, like ease, in play.

FlyingAxe · **#393**

Official licensed release of The Girl with a Dragoon Tattoo by Sony:

The idea is not new. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Album!

fwiffo · **#394**

To make sure there's no confusion - that's the actual art on the actual disc produced by Sony. It's not a pirated copy. (Washinton Post article).

badukJr · **#395**

RobertJasiek wrote:

For the third time: I am saying that a single game's move sequence is (outside Japan) not copyright-protected.

In the US, the broadcast of an event has a copyright protected. Move sequences are broadcasted to services such as Oro. It is muddy water, not so clear cut as you are making it.

RobertJasiek · **#396**

I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.

badukJr · **#397**

RobertJasiek wrote:

I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.

Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.

Boidhre · **#398**

badukJr wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.

Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.

I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.

RBerenguel · **#399**

Boidhre wrote:

badukJr wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.

Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.

I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.

Although what you write is completely right Boidhre, turns out the Premiership is a bad example according to this reddit link. A company claims ownership of this data. In the US this data is free, not so clear in the UK. Afaik, in the EU it is, too.

Boidhre · **#400**

RBerenguel wrote:

Boidhre wrote:

I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.

Although what you write is completely right Boidhre, turns out the Premiership is a bad example according to this reddit link. A company claims ownership of this data. In the US this data is free, not so clear in the UK. Afaik, in the EU it is, too.

Hmm, I'd be really interested to see the result of that court case Yahoo is taking against them.

Piracy in the Go industry.

Who is online