Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Seenterman on June 19, 2009, 10:26:02 AM
-
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6534542.ece
A woman in Minnesota has been ordered to pay $80,000 a song to record companies for illegally downloading tracks and violating copyright laws.
A federal jury ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded record companies $1.92 million.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and big music labels have sued thousands of people for downloading and sharing music illegally, with most agreeing to settlements of between $3,000 and $5,000.
Thomas-Rasset was the first among those being sued to refuse a settlement and instead took the case to court, turning her into the highest-profile digital pirate in America.
Is this not ridiculous?! Ok if the RIAA wants to fine people for downloading songs how about some type of reasonable fine? Making her pay the cost of the cd for each song would be ok but $80,000 per song is absolutly crazy. How could a jury actually go for this, is common sence dead? The funny thing is they claim she provided 1,700 songs to download via Kazza, but only tried to prove 24 instances. So that 1.92 million is based on damages over only 24 songs. I hope to gosh everyone deleated any pirated music from the good ol days (circa 2000) or else if you have a cd's worth of music on your computer the RIAA will bankrupt you for it.
-
Theft ought to be costly.
-
Copyright infringement is not theft.
-
Copyright infringement is not theft.
I'm not sure how downloading music you didn't pay for is copyright infringement.
-
I'm not sure how downloading music you didn't pay for is copyright infringement.
Sharing back through Kazzaa/BitTorrent/etc is copyright infringement.
-
Copyright infringement is not theft.
A rose by any other name....
Lawyers can call it what ever they want. ;/
But if you take something that isn't yours, you take it without permission, whether you gain monetarily from the taking or not, it is theft.
Downloading electrons or taking it out of a music store without paying. Still theft.
It doesn't matter if everyone in the country is doing it. Still theft.
-
Huh, you're right that is the technical term for it.
In any case, I'd love to hear a logical defense of taking another's intellectual property without paying for it. Sure seems like stealing to me.
-
Yes it's theft but the punishment should fit the crime.
-
Danny: oh, I agree the sentence is idiotic. But I've never heard a reasonable explanation for the "it's not really stealing" line of thought.
-
No doubt the fine is excessive, but it's not exactly news that the RIAA has been doing this to people. The problem is too many folks think they're not going to get caught, so when they do, they cry foul. The best defense is to not download music you didn't pay for.
Chris
-
Danny: oh, I agree the sentence is idiotic. But I've never heard a reasonable explanation for the "it's not really stealing" line of thought.
Usually that comes from the "information wants to be free" ie the Open Source/Free Software folks (not the ones who contribute and use OS software and technology in meaningful ways, but the ones that do it because it's free and counterculture). It's a adolescent mentality, but one that's hard to shake for that demographic.
Chris
-
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Which is why she was fined $80,000/song instead of $0.99+penalties/song. I'm pretty sure the people being sued would rather have copyright infringement for non-commercial use be reclassified as theft...
-
Yes it's theft but the punishment should fit the crime.
This is true.
If you shoplifted it, you would probably do minor jail time and have a civil fine and probation.
What's interesting here is this really isn't theft: It's a civil proceeding about the civil contract of copyright law. It's not a criminal case at all.
Morally it's theft, but this is not law enforcement bringing charges... so it can't be tried as any form of larceny. It could be argued that the means of obtaining evidence is inherently illegal for law enforcement to participate in. You have to be scouting the intarwebz looking for torrent-shaped packets, or participating in a torrent trade yourself, in order to even find anyone sharing torrents.
As such, only the owner of the intellectual property or one of his agents would be legally able to participate in such file sharing... or, I guess you could go out and buy the CD/DVD/whatever to cover your own butt with download liability, but you still end up uploading while using a torrent program. Without distribution rights, you're doing something illegal.
Which would be why it would be illegal for police to pursue larceny charges against torrent users; they end up distributing while investigating. Without express permission from the owner of the property, they couldn't do that.
-
RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.
Uh, no. RIAA wants you to abide by copyright law and not go around distributing stuff you have no right to give away.
Brad
-
Im not debating the actual crime, yea she did steal. I'm wondering about the settlement, and how excessive it is. How can 1.92 million in damages be accounted for based off 24 songs? If I robbed a tower records for 2 cds I'l be looking at what? Less than a year in jail? Yet done electonically I just committed 1.92 million in damages?
I think the 8th Amendment could and should come into play here. Specifically the part about no excessive fines, I know that refers to the government imposing the excessive fines and in this case its a private company suing for the excessive fines but its being enforced by the U.S. Court system. Im no Constitutional scholar but it seems like subverting the Constitution through the courts.
In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to take $357,144 from a person who failed to report his taking of more than $10,000 in U.S. currency out of the United States.[24] In what was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a fine to violate the Excessive Fines Clause,[25] the Court ruled that it was "grossly disproportional" to take all of the money which Mr. Bajakajian attempted to take out of the United States without reporting trying to do so. In describing what constituted "gross disproportionality," the Court could not find any guidance from the history of the Excessive Fines Clause and so relied on Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law:
I know this case cites the Gov vs a Private individual and this case is a private individual vs a private company but the thing I find important is the phrase "gross disproportionality," which IMO would categorize this situation perfectly.
-
If I robbed a tower records for 2 cds I'l be looking at what? Less than a year in jail? Yet done electonically I just committed 1.92 million in damages?
Steal 2 CD's and that is the extent of the loss to the owner.
Download 2 songs, make both available for download by others and before you know it there's 2 million copies out there. Even assuming that 90% of the downloaders go on to purchase the music (which is what most of the lying, thieving bastages say they do) that's still 200,000 pieces of music that didn't get paid for. At 99 cents a pop you're looking at $200,000 in lost revenue. Add punitive damages and you could get up to 1.92 million easily.
-
Danny: oh, I agree the sentence is idiotic. But I've never heard a reasonable explanation for the "it's not really stealing" line of thought.
The argument goes like this:
If I steal a tangible thing, in the traditional sense, I have violated somebody's property rights, because I have deprived them of property that was theirs. This is known as 'stealing'.
As you know, digital data can be copied perfectly with no generation loss. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Say that I make a digital copy of some digital data, from a copy which is itself thousands of times removed from me and the original copy that the author claims to have created. The copy that I copied has not deprived the original 'owner' of the original copy of anything. His original copy is unaffected. I have only 'stolen' from him in that he perceives that since I copied this data, I will not purchase it in some other form, and thus I have harmed him by (he argues) reducing the probability that I will give him money. Isn't that just terrible?
This reasoning is about as solid as dressmaker arguing that if I buy a dress from his competitor (depriving him of nothing in the process), that I am less likely (he thinks) to purchase a dress from him, and thus I have 'stolen' from him.
Copyright laws are nothing but imaginary legal protectionism constructs that create artificial revenue streams for certain industries by using the threat of real, live rights violations (threat of legal consequences including theft/fines) to extort money out of citizens in the name of 'protection' from legal consequences. They pay, not the price the market has set (which is approximately zero), but an artificial, arbitrary price decided on by the extortionists, only out of their own interest of avoiding persecution.
Failing to pay the extortion money is not the same thing as theft, by a long shot. It's not a breach of contract, either. It's more like "failing to pay the price set by the person who claims the (dubious and unenforceable) authority over anyone/everyone's right to make a copy of a piece of digital data (which is really just a big number), without paying the price that HE has decided that you should pay in order to avoid him sending people with guns to drag you to court and pillage your bank account as a "lesson" to all others".
-
So in your view only tangible property is real or has worth? Huh. Do you also hate patent laws?
-
Copyright laws are nothing but imaginary legal protectionism constructs
Uh, sure. And if frogs weren't green they'd be invisible. :rolleyes:
Brad
-
So in your view only tangible property is real or has worth?
I don't care to ponder the meanings of "tangible", "real" or "worth". I care about rights, about harm, and about aggression.
If somebody shoplifts a record that belongs to a record store, without paying the record store an agreed-on price, then he has harmed the record store. I would call that "theft" and conclude that the record store has been "stolen from".
When Bob makes a backup copy of a piece of digital data on his computer without paying a distant party whatever said distant party decides that Bob (and all other people under the sun who wish to do the same) should pay him for the permission to do so, and said distant party escorts Bob to a court of law at gunpoint and empties his pockets and his bank account as punishment (for no harm other than failure to pay him what he wants), then I tend to feel that it's Bob, and not the distant party, who is being harmed.
-
You're being so melodramatic it's hard to take you seriously. Emo argument is emo.
The person who has produced the (music/software etc) has a right to dictate the usage of that property. The data itself is the property, not the media it is stored on. The creator of this property has a right to dictate it's use. Your argument is tantamount to those who defend trespassing on the grounds that they aren't harming your property so they have a right to be on it.
-
When Bob makes a backup copy of a piece of digital data on his computer
Bob has a right to make archival copies of data he bought or obtained legally.
Bob doesn't have distribution rights to other people's data that is marketed for sale in order to make a profit.
-
I don't agree with, but understand zahc's sentiment.
Copyright laws, with respect to free redistribution, more so are laws dictating what you can and cannot do with your own property. Music, is an unfortunate example of this, because it pins infinite zero-cost reproduction versus rich record labels/artists that make way too much money to do what they did in their garage anyway.
Copyright laws are meant for the societal good though. Again, it is why music is such a bad example, no one sees the music companies yet going broke. On the other hand, before music, books were the other (benevolent) major copyright infringement source. You could buy and xerox books for your friends, but they are cheap enough, that most people don't wish to go through that much trouble. Additionally, imagine it were that easy to copy books. How much could you dilute the market until authors no longer wrote or publishers couldn't afford to publish? Given that most authors aren't exactly loaded, I would guess not too long. What kind of society would we be without books?
-
Bob has a right to make archival copies of data he bought or obtained legally.
Bob doesn't have distribution rights to other people's data that is marketed for sale in order to make a profit.
The RIAA doesn't agree that making archival copies is legal, they've just said they won't [bother to] sue you for it.
-
The RIAA doesn't agree that making archival copies is legal, they've just said they won't [bother to] sue you for it.
I thought making archival copies, of anything (be it xerox books or photos), is ok as long as you:
a) Own the originals
b) Do not disseminate the archives
-
Let's put it this way. A photographers sells their rpints for a living. If you download a scan of their print, then print it off yourself your argument is that you haven't taken anything or hurt that person? Do you honestly believe that? If I design and patent a clever new widget design, and you copy it and make your own without paying me, have you taken anything from me? You'd say no, I'd say yes.
I swear, the mental gyrations people go through to justify their bad behaviour never ceases to amaze me.
-
Actually, in reguard to my post above.
I thought this was the whole reason the RIAA only goes after those sharing music.
It is pretty difficult to know if someone did or didn't ever have some CD. (Like having a copy of a CD that was purchased but the CD later got destroyed/scratched/lost). These also seem to not fall into copyright infringement -- but possession of stolen property.
On the other hand, the RIAA goes on Kazaa or what-have-you and downloads your music -- a solid case for distributing copyrighted material.
-
I thought making archival copies, of anything (be it xerox books or photos), is ok as long as you:
a) Own the originals
b) Do not disseminate the archives
Fair use, yes. I would agree that falls under fair use. But when asked if making an "archival copy" is legal, the RIAA refuses to say so and makes ramblings indicating they don't think it is. But as long as they're not suing, I'll give them a pass on it.
Movies and such is whole 'nother issue (of course not talking about RIAA here, rather MPAA). Thanks to the DMCA, it's explicitly illegal to make personal archival copies of DVDs, Blu-rays, etc, because you have to "crack" the disc encryption to do so.
-
Fair use, yes. I would agree that falls under fair use. But when asked if making an "archival copy" is legal, the RIAA refuses to say so and makes ramblings indicating they don't think it is. But as long as they're not suing, I'll give them a pass on it.
Movies and such is whole 'nother issue (of course not talking about RIAA here, rather MPAA). Thanks to the DMCA, it's explicitly illegal to make personal archival copies of DVDs, Blu-rays, etc, because you have to "crack" the disc encryption to do so.
Bingo.
As copyright law stands right now, it is explicitly legal to make archival copies of computer software.
It is a legal murky area to make archival copies of music. It should be protected under the Fair Use exception, but there hasn't been any case law on the issue yet. However, it is explicitly legal to "format shift" (CD>MP3) and "space shift" (Computer>Digital Audio Player) music ever since the RIAA lost RIAA vs Diamond.
As far as movies go, they would be under the same category as music, but the DMCA complicates things.
-
Yeah. DMCA is a steaming pile of stupidity. I have to admit, the RIAA and MPAA make it really distasteful to be on their side.
-
Yeah. DMCA is a steaming pile of stupidity. I have to admit, the RIAA and MPAA make it really distasteful to be on their side.
I'm on their side with respect to illegal sharing of music. I'm not on their side with respect to the size of their fines. And I'm most definitely not on the side of the MPAA for anything else:
She asked Bart Williams, one of the MPAA's attorneys, whether a consumer possesses the right to copy a DVD he or she purchased for personal use.
"Not for the purposes under the DMCA," Williams said. "One copy is a violation of the DMCA."
-
Marnoot: exactly. They are correct in "don't DL it if you don't pay for it" but so so wrong on everything else, as well as just general aholes.
-
Copyright laws are nothing but imaginary legal protectionism constructs that create artificial revenue streams for certain industries by using the threat of real, live rights violations (threat of legal consequences including theft/fines) to extort money out of citizens in the name of 'protection' from legal consequences. They pay, not the price the market has set (which is approximately zero), but an artificial, arbitrary price decided on by the extortionists, only out of their own interest of avoiding persecution.
As I've said many times, for most of my adult life I was an advertising photographer. Some images I created were of specific products, and of use only to the manufacturer or retailers of the product. Other images were more illustrative and could be used for all sorts of applications.
When quoting a job, my sales rep always addressed copyright, and priced accordingly. If an illustrative image was going to be used for local newspaper, I could resell the image somewhere else and make additional revenue, so the newspaper usage charge was next to nil. If the usage was national or international, the image's value would be diminished, as it would have been seen often.
The images, by law, are mine, and I am free to sell their use to whomever I wish. If someone uses the image without my permission, the value of the image is diminished by the extent to which the image was distributed.
Where I've discovered copyright violations, I've been able to secure damages based upon the amount of circulation. It was almost always a small amount, as nobody would take a unique image and use it illegally for a national ad; too great a chance of being caught.
There was nothing artificial about the revenue generated from negotiating copyright usage. If every image were priced as though it would be used in every venue, most clients couldn't afford it. So, I and other photographers in effect reduce the price of the image accordingly, but make it up by reselling it later.
One photo I did cost the original client $10,000, but I made $30,000 reselling the use of it for another client in South America.
The penalty charged the defendant in the OP's post seems excessive, but I don't know the extent of the distribution.
-
My opinion on this issue: She should face a heavy fine, but 1.92 million is ridiculous.
Uh, no. RIAA wants you to abide by copyright law and not go around distributing stuff you have no right to give away.
Brad
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa: "The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,[17] an elderly computer novice,[18] and even those without any computer at all.[19]
The RIAA has also brought lawsuits against children, some as young as 12.[20]"
My comment: Also note that they have a policy of contuing lawsuits against those that they know are innocent if they think they can get money out of them.
From Wikipediaon the RIAA: Stance on home recording
See also: Audio Home Recording Act and Private copying levy
The RIAA has given different positions both for and against copying CDs, either to portable players or making backup copies of music CDs.
In a 2005 argument before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., counsel for the RIAA stated that "it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."[8]
However, in 2006 the RIAA claimed that copying the contents of CDs or backing them up does not constitute fair use when the copyright owner does not authorize it.[9]
-
Some folks only download what they have already bought physical copies of (CDs, DVDs, etc.).
I would suggest this is because:
1. Bandwidth is relatively abundant
2. Their CPU(s) and other HW might not be recent or robust, making conversion or transfer onerous
3. Automated download tools make the downloading easier
Now, morally, I am OK with that^^, but it is likely in violation of some law, some where.
Truly, the record & DVD companies are going to have to come up with a new business model, as technology has made their current model obsolete, no matter how many lawyers they hire.
-
... they have a policy of contuing lawsuits against those that they know are innocent if they think they can get money out of them.
You will buy their crappy music one way or another.
-
In a 2005 argument before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., counsel for the RIAA stated that "it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."[8]
However, in 2006 the RIAA claimed that copying the contents of CDs or backing them up does not constitute fair use when the copyright owner does not authorize it.[9]
Those arguments are legally consistent with each other, if not intellectually consistent.
For the former, RIAA vs Diamond ruled that it was legal to "format shift" (CD to Computer format) and "space shift" (Computer to iPod) music.
For the latter, the Fair Use exception for recording does not specifically include the right to make an archival copy and there has been no case law on the subject. It would likely be ruled allowable under the Fair Use exception if it ever went to court. But for now, the RIAA (as the copyright holder) is allowed to assert whatever it wants on he issue.
-
All I know is you can't packetsniff the sneakernet.
Back when CD's just came out and cassette tapes were the "standard," it wasn't a big deal to make a mix tape or trade around dupes. No one got sued for jillions of dollars for it.
Black and grey market bootleggers got caught, sure...
But sneakernet is safe if you have trustworthy friends.
-
I understand the concept of scaring the crap out of illegal file sharers that the RIAA is using.
But it won't work.
When it comes to pretty much anything most people believe that "It won't happen to me!", and this is no different.
People will continue to stick up the finger at the record companies, and just one or two in tens of millions will get occasionally get caught and suffer.
-
The issue with ginormous fines for one person is that it's holding them solely liable for a whole bunch of other people's bad behaviour. Like snagging one rioter out of a crowd and wanting them to pay for all the damage caused by a riot. Viscerally satisfying, but not necessarily all that practical.
-
I must page 2swap to this thread.
-
All I know is you can't packetsniff the sneakernet.
Back when CD's just came out and cassette tapes were the "standard," it wasn't a big deal to make a mix tape or trade around dupes. No one got sued for jillions of dollars for it.
Black and grey market bootleggers got caught, sure...
But sneakernet is safe if you have trustworthy friends.
Back in the day, you give your girlfriend a mixed tape, she's not going to make 200,000+ copies and spread them around.
The issue with ginormous fines for one person is that it's holding them solely liable for a whole bunch of other people's bad behaviour. Like snagging one rioter out of a crowd and wanting them to pay for all the damage caused by a riot. Viscerally satisfying, but not necessarily all that practical.
No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him.
Exponential growth. If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.
-
No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him.
Exponential growth. If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.
Yeah, but are you responsible for all those people's actions? Or somehow more responsible than everyone else along the way? Your example is inaccurate, as the original seeder is not inciting anything.
-
No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him.
Exponential growth. If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.
Would the said inciter of the riot be made to pay for everything damaged in the riot, or would the people who actually threw the rocks to be made as well.
No you should be charged with distributing those original 10 songs. Then the other 10 people should be charged for distributing the song 10 times. You shouldn't be held responsible for other peoples actions.
How did the RIAA determine the $800,000 figure per song? On itunes a song goes for 99 cents a pop for pretty much everything, I think its like 1.29 for a brand new song on their new pay scale (good thing is some song went down in price too). Are you really telling me this woman managed to upload each of the 24 songs 8,080 times to different users. So that would add up to 193,920 downloads of the 24 songs from her machine alone to equate to the 1.92 million fine. I dont think the actual numbers would compare anywhere near that number.
Ok fine. Wheres the proof? Do they have any proof on how many times this woman actually trasfered the file to other users? What if she just dl'd them for her own use and disabled the file sharing (not hard) whould she still be up for 1.92 million? And if their is no proof she actually shared these files with other users how the hell is this allowed to proceed. Is just the possesion of stolen intellectual property cause enough to fine individuals over a million dollars? Does the 8th Amendment protect against excessive fines from a private company, or only from the government; even if the government is the one enforcing the fines?
-
don't do the crime if you can't do the time..... and please please if caught spare us the whine
-
The person who has produced the (music/software etc) has a right to dictate the usage of that property.
I disagree, strongly. They don't have a right to dictate anything I do, unless I consentingly enter into a contract with them. Where did they get such a right? From the legal system of course, but it certainly isn't a moral right.
A photographers sells their prints for a living
First of all, a signed print is a signed print. A downloaded inkjet is not an original print, and is approximately worthless on any art market. I'm a photographer myself. I don't really do digital, but if someone buys one of my prints, scans it, and people download it and print out inkjets, well, then whatever. I wish they would buy one of my hand-prints, but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Of course, there are people that print off digital files on inkjet printers and try to sell them as signed prints. Of course, not much distinguishes the product from a pirated version. If they were selling digital files, then there's NOTHING that distinguishes it from a pirate, and they would not be able to get $200 for a digital file when an identical one would be available as a copy...kind of like people who charge for downloading mp3s...this sounds like a bad business model to me, not a reason to go crying to the government to enforce your revenue stream.
If you download a scan of their print, then print it off yourself your argument is that you haven't taken anything or hurt that person?
Hurt their revenue, maybe? Tell you what, the digital revolution has and will continue to hurt the revenues of lots of people and old business models. That's progress. The proper response is to adapt, not to buy politicians and attempt to protect your old revenue streams.
As for the theoretical photographer in question, I don't see how I have stolen from them, no. I have hurt them only in their mind, their entitlement mentality that they want me to give them money. Hey, they are allowed to want me to give them money, I want lots of people to give me money, that doesn't make their not giving me money 'harming' me or immoral.
Back to the poor photographer. What if I didn't print off a downloaded scan AND yet didn't buy a print from the photographer anyway? Would I then be harming them by not buying a print from them? What obligation do I have to buy a print from them? They'd better do something to make their prints desirable and unique, or they are not going to sell many. What if I had never heard about said photographer? What if I just looked at the image on a screen? At a gallery? On someone else's wall? Should I be forced to pay money every time I view a photograph?
If there was a legal system in place that said that anyone could make an image, and then "viewright" it, and charge whatever they want of anyone anywhere viewing it, dictate how they could hang it on their private walls, and it was sporadically enforced through FUD by levying massive fines on those caught viewing without paying protection money, it would be no less crazy to me than copyright.
If I was a recording artist I would sell physical media and merchandise. I don't have the moral balls to pretend that I 1. can and 2. am morally justified in using real force to extort money from a worthless product. Many bands now sell vinyl records, then give away mp3 downloads. XKCD doesn't charge to view the comic, but makes money selling merchandise.
-
I disagree, strongly. They don't have a right to dictate anything I do, unless I consentingly enter into a contract with them.
do you or have you ever produced something of value? for which you were paid?
and did the lady when she bought the cds she uploaded not have on those cds a coppyright warning/notice?
-
don't do the crime if you can't do the time..... and please please if caught spare us the whine
You really think 24 songs are worth this woman's house, car, and wage garnishments for the rest of her life? If anyone agree's with this and they have kids that use a computer; you better warn then not to download any music or that new Jonas Brother album may end up costing you your home.
-
You really think 24 songs are worth this woman's house, car, and wage garnishments for the rest of her life? If anyone agree's with this and they have kids that use a computer; you better warn then not to download any music or that new Jonas Brother album may end up costing you your home.
she uploaded 1700 songs i know around the student union its all a game but after graduation folks go out in the world and make a living support their families and such.. and its not just the "rich artists" lots of folks work in that food chain and most of em aren't rich. the lil kiddies are stealing from all of them and its not cute when they are old enough to demand to be treated like adults
-
1m all media is sold with an explict EULA stating you won't reproduce and share it. So it's a violation of the contract.
2. You are arguing that the right to priavte property applies only to physical property. So programmers who write code have produced nothing, and have no right to dictate how that code is used, or to demand payment for it's use. The "entitled" person is the one who produced something of value and wants to be compensated for its use, NOT the one who demands it for free because it doesn't remove the property from the author's possesion?
That's so assinine and silly.... It's like ObamaLogic.
-
If I was a recording artist I would sell physical media and merchandise. I don't have the moral balls to pretend that I 1. can and 2. am morally justified in using real force to extort money from a worthless product. Many bands now sell vinyl records, then give away mp3 downloads. XKCD doesn't charge to view the comic, but makes money selling merchandise.
that would be your right/choice you don't get to make that decision for folks who are gifted with the moral balls. if the product is worthless then why are so many of the young and the useless on campus downloading thousands of these worthless songs?
-
So programmers who write code have produced nothing, and have no right to dictate how that code is used, or to demand payment for it's use.
They are welcomed to try. This is why companies go closed-source and do the whole DRM, licensing, etc game. They are welcome to enter into contracts with people and if people break them they should be prosecuted. I don't think you can create in implicit contract that binds anyone who ever listens, views, downloads, copies, or does anything else with digital media, though.
-
They are welcomed to try. This is why companies go closed-source and do the whole DRM, licensing, etc game. They are welcome to enter into contracts with people and if people break them they should be prosecuted. I don't think you can create in implicit contract that binds anyone who ever listens, views, downloads, copies, or does anything else with digital media, though.
All legalities and contractual issues aside, do you honestly feel morally justified in using the intellectual property of others without compensation? Only those who create physical products deserve compensation for their hard work?
-
zahc, you addressed the hypothetical photographer print question, but you didn't address my point, so let me elaborate.
The print isn't the copyrighted property. The photograph--the intellectual property--is what's copyrighted. If you want to take your position to its extreme, then I should be able to take any book, copy it, and sell my own printed copies. What about automobile designs? Can someone copy those and use them?
-
Given his position, he has to be against patents as well. If he's going to be intellectually consistent anyway.
-
I think that patents expire in a time appropriate manner (what is it, like 7 years?).
Whereas, I think some copyrighted materials should expire sooner than they currently do (say computer software -- which, in intent, should be pattenable -- but because it is typed -- is copyrighted). It is lifetime + some #of years?
You probably won't get anything but mental gymnastics in trying to answer this question. They want free music because they feel it is unfare for the artists to make $XXX millions of dollars and that CDs aren't worth $8 a pop. They argue, they won't buy that CD anyway, so give them the free music. Odd -- if they didn't want the music, why are they taking the risk to steal it?
-
Oh, and zahc to answer your question, the difference between DLing it and not buying it, and just not buying it full stop is that in one case you end up with the product and in the other you don't.
-
They want free music because they feel it is unfare for the artists to make $XXX millions of dollars...
If that's the case, then what about concerts? I remember when the top tier acts (Stones, Beatles, Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc) cost $4 to $10 a seat. Now you're lucky if you can get anything at all for under $100. But all you're buying is a worthless piece of paper, right? So why not just copy it and walk into the concert? It really doesn't make a difference, does it? After all, you can probably hear the music outside the concert hall and, if it's an outdoor concert, you can really hear it well beyond the fence, so no harm, no foul, right?
As I think about the penalty, I think of the IRS as similar to RIAA. There's no way that the IRS can audit every tax return, so cheating on one's taxes is easy and is unlikely to be discovered. To counter that, the government makes the penalties for doing so extreme, in some cases much more extreme than the taxable amounts being considered.
-
If that's the case, then what about concerts? I remember when the top tier acts (Stones, Beatles, Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc) cost $4 to $10 a seat. Now you're lucky if you can get anything at all for under $100.
I don't know where you get that number at -- I've seen a few top act bands for about $30/pop this year. The only time I've paid more than $50 was a few years ago at XFEST in Pittsburgh (atleast, I think it was still called that in 2003), and that was a fest with (atleast) two headlining bands and about 6 other smaller -- but not unknown acts. Unless you are quoting the stub hub / resale price, those things are through the roof because it is an unchecked form of scalping. Even Pearl Jam tickets for this years tour (I think they only have like 5 or something US dates) have a face value of less than $70 (Chicago show). Of course, everyone bought those tickets up and now sell them on stub hub for outrageous sums of money.
Anyway, the concert angle is usually the one that people who believe the music is free dish out. They won't try to beat security measures on the tickets. They claim the music should be free and the artists should make a living by performing.
P.S. Oh, BTW, you own your money. If what you do with it is your own business, then why can't you just copy it?
-
Given his position, he has to be against patents as well. If he's going to be intellectually consistent anyway.
Maybe...
Most likely though is that Zahc is trying to justify his theft of intangible properties.
He knows its theft but is playing mind games with himself and us to justify it.
-
I'm actually much less of a downloader than most people my age. I don't download music; I listen mostly to vinyl. I don't watch TV at all, and I use netflix for movies. I guess I downloaded anime in college, but in that case it's the only way to get it.
Honestly it surprises me to see so much opposition to free market economics. I suppose price controls, tariffs, wage controls, and other such government regulations must be ok, too, if copyright is completely legit. They perform the same artificial market function of protecting the revenues of one entity (who would be upset if his products were valued fairly by the market).
-
Honestly it surprises me to see so much opposition to free market economics.
Free market economics? If I own something, I want to be paid for its use, and you use it for nothing without my permission, that's theft. The "free" in "free market economics" doesn't mean "free for the taking."
-
Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.
-
Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.
Who cares. It matters not what an economist thinks about this subject, only what the artist/owner thinks about it.
Chris
-
Free market economics? If I own something, I want to be paid for its use, and you use it for nothing without my permission, that's theft. The "free" in "free market economics" doesn't mean "free for the taking."
Do you support copyrights/patents that are good forever? If something is theft today, why wouldn't it be theft ten years from now, or fifty, or a hundred?
-
Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.
Well, why don't we find the one who's had the most books on the subject published, take those books, copy them, and sell a couple hundred thousand copies on our own? I wonder if that economist would feel all warm and fuzzy about eliminating copyright laws after that?
...only what the artist/owner thinks about it.
I take it that you've never had to deal with copyright issues in order to put food on your table. I have, and it's a pain in the ass. But it's necessary to protect it if you're going to survive in photography or another "creative" field.
I'll give another example. In 1996 a Milwaukee agency was pitching some work to Coca Cola. The art director wanted something really wild and unique. I spent quite a bit of time coming up with some heavily manipulated images. The client loved them, and we were ready to go. I was told they were just going to use them on a few billboards, so I didn't address the copyright issue.
The shots were well received. They were also unlike anything else being done at the time. The client used the images everywhere, from billboards to packaging to point of purchase and more. I hadn't set forth the usage, and they rolled all over me.
I also got screwed out of 74 of the 100 hours I put in, but that's a separate story.
What was even worse than getting screwed on the hours was that the client had saturated the market with my images so much that no art director in the Midwest wanted to use a look and technique I'd spent a ton of time developing. It's extremely difficult to come up with something that nobody else is doing, but I'd done it. The problem was trying to sell it after the market was saturated with what I'd done.
But what the hell. Coca Cola got a real deal on the copyright issue, much like downloading music for free, and that's what counts, right? Or are big corporations not allowed to benefit from copyright abuse?
-
Fistful Savalas, I've never had to deal with copyright issues on an image for more than a few years, so I don't have the experience to address that directly. In thinking about it, though, I'm sure that the work of Ansel Adams, Irving Penn, and a gazillion other famous photographers are still copyrighted by their estates.
Let's look a little closer to home, though. How about if the Brady Campaign uses one of Oleg's images to bash gun owners? Is that ok? If it's not ok today, how about five years from now? Ten years? When is Oleg's ownership of his images less important than the desire of someone else to use them without paying for the use?
-
Do you support copyrights/patents that are good forever? If something is theft today, why wouldn't it be theft ten years from now, or fifty, or a hundred?
And there's where our copyright system has been subverted. Personally, I think we should go back to the original 7 years with the option for a 7 year renewal for copyright. After 14 years your work becomes public domain. Copyright is supposed to be finite, but Congress (in the pocket of the media producers) keeps extending it. Granted, they could make it for "life of the artist + 1000 years" and that would still be constitutional, but it would be subverting the original intent.
I don't have a problem paying for IP, but I do admit that I download, primarily to "preview." If someone tells me about a musical artist I've never heard of I'll download an album and toss it on my ipod. If I like it I'll buy a copy. If I don't, I delete it. I have CD's still in the shrink wrap because I'm still playing the "preview" download files.
-
I have CD's still in the shrink wrap because I'm still playing the "preview" download files.
I suspect you'll be in the first circle of hell for that.
Lawyers from bolgia 8 of the 8th circle will be lobbying on behalf of RIAA representatives stationed in the 4th circle to have you moved straight into Satan's mouth. They'll settle for bolgia 7 of the 8th circle and a heavy fine though.
-
Personally, I think we should go back to the original 7 years with the option for a 7 year renewal for copyright. After 14 years your work becomes public domain.
There are plenty of musicians who are still performing and recording songs they wrote 28 years ago, much less 14.
The medium of which something is created isn't the issue. Give me a hammer, nails, and a bunch of wood, and I'll give you an absolute disaster of construction. Give the same tools and materials to a skilled carpenter, and he'll build a good home that will last for decades. How long after he builds the home should his ownership of it expire? Seven years? Fourteen years?
If you buy the home, you're usually buying all rights to it, with no time limitations. If you want to have the freedom to do whatever you want with a piece of music, you can do the same thing: buy all rights. That's what Michael Jackson did with the Beatles' music.
Chuck Berry is still a very bitter man today because he got royally screwed on his contracts, and didn't own the copyright to his works. The Stones and countless other groups made millions of dollars recording songs he wrote, and he didn't get a dime in royalties.
I started dealing with copyright issues in 1978 and, along the way, was threatened, extorted and strong-armed. There were and still are plenty of whores in photography who will sell their work at ridiculously low prices and throw in all rights for free. I've had many, many agencies ask me to do work for them, but also ask that I cave in and give them all rights to the photograph. They could have worked with one of the whores, but they wanted the level of photography that I delivered, yet didn't want to pay the price. They'd stomp their feet, or sometimes even say, "you give us all rights on this job or you'll never work in this town again." Yeah? Well, * you, pal. This isn't "On the Waterfront," and you're not Johnny Friendly.
These agencies used almost verbatim the arguments I've seen in this thread. They were trying to sidestep the copyright issue so as to more fully line their pockets. For them it was a matter of greed at the expense of the photographers they were dealing with.
I didn't expect the same from people on this forum, though. I'm really and truly shocked.
-
I wonder if that economist would feel all warm and fuzzy about eliminating copyright laws after that?
Considering the books I refer to are available for free download... heh.
-
There are plenty of musicians who are still performing and recording songs they wrote 28 years ago, much less 14.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Limited times being the operant term. The idea is that artists should benefit from their work for a while, but then it becomes public domain for all to enjoy. If copyright holders don't like that then they should fight to amend the constitution, not subvert the intent by effectively saying "Infinity -1 is a limited time."
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F2f%2FCopyright_term.svg%2F625px-Copyright_term.svg.png&hash=93138a5e5607f18a2bd24757d1fb05050328463f)
100 years is just ridiculous, get copyright term limits back to earth and people will start respecting them again :angel:
-
OK, guys. I missed the part of this thread that mentioned 100 years for the copyright. That does seem extreme. I don't think anyone is howling because somebody is copying Bunny Berigan's version of "I Can't Get Started" today. ;)
I do stand by my defense of copyright, though.
-
The million plus award does seem quite a bit excessive in my opinion. I think that a fine in the thousands would be a little more appropriate.
Victims have been awarded much less for actual pain and suffering/death. My city limits lawsuits against the city by law to $350,000.00 except for civil rights violations which have no limit.
-
OK, guys. I missed the part of this thread that mentioned 100 years for the copyright. That does seem extreme. I don't think anyone is howling because somebody is copying Bunny Berigan's version of "I Can't Get Started" today. ;)
I do stand by my defense of copyright, though.
The point of the copyright length question was to address the notion that copyright infringement is theft. If a piano has been sitting in your house since Sherman marched through Georgia, and someone takes it, it's as much theft as somebody snatching your iPod. If the same rules don't apply, then copyrights/patents are different in some way.
And FWIW, I believe current copyright extensions were set up at the behest of Disney, who didn't want Mickey Mouse becoming public domain.
-
I thought the reason patents were dealt with differently was because new technology in the public domain was a good thing for the market as a whole and for maintaining open competition in the market in the long run. However, it was recognized that people won't develop new things without their being a profit in it. So the answer is a patent for a specific time allowing the inventor to make a profit from his invention without creating a permanent monopoly.
On copyrights, it doesn't matter to the market either way whether or not the song Satisfaction is in the public domain or not. There is no "public good" to pushing that song to the public domain other than some people want to use it for free.
-
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Yes, it is. Specifically, theft of intellectual property.
-
I thought making archival copies, of anything (be it xerox books or photos), is ok as long as you:
a) Own the originals
b) Do not disseminate the archives
AFAIK, only (some) computer software allows for this in the copyright notice. Books certainly don't, and I don't think music or cinematic CDs and DVDs do.
-
Honestly it surprises me to see so much opposition to free market economics. I suppose price controls, tariffs, wage controls, and other such government regulations must be ok, too, if copyright is completely legit. They perform the same artificial market function of protecting the revenues of one entity (who would be upset if his products were valued fairly by the market).
The music industry IS free market economics. "Free market" means that the goverment doesn't set or impose artificial price controls ... be it "floors" or "caps." Does the government in any way participate in setting the price for a music CD or a movie DVD? No. "Free market" means that the price is established by what vendors and buyers are willing to (respectively) charge and pay. If Pixar wants to charge $20 for the DVD of last year's smash movie, and people are willing to buy it for $20 -- that's free market economics at work. If Pixar wants $20 and nobody buys it -- then Pixar was asking too much and the (free) market slapped them on the wrist. But making illegal copies is still stealing, regardless of how hard you try to rationalize it. The movie is still Pixar's intellectual property. If you avail yourself of it without paying a fee that is acceptable to them (irrespective of whether or not you think it's acceptable to you) ... you are stealing.
-
AFAIK, only (some) computer software allows for this in the copyright notice. Books certainly don't, and I don't think music or cinematic CDs and DVDs do.
The RIAA would certainly like for this to be the case. Hell, according to some people with that organization, if I own a CD I shouldn't be permitted to rip it to my iPod, but should instead be forced to purchase a separate downloaded copy just for that purpose.
-
If you buy the home, you're usually buying all rights to it, with no time limitations.
See, this is something that bothered me for awhile. I may have taken your statement out of context but bear with me.
I thought when you purchased a cd (music, video games, software) you were actually buying a licence to use that software. Yet that $60 game is gone if I scratch the disk and now I have to spend another $60 all over again! I think that is pretty wrong, companies shouldn't be forced to give the a new free cd but for people that provided the original scrached disk they should be charged a reasonable price like $10 or 10% or the purchase price not for the full price of the software. Anyone got any ideas on that?
-
And you want the .gov to force the musician/moviemaker/software company to do this?
As much as I hate it, M$ etc can make any contract they want. If you agree to it you're bound, no matter how stupid it is. The answer is more competition, not .gov forcing them to violate their contracts in the name of "fairness."
-
Last time I bought extra software for my computer at work, I bought a license for MS Visio. I could either download the program or pay extra for the CD. The license was to use the software. I guess it depends.
-
Last time I bought extra software for my computer at work, I bought a license for MS Visio. I could either download the program or pay extra for the CD. The license was to use the software. I guess it depends.
Yepp. Typically, the license is to use the software on ONE computer, and to make ONE archival copy of the software for back-up purposes. Some software companies/licenses provide for ONE user to install the software on one desktop computer and one notebook computer, recognizing the real-world situation of today's many "road warriors" in the business world. They know people are doing it anyway, and they don't intend to persecute prosecute the end users who put their offfice software on their notebooks, so they get to appear like good guys by saying it's okay up front.
Borland (Quattro Pro, anyone remember that?) used to have a license that used the book analogy. I could load Quattro Pro onto as many computers as I owned -- as long as I and only I used Q-Pro at any one time. I doubt they would have come after me if someone had reported that my wife was using it on the desktop at the exact same time I was using it on the notebook, but if I had used one license to set up an entire department I think they might have become more interested.
-
I must page 2swap to this thread.
Did she not receive the page, or just not want to get involved? I was rather interested to hear what she thought.
-
Did she not receive the page, or just not want to get involved? I was rather interested to hear what she thought.
She's busy with midterm exams it seems.
-
She's busy with midterm exams it seems.
Didn't realize the German school year was so different; suppose I should've thought.
-
If there was a legal system in place that said that anyone could make an image, and then "viewright" it, and charge whatever they want of anyone anywhere viewing it, dictate how they could hang it on their private walls, and it was sporadically enforced through FUD by levying massive fines on those caught viewing without paying protection money, it would be no less crazy to me than copyright.
There is something like that with movies, in that you can't have a bunch of people watch it at one time, don't know what the limit it.
For all those who say downloading music is theft. If I let a friend borrow the cd and they listen to it, did they just steal it? After all they didn't pay for it. If I was to invite a bunch of friends over and we watch a movie, did they all just steal it? They didn't pay for it.
When they claim that they would of lost this amount of money, that is all based on if every single one of those people would of rushed out there and bought a CD but now because they downloaded it they are not going to. How can they tell me what I can and can't do with something that I paid money for. Once I gave them money, that CD has now become mine. Who are they to tell me that I can't make copies and then let others have those copies for free?
And what do you guys think about this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXivarypE4
-
I thought when you purchased a cd (music, video games, software) you were actually buying a license to use that software. Yet that $60 game is gone if I scratch the disk and now I have to spend another $60 all over again! I think that is pretty wrong, companies shouldn't be forced to give the a new free CD but for people that provided the original scrached disk they should be charged a reasonable price like $10 or 10% or the purchase price not for the full price of the software. Anyone got any ideas on that?
This is what ticks me off about write protections and the like.
I am all for people who produce a product getting paid for it, they made it, they produced and distributed it. However at the same time, customers should be able to make backup copies so long as they are not distributed IMO.
-
Freak: if you lend a person a cd, they have it not you. The problem is both people having the same thing at the same time with only one paying for it.
Same with a movie. Non-commercial exhibition is fine, but only one copy exists.
-
As someone who has had his intellectual work products pilfer and redistributed before, I'm really torn on this. I know I just about lost my mind the first time I saw one of my stories on the front page of the weekly county birdcage liner without it credited to me.
I recognize the desire of the artists to protect their creative product, but so often it seems that with these cases it's not about creativity, it's simply about protecting royalties and investments. That also resonates with me, but not as strongly.
-
I know I just about lost my mind the first time I saw one of my stories on the front page of the weekly county birdcage liner without it credited to me.
Out of curiousity, Mike, did you ever receive compensation of some sort for the theft?
-
Hi, yeah, I am still in midterm mode. The school year is different because I attend a private college and they are woefully disobedient of normal conventions on holidays or the begin and end of the school year.
There are many reasons against copyright laws in the current form. One of these reasons is, that sharing music helps the artists (better concert attendance), the consumers (free music, yay!) but not the intermediates. there are labels who understood this by now. Magnatune being a great example and Jamendo another one (jamendo is not exactly a label but sufficiently similar).
People liken intellectual property to real property, but I think this is not a valid comparison. If I give you an apple and you give me an apple, we both have one apple, if I give you an idea and you give me an idea, we both have 2 ideas. Sharing does not 'deplete' the immaterial resource. The use of terminology from the material world is more or less a tactic of the intermediates to muddy the waters so that people don't see what really is occurring: the exchange of ideas where no one actually loses anything. Since most of the time, the price of CDs seems to be prohibitively high and there is a huge uncertainty about the quality of the music on it (There is a related paradox: the price of a piece of information can only be evaluated if you know it already, but then you would no longer want to buy it), downloaded files do not equal lost sales. More often than not it is the other way around: After you stumbled upon an awesome song on the internet and downloaded it, you are more likely to buy the CD. I would never expected something good behind the name Timid Tiger, but after I DLed the song "Combat Songs and Traffic Fights" (legally, btw, since their label understand the modern market) I decided to buy their album.
So, yeah, the view of copyright by the RIAA, MPAA and similar organisations is deprecated and detrimental to the success of the artists.
-
Piracy only hurts the giants in the industry; it hurts the artist that everyone already knows about. Everyone else is far more likely to suffer from obscurity. If nobody knows about you, nobody is going to buy your merchandise or even pirate you in the first place.
Cory Doctorow, a novelist whose young adult novel “Little Brother” spent seven weeks on the New York Times children’s chapter books best-seller list last year, offers free electronic versions of his books on the same day they are published in hardcover. He believes free versions, even unauthorized ones, entice new readers.
“I really feel like my problem isn’t piracy,” Mr. Doctorow said. “It’s obscurity.”
sharing music helps the artists (better concert attendance), the consumers (free music, yay!) but not the intermediates
Of course the middlemen are necessary after all. It doesn't make sense for artists to individually press all their records, and maintain distribution networks to stores, etc. They need the record companies to deal with all these logistics for them. Now, if only there was a way to connect the artists directly to their audience, instantly across geographical space, without the need for records and stores...maybe like a web for sending information...
-
Now, if only there was a way to connect the artists directly to their audience, instantly across geographical space, without the need for records and stores...maybe like a web for sending information...
There'll be no more of that crazy talk here! If man had been made to communicate instantly over distance, he'd have been made telepathic.
-
for people that provided the original scrached disk they should be charged a reasonable price like $10 or 10% or the purchase price not for the full price of the software. Anyone got any ideas on that?
Some companies do this already (at least for computer software, don't know about music or anything else). Naturally, it should be up to the company if they want to offer this or not.
-
sharing music helps the artists (better concert attendance)
Yup. Why would they want to make money from CD sales when they can make all their money living in a bus, going from one town to another? :rolleyes:
-
Actually Dick, that model DOES work.
Remember, for a musician, obscurity is a far worse problem than theft...
-
Yup. Why would they want to make money from CD sales when they can make all their money living in a bus, going from one town to another? :rolleyes:
I believe they actually make most of there money from concerts, sooo....
-
I believe they actually make most of there money from concerts, sooo....
And I make most of my money from paid advertising on my website. Does that mean that I should give the products on my online store away for free?
C'mon, admit it. You're looking for someone to say, "it's okay to steal." It wouldn't be half as bad if some of you weren't coming up with the most absurd justifications.
-
Monkey,
If I buy something once why should I have to buy it a second time? Why should I not be able to copy it so long as I do not distribute or make money from it?
-
Copying it is fine; giving those copies away not so much.
-
Monkey,
If I buy something once why should I have to buy it a second time? Why should I not be able to copy it so long as I do not distribute or make money from it?
If you actually buy it once, I agree. The problem is that most of the people who are guilty of and defend copyright infringement never buy it.
-
I think there are two issues here. The first is one of degree: I don't think anyone would "cry havoc" for me buying a cd, burning it to my iTunes folder, then handing it to Monkeyleg: that kinda thing has been happening for as long as we've had recordable home media.
But if I burn it, then post the files on some website where anybody can DL them (whether free or at a fee), then I truly am stealing...
The second issue is one of "new system v old system". With today's technology, there need never be an actual physical disk: music can be freely sent back and forth over the web. This cuts out the middlemen (such as the RIAA), and that tends to make them a bit tetchy...
-
How is it stealing when you aren't depriving them of anything?
-
Because you're getting it for free. Before if you wanted to own the file you had to buy it. Now you can own the artists work, without the artist ever getting anything for it.
I love the "I'm stealing music cause it's so good for the artist" line of argument here.
-
How is it stealing when you aren't depriving them of anything?
Actually, you are depriving them of the full benefits of their labor.
The problem here is that we now have a large increase in the number of goods that have the characteristics of a public good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good).
MANY people can use electronic files at the same time without depriving anyone else of their use. A record would not allow that to the same extent- I could listen to your record with you, but the use of that good was limited by the radius of the sound.
Today, I can copy the files and MILLIONS of individuals can use the same file without consequence to others: this is non-rivalrous consumption.
The issue at hand is excludability. RIAA and other such organizations are doing all they can to be able to exclude people from using these digital files. (Making them pay first).
The technology of the internet is moving such files towards non-excludability.
We are currently in the fight between an old business model dealing with new technology. How they will deal with the fact that their product is becoming a public good is an interesting economic study.
Personally, I think we will move towards online music being advertising for artists performances: artists may even begin paying for their work to be posted on certain sites.
Please note, I believe artists deserve compensation for their work. I also believe downloading music is wrong (currently). I also think technology has progressed to the point that organizations such as RIAA are much like the newspapers: grasping onto a failed business model.
-
Because you're getting it for free.
So getting something for free = stealing?
:lol:
-
So getting something for free = stealing?
:lol:
Umm, yeah? When you take something without the owner's permission or compensating them in any way, that is pretty much the definition of stealing. Even if you promise promise promise you'll get around to buying it if you like it, or you're just doing it for the artists benefit.
-
This is a long video (41 minutes). It is an interview with Trent Reznor (via Digg), and he makes a FAR better argument than anything I have ever heard anyone make on the topic of this thread before.
Fortunately, the pertinent discussion is at the beginning of the video, but the whole thing is a good interview if you have the time.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.thedailyswarm.com%2Fimages%2Fheadlines%2Ftrent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users_top.jpg&hash=3506c584dc3a55b972c83f139ec4b0ab66578374)
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/trent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users/ (http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/trent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users/)
-
Copying it is fine; giving those copies away not so much.
Problem is more and more media is becoming write protected. DVD movies are an excellent example and I believe the copyright law now flat out prohibits any copying and they generally require special software to fully back up.
-
Monkey,
If I buy something once why should I have to buy it a second time? Why should I not be able to copy it so long as I do not distribute or make money from it?
If you buy a light bulb, and drop it, do you expect WalMart to just hand you another one?
-
If you buy a light bulb, and drop it, do you expect WalMart to just hand you another one?
Meh. IMO, Tangible goods and intangible intellectual property don't compare well. Apples to oranges.
-
If you buy a light bulb, and drop it, do you expect WalMart to just hand you another one?
That doesn't relate to what he is saying.
Umm, yeah? When you take something without the owner's permission or compensating them in any way, that is pretty much the definition of stealing.
That isn't what you said, nor what I was asking. What you said implied that the mere act of getting something for free was stealing, doesn't matter where you are getting it. Now, after someone buys a cd it becomes theres, so by them allowing others to have copies of it it wouldn't be stealing because the owner is giving permission.
-
Please note, I believe artists deserve compensation for their work. I also believe downloading music is wrong (currently). I also think technology has progressed to the point that organizations such as RIAA are much like the newspapers: grasping onto a failed business model.
I agree that file piracy is "stealing".
However I would have a lot more respect for the RIAA's position if concern over their I.P. really was the core issue. In practical terms, they're just trying to preserve their distribution and business models through brute-force litigation.
Yes, there are serious Copyright and I.P. issues at stake, I understand that. However, there is also a huge component of them not adjusting to the market as well.
It fails on the I.P. and Copyright side of it, but I think many have a sense that what the RIAA is doing is akin to the saddle and buggy-whip makers suing against the automobile in every venue they can, rather than getting off their asses and investing in gas stations, and auto parts. And that's why the public at large isn't overly concerned about file-sharing/piracy.
-
This is a long video (41 minutes). It is an interview with Trent Reznor (via Digg), and he makes a FAR better argument than anything I have ever heard anyone make on the topic of this thread before.
Fortunately, the pertinent discussion is at the beginning of the video, but the whole thing is a good interview if you have the time.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.thedailyswarm.com%2Fimages%2Fheadlines%2Ftrent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users_top.jpg&hash=3506c584dc3a55b972c83f139ec4b0ab66578374)
http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/trent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users/ (http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/trent-reznor-answers-questions-digg-users/)
He makes a lot of sense there, particularly when he basically says that if the record labels would create a reasonably priced subscription model that allowed you to download what you want from them, and allowed you freedom with those products he wouldn't be developing the business models that he is.
My major problem with the record labels and the RIAA is that they are fighting a war they have already lost against a technology that they have not kept up with. Provide us with what Trent describes.
You're probably not going to have this issue, but I suspect that we are going to have a big fight over TV licenses and broadband in the next few years. The BBC has developed decent web-based services like iPlayer, and it is going to try and levy a charge one way or another. Unfortunately the TV license is a relic of the middle of the last century and we are going to have change a lot because of the internet. Video streaming high quality programmes was barely on the horizon three or four years ago.
-
Huh?
Now, after someone buys a cd it becomes theres, so by them allowing others to have copies of it it wouldn't be stealing because the owner is giving permission.
When did the owner give permission to distribute multiple copies?
That's weak.
I've gone after folks who've taken my images and documented works without permission.
I'll do it again.
It's also why you see most of my stuff with a faint watermark these days.
-
Meh. IMO, Tangible goods and intangible intellectual property don't compare well. Apples to oranges.
I was replying to this aspect of the discussion:
Monkey,
If I buy something once why should I have to buy it a second time? Why should I not be able to copy it so long as I do not distribute or make money from it?
-
I think we all agree that copyright owners should be able to enforce the right to charge.
My issue with this comes with damages. Why do copyright holders get massive damages awarded without having to prove actual injury?
Even if you get your face burned off, in a lawsuit for damages you have to introduce evidence that actually proves your losses in order to get paid for it. Why all the special extra protections for this form of property over any other?
-
I think we all agree that copyright owners should be able to enforce the right to charge.
My issue with this comes with damages. Why do copyright holders get massive damages awarded without having to prove actual injury?
Even if you get your face burned off, in a lawsuit for damages you have to introduce evidence that actually proves your losses in order to get paid for it. Why all the special extra protections for this form of property over any other?
Because they have deep pockets, and lobbied Congress for such special protections.
IMO, once the Internet and ill-will over file-sharing lawsuits has destroyed the recording industry, watch for these laws to change as other business interests that have financial stakes in the new distribution and business models rise to promininence.
-
If you buy a light bulb, and drop it, do you expect WalMart to just hand you another one?
If I decided I wanted to copy that light bulb for my own personal use and not to resell or distribute should I be legally liable?
-
If I decided I wanted to copy that light bulb for my own personal use and not to resell or distribute should I be legally liable?
Well, normally you'd have to buy another lightbulb to have a second one, so you can argue "harm" to the manufacturer.
If you bought one "license" to the music, and you are it's sole consumer, should it matter how you carry the music with you?
So the analogy is more like if you were really cheap and unscrewed the lightbulb and took it with you room to room. =)
-
I think there are two issues here. The first is one of degree: I don't think anyone would "cry havoc" for me buying a cd, burning it to my iTunes folder...
I would, but that is because I despise the iTunes software.
The RIAA and its allies are trying mightily to use government to prop up and subsidize a business model made obsolete by technology. Kinda like the GM / union labor failed business model.
The more success the RIAA has, the longer it will take for new business models to spring up like Ford dealerships across the USA circa 1920.
What the pirate downloaders are doing is the equivalent to automobile owners' disregarding some of the anti-auto laws* passed with the help of those industries which were to be replaced by auto industries.
Yes, they are breaking the law and yes, the dying industry is taking even more losses. But, it won't get better until gov't comes to grip with the new reality and (more importantly) the RIAA side runs out of money to buy its way with Congress.
* Red Flag Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act
The Locomotive Act (also known as the Red Flag Act) is a reference to the Locomotives Act 1865 introduced by the British parliament as one of a series of measures to control the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on British public highways during the latter part of the 19th century. This act required any motorised vehicle to be preceded by a man with a red flag.
...
The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):
* Set speed limits of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns.
* Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine.
-
I was replying to this aspect of the discussion:
Monkey,
If I buy something once why should I have to buy it a second time? Why should I not be able to copy it so long as I do not distribute or make money from it?
Yea, I see that - I still don't think it's a valid comparison.
So I buy a laptop computer from dell. I load up iTunes and buy "Backstreet Boys - Incomplete". One week later, my machine's hard disk unfortunately gets destroyed by multiple .308's through my backpack while in a shopping mall. I am unharmed due to the ceramic trauma plates I tactically duct taped to myself with black duct tape.
My machine's hard disk is ruined. If I don't have a service plan, I can't reasonably expect the company I bought it from the replace it. They would incur a significant cost from this - the raw materials, labor, shipping etc that go into making a disk. If I shoplift a new hard drive, I deprive the store of the sale of that drive. That's what theft is: depriving someone the use of their property.
But, does my hard disk being destroyed mean that I no longer hold valid license to enjoy "Incomplete"? If I replace my disk, and download another copy off TPB, am I a criminal? Why or why not? What if I had a copy on my desktop computer? Does me downloading a copy deprive Backstreet Boys of a potential sale? I submit that: No, I already own a license to it.
There's a difference between tangible goods and intangible intellectual property. Directly comparing the two will lead to faulty logic.
-
There's a difference between tangible goods and intangible intellectual property.
Directly comparing the two will lead to faulty logic. One of them exists, and the other is imaginary make-believe property.
It actually reminds me of carbon credits.
-
We're walking parallel courses here. On page 4
This is what ticks me off about write protections and the like.
I am all for people who produce a product getting paid for it, they made it, they produced and distributed it. However at the same time, customers should be able to make backup copies so long as they are not distributed IMO.
I thought they were referring to hard copies of software (games, etc).
With Itunes you can back up your stuff to disc, IIRC. So you pay your $.99 for a license to use the song, but not distribute it freely.
There's a difference between tangible goods and intangible intellectual property. Directly comparing the two will lead to faulty logic. One of them exists, and the other is imaginary make-believe property.
It actually reminds me of carbon credits.
Tell that to someone who makes their living selling music, and then has it spread freely around.
-
RIAA is definitely their own worst enemy here. IP is not directly analogous to physical property, but theft is also not about causing harm to others.
The arguments remind me of the people in Britain who say property owners shouldn't be able to prevent access to their property as long as no harm is done by the trespasser.
I also agree with the damage needing to be proved instead of just handed out willy nilly, and with the consumers right to duplicate their information, as long as it is not distributed.
-
Oy. Why is it so hard for so many people to understand that non-tangible goods have value just like tangible goods?
Nobody seems to be confused by the fact that stealing someone else's tangible whatsit is stealing. Why is it that once the whatsit becomes non-tangible we see so many people willing to rationalize its theft?
I see this confusion in discussions of economics, too. Nobody is confused by the notion that producing a physical item creates value. Yet somehow people get confused by the notion that producing intellectual items also creates value.
I really don't get it. Labor can result in both physical products and intellectial/nontangible products. The two types of products aren't different in any meaningful way when it comes to ownership. He who produced it gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor, anyone else may only use it with the permission of the owner.
Maybe the problem is that music doesn't come with an end user license the way software does. If the RIAA were to explicitly state just what rights the customer is buying when he pays for his CD, then perhaps a lot of this confusion could be avoided.
-
Solution: Make the music free of charge from the very beginning.
At worst, treat it like the advertising it is--the more of it that gets spread around, the more fans, publicity, etc. you gain. Charge for merchandise, concessions, and ticket sales, which is where the real money is anyway.Meh. IMO, Tangible goods and intangible intellectual property don't compare well. Apples to oranges.
More like apples to apple pie recipes.
Now that the internet, the greatest method of sharing and transferring ideas ever invented in the history of the world, exists, intellectual property as it once was cannot be valued in the same way. Magazine sales are dying. Newspaper sales are dying. CD sales are dying. Encyclopedia sales are dying. Even television is dying. Various other book sales, too--everything from recipes to religious writings to government publications can be found online. People are listening to the radio less and less, and it's all because it can be accessed via a means where everyone can share everything intangible, for free.
It's a bleak point, but the only thing to really be gained anymore is a feeling of satisfaction that you've helped humanity in some way, since you sure aren't going to get rich off of it.
-
I really don't get it. Labor can result in both physical products and intellectial/nontangible products. The two types of products aren't different in any meaningful way when it comes to ownership. He who produced it gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor, anyone else may only use it with the permission of the owner.
Yes, they are.
I could loan or give you my car. No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.
If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft. Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?
Maybe the problem is that music doesn't come with an end user license the way software does. If the RIAA were to explicitly state just what rights the customer is buying when he pays for his CD, then perhaps a lot of this confusion could be avoided.
Probably, yes. You're not buying music, per say, you're buying a contract to use it.
-
Yes, they are.
I could loan or give you my car. No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.
If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft. Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?
Probably, yes. You're not buying music, per say, you're buying a contract to use it.
This is a bad analogy. If you gave him your copy of Windows without keeping another copy, it wouldn't be theft.
The issue is that you're talking about giving him a copy while keeping your copy. Microsoft would have sold two units of Windows rather than just one if you had not made a copy.
How is that any different than a car? It's like loaning or giving your car to a friend and then stealing one from the dealership to replace the one you gave away.
-
I could loan or give you my car. No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.
If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft. Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?
With the car, you lose use of it when I take possession of it.
With a copy of Windows, you don't lose use of it. How would you feel, however, if the second I was done installing and I registered online, your computer suddenly stopped working since I was using your copy?
You would be in trouble if you reversed engineered some nifty trademarked engineering feature of the Ford car and made copies of it for resale, however.
-
With the car, you lose use of it when I take possession of it.
With a copy of Windows, you don't lose use of it. How would you feel, however, if the second I was done installing and I registered online, your computer suddenly stopped working since I was using your copy?
You would be in trouble if you reversed engineered some nifty trademarked engineering feature of the Ford car and made copies of it for resale, however.
That's the point, though.
The two types of property are different.
Different rules apply, because 'theft' implies denying the owner of use.
-
That's the point, though.
The two types of property are different.
Different rules apply, because 'theft' implies denying the owner of use.
No, theft implies taking something without permission. You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.
It's not different.
-
No, theft implies taking something without permission. You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.
It's not different.
So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?
And how is that not different from the sale of pretty much every physical product ever made, where I buy the actual device and I become the owner?
-
There's two types of awards in civil lawsuits, including copyright lawsuits. One is an award for actual costs, the is punitive.
If someone uses a photo of mine without my permission, I can go after the person and recover the usual and customary amounts the person would have paid to use the image as he did. If I've filed the image with the copyright office, I can also pursue punitive damages that can far exceed the customary usage amounts. It's like getting 30 days in jail for stealing a $10 CD. Your time is probably worth more than $.33 a day, but that's the penalty.
I don't understand why people are so hung up on the concept that they're buying the music when they buy the CD. The CD isn't the intellectual property, it's the medium on which that property is recorded, just as paper is the medium on which a book is printed, but the paper is not the intellectual property.
So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?
No, that's not an argument, that's the law.
-
So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?
And how is that not different from the sale of pretty much every physical product ever made, where I buy the actual device and I become the owner?
Actually, no. That was not the argument I made.
-
There's two types of awards in civil lawsuits, including copyright lawsuits. One is an award for actual costs, the is punitive.
If someone uses a photo of mine without my permission, I can go after the person and recover the usual and customary amounts the person would have paid to use the image as he did. If I've filed the image with the copyright office, I can also pursue punitive damages that can far exceed the customary usage amounts. It's like getting 30 days in jail for stealing a $10 CD. Your time is probably worth more than $.33 a day, but that's the penalty.
I don't understand why people are so hung up on the concept that they're buying the music when they buy the CD. The CD isn't the intellectual property, it's the medium on which that property is recorded, just as paper is the medium on which a book is printed, but the paper is not the intellectual property.
No, that's not an argument, that's the law.
There's no question that it has value - but in any other civil case, you have to prove the value of the lost property/damages resulting from the wrongful activity in order to be compensated. Why not apply the same rule in these cases?
Punitive damages have constitutional limits that clearly are not applied in this case - these are statutory damages. They are given because congress said so, not for deterrence. And even in a punitive damages claim, you still have to prove actual damages so that the punitive damages can be computed accordingly.
I can see the need to enforce the right of ownership, but I can't see why it should have such disproportionately generous cash payouts compared to any other property right.
-
Actually, no. That was not the argument I made.
Then what was your argument? Because that's what I got out of it.
Lets clarify:
No, theft implies taking something without permission.
I was going off the English Common Law definition, but we'll use your model for the sake of argument. What is being taken? Whom is it being taken from?
You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.
Is this the theft? So [revenue ] is stolen from [copyright owner] without permission?
It's not different.
How is it the same?
On the title of my 98 Mustang, it clearly lists my name next to "Owner:". I am free to do as I wish with MY property. I can take it apart, I can reverse engineer it, I can build aftermarket parts for it, I can sell it, I can light it on fire, I can do whatever I want with it.
On an MP3, the copyright holder is the owner. They retain the rights to that property, and I'm licensed to use it. How is that the same?
No, that's not an argument, that's the law.
Okay!
So can we agree that intellectual property isn't the same as real property which the purchaser actually owns?
-
You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.
Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.
-
There's no question that it has value - but in any other civil case, you have to prove the value of the lost property/damages resulting from the wrongful activity in order to be compensated. Why not apply the same rule in these cases?
The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I spent decades trying to explain it to advertising professionals who were paying for a photo shoot, and they either didn't get it or they were just pretending not to get it. If they were willing to pay me the full value for them to own all rights (which they sometimes did), we had a deal. If not, then they either went somewhere else or we reached a compromise agreement.
Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.
YOUR JEEP IS NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!!!!
Sheesh.
-
Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.
A better analogy would be reverse engineering the Jeep and selling your own versions. What you bought from Jeep was a hunk of metal and fabric and rubber and so forth, not the designs and plans on how it's made, and definitely not the right to produce and redistribute your own Jeeps.
When you steal IP, what you're stealing is the right to use the IP. Who uses the IP is a decision the owner gets to make. Many owners opt to sell the rights to use a particular product, not the product itself.
It's really no different from a landlord leasing out an apartment to tenants. The landlord is selling the rights to use the apartment for a certain period of time without selling the apartment itself. Squatting, using the property without purchasing the rights, is a form of theft not fundamentally different from stealing IP.
If you use it without permission, you're stealing.
-
A better analogy would be reverse engineering the Jeep and selling your own versions. What you bought from Jeep was a hunk of metal and fabric and rubber and so forth, not the designs and plans on how it's made, and definitely not the right to produce and redistribute your own Jeeps.
When you steal IP, what you're stealing is the right to use the IP. Who uses the IP is a decision the owner gets to make. Many owners opt to sell the rights to use a particular product, not the product itself.
It's really no different from a landlord leasing out an apartment to tenants. The landlord is selling the rights to use the apartment for a certain period of time without selling the apartment itself. Squatting, using the property without purchasing the rights, is a form of theft not fundamentally different from stealing IP.
If you use it without permission, you're stealing.
And when you have bought your vehicle and take measures to ensure it is available for your use as long as possible?
Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.
-
Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.
I don't think we're arguing that it is. This discussion isn't about people making backup copies, it's about people redistributing.
-
And when you have bought your vehicle and take measures to ensure it is available for your use as long as possible?
Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.
The correct analogy is buying a CD and keeping it clean and scratch-free so that you get the most use out of it. Copying it isn't the same. Copying the CD would be like doing the Chinese thing and reverse engineering the Jeep to make your own versions. You don't get to copy your Jeep whenever it's about to wear out so that you never need to buy a new one.
I suppose it all depends upon just what rights to the IP you acquire when you buy a CD. I bet the record companies would say that all you get with your CD is the shiny silver disc and the right to play the music for yourself. Therefore, any use of the IP other than playing it for yourself amounts to theft. Making copies of it, even for yourself for backup purposes, would be theft.
Ultimately their IP is theirs to do with as they please, to sell as much rights to it or as little rights to it as they wish. So long as everyone is clear on just what is being bought and sold, then I see no problems.
-
The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I spent decades trying to explain it to advertising professionals who were paying for a photo shoot, and they either didn't get it or they were just pretending not to get it. If they were willing to pay me the full value for them to own all rights (which they sometimes did), we had a deal. If not, then they either went somewhere else or we reached a compromise agreement.
YOUR JEEP IS NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!!!!
Sheesh.
There's nothing at all wrong with that - but the statutory damages in this case are likely exponentially larger than what the damages would be if you had to prove them in court.
Why not require copyright owners to do a calculation like you just did when suing for damages, as is the case for nearly every other kind of civil action?
-
The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
That makes sense; but it how can you calculate almost 2 million in damages from a private user not a corporate entity? If someone had illegally copied 24 of your photos and posted them on a website where they could be downloaded by anyone else, how much in damages is that really worth?
I understand a punitive fine to deter other people from illegally copying IP but shouldn't the fines be within reason.
In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
According to wiki, and for the same of arguement lets say that this woman makes $60,000 a year(after taxes of course :laugh:), if she forked over her entire paycheck each month it would take her 32 years to pay the RIAA.
Does that make sense to anyone! The RIAA some how bought its way into being able to use the court system as its strong arm. Now we have to deal with their mentality of buy from us or we will bankrupt you or just rob $2000 from a 12 year old girl.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/
-
An individual is no more or less responsible than a corporation.
If someone had illegally copied 24 of your photos and posted them on a website where they could be downloaded by anyone else, how much in damages is that really worth?
I just did a quick search on some court cases involving copyright violations with photographs. In one case the photographer was awarded $500,000 in statutory damages, while the compensatory damages were $12,800. That's 39x the determined value of the use of the photos.
According to wiki, and for the same of arguement lets say that this woman makes $60,000 a year(after taxes of course ), if she forked over her entire paycheck each month it would take her 32 years to pay the RIAA.
If our judicial system based punishment on the incomes of criminals, only rich people would be executed. Why do I get the sense that some here would like that arrangement?
-
she uploaded 1700 tunes
-
she uploaded 1700 tunes
I fail to see your point.
-
If she had stolen 1700 of anything else she'd be in jail.
-
she uploaded 1700 tunes
Exactly. The original post mentioned they picked out 24 or so songs to simplify things. If you call each song a "single" and it costs $5 or $10 and each song was downloaded and average of say 100 times, you can get to some pretty high damage estimates.
So far, has anyone been prosectued or sued for possessing backup copies of their CD's and songs? I haven't heard of it. All I have heard of is people who were uploading songs for distribution or downloading a bunch.
-
Then what was your argument? Because that's what I got out of it.
So can we agree that intellectual property isn't the same as real property which the purchaser actually owns?
My argument wasn't that intellectual property is the same as tangible property. It obviously isn't. My argument was that theft of intellectual property is the same as theft of tangible property. Just because it's bits and bytes or information doesn't mean it's ok to steal it.
No matter how you try to rationalize it, if you're taking it without permission you are causing at least some harm to the owner and you're stealing.
-
Copying it is fine; giving those copies away not so much.
Not according to the RIAA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/RIAA_Claims_Ripping_a_CD_to_Your_iPod_is_Not_Fair_Use/
-
she uploaded 1700 tunes
A federal jury ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded record companies $1.92 million.
Wrong. She downloaded 1700, onto her machine, but the RIAA only tried to prove 24 violations not 1700 violations. There is no proof mentioned any where in the article that she even uploaded one song to another user. Download and upload are two different things. So 1.92 million is for essentially 24 songs, not 1,700.
If our judicial system based punishment on the incomes of criminals, only rich people would be executed. Why do I get the sense that some here would like that arrangement?
I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion but I don't think I infered that at all in my post. First off is this a criminal trial? She broke the law but this is more of a civil suit than an actual criminal trial, if this is a criminal trial, why isnt she looking at jail time and instead a monetary punishment. Second off as alot of people pointed out before copywrite infringment is not the same as theft. Very similar, but not the same, intangible objects and IP where not though of when theft laws first came about, and thats why we have copywrite laws because theres a difference. If they were the exact same, we would not need copywrite law and copywrite violations would be punished by jail time.
Second off I was trying to illistrate the outrageousness of a 1.92 million dollar settlement.
In one case the photographer was awarded $500,000 in statutory damages, while the compensatory damages were $12,800. That's 39x the determined value of the use of the photos.
Well the cost of a cd is what 20 dollars? Lets just say its 25 because its the new Metallica cd or whatever. Well this woman was charges $80,000 per song thats 3,200 x the cost of that cd for one violation. So can we just imagine damages now? In your last post you seemed to agree with varying amounts of cash settlements based on what the unlicensed user does with the illegally acquired IP. Hell why couldn't they just sue her for 1 billion dollars if proportionality doesn't matter?
-
I'm talking to a brick wall.
First off, it's not "copywrite," it's "copyright," as in a right of ownership. I took the photo, I own the rights to it. I wrote the song, I own the rights.
Copyright infringement is the same as theft, no matter what "some" people here have said. Further, the amount of the settlement has nothing to do with her income. If she were in a civil suit because of a traffic accident, would the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff be dependent upon her income?
The value of the photos is not the value of the medium, which is the film or paper, either of which costs a couple of dollars. How many times do I have to repeat that? The value of a photo or a CD is the image or the song recorded on that medium. If we used the medium to establish the value of something, then the Mona Lisa would only be worth a few dollars for canvas and paint.
-
BryanP: hence why I said the RIAA douches are their own worst enemy.
-
Not according to the RIAA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/RIAA_Claims_Ripping_a_CD_to_Your_iPod_is_Not_Fair_Use/
They backpedaled on that a few days later:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/)
-
I'm talking to a brick wall.
First off, it's not "copywrite," it's "copyright," as in a right of ownership. I took the photo, I own the rights to it. I wrote the song, I own the rights.
Copyright infringement is the same as theft, no matter what "some" people here have said.
Call me stupid - I'm still not following.
Theft is a crime against society. Theft is persecuted by society in criminal court, for which you may be jailed for.
Copyright infringement is a violation of civil contract, where suit is brought by a private entity (the owner), not by a DA as you would find in criminal cases.
Sure, it's "theft" in the sense of lost revenues to the owner - but legally theft? I'm not seeing it.
OJ was not guilty of criminal charges.
OJ was guilty of civil charges.
Theft is a criminal charge.
Copyright infringement is a civil charge.
I'm really trying to to be obtuse, and I make my livelihood via intellectual property as well (computer code), but I do not understand the rational behind your argument.
What am I missing?
-
I tend to think of intellectual property in the same way as books (and I love books).
I buy a book. The book itself (media) is mine. The story (intellectual property) belongs to the author.
Since the book (the media, that tangible thing I hold in my hand) is mine, I can mark it, bend it, rip it up, burn it, use it for target practice or whatever.
Because the story (the intellectual property) is not mine, I can't run off copies and share it or change the author's name to my own and sell it.
When it comes to loans, I can loan a buddy my book. And I'd better get it back in the same condition.
If my buddy decided to run copies, plagarize, etc., then s/he's in the wrong, not me.
If I needed a backup copy, I'd just buy another book.
-
No matter how you try to rationalize it, if you're taking it without permission you are causing at least some harm to the owner and you're stealing.
How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?
-
How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?
You're receiving the benefits of their labor without permission and without compensating them for it. You're denying them their right to control who has and uses their work.
-
But how is that harming them?
-
But how is that harming them?
What if I took your car for a joy ride with a duplicate key while you're asleep tonight, did no damage, and replaced the gas I used? Maybe I do this regularly. Neglecting the miles-used for argument's sake, no harm no foul right? I put it back. I just used something of yours without permission. Nothing wrong with that if no physical harm was caused to your property, right? (This example neglects to represent the lost income experienced by the IP owner from lost sales from people copying instead of buying).
-
If you ignore the wear and tear from using it and assuming that I will never use it since I am sleeping. Then really no. There is no harm. Why should I care? It isn't causing me any harm.
Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.
-
If you ignore the wear and tear from using it and assuming that I will never use it since I am sleeping. Then really no. There is no harm. Why should I care? It isn't causing me any harm.
Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.
I added a note to my example because it really neglects another core part of the "harm" experienced. Part is that you're using something of mine without permission. The other part and where the harm really comes in is that if someone copies IP of mine, who would have bought it if they were unable to copy it, I've lost some very real money. That is harm.
-
How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?
Because you're not paying them $X for the privilege?
-
They backpedaled on that a few days later:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/)
Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting. If they could get away with it they would.
-
Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting. If they could get away with it they would.
Oh, no doubt.
-
Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting. If they could get away with it they would.
And your point is? I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that the RIAA isn't a steaming pile of idiocy.
-
How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?
The band makes its income by selling the music on the CD's, not selling the plastic discs themselves. When you download a song or an entire CD, you're harming them by not paying for something you by law should be paying them for. Let's assume that everyone decides to download songs rather than buy the CD's. The band would make no money from CD sales, and would likely dissolve. I'm certain that you realize this, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
So, let's just dispense with all of the hypotheticals and pretense. As President of the United States, I issue the executive order that all music shall be available for download from the internet for free, without restriction, and without the possibility of prosecution for those engaged in the practice of uploading or downloading music.
Of course, I'm not the president in the "real" world, but this is the internet, so anything goes, right?
-
Let's assume that everyone decides to download songs rather than buy the CD's. The band would make no money from CD sales, and would likely dissolve.
But songs are just ads for concerts and t-shirts! :rolleyes:
The artists should be able to decide how they make their money. If they want to make their money off of selling their music, rather than living on the road doing concerts, that's their right. Downloading their music w/o paying while saying it's OK because they make their real money from concerts is 1) stealing, and 2) trying to tell someone else how to make their living.
If an artist chooses to distribute their music for free as ads for concerts and merchandise, that's their choice. But if they choose not to embrace that model, you have no right to violate their rights by using their IP w/o compensation.
-
Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting. If they could get away with it they would.
They can't get away with it since format shifting from CD to a computer based format was ruled to be fair use in Recording Industry ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.. There's lots of things you can complain about with the RIAA, but they have long recognized that ripping a CD to your computer and placing those music file on your MP3 player is covered under fair use.
Also, Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell went very differently than how it was portrayed in the WaPo article you linked. The lawsuit wasn't about Mr. Howell ripping his CDs to his computer. Rather, it was about how he had committed copyright infringement by making those files available on Kazaa.
-
I wonder if part if the problem in this discussion isn't the fact that we're talking about the RIAA, who have (many times) shot themselves in the foot...
Although it wasn't in any news, I had a friend run into a problem with them. He owned a coffee shop, and had installed a 100 disk changer for music during business hours. An RIAA personage walked in on day, asked a couple questions, then informed my friend that he needed to be paying a royalty for the use of the music.
Bear in mind, my friend had purchased all those disks, and was receiving no money from playing them: he just liked having music while working. There really was no IP theft, but the threat of legal action was there (and he had heard of others being bought into court on this)...
Maybe, if it was the artists themselves raising Cain over the issue, people wouldn't be so ambivalent about it...
-
Ya can't play copyright music in a public space without paying the man
hence the lovely "Happy Birthday" song they play at Chi-Chi's
and the power of Muzak
The RIAA makes a bounty on the fine and lines their pockets
-
Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.
How about this example using intellectual property instead…
You're broke and out on the streets. In despair and because you have nothing better to do, you write about your life and how you got to that point. Someone sees your finished work. He says it's really good and asks for a copy. You don't have one because you don't have any money. He gives you $10. You run off a copy and hand it over.
Wow, you just got $10 for something you created, minus the cost you paid to provide a copy. Over the next few days you start wondering if you could get $10 for another copy, maybe more. You could really use the money, and the prospect gives you something you haven't had in a long time…hope.
So with what you have left of the $10, you run off some copies, stand on the nearest corner and ask passersby if they're interested in buying your work.
Quite a few people stop and gush over your offering, but no, they're not interested in buying it because the guy who paid you $10 has already given them copies that he made, plus he's been giving private readings.
So you go back to your cardboard box in the alley with your hopes dashed and potential earnings up in smoke.
No harm, right?
-
I fail to see your point.
try harder one thing that will help you see it is leaving home
-
Wrong. She downloaded 1700, onto her machine, but the RIAA only tried to prove 24 violations not 1700 violations. There is no proof mentioned any where in the article that she even uploaded one song to another user. Download and upload are two different things. So 1.92 million is for essentially 24 songs, not 1,700.
not according to this
"The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service after a settlement with entertainment companies. The music industry tried to prove only 24 exemplary infringements."
she turned down a chance to settle for between 3-5 k. second glaring example of poor decision making
-
I cannot believe the sheer idiocy of some in this thread.
To those who would justify piracy/infringement/copyright violation -
Don't ever get published, don't ever sell anything you created, and make it a point to work for free.
Or is it just a case of "It's not illegal until you're caught".
I honestly thought people here knew better... :rolleyes:
-
I honestly thought people here knew better... :rolleyes:
Nah, they don't, or at least they don't when it comes to something they feel should be free, well... just because!.
People will justify anything when it comes to satifying their sense of moral outrage, especially when it comes to stuff they'd like to have. It's the "They shouldn't care about a couple of songs because they are making too much money already!" syndrome.
Brad
-
Nah, they don't, or at least they don't when it comes to something they feel should be free, well... just because!.
People will justify anything when it comes to satifying their sense of moral outrage, especially when it comes to stuff they'd like to have. It's the "They shouldn't care about a couple of songs because they are making too much money already!" syndrome.
Brad
I think that is close. Does taking Bill Gates's car really hurt Bill Gates? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it isn't theft just like stealing from a poor person. You have to treat it the same.
-
who would have bought it if they were unable to copy it, I've lost some very real money. That is harm.
This is all based on the assumption that if I hadn't downloaded it I would of rushed out and bought the CD. This is complete bs. You are telling me that some of these people who download hundreds and thousands of songs would of rushed out and bought the cd if they hadn't downloaded it? HA. Whether or not the person downloads a song, they aren't buying the cd, so there is no money lost. And then there are the cases of people who still go buy the cd. And I don't know how many times I've actually discovered a band simply because I ended up downloading some of there songs, liking them, and then buying there cd. So no, you are not causing them harm by downloading a song.
Also are you going to tell me that business competition is bad then? Because if I choose one company over another then that company has lost money, causing harm. Or how about knowing how to work on my car? By doing all the work myself I have then cut them out of the picture and now they aren't making money, causing them harm.
-
This is all based on the assumption that if I hadn't downloaded it I would of rushed out and bought the CD. This is complete bs. You are telling me that some of these people who download hundreds and thousands of songs would of rushed out and bought the cd if they hadn't downloaded it? HA. Whether or not the person downloads a song, they aren't buying the cd, so there is no money lost. And then there are the cases of people who still go buy the cd. And I don't know how many times I've actually discovered a band simply because I ended up downloading some of there songs, liking them, and then buying there cd. So no, you are not causing them harm by downloading a song.
Also are you going to tell me that business competition is bad then? Because if I choose one company over another then that company has lost money, causing harm. Or how about knowing how to work on my car? By doing all the work myself I have then cut them out of the picture and now they aren't making money, causing them harm.
That would be fine if you bought a different CD rather than theirs.
Or if you downloaded public domain music rather than theirs.
There is no harm because you did not steal their intellectual property.
However, you took their intellectual property for your own benefit and gave nothing in return.
In the market, there is an exchange of value. A transaction.
In theft, you simply take something that belongs to someone else. Those songs belong to someone else until you have contracted with them for their use. You never own the songs, but you get to use them for your personal enjoyment.
Otherwise, I'll be going on the road with all these songs that someone else has been kind enough to write for me. After all, they aren't being harmed when I sing their songs better than they do.
-
You are telling me that some of these people who download hundreds and thousands of songs would of rushed out and bought the cd if they hadn't downloaded it? HA.
No, I'm not. I'm saying those people have no right to download non-free music without paying for it. Period. It's not moral, and it's not legal. If you think a song's too expensive, or the license is too restrictive, that does NOT empower you to violate its creator's rights. It empowers you to not purchase it, that's it. Full stop.
If I think a product at the store is too expensive, or has some weird restrictions, guess what? I don't buy it. I go without enjoying having that product. I don't take it and leave the money I think it's really worth on the counter, I don't photocopy books I think are too expensive, I don't download music I haven't paid for.
-
This is all based on the assumption that if I hadn't downloaded it I would of rushed out and bought the CD. This is complete bs. You are telling me that some of these people who download hundreds and thousands of songs would of rushed out and bought the cd if they hadn't downloaded it? HA. Whether or not the person downloads a song, they aren't buying the cd, so there is no money lost. And then there are the cases of people who still go buy the cd. And I don't know how many times I've actually discovered a band simply because I ended up downloading some of there songs, liking them, and then buying there cd. So no, you are not causing them harm by downloading a song.
Also are you going to tell me that business competition is bad then? Because if I choose one company over another then that company has lost money, causing harm. Or how about knowing how to work on my car? By doing all the work myself I have then cut them out of the picture and now they aren't making money, causing them harm.
This was the argument I expected and probably the most common argument in favor of IP piracy. If these people or you don't like the music and wouldn't buy it anyway, then why are they/you downloading it in the first place? It's not like it's hard to find a legitimate sample of the music on itunes, or amazon, or the radio, or internet radio, or a myriad of other places to see if you like it. It's really just a convenient rationalization to justify stealing.
-
some serious entitlement issues here
-
some serious entitlement issues here
No kiddin'. Next think you know they'll be asking for free health care. Oh, wait...
Brad
-
some serious entitlement issues here
You've got that right. It explains a lot more than free health care. Theft isn't theft if you're taking from a person or company with more money than you.
-
When your argument is that it's not stealing cause it's imaginary....
-
Here's a twist:
Let's say there's a band out there... a small cover band. Aluminica... they cover Metallica tunes.
They record a bunch of songs in their garage on their own studio equipment and put 'em up on BitTorrent and the like. You can now drive down the road with a DIFFERENT product than the CD that Metallica produced, but sounds similar... Unforgiven, The Memory Remains, King Nothing, and so on. Guitar solos and vocals are similar, but not quite identical.
Does Metallica have a right to sue listeners to these songs? The band that made the covers and posted them on BitTorrent?
And... what about Metallica's covers of Whiskey in the Jar, Tuesday's Gone, and Stone Cold Crazy? How enforceable is their claim on their performances of those covers? Or... covers of their covers?
Is the recorded performance IP, is the arrangement and song IP, are they both IP, or are they only IP to the original artist? At what point do Aluminica have IP claims to their work while covering Metallica songs? And... if Aluminica were selling their MP3 covers online and THAT was put on BitTorrent by a listener, would Aluminica have an IP claim on the file sharers purely for cover tunes?
-
AZRedhawk, consider the case of fan-made films like Dominatus or books like Tania Grotter and the Magic Double Bass and The Ring of Darkness.
They are entirely prohibited for republishing within the Western world, though publishing derivative works commercially is often legal in the former USSR (thus the two books above exist).
-
Does Metallica have a right to sue listeners to these songs?
Metallica can sue the band for copyright infringment (up to and including damages in the amount of money made from the sale and distribution of the pilfered material, IIRC).
The people who purchased the music most like won't be held liable if they forfeit the contraband material. They acted in good faith that the product was properly licensed from the original owner. They would have to sue the cover band for the monetary loss involved in the purchase.
Brad
-
There are Fair Use exceptions, and I believe parody is also considered exempt. But generally commercial reproduction (not a kid doing a cover and putting it on youtube) is prohibited.
-
This was the argument I expected and probably the most common argument in favor of IP piracy. If these people or you don't like the music and wouldn't buy it anyway, then why are they/you downloading it in the first place? It's not like it's hard to find a legitimate sample of the music on itunes, or amazon, or the radio, or internet radio, or a myriad of other places to see if you like it. It's really just a convenient rationalization to justify stealing.
I didn't say anything about not liking the music. Some people don't have the money to buy every cd they like.
Metallica can sue the band for copyright infringment (up to and including damages in the amount of money made from the sale and distribution of the pilfered material, IIRC).
The people who purchased the music most like won't be held liable if they forfeit the contraband material. They acted in good faith that the product was properly licensed from the original owner. They would have to sue the cover band for the monetary loss involved in the purchase.
Brad
But bands do do cover songs from other bands, some do nothing bu cover songs. They can be sued for it?
-
But bands do do cover songs from other bands, some do nothing bu cover songs. They can be sued for it?
If they didn't properly license the material, yes.
Brad
-
Some people don't have the money to buy every cd they like.
suppose you work for me and one week i say "i don't have the money to pay everyone i like and this week i'm not paying you"
-
If they didn't properly license the material, yes.
Interesting. So if a small time band just starting up does nothing but cover songs, they could be sued? Did not know that.
suppose you work for me and one week i say "i don't have the money to pay everyone i like and this week i'm not paying you"
This doesn't relate.
-
Metallica can sue the band for copyright infringment (up to and including damages in the amount of money made from the sale and distribution of the pilfered material, IIRC).
OK... so if Dave Mustaine with MegaDeth has an ulcerated anus and wants to screw with Metallica, then he can put together a cover band, record every Metallica tune in high quality with good musicianship, and stick it out for free download. Mustaine and crew would then be only liable for the profit they generated ($0).
Yes?
-
lolz. The perfect crime. :lol:
-
I didn't say anything about not liking the music. Some people don't have the money to buy every cd they like.
So it's ok to steal things I want because I can't afford them? Time to go jack me an FJ Cruiser. Been wantin' one o' them.
-
So it's ok to steal things I want because I can't afford them? Time to go jack me an FJ Cruiser. Been wantin' one o' them.
Doesn't relate, unless you plan on making a copy of the FJ Cruiser.
-
Doesn't relate, unless you plan on making a copy of the FJ Cruiser.
Sure it does.
There is a difference between buying something and then doing with it as you please, provided you don't distribute it or copy and make money off of it, and taking something for free because you feel you have a right to it but can't afford it.
-
Sure it does.
There is a difference between buying something and then doing with it as you please, provided you don't distribute it or copy and make money off of it, and taking something for free because you feel you have a right to it but can't afford it.
Yup. Which is the point some of us have been making for 9 pages now.
I used to argue a lot of the same things as people on this thread. In retrospect, I realize the true basis of my argument was I wanted free music/movies.
-
Yup. Which is the point some of us have been making for 9 pages now.
I used to argue a lot of the same things as people on this thread. In retrospect, I realize the true basis of my argument was I wanted free music/movies.
Yep, thats what porn is for =D
-
Actually, the "Aluminica" argument has been kinda hashed out before...
There used to be a site for guitar tabs, that had many user-generated tabs of popular pieces. They got slapped with a "cease & desist" order on much of them, because of IP infringement.
IP is a very sticky problem. Groups like RIAA just muddy the waters...
-
There are a lot of guitar tab sites, just type it into google. Like this one for example, http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/
-
The artists should be able to decide how they make their money.
No. They should be able to TRY to make money however they want, but they shouldn't just get to decide what is going to work. If selling CDs no longer works because the internet has made digital media sharing ubiquitous, then it's time to try making money doing something else besides selling CDs.
Nobody else gets to decide how they make their money. They make their money in the best way they can, market forces and changing perceptions and volatile prices and disruptive technology and seasonal changes and all. My dad lost his trucking business last year when the price of oil spiked and he couldn't afford to run in the red. He went into something else, cause that's the only thing to do in a situation like that. The way people talk around here, when the market was saying it costs $900 to fill up a big rig and my dad was used to only paying $450, the government should have put price controls on the price of fuel so that he could operate like he had been doing for 20 years. People should have been forced to sell fuel for less, because it wasn't fair to my dad. Back home, we have a word for thinking like that--"bullshit".
I don't just get to decide that I make my money by selling common flowers on the street corner at $400 each, when flowers are in abundance everywhere and anyone can grow their own. I am welcome to try, but I don't just get to decide how I make my money and if it doesn't work out, go crying to mama government to make the bad people give me their money like I want them to. In my moral system, you have to offer the customer something that he values and entice him to pay you in exchange for it. Whatever he will pay you for it is what it is worth. It is not worth what you say it is, and if people don't pay it, they are 'stealing' from you.
Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.
If fancy cars were infinitely identically copyable, the first thing any smart person would do is buy one $45,000 car, copy the *expletive deleted*it out of it, and sell the copies for $100 each. In some bizarre moral system, this is wrong, but in mine, it's called good business. Lots of people get cheap cars and I make money. If cars were infinitely identically copyable, that would be AMAZING. Having an abundance of awesome cars at a low price sounds awesome to me, it sounds like real progress, like something out of an optimistic '50s vision of 1995. Fancy cars everywhere for the price of a sandwich! Now, I'm eventually going to get undercut by my own $100 copies, and so on even lower until the price of cars drops to the price of providing a space to park it. It's a race to the bottom. You know what? It looks like selling infinitely identically copyable items isn't a sustainable business model, much the way selling wilted flowers for $400 isn't. In such a situation, it would seem smart to invest in oil stocks and tire companies, not sit around and whine about how back in the good old days we had to make cars by hand one at a time and they cost $45,000 each and only the rich could afford them.
If an artist chooses to distribute their music for free as ads for concerts and merchandise, that's their choice. But if they choose not to embrace that model, you have no right to violate their rights by using their IP w/o compensation.then they'd better not quit their day job, because there's this new thing called the internet, and the market has shown that it does not value copies of digital files, and all copyright law is is a tariff to prop up the price of a good that they want to make more money on, and as long as the good is overpriced people are going to continue avoiding the tariff like any other tariff, and in my opinion, ignoring such BS price controls is perfectly moral
some serious entitlement issues here
I agree that some people think they are entitled to things when it actually amounts to stealing. But other entitlement issues arise when people think it's ok for the government to help them inflate the price of their difficult-to-market goods and services by threatening their customers with violence and bankruptcy.
-
So basically what you're saying is that because it's easy to get music for free (illegally), the free theft price should set the market value of the product.
That's the most perverse rationalization for theft I think I've heard yet.
I oughta go to best buy tomorrow and demand that they give me a free ipod and cell phone. I'll just tell 'em that I could steal those things and therefore their real value is actually zero, so just give 'em up.
I think you should dust off that "bullshit" word from back home.
-
I don't think so, Headless. The argument doesn't start from "it's easy to get for free" and progress to "it should be legal to get it for free". Rather, the argument begins with the proposition that there's no moral prohibition on copying intangible items. Nor is there any net utility from protecting the works that are most vigorously protected under copyright today. The fact that IP is easy to get for free is irrelevant. Lots of small goods are easy to shoplift (for free) but should not be priced at 0. I'm sure zahc is against shoplifting.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Notably different from the language of the 2nd amendment, it is clear that securing IP for limited times is only a means to achieve an objective, that being promoting the progress of science and useful arts.
Strangely, I see no serious discussion in this thread about how copyright as it exists today is designed to further that goal. A Brittany Spears album does not fall under the umbrella of science or useful arts. Music, along with photographs, is performance art or fine art. They have sneaked under the copyright umbrella over the years, but without constitutional authorization that I can see.
I also wonder what benefits society could obtain by eliminating all civil laws against redistributing content for free. Just like simplifying the tax code, trimming copyright to protect only against for-profit redistribution (for a limited time, not this lifetime+x years nonsense) would free up a lot of brainpower for other things.
Trent Reznor said it best. "It's not really up to me to give you free music. It's free anyway. For anybody that wants to admit it, pretty much any piece of music... is free on the internet anyway." Excessive moralizing will not change that. Technology has radically changed how a lot of people view intellectual property, and copyright apologists do not have a monopoly on what is morally right.
The pragmatic creator of IP will simply find ways of making money. Performances. Licensing for commercial use. Consulting or support contracts. Selling IP is still an option because many consumers will pay for music, movies, and other IP, even when there's an opportunity to get them for free. The real world and human psychology does not create a perfectly efficient market where goods have to be uniformly priced. As a personal example, I've bought several TV shows on DVD after downloading them first. Hulu is great, but the content is limited.
Finally, regardless of opinions for or against any sort of protection of intellectual property, current copyright terms are a blatant abuse of government authority. The change from 14+14 years (initial+renewal) in 1790 to lifetime+70 years is absurd. (graph of copyright terms (http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/%28C%29_Term.gif))
At the beginning of the history of copyright, it was publishers that created the fiction of IP-as-property. They knew they could leverage their oligopoly on printing presses to coerce content creators to transfer copyright to them (the printers). The fact that you or I or anyone else might find copyright protection useful as a means to make money doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the concept. I would also find it useful for the government to pay me for doing nothing, but that doesn't mean it's a good policy.
http://questioncopyright.org/promise
-
Hmm, if the COTUS means what it says, tyme has a strong point WRT the not-so-useful arts.
Perhaps we have just become accustomed to gov't exercising the power to grant these privileges to particular folks, the same way we are accustomed to the way gov't has granted certain privileges to notional entities like corporations?
I'll have to think on that a bit.
Sneaky, sneaky tyme, playing the COTUS card...
-
I don't think so, Headless. The argument doesn't start from "it's easy to get for free" and progress to "it should be legal to get it for free". Rather, the argument begins with the proposition that there's no moral prohibition on copying intangible items. Nor is there any net utility from protecting the works that are most vigorously protected under copyright today. The fact that IP is easy to get for free is irrelevant. Lots of small goods are easy to shoplift (for free) but should not be priced at 0. I'm sure zahc is against shoplifting.
If zahc was against shoplifting, then he wouldn't steal music, because they are basically the same thing. Filching tangible property is morally the same as filching intangible property.
When you buy a CD or iTunes file, you aren't paying hard money for a shiny disc or any old random string of bytes, you're paying for the ability to play a certain piece of music. If this wasn't the case, then any CD would be as good as any other, it wouldn't matter to the purchasers which CD they got, nor which music it contained, nor whether it contained any music at all. And any random collection of bytes would be as good as any other, or none at all.
Clearly the music contained on the CD or encoded in the mp3 file has value in itself. Even the music thieves recognize this fact by virtue of stealing the music. If the music wasn't valuable, they wouldn't steal it. They'd be just as content with any old blank CD or any random string of bytes, but they aren't, they want the CD or byte stream that contains good, valuable music.
So, is it right and just to take someone else's valuable property and use it without their consent? Not if you believe that theft is wrong.
Strangely, I see no serious discussion in this thread about how copyright as it exists today is designed to further that goal. A Brittany Spears album does not fall under the umbrella of science or useful arts. Music, along with photographs, is performance art or fine art. They have sneaked under the copyright umbrella over the years, but without constitutional authorization that I can see.
It's a long stretch to say that photography and music recordings aren't useful arts. The fact that music and photographs have commercial value indicates that they are useful in some capacity. The obvious usefulness is in providing personal entertainment, and this particular use is in high demand as evidenced by the great many people willing to steal it and the great sums of money to bicker over.
Likewise, you're struggling to claim that the authors of music or photographs or movies shouldn't receive the exclusive right to their writings. Do you agree that there is very little reason for someone to invest time, money, and personal labor into producing intellectual property of any sort if he doesn't have the legal and practical ability to sell that property once he creates it? Do we really need to have a discussion of why property rights are fundamental to advancing the production of valuable property?
The best way to promote these useful arts it to allow authors to profit from their writings.
Now, the question becomes just what is meant by "for limited Times". No specific time is quantified, therefore, as long as the particular timespan we use is reasonable there's no way to claim that we're violating the constitution.
So just how long is reasonable? Seems to me that so long as a particular writing retains commercial value, and so long as the owner is putting it to productive use, then it should belong to the owner. Back when people usually only lived 40 odd years a 14+14 year span was sufficient to ensure that the writing was secure for the entire career of the author. Unless he made his invention before reaching adulthood, he had a reasonable expectation of being able to profit form his work until he died. Now that authors are living longer, and especially now that long-lived corporations are authors and owners, it makes good sense to extend the timespan much farther out. 100 years doesn't seem unreasonable, given that many products created and owned by corporations are still in primary use (Mickey Mouse is a prime example).
Not only must authors be able to profit from their works, their profits must be secure for a sufficient timespan to justify the labors involved in producing the writings. Given the increasingly extreme amounts of time and money invested into the production of music and especially movies these days, it seems entirely sensible that their authors be able to profit from them for an increasingly long amount of time.
-
I'd be extremely curious to know which participants on this thread have a vested interest in copyright law, and which participants do not. I've already stated that I do, so my views are not entirely objective.
-
I'd be extremely curious to know which participants on this thread have a vested interest in copyright law, and which participants do not. I've already stated that I do, so my views are not entirely objective.
I've published a few things, but it was a drop in the bucket, income-wise, and one of the first pastimes that got tossed after kids came on the scene.
-
I'd be extremely curious to know which participants on this thread have a vested interest in copyright law, and which participants do not. I've already stated that I do, so my views are not entirely objective.
As do I, though often indirectly. My primary job is writing code for a company whom sells it commercially. I spend all day making IP.
-
I'd be extremely curious to know which participants on this thread have a vested interest in copyright law, and which participants do not. I've already stated that I do, so my views are not entirely objective.
As an engineer who spends all day creating and using IP, I have a great deal of time and money riding on patent law. A specific concept/design we're developing now could prove to be incredibly lucrative for us, assuming that we as the authors/owners are the ones who profit from it.
I've not much riding on copyright law specifically, but I don't see much difference between patent and copyright law, at least in terms of morality.
-
If zahc was against shoplifting, then he wouldn't steal music, because they are basically the same thing. Filching tangible property is morally the same as filching intangible property.
So that we can understand each other, define "filching intagible property". Is listening to the radio stealing music? Is singing a song your heard on the radio stealing music? Is singing a song you heard on the radio to an audience stealing music? How big of an audience does it have to be before it becomes stealing music? Is listening to your friend's legally-downloaded songs on his iPod stealing music? Is copying them to your iPod and listening to them on your iPod stealing music? Is listening to music a record store stealing music? Is recording a radio broadcast stealing music? Is my making mp3 recordings of my vinyl records stealing music? If not why is copying said mp3s from my friends, saving myself the trouble of recording, stealing music?
Your answer will be that it's stealing music when the law says it is. I'm not a copyright lawyer and since copyright law makes no sense I don't even KNOW what is legal or not. I don't think anybody does, either.
-
It's a long stretch to say that photography and music recordings aren't useful arts. The fact that music and photographs have commercial value indicates that they are useful in some capacity.
"Useful arts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts) is one of those archaic terms that has specific meaning contrary to what you might think. Like "well regulated".
I've not much riding on copyright law specifically, but I don't see much difference between patent and copyright law, at least in terms of morality.
IP that's patentable falls under the "useful arts" term, so whatever else I might think about patents, they are constitutional.
I think it's common knowledge that patent law as it relates to software methods and business methods is a mess. When you have shell companies ("patent trolls") buying up patents to form a portfolio that they can use to sue random companies and negotiate settlements, something is horribly wrong with the determination of what is and isn't patentable. Ridiculous patents like Amazon's one-click patent (now partially invalidated, but there's an ongoing review) show just how inept the patent office is. You can patent anything if you couch it in the right language.
Likewise, you're struggling to claim that the authors of music or photographs or movies shouldn't receive the exclusive right to their writings. Do you agree that there is very little reason for someone to invest time, money, and personal labor into producing intellectual property of any sort if he doesn't have the legal and practical ability to sell that property once he creates it? Do we really need to have a discussion of why property rights are fundamental to advancing the production of valuable property?
I'm pretty sure the end of big-budget Hollywood movies would not lead to the downfall of western civilization. Plenty of people see movies at the theaters without being compelled to go, just as plenty of people buy DVDs even though they are available for free on the internet. Strong copyright laws are not a requirement for someone to sell their IP.
I'd also like to repeat that plenty of people including me buy music, movies, and TV (and books for that matter) which they could have (or did originally) get for free.
I do not share your firm belief that copying intangible IP without permission represents theft, or that intangible IP is the creator's exclusive property.
-
If I find a recipe online on how to make Oreos
--not just imitations, but OMG-these-are-real-honest-to-God-Oreos with the same creme filling and everything--, and then hand out my Oreos to my friends along with the recipe, would that be a comparable analogy?
-
I'd be extremely curious to know which participants on this thread have a vested interest in copyright law, and which participants do not. I've already stated that I do, so my views are not entirely objective.
I do.
Both for a patent or two pending, and works published.
I've threatened legal action on more than one occasion to keep my work out of venues that didn't request my permission for use.
Lucky for them, they ceased and desisted.
Reading some on here, I'd have to say if they had things their way, there'd be absolutely no incentive for hard-working people to create stuff like music, art, photos, movies, videos, blueprints, working papers, doctoral theses, dissertations, or any other form of Intellectual Property. Why should they, when they can be stolen by folks who feel entitled to blatantly steal them?
Grrrr... :mad:
-
What is the reason for considering information to be property?
It's logically inconceivable that any raw physical materials could ever belong to any person or company in particular, so the entire chain of production ending in finished physical products is tainted by unowned materials.
However, society adopts the fiction of ownership and private property as a means to enable markets. Whoever happens to be sitting on property that houses useful raw materials just got lucky. Ignoring that arbitrary initial allocation of raw materials, the rest works out pretty well: Markets do a reasonable job of allocating limited resources in an efficient manner, most of the time.
There are no limited resources involved in the production of IP. Whether someone produces IP or sleeps 24/7 makes no difference in terms of decreasing what's available to others. In fact, an IP producer increases the total amount of available IP resources available for everyone else.
Since there are no resource limitations involved, there is no need to create a legally-enforced market for IP. Since no market needs to be created, there's no reason to consider IP to be "property".
Therefore, I think that any rationale for protecting IP cannot rely on analogies to physical products or property.
-
"Useful arts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts) is one of those archaic terms that has specific meaning contrary to what you might think. Like "well regulated".
I am familiar with the meaning of "useful arts". That's why I think that the current crop of commercial artists fall under that umbrella. Brittney Spears and Metalica and the like are not pure artists pursuing an aesthetic. They do not produce fine art. They produce a commercial product in the pursuit of profit. They're the skilled tradesmen that create the entertainment products we all like to consume so much. They produce their products by the skill of their physical actions (skillfully manipulating their bodies to produce the desired music, as opposed to exercising their intellects).
If they were artists pursuing the art, then they wouldn't fight so hard to stifle internet redistribution, they'd welcome it. And they wouldn't need to involve the recording industry, or the accountants, lawyers, politicians, etc just to protect their financial interests.
I'm pretty sure the end of big-budget Hollywood movies would not lead to the downfall of western civilization. Plenty of people see movies at the theaters without being compelled to go, just as plenty of people buy DVDs even though they are available for free on the internet. Strong copyright laws are not a requirement for someone to sell their IP.
I'm pretty sure that if zahc stole you house and car it wouldn't lead to the downfall of western civilization. Does that mean we should let him do it?
Hypothetically speaking, if you knew it was likely that your house or car would be stolen, and that you'd have no recourse when it happened, you'd be a lot less likely to invest your time, efforts, and money into them, wouldn't you? You'd probably not invest anything into acquiring, maintaining, or improving them.
Why do you think that intellectual property is so different?
Some people do buy music and movies legally. That's no excuse for allowing other people to obtain them them illegally and immorally.
-
What is the reason for considering information to be property?
Because someone had to invest his own time and efforts to produce the information.
If the particular piece of information was universal, or obvious, or open to all without effort, then there's be no reason to treat it as property. But since information is produced by human labor and not just naturally occurring , then it by rights ought to belong to the person/people who produced it.It's logically inconceivable that any raw physical materials could ever belong to any person or company in particular, so the entire chain of production ending in finished physical products is tainted by unowned materials.
However, society adopts the fiction of ownership and private property as a means to enable markets. Whoever happens to be sitting on property that houses useful raw materials just got lucky. Ignoring that arbitrary initial allocation of raw materials, the rest works out pretty well: Markets do a reasonable job of allocating limited resources in an efficient manner, most of the time.
Hogwash. Natural resources don't obtain themselves and present themselves for our use all on their own. They have to be acquired by human efforts (for instance, metals and ores are obtained by the people who mine them). It is no fiction to say that the people who invest their time, money, and efforts into producing natural resources for use should be their owners. It's civilized wisdom, born of centuries of human experience and philosphy and societal development.
Look, do we really have to go back to the basic concepts of property rights for you all to understand how stealing property is wrong? I would like to think that everyone on a libertarian-leaning, critical thinking type gun board would understand that being deprived of our labors is fundamentally, morally, reprehensibly wrong. So long as our time span on this planet is finite, then denying anyone the fruits of their labor amounts to denying them some of their life. The very idea should be repugnant to anyone with a conscience.
-
What is the reason for considering information to be property?
It's logically inconceivable that any raw physical materials could ever belong to any person or company in particular, so the entire chain of production ending in finished physical products is tainted by unowned materials.
However, society adopts the fiction of ownership and private property as a means to enable markets. Whoever happens to be sitting on property that houses useful raw materials just got lucky. Ignoring that arbitrary initial allocation of raw materials, the rest works out pretty well: Markets do a reasonable job of allocating limited resources in an efficient manner, most of the time.
There are no limited resources involved in the production of IP. Whether someone produces IP or sleeps 24/7 makes no difference in terms of decreasing what's available to others. In fact, an IP producer increases the total amount of available IP resources available for everyone else.
Since there are no resource limitations involved, there is no need to create a legally-enforced market for IP. Since no market needs to be created, there's no reason to consider IP to be "property".
Therefore, I think that any rationale for protecting IP cannot rely on analogies to physical products or property.
The need for markets is not solely based on the need to allocate scarce resources. (I curse every economist who has tried to define economics in such a way).
Markets are necessary because they are the best means for regulating human action and interaction.
The most valuable thing someone can add to the market is capital. UNLIKE scarce resources, information is a non-zero sum game. If I have it, everyone else can have it too.
However, if I discover the means to prolong life for 200 years, why would I EVER share that knowledge?
I will point you to Adam Smith:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.
-
I agree. If someone had a new idea that they knew they could put in lots of hours outside of their normal job and turn it into something useful, do you really think they are going to want to do that just so someone like you can just steal their idea? If they are going to put in the time, they get to set the price. Your only decision is whether or not you want to pay that price or not. You don't get to decide whether or not you get to steal the idea or not.
The same holds true for a song or a poem or other intellectual work. The owner gets to decide the selling price and the conditions of sale. Your only choice is if you want to meet his demands or not. Take it or leave it. Stealing it because you don't like the price or conditions is not an option. If you do so, don't whine if you get sued because of it.
IMO, the same holds true for a merchant selling apples. If he is the only guy in town who has apples to sell, you don't get to tell him his price is too high. He sets the price and you only get to decide how bad you want an apple. If the market forcing him to drop his price, then it does. You don't get to steal an apple.
-
I find it terribly ironic that people who write code for a living deride IP. Saying "Our current IP/patent laws are a mess" != "IP is a fiction." I can only hope they invest hundreds of hours of their life into coding up a genius product, then have someone copy it and sell it before they have a chance to.
-
I'm talking to a brick wall.
First off, it's not "copywrite," it's "copyright," as in a right of ownership. I took the photo, I own the rights to it. I wrote the song, I own the rights.
Copyright infringement is the same as theft, no matter what "some" people here have said. Further, the amount of the settlement has nothing to do with her income. If she were in a civil suit because of a traffic accident, would the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff be dependent upon her income?
Well thanks for pointing out my glaring "copywrite" error, that was pretty bad but somehow you missed the entire paragraph that was directed at you as you seem to be one of the only people on the board who has actually had court experience with copyright infringement. Let me reiterate.
Before in your previous post you seemed to agree that damages awarded should be based on actual damages and not just the whims of the plaintiff.
The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Ok so if a small commercial entity uses your image without your permission, you can reap a couple hundreds of dollars, but if a large commercial entity uses your image you can reap into the tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages. So right there you support some form of proportional punishment. Yet if a private person, uploads 24 of your photos to a website where other users can illegally download them, they are causing you millions in damages? How did the RIAA come to that conclusion that she had caused them $80,000 in damages per song.
If she were in a civil suit because of a traffic accident, would the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff be dependent upon her income?
No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .
Please remember that she was convicted of only 24 copyright violations, the fact that she had 1,700 song on her computer does not bear any weight on the punitive damages as you can't be punished for what you havn't been convicted of. I hope everyone can at least agree upon this.
Like I stated before the article doesn't mention any evidence of her uploading any songs to any users. So unless anyone has evidence to the contirary please refrain from claiming she uploaded 1,700 songs 100 times to 1000 different users and she responcible for 170,000 illegal copies of music floating around on the net. For all we know she could have downloaded the 1,700 songs and disabled the ability to upload any songs from her machine, so that no copies could be obtained from her by other users. So basically I would like to know how the courts or the RIAA was able to claim 1.92 million in damages, was their any proof besides the fact that she had the songs on her computer.
I feel like this is very similar to "emotional damages" claims and those passangers suing (Delta?) the airline the operated the plane that crashed into the Hudson River. The passangers weren't directly injured but claimed they were "emotionally injured" much like how the RIAA is claiming they were damaged $80,000 per violation proven. Can't really prove it but you can sure as heck claim to be damaged that much.
Im not debating the stealing / not stealing / copyright infringement isn't really theft its a civil violation not a criminal/ I'm debating the rational of allowing an industry to fine people excessive amounts of money. If as a group we have no problem with a person being fined $80,000 per copyright infringement why don't we advocate that the fine for all speeding tickets $10,000. That would cut down on speeding, one of the major causes of death on our nations highways. As far as I know copyright infringement has never caused anyone's death, so wouldn't it make sence that an actual "crime" that puts peoples lives in danger everyday be fined more than another crime that could never actually cause physical harm to anybody.
-
No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .
not always there is often an award for suffering lost income etc
-
This is reminding me more & more of the "hacker crackdown"...
-
This is reminding me more & more of the "hacker crackdown"...
I'm not familiar with that.
-
Happened in the early 80s. Was a response to the "terrible activities" of some hackers: police had to "do something".
Managed to bust a load of people, mainly over a stolen "E911" document. When brought to trial, the government claimed extraordinary damages (thousands and thousands) against accused hackers, based on all the production costs of the document in question, as well as unspecified danger because the doc was about the E911 system...
Turns out, the doc in question (when the jury was finally allowed to view it) was nothing more than administrivia about the system: "who reports problems to whom" kinda stuff. And far more damaging information was readily available to the public, from the phone company directly, for roughly $8 a pop...
Read Bruce Serling's "The Hacker Crackdown" for the whole story: you'll spend time shaking your head. I remember one of the sidelights of it: I was playing GURPs, and eagerly awaiting their Cyberpunk supplement. Turns out one of the accused worked for Steve Jackson Games: in the raid, the police took all the computers, and later made the (repeated) claim that the stuff they were writing up for Cyberpunk was too dangerous for the public (led to some REALLY wild rumors in the gaming community)...
-
Ok so if a small commercial entity uses your image without your permission, you can reap a couple hundreds of dollars, but if a large commercial entity uses your image you can reap into the tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages. So right there you support some form of proportional punishment. Yet if a private person, uploads 24 of your photos to a website where other users can illegally download them, they are causing you millions in damages? How did the RIAA come to that conclusion that she had caused them $80,000 in damages per song.
It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the entity that abuses the copyright, it has to do with the type of usage. In my example I cited an image that was illegally used for a flyer for a nightclub. Industry standards for locally-distributed print material with a run of under X number of copies would be a couple of hundred dollars. The standard for something like GQ, where the rights would be international print medium (and possibly internet) for one year, would be in the tens of thousands.
Since a number of people have made the "I bought it, so I own it" argument, I'll introduce another potential for endless debate, which is "works made for hire."
A "work made for hire" is one in which the person creating the intellectual property does so under the direction of a person or entity considered to be an employer by virtue of the method of payment and other factors. In such cases, it is the "employer" who owns the rights to the work, and not the creator. Anyone here who has something they've created for their employer patented or copyrighted knows what I'm talking about.
I frequently had clients say that, because they were paying for the creation of the photograph, they owned the rights. Some actually used the phrase "work for hire," or had it in the legalese on the purchase orders.
In the 1980's, a federal court ruled that anyone who has been considered to have made intellectual property that was a work made for hire is due all benefits afforded other employees of the company claiming ownership of the intellectual property. Benefits included paid vacations, sick days, 401K plans, and anything else the company gave its employees.
So, when a client raised the "work for hire" argument, I would explain the court decisions, and then start asking about how much vacation I would get, how many paid sick days, what sort of health insurance they had, etc. That shut them up pretty quickly.
So, before you make the argument that you bought the CD and own the rights, ask yourself if you really want to pay for the health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits for Metallica. ;)
-
I find it terribly ironic that people who write code for a living deride IP. Saying "Our current IP/patent laws are a mess" != "IP is a fiction." I can only hope they invest hundreds of hours of their life into coding up a genius product, then have someone copy it and sell it before they have a chance to.
+1. I'm impressed at the lengths people go to to rationalize theft.
"I can't afford it, so I have a right to steal it."
"They're asking too much money, so I have a right to steal it."
"Their business model is archaic, so I have a right to steal their product."
"They should just be using their product for advertising, so I have a right to steal it."
To those saying music should just be an advertisement for concerts: Why not sneak into the concert without paying, too? Seriously, how is that any different. You're not stealing a tangible product, therefore it couldn't possibly be wrong.
-
No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .
not always there is often an award for suffering lost income etc
True but lost income can be accuratly tracked. As how many days you missed work due to the crash, hospital time, court time, and court fees. Suffering has to be proven to some extent, such as a doctor testifing your actually injured and in pain, you can't just claim to be hurting. You need some evidence.
I'd also like to add that the mechanic is independent from the plantiff. Seems like the RIAA can just assess their own damages.
-
>I'd also like to add that the mechanic is independent from the plantiff. Seems like the RIAA can just assess their own damages. <
This was another twist that, IIRC, was brought up by the EFF in the hacker trial: that the government, as plaintiff, was also the expert assessing how much the damages were...
-
I have been trying really hard not to stir the pot up on this one, then I noticed a few things. I am assuming that, aside from avatars that are obviously personal photographs, many of the pro-RIAA members are violating copyright laws as the RIAA views them.
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works. If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement? What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars? Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.
To continue further, using RIAA logic, this would place damages at $150,000 per infraction. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3) for explanation, I realize I am being a tad facetious.
Also many here seem to try to cloud the issue with statements along the lines "think of the artists." The RIAA owns the copyright on music, not the bands. Once a band signs to a label, they sign over the copyright material for 35 years. The RIAA tried to use the "work for hire" clause to keep the copyright material from the artists indefinitely. This was ultimately shot down by the courts for the reasons previously mentioned.
Furthermore, the RIAA is a collaboration of label companies, and makes up around 90% of the music market share. The group has in the past removed CD's from shelves (thereby making the internet the only available source), and purposely inflated the price of a CD.
While these actions may be legal, it does not make them moral. The original artists generally do not see much, if any, revenue from album sales. Merchandise and concerts are their main source of income. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, no artist has received any of the damages the RIAA has recovered from these private suits. The RIAA has attempted to prevent independent bands from emerging, by suing equipment manufacturers. They even attempted to block the first portable MP3 players. Basically we are applying free market principles, when no free market exists.
The argument that people will buy what they like even if it is available for free downloading holds water as given by empirical evidence in a Harvard/NC study, located here (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf). Granted this report is old, and therefore the effects of Napster reemergence and iTunes/iPods will naturally be excluded.
If I am in complete misunderstanding of this system, please feel free to correct me. Also I pointed to individual's avatars, not as a means of embarrassment or as a form or derision. My objective is for individuals to take a different view of the subject at hand.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the entity that abuses the copyright, it has to do with the type of usage. In my example I cited an image that was illegally used for a flyer for a nightclub. Industry standards for locally-distributed print material with a run of under X number of copies would be a couple of hundred dollars. The standard for something like GQ, where the rights would be international print medium (and possibly internet) for one year, would be in the tens of thousands.
But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.
I'm impressed at the lengths people go to to rationalize theft.
I'm impressed at the lengths people go to rationalize that it is theft.
-
But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.
It wasn't the flyer that was used, it was a photograph that was used in a flyer.
-
It wasn't the flyer that was used, it was a photograph that was used in a flyer.
Same thing. Doesn't change my example, just replace flyer with photograph then.
-
But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.
I'm impressed at the lengths people go to rationalize that it is theft.
You didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with sneaking into a concert? There's no material harm, you weren't ever going to pay money to see the concert, so they're not "losing" money, it's standing room only so you didn't take someone else's seat. Do you have any moral qualms with that? If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?
-
But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.
You mean kind of like when someone takes a piece of music, makes a digital copy and then distributes it to other people, they are basically claiming they are the ones with the rights to distribute it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then copied that book and put his own name on it as the author and sold it.
-
If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?
But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?
Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.
-
But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?
Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.
It's ok to stand at the fence and listen. It's also ok to listen to your friends music when he's playing it (or, heck if you borrow it or he gives it to you).
That's a far cry from sneaking into a venue for an experience you didn't pay for . But I'm sure listening from the fence is the same as being in the theatre/stadium.
-
But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?
Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.
In the case of a concert, the charge is not for overhearing the music from outside the fence, the charge is for listening to it inside the venue. If the artist wanted to charge for overhearing it they could rent out all the space around the venue and charge, they don't.
But how is sneaking into a venue for an experience you didn't pay for any different than sneaking a download to experience a song that wasn't paid for? In either case there is no material "harm," by the logic being thrown around here. So how is it any different?
-
You didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with sneaking into a concert? There's no material harm, you weren't ever going to pay money to see the concert, so they're not "losing" money, it's standing room only so you didn't take someone else's seat. Do you have any moral qualms with that? If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?
Well they aren't being harmed from it. But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.
You mean kind of like when someone takes a piece of music, makes a digital copy and then distributes it to other people, they are basically claiming they are the ones with the rights to distribute it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then copied that book and put his own name on it as the author and sold it.
That is not the same at all. In my example they are actually committing fraud in that they are saying that THEY CREATED the book/picture/song, and then making money off of it.
-
But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.
So you'd prefer to pay, but you don't see anything morally wrong with sneaking in?
-
No, there is no harm being done.
-
No, there is no harm being done.
So trespassing is only a crime if the property owner can prove you harmed their property in some way?
-
Well they aren't being harmed from it. But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.
That is not the same at all. In my example they are actually committing fraud in that they are saying that THEY CREATED the book/picture/song, and then making money off of it.
How is it not the same? DISTRIBUTING flyers with someone else's image on it is not claiming they own it anymore than DISTRIBUTING a peice of music is claiming that you own that peice of music.
How are people distributing flyers claiming they own the work if someone distributing music is not claiming they own the work?
-
Hmmm... seems y'all are so intent on arguing with each-other, you're missing other posts. Namely, alex_trebek's. Let me quote the important part:
Also many here seem to try to cloud the issue with statements along the lines "think of the artists." The RIAA owns the copyright on music, not the bands. Once a band signs to a label, they sign over the copyright material for 35 years. The RIAA tried to use the "work for hire" clause to keep the copyright material from the artists indefinitely. This was ultimately shot down by the courts for the reasons previously mentioned.
Furthermore, the RIAA is a collaboration of label companies, and makes up around 90% of the music market share. The group has in the past removed CD's from shelves (thereby making the internet the only available source), and purposely inflated the price of a CD.
-
What does the fact that the artists contracted with an organization have to do with intellectual property rights?
Either the artists have the rights of property or they don't. If the do, they also have the rights to form contracts around those rights.
Or, is your argument simply that RIAA is a big evil cartel that must be destroyed and so ignoring their rights is ok?
(Incidentally, claiming RIAA is a monopoly or takes monopolistic actions has NOTHING to do with whether they have intellectual property rights. Argue to break up the monopoly, don't argue that it's ok to steal from them).
-
Hmmm... seems y'all are so intent on arguing with each-other, you're missing other posts. Namely, alex_trebek's. Let me quote the important part:
Speaking of which, I thought this was an interesting (and valid) part:
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works. If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement? What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars? Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.
-
Speaking of which, I thought this was an interesting (and valid) part:
Quote
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works. If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement? What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars? Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.
As did I. I honestly had just never thought about my avatar. On thinking, I realized Mr. Trebek is correct and have changed my avatar to something on which I own the copyright.
-
IMO, the same holds true for a merchant selling apples. If he is the only guy in town who has apples to sell, you don't get to tell him his price is too high. He sets the price and you only get to decide how bad you want an apple. If the market forcing him to drop his price, then it does. You don't get to steal an apple.
Man, I am really glad no one owns all the water or land. We would be screwed.
"Only when the last tree has died. and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realize we cannot eat money."
So trespassing is only a crime if the property owner can prove you harmed their property in some way?
So is this about trespassing or about seeing a free show? What if your not trespassing into the building? And what sort of trespassing?
DISTRIBUTING flyers with someone else's image on it is not claiming they own it
It creates the assumption that they are either creator or have been given permission to use that image. Although its not like every time someone looks at one they actually put that much thought into the ownership of the picture, but I think you know what I mean.
As did I. I honestly had just never thought about my avatar. On thinking, I realized Mr. Trebek is correct and have changed my avatar to something on which I own the copyright.
Seriously?
-
Seriously?
If I'm to be consistent in my position that it is stealing, and that stealing is wrong, then it of course follows that I should stop using someone else's IP as my avatar without permission.
Or is it more admirable to preach one thing and practice another?
-
I only pointed that out to demonstrate that a) you're doing absolutely no harm to the artist by "stealing" their music, and b) you're talking about harming a group that has tried to screw over the originators of the IP every chance they get.
-
Or is it more admirable to preach one thing and practice another?
No actually. I think that that is very admiral. I just find it odd that you would actually go that far.
-
It creates the assumption that they are either creator or have been given permission to use that image. Although its not like every time someone looks at one they actually put that much thought into the ownership of the picture, but I think you know what I mean.
And since you studiously ignored my question, I will ask again:
IF what you say is true about the distributer of a flyer, specifially that they are either the creator or have been given permission to use that image, how is that not also true about someone who is distributing music?
-
OK, the apple parallel makes me think of old 19th century Western ranching laws.
A lot of times, if you bought cattle or horses, you didn't get the right to breed your animals to produce more. That cost extra, for some reason.
That always struck me as terribly unjust. I don't know the appeal or legislative history of that particular bit of nonsense, but I believe it was a component of a private contract in most livestock sales. I'm sure it got contested, appealed and some case law affixed to it at some point.
Any lawyers here have any insight into that aspect?
Breeding new livestock has very similar parallels to the IP concerns here: It impacts future sales for the same goods for the seller, while it restricts freedom of use of purchased property for the buyer. The actual act of breeding livestock by the buyer causes no harm to the seller other than potential loss of ethereal anticipated revenue.
-
OK, the apple parallel makes me think of old 19th century Western ranching laws.
A lot of times, if you bought cattle or horses, you didn't get the right to breed your animals to produce more. That cost extra, for some reason.
That always struck me as terribly unjust. I don't know the appeal or legislative history of that particular bit of nonsense, but I believe it was a component of a private contract in most livestock sales. I'm sure it got contested, appealed and some case law affixed to it at some point.
Any lawyers here have any insight into that aspect?
Breeding new livestock has very similar parallels to the IP concerns here: It impacts future sales for the same goods for the seller, while it restricts freedom of use of purchased property for the buyer. The actual act of breeding livestock by the buyer causes no harm to the seller other than potential loss of ethereal anticipated revenue.
Unless of course, these were specifically bred animals. At that point, the work gone into breeding these animals for specific traits are what you are paying for.
I would guess that you get a discount if you have no desire to breed the animals, but if you do wish to breed them, you pay a higher price because you will be getting more benefit from the selective breeding used to create those animals in the first place.
-
how is that not also true about someone who is distributing music?
How could that possibly be true? In the flyer example it is true for the reason I already gave, but when people distribute music they aren't doing it for money, nor is there any attempt to make people think that they are the original creator of the song. There is just no reason to believe that they would be. Why is this even being asked?
Unless of course, these were specifically bred animals. At that point, the work gone into breeding these animals for specific traits are what you are paying for.
I would guess that you get a discount if you have no desire to breed the animals, but if you do wish to breed them, you pay a higher price because you will be getting more benefit from the selective breeding used to create those animals in the first place.
So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.
-
So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.
'greed' is the only reason we have anything beyond rocks and sticks and grass huts.
IOW, the entire motivation anyone has to create anything beyond basic substance is profit potential.
-
How could that possibly be true? In the flyer example it is true for the reason I already gave, but when people distribute music they aren't doing it for money, nor is there any attempt to make people think that they are the original creator of the song. There is just no reason to believe that they would be. Why is this even being asked?
So, by your example, then, it would be ok for me to steal an image, just so long as I make it clear as I am handing out the flyer that I didn't take the picture and don't own the rights to it?
Because, as long as people know I'm not the author, it's ok for me to use it for my own benefit.
-
So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.
No, actually, there's a higher price because you are asking for a different product.
Just like, if I bought a Ford F-150 that was the absolute basic and then started screaming because I had to pay more to get one with a towing package, an extended cab, MP3 player and sunroof.
After all, it's only greed that makes that price higher, right?
-
'greed' is the only reason we have anything beyond rocks and sticks and grass huts.
IOW, the entire motivation anyone has to create anything beyond basic substance is profit potential.
No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.
So, by your example, then, it would be ok for me to steal an image, just so long as I make it clear as I am handing out the flyer that I didn't take the picture and don't own the rights to it?
Because, as long as people know I'm not the author, it's ok for me to use it for my own benefit.
Your still making money off of it.
No, actually, there's a higher price because you are asking for a different product.
No, it is the same animal. You are just using it for a different purpose.
Just like, if I bought a Ford F-150 that was the absolute basic and then started screaming because I had to pay more to get one with a towing package, an extended cab, MP3 player and sunroof.
This would make it a different product because it comes with more things, so you pay extra for those.
-
No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.
That's true. Your society is going to be stuck at bare subsitence, though.
Your still making money off of it.
Are you purposely obtuse?
If I am deriving benefit from something I didn't pay for why does it matter if it is MONETARY benefit?
No, it is the same animal. You are just using it for a different purpose.
Not if I castrate it, it's not.
This would make it a different product because it comes with more things, so you pay extra for those.
Kind of like an animal that does something more....
-
No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.
Sure, there's the open source movement, and people donate time to charities on a regular basis... But all the major advances of the last 200 years?
Profit potential.
People are greedy. Our system is designed to allow them to be greedy and profit off their creations, in exchange for eventually releasing it into the public domain, thus advancing society. I think it's a good argument, but it really applies to patents more so then copyrights, IMO.
-
Guys, might as well give it up. FAZ is going to follow the communist line no matter how much fact and historic precedent you present. The Utopian Dream will be beaten out of him soon enough. Let him live it while he can.
Brad
-
i was like that once then i started working for a living and went from as my brother called it "from fighting the man to being the man"
-
Kind of like an animal that does something more....
The animal doesn't do more. It does the exact same thing. You are just using it for different reasons. Unless it is castrated, but then you would treat that the same as any other animal that has been castrated.
Sure, there's the open source movement, and people donate time to charities on a regular basis... But all the major advances of the last 200 years?
Profit potential.
So do people find cures for diseases for profit or for the greater good of mankind?
People are greedy.
People are greedy because our current society makes them that way.
That's true. Your society is going to be stuck at bare subsitence, though.
Nope.
Are you purposely obtuse?
Nope, just like I know your not. We just come from 2 different beliefs on how things should be.
If I am deriving benefit from something I didn't pay for why does it matter if it is MONETARY benefit?
Because I believe it to be immoral? And yes, I realize that you believe downloading copies of music that you didn't pay for is immoral! But I believe that it is immoral because of the purpose it is being used for. Those are two different benefits.
Guys, might as well give it up. FAZ is going to follow the communist line no matter how much fact and historic precedent you present.
Interesting note, not all communists/socialists/anarchists believe that file sharing is ok. Fact and historic precedent? What?
i was like that once then i started working for a living and went from as my brother called it "from fighting the man to being the man"
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't work for a living!?
-
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works. If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement? What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars? Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.
To continue further, using RIAA logic, this would place damages at $150,000 per infraction. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3) for explanation, I realize I am being a tad facetious.
It's a bit of a legal gray area. The use of copyrighted works as avatars may fall under the fair use exemption, but since the law is vague and there hasn't been a court ruling on the issue, you can't really say either way. There's a decent case to be made for fair use as avatars are personal use, likely transformative (see: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation on how thumbnails of an image are transformative), most often make up a small percentage of the copyrighted work, and have little to no effect on the market for the copyrighted work.
It's an issue that will likely never be settled since the odds of a copyrighted avatar case making it to court is rather low.
While these actions may be legal, it does not make them moral. The original artists generally do not see much, if any, revenue from album sales. Merchandise and concerts are their main source of income. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, no artist has received any of the damages the RIAA has recovered from these private suits. The RIAA has attempted to prevent independent bands from emerging, by suing equipment manufacturers. They even attempted to block the first portable MP3 players. Basically we are applying free market principles, when no free market exists.
Whether or not artists make any money off of music sales is immaterial. They still sign up with RIAA affiliates in spite of that since the RIAA's marketing machine represents their best shot for moving out of obscurity and into a comfortable lifestyle. Without the RIAA's marketing machine, they wouldn't be making nearly as much money at their concerts or through merchandise sales either.
It's one of the unfortunate facts of the music industry. The intrinsic commercial value of good music pales in comparison to the commercial value added by the RIAA's promotional skills.
-
Strings, I don't see how that changes things at all. The company bought the rights to the music from the musicians, just as Michael Jackson had, at least at one time, owned the right to all or nearly all of the Beatles' music.
The company is still the owner of the music, and the company dictates their terms for use of their property. You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.
How is this different than hacking into pay-per-view movies on cable? Is that okay?
Brad Johnson, I don't know that I'd call the view "communist." There are thieves in capitalist societies, too, as is being amply demonstrated.
-
Fact and historic precedent? What?
The miserable failure of all communist regimes. But wait, I forgot; those weren't real communists! Just ask the guys at RevLeft.... :rolleyes:
Strings, I don't see how that changes things at all. The company bought the rights to the music from the musicians, just as Michael Jackson had, at least at one time, owned the right to all or nearly all of the Beatles' music.
The company is still the owner of the music, and the company dictates their terms for use of their property. You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.
How is this different than hacking into pay-per-view movies on cable? Is that okay?
Brad Johnson, I don't know that I'd call the view "communist." There are thieves in capitalist societies, too, as is being amply demonstrated.
Freak is an avowed anarchist/communist. :rolleyes:
-
It's a bit of a legal gray area. The use of copyrighted works as avatars may fall under the fair use exemption, but since the law is vague and there hasn't been a court ruling on the issue, you can't really say either way.
If it was ruled to fall under fair use, would it be moral to use it as your avatar? Why or why not.
The miserable failure of all communist regimes. But wait, I forgot; those weren't real communists! Just ask the guys at RevLeft.... ;/
Umm... They weren't, but don't let things like facts get in the way of demonizing communists. But this line of conversation doesn't really have anything to do with the point of this thread.
Freak is an avowed anarchist/communist. ;/
Yes, yes I am. ;/ ;/ ;/ ;/
You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.
Yes, follow the rules like good robots.
-
Umm... They weren't, but don't let things like facts get in the way of demonizing communists. But this line of conversation doesn't really have anything to do with the point of this thread.
Every time a communist .gov has been established it's been a bloody oppressive tyranny. You'd think eventually you'd get the idea that maybe communism ain't such a great idea, instead of trying to justify it and explain it away.
-
Thread drift!
-
Yes, follow the rules like good robots.
'Cause following rules makes you a mindless robot. I notice you observed the conventions of spelling and grammar. You're a robot. Or, yur a row-bott. or weh qe qt4t4 wklwi gdsyt
-
Every time a communist .gov has been established it's been a bloody oppressive tyranny. You'd think eventually you'd get the idea that maybe communism ain't such a great idea, instead of trying to justify it and explain it away.
No, it was established by the pilgrims. Rather than turn it into a bloody oppressive tyranny where no one had enough food, they scrapped it for property rights.
But, it is another of humanity's innate flaws to fail to learn from the mistakes of others. It's called "pride". (Yeah, they screwed it up, but I'm better than them!)
-
I would note the society of pilgrims was quite oppressive even post-property rights introduction.
-
'Cause following rules makes you a mindless robot. I notice you observed the conventions of spelling and grammar. You're a robot. Or, yur a row-bott. or weh qe qt4t4 wklwi gdsyt
I mean following the rules simply because they are the rules, even if they violate our human rights. I guess this could of been my response instead of the rules thing, Well should Americas founding fathers simply followed the rules?
-
I would note the society of pilgrims was quite oppressive even post-property rights introduction.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
Weren't people often evicted from the community from following the wrong religion (and especially evil, eeeevil Catholicism)?
-
Weren't people often evicted from the community from following the wrong religion (and especially evil, eeeevil Catholicism)?
Certainly. They had a right to choose with whom to freely associate.
Note they didn't force him to give up his religion, they simply said you can't live here without following our rules.
I have no problem with such federalism.
-
Wouldn't evicting them from the community mean certain death?
-
So, you buy a house. You live in the house. Then you decide you want to become a Catholic. Your neighbors have the moral right, in your view, to tell you to GTFO of the community, because you worship Jesus in a different way from them?
-
Interesting note, not all communists/socialists/anarchists believe that file sharing is ok. Fact and historic precedent? What?
Said nothing about socialists or anarchists. I said communist. Someone who believes in the utopian society - one where everyone has an equal share and not only works for, but is devoutly dedicated to, the common good. Ain't gonna happen as long as humans are involved. It's that pesky thing called human nature which includes, much to the utopians' dismay, a drive to succeed.
I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.
Yes, they do. That is their choice. Your assertion is that the "rich" should be forced to agree with the unreimbursed use of their intellectual property for no other reason than they have more than you. In other words you are choosing to spread the wealth, their wealth, based on your particular definition of "fair".
Brad
-
Said nothing about socialists or anarchists. I said communist. Someone who believes in the utopian society - one where everyone has an equal share and not only works for, but is devoutly dedicated to, the common good. Ain't gonna happen as long as humans are involved. It's that pesky thing called human nature which includes, much to the utopians' dismay, a drive to succeed.
Umm yeah. Someone who believes in the utopian society - one where everyone has an equal share and not only works for, but is devoutly dedicated to, the common good. = socialists/anarchists/communists So while you did say communist, I put all three because those are often used interchangeably by people.
That is their choice. Your assertion is that the "rich" should be forced to agree with the unreimbursed use of their intellectual property for no other reason than they have more than you.
Umm, no. I actual believe that all intellectual property should be free, has nothing to do with someone having more than me.
-
Umm, no. I actual believe that all intellectual property should be free, has nothing to do with someone having more than me.
And how, pray tell, will you get get people to develop all this free intellectual property? I don't know many folks who work for free.
Umm yeah. Someone who believes in the utopian society - one where everyone has an equal share and not only works for, but is devoutly dedicated to, the common good. = socialists/anarchists/communists So while you did say communist, I put all three because those are often used interchangeably by people.
Interchangeabley? Yes. Correctly? No.
Communist = Everyone has equal ownership, an equal say in governance, and shares equally in the bounty.
Socialist = The government owns everything. It will provide care, services, and products in whatever way it thinks is "equal".
Anarchist = No government at all. Survival of the fittest in its most brutal form.
Your proposals and assertions run along the lines of classic societal utopianism. In that sense societal utopianism is communism sans ownership - private, public, or otherwise.
Brad
-
Communist = Everyone has equal ownership, an equal say in governance, and shares equally in the bounty.
Socialist = The government owns everything. It will provide care, services, and products in whatever way it thinks is "equal".
Anarchist = No government at all. Survival of the fittest in its most brutal form.
lolz no. :lol:
I don't know many folks who work for free.
That is because of how our current society is set up.
-
lolz no. :lol:
Brush up on your civics before you put your foot any further in your mouth.
Brad
-
Your persistent obstinacy, refusal to consider the actual meaning of words (as opposed to your "corrected for ideology" versions), and obvious glaring lack of knowledge about the most basic facets of human nature make any attempt at debate with you a less than fulfilling prospect freak.
-
You need to brush up on your civics before you put your foot any further in your mouth.
You need to learn what we actually believe before you badmouth us.
-
You need to learn what we actually believe before you badmouth us.
Hardly. I made an objective observation, stating the modes of governance in their classic sense. If you think that's badmounthing then you have a few harsh, brutal, and unrelenting life lessons yet to learn.
Brad
-
I mean following the rules simply because they are the rules, even if they violate our human rights.
Wow! First we discovered a right to free health care and free houses. Now we have a right to free music? Is this a great country or what?
Umm, no. I actual believe that all intellectual property should be free, has nothing to do with someone having more than me.
So, I should have gone to school, then interned for years as a photographer's assistant, then went out on my own and bought $80,000 worth of equipment and furnishings, paid $50,000 a year on rent and utilities for a studio...to give away my work for free?
Screw communism and the horse it rode in on.
The first time a former photography instructor brought a class down to my studio to show them the "real" world, I asked them why they wanted to be professional photographers. When I got the usual, "I want to take pretty pictures" response, I told them, "no. If you want to do that, do it on the weekends. If you want to eat, you'll be a photographer to make money."
-
Whatever you may think of Dan Abnett's work, I love that when asked why he writes, his response is always "For the money."
-
Wow! First we discovered a right to free health care and free houses. Now we have a right to free music? Is this a great country or what?
Wow! The first we discovered the right to free speech. Now we have a right to keep and to bear arms? Is this a great country or what? I really don't see your point.
So, I should have gone to school, then interned for years as a photographer's assistant, then went out on my own and bought $80,000 worth of equipment and furnishings, paid $50,000 a year on rent and utilities for a studio...to give away my work for free?
All these prices are based on the prices set by how society is set up currently.
Hardly. I made an objective observation, stating the modes of governance in their classic sense. If you think that's badmounthing then you have a few harsh, brutal, and unrelenting life lessons yet to learn.
None of it was based on fact.
-
Words have meanings, and they aren't "whatever me and my buddies on revleft decide." Deal with it.
-
Every time a communist .gov has been established it's been a bloody oppressive tyranny. You'd think eventually you'd get the idea that maybe communism ain't such a great idea, instead of trying to justify it and explain it away.
STATIST!!!
it will be different when THEY do it right. hmmm where have we heard that before
-
What does the fact that the artists contracted with an organization have to do with intellectual property rights?
Either the artists have the rights of property or they don't. If the do, they also have the rights to form contracts around those rights.
Or, is your argument simply that RIAA is a big evil cartel that must be destroyed and so ignoring their rights is ok?
(Incidentally, claiming RIAA is a monopoly or takes monopolistic actions has NOTHING to do with whether they have intellectual property rights. Argue to break up the monopoly, don't argue that it's ok to steal from them).
My argument was two fold. Others played the "you are robbing from a poor artists trying to be successful" card. No one called them on it, so I played the "evil monopoly" card. The other point I am trying to make is lawful =/= moral argument. Few people here are arguing this woman broke the law, rather the morality of the law. First I need to clarify what I mean:
My political beliefs are not insignificant from the majority here. I too have read "Atlas Shrugged" (and paid for the copy I might add), and have no problem with self interest. I purposely use the term self interest, because I believe "greed" is something more. Greed is the willingness to rob others to possess wealth. It is basically what many are accusing others here of being, "You don't want to pay for music like you should" type of talk. Then in another post you say it is perfectly acceptable for people to be greedy, and even go so far to say it is the only way man has evolved as a society. I see another interesting contradiction. To further follow the "greed is ok" argument, why should someone pay for music when they can be a cheapskate and get it for free?
I agree that self interest is perfectly natural. I didn't pursue a degree in Engineering so I can work for "Engineers without Borders." I did it to make money, and I enjoy it. This, however, does not make me greedy. I do not rob others for my wealth (this downloading issue aside).
I actually have no problem with monopolies in general. The problem I have with the RIAA is not simply that they are a monopoly, it is a moral problem. I am sure that most of what they do is legal, they have enough money to buy enough lawmakers to make it legal. This is where I have a problem.
The RIAA was created to establish a standard for record (vinyl) production. From my understanding, this means Label X & Y's records will both play on a standard player manufactured by Company Z. This applies to tapes, CD, etc. The problem is, their function is becoming increasing irrelevant. As people move to all digital, the RIAA's original function is no longer applicable. There are several free program available to convert between the scores of music file types (the most popular being MP3 and WAV). A industry standard is not needed so long as all songs can be converted.
So instead of allowing competition to enter the free market, or changing their business practices, the RIAA tried to block as much change as they could. This is where I have a problem. Monopolies that grow too big to compete in a changing market should adapt or die. Instead, the RIAA seems content to sue people, and buy politicians to change the law. Sure, they started with other companies that had deeper pockets. Since the other companies had the capital to defend themselves, they decided to do a shot gun pattern into people who couldn't. To be generous they would charge a mere few thousand dollars per settlement. Now they have a website where you can pay with a credit card, this way they don't have to pay lawyer fees.
Furthermore, they purposely set their prices to be whatever they wanted. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not price fixing? If it is, it is illegal. Generally speaking in America, you can't go to court with your hands dirty. If the RIAA is conducting illegal business, they have no legal argument against someone else.
Just because downloading their music is not legal, does not make it immoral. Historically there are several laws that have been ruled immoral/illegal in the future. The question is whether IP laws as applied to music are moral or not. Personally, I only give credit to the artist who wrote the song. Once upon a time, there was a huge capital investment in marketing music. Now MTV doesnt even play music videos. I would argue that the services the RIAA offers are obsolete for the following reasons:
No music videos on MTV, VH1.
Radio stations are content to all play the same tire crap over and over.
The internet has proven itself to be a better advertisment for musicians.
The other point I was making was as follows. Given the ambiguous nature of IP laws, I think it is fair to say we have almost all violated one or two at some point in time. I used several avatars as an example, simply because it was the most obvious one. So before everyone cheers the punishment of the woman in the OP, we need to look at ourselves. If we let the owners of the avatars some people used (and may have violated IP laws) some of you guys could end up facing a multi-thousand dollar lawsuit. Also, what if you guys had to pay $80,000 for everytime you sang "Happy Birthday" to your children? The ambiguous nature of these laws will only lead to more arbitrary punishment. The RIAA has no interest in making a fair law, and has/is actively trying to make the law as strict and vague as possible. More importantly, the RIAA has no BUSINESS making any law.
Remember, when there are enough laws, everyone is a criminal. Also if accusers are allowed to determine value of their damages, we end up with 1.65 trillion dollar lawsuits (see the link in my original post). Also if you would read the other link in my original post, there is at least one study that determined the effect of music downloads to be statistically irrelevant to music sales. This is not an argument to moralize, simply an argument that the punishment does not fit the crime in the OP.
As I said before, if I am way off base here, please correct me. This is just how I see the issue. Maybe I am blinded by my own greed, and possibly even self-righteousness (something I have never been accused of, to my face at least)
I will freely admit that I do emphasize with the artists on this issue, I know the people who produced the music deserve a cut as well. The funny thing is, I dont really download music. Most of my collection came from making backups of several friends music on an external HD. I know it is just as bad, just saying..
-
Okay time to put a bullet in this one. Poor horse.