I've been unplugged for a while, and it seems the entire Internet's changed on me since then. WinMX is closed, Kazaa Lite's nigh undownloadable, BitTorrent's not safe -- what's a safe, plentiful client to use? Through my own investigation I've found Limewire, which seems the only one sans spyware and permits searching for bitrates (eDonkey doesn't, and I prefer 320 kbps quality) -- any alternatives?
Also, and this is relevant since I'm again disastrously behind the Internet times, what's a decent cloaking program? I hear good things about Tor -- any others? Or what?
I won't be using filesharing for much, but I'd like the illusion of safety on the (less rare than I'd like) occasions I feel a sudden desire for N'Sync.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I use limewire, it works well for me. I haven't used anything else in a while, so I have no other suggestions.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was using Limewire, but when I installed the new version it refused to ever close. So I ditched it, and I'm without anything for now. I was using Bearshare last summer, but it has all kinds of adware/spyware junk bundled with it.
I'm not sure what else is out there right now. I'll probably go back to limewire when I really need to hear some Billy Ocean.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I have a Post that might help you. There are emerging-in-popularity p2p file sharing programs that are private. Grouper is the one I use. It uses 128 bit decryption for downloading/uploading/chatting. These "private" programs work by creating groups. The only way someone can belong to your group is if you invite them.
You can belong to as many groups as you want, and you can create as many groups as you like. I only have one group. The only person invited to it (for now)is my brother. However, I belong to 2 other groups that I found by browsing the members list. There are a lot of groups that people want to make public--so they advertise for people to join them.
The concept of the "group" is based on having only a certain type of files in each group. If you join an anime group, then you would only share your anime files.
Grouper is cool because you can browse your computer and pick which drives, folders, or files you want to share with each group. I share all of my files with my brother, but I only share a select few files with the two other groups I belong to.
Because it is private and decrypted, it is near impossible to track what you are doing. I am wary of what I put in the 2 public groups I belong to, but I feel secure with my private group with my brother.
The downside with grouper is that you can only listen to other peoples MP3s, you can't download them. You can download wav files. I think you can download MP3s if they are zipped.
There is no spyware.
EDIT: A long time ago I used Ares. I liked it better then Kazaa. I just don't like the public file sharing programs anymore. Too is much spyware and you can't trust the content.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why is BitTorrent not safe?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have been using bittorrent for a long time now, without a problem...but I don't downlaod software, and I check the file listing before I download...
I also stay away from the large sites, at least most of the time, and I update my computers security often.
isohunt is a good place to find things, but once again it is large and not private.
sL: Someone found a way to exploit p2p bittorents and create malware that could be trasferred with it, but that problem is overrated, I think.
Then again, compared to most people I don't download a lot of "at risk" stuff, so that may be why I have not had a problem. Kwea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why is BitTorrent ethical?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'm personally a fan of DC++. From what I've seen and heard, it's typically used for intranetwork sharing, specifically college networks where downloading programs have been banned and thus don't work.
However, I'm not part of my school's network because I'm not living on campus so I just hop on a few public hubs every now and then. I recommend the UK ones because they speak English. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends on what you use it for, Tom.
As I said, I use it for things that are a lot more legal than somne people.
There are sites out there that advertise legal downloads using bittorrent, bands that are putting their own music out there...
Liz gave me a site where they use FLAC because of the better sound quality, and I have found some sites on my own. Those places are a lot more ethical, and safe, than a lot of uses for it, that's for sure.
How is taping movies ethical, or TV shows? Lots of things are questionable, but people do them.
My point is that while some, maybe even most, people use bittorent for illegal downlaods, not all of us do.
Kwea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That "maybe most" line is a bit disingenuous. But, yeah, I {i]also[/i] have BitTorrent, and use it for legal downloads; a lot of free software, for example, is now available exclusively through the format.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I generally use BitTorrent exclusively for TV shows I miss and feel like watching in High Quality, and not on crappy recorded VHS.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Why disingenuous? I said some, maybe even most....that means I acknowledge the fact that a lot, maybe even most people use it otherwise. At least some of the time.
Sounds to me like I was being completely honest there, not trying to hide a darn thing.
I think a lot of people use it however they want to...they wouldn't turn their nose up at something that was free AND legal. I use it for both at times, although I was more interested in how to do it than the actual programs....I learned so much about how to set up port forwarding and free up ports that people who helped me learn now email me questions they can't answer, and usually I can figure it out pretty quickly.
I use it for TV shows too, but not that often. Some things I have seen are pretty interesting, but I just don't have the time for it. Not here at Hatrack though. Most of the people here who taught me, or at least got me started on it, no longer post, unfortunatly.
It really is just like a VCR to me...I can live without it, but I love being able to access this stuff whatever the time is, any day of the week. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Sorry, Tom, did someone say BitTorrent (in the context of piracy) was ethical?
I have no illusions about the ethicality of it. I jutify it by pointing out the large number of bands it's exposed me to (and the subsequent hundreds I've spent on CDs from bands I wouldn't have otherwise heard of), but piracy's certainly immoral when used solely to copy music without the intent of later purchase.
By the way, you might know -- what is a good IP cloaking program? I'd like anonymity while downloading -- I'll already be in debt until death do me part from tuition, I'd like to stay faithful to academia-based bills.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Eddie, I don't know how often you check your school email or if you check it all, but I sent you an email. *just letting you know*
And so this post follows the topic of the thread, I use BitTorrent for movies and TV shows and Limewire for music (though I haven't downloaded anything in quite a while).
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I was taught sharing was good.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why is BitTorrent ethical?
Why isn't it? A couple of weeks ago, I decided I wanted to check out Linux. I found a distribution called Xandros that's supposed to be very Windows-friendly.
When I went to download it, one of the options was to download it via BitTorrent. Much better than a straight download.
Why are camcorders ethical? After all, many movies are pirated with camcorders.
Why are cars ethical? After all, some people drive them without a license. <grin>
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Why are cars ethical? After all, some people drive them without a license. <grin>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why is BitTorrent ethical?
Because illegal does not imply unethical, and because sharing is not stealing. Just because the music industry wants their copyright powers to go as far as possible doesn't mean they can can change ethics to make it so.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: I was taught sharing was good.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Tresopax, there are people who think that there is an ethical imperative to obey all laws. Except, of course, for those laws they personally consider unethical.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*tries to figure out if that was a joke*
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It was intended to be a little sarcastic. Sardonic, maybe.
Btw, Kwea, thanks for letting me know about the issues with BT. I'm going to look into that.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Soon, some copywrite holder will try to sue a consumer for singing along with the song, or singing the song when they aren't listening to it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
There used to be a lyrics server based in Switzerland. I think it was lyrics.ch. Anyway, all the site did was post lyrics of songs. Stuff that's out there anyway. No music notations or anything. It was for fans who loved the songs, and wanted to see exactly what the words were that they were hearing.
You'd think that'd be harmless. You'd think that'd even be a good thing for the artists.
So the guy who owned the server was in the shower, and he heard his door being busted down, and by the time he got out, the cops had taken his two computers.
I swear, between the Patriot Act and the insanity of the MPAA and RIAA, the whole idea of liberty is going to get flushed down the toilet.
I'm reading Mindscan, right now, by Robert Sawyer. As much as I enjoy the book, the way one of his characters wants to become immortal primarily so that she can retain copyright to her works forever is just sick. Sawyer needs to read the story "Melancholy Elephants", by Spider Robinson. So do the pharmaceutical companies, who abuse the patent system to get around ever letting things go into the public domain, and the MPAA and RIAA.
When I buy a car, I get to test drive it first. When I see a movie that looks like it might be interesting, I test watch it first. I have copies, bought and paid for, of numerous movies that I never would have spent money on had I not first seen them via downloading.
I do not see anything immoral about downloading. I am opposed to the very idea of "victimless crimes". I think that phrase is an oxymoron.
Our intellectual property law is deeply broken. Think about the way in which Marconi is credited with the invention of radio, and Bell with the invention of the telephone. Neither of them was first, but they both got credit for being first.
And people know about Tesla having invented radio only because he won a court case that ruled that way, while Elisha Grey lost his court case to Bell even though the device in Bell's patent application didn't even work.
Look, if I invent something with the sweat of my mind, and someone else does the same, we are both equally entitled, morally speaking, to bring our minds' product to fruition. The whole idea of patents stems from the habit of kings to grant special protections to those they favored. It has no inherent morality attached to it. The idea of intellectual property should mean that I have no right to claim someone else's work as my own. Not that ideas can somehow be owned by someone.
There's a guy who has gone out and trademarked common words, and sues companies that use those words for infringement. They often pay him money just to get him off their backs. A dozen people started using the term "Three-play" when the Bulls won their third championship. But one person managed to get it trademarked first, and from that point on, everyone else had to pay them royalties to use the term.
That's not property law. That's using the government to jockey for position over others. It's unjustifiable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't see the sarcasm of a statement that means absolutely nothing -- "there are people who do, except when they don't".
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
What exactly are cloaking programs, and where do you get 'em?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No doubt IP law is broken, but the lyrics case is a horrifically bad example of it (at least, ignoring that it should have been civil, rather than criminal, infringement).
Lyrics are clearly creative works. They are clearly valuable creative works. Control over who can distribute those creative works is clearly valuable. They fall soundly under copyright, and the distribution of lyrics from a whole cloth falls soundly under copyright infringement and isn't even remotely fair use.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I don't see the sarcasm of a statement that means absolutely nothing -- "there are people who do, except when they don't".
I'm talking about people who think others need to obey all laws, but make exceptions or the ones they don't want to obey.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
So from what you're saying, fugu, it would be 100% legitimate to sue someone for walking down the street singing a popular song, unless they'd paid for the right to do so.
Had the lyrics site been selling access to those lyrics, you might have a point.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Lisa, the site probably was. Most such lyrics sites are saturated with advertising.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Lalo, that's not the same thing. But as it happens, this site existed before Internet advertising went completely over the top.
There's a panhandler on the way to work who sings as he's standing out there. Someone should notify the RIAA, no?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Singing a song you heard on the radio in a non-performance situation falls soundly under fair use. Why should something only vaguely related to the example you used have the same outcome?
Your comparison is like saying because I can read a book aloud while walking down the street I should be able to put the text of the book online.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lalo, don't get me started.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd also like to point out that if you're going to be pirating music on your school's network, you might want to check on your school's policy on such things.
Your school will probably report you.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know of not a single case where pirating music has lead to a school reporting a student, and I keep up on that sort of thing.
I know of plenty of cases where schools have taken their own actions against students pirating music, or where the music industry has detected a student and asked the school to take action, but none where a school has alerted the music industry.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
sharing is caring
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, apparently here at Loyola Chicago, there are severe penalties for pirating, and they actually do monitor such things.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, severe penalties are more and more common, but that's not the same as your school reporting you to anyone.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Big Brother is watching...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
They have every right to monitor, rav. Schools get sued over these kinds of things.
And don't tell me they shouldn't be suing. It's piracy, for crying out loud. If you love downloading so much, use one of the legal, paid services.
-pH
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Oh, I didn't say they didn't.
I have my ways of hiding what I'm doing though.
(Not that I need to hide it but I like privacy)
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: and because sharing is not stealing
I don't understand how you can say this. If you download a song that you have not paid for that is stealing. You can listen to it whenever you like, burn it on a CD, put it on an mp3 player, etc. If you've downloaded it for free, there is no added advantage to buying it other than that you legally have it. When you get a product that should be paid for without paying for it, that's stealing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
So... it's okay for schools to monitor what's done on their computers. What do y'all think about schools that plug their computers in through that cute little device that blocks Fox News?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think I wish I could go to school to school there.
Schools block more than one channel, but I have yet to hear of them blocking that one.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Amanecer, Technically it isn't stealing.
Stealing is based on the deprivation of something from someone else. In this case it's not taking an item that could be sold if you hadn't taken it.
IP law is rather nested with things like this.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Amanecer, Technically it isn't stealing.
Stealing is based on the deprivation of something from someone else. In this case it's not taking an item that could be sold if you hadn't taken it.
IP law is rather nested with things like this.
Not true at all. If you go and make copies of the goevernments plans for a new sub, but don't take the original, it is still stealing.
Stealing isn't JUST taking something and depriving others of it, it is accessing things you have no right to have access to as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Amanecer, Technically it isn't stealing.
Stealing is based on the deprivation of something from someone else. In this case it's not taking an item that could be sold if you hadn't taken it.
IP law is rather nested with things like this.
Not true at all. If you go and make copies of the goevernments plans for a new sub, but don't take the original, it is still stealing.
Stealing isn't JUST taking something and depriving others of it, it is accessing things you have no right to have access to as well.
Let's please try and differentiate between illegal and immoral. When you talk about right and wrong, it's important that you make clear what context you're using for that.
For example, it is illegal in the city of Joliet, Illinois, to mispronounce "Joliet". But immoral? In Muncie, Indiana, it's illegal to bring fishing gear into a cemetary. Now, that sounds a little weird, but it doesn't strike me as even possibly immoral to bring a rod and reel into a graveyard.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
No it isn't stealing.
Stealing refers directly to material goods. If you take papers from somewhere copy them and return the papers, you stole the papers momentarily, but 'theft' isn't the charge.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Is it immoral to not share your knowledge with humanity?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
No, stealing is not just related to material goods. Copyright and trademark infringements are also forms of stealing. You have no right to somebody else's work. Selling that work is how they make their livelihood. By taking the work but not paying for it, you are stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood. This is both illegal and immoral.
I think you are agruing against this so much because it allows you to justify your actions.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Is it immoral to not share your knowledge with humanity?
You are free to share YOUR knowledge. You are not free to share the copyrighted works of another. That decision is up to them and for you to violate their desires is immoral.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Legally copyright and trademark infringement are nothing like theft. While there's some colloquial usage surrounding both issues, the use of the term theft generally serves little except to confuse the issue, because "small amounts of copyright infringement" are perfectly okay -- fair use determines exact conditions -- but "small amounts of theft" are never okay.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Alright, I'm willing to accept that I might not be using the right legal terminology. However, that does not affect the ethics of the issue.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Selling that work is how they make their livelihood. By taking the work but not paying for it, you are stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood.
Do you ever hear about news stories on Hatrack, or elsewhere, rather than in the printed sources those stories originally appear? If so, you are taking the work of those journalists (the news they report) and not paying for it - thus "stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood" by that same logic. Is that also immoral?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Do you ever hear about news stories on Hatrack, or elsewhere, rather than in the printed sources those stories originally appear? If so, you are taking the work of those journalists (the news they report) and not paying for it - thus "stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood" by that same logic. Is that also immoral?
I don't agree that the two are the same. On hatrack, people link to websites that have these articles. They are put up there to be read and every time I go to them, they make money from advertising. That is how they make their livelihood.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: No it isn't stealing.
Stealing refers directly to material goods. If you take papers from somewhere copy them and return the papers, you stole the papers momentarily, but 'theft' isn't the charge.
Actually, it is. You can be charged with stealing information from your competitors as well.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, thievery, thieving, stealing]
Notice it says noting about depriving anyone else of the use of it. Even if you return the goods or services so that it is availible for other theft has still occured.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
You've taken their right to control their own property and that is no small loss. You've also taken away the potential income they would have made had you legally purchased the material.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Yes. You have accessed something that wasn't yours, and stolen from them whatever advantage they could have gained from knowing it.
There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Yes. You have accessed something that wasn't yours, and stolen from them whatever advantage they could have gained from knowing it.
There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
We were discussing legal definitions, and can assure you that the only people who care less about your "redefinition" of stealing than me are those in law enforcment.
Why do I feel like I am discussing a speeding ticket again? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
I'm fairly certain YOU were the one who brought in a dictionary definition to try and redefine the terms, not me.
quote:You've taken their right to control their own property and that is no small loss. You've also taken away the potential income they would have made had you legally purchased the material.
1. I've only taken that right if they really had that right in the first place. Given that it has always been ethical for people to play their CDs for their friends (thus sharing the music), whether or not the original artist wants them to, it seems that that artist never really had the right to control the sharing of their music.
2. By reading this post, you have taken away the potential income I would have made had you paid me to read it. That fact does not mean you stole from me. It just means I should not expect you to pay me to read my posts once I put them on this forum, just as artists should expect their music to be shared once they release it to the public.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
There is such a thing as intellectual property theft.
When you buy a CD you're basically buying a limited license to songs on said disc. Typicaly through an unspoken contract, said license allows you to listen to the disc whenever you want and to play it wherever you want. Whoever has possesion of the disc has control of the license.
When you download music without buying the CD it's theft because you didn't buy the license. You can let your friends borrow or listen to a Cd you bought because it is still in your possesion. When a friend borrows a CD and makes a copy of it, it's like they duplicated a license except that they did so without paying the author for their work.
So, saying that it's ok to copy a CD just because it's ok to play it in public is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Lyrics are clearly creative works. They are clearly valuable creative works. Control over who can distribute those creative works is clearly valuable. They fall soundly under copyright, and the distribution of lyrics from a whole cloth falls soundly under copyright infringement and isn't even remotely fair use.
Bullshit. If you credit the lyrics writer then there is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing and if it falls under copyright infringement then copyright infringement is seriously f-ed up (which we already knew). Its like quoting from a text in a paper. Not even, since you don't see people selling books of just plain lyrics. Often the only place to find em is these lyrics sites, which are made by people just listening to the music and trying to figure out what the lyrics are.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did you happen to know that reproducing an excessive amount of someone's text in your paper can also be copyright infringement? Of course, excessive is quite a bit more than most people put in.
And you do see people selling books of plain lyrics. They're often called poems.
edit: oh, and you can certainly put good-sized chunks of lyrics up, its just the wholesale publication of lyrics that's an issue. That nobody's making these available otherwise isn't really an issue; if you wrote a book and decided not to publish it, but someone else surreptitiously copied it and started handing copies out to people, there'd be a big problem.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Firstly, if they want a contract, they should make people sign a contract before buying music. Then I'd be more sympathetic - although file sharing would then be violating a contract, not stealing. I bet fewer people would buy CDs if they were so limited, though.
Secondly, it would be the person copying the music who was violating the contract, not the person downloading.
And thirdly, if what you say is true, the only reason we can't share music we buy is because we agree to an unspoken contract when we do so. The solution to this is to simply stop agreeing to this contract or expect different terms. I don't know of any musician who is going out of business due to file sharing, so I think it makes sense to drop that provision from the unspoken contract, and stop buying music from those artists who refuse to do so.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I have nothing to add to Rico's commentary on your first point.
quote:2. By reading this post, you have taken away the potential income I would have made had you paid me to read it. That fact does not mean you stole from me. It just means I should not expect you to pay me to read my posts once I put them on this forum, just as artists should expect their music to be shared once they release it to the public.
Except that you are not selling this post. You are willingly posting this information for free with the knowledge that others will read it. That is your choice to make. That is not in any way equivalent to somebody choosing to sell their product, then having other people disregard that choice and obtain the product for free. If the artist releases their product for free to the general public, then obtaining that property for free is not unethical. If the artist releases the product to be sold, obtaining the product for free without the express permission of the artist is indeed unethical.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: Licenses are not contracts, though licenses are often contained within contracts.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: And thirdly, if what you say is true, the only reason we can't share music we buy is because we agree to an unspoken contract when we do so. The solution to this is to simply stop agreeing to this contract or expect different terms. I don't know of any musician who is going out of business due to file sharing, so I think it makes sense to drop that provision from the unspoken contract, and stop buying music from those artists who refuse to do so.
Why do you have this sense of entitlement to other people's work? They don't owe it to you to create this music. They have created a product and they want compensation from those who obtain their product. That is a very reasonable right to demand. The only reason that musician's don't go out of business due to file sharing is because many people still purchase their music. People steal from Walmart and they still survive because most people actually buy their products. Does Walmart's survival impact the ethics of stealing from them? No. The act is still wrong. And if most people stole from Walmart, then they would go out of business.
It's their work and they have the rights over it. You don't. You can continue to try and justify how it's ok for you to ignore these basic facts, but it's getting a little tiring. It seems like all you are saying is "I don't want to pay for it and I don't have to so why should I care about the artists' rights?"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except that you are not selling this post.
How am I supposed to try and sell my posts when you people keep stealing them from me? Why do you have this sense of entitlement to my posts? I don't owe it to you to write them. Why is it not very reasonable for me to expect compensation from anyone who obtains my product? You'll note that you never asked me if I would prefer to be paid for it. You never asked if I was releasing it for free. You just took it and read it. Why?
Because you know that I know that by posting it here, people are going to read it without paying me a cent, and thus by posting it here I have implicitly consented to allowing you to read my posts for free. It is expected, to the point where if I were to claim I was expecting payment, you'd say I was simply being foolish to expect that.
Why is this expectation not there for music? Because they sell music rather than give it away? The only reason they can sell music as they do is because that expectation does not exist, so it'd be a circular explanation.
I think the real reason is because of tradition - there has always been this expectation that certain artists get paid per copy of their work (although poets and certain other sorts do not!) and thus people think it MUST be so. But tradition can be changed, especially when technology makes it far easier to do so. Consider when television allowed for movies to be taken out of the theaters and into eveyone's homes where folks no longer had to pay ticket prices - Hollywood was outraged and attempted to fight it, but in the end tradition changed for the better. I'm sure Hollywood producers would still prefer that everyone go to the theaters to pay box office prices for their viewing pleasure, but it's simply not a "fact" that consumers owe it to producers to pay the producers as much as the producers think they deserve. Instead we get TV for free, more or less, and don't really owe anyone anything for it. Radio is the same way. I predict file sharing via the internet will eventually end up free too, because its efficient, better for the consumer, and I suspect will result in a better, broader array of music.
You can say I want free music, which is true. But don't try to claim it is a "fact" that music producers have natural rights to their works. If these rights exist, they are a matter of tradition and agreement - because both consumer and producer have mutually decided it is best to follow those rules. It does not have to be that way, though - and I think eventually it will not be.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tres, I actually used the common description of the word, and linked to prove it. You are trying to redenie it so you can have access to things you aren't paying for, lets be completely clear.
As far as your posts, you put them on th web on your own, in a forum that is in the public domain, and agreed to s user contract when creating a login name that told you it was a public forum.
Artists aren't usually the people who put their works ut on a p2p network, are they?
Nice try though. Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Kwea: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2119&bold=|||| "theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments."
I can't rob you of IP. You will however not gain money at my gain of your IP.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right...but it doesn't say all theft is robbery. As a matter of fact it destinguishes between the two, saying that theft isn't robbery.
Read it again, it actually supports my point.
You can't "rob" me of it, but you can steal it..."intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)"...
Doesn't say you have to sell it for it to be theft either.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
The taker's use, where Take refers to physical objects or the deprivation of such objects.
Only having one of the items taken from you.
Where IP you can't in anyway deprive the originator the right of IP. You can just copy it.
With market goods it is clear cut, because you cause a deprivation of the item to be sold. With IP, That person no longer will pay you for the IP because they already have it.
It's based on something completely different.
I can copy it, but I can't steal the IP, I can use it without permission, but that isn't stealing.
I can copy a Van Gogh by hand, and I won't be charged with theft. However if I steal an original (or duplicate) from a store I deprive that store of the item to be sold.
I can also copy a Van Gogh, and not get in trouble, because I'm doing it to better my skills, and trying to learn from a master.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree, completely, and so far most of the laws and courts agree with me on this one...by a heavy margin.
If there was no right to IP then there would be no right for copyright infringement at all, and there clearly is as the law stands today.
Also, while bittorent and other p2p systems CAN be used for legal purposes, the majority of torrents at any public site is overwhelmingly illegal material, and that is allowed to be a factor in these cases as well.
I make something, and you...having nothing to do with either the process of creating it, or the business of marketing and selling it....take the product I have made for sale and distribute it without my permission, that is a clear violation of the law. You are reproducing the songs in their entirety, and preventing me from the proceeds I am legally entitled to, and are doing so my using my work without permission.
Stop being coy.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I'm not saying it's ok to do, I'm simply stating you are using the wrong terminology.
You can't Take IP therefore you can't steal it. However yes, you can copy it, and deprive them of the possible gain that you would have paid for it (IF you had bought it anyways)
With take there is a first hand loss on the part of the owner. With IP there is no loss, just no longer a possible gain.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, I actually used the common description of the word, and linked to prove it.
But again, your "proof" was just a dictionary, which isn't proof of anything but what certain dictionary writers think is a good definition. And your attempt to use that definition is still redefining the word in order to suit your argument. So don't complain when others try to give their own differing definitions that they think are correct, if you are going to do the exact same thing. The fact of the matter is, if people are using the wrong definition for critical concepts, it makes no sense to continue a discussion without defining it correctly - because wrong definitions will lead to wrong conclusions.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Where IP you can't in anyway deprive the originator the right of IP. You can just copy it.
I beg to differ.
I work on game mods. Let's say that you decide you have the right to download the latest mod I'm working on which you found on a p2p service. The mod hasn't been released yet but somehow let's say it got leaked out incomplete and without my authorization. Those are the key words.
Now, I expect people to download my mods free of charge as soon as I release them. By releasing them I am implicitly and explicitly authorizing people to play them for free and distribute them as they see fit so long as they don't violate the original game EULA. However, that would not be the case in this example because someone took something that was mine, copied it, and distributed it without my consent. Are you saying I have no right to be angry because someone stole my mod and released it without my consent? I didn't lose anything physical, I still have the original copy in my hard drive, so by your logic, you claim I never really took a loss.
Your argument is flawed, there is no way I would be ok with someone releasing something I've put hard work on without my permission. This can be said to be true about music as well. The artists don't give you the right to just distribute their work as you see fit, that's why they pay publishers to print their CDs.
I really don't see how you can argue that it isn't stealing.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Just to throw something else out there... What about the fact that so many movies and albums are really, really bad? I swear that the record companies have a conspiracy to take a few good songs from their artists for an album, and then have them fill in the rest of the album with junk. So, they take a good 10-12 songs that are awesome, and stretch them out into about 4 CDs or more.
And how about the fact that some movies are just teeeeeeeeeeeeerrible? Why don't they offer refunds?
Personally, when I like a movie, I like to have a real copy of the DVD with the DVD case and the special features. You don't usually get the special features with a downloaded copy of the movie, and you certainly don't get the pretty case. If the movie is good, it's worth it to buy the movie for the extras and the case.
I wish that the movie industry would offer their movies for download (maybe a month or so after it's available for rental, if they want to wait--although there are advantages to offering them earlier). Offer a GOOD download for a reasonable price, at a place with wonderful bandwidth, and the convenience of that will outweigh getting the movie from other places.
We get the blockbuster movie pass. It allows us to rent as many movies as we can for one price all month. After 6 movies, it's paid for itself--and we watch a lot more than that. We don't want to wait on the mail, so we prefer going to the store. (Instant gratification.) It would be very worth it for us to have a similar deal with the movie companies for downloads.
Whether downloads are ethical or not, I really think the record and movie industries are going about this all wrong. At least it is now possible to download music legally. I still think they charge too much per song, though. This download culture can be embraced and molded into something that makes money for the industries.
And dangit, I want refunds on sucky movies!! That's time I'll never get back!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The Supreme Court has ruled that file sharing can be considered theft Link Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: amusingly enough, the Supreme Court said no such thing. They said that file sharing services could be liable for copyright infringement when people on those services engage in such activities, under certain circumstances.
The author of the article decided to call that theft.
On the subject of infringement vs theft, I think its bad to call it theft because, despite any superficial similarities, the differences make such comparisons lead to faulty suppositions and the like.
It is calling it theft which lets companies convince people they don't have fair use rights.
It is calling it theft which leads to congress setting severe criminal penalties on people who did nothing but write software that lets people exercise their fair use rights.
It is calling it theft which leads to congress setting criminal penalties of any sort on people engaging in thoughtless, illegal, but relatively benign and common activities easily remedied through civil protections.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I really don't think music and movies are any worse than they used to be.
But I do know of plenty of albums that only have two or so songs that I actually like.
So I got Napster. Now I buy the two songs I like and leave it at that.
-pH
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Rico: To deprive would mean you no longer had it in any means.
In other words, They removed it from your possesion, meaning you can't release your next version of the mod because you no longer have it to work on.
This isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
Again, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying that you are wrong by calling it stealing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The Supreme Court has ruled that file sharing can be considered theft Link
That the Supreme Court rules something makes it law. It doesn't necessarily make it true.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Really? What if I note in my post that I reserve all rights to what I have posted? I don't remember seeing anything in the terms of use of this board that constitutes any agreement on my part to forfeit my rights to what I have written.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fugu, Well, they kind of did by citing previous precedent... Link
quote: In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the useful Arts. Art. I, §8, cl. 8. No one disputes that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Really? What if I note in my post that I reserve all rights to what I have posted? I don't remember seeing anything in the terms of use of this board that constitutes any agreement on my part to forfeit my rights to what I have written.
That's why I said "I think." The owners of the board certainly make no claim to the material posted here, but -- for instance -- you give up the exclusive right to edit your posts when you make them, since both Papa Janitor and kacard can edit or delete posts and/or threads unilaterally. They almost never do it, and KHJ didn't do it much either when she was mod, but they do have that power.
So in a that sense, you've given up exclusive control over your posts. Even putting a note as you describe in the post doesn't change the fact that Pop or KAC can still edit or delete them. In a broader sense, though, I think that while you have "more" rights over content you post than a random member, the posts and threads belong to the community. That's why I take a dim view of things like unlabeled edits; I'd prefer a ten-minute labelled edit window, with no edits allowed after that (except to the first post in a thread in case the title needs to be amended, but in those rare cases you can always ask a mod to do it).
If I start a thread and it goes in a direction that makes me unhappy, I won't delete the thread even though as thread starter I have that ability, because I don't think it's appropriate for me to delete all of those other posts that other people put their time and effort into along with my own.
Also, if I took a paper, essay, poem, or work of fiction that I'd posted here in its entirety and submitted it to a publisher, I'd expect it to be rejected on account of its extant availability. So by posting something like that here I may also be giving up the right to sell it later.
[Edit: Fixed a typo.]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
I agree - but in the same way music ceases to be solely the author's the instant it leaves the authors head and enters the public realm. You can't own a song, or a post, or a story, or any piece of information - that is contrary to the nature of information. The closest you can come is keeping it in your head and never letting it out, which is within any person's powers.
You CAN have certain rights in regards to information, although that does not constitute owning that information, and what rights those are is very much in question. I certainly have some special rights to my posts here - such as the right to not be plagiarized, or have my words credited to another.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Rico: To deprive would mean you no longer had it in any means.
In other words, They removed it from your possesion, meaning you can't release your next version of the mod because you no longer have it to work on.
This isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
Again, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying that you are wrong by calling it stealing.
So you're saying that by someone taking my mod out of my computer and releasing it as if it were their own work, I am not being deprived of the credit for my hard work? Let's not forget I'd also suffer a psychological loss (which is also untangible so therefore "ok") and it would quite likely push me to stop working on mods altogether for good.
I think those are losses and just because you can't put them on a scale it doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd certainly be unhappy if someone did that to me, so wouldn't I be losing happiness? I'd also lose the rights to my mod, I'd say that would definitely be a loss for me.
*shrug* This argument seems sort of pointless. I'm all for filesharing but it's sort of annoying to see people take something that doesn't belong to them and rationalize it so that they don't feel bad about it. Call it what you want to call it, there ARE losses for the other party.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have used filesharing for less than stellar causes, but at least I don't pretend it is completely moral. I uderstand it is not completely reasonable for me to be able to do that, but I also realize that to me it is on par with speeding or any other minor offence....
I had files downloading on this computer last night as I was writing up my posts in this thread...how's that for irony?
But most of mine were songs that were released by a band for this type of sharing, or freeware.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My main problem with filesharing is that the people complaining the loudest, aka musicians, actually make the least from record sales. Record stores, distributors, and record companies all make more money off of album sales than the actual artists do. So when I hear a musician complain about how pirating takes money out of their pocket, it's counterproductive. It actually makes me want to buy their CDs a lot less.
I never bought a Metallica album after all their Napster whining.
On the other hand, I've tried out a lot of artists by downloading whatever songs come up most frequently in a search of their name (figuring those would be the best). And if I like them, I go buy their CD. It's much better quality, and I like the liner notes, and if they're good I want to support them. If I don't like them, I delete the songs, so as not to clutter up my machine with crappiness.
I can't really speak for software and movie ethics, because I don't trust either of those on a p2p server. But I don't feel at all bad about downloading music.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though.
That's not how lexicography works. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Even usage notes in dictionaries do not typically reflect the dictionary's opinion on the matter, but rather reflect the opinion of commentators and other usage experts.
quote:And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Language users are the ones who decide which definitions are right or wrong. If the majority of speakers say that a particular word means a particular thing, then it's not a wrong definition.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled intellectual property discussion.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Rico: None of them are physical losses. I didn't say there weren't any losses.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not only does that argument not stand up to logic, it runs counter to the definition itself....service are specifically mentioned, but a service is not a physical object.
Theft can be of non-physical things as well, clearly.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Language users are the ones who decide which definitions are right or wrong. If the majority of speakers say that a particular word means a particular thing, then it's not a wrong definition.
This is correct when talking about words, but not correct when talking about concepts. "Stealing" is a word that points to a concept, and when asking "Is file sharing stealing?" we are asking if it falls under the concept of stealing. This is very different from asking something like "What does 'metaphor' mean?" which is asking for the definition of the word, rather than the concept.
Language users are NOT the ones who decide what fits the definition of a concept. A concept is what it is, regardless of what the majority thinks. For instance, the concept of "stealing" would still be the same even if we managed to get the majority of English speakers to use the word "stealing" to refer to "dancing in a conga line." In that case, it would be the same concept but under a different name - or no name at all.
If you want proof of the definition of a concept, you can only achieve it through rational analysis - by testing against various situations. Falling back on an authority doesn't cut it, because at best the dictionary just deals with certain experts' opinions on the popular usage of labels, rather than the concepts those labels refer to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find Platonic Tres amusing.
DK: they said that in one way infringement was like theft, they did not call it theft.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My problem with people who say they use filesharing to discover new artists...well, you may think you do it that way, but how much of an album has to be good in order for you to feel the need to buy it? Four songs? Five? If you only like three of the songs, do you feel that no one should be compensated for those three you illegally downloaded just because the rest didn't meet your standards?
Very, VERY few people buy every album they download.
On top of that, musicians do have a right to complain about illegal downloads, even though they only receive a small portion of sales. Keep in mind also that a record company will make decisions on how/whether to promote a follow-up album based on current sales. If you download the album of an artist you really like and never actually spend money on it, you're sending a message to the record label that you aren't a fan of the music. They'll respond accordingly.
That said, if you really want to make sure your money goes to the artist, go to concerts. And try to buy CDs there. Artists often make WAY more money on CDs sold at concerts (depending on the contract, of course).
-pH
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Tresopax: I bet that most philosophers and linguists would disagree with you. There is no external, unchangeable concept of stealing. How do you prove that something is stealing except by appealing to speakers' definition of what stealing is?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Artists don't receive even a small part of their sales. Their contracts are typically structured in such a way as to insure that they never even recoup their advances (on paper, of course) and until their portion of the record sales can repay the advance, they get nothing for sales. That's why any successful musician tours year around. Touring is how rock stars get rich. It's also common knowledge in the industry that you bargain your way to as big an advance as you can get, because you know you won't see another dime until merchandising and touring starts. Of course they also make money on advertisements and publishing (which is totally different).
As an example, Michael Jackson's Thriller sold 50 million copies worldwide and he never made any royalties off of it. So I'd rethink your stance on how much downloading is robbing musicians.
And for new artists, some of their follow up albums are based on sales, but since record companies well know how much downloading goes on, and which are the most downloaded artists/songs they don't just blindly follow the numbers. Record sales is one indicator of success. Nowadays, it's not the most important one. It's a lot more important to stay on TRL and on Leno than it is to sell 5 million records out of the gate (and don't get me started on the overreporting of record sales by the labels). In the age of protools, marketability is the most important attribute of any major label act.
And as for me, personally, it doesn't matter how many songs are good. I don't have the patience to download entire albums. I can hear part of a couple songs and tell if I like the artist or not. Musicians go to such lengths now, anyway, that it's more of a pain than it's worth to download new albums. They release them weeks in advance, they put out fake tracks for download (filled with white noise), or they just give away free downloads. I like music, and if I hear something I like, then I'll buy something and give it a shot. I did this recently with Jeff Buckley and Buddy Guy (not together, of course).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There is no external, unchangeable concept of stealing.
If it is true that stealing is just whatever we use the term as, then the majority could easily prevent file sharing from being stealing by simply not using the term "stealing" in that manner. We could literally redefine all stealing out of existence by using words differently. Do you see the problem with this notion?
Unless you truly believe we could use that loophole to make stealing not stealing, we are talking about something more than just however the majority has arbitrarily decided to use the term, "stealing". We are talking about the concept of stealing, that the word refers to, and which other words could just as easily refer to if we decided to change the meaning of the words we use.
quote:How do you prove that something is stealing except by appealing to speakers' definition of what stealing is?
I suspect definitions are among the many many things that cannot be proven with certainty. You can only argue towards one definition or another - by showing how things that seem to be or seem to not be stealing would be inconsistent with a given definition. For instance, if the proposed definition is that stealing includes deriving benefits from someone without compensating them, you could use checking books out at a library as a counterexample that is inconsistent with that definition. This example would prove nothing absolutely, but it would make people chose between rejecting the proposed definition and accepting that borrowing library books is theft.
Besides, don't you think people can be mistaken in their definition of stealing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I suspect definitions are among the many many things that cannot be proved with certainty
This is the single largest reason most discussions with you devolve into mental masturbation.
I hope you find some release in it, it usually just leaves me feeling unfulfilled.
Most people have no problem having a discussion with words that we understand in a common manner, but not you. . to you they are unknowable.
Define it however you want, it doesn't change the reality of the actions, no matter how you try to spin it. Words exist to describe things that already exist, at least in most cases....changing the word doesn't usually change the actions themselves, so you can't just change the word then claim the action doesn't exist anymore.
That would be like calling a job at McDonalds an assembly job because you are assembling the burgers...it is sophistry, no more. Just because you assign it a name that doesn't fit doesn't mean there are any more production jobs, it just means you got one over, you lied without getting caught.
The word isn't the problem, Tres, it is the action the word describes that causes the problem.
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long while, Tres....and that is saying a lot.
I know you weren't advocating FOR it, but the very fact that you would try to use it as an example shows why it doesn't pay to try to argue with you...you just try to change the definitions midstream at every chance...
Then claim to have "proved" your point.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Note once again that you were the one who posted a dictionary definition to try and redefine "stealing". It's on the previous page, halfway up. (I haven't offered any definition of the term at all.) So, don't try to claim we all agree on "common definitions", or that you aren't just as interested as I am in coming to a correct definition for the sake of this discussion.
And yes, I definitely find a lot of benefits in questioning the commonly accepted assumptions about what words and concepts mean. For starters, it helps if you approach it as critical thinking, rather than "mental masturbation", despite the similarity of the two.
quote:Define it however you want, it doesn't change the reality of the actions, no matter how you try to spin it. Words exist to describe things that already exist, at least in most cases....changing the word doesn't usually change the actions themselves, so you can't just change the word then claim the action doesn't exist anymore.
Yes! We are not arguing about words or common uses of terms like "stealing" - we are discussing the thing that the word "stealing" refers to, the concept of stealing, and the actions that fit that concept.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As for artists having to recoup their advances...this is very true. Artists do generally make their money touring.
It usually takes record sales of about 500,000 units for an artist to break even with the label and start receiving royalties.
But as I said before, low sales still do rob an artist of the possibility of future label support.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Depending on the advance, and the contract. Low sales are definitely bad for the artist, I won't even try to deny that. But I think any musician with half a brain sees that the exposure is priceless. As long as people are listening to your music you're in their consciousness a lot more than you would be without filesharing. This is why a lot of indies are releasing whole albums free for download on the web. For the exposure. But I think making downloading your only method of obtaining music is a very bad idea. Support the people you like, so they can keep making good music.
Same with authors and software developers. I read the first chapter in Barnes and Noble, and I'll borrow someone else's games, but if I like them I'll buy them. That's only fair.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, yes, of COURSE it depends on the advance and the contract...but 500,000 is the average number, as I said. Which is pretty sad, really. But the point was that selling 50 million albums without seeing a penny of the money is...er...very unusual.
I have no problem with downloading albums that have been released for download. A lot of bands do make their songs available on the Internet. But for those who don't...
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I used an accepted form of the word, in usage that clearly states that it applies to things other than tangible goods, plain as day.
Unless you would like to claim that services applies on to those servies that have a tangiable weight to them.
You are trying to change that definition to "except for when I wasnt to download a song for free".
Nice try though. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So when I give a definition I think is good but you don't, it's "redefining" just for the sake of argument... yet when you give a definition you think is good but I don't, it's "an accepted form of the word"?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Considering I have rarely, if ever, seen you redefine a word in a manner that anyone else here agrees with, yes.
Seriously, this particular argument seems to be what the definition of stealing should be, but opther "redefinitions" in other arguments have been absurd.
I ahve seen you jump into a conversation, on more than one accasion, and attempt to redefine terms that everyone else had completely understood for three full pages before you chimed in...and after two more pages of semantics you were the only one who agreed with you redefiniton of it.
I am citing proof that others, including the legal system, have considered my definition of the wordcorrect, particularily in common usage. You are attempting to deny the validity of teh word by claiming it only applies to physical goods, adn refuted that by showing that it has been defined in the past as more than that.
Also, the definition I use is common usage, whereas yours is a personal choice.
Go argue your case in front of a judge, or an English teacher, or any number of people who use the word stealing every day in the course of their job, and most (if not all) would not agree with your definition, or the logic behind it.
There are tons of examples, so of which have already been given here, which refute your definition.
Yet another thread derailed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would also state that you seem to think that you are an authority on what words SHOULD mean, rather than what accepted authorities on the English language says they DO mean...
I didn't make that definition up myself, you know.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also, the definition I use is common usage, whereas yours is a personal choice.
I have not given ANY definition of stealing yet in this thread - so I'm not sure what definition you are assigning to me. If I had to define it, I would say it is "Wrongfully depriving someone of their property", which I think most judges, English teachers, and people in general would agree with. When I say filesharing is not stealing, I'm talking about the same stealing you are.
And your definition of it, if it is any different than mine, is no less a personal choice.
quote:I would also state that you seem to think that you are an authority on what words SHOULD mean, rather than what accepted authorities on the English language says they DO mean...
I've never claimed to be an authority. I only expect you to believe me as far as my arguments can show I am right. Similarly, I don't care if you make up your definitions yourself or take them from dictionaries - as long as you can justify them if others disagree, it makes no difference. But quoting a dictionary no more shows by itself that a given definition of stealing is accurate than quoting a Bible verse shows that homosexuality is wrongful.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Tres, I really don't see where you're going with the whole Platonic forms thing. But I think you're way off with your assessment of dictionaries. Dictionaries capture the way people use words. If you look up the definition of "steal" in the dictionary, you can be pretty confident that the definitions you find in there are a reflection of how everyone uses the word. The Bible is not a descriptive reference guide like a dictionary is, so your analogy does not hold.
Also, I'd wager that a more common definition of "steal" would be something like "to take something that doesn't rightfully belong to you." If you don't trust dictionaries, we could do a poll here to see which one people find more accurate and common.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I continue to think debates on definitions of words and "concepts" add little value to an understanding of copyright infringement. Using "theft" or "stealing" as an identity for copyright infringement, despite agreeing in some part with colloquial definition, serves only to confuse the issue. The differences are extremely significant, and it is in the differences most of the important aspects of copyright are contained, not in the similarities.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Tresopax, Kwea just wished to define a term so she could get the discussion underway.
It's a simple word, defined simply, as it is used by the larger community.
Couldn't you have just stated "I believe copyright infringement is as harmful as theft, due to its ability to rob the creator of potential funds" ?
Why the 2 pages of semantics? It doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kwea's not a girl
Also, Tres doesn't think copyright infringement is as harmful as theft (neither do I; I think that position is ludicrous).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why the 2 pages of semantics?
I didn't start the semantic discussion - I joined in towards the end. And I was more concerned with the idea that dictionaries can dictate right from wrong - which is a separate related issue, that I thought was important to point out. On that note..
quote:Tres, I really don't see where you're going with the whole Platonic forms thing. But I think you're way off with your assessment of dictionaries. Dictionaries capture the way people use words.
I agree that dictionaries capture the way people use words. But the way people use words is pretty much arbitrary and unrelated to the real issue of whether or not filesharing is wrong. You can change the meaning of the word simply by using it differently, but that will not change the reality of whether or not filesharing is wrong.
Hence when I say "Is filesharing stealing" I am not asking just about how people use certain vocabulary. Rather, I am asking about whether the particular concept of filesharing we are discussing would fit the characteristics of the particular concept of stealing we are talking about in this particular discussion.
It's a question about the reality of filesharing and stealing, not a question about how people use words. Thus, a dictionary that tells how people use words should not be an authority on the answer.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ya'll make my head hurt.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
I would like to download anime, music and other things, so my question is. Is Limewire the best program to use? Does it have alot of spyware and other virues? If Limewire is not the best, then what should I use?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Lalo, don't get me started.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)