OK, I'm not really going to jail but I feel I'm getting close. My roommate and I share a computer and split the DSL bill. Last night we had a huge argument over whether we should uninstall Kazaa-Lite from our computer.
I told him that lots of people are getting prosecuted for sharing MP3s but he responded by saying that it is ok as long as we only download and does not distribute. In anger, I uninstalled Kazaa-lite from our computer and erased all of the MP3 files he has ever downloaded.
Needless to say, we are not really on speaking terms right now. Does anyone know what the current state of the law is regarding downloading (but not sharing) MP3 files? My roommate concedes that it is illegal but he believes no one has ever been prosecuted for merely downloading. Why would 3.5 million users still log into Kazaa if it were dangerous, he argued. Help me scare this boy straight!
[ January 10, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Notorious Shira (Member # 6089) on :
Well, all I know is that there are tons of people getting prosecuted and fined thousands of dollars every week for downloading free music. People with cable modems, or internets that are constantly online are especially at risk because whoever is looking for you can find you a lot easier. I am currently doing what you guys are doing except with Imesh. One of my computer tech friends suggested paying a small fee every time you download, and maybe split the cost between you two. I think it would be better to pay a little bit of money legally than illegally getting free music and then having to pay thousands of dollars if you get caught! And as far as i remember it doesnt matter that you do not share, you are still downloading illegally free music. Good Luck though!
Posted by Koga (Member # 5646) on :
As a friend of mine tried to explain it to me, the act that would be illegal is shareing or uploading the files because that would be distributing copy righted materials without the permission of the copyright holder, but downloading them would technically legal in the same way it is legal to listen to the songs on the radio without any special permission. I still think that sounds pretty fishy, and I really doubt anyone would get by with the clame that they thought everyone they downloaded from had the express permission from the copyright holders to distrbute their material.
Right now people are only getting prosecuted for sharing, not for downloading, and the chances are rather greater that you will be in a car wreck and struck by lightning on the same day.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Wow, I would have been unbelievably pissed if someone had erased all of my mp3s when I had them. Legal or not, a lot of time and effort goes into building a collection, and it's often hard to remember what all you had when you try to rebuild it.
It's like.... you didn't like that he was going over the speed limit when he drove the shared car, so you slashed the tires and broke all the windows.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Using Kazaa or any other public network is asking for trouble.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I semi-agree with Mr. Berg, but what I said is still true. The risks aren't very high at all of being sued by the RIAA, and you're rather more likely to lose your life savings or your life in numerous other ways.
Posted by Koga (Member # 5646) on :
Of course file shareing also carries the added bonus of putting you at a higher risk for lots of computer viruses. (At least four different viruses infected my old computer back when I shared files on Kazaa, and one of them completely wrecked my computer and caused me to lose every file on it includeing the fairly large mp3 collection I had built)
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Who's name is on the bill? If the RIAA storm troopers come knocking, that's who's going to have the lawsuit on their hands.
If it's your computer, I'd say you had every right to uninstall it and delete the files. I'd switch to another service for downloading movies if you really want to download music.
You might want to try either the newsgroups, IRC or earth station 5 to download your music.
Using Kazaa is just asking for trouble (either RIAA or some virus).
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Deleting the music seems pretty out of line, to me. I'm surprised your roommate hasn't fought you yet. Like Ayelar said, it takes a lot of time and devotion to build a decent music collection -- the least you could've done was burn it to CDs, then delete it from the hard drive.
You're overreacting by worrying, really. I don't think your IP can be traced by downloading -- uploading can endanger you, but even then it's a one in a couple hundred million shot. I'd apologize to this guy and see if there's any way for you to repair the damage done.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, your IP can be tracked by downloading, its just a lot harder to pin down some things that would give them a criminal or hefty civil case: amount of downloading, and you not having a copy of the CD, and such. In fact, I predict they never sue downloaders, or at least not ones they track down over the file sharing networks.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You know, deleting the already downloaded files and uninstalling the program aren't necessary. All you've got to do is stop turning it on.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'd be so enraged if someone erased my mp3s. I have many of them. No. I would not take kindly to that at all.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:the least you could've done was burn it to CDs, then delete it from the hard drive.
Just for the record, it was my computer but we split the phone bill (the DSL line is under his name though). But I agree with you. I was out of line to erase things before giving him the chance to back up his collection. Luckily, I didn't delete the playlists. So I apologized and offered to buy him a new CD burner for his laptop so he can rebuild his collection.
I also offered to make a substantial investment into creating a decent iTunes library that we can both enjoy (we have similar tastes in music). My roommate didn't think this was such a great idea though. Apparently, not only does he not want to pay for his own music, he doesn't want me to pay for it either. He thinks it is not only his right, but his moral duty to download free music as an act of civil disobedience or something. Sheesh.... Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You should tell him its only civil disobedience if he does it "in the face" of authorities. Suggest he submit a list of songs he's downloaded that he doesn't own the cds for to various authorities .
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:He thinks it is not only his right, but his moral duty to download free music as an act of civil disobedience or something.
Not that's the ticket. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Suggest he submit a list of songs he's downloaded that he doesn't own the cds for to various authorities
I would, except I'm probably going to be the person who bails him out of jail so we'll just call that plan "Z".
My roommate is a pretty moral guy and actually a bit of a musician himself. As someone who can play a couple of Eric Clapton and Jewel songs on his guitar, he believes he speaks for all musicians when he declared, "Music is for the people, we musicians do not need to get paid."
quote:It's like.... you didn't like that he was going over the speed limit when he drove the shared car, so you slashed the tires and broke all the windows.
Amazingly enough, that is the exact analogy my roommate gave me. I like to think of it as taking away the car keys when someone is driving drunk. (My roommate replied, quite amusingly, "yeah but the drunk gets his car back in the morning, my MP3s are gone FOREVER!!!!")
[ January 10, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So far, no one -- AFAIK -- has ever been prosecuted for downloading. They've gone after the big sharers.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If it was your computer, you were within your rights. Your actions were likely unnecessary, but there was nothing wrong with them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Actually, Beren, his mp3's are not gone forever. And the car keys analogy is far more apt than the slashed tires one.
The primary reason being that he is not out any money. Slashed tires and smashed windows are incredibly expensive to replace, much like if you had actually taken a hundred CD's or so and set them ablaze.
Taking the keys away and driving the person home only puts the person out time. Sure, they have to find a way back to their car and bring it home again to regain possession, but it doesn't cost them anything - other than maybe cab fare or a parking ticket. Your roommate apparently has no problem downloading music - he's just angry that he'll have to spend the time to do it all again.
A more apt analogy would be that he had stolen a warehouse full of merchandise which you had the gall to empty out and return to its original owners. He's not out any money, just time to replace the stolen goods - at the same risk he was under taking them in the first place.
Just don't give him your truck to go on his theiving spree. Let him rebuild his collection on his own computer, on his own time, without getting you involved.
While your actions may have been rash, I don't think your intentions were wrong. Probably your best bet would have been to tell him something along the lines of: "If all your mp3's aren't off my computer by next friday, I'm deleting them all. You have a week to back them up, or they'll be gone." That way it wouldn't have wasted your time deleting, and he wouldn't have had an argument other than simple whining.
Let him be angry. It's not like he was downloading onto his computer anyway - it's yours. He was using your car to go speeding, not his own. You essentially told him he could no longer use your car and took your keys back. While hindsight could have made the situation go over a little more smoothly, your motives were justified.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think you're right. Giving a reasonable ultimatum would have been the best way to go. I think I'll have to throw a couple of trivia pursuit games and make a few pizza runs in the next couple of weeks to patch things up. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
:notes that DirectConnect is better than Kazaa in inumerable ways - safer, too:
Posted by Fooglmog (Member # 6088) on :
You're friend is stupid, but right. No one has yet been convicted of downloading music, and it's very difficult to prove it was done, if possible at all. The thing that could get you into legal troubles is sharing it.
Your friend is stupid because Kazaa is not only one of the worst public file sharing networks, but public ones are stupid anyway. Morpheus is probably the best out of the big free public ones (IMHO) but I still think you'd be better off finding a nice community on IRC somewhere and getting them off of it. Much safer, both virus and legality wise.
PS. If you actually want to get those MP3's back, there are some pretty good memory retrieval programs around that you can download for free. You won't get it all back, but if you don't wait too long the majority of them will still be retrievable.
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:He thinks it is not only his right, but his moral duty to download free music as an act of civil disobedience or something.
Contrariwise, I think it's my moral duty not to promote the RIAA's music with free online publicity.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Kazaa sucks. There are much better programs out there
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Yeah, there are much better programs out there that allow us to steal.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Ah I see.... It is not the stealing, but the stupid way we do the stealing that angers you. Posted by Fooglmog (Member # 6088) on :
I don't considre it stealing, and even if you do, it's a victimless crime. The music industry is making more money now then at any other point in history, and it's continueing to grow at a rate limited only by the lack of new markets to expand into.
Personally I think downloading music "illegally" has helped the industry because it's essentially free advertising. Even if you don't agree with that, the evidense available leads to the conclusion that even if it hasn't actually helped the industry, it hasn't hindered them either.
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Try Kazaalite too.
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
Nobody will prosecute you for downloading the music, unless you downloaded from an RIAA computer. Only the person you are downloading from has your IP address, so they are the only ones who can find out who you are (actually, there was a court ruling saying that the RIAA can't force your ISP to say who you are, so you are safe). When you share files, anyone downloading from you has your IP address, and could, until recently, have your ISP tell them who you are. If you are going to download files, don't use kazaa, or any of the file sharing programs with spyware -most have it- I read about a new one that is supposed to make it very hard to track you, called MUTE
And here is an explanation of how the RIAA finds you, and how MUTE protects you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The court ruling was that the RIAA couldn't get a service provider to reveal your identity without a lawsuit. The RIAA has indicated that this just means they're going to file lawsuits against everyone they would have "merely" subpoena'd about before.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I hate spyware. It keeps jumping onto my computer somehow and I can't take it much longer. Really, I don't see the problem with file sharing. To me it's no different than taking a cd out of the library and copying it, or recording a song on the radio.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Except you don't buy the CD to be shared, and usually, neither does the person you are getting it from, or the person they got it from, and so on. Of course it's victimless, unless you count the artists who now get screwed even more by companies who are no longer taking chances on newer material. Nope, no victims as long as you can't see it from your house.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's a matter of scale, Syn. If I poked you in the arm, you probably wouldn't mind. If two or three people did, it's still not so bad. If twenty thousand people did, you'd probably get pretty ticked off and have a nasty bruise.
Saying "I can download an infinite amount of free music because I could always borrow from a friend or a library" and "Allowing thousands of people to copy this song is no different than just lending a CD to a friend" is kinda silly.
Borrowing from a library and copying the CD is still technically copyright infringement, I believe, just as it would be if you borrowed an OSC book from the library and made photocopies of the entire thing (or scanned it into your computer). Books say right in the front "No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means..." etc and so forth. CD's say similar.
Just because it's an easy crime to get away with doesn't mean it isn't a crime to begin with. Is it okay to go five mph over the limit? How about ten? Twenty? Forty? At what point does it become a crime? Is it okay to steal a nickel? A dime? A dollar? Ten dollars? A thousand?
While copying even one song is technically illegal, it's overlooked for the most part. It's when that copying becomes excessive in scale that attention is drawn and legal action taken.
It bothers me because people focus so much on the RIAA... what about copied DVDs? Scanned and copied roleplaying game books that are driving the industry under? The growing eBook market? Artwork? Video games? Programs?
The concept that "I can break the law because its a victimless crime" is stupid. Laws are there to establish a social order, and any violation eats at that order. If you're out for social upheaval and civil disobedience, don't skulk in dark alleyways. Send a letter to the RIAA outlining every song you've downloaded or uploaded, and fight it out in court.
There's a reason why people where masks when they commit crimes. Hiding behind your computer is no different.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:While copying even one song is technically illegal, it's overlooked for the most part. It's when that copying becomes excessive in scale that attention is drawn and legal action taken.
The problem is that copying even one song shouldn't be illegal. And for precisely the same reason, copying a thousand shouldn't be. It's no different than everyone borrowing a thousand books from a really efficient library, or at least should not be. And borrowing a thousand books from a library is no worse than borrowing one, so that cannot be said to be a problem of scale.
What we need to do is change the law - then the RIAA can't have these lawsuits, and we can have legitimate file sharing.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Yeah, everything should be free! Why pay for it?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, you go out about petitioning your elected representatives and fighting battles in court, rather than breaking the standing law at any opportunity.
If you think marijuana should be legalized, you go through the same legal channels - in the mean time, using the drug is still illegal.
Whether or not any given person thinks a law "should" exist or not, it's still the law and must be obeyed until such a time as it is no longer a law - either through legislation or court rulings.
Those wishing to spin their illegality as "civil disobedience" should have no problems paying the fines or going to jail for their crime, as they knowingly and willingly broke the law in their disobedience. If you are unwilling to suffer consequences for your actions, you should rethink taking those actions.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
However, keep in mind, Beren, that by paying for these downloads, you'll have less to pop into a savings account. Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Syn, you might want to try using Adaware and SpyBot Search and Destroy to try to remove spyware from your machine. Also, you might want to give Mozilla/Firebird a shot (it's a bit more secure than IE).
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Don't make me call your financial consultant Shan... Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Yeah, there are much better programs out there that allow us to steal."
There are also programs which allow you to download live music from bands(such as Dave Mathhews, and many others) who encourage taping and trading of their shows.
Try www.etree.org It is a good place to start, but you need a DSL line, and lots of space on your computer, and it is good NOT to have an addictive personality or you can sucked into the virtual music world.
Liz
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Ah Beren. If you had deleted my MP3s, you wouldn't be around to ask these questions.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Whether or not any given person thinks a law "should" exist or not, it's still the law and must be obeyed until such a time as it is no longer a law - either through legislation or court rulings.
Hmmmm... have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Right, everybody has gone at least a mile or two over the speed limit, so it's okay to steal with nonchelance. Why have rules at all? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A lot of stuff I dl is live tracks by Tori Amos and stuff I can't get in the US like Yoko Kanno. Plus i need music like a drug and cannot afford all the CDs I want. But if I ever do get stable finances.... the amount of CDs I'l own will be staggering. Plus it's a great way to get into new stuff. If it wasn't for Audiogalaxy I would not even know Dir en grey.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Trembles in fear at Beren's threat*
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
What I don't like about the whole mp3-riaa thing is that the rules out there are arbitrary. It shows a clear misunderstanding of file trading and a fear of technology.
Radios pay a relatively paltry sum to play music. The reasoning is that you are giving 'publicity' to the artists by playing their music. It's reasonable to assume that you can record music off the radio and listen to them at your leisure. People make mix tapes or mix CD's for friends, and you're not likely to be sued for this. It's word of mouth just like lending a book to a friend.
Online, you have what the RIAA like to call "perfect copies." Considering the debate on mp3 versus aac versus ogg, I insist that mp3s are not perfect copies, and anyhow the quality of the music likely depends on your speakers more than the file.
1. mp3s take as much effort to obtain as recording off the radio. Some days, the radio station plays an entire album that recently came out. Surely that's as easy as happening upon an entire album on a useful peer to peer network. Plenty of mp3s are crap, incomplete or poorly encoded. And it can take hours to find a single mp3. Depends on your luck and the amount of experience you've put into the system looking for the right channels.
2. mp3s provide publicity just as radio stations do. I've heard countless people say that they have purchased an album because they heard the mp3, or they attended a concert because of the mp3s. I don't buy albums for every radio song I like. I listen to the radio and hear them as much as I want (due to the radio stations' paltry playlist length). You don't hear companies whining about how someone didn't buy the latest Coldplay album because they could hear the hits on the radio every hour.
You can tell that they're simply afraid of the technology. Look at webcast radios. They've practically disappeared. You know why? Because they passed a law requiring online radio stations to pay .14 of a penny for every song streamed. One online station calculated that as $224,000 a month and it's retroactive to 1998. Ridiculous. Compare that to the following:
quote:If you own a rink that has 15,000 square feet of skating area and you charge customers $5.00 to skate, you own a class 6B establishment and you need to pay BMI $205 every year. You would need to do the same thing for ASCAP
No matter how you scale it, $205 to BMI once a year does not equal over a million a year.
I'm not writing this to say you should download mp3s. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the arguments riaa puts forward. They can scare people away from downloading and sharing mp3s, it's their right under the current laws. But I won't like it one bit and I won't buy new music either.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Beren, I would've kicked your ass for deleting my mp3's.
However.
All the mp3's I have, I also own the CD. I have DSL but never download music. Part of it is because I am a photographer and my images are digitized and you don't want someone taking your work. I got pissed at someone who said they'd pay me $25 for each of my prints but wanted me to just email them the file and they'd go and get it printed.
No way. You've got to be kidding.
So I objected to both the price and what they wanted me to do. They informed me that "They could just get the staff photographer to go take some shots." I realize that they're cheap and don't care about my work . I said no. I'm willing to share and sell my work to those who appreciate it and respect it.
The images on my website are compressed enough that they can't be reprinted to any respectable degree at all. If people could download my full images and never pay me or even ask for permission, I'd be mad as hell. Same goes for my books.
And yes, I've broken the speed limit. I also think it's perfectly fair for me to get a ticket when I get caught (which is twice now). It was a choice I made and I knew the consequences of that choice. So when I'm faces with them, I have to accept it. The cop isn't bad for giving me a ticket, he's doing his job, as I expect him to do. The only reason I got mad at the first cop was because he was a jerk about it. The second cop was pleasant and respectful and I was in return.
We're all adults (or nearly legally so). We know the laws and the consequences of breaking those laws. When we choose to break them, we choose the consequences if we get caught breaking that law. Even if you disagree with the law, it's still there and you have to obey it if you aren't willing to face the consequences.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
I must say -- all be it a little late -- that Koga's first statement about sharing was the illegal part was correct.
However, if you think about it, the only way they can find you is to see what you are sharing. they could not wait for you to upload, because then they would be offering copyrighted material to the masses, and that would not stand.
Not to mention, Kazaa-Lite is designed to protect you from the RIAA. It has special features that block many of the RIAA's IP addresses, and it has the "don't allow others to see my file list" which allows you to appear to only be sharing one file.
-This is my two cents, I am W-
Okay, I reread the top post, and I must say, that is the most horrible thing that I could think of for you to do, not to mention, the most senceless. Why delete the MP3's? it makes not sence. If the RIAA was already after him, it would not make a difference, and if they weren't, then he is safe.
I recoment that you download a program called PC File Recovery and recover all his MP3's as a sort of gesture. Please, don't do this to him, man.
-W-
[ January 11, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Julian Delphiki Jr. ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Right, everybody has gone at least a mile or two over the speed limit, so it's okay to steal with nonchelance. Why have rules at all?
Who's stealing? The government can make sharing illegal, but it can't make sharing into stealing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Hmmmm... have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Mack answered that for me. Sure I have, sure I've been caught, sure I've paid the tickets, not once have I said that the speed limit idea is arbitrary and should be eliminated.
quote:mp3s take as much effort to obtain as recording off the radio
When was the last time you used a search engine to find a song on the radio? I mean, sure, it's probably just as easy to find "Hey ya" on the radio as it is as an mp3 (though you'll likely miss the beginning and ending of the song to the DJ's mixing, or have talking over it). But try to find "Jump Around" without taping every minute of a radio station in the hopes of just randomly catching it in your net.
quote: mp3s provide publicity just as radio stations do.
I don't think anyone's arguing that mp3's shouldn't exist. That's like saying books shouldn't exist, or any other medium. mp3's are great, and allow people to hear music before they buy it - offering great publicity. They also allow people to put music they've bought into mp3 players so they can carry around hours of their music without lugging CD cases. mp3's are a Good Thing.
However, just as with anything else, mp3's can be abused. If I'm not sure I want to buy the latest Linkin Park album, I can try to find mp3's of the songs online to preview them. If I like them, I'll go buy the album and it doesn't matter if I have them on my desktop. If I don't like them, I delete them.
However, If I like them and *don't* buy the album, then I've just illegally copied music for my own use.
Amazon.com and BN.com all have previews available for songs, though they only offer part of each song and only part of each album. That's great publicity and gives a consumer the option to hear before they buy - just like Borders allows you to listen to music with headphones.
These businesses offer music to aid sales, knowing that no one wants to copy twenty seconds of a song and no one can record from their listening stations. There's no potential for stolen music, only for publicity.
quote:You can tell that they're simply afraid of the technology.
No, they're afraid of the abuse of technology. Nuclear power's great, nuclear weapons are not. A hunting rifle is great for hunting, not for picking off schoolchildren. Computers are awesome, but not when used to make viruses and hack other computers. Similarly, mp3's are a great invention, but not when used to violate copyright.
quote:No matter how you scale it, $205 to BMI once a year does not equal over a million a year.
Yeah, and I'd like to see you record and share music from a skating rink. Think about what you're saying! While webcasts are a great idea, the culture of theft that has appeared on the internet makes them problematic. If you lived in a neighborhood that had a 50% car theft rate, your insurance company would charge you an arm and a leg to protect themselves. Similarly, a webcast is living in that high theft neighborhood, and the music companies are setting an insurance cost. A skating rink has practically zero theft of music, by comparison.
And again, you all are so concentrated on music! This isn't about music, it's about violation of copyright law!
Mack is right when she gets upset that someone asks for her artwork in electronic media - there's no way to protect herself then. She's also right to only display the artwork in a form that's futile to reprint.
This culture of theft does not stop at music. The idea that anything on the internet is free is far larger. Art, poetry, prose, games... the list goes on and on, and these other industries don't have some evil RIAA empire to rail against.
This is bigger than music. It's this deluded belief in free information that's the problem. Art is not free unless you make it yourself, and even that has costs. Music is not free unless you write and play it yourself, and again it has costs. Stories are not free unless you write them yourself, at more cost.
Writers, artists, and entertainers aren't altruists that give of themselves for nothing... if there's no return on their efforts, they stop producing in favor of something that will put food on the table. Or they starve, and they stop producing anyway.
If you like something, pay for it!!! Just as if you got good service at a restaurant, you should tip your waiter or waitress. Stop trying to get something for nothing.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think legitimate digital music stores like iTunes invalidate most justifications for file sharing.
Here are some common arguments for file sharing:
CDs are too expensive! Well, iTune songs are only 99 cents each. You can afford to buy one song a day. Look how much you spent at Starbucks today.
I only like one of the songs on that CD, why should I pay for all of it? You can buy single songs from iTune
MP3 downloads help me expand my musical horizons, which in turn helps the music industry. iTune allows you to preview the music. And this is high-quality streaming music, not the crappy preview you get from Amazon.com
There are some songs that I can only find on file sharing servers. iTunes offer 500,000 selections. Also, let's be honest here, the majority people who download music have not limited themselves to downloading songs that they cannot purchase legitimately from iTunes.
The RIAA steals from the artists, why should I help support them? By not paying for your music, you are no better than the RIAA. When you buy from iTunes, the artist is still getting some money. You can debate whether the artist is getting their fair share, but it is definitely fairer than the $0 they get when people download from Kazaa.
It is the music industry's own fault for not keeping up with the technology. You should really check out iTune and Audible.com. iTunes uses an encoding technology that surpasses the regular mp3 recordings. You can download it, burn it, and stream it on various computers. What more can one ask for?
Having said that, I was a terrible roommate. Regardless of whether I had the right to or not, my actions were disrespectful. Thankfully it wasn't too hard for him to rebuild his library. Regardless of the risk, there are still 3.5 million users on the Kazaa system ready and willing to share some files.
[ January 11, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Well, they sort of can. You can be charged with receving stolen property. So if the thief shares the goods with you, sharing becomes illegal.
(in reference to Tres saying that the government can't make sharing illegal. Oh, there are ways. )
[ January 11, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's a fine line, Tres. If I lend a CD to a friend, and that friend gives it back, that's sharing. We shared a single CD.
If I lend a CD to a friend, and that friend makes a copy, then he technically violated copyright law and managed to secure a copy of the CD without paying for it. Essentially, he wanted the CD and found a method to take it without having to pay money.
All semantics aside, that's stealing. The CD may be mine to give or share, but the copy of the CD is technically not. If I ran into OSC's house, copied the files for his next book, then distributed them over the internet - that's stealing. It's no different than if I copied the book after it's published and did the same thing.
Same with music. Same with art.
If you want to own something, you need to pay for it. I don't see why this concept is so difficult.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
What are you talking about? The artists see no money from music sales. They get a flat fee for putting the album together, and the company gets the rest. So, you are not cheating the artist, you are cheating the company.
-W-
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You ARE cheating the artists, because those companies will be reluctant to spend more money on artists because of previously lost revenue.
Posted by Julian Delphiki Jr. (Member # 5882) on :
Okay, now you are making no sence. of course the company will still sing new contracts, they have to make money somehow.
That was a completly obsered statement.
-W-
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Of course they will. But the money fronted for those contracts will continue to decline.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The artists _do_ receive money from album sales. As soon as they recoup the advance they were given by the label.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In any case, stealing from an individual or a 'faceless corporation' -- either way, it's STILL THEFT! Perhaps you feel less guilt about stealing from the company? Pfft!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*steals from Rivka*
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Does it matter whose pocket you're taking money from? Was Robin still not a 'hood? Don't try to justify your actions by painting the victim as unsympathetic.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I used to download music. Then I downloaded Winamp and spent an afternoon with www.shoutcast.com. MMmm. Internet radio. It's great because it's legal, it's random, mostly ad-free, and is mostly good.
I still download episodes of TV shows that I miss, but they get deleted after I watch them. What's the legality of downloading TV shows? TiVo does it legally (I assume), but can I? It's not like I'd fight for my right to do it, considering that most of the downloads are grainy and postage-stamp sized video files. In any case, that will soon come to an end when I get my Radeon 9800XT/TVD video card *smiles in anticipation* and I get my virtual TiVo.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*smiles ever-so-sweetly at mack*
You know the line that goes something like, "You'll always be my friend -- you know too much?"
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm not exactly sure on TV, but I think it's along the lines of using a VCR. You can make a copy for yourself of a publicly broadcast television show, provided you don't distribute it or broadcast it without written permission.
Though, don't quote me on that.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Right. I think that IANAL is implicit in every post, unless the person is acually a lawyer.
For the acronym challenged, IANAL means "I Am Not A Lawyer." I'm on a mailing list where RPG copyright law comes up about once a month and that tends to get thrown around with reckless abandon.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The rpg stuff is interesting to me, since the industry is hurting so badly and part of my income comes from freelancing. What is this mailing list?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mmmmmm...reckless abandon.
rivka: wha?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mack: *pat pat* Nevermind, go back to sleep.
*RUNS!*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:All semantics aside, that's stealing.
You can't say all semantics aside, and then make a semantic claim like defining file-sharing as stealing.
If two people listening to the same CD isn't theft (and it certainly shouldn't be), then neither is file sharing. After all, file sharing is just an elaborate and far more effective way for two (or a million) people to listen to the same CD. Sharing does not become stealing when it gets more efficient.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. File sharing is copyright infringement, not theft.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*takes deep breath. Twitch*
Record labels _do_ need to make money too, you know. The music industry isn't a save-the-whales charity.
And no, you don't have to achieve Britney Spears sales to recoup. You do have to sell a lot, but that's also mostly because many artists decide to take a huge advance..which is an awful idea in the long run. The whole reason the money needs to be recouped is because record labels aren't just going to hand anyone $150K and say, "Happy birthday, go record an album or buy a Mercedes or something."
Here's the thing. Record labels have a lot of people to pay, you know. They do have employees, and those employees do need to eat, and therefore they do need a lot of money.
/rant.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes they do, in order to generate Britney style hits and such. I rather suspect a breakdown of expenses would show disproportionate (much higher) expenditure/income ratios for the big acts.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:The problem here isn't that people want free music; the problem is why law-abiding people feel that stealing music is better than paying for it.
Very well put Adam.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yes. File sharing is copyright infringement, not theft.
Yes, I think that's a very accurate way of putting it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
My roommate brought up something interesting this morning: Is it morally hypocritical to download from Kazaa but not share your own files?
Of course, viruses and lawsuits are big deterrents to sharing. But if a person benefits from other people taking the risk, shouldn't that person also take the risk as well. It is like dodging the draft for a war you believe in.
[ January 12, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No they don't, fugu. Any album that goes gold has already recouped, unless the artists decided they absolutely positively needed five hundred thousand dollars to buy new Porsches.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That doesn't disprove my hypothesis at all, actually.
A band could go gold and have massively recouped the investment on them, while britney could go gold and barely recoup the investment on her, ending her with a higher expenditure/income ratio.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's really a shame that artist development has essentially died out....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Specifically, I find it quite hard to believe that Britney's publicity doesn't cost a whole lot more than that for just signed band x.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But Britney's publicity brings in a lot more money a lot faster.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Buy the cds. Rip them, forget Kazaa.
If you really want to be legal, Kill those mp3's.
Unless you've paid for them through a service like napster or through iTunes; Otherwise you have "stolen" goods and either way you are breaking the law.
Not everyone uses Kazaa for music, some use it for porn. *seriously, how do you think gnutella started? or ANY p2p filesharing program?*
Just because Kazaa is still alive doesn't mean you should / can steal media with it. I've heard some say that downloading mp3's isn't like stealing a cd, *I've said it myself*. Although No matter your reasons for saying it, you are still stealing. especially where the artist is in the need.
Recently, I canned my 13-20 gigs of mp3's. I know what its like, and I did it purposefully. I know what I like to listen to, and honestly it will be better to go about getting it back by buying the cd's, and then ripping to a higher quality. Having the cd as a physical backup if either my hd, or my portable mp3 player died is another benefit.
I still have a some Pirated mp3's *compressed music - Not actually mp3's* but instead of 200 to 1 songs I don't own to ones I do, its now around 2 to 1. I will continue to A get music from my friend, and then if I like it buy the cd, *stuff you DON'T hear on the radio.* since I don't really listen to the radio any more, I use him as a kind of radio, he says you should listen to this, (I then dock my mp3 player, he uploads) if I like I will then proceed to purchasing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not so sure, pH. I've got a little bet with myself that over the course of their career the larger stars (again, on average) do a little worse in terms of income for the studio than the smaller ones, and that their main purpose is actually to maintain the studio's standing and influence, particularly in relation to radio.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
why would they help them get big if that were the case?
Think business like, not conspiracy like.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is business like. If you maintain your company's standing and influence, you get a bigger salary and bigger bonuses. I don't think its a conspiracy (well, not any more than a payola-like one, which is about money).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And copyright infringement isn't stealing how exactly?
If I copy a book and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that book illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
If I copy a CD and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that CD illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
All copyright infringement means is stealing the content without stealing the hard copy. Since the hard copy is really just a medium of transmission for content/intellectual property, then the important product is not the hard plastic disc that is a CD, but the content contained therein.
If you take the content without paying for, it YOU ARE STEALING.
Call it what you like. Call it sharing. Call it swapping. Call it unauthorized borrowing. Call it use without permission. Call it whatever. At its root, it's theft of content, pure and simple.
The person who owns the content did not authorize your use of it. It's just like sneaking into a movie theater, or splicing a cable line. You're taking something that isn't yours, that other people are expected to pay for. How is that not theft again?
It's amazing the extent some people will go to couch criminality in socially acceptable terms.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing/theft is quite clearly defined as taking something away from someone else (I checked several dictionaries and all were in agreement on this).
In copyright infringement, nothing is taken away. The owner is deprived of no thing they had previously.
Now, there is a strong argument that at least in some cases the owner is deprived of potential future revenue, but that is not a thing currently in possession which can be taken, as theft/stealing requires.
In this way it is similar to fraud. Fraud is not theft (though theft may be involved in fraud), yet under the rather broad definition of theft you seem to be advocating fraud would be theft.
In fact, under your argument I can classify just about anything as theft. "Speeding causes more wear and tear on the roads, therefore it is theft from society" is a silly argument, just as yours is. An overly expansive definition of theft like you desire leaves the word with almost no denotation, making it effectively useless.
I see no reason to use words incorrectly because one feels they convey a more severe moral condemnation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To tackle a specific example or two, who did you take the songs you "stole" from? Who had them before your act that now does not?
And right now we're arguing colloquially, but I'd like to clearly point out that copyright infringement and theft are completely and clearly separated legal notions.
Theft is the taking of present property. Copyright infringement is a reduction of potential future profits (at worst, there are many copyrights which are no longer earning their owner's any profits yet are still enforced). The two share some similarities, but are not the same thing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I copy a book and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that book illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
If I copy a CD and don't pay for it, I have taken the intellectual property that comprises that CD illegally. I have taken property illegally. I have stolen the property. I have committed theft.
No and no. In neither case does anyone lose any of their property, for the same reason that when you read a library book nobody loses any property. You do get the content of someone's book without paying for it when you go to the library, but that certainly doesn't mean the original owner loses that content. It makes no difference whether you copy it directly from the library book to your brain or you make photocopies as intermediaries - you're still doing the same thing, taking the content and getting the benefit from it (and being capable of giving it to someone else).
quote:All copyright infringement means is stealing the content without stealing the hard copy.
No, I think copyrights are fundamentally different from property rights, as property rights exist without the law explicitly assigning them, whereas copyrights are a social agreement that would not exist if we didn't agree to make them exist (presumably for our mutual benefit.) Copyright infringement is more of a violation of an assumed contract between artist and consumer than a theft. Why? Because you don't OWN ideas or songs. And even if you could, you don't lose them when someone else gets them - instead, you now BOTH own them.
This is important because it means we can simply no longer agree to the contract and we will be no longer bound to it (which I propose we do, because I seriously doubt people will stop creating music just because we don't give them gigantic CD deals.)
[ January 12, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Property rights are also created by a social compact and would not exist if we didn't agree to make them exist. If you think you can opt out of the social compact regarding copyrights at anytime, why can't people opt out of the social compact governing property rights?
A song is as much a creation of labor as a widget. If I made a widget, I own it. If you want my widget, you should pay for it. Why are songs any different?
[ January 12, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
People can't opt out of the social compact regarding copyrights. Its still against the law/wrong to infringe copyrights, but its not theft.
Also, your widget analogy is flawed. Taking your widget from you is theft. Creating another identical widget is copyright infringement. You still have the first widget in the second case.
Similarly, if I copy your song you still have the song. You have not lost any value related to your possession of the song, you have lost potential value related to your right to copy the song.
Its really quite different, though there are parallels.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Having spent countless hours typing out arguments over this very subject with Tresopax, I don't plan to start again.
However, I would like to address something that was brought up, that downloading mp3s is a Robin Hood sort of thing.
Downloading mp3s is not a way to get back at the recording industry. They see it as theft, and they will never back down on trying to stop it. They can't. Failure to protect a copyright can result in the loss of that copyright, they are legally bound to do everything they can to maintain it. Same reason why authors who use Xerox as a verb will get that little letter from the company about the missing (TM) symbol.
If you are sincere about wanting to get back at the RIAA and not just trying to justify your downloading jones, don't buy or download anything from the recording industry. Get your music exclusively from companies or individual artists who do not do business with the RIAA, and work to change the RIAA from within the system.
Some examples: MagnaTune.com was founded by musicians. It operates on a shareware model, 50% of the retail price goes to the artist, and the artists retain their copyrights. RIAA Radar is a site that lists artists outside of the RIAA boundaries. You can search by artist, record label or UPC code and it'll tell you if it's an RIAA member or not. Work to change the copyright laws. The Electronic Frontier Federation is working up a petition to Congress to make file-sharing legal that offers several different ways to compensate artists and the recording industry.
Found all three of those in five minutes flat. I'm sure there are plenty of others, and none of them involve anything illegal.
If you absolutely must have an RIAA song but don't want the RIAA to benefit, the very least you should do is send the money directly to the artist. Even if you did it anonymously, it'd be a hell of a message to the recording industry. "Here, if you won't treat them fairly, we will!"
[ January 12, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would like to point out that virtually everything OSC has ever written can be easily downloaded for free in text form.
By the definitions thrown around, it may not actually be theft to download them, even if you don't own copies of the books. It is certainly copyright infringement, but apparently that's not a big deal. After all, he still has his books, you haven't taken anything away from him.
However, if enough people download his books for free instead of buying them, he will have to find another job to support his family and make up for the lost revenue. While I suspect he'd write anyway, his books would be fewer and much farther between.
There are those who would consider this an unfortunate but necessary result of the right to free information. I call it disrespectful to the artist.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote: Taking your widget from you is theft. Creating another identical widget is copyright infringement. You still have the first widget in the second case.
So let's say OSC just finished the manuscript to his new book, Shadow Warriors, and immediately sends it to his publisher. By accident, the manuscript fell off the mail truck and I picked it up. I make a copy of that manuscript, scribble MY name on the cover page, and published the book myself. (winning both the Hugo and Nebula award.. yay me!)
Oh, I also return the original manuscript back to OSC. That's not stealing right, since OSC still has his manuscript?
edited to add: Arg... Chris beat me to the punch. Darn your professional writers!
[ January 12, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually the example would work better if you didn't publish it yourself. That would be fraud.
However, by the arguments posted here you could post it on your website and let millions of people download it, or upload it to a newsgroup. It's not theft, honest. Information wants to be free!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Which part of "darn you professional writers" did you not understand? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where did I say that copyright infringement is okay?
Oh, that's right, I said it was wrong and illegal.
I'm insisting on the correct terminology, not on information being free.
And no, it would not be theft to publish OSC's book under your name. It would fraud, and criminal copyright infringement (there are two general categories of illegal copyright infringement, civil and criminal), and any attempt to charge you with theft would be laughed out of court by the judge (unless you stole a physical copy of the manuscript; lets say you copied a copy from an ftp server accidentally left unprotected by his publisher).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Note I carefully did not name names. My posts were directed at those who honestly see no harm in file-sharing.
While I agree that artist compensation will probably see a major overhaul in the near future, simply because they have to, I also believe that downloading files before that process is in place is unethical.
If an artist gives away their work for free or encourages filesharing, I'm all for it. I support the Free Library at Baen Books and the artists like Dave Matthews that allow distribution of their music. But they are distributed with the consent of the artist. If you have taken and kept a copy of something without the artist's consent and without providing just compensation for the artist, you have acted unethically and without respect for the artist.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Fugu13 I understand your position. I did not mean to imply that you thought downloading music was acceptable. However, you did say that:
quote:I see no reason to use words incorrectly because one feels they convey a more severe moral condemnation.
You seem to think that we should not label copyright infringement as "theft" because it mistakenly convey a more severe moral condemnation than the act of copyright infringement deserves. In other words, you think copyright infringement is bad, but not as bad as theft. (please correct me if this is not your view).
My last (somehwat ungainly) example was my attempt to show that copyright infringement is as bad as theft.
quote:In copyright infringement, nothing is taken away. The owner is deprived of no thing they had previously.
If OSC's manuscript of his new book was posted on the internet before he had a chance to sell the book, didn't he lose something tangible?
[ January 12, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I've asked this before, but I just don't understand. Will someone please explain to me why you hate the RIAA/RIAA member labels so much?
I mean, God forbid a company actually, you know, concern itself with profit, or anything.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Copyright infringement is more of a violation of an assumed contract between artist and consumer than a theft. Why? Because you don't OWN ideas or songs. And even if you could, you don't lose them when someone else gets them - instead, you now BOTH own them.
Oh how the mind boggles. An assumed contract between artist and consumer... so, if I say I'll do work for you, and you'll pay me... then I do the work and you don't pay me, that's not theft of services? It's just violation of an assumed contract?
An artist doesn't lose them when someone else gets them, no... but an artist stakes his livelihood on someone else paying for what he creates! If someone makes copies willy nilly all over the place, the artist can no longer support himself.
Would you prefer that no one made any art anymore? Any music, any stories? Would you prefer that only amateurs created anything? That writers such as OSC, Stephen King, George Martin, Neil Gaiman, etc, etc stopped writing and got 9-5 jobs instead to support themselves?
What crack are you smoking?
And yes, fugu, I understand there is a legal difference between copyright infringement and theft. There is also a distinct difference between shoplifting, burglary, piracy, larceny, robbery, carjacking, etc, etc, etc.
If someone tells you that they'll send you something over eBay if you send them $1000 dollars, and then doesn't send anything, sure that's fraud. They also just stole your money, from a layman's perspective. Legally, they didn't, but they just took something that was yours.
The idea of "Thou shalt not kill" covers murder, manslaughter, and vehicular homicide I'd think, despite the legal differences. I think the "you shouldn't take what isn't yours" idea we all learned back in kindergarten holds true for everything from copyright infringement through grand theft auto.
If a little boy told his mother "I didn't steal anything, it was just fraud, mom" he'd probably get a slap in the mouth. At least I'd like to think he would, but we do live in the 21st century now. He'd likely be sent to therapy, or something.
Go back to kindergarten thinking, before we muddled everything up with semantics, legal quibbles and hair splitting. Don't hit people. Don't take things without permission. Put things back where you found them. And it's only sharing if you give it back when asked.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I have no problem with a company making a profit. I think that the companies exploit many musicians in order to do so, however.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can't give back something copied. You never took it in the first place.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mostly price-fixing, treating artists shabbily, holding them to insane contracts that aren't many steps ahead of slavery, putting all of their efforts towards promoting artists with no talent but lots of "star quality," working with monopolistic media moguls to play only their carefully selected crap on the radio 24/7 so that 95% of the radio stations in the country play the exact same things, etc etc.
Essentially they are believed to profit unfairly from the creativity of others. Profiting is okay, but the RIAA has the reputation of slavemasters.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
fugu13, is it rape if the woman was unconscious and a condom was used?
I mean, she hasn't lost anything tangible. Nothing was taken from her at all, really, and since she was unaware of it then there really isn't a crime, right?
(And yes, I know you haven't said that copyright infringement is okay. But you don't seem especially concerned about it, either. The point I want to make is that distributing something without consent of the owner is wrong, regardless of whether the owner suffers a material loss.)
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If hating a corporation justifies stealing, then heck, I can walk into Walmart and walk away with half of the store. Many consumer goods are made in third world countries. A ten year-old boy in China working for a quarter a week is suffering far worse than any struggling artist in Los Angeles.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since when is rape a crime about losing something? Of course it was rape, but not because she did or didn't lose anything because that's not what rape is about. Rape isn't a crime of theft, except in the highly figurative theft of innocence way. It is a crime of violence, and of sexual abuse, but not of theft. I am hurt you even suggest I think it is okay to rape someone.
And, no, its not always wrong to copy something for which the copyright is owned by someone else, at least not in parts. It's perfectly fair (to use the appropriate term) for me to publish a few sentences from an OSC book, for instance, especially if I'm critiquing them.
You seem to be getting more than a tad irrational in your arguments, here.
I'm not getting as upset as you, but you're getting absurdly upset. Some copyright infringement, like what you likely do with your VCR (got any tapes older than a few weeks? that's illegal) is much less meaningful than stealing a pack of gum (which I happen to think is quite wrong), and is in fact more on the line with speeding (yes, that's a particularly appropriate parallel I think). Other copyright infringement is very wrong, more along the lines of grand theft auto and such.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
To me it's semantics. Did you take something? Did you pay for it? Should you have paid for it? Did you have permission to take it without paying for it?
While in a strict, denotative, legal dictionary sense, there's a specific name for each of the various iterations of the above, to me, in a strictly connotative sense, its stealing - in the "taking ownership of something that doesn't belong to you" sense.
But I think, fugu, that we're in agreement that it's not legal and shouldn't be done. I don't think either of us are in Tres' boat saying that it's not theft and is therefore an acceptable thing to do.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think a lot of people see the RIAA like other people (or the same people) see Walmart. Greedy corporation. Sure, folks can provide you with specifics, but that's really what it comes down to.
When people boycott Walmart, they indirectly hurt the people who work for Walmart. When people boycott the RIAA, they indirectly hurt the artists who sign with certain companies (the RIAA being a group of corporations who sign artists).
I don't really download mp3's anymore. I don't buy music anymore, and neither do I go to concerts. It's not really a conscious choice, I just don't like anything out there enough to buy it or download it. I do listen to the radio, though again, they play those songs so often that I wouldn't want to listen to them at any other time.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:However, If I like them and *don't* buy the album, then I've just illegally copied music for my own use.
I'm reasonably certain that whether or not you buy the album later doesn't change anything. If you download the intellectual property without a license to do so (such as that implied by buying a CD or a book), then you have done so illegally. Whether or not that will be prosecuted, even if you are caught, is a different story.
quote:What's the legality of downloading TV shows?
quote:I'm not exactly sure on TV, but I think it's along the lines of using a VCR. You can make a copy for yourself of a publicly broadcast television show, provided you don't distribute it or broadcast it without written permission.
Home video recording was a huge issue in copyright law when it was first invented. It was actually broken into two different uses of home recording: time-shifting and library-building. If I recall correctly, it was decided that time-shifting (that is, recording something while you are away so you don't miss it) is not generally considered criminal infringement, and library-building is. Of course, to the letter of the law, making an unauthorized copy for either purpose is not permitted, but Fair Use covers time-shifting. I will need to brush up on my copyright history to confirm that, though.
So, here's my two cents. I don't download music anymore although I did when I was in college and I still have illegally copied music on my computer. I initially downloaded it because I was too poor to buy music. I keep it because I'm still too poor to replace it all, and I'm too lazy to try. It is hypocritical of me, but I justify it to myself by not downloading anything else.
One of the things we have seen time and again in the history of copyright law is the give and take between copyright optimists ("it should cover everything conceivable") and copyright pessimists ("as much should be in the public domain as possible"), and this dialogue is foregrounded most when dealing with new technologies that are not explicitly covered by existing law. Music, film, television and video are examples of this. Now, it may be your opinion that file-sharing is or is not copyright infringement, but the truth is that the current copyright law is inadequate to answer that question. We're in a very transitional period regarding copyright at the moment, and the government has yet to resolve the issue concretely.
Anyone who is interested in learning more about the history of copyright in America should read Copyright's Highway, by Paul Goldstein. It is a really good treatment of the subject. This is an important issue these days, and I think everyone would get something out of a more complete understanding of it.
Eric Flint and Jim Baen have set up an interesting project in the Baen Free Library. Older novels by participating authors are offered free of charge. Flint does a very good job of explaining the advantages of doing so in his Prime Palaver essays, particularly #6. He shows very conclusively that his revenues were actually increased by offering some of his work for free. And, surprisingly enough, his sales increased not only for his newer books, but also for those that he's giving away. Done in the right way, free distribution actually can make money for an artist. However, as Flint points out, that's a long way from saying that artists should be required to give their stuff away.
Copyright is a hairy issue. It's much more complex than most people realize or are willing to admit. The law as it is now recognizes that both consumers and producers of intellectual property have rights, responsibilities, desires and needs. The best thing to do is not to argue back and forth about it, but to educate ourselves as to how it really works and how it has been handled before, and to work to try to change the legal environment through the proper channels such that both artists and consumers are represented fairly.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
[tangent] People who have the good sense and decency to boycott Walmart are doing a great service to its employees. Were Walmart to miraculously be wiped from the face of the Earth, department stores with livable wages and fair treatment of employees would take its place. Workers would be far better off.
Not to mention the millions of blue-collar Americans whose jobs are in the process of being walmartted overseas. And the white collar workers whose customers are losing their jobs. Those who boycott Walmart are helping all Americans ensure that the value of their high wages and good workplace standards will outweigh the low costs of some cheap crap made in a Chinese sweatshop. [/tangent]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Add: Actually, I go to clubs (when the weather's nicer) and hear music there that I would never have heard otherwise. But it doesn't really enter this particular conversation, because it's mostly german-pop/industrial and therefore not easily purchased in the US.
And in parallel to Ayelar's post about Walmart, a lot of people see this decline in CD purchasing to mean better options for artists. iTunes has made it feasible for a no-name band to gain popularity through the store*. If you weren't signed up with a Big Name, then you were pretty much cut off of the Clear Channel radio monopoly and MTV venues. Independents have a clear shot of gaining ground through online stores.
* Bands can submit albums through any of the qualified iTunes companies, which includes a variety of small Indy-labels and one (cdbaby) that is open to almost anyone.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
saxon -- you'd never be prosecuted for that, even if someone really wanted to. Infringement on that scale is civil infringement, not criminal.
As far as the tv thing goes, I believe the legal criteria for differentiating between time shifting and library building includes a standard based on time since initial recording of a few days. Even if I'm wrong on that, so long as it has been watched at least once its almost certainly infringing (as the time-shifting purpose has been accomplished).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:However, if enough people download his books for free instead of buying them, he will have to find another job to support his family and make up for the lost revenue. While I suspect he'd write anyway, his books would be fewer and much farther between.
There are those who would consider this an unfortunate but necessary result of the right to free information. I call it disrespectful to the artist.
I am one of those who consider it unfortunate but necessary. However, it's not even all that unfortunate, because there has not been any indication that the free downloading of art/music/literature is causing fewer people to produce such works. During the period of time since file sharing has become popular, I would argue that the quality of music has significantly improved from the pop music that was playing everywhere when file sharing was just beginning. In the book industry, I have never noticed much correlation between the profitability of books and their quality, nor any decline in the quality of books since they started becoming available online, nor any indication that anyone has stopped buying regular books just because they are available online. (Indeed, I think file sharing of books is fine, but you don't see me doing it - it's just no fun.) None of these industries are going to collapse just because of file sharin, and I doubt they'd even decline. If you have evidence to the contrary, please tell.
The only exception I can think of right now is video games, and fortunately in their case they can create games in such ways as to make file sharing difficult. They can require registration, ownership of a CD, etc. through technical means.
So, I don't see any practical problem with file sharing. Artists might recieve less in a new, more free music distribution, but then again, they might recieve more. After all, I can give you a fairly long list of bands I would have never heard of had I not been able to download their song immediately when a friend told me to check them out. And in the case of at least three of them, I later went to their concerts, thereby helping them directly.
And I disagree that file sharing is disrespectful to the artists, it's no more disrespectful than checking a book out for free at the library is disrespectful to the author.
quote:And it's only sharing if you give it back when asked.
Nobodoy HAS to share their music files with me, just like nobody has to share their toy with me. But when someone buys a toy and wants to share it with me, I don't believe that the toy company has a right to come in and demand I buy my own toy. That's the bottom line.
[ January 12, 2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yes, the RIAA is a group of record labels. Yes, they like to make money. I've had friends dropped from labels for shitty reasons and things that could've been easily fixed, if the label had invested the time and money.
However, the company itself also invests a huge amount of money into an artist who _could_ be (and usually is) a big flop, causing the label to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars simply for the recording and promotion of a single album. On top of that, hurting the RIAA doesn't _just_ hurt ClearChannel (which is the first company that comes to mind when I hear complaints of radio stations all playing the same songs), it also hurts the labels themselves, who then have less money to invest, which means fewer talented artists can be signed because the label has to focus on those who, talented or not, are most likely to sell huge amounts of albums.
Oh, and about the radio station thing. Radio stations are businesses, too. They play the songs that they play because they have research people who set out specifically to poll the public and figure out what the people are most likely to want to hear so that they can have the most number of listeners and hence make more in advertising. So it's not as though the radio stations get together in secret meetings and plot to take over your brain or anything. They're giving us what the vast majority of people want to hear.
On top of that, I don't know if this is a practice anywhere else, but in Florida and in New Orleans, stations often set aside a certain time specifically to play local/unsigned/little-known bands.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fugu13 - first, let me apologize if I gave the impression that you would in any way condone rape. I shouldn't post things like that and then leave for dinner
What I was doing, in an admittedly heavy-handed way, was trying to illustrate a crime with no tangible harm and with a victim who was unaware they were even victimized, and using an example heinous enough to be a no-brainer.
My own definitions of theft are more like FlyingCow's, I think. Did the copyright owner offer it for free? If not, was it given to you by someone who did not keep a copy? If not, did you pay for it? If not, and you still have a copy, then it's been stolen. The fact that the owner of the copyright has not lost anything physical is besides the point, as far as I'm concerned.
There's a huge gray area in copying copyrighted material. Where I get into arguments with Tresopax is that I see a difference between a free copy from a library, a free copy that a friend made for you, and a free copy placed where millions of people can grab it.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
The goods are stolen to you anyways.
Wether or not you took the CD or Blah IP.
The thing is, ITS WRONG. ITS WRONG like Stealing.
If you don't like the name then replace it with BAD!
Okay? If you have goods ANY goods that you have not paid for you ARE in the wrong. YOU. With that said. I don't know how people can take music *or blah copy copy copy* and STILL feel OKAY/GOOD. ITS WRONG. its like buying things from someone who STOLE them before you got there, then turns around and sells it to you, You are not directly in the wrong, and if you don't know about it, then you still IMO aren't wrong.
BUT: If you know about it, then you ARE wrong; The point is, as pH has been saying it is a service/good, and when people use/abuse it without paying for it, well, they are BAD. *instead of thieves, because "Steal" is apparently not a word to describe someones loss, *wether or not it be potential loss*
All in all, You have something you haven't compensated the other party for. So, you SHOULD be afraid of people coming to you and TAKING you away to prison.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See, that's the thing, mark, its not identical to stealing. Any stealing at all is quite wrong (though there can be extreme mitigating circumstances, some think). However, there are certain small amounts of copyright infringement which are, quite frankly not very wrong at all. Such as taping a television show and keeping it for a while.
Heck, some forms of infringement aren't wrong at all, specifically those covered under fair use (I have a slightly different attitude towards what constitutes fair use than the courts, but its pretty close).
Notice I do not say that sharing music is not very wrong at all. I am giving a particular example to illustrate a particular concept, which should not be construed to mean I think that concept applies to particular other situations.
And I've been quite clear that copyright infringement is generally wrong. Just because theft is wrong and copyright infringement are wrong doesn't mean we should conflate the two into theft, just as rape shouldn't be conflated into theft, and fraud shouldn't be conflated into theft, and streaking shouldn't be conflated into theft.
Chris -- I didn't say copyright wasn't wrong because it didn't involve taking something, I said it wasn't theft, because theft always involves taking something. Just as rape is not theft, because it doesn't involve taking anything.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Fugu13, we agree on the general principle that downloading "free" music is unethical. I apologize for splitting hairs, and I promise this will be my last word on the fraud/infringement/theft subject, but....
Blacks Law Dictionary:
"Theft. A popular name for larceny. The act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.
"It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a 'theft.'
"Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another."
[emphasis added]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and yet notice that with every definition copyright infringement is not covered.
Here's my own emphases:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
"Theft. A popular name for larceny. The act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.
"It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a 'theft.'
"Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another."
[emphasis added]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"notice that with every definition copyright infringement is not covered."
I have to give you that one.
All this talk of taping TV shows reminds me it is time to record the Lakers-Cavaliers game.
Edited to add: Fugu13 you have been a good sport throughout this entire discussion. Although the debate was heated, you never resorted to personal attacks. You are definitely a good forum citizen who "speak their points clearly, and respond to specific points made by the other side."
[ January 12, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
thank you very much, it has been quite enjoyable to debate with you all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I want to second Beren's comments re fugu's style and etiquette. I've been on the same side of some arguments with fugu, and the opposite side in others; but only extremely rarely have I seen him act in a way that was not exceedingly courteous and calm.
*applauds*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
awww, shucks folks, now you're making me blush Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you have goods ANY goods that you have not paid for you ARE in the wrong.
What about this printout of a news article that I found on the web? I never paid the creators of the article. Am I in the wrong?
Or, for that matter, have you paid me for the post you are reading right now? I've put a lot of effort into it and you are reaping the benefits without giving me ANYTHING! Are you in the wrong too?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yes, fugu, good on ya, mate!
Interesting definition. It could be argued for hours either way, I'd imagine, depending on emphasis added. Especially in the "Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property" and the "done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property". Well, it could be argued that distributing a copy of a CD or allowing it to be distributed to millions is exerting a measure of control over that property. And, in Tres' case, he is doing it with the intent to deprive the RIAA benefit of their property.
So maybe all file sharing isn't theft, just what Tres does?
I think it's impossible to argue any of these points with Tres (and those in his corner) because of an essential disagreement. Is it possible to own something intangible? I think Tres feels the answer to that is no, that unless you can touch it it can't be owned. Contrarily, there are those of us who feel that an artist should have ownership over his or her art, a writer over his or her stories, or anyone else over their intellectual property - that such intangible property is not free to anyone with the gumption to take it.
My father once told me that laws only keep the honest people honest. People determined to do whatever they want will not be stopped by something as trivial as a social contract. It seems that is proven by adamant "freedom of information-ists".
And Tres, file sharing of rpg books is doing great harm to the rpg industry - which is already struggling to survive. Many people will buy a book, scan it, then share it with their friends as a .pdf file. Rpg companies do not have sales in the millions and supplementary income - a book that sells well might sell between 5 to 8 thousand copies. File sharing, and fan sites that post excerpts of system information and game rules, have seriously impacted sales.
So, yes, the idea of file sharing can do damage... but you keep your eyes on the prize of making all information free, so no one will want to make any more.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> So, yes, the idea of file sharing can do damage... <<
...but has it damaged the music industry? I'd argue that it hasn't.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, its not actually exerting any control over someone else's property at all. The copy you made was never their property, it was always and solely your property. However, it is a piece of infringing property. This is more understandable in the case of a machine. If you make a copy of a machine someone else owns the copyright for (say for purposes of example that this machine includes an expensive material), they do not get the machine you made. Its still your property, its just your illegally created property. It is the act of copying that is the violation, not the act of possessing or controlling as is critical to even broad definitions of theft.
No control is exerted over another's property through copyright infringement; they still have it all.
Copyrights are not property; they are a right (but not an inalienable one by any means). When you make unauthorized copies of a song, you infringe on that right. The RIAA can still do just as much stuff as they could beforehand with their property, nothing has changed in that regard.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They can't actually, and not because their property has been stolen. Because the copyright has been devalued.
I would argue that the value of something I've written and hope to sell is affected by its ready availability for free. Intangibles such as intellectual property have value, obviously, since people are downloading them. By taking the distribution of my copyrighted work out of my control and making it freely available to anyone who clicks on it, the value of my copyright has been lessened.
It may be -- almost certainly will -- that eventually the ease of reproduction and distribution will cause changes in copyright enforcement and artist compensation. I'd like to see that happen sooner rather than later, to avoid the major mistake the RIAA made. It should have moved to single mp3 sales four years ago, instead of wasting time with lawsuits and posturing that only aggravated the public and helped make illegal filesharing a cool and accepted thing to do. Rather than bash Napster they should have bought it, or brokered a deal with it. Instead they flailed about and helped create a whole new class of regular people who saw nothing wrong with wholesale copyright infringement.
[ January 13, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Is it possible to own something intangible? I think Tres feels the answer to that is no, that unless you can touch it it can't be owned.
Of course you can - stocks, for instance. But ideas you cannot own in the same sense. Ideas are unique in that once they are made public, they are accessible by all at no cost to the original creator.
Why do you believe otherwise?
quote:And, in Tres' case, he is doing it with the intent to deprive the RIAA benefit of their property.
That's just silly - I'd never do that. I don't believe the RIAA is evil. If I download music I do it with the intent to hear music. I assume the RIAA is getting all the benefit from their property that they are entitled to, whether or not I do it.
(Besides, I've never bought a CD and would not even if I could not get the song else where. Even before file sharing I only listened to the radio and friend's CDs on occassion. The RIAA is losing no benefit from me.)
quote:And Tres, file sharing of rpg books is doing great harm to the rpg industry - which is already struggling to survive.
What's an RPG book? More importantly, why does a phenomenon in the RPG book industry suggest all art will stop if file sharing is legal? I'd argue most art will benefit from file sharing.
[ January 13, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I apologize for my abbreviation. The roleplaying game industry (rpg industry) is pretty heavily affected. You had made a comment to the effect that you knew of no area where file sharing was a problem, I gave you an example.
quote: But ideas you cannot own in the same sense. Ideas are unique in that once they are made public, they are accessible by all at no cost to the original creator
Out of curiosity, do you pay to watch movies in movie theaters? Or would you argue that once a film is made it should be shown to all at no cost, since the information has been made public and should be accessible by all? Does this justify sneaking into movie theaters? How about plays, musicals, community theaters, concerts, etc, etc, etc.
I'll say again (and likely a few more times before it sinks in) that music file sharing is not at issue. It's the concept that a person can take something that another person has spent time and effort to create without any permission or form of compensation.
Music is just the hot ticket issue, since it's in the news. But it's only an indicator of a larger problem. The philosophy of "free information", if it were to be held by all human beings instead of just a rebellious few, would cripple the entertainment industry on all fronts.
If no one paid for any intellectual property, ever, then there would be no entertainment industry, because there would be no money spent on entertainment.
You pay for the priviledge of watching a great performance, or seeing a funny comedian, or listening to music. If no one paid for the privelidge, there would be no professional artists. None. Seeing as in order to be "professional" you need to perform your art "for pay"... if no one paid, you could not be professional.
Do you, Tres, personally affect the industry? No. Do the small group of idealists like yourself affect the entertainment industry as a whole? No, unless you count smaller industries like the rpg industry.
BUT, if your doctrine of free information were to become standard practice, there would be massive disruption to the entertainment industry - which, it seems you believe, should own no product and should distribute all forms of electronic information for free.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
fugu, you said:
quote: The copy you made was never their property, it was always and solely your property
Do you not believe in the concept of intellectual property? That while a CD is your personal property, the content it contains is someone else's intellectual property?
So, when you freely distribute someone else's intellectual property, aren't you devaluing it and reducing their benefit from it? Aren't you taking control over their intellectual property?
Are the rules so different for physical property rights and intellectual property rights, that the latter is not even considered property that can be stolen?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Intellectual property is a nearly meaningless term. It is used to refer to many things that are all very, very different. It has recently become a bandied-about term, but still equally meaningless.
One cannot "steal" intellectual property. If I use a trademark I do not own, I have violated a trademark; I haven't stolen anything. The use of the term intellectual property is an attempt, largely by the music and movie industries, to equate intellectual rights with property rights, when in fact they are two very different things, and cause the sort of equivocation between theft and copyright violation that they suggested between the boston strangler and using a vcr(1). The term intellectual property is an analogy, not a equivalency.
[ January 13, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, do you pay to watch movies in movie theaters? Or would you argue that once a film is made it should be shown to all at no cost, since the information has been made public and should be accessible by all? Does this justify sneaking into movie theaters? How about plays, musicals, community theaters, concerts, etc, etc, etc.
No, a theater is not a public good, even if a work of art is. If they play a movie on a big, outdoor screen, I think you can sit outside the fence and watch it for free, but you can't expect to be let on private property for free.
This is how the arts make money. They try to restrict access to their public idea by linking it to something not public. Gaming companies write programs that require a physical CD made by the original company to work, for instance.
Now, a better question is, can the movie theater show a movie without paying the original creators. I would say yes, unless they charge money, in which case no. This is where I think the social contract's limit should be - you can share a public idea with others, but not sell it in the way the original owner would. This is how patents already work. EVERYONE has access to the idea. But if you start producing the physical product of the public idea, and selling it, then you are in violation.
quote:BUT, if your doctrine of free information were to become standard practice, there would be massive disruption to the entertainment industry - which, it seems you believe, should own no product and should distribute all forms of electronic information for free.
No, as I said above, the entertainment industry has always made a profit by piggybacking its ideas on private property, and selling the property rather than the idea. I expect it to continue doing so just the same, and I don't think they have any obligation not to. Technology will just change some of the rules of the game, like radio did when it started giving music away more or less for free.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, if a concert was held in an open air venue, you have no qualms about dodging a ticket price?
This hair splitting intrigues me.
So, the movie itself is free, but you are paying to enter private property. So, if a person goes into a movie theater and plants a camera, for instance, the footage from that camera is free public domain. So, a camera in a theater can broadcast the free property to all your friends, for instance.
Of course, then, the theater can restrict camera use, unless it's an open air showing - then anyone can tape it, or just walk in.
Would you think it wrong for hundreds of people to attend an open air concert (or other production) and sit just outside the perimeter, leaving every seat in the venue empty and no (or a meager few) tickets sold?
Now, you said that games are linked to a physical thing, like a CD that needs to be in the drive. If someone cracks the encryption, though, it's okay to share, yes?
So, essentially, the answer to your rebellion would be to utterly shun electronic media. Tie everything to something physical so tightly that there is no way to copy it - private, live theater with electrical interference equipment to stop taping, for instance.
Now, that's not going to happen, obviously. Though, I'd imagine there are some crackpots who would jump through all manner of hoops to find a way to record *that* performance and spread it to the masses.
But, then, every such act is a violation of the law. We have laws to protect the rights of people who create things from people like yourself. While you may argue that "sharing" a file is not illegal, the initial copy of it is.
There are parallels to burglary. In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to lock my doors, because my stuff would be safe from thieves. I know that's not the case, so I invest in locks. When the thieves break in anyway, I invest in better locks and a security system. When they beat that, I invest in more locks, a better security system and surveillance, etc, etc, etc... All to stop a burglar.
With a piece of art, it would be nice to live in that ideal world where people paid for the priviledge of viewing said art. Instead, all manner of precautions have to be made to ensure that an artist can actually see some monetary gain.
Out of curiosity, Tres, do you give money to street performers? I mean, they are the ultimate end product of your way of thinking. They perform in the hopes that a kindly soul will toss a few coins their way. Is this how all artists should live? All creators? It's a mark of a pretty dismal world if your most creative, intelligent people are forced to perform physical labor or beg for money and food.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't think CD's should be sold ever. (since you don't buy them, anyway) CD stores should shut down, since the product should be freely distributed. People should burn their own CDs of music freely created by musicians.
This seems to go beyond any animosity toward big business screwing the artist - it seems as though you have no desire to help the artist either, since all information should be free to whoever wants to take it.
Or do you believe artists should be paid for their work?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Oh, and I just realized you never answered my question.
Should a movie be shown to all at no cost?
You answered that free public information is restricted by tying it to something not public.
But, are you saying that such a link *shouldn't* be made? That a movie (such as LotR, which cost $94 million to make) should be projected for free to the everyone?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
fugu, interesting link.
I wonder what the correlative link is between the advent of the vcr and theater ticket prices, though. Did the movie industry simply raise prices to compensate for the predicted loss to video?
There is only a small similarity, though, too, in that analog recordings degrade over time and through use. Not to mention that copying on a massive scale is prohibitively expensive - both in cost of blank tapes and storage space.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find that movie revenues have only gone up, even considering a ticket price fixed with respect to, say, the CPI. And you know the biggest reason why? VHS and tv . Box office takes are only around 26% of the revenue from movies -- by far most of it (46%) is from video rentals.
It really is an irony when the thing the movie industry tried so hard to scuttle is what's been lining their pockets.
Apparently the Boston Strangler was actually a guy who walked around handing people cash (see link in previous post for reason for reference).
Also, I'm not suggesting an analogy between video recording and file sharing. Video recording is a very minor form of copyright violation, roughly analogous to speeding, or less. File sharing is a much larger form of copyright violation.
The link was more to illustrate how far the movie/music industries have been willing to go in the past in order to shut down things they are afraid of (stupidly, I might add).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
FlyingCow, you make it sound like my proposed ideas are somehow vastly different from the way things work now. The truth is file sharing is just a new wrinkle in the way things have always been done. Since the beginning of concerts, as far as I know, people have sat just beyond the fence to get a glimpse for free. I've seen it at every costly concert I've ever been to. Would it be okay for everyone to try and do that? Yes, but then the artist would probably cancel the concert. Furthermore, there is presumably some benefit to actually being IN the concert, because people sitting outside usually have a strong desire to get in.
There's nothing new about any of what I've been saying. Art has always continued, and it will continue.
If worst comes to worst somehow, society (via the government) can always simply pay artists with tax money for things the like and want to have created. A lot of ideas and art already comes from this.
quote:Or do you believe artists should be paid for their work?
No, but it will certainly make them more willing to produce if they are.
After all, as I mentioned earlier, I don't get paid for writing all this stuff on this forum. There is nothing wrong with that - I don't DESERVE money even if you get some benefit out of what I write. Nor does any artist. But if they are good enough, it's often to both the artist and the consumer's benefit to pay that artist, so they'll produce more good stuff.
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't think CD's should be sold ever. (since you don't buy them, anyway) CD stores should shut down, since the product should be freely distributed. People should burn their own CDs of music freely created by musicians.
No, I wouldn't say that. Some people LIKE owning the official CD of something. I'm a big movie fan and I like owning DVDs of things just so I can own it, even though I could probably just tape them from TV and get an equivalent quality.
But I do believe file distribution is far more efficient.
quote:Should a movie be shown to all at no cost?
No, nobody has an obligation to do this. A movie creator could if they wanted to, but there's no reason to think they SHOULD.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm just going to say that FlyingCow is my new best friend. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: There's nothing new about any of what I've been saying.
True, there have always been freeloaders, and there always will be. We're just inventing new and more efficient ways to be a bum.
quote: If worst comes to worst somehow, society (via the government) can always simply pay artists with tax money for things the like and want to have created.
Oh, wow. So, you'd be willing to pay the artist only if it came out of your taxes, but not directly? And you're going to let the *government* decide what to create? Yikes... um, big Wagner fan?
quote: Some people LIKE owning the official CD of something. I'm a big movie fan and I like owning DVDs of things just so I can own it, even though I could probably just tape them from TV and get an equivalent quality.
Yes, there are thankfully people who "like" owning something official (aka people with something akin to ethics - heaven forfend!). But we're not talking about them. Those are the people who don't agree with you. Those are the people who pay for music because they feel the artist deserves to be paid for what is essentially their work and property.
In the world you seem to want to live in, a world where there are no copyright laws and no restrictions of free distribution of any information, musicians wouldn't have the gall to charge for a product that they have no rights of ownership over - something that, as soon as they create it, enters the public domain.
quote: No, nobody has an obligation to do this. A movie creator could if they wanted to, but there's no reason to think they SHOULD.
But from what you said, movie theaters are restricting free information by charging for tickets, secreting away information that should be free to the public on private property with locked doors.
Would it be wrong, in your worldview, for someone to get an advance copy of the LotR:RotK digital recording and email it to every single person in teh world in a format that could be easily viewed from any computer (or burned and viewed on any dvd player)? You seem to feel this is the way things should be, free information and whatnot, production costs be damned.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: I think you'll find that movie revenues have only gone up, even considering a ticket price fixed with respect to, say, the CPI. And you know the biggest reason why? VHS and tv
True. The industry adapted after the initial fear, overhauling their entire setup to capitalize on the new technology. The technologist's argument, really, that the industry is just afraid of change and will adapt.
And there's something to be said for that. But...
Let's go back to the "Guttenberg scare" a few hundred years ago, when scribes were in a terrible fear that their way of life would be destroyed and that the "unwashed masses" would even be able to own books.
Sounds silly, right? Moveable type was an enormous boon to society and furthered all manner of progress and education, bringing literature and literacy to the masses. Yay, technology! Rah, woot!
You seen an illuminated text lately? The artform is gone. Done in totally by the new technology. It couldn't compete at all, ground under the march of progress.
Not to say I think moveable type shouldn't have been invented, but its advent destroyed an artform entirely over a period of about a generation or so. Ground in the wheels of progress.
Sure, there are those rare few who prize such art, but now it's rare to the extreme and mostly museum pieces.
Our current technology has the potential do do that in a lot of fields. Sure, the big production companies will adjust and make their money. That's why they *have* the money - because they're adept at making it and keeping it. The artists have gotten more and more of the short end of the stick. It's likely that the "adaptations" made to accomodate the new technology will result in far higher prices in the long run and an even shorter end of the stick for the artist.
That's just how big businesses work. In the mean time, I just hope too many scribes don't give up their craft to get jobs at printing presses.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:True, there have always been freeloaders, and there always will be. We're just inventing new and more efficient ways to be a bum.
I don't think that's a completely fair assessment of the situation as a whole. Copyright is and always has been a dialogue between copyright optimists and copyright pessimists, and it should be. There is a very valid argument that putting everything immediately into the public domain would be damaging to the advancement of art and technology. But it is equally valid to say that if nothing ever went into the public domain the advancement of art and technology would also be harmed. American copyright is not founded on the principle of "author's rights," as it is in some other countries. Equating copyright violation and theft goes against the entire history of copyright in this country.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Shortly before passage of the bill, a colloquy took place between Representative Kastenmeier, chairman of the House subcommittee that produced the bill, and Representative Kazen, who was not on the committee:
"Mr. Kazen. Am I correct in assuming that the bill protects copyrighted material that is duplicated for commercial purposes only?
"Mr. Kastenmeier. Yes.
"Mr. Kazen. In other words, if your child were to record off of a program which comes through the air on the radio or television, and then used if for her own personal pleasure, for listening pleasure, this use would not be included under the penalties of this bill?
"Mr. Kastenmeier. This is not included in the bill. I am glad the gentleman raises the point.
On the other hand, taken literally, the 1976 Copyright Act does give the copyright holder the right to control private copying. However, even further, there is Chapter 10, Subchapter D, Section 1008 of the Act:
quote:No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
So, making a copy for private use is infringment, but is not something that one can bring a lawsuit over.
Anyone who thinks the copyright issue is cut and dry has not done their homework.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Nothing about our legal system is cut and dry.
Cat burglars can sue homeowners if they get injured while carrying valuables from the premises.
Hair dryers must carry a warning about not using them in the shower, for fear that someone might sue.
It pains me to go on.
If you're trying to find out what is strictly "legal" that's one thing. And it takes a lot of homework, a lot of arguing, and a particular judge or jury. It's a lot of hairsplitting.
But whether something is "legal" and whether something is "right" are entirely different things.
If you bop your head to a kickass street musician while standing in a subway then don't toss him some money, you're a jerk. If you get stellar service from a waiter and leave no tip, your even more of a jerk. If you think the world owes you free stuff because you successfully manage to breathe each day, you're a jerk with entitlement issues.
Even if you think information should be free, you should really give money to those who produce it well, to ensure they keep producing more good information. Taking it with a "thanks sucker" attitude only makes them less likely to want to produce more. Chopping down trees without planting any is a good way to destroy a forest.
The more people chopping without giving anything back, the smaller the forest becomes. One person doesn't make much of a dent. Two people, still nothing. How many people does it take to destroy it?
I said at the start of this thread, it's a matter of scale. If one hermit wacko out in the boonies screams to the wilderness that information should be free, that's one thing. If it becomes status quo, that's another.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So, to be clear, are you arguing that violating copyright is wrong because of an a priori moral principle that people don't have the right to what they didn't create or pay for, or because of a pragmatic concern of damaging the advancement of arts and sciences?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not exactly. Your definition is too rigid.
If someone else makes something you like and use or performs some service for you, it behooves you to reciprocate or risk no one making anything else you like or performing any service for you. Copyright law is one of the ways we as a society try to limit those people who want to take without giving back, to protect the giver/creator from the greed of the taker/user so that the giver/creator can benefit from their giving/creating. It's how we encourage more of that sort of behavior, by protecting it.
And, although it's a minor point, it's not violation of law that I feel is wrong. The act itself is wrong, and the law is there simply to set that in stone (so to speak). To quote a professor of mine, "you don't decide not to kill someone because a law says it's wrong. You decide against murder because it's not a very social thing to do." Laws are reflective of society, they don't create society.
...
I'm still curious about Tres' answer to the LotR:RotK free distribution question.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
This doesn't completely address the moral question, but I think it's a really important point to make that copyright doctrine in America has not been solely about protecting producers and promoting new work. The framers of the original Copyright Act, and all subsequent revisions, have also held to the idea that the public does have the right to these works, which is why copyright is limited, both in what can be copyrighted and how long copyright lasts. Up until international pressure more or less forced the US to conform to the Berne Convention, copyright lasted a much shorter time and there were a lot more restrictions on what was copyrighted.
Personally, I like to pay for what I get, and I would feel bad about violating copyright. However, I have yet to see it proved by anyone anywhere that the expansive Berne Convention copyright is necessary to promote production, or that it promotes production at all, and I do believe there is value to fair use and limited copyright terms.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think we can agree on that saxon. The idea that something can be perpetually copyrighted bothers me... things should enter the public domain eventually.
That doesn't mean the day it's released, however, and I think we're both on board with that point.
Also, there do need to be restrictions on what is copyrighted (case in point, Phil Jackson copyrighting the word "threepeat" is a little ridiculous). But that doesn't mean that a creative work would lose its copyright priveliges if we tighted things up a bit.
...
I'm guessing Tres has opted not to answer that last question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He must have trademarked it. Trademarks are very different from copyrights.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Your debate has been most amusing, but I thought I'd report in with some actual news for the OP: ISPs now actively ignore RIAA requests Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would it be wrong, in your worldview, for someone to get an advance copy of the LotR:RotK digital recording and email it to every single person in teh world in a format that could be easily viewed from any computer (or burned and viewed on any dvd player)?
That would depend on how they got it. If they stole it, yes, it would be wrong - that would be stealing. If they were given it only after agreeing not to share it, it would also be wrong (even to show to one friend without making a copy) - that's lying. If they were given it freely with no strings attached, then it would be okay.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
And here's the crux of the argument.
Define stealing it.
If they gained access to a copy of the recording and made a copy, then left the orginal, in your definition that's not stealing, and they can freely distribute it as much as they want.
And further, it seems that your definition of stealing only goes to the first step of separation. If person A steals something and copies it for person B, person B is then legally in the clear to copy it for persons C thru Z ad infinitum - at least so far as I've followed your argument.
Is sharing always wrong if the first copy made was doneso illegally?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If they gained access to a copy of the recording and made a copy, then left the orginal, in your definition that's not stealing, and they can freely distribute it as much as they want.
No, it IS stealing, just as taking someone else's car for a spin and then putting it back is stealing. A person may not 'own' an idea, but they certainly can own the physical disk containing that idea, and doing anything whatsoever with that piece of property against the wishes of the owner is stealing.
quote:Is sharing always wrong if the first copy made was doneso illegally?
That's a good question, at least if I can rephrase it as "Is it wrong to share something that was wrongfully shared with you?" I'm not sure. It's the old gossip example - a friend tells a friend a secret on the condition that he tell noone, but then that person tells you the secret anyway. It is wrong for you to then continue to pass on the secret? Does that other person's promise now apply to you? It's tricky.
[ January 19, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And so, I went over to Orson Scott Card's house and rifled through his trash until I found a pretty complete copy of his next novel. So then, I went over to Kinko's and had the whole thing scanned to disc and I figured, what the heck, I'll put it up on my website and share my find with everyone. Then everyone can know how great of a writer OSC is.
Sure, I mean, I'm really only putting up one copy, it's all those folks that download it that are really pirating. But since they really didn't steal anything concrete, I guess they weren't stealing either. But man, whatta a great read it was! We all REALLY enjoyed it man, wow.
Of course, the Mr. Card gets a call from his publisher saying there's no need to publish the book he's been working on for a few months because so many folks already have it. But that's okay, right, he's got plenty of money to tide him over until the next book.
Grow up folks, it is all interconnected. Whether you like the recording industry or not, whether you like the book publishers or not, they are the ones who go out there and find these artists to entertain you. It costs a lot of money to pay the bands, the producers, the CD artists, the CD manufacturers, the distributors, the local retailers and even the snotty girl with the bad nose ring that sells you your shiny new CD.
And when you download a pirated song, you rip each one of those people off. Just because your mommie or daddie don't give you a big enough allowance, or McJob doesn't pay well enough, doesn't make it alright to steal entertainment. If you're starving, stealing food can be overlooked. If you're bored, stealing entertainment is a crime.
Go do something with yourself and realize that the free lunch you eat today, was earned by someone else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd like a show of hands -- who has anything recorded off the tv on videocassette that is more than, say, a month old?
Now, why or why not is that wrong?
I see a lot of people condemning music downloaders quite vehemently, yet I think many are oblivious to their own copyright violations. Copyright violation is a many-degree'd thing, and asserting that downloading music is morally identical to stealing an unpublished novel then publishing it in your own name is silly.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Another example you could use, fugu, is how many people have a recipe that someone copied for them from a cookbook. That is just as much copyright infringement isn't it?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Let's look at the two examples there:
Recording from television to videotape. Please check the copyright disclaimer at the end of all shows, sporting events, etc. It only claims protection from rebroadcast. By putting it on cable or broadcast, they only reserve their rights to prevent unlicensed rebroadcast. Watching again at home is perfectly legal and encouraged. Why the difference? For most TV presentations, advertising or subscriber fees cover the cost of broadcast rights to the public, so the product has been paid for, as well as the right for the public to make a copy. That's why movies always go to video/DVD before you get to see them on HBO or Showtime.
On the note of recipes: If I copy down a recipe from a cookbook that I own, that's fine and it is fair usage. What if I copy down one from a cookbook and drop the copy in the mail to my mom? It gets a bit trickier, but many times the recipes printed in books are not copyrighted works individually. That's because there are very few original recipes that make it into print. To claim copyright on a recipe, the chef would have to prove beyond a doubt that this was an entirely new recipe with completely novel ingredients AND preparation methods. Since almost every recipe is a variation on a time-tested theme or uses long standing preparation methods, they don't lend themselves to copyright. What is copyrighted in a cookbook is the actual layout and presentation of the book, along with commentary by the writer(s). If you photocopy the page and mail it out, now you've broken copyright law. And most copy shops won't allow you to copy directly from a book for just that reason.
[ January 20, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sopwith -- you sadly misunderstand copyright. They mention that because they can get the FBI involved for that sort of thing. There are many other types of copyright infringement which are purely civil, or fall under fair use. Remember -- even fair use uses are copyright infringement, they are just legally permissible copyright infringement.
Also, copyright is not something you have to state that you own. You have copyright (provided you can prove it) by default, and must explicitly license it to someone for it to be transferred. Implicit licenses are not valid.
This outline of copyright makes it clear: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+5+13++ that those rights mentioned at the end of video broadcasts are not what rights the broadcasters are limited to, but rather what they are entitled to via statute, while most copyright violations are the subject of common law on fair use and such, and as such must be decided in the court.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I said no. I'm willing to share and sell my work to those who appreciate it and respect it. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)