posted
[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]
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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."
posted
"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 ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
