posted
Copyright law exists to offer artists legal protection to make sure they are paid for their work. Its purpose is not to gouge consumers into paying for the same thing over and over again. That is the Disney concept of copyright; not the original intent of copyright.
But that's a different conversation.
Basic copyright law: If I own something, I am legally justified in making a back-up copy for my own personal use. Which is where FlyingCow, and others, seems to go off the deep end.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't own a digital copy because it's a different medium?
Makes no sense. Especially when you consider the fact that it costs nothing to produce.
It isn't REMOTELY like stealing a copy of a book because I already paid for another copy. A book is a physical product which costs money to produce and distribute.
I am, and I'll be honest here, stunned beyond belief that someone could even *have* an interpretation of copyright law that would lead them to believe that it is immoral/illegal to own backup copies of music you already paid for.
It isn't the reaction I was expecting when I posed that question.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow's understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than yours. Also, he's explicitly said he knows about the right to make a backup copy, making your outburst particularly incorrect. The issue is when you copy files you do not have a license for, which is copyright infringement even if you have a separately licensed file with the same music.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:FlyingCow's understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than yours. Also, he's explicitly said he knows about the right to make a backup copy, making your outburst particularly incorrect. The issue is when you copy files you do not have a license for, which is copyright infringement even if you have a separately licensed file with the same music.
Outburst?
*sigh*
Would you care to explain HOW his understanding of copyright law is far closer to correct than mine? Particularly since what you seem to be saying is that FlyingCow and I are actually in agreement, and we're having some kind of misunderstanding?
And - since when do you need a license to own a backup copy of something you already own? Could you please explain that to me as well?
posted
Is FC's more correct? With the Adobe example, he said if you lost all backups, tough luck, you still can't copy a friends CDs for the reinstall. You'd have to purchase new software.
Is it copyright infringement then to copy my friends CDs with the same program, use my License Key, and reinstall?
Edit: To be clear, I'm asking a question, not arguing a point. If what I'm suggesting is in fact illegal, then I think there's some serious problems with copyright laws.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think FC crossed the line too. Here's the thing though, you are responsible for your actions and words. You've got the choice to follow people over the line or not.
FC called you a lazy thieving bastard. That reflects on him. What you say in response reflects on you. Ultimately, the direction the conversation takes depends on what both of you say and you are responsible for your part.
That's all I have to say about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
disclaimer - I only skimmed after Flying Cow's post on page 4 so if this has been covered, forvime me...
quote: I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading or not.
not
quote: However, if the install discs were in the house, and all was destroyed, you are not justified in stealing a copy of PhotoShop to replace what you lost - just like you are not justified in stealing another house to replace what you lost. If your CDs were lost in the fire, you can't just go and steal the music back to replace what you lost.
Actually, it doesn't work that way, If I had a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat or Windows in this scenario I would indeed be allowed to obtain a CD with the software from someone else and install in on my machine with my license. In fact very often companies don't get a CD for each license, they just get 1 CD and everyone installs from it...
The point is that for software I pay for the license to use the software, not for the physical media. This is because the software is really independent of the media...
So my point is that if I have that fire and my only copy of my favorite CD is destroyed I may very well be able to, and I think I should be able to, copy that CD from someone else to replace it.
Ultimately if it's OK for me to make a backup copy of my CD it should be OK for me to make a backup copy of my CD using someone elses identical CD... and once I do who's gonna tell the difference anyway.
Or, in other words IANAL but I believe that "Yes Mr. RIAA guy, that's a copy of the CD but I have the original right here. Yeah, it's ruined and can't play but you can still see the bit of the label that tells you what CD it is so obviously I own that CD" must either be OK or not OK regardless of the actual source for the music on my copy....
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL: His understanding is more correct in that it is copyright infringement (albeit very minor copyright infringement nobody much cares about) to download a sound file from someone else of a CD you already own a copy of, or take analogous actions in other media where only copyright law and the implicit license due to the sale are operating. Your purchase of a physical CD allows you to listen to that physical CD, sell that physical CD, make copies for certain types of personal use (including backup) of that physical CD, loan that physical CD to a friend so he or she can listen to it, and many other things. It does not permit you to make a copy of someone else's virtually identical physical CD. Similar statements apply to downloaded files, though there's typically a more explicit (and likely more constraining) copyright license involved there. You do not need a copyright license to back up your music that has been purchased on CD; that is covered by fair use and the doctrine of first sale.
Also, allow me to quote from FlyingCow:
quote:If you backup files and information you own, then you are not breaking the law.
Note the not in there.
His understanding isn't completely correct; there is no explicit limit on the number of copies you can make, though making too many might violate fair use. You can make as many copies as there are fair uses for. Fair use, fortunately or unfortunately, is murky territory.
BQT: software licensing is very hazy, but not because of copyright laws. The licenses as written tend to be ambiguous as to whether or not it matters where the source of the application files is. But yes, it probably is copyright infringement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
just_me: you might think that, but it is not correct. Now, nobody's going to go after you for doing it, but that's a different matter.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I think FC crossed the line too. Here's the thing though, you are responsible for your actions and words. You've got the choice to follow people over the line or not.
FC called you a lazy thieving bastard. That reflects on him. What you say in response reflects on you. Ultimately, the direction the conversation takes depends on what both of you say and you are responsible for your part.
That's all I have to say about that.
I agree. Which is why apologized immediately. What else can I do?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, in the bizarre situation someone were to go after you for such a thing, the worst they could likely make you do is make you delete the copied files via a civil suit.
Second, a court case could suddenly make this fair use, though its unlikely ever to come up.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always recorded my best disks with Reel to Reel, as soon as I open them. I always use a new cartridge. I play the tapes and replace them if they become scratchy. The disks have only been played once or twice in the last 40 years. That way the sound has stayed crisp and clean. I consider this to be fair use. So there. I never copy music, even though the zerox machine makes it tempting and replacement copies are hard to find.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: - if you are downloading songs for a CD you *used* to own, but no longer own (through loss, destruction, theft, etc), you are stealing music.
Good luck ever enforcing that.
For that matter, good luck finding anyone who's willing to go through the trouble of enforcing that.
"I was in the process of backing up my legally purchased disk to MP3 format when a colossal hardware error caused the destruction of the disk. Fortunately, the MP3 version survived." ...Or it could be I just downloaded the MP3s after my disk got scratched.
"I own the cassette tape, so I was using the audio input of my sound card to make MP3s off of a cassette deck." ...Or I just downloaded them, reasoning that it was fair use to have back-ups of music that I had purchased. But... *gasp*... Those MP3s might approach CD, rather than cassette quality!...
...And the minute we have any law enforcement agencies with so little time on their hands that they're actually doing quality comparisons, they Libertarians are going to increase their rolls.
The reasoning that's getting used here is bad for users, business, and law alike. If you put the screws to consumers with the terms of a license, you encourage them to wait until the product isn't at its inflated first-run price... Until its in a more durable format... Until its available on a 5.1 DVD... And the current product never gets sold.
Instead, people assume, rightly or wrongly according to the law, that they're buying music and they have certain rights with regard to what they can do with that music. Working under other assumptions is pretty much untenable.
And at least one legal scholar has noted (pardon I don't have the quote available on hand) that copyright law was not created to "protect the rights of content creators", but to assure that their content could be accessed, provided a fee was paid to the creator. For a certain length of time. That's not an insignificant difference. If the goal is content availability and preservation, a system arranged entirely under profit motives is not necessarily viable.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, are you paying any attention whatsoever to what's being said? If you make a backup copy of music from a CD that you already own, that's legal.
If you make a backup copy of music from a CD that you already own BY DOWNLOADING IT ILLEGALLY, that is NOT legal.
posted
Yes, pH, I know that. If you will note the passage I quote, however, the question of whether one is considered to "own" an album that has been damaged, or that one has a right to digital copies of an album that one originally purchased in a non-digital format (tape, vinyl, et al.), apparently remains up in the air. As does the question of one's "right" to download music one owns on CD, rather than ripping it oneself. Various groups have claimed in the past that they have been permitting download of copyrighted materials soley so legitimate owners of said materials could have back-up copies they themselves are unable to make; these arguments in the past have usually not been well received.
My larger point is that the "licenses" music groups believe they sell when they sell an album (in whatever form) are
A) Not terribly well understood by the average purchaser,
B) Not particularly in the best interests of the average purchaser,
C) In some cases would not be accepted, were they understood, by the average purchaser,
D) Counter-productive to numerous positive ends, including preventing wide-scale piracy, being significantly enforcable by law, creating goodwill with a legitimate purchasing public, and allowing works that do not offer an immediate profit not to vanish completely with obscurity.
Or, to put it more succinctly, yes, pH, I'm paying very close attention to what's being said.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling: your rememberance is probably slightly off. Copyright was not created (at least, as part of the Constitution) to ensure access to the works under copyright, but to provide an incentive for creators to create works, so that they could be enjoyed by the public (period). The initial enjoyment happens under license because the ability of the creator to issue such is what copyright is, but eventually the work passes into public domain. Sadly, the works take far too long to do so nowadays.
Licenses will always be complicated. There is no way to make licenses and fair use simple, even if they were more strictly codified (which, given the quick evolution of technology and the pliability of Congress to commercial interests in the short term, might very well turn out to be a bad thing). Copyright could be improved, but making definitely allowable a use that no copyright holder cares much about anyways is not the first, second, or even tenth most important step in that direction.
What's more, there's a real danger to adding such an exception. It might imply a responsibility on the part of the licensor to provide the licensee with a new copy if his or hers becomes damaged, which is a significant additional burden on the licensor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll just jump in real quick and say that I've heard songs before which have probably been downloaded illegally. I've then gone out and paid for music from those artists, who I never would have heard of otherwise.
In some cases, illegal file sharing increases music sales. In fact, easily 90% of the music I've purchased in the last year has been as a direct result of hearing free versions of songs online first.
Just something for artists to think about.
I think Jonathan Coulton has the right idea. He offers his songs free via podcast. He has lots of free songs on his website, and he uses Creative Commons licensing so that people can use his songs in non-commercial venues to spread the word about his music.
I love his music, so even though I first heard free copies of his music (in this case, because he offered them for free), I've since purchased songs and donated to his website. He never would have made money from me if I had not heard his free music, but now he has.
More musicians need to get a clue. The record companies need to learn to live in the present, and stop being greedy asses.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Sterling: your rememberance is probably slightly off.
Quite possibly. I've heard various interpretations of the incentive for copyright, from protecting the authors to benefitting the education of the general public. And certainly, the piece in question was one opinion. Still, I think it would be erroneous to suggest that the sole purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of authors/artists/content providers.
quote:I'm going to bold this because clearly, no one is reading what I am typing.
posted
Well Sterling, I just feel that the "Oh, I use it to discover new music" justification is a load of crap, and I have given a reason why it is a load of crap, and yet....it's still held up as a reason that downloading illegally is a-okay.
quote:Originally posted by pH: There are perfectly legal ways to discover new music online beyond a 30-second clip.
Are they free?
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well Sterling, I just feel that the "Oh, I use it to discover new music" justification is a load of crap, and I have given a reason why it is a load of crap, and yet....it's still held up as a reason that downloading illegally is a-okay.
I think that in some cases you're confusing "justification" with "explanation." Saying "I use illegal downloading to discover new music" is not the same as saying "illegal downloading is morally right and good because it can be used to discover new music." I've already cited some evidence suggesting that people who download music illegally buy more legal music than people who don't. Again, that isn't a justification for illegal downloading, but it's certainly problematic for the RIAA's argument that illegal downloading is hurting their bottom line in any significant way.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
First off, if you go back and read through all my posts clearly, I never once used the word "thief" nor did I ever call anyone a thieving bastard.
I used a variation on the word "steal" only three times in this thread. One was in a hypothetical "would you..?" question, one was to say "don't steal it" (with regard to music), and the other was in a general sense when I said "still they stole music" ("they" in this case being "those people who felt it their right to get music without paying for it").
Before you accuse people of saying things, please make sure you know who said them.
This is basic netiquette and common courtesy.
I understand there are a lot of people on this board, but before you call someone out, be sure you're calling out the right person.
Next, TL, your emotions are clouding your reading comprehension. I never said it was illegal to back up files or music (go back and check), and your saying that I did doesn't make it any more true.
What I did say was that you don't have a right to any and all music you ever owned just because once upon a time you owned it. You didn't buy the rights to the music, you bought a product (a cassette, CD, mp3, etc).
To use some extreme examples, if I owned a record of "Puff the Magic Dragon" when I was 4 years old which has been long lost, I do not have the right to make a copy of that same song from a CD someone else purchased. If I owned a copy of Ender's Game when I was 6 years old and it was lost in a fire at that age, I don't have the right to scan a copy of Ender's Game into my computer from a book I borrowed from the library. Both actions are violations of copyright.
If you lose ownership of something (through loss or destruction of the product) and you have no backup copies of that thing, you don't have an automatic right to replacement under the law. You can buy insurance beforehand to be reimbursed for loss, and you can appeal to the makers of whatever it was you lost to possibly replace their product as an act of good will.
So, to get back to your example of the fire. Say you lose everything, including all backups, leaving you with only the clothes on your back. You can appeal to your insurance company to reimburse you for your loss, but it is loss. Your house is destroyed, so you aren't entitled to take another one. Your furniture was destroyed, so you aren't entitled to take other furniture. Your DVDs are melted, so you're not entitled to burn copies of your freinds' DVDs. Your books went up in smoke, so you're not entitled to go and scan copies from friends or the library or fileshare eBooks. If all your music and software is lost, you can't just make copies of a friend's music or software to replace it.
None of that is technically legal, though the difference in degree of illegality between taking a replacement house and taking replacement music is huge, obviously.
Now, with regard to music and software, you have some recourse. If you paid for all your music through some download service, you can contact that service and ask if they will replace the music (because they already have a record of what music you've bought). If you paid for Adobe software and registered it by sending in all their paperwork, you can request that they send you replacement software to install on your new machine.
Those are services provided by those companies, but they also rely on record of your purchase. If you never sent any paperwork in to Adobe, they will have no record of you using their software and won't replace it. If, in some freak coincidence, iTunes melted down completely and went out of business after losing all their digital records, you would have no recourse there either, because they would have no record of your purchase.
Either way, you'd need to repurchase what you lost and wouldn't have the right to make reproductions of another person's copyrighted material.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
However, they were written off as not being convenient. The right to convenience was apparently added to the Bill of Rights while we weren't looking.
I do want to add, however, that I don't have a problem with someone downloading a song, listening to it for free, and then deleting it. I do have a problem with people downloading a song, listening to it for free, and then keeping it. The first I can see as simply being sampling, almost like requesting a song on the radio, listening to it in a music store, or borrowing a friend's CD - in the end, you've heard the song but don't own it. The second is making a copy of copyrighted material to own without paying for it, which seems to me would be clearly considered "unauthorized reproduction."
There are, of course, services set up so that you can listen to unlimited music on demand without having the option of dowloading the files. So far as I understand, they have a small monthly fee but allow you to sample and enjoy music to your heart's content - without violating copyright.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, I meant to stipulate that I was talking about digital previewing methods. My fault. In my experience, you have to either try your luck with the artist's website(s) and hope you find streaming audio/downloads, or listen to clips via Amazon or iTMS.
I've definitely bought CDs after spending some time listening to them in those players they have in record stores.
Again, for me, it isn't a question of justification, it's a question of understanding the reasons why illegal downloading occurs. In a sense, online music services are in market competition with P2P. At one booth you have 30-second preview clips with decent selection, at another you have hit-and-miss streaming or downloads, but there's this guy in a trenchcoat over in the alley who'll give you better quality and the best selection this side of anywhere, and it's even free. For some people, the drawback of illegality is obviously not as great as the drawbacks of the other methods.
The RIAA initially tried to crush digital distribution via lawsuits, and failed dismally. Now it seems to be more of an "old habits die hard" thing, since the success of the online distribution model the labels were finally persuaded to adopt shows that consumers want to buy music legitimately, and they'll do it preferentially over illegal methods if you make it easy and keep the DRM from being too much of a pain.
There isn't much point in arguing about whether the RIAA's lawsuits are justified -- that's for lawyers to do, and it's certainly clear that some of the people they sue have indeed broken the law. The real question is, what's the point? P2P usage is growing much more slowly than legitimate online distribution mechanisms, and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on. Instead, they're trying to alienate a group of consumers comprised at least partly of some of their very best legitimate customers. It's pretty counterintuitive.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:P2P usage is growing much more slowly than legitimate online distribution mechanisms
I agree that the slowing down of P2P growth is partly due to newly available legitimate online distribution methods, but I'm curious about how much of it might be due to P2P services being sued/shut down and individual file sharers being sued who are then forced to use the legitimate methods. I've seen no data to support this, but if it's true, that would somewhat justify the RIAA's concerns and actions.
quote:and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on
I think they are focusing on this as well. They've tried to create protected CDs, which completely failed due to consumer backlash, so now they are trying to push DRM as much as they can on online downloads, since consumers don't seem to mind DRM as long as it's not on their CDs. Unfortunately I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but it looks like that's the direction that most online distribution methods are taking.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a mistake to view the RIAA as being primarily interested in immediate revenue loss when confronting p2p and other forms of on-line file sharing.
Sure, they are concerned about it, but even if you could demonstrate that they are making substantially more money becayse of these practices, I think they're still going to fight it.
I've mentioned this on the topic before and Lalo mentioned it above. The advent of these new technologies and methods of content distribution threaten not just the RIAA's immediate bottom line (if, in fact, they do) but ultimately the continued existence of their exploitive monopoly.
As I understand it, RIAA members controlled 4 main aspects of musical media that made it pretty much necesssary for artists to go to them: recording, production, distribution, and promotion. They are inevitibly losing the first two to the advance of inexpensive technologies for both. The growth of non-traditional distribution and promotion channels represented by p2p and other on-line models is taking away their exclusive hold on the latter two.
They've gotten fat on their previously unassailable position of being able to dictate terms to both the artists and the consumers. Even though they will inevitibly lose this fight, they're going to hold onto this position as long as they can.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, a lot of those arguments were not saying that it was legal to download things, but that it isn't necessary or productive for the RIAA to use draconian measures against the people doing this, as THAT will hurt their bottom line figures worse than filesharing ever has.
I doubt their motives, to be honest, and some of their "solutions" are invasive and violate my right to privacy. Their copyright rights are not greater than my right to privacy, and some of their suggestions are amazingly disingenuous.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: I agree that the slowing down of P2P growth is partly due to newly available legitimate online distribution methods, but I'm curious about how much of it might be due to P2P services being sued/shut down and individual file sharers being sued who are then forced to use the legitimate methods. I've seen no data to support this, but if it's true, that would somewhat justify the RIAA's concerns and actions.
Well, suing and shutting down P2P file sharing and suing individual file sharers didn't make a dent in P2P file sharing growth, which IIRC didn't slow until online music stores took off. That suggests to me that the suits don't have any significant impact, though if the RIAA continues to lobby the U.S. government to pass ever-stricter laws protecting copyrights, maybe that will change.
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:and there's a real bogeyman in the closet -- CD bootlegging in developing nations -- that they could be focusing on
I think they are focusing on this as well. They've tried to create protected CDs, which completely failed due to consumer backlash...
I think this was aimed at P2P -- if you can't rip it, you can't share it -- rather than at bootleggers, since bootleggers could just make a byte-for-byte duplicate of the disc, including the protection. They don't care if the people who buy their bootlegs can't rip them.
The real problem in the developing world is pricing. Protecting the content will make no difference as long as it's priced out of the range of the vast majority of consumers in those countries. Those people will continue to buy bootlegs at a fifth to a tenth of the cost, since they can't afford the genuine article.
As an example, Warner China is trying a new approach with one of their DVD releases this year -- dramatically reducing both the price and the window between the theatrical and DVD releases.
Added: I agree, MrSquicky.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The music industry embracing digital music is not complete and has been slower than I'd like, but they're coming around.
The 30 second samples need to go. Make so that you can hear 50% of a song, or even 70% of a song. Or maybe even set it up so that you can stream the entire song to hear it, but not download it to your harddrive unless you pay a dollar.
There's nothing financially inhibiting about letting consumers listen to a whole song. Letting them *have* a whole song to play at their leisure for free is a different thing entirely, but letting them hear the music before buying it shouldn't be a big deal.
It will catch up in time.
One of the primary arguments from the early Napster days was "The album sucks and I just want one song! I'm not paying for a whole album, so I'll just download it illegally!" Some business folk recognized the demand and filled that market niche, giving us digital song-by-song purchase options.
If one of the primary arguments now is "30 seconds isn't enough! I want to hear more!" then the first business person to offer longer samples will get more business, and the industry will adapt to offer longer samples - or entire songs to be heard, if not downloaded.
This will likely pull some people away from illegal filesharing and increase digital sales, but there will always be those "free music" types shaking their fists and breaking copyright anyway. They've been around since convenient recordable media, and they always will be with us.
Still, if the industry listens to the consumers' demands and adapts, they will increase profit and limit piracy.
They won't stamp it out.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this was aimed at P2P -- if you can't rip it, you can't share it -- rather than at bootleggers, since bootleggers could just make a byte-for-byte duplicate of the disc, including the protection.
I think it started out as a defense against the P2P networks, but I think the idea (DRM) gradually caught on that here is a new method of distribution that the record labels can have much stronger control over than with CDs, and people don't seem to be terribly concerned about the restrictions. I think they would prefer to have CDs disappear and have all the music sold via online downloads or subscription services (especially the ones that do not allow burns to CD). Granted, bootleggers will still be able to create and distribute their CDs, but it will be a bit less convenient, and they might even be able to encode into the file a way to track the major offenders.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there are serious flaws with copyright law as it exists in the USA right now, but I'm nowhere near informed enough to offer any worthwhile alternatives.
I also think that a lot of this boils down to a lot of people simply being unwilling to admit, "I am willing to routinely violate the law over a matter of pure convenience."
Unquestionably, downloading music that you have not previously purchased (with a few, generally paid services online) is illegal. Unquestionably, listening to music you like is a convience. You will not die without it. You won't be wounded without it. Neither your friends nor family will be either. You won't suffer loss of property. You'll be inconvenienced by having to spend a larger amount of money on a luxury (i.e. >0, for music) than you otherwise would.
Whoever it was that said there must be a public element to civil disobedience efforts to change the law was entirely accurate, and furthermore the point of civil disobedience is to get caught, take the punishment and in doing so expose how unjust the law really is and how badly it needs to be changed.
How many supporters here for illegal file-sharing are doing that? I'd guess the number to be somewhere between zero and not a whole lot. So...that particular excuse just doesn't fly at all. I'm not remotely impressed by support for illegal file-sharing by way of opposition to unjust and inadequate law.
So we come back to willingness to violate the law in pursuit of a convience, a luxury.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, I just read back over this last page and saw this:
quote:Good luck ever enforcing that.
So, are you saying it's okay to break as many little laws as you want because the police can't spend their time enforcing them?
The justification of "I can break the law because the law can't be enforced" is a bit silly. Does that mean it's okay for a politician to take a little bribe, or for a businessman to embezzle a little money? Those crimes are too far under the radar to be enforced, because the police have so many more important things to do with their time, so does that make committing them okay?
It seems like the "it's not a crime if you don't get caught" mentality, which removes responsibility from the individual and places it on enforcement agencies. That way of thinking is selfish and irresponsible.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then again, my friends average over 40,000 mp3s, which, converted to albums at approx 11 tracks/album, is 3,636 albums...or (at average $14.99/album) $54,503.64.
I know the discussion has really passed by this, but I thought I'd mention that this was addressed by the Harvard study linked by (I think) BQT. This is not 'lost revenue' to either the artists or the labels, simply because the vast majority of the 40000 songs were downloaded just out of boredom, or on a whim, and are probably listened to rarely, if ever. What I mean to say is that if possessing unlicensed mp3s became punishable by death, starting tomorrow, your friends wouldn't go out and buy all 3600+ albums. They'd buy the ones they liked (which they probably wouldn't have done had they not downloaded them and listened to them illegally), and not the rest (which, I'd guess, would make up the majority of their songs).
It's like the sample trays at grocery stores. I'll try something if it looks good, but only because it's free. If I like it, I'll most likely buy the product. If not, well then life goes on. If the samples cost money (even a neglegible amount), I'd just abstain. Me taking the sample isn't costing anyone any revenue; if anything, it's inducing me to spend money where I wouldn't have ordinarily. I know there are several holes in that analogy as it pertains to this subject, specifically the legality of offering samples, but you get the gist.
That's my rationalization for downloading music (which I don't do anymore, though I do have quite a bit that I've illegally obtained over the years still on my hard drive): it all falls into the category of (a) stuff I wouldn't have bought, and (b) stuff I discovered, liked, and bought the album (in, I'd guess, 90% of the cases). Oh yeah, and (c) stuff I already owned but downloaded digital copies of. Legally, I've participated in a good deal of copyright infringement. Morally, I sleep good every night.
I also go out of my way to go to as many concerts as I can afford, where I'm typically a merch whore. Tshirts, CDs, you name it. I do my part to spend my money in ways that will directly get to the artists.
------
There are about 36 other posts I'd like to respond to, but I just missed the boat, I think.
I would like to mention that I agree with m_p_h's distinction between copyright infringement and theft; I think it's crucial to realize that downloading a song does not deprive the rightful owner of it the way stealing something tangible does. I also agree wholeheartedly with twinky's post from atop page 3.
It seems that there are two arguments going on here: is it legal to download music, and is it morally defensible to download music. And if so, under what circumstances.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's as clear cut as samples from a grocery store. A large part of the problem is that people keep trying to force material analogies onto what is really a question of patterns of information.
People are clearly downloading and listening to songs without paying for them. And it's not a matter of them not paying for the ones they don't like and therefore don't listen to. It's more, a vast majorty of these songs, the people would never buy the CDs or whatever for and at least some of the people buy more music as a consequence of file-sharing.
The situation is that people are getting music that they aren't paying for and listening to it. You can make a case for that being wrong in itself, but the argument that music companies and artists are losing money because of it relies on several more steps.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as an aside, I mentioned this thread to my girlfriend, and she said she was frustrated that they were closing down Limewire. She added that her music purchases have gone down considerably since she's had access to Limewire and other filesharing sites. Why buy music you can get for free?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC, I'm not sure that your anecdotal evidence of a single instance outweighs the results of the more methodical, much wider studies that people have posted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just sayin' - like I said "just as an aside."
It was your own reading that made you think I was using it to outweigh anything, not anything I said.
And, I'd appreciate it if you edited your earlier post incorrectly accusing me of calling someone a "thieving bastard" - or at least apologize for it. You seem awfully quick to attack, and awfully slow to admit when you're wrong.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's as clear cut as samples from a grocery store. A large part of the problem is that people keep trying to force material analogies onto what is really a question of patterns of information.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I specifically mentioned that it was not accurate in all ways. It's an analogy; it's not perfect, nor is it meant to be.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally my bad, FC. You didn't say that. Primal Curve did. I didn't read carefully enough and thought it was you. I apologize for that and withdraw it. Still think the way you are conducting yourself is pretty poor.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT, You may notice that I didn't just criticize your analogy, but rather went on to show what parts of it I didn't agree with (edit: or rather found it incompletel). I'm sorry if my phrasing didn't jibe with you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no, that's fine. It was just meant to illustrate one specific facet of downloading, that is that people sometimes use it to try music they would ordinarily have no interest in, and that those downloads are not 'losses'.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as to why you think so, MrSquicky, and I'm sorry if I have inadvertantly offended you.
I feel as though I've approached this subject as coldly and rationally as I can, asking as many questions of people whose opinions I didn't understand as I could, and expressing my opinions as clearly as possible.
I haven't called anyone any names, and I don't feel as though I've been insulting. I have expressed the strong opinion that violating copyright is illegal and that there is no justification that makes it "right" or "okay" - people may not feel bad about breaking the law, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
I have questioned and challenged people's attempts at justification for illegal music piracy in as clear and logical a way as I can.
Is there some point where you feel I was out of line, other than in posts you misattributed to me?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's like the sample trays at grocery stores. I'll try something if it looks good, but only because it's free. If I like it, I'll most likely buy the product. If not, well then life goes on. If the samples cost money (even a neglegible amount), I'd just abstain. Me taking the sample isn't costing anyone any revenue; if anything, it's inducing me to spend money where I wouldn't have ordinarily. I know there are several holes in that analogy as it pertains to this subject, specifically the legality of offering samples, but you get the gist.
This analogy is invalid. A closer analogy would be if by clicking a button sitting at your desk you could sample the product, and if you liked it you could click another button to buy more of the product, or click a different button and receive as much of the product as you want for free.
I'm glad there are people who use filesharing morally; I have no problem with it, as long as they don't do it on an internet connection with my name attached to it. But there are definitely a lot of people who don't use it morally, and it is costing people money, and my point remains: it's against the law.
My goal in this has only been to get piraters and people who share illegal files to admit that they are breaking the law and that they are criminals. You did so later in your post, so we have no qualm, as I don't care whether you feel morally ok with it or not.
quote:I would like to mention that I agree with m_p_h's distinction between copyright infringement and theft; I think it's crucial to realize that downloading a song does not deprive the rightful owner of it the way stealing something tangible does.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: this isn't about a person depriving another person of a product, it's about a person obtaining merchandise without paying for it. In this regard, copyright infringement and theft are identical.
Edit to further clarify: I am not (nor have I ever been) talking about people who download copies of songs they already own a copy of in a different media format. While I don't agree with that, either, I disagree for reasons entirely different.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth pointing out that people have been incorrectly attributing Primal Curve's name-calling ("That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.") to Flying Cow.
Edit: just noticed Squick pointed this out already not 5 posts above.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This analogy is invalid. A closer analogy would be if by clicking a button sitting at your desk you could sample the product, and if you liked it you could click another button to buy more of the product, or click a different button and receive as much of the product as you want for free.
It's not invalid, but I think you and squick are hung up on the same parts of it. If someone's giving out free samples of cookies (free to me, they're costing someone, either the store or manufacturer money), then I'll try one. Because there's no risk taken on by me that I might waste my money buying a product and not liking it. If I like it, I buy it. If not, then I don't. But since I wouldn't have bought it had the samples not been available, it's not a loss to the cookie company when I fail to purchase the product.
You're saying that most 'samplers' aren't just trying a bite and then buying or not, correct? They're trying an all you can eat buffet. Fine, but the analogy was meant to clue everyone in on how I used to download. Not everyone. I don't doubt that there are those who abuse the system. Everywhere there's a system in place there's someone trying to abuse it; c'est la vie.
quote:I'm glad there are people who use filesharing morally; I have no problem with it, as long as they don't do it on an internet connection with my name attached to it. But there are definitely a lot of people who don't use it morally, and it is costing people money, and my point remains: it's against the law.
My goal in this has only been to get piraters and people who share illegal files to admit that they are breaking the law and that they are criminals. You did so later in your post, so we have no qualm, as I don't care whether you feel morally ok with it or not.
I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money, in fact, the bands who've embraced downloading have done well off of it, AFAIK. Though I don't begrudge anyone who wants to err on the side of the artists, I just don't think that argument holds water.
I agree that downloaders are criminals, just like I agree that 18 year olds who drink even one beer are criminals, and anyone who drives so much as one mile over the speed limit is a criminal. Point being, using the word 'criminal' in cases like this make it a pretty worthless distinction.
I think that some downloaders are using moral justifications that are borderline delusional, but that's not my business.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's not invalid, but I think you and squick are hung up on the same parts of it. If someone's giving out free samples of cookies (free to me, they're costing someone, either the store or manufacturer money), then I'll try one. Because there's no risk taken on by me that I might waste my money buying a product and not liking it. If I like it, I buy it. If not, then I don't. But since I wouldn't have bought it had the samples not been available, it's not a loss to the cookie company when I fail to purchase the product.
You're saying that most 'samplers' aren't just trying a bite and then buying or not, correct? They're trying an all you can eat buffet. Fine, but the analogy was meant to clue everyone in on how I used to download. Not everyone. I don't doubt that there are those who abuse the system. Everywhere there's a system in place there's someone trying to abuse it; c'est la vie.
No, I'm saying that regardless of what your intentions are, that's the way the system works: whether you elect to use it as a buffet or a sample cart doesn't change that the buffet is what's available. Regardless, it's illegal whether you're taking a sample or eating your fill, as the company has authorized neither.
quote:I've never seen anything to convince me that it is costing either the artists or the labels money, in fact, the bands who've embraced downloading have done well off of it, AFAIK. Though I don't begrudge anyone who wants to err on the side of the artists, I just don't think that argument holds water.
Whether the company ultimately makes money in the long run through increased word-of-mouth sales inspired by downloads is irrelevant; every time someone downloads a song, they are obtaining a product that should be paid for without paying for it.
To address the issue seperately: I really want to know what the numbers for Harvey Danger's latest release look like. Their limited edition LP Little by Little released concurrently with the entire album in digital format becoming available on their website as a free download. An indie label picked up the album as a re-release, so I'm guessing they must have had enough support to merit that decision.
I'd also be interested in seeing what would happen if that occured on a wider scale, since one example isn't going to be nearly enough to judge.
quote:I agree that downloaders are criminals, just like I agree that 18 year olds who drink even one beer are criminals, and anyone who drives so much as one mile over the speed limit is a criminal. Point being, using the word 'criminal' in cases like this make it a pretty worthless distinction.
Meh, I know people who've been ticketed/jailed for all of the above (myself included) and even pettier crimes (jay walking in a non-busy area with no traffic, for example), and therefore have no problem with applying the label "criminal," especially since it carries no moral judgement.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: just_me: you might think that, but it is not correct. Now, nobody's going to go after you for doing it, but that's a different matter.
Can you clarify what you are talking about that doesn't work the way I think?
Because I know from first-hand experience I don't always/usually don't need the original media (or my copy of the original media) to have a legal license when it comes to software.
Since the only definitive statement I made in my post (I think?) was about software I think it's the one you are referring to, so if I'm wrong please explain how, why etc because I honestly don't think I am.
I will say that there probably are exceptions out there, but I'm talking about a general rule for most software.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'm saying that regardless of what your intentions are, that's the way the system works: whether you elect to use it as a buffet or a sample cart doesn't change that the buffet is what's available. Regardless, it's illegal whether you're taking a sample or eating your fill, as the company has authorized neither.
True. However, the analogy was meant to convey, morally, how I felt about downloading. Since I know that it's illegal, it wasn't meant to pertain to legality. I see now where the confusion comes from.
quote:I'd also be interested in seeing what would happen if that occured on a wider scale, since one example isn't going to be nearly enough to judge.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
