informal survey...
-
Rob Graham wrote: your statement smacks of moral relativism... when does it become theft? Not at all - music/software/movie/whatever piracy is wrong to the extent that it breaks the social norm, codified in law, that says that the originator of an intellectual work has right to profit from its distribution. This is, however, not the same as theft, regardless of scale. Definitions of theft vary, but all are typified by the notion that "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". This is not hard to understand. If i make a copy of your CD, and leave with the copy, you are still in possession of your CD - i have taken none of your property. If i go on to make 100,000 copies of that CD, you are still not deprived of it. It is not a fine line. Attempts to blur the distinction between theft and copyright violation usually bring up the notion that there is some "loss of potential revenue". This is bullshit - if i make unauthorized copies of your work, it is still a violation of your copyright, even if you had no intention of profiting from it. I'm sorry, but the idea that i can steal millions of dollars by setting up a CD duplication plant, regardless of whether the duplicates are ever sold or even distributed is ludicrous at best.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: If i make a copy of your CD, and leave with the copy, you are still in possession of your CD - i have taken none of your property. If i go on to make 100,000 copies of that CD, you are still not deprived of it. It is not a fine line. You are missing a fundamental point here: In your example, it is not me that you are depriving, but the author of the copied work, who has a right to be paid for every one of the 100,000 copies that he did not choose to allow you to make. Your mentallity is precisely what drives the RIAA and its ilk to persue copy protection and intimidation to protect their intellectual property. The argument that it is not wrong to copy and give away is hollow. You still deprive the owner of his ability to sell his product to every recipient of your 'gift'. Shog9 wrote: This is bull**** - if i make unauthorized copies of your work, it is still a violation of your copyright, even if you had no intention of profiting from it. yes, it is a violation. If I had no intention of profiting from my IP, I would put it in the public domain, in some form like the GPL. If the author of copyrighted work does not grant permission to copy, the copier is stealing at least potential if not actual worth. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I believe your reason is the only legit point about downloading music. Actually, I think there is another, more important point. I download a lot of music that is out of print. I love 80's rock, I already own all the Motley and Ozzy albums, to find new music that I like, I need to get albums by artists that slipped under my radar in the day. More and more, that means people that virtually no-one has heard of, and they are certainly all out of print. Jeremy Falcon wrote: I think the way we buy CDs do need refinement. I fully expect the model of buying music online to take off, and I am also anticipating an increase in the number of artists who rely on word of mouth and touring, record with Cubase and sell from their own web sites. In fact, the only big losers I can see are no talent, contrived 'artists' like Britney Spears, the advertising agencies who get paid a fortune to shove such people down our throats, and the record industry, who treats it's customers with contempt in any case. The only loser I feel sorry for is the middle man, people who work in record stores, drive delivery trucks, etc., but the internet is hurting those people in virtually every industry where the product will fit in an envelope. Check Amazon.com for a reasonably comprehensive list. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
> In fact, the only big losers I can see are no talent, contrived 'artists' like Britney Spears, the advertising agencies who get paid a fortune to shove such people down our throats, and the record industry, who treats it's customers with contempt in any case. :thumbs up: :cool: -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
-
Shog9 wrote: This has nothing at all to do with walking out of Best Buy with a stolen TV. Such comparisons are low, and ring more of parroted propaganda than any objective opinion. IMO theft is theft, whether it be a plasma TV or a track of music. Artists, like programmers, have a right to be paid for their work. your statement smacks of moral relativism... when does it become theft? only when it is worth more than $xxx? There is no ethical or moral difference between theft of a few minutes of music and theft of that TV. Theft is theft... :suss: Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
Yes, of course, theft is theft... Please identify the theft in the following scenario: Mary comes to John and tells him that she just bought a great CD of a band that John loves. John asks her to borrow it for the night so he can listen to it. He takes it home and when it's time for bed he realizes that he hasn't listened to it. "No problem", he says. He inserts the CD in his computer and copies the songs to the hard disk (in some format). The next day he returns the CD back to Mary. A week later John remembers he has a new album on his computer and finally sits down to listen. He decides that out of the 10 songs, only two are OK and the rest suck. Life goes on and John probably never listens to any of those songs again. Please tell me where the theft is -- who stole from who? Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
-
Shog9 wrote: If i make a copy of your CD, and leave with the copy, you are still in possession of your CD - i have taken none of your property. If i go on to make 100,000 copies of that CD, you are still not deprived of it. It is not a fine line. You are missing a fundamental point here: In your example, it is not me that you are depriving, but the author of the copied work, who has a right to be paid for every one of the 100,000 copies that he did not choose to allow you to make. Your mentallity is precisely what drives the RIAA and its ilk to persue copy protection and intimidation to protect their intellectual property. The argument that it is not wrong to copy and give away is hollow. You still deprive the owner of his ability to sell his product to every recipient of your 'gift'. Shog9 wrote: This is bull**** - if i make unauthorized copies of your work, it is still a violation of your copyright, even if you had no intention of profiting from it. yes, it is a violation. If I had no intention of profiting from my IP, I would put it in the public domain, in some form like the GPL. If the author of copyrighted work does not grant permission to copy, the copier is stealing at least potential if not actual worth. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
Rob Graham wrote: The argument that it is not wrong to copy and give away is hollow. You still deprive the owner of his ability to sell his product to every recipient of your 'gift'. This is the path this argument takes: Copyright violation is wrong. -> So is stealing. -> Therefore, copyright violation == stealing. This is faulty logic. It is always important to understand, not just the law, but the reason for the law. Copyright exists to reward authors. If i keep a locked warehouse full of duplicate Britney Spears CDs and Tom Clancy photocopies, the two will never see it effect their profits. If i sell them, they very well might. But both are still, technically, illegal. Now, if i break in to a Tower Records distribution center, and truck off a warehouse full of CDs, there is an immediate loss, regardless of whether i sell them or not. This is the difference between stealing and copying.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
Jeremy Falcon wrote: My point is there's no distinction between IP and physical, tangible products like a big mac. And, if technology permitted and we could "copy" big macs molecule for molecule, we'd be in the same hole with people pirating tangible products. Head over to your local Walgreens (or equiv.). Take a look on the shelves. See that box next to the Aleve-brand pain killer that reads "naproxen sodium"? It is essentially the same stuff. But is sold for rather less. This is Walgreens' take on your Big Mac "copy" - they mimic popular products and sell them under their own label for a reduced price. Elsewhere, i can buy Listerine that's not made by Pfizer, and transparent tape that never saw the inside of a 3M plant. Why is this not a problem? Why is Orrin Hatch not franticly trying to prevent the manufacture of knock-off household supplies? Because it's not the same thing.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...You're still comparing two different things. For one, it wouldn't be a molecule for molecule copy of the product. Both products were created by chemical engineers and not copied off one another - that's the difference. These companies aren't stealing; they are competing in an intellectual fashion. By that I mean, you'll need to be a chemical engineer, etc. to make it, and I'm sure there's more involved than just knowing the active ingredients (like making it potent, stable, etc.). The same thing happens in the music industry and there's nothing wrong with it. It's not wrong for two people to learn to play the guitar and write music in the same genre and both sell CDs without paying the other. That's called competition. Now, to speak in Walgreenese, downloading music is like Walgreens stealing the Listerine (or generic band - doesn't matter) and selling it to the consumer - then Pfizer didn't get paid for their product. Jeremy Falcon
-
You're still comparing two different things. For one, it wouldn't be a molecule for molecule copy of the product. Both products were created by chemical engineers and not copied off one another - that's the difference. These companies aren't stealing; they are competing in an intellectual fashion. By that I mean, you'll need to be a chemical engineer, etc. to make it, and I'm sure there's more involved than just knowing the active ingredients (like making it potent, stable, etc.). The same thing happens in the music industry and there's nothing wrong with it. It's not wrong for two people to learn to play the guitar and write music in the same genre and both sell CDs without paying the other. That's called competition. Now, to speak in Walgreenese, downloading music is like Walgreens stealing the Listerine (or generic band - doesn't matter) and selling it to the consumer - then Pfizer didn't get paid for their product. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: For one, it wouldn't be a molecule for molecule copy of the product. MP3s are not an exact digital copy of a recording. Jeremy Falcon wrote: downloading music is like Walgreens stealing the Listerine (or generic band - doesn't matter) and selling it to the consumer - then Pfizer didn't get paid for their product. If i go in to buy Listerine, and end up buying what is essentially the same stuff for a lower price, Pfizer doesn't get paid either. The only difference between the two scenarios are that in yours Pfizer has to eat the manufacturing and distribution costs, while in mine they are only out some R&D and advertising. I pay the distribution costs when i download music.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
Rob Graham wrote: The argument that it is not wrong to copy and give away is hollow. You still deprive the owner of his ability to sell his product to every recipient of your 'gift'. This is the path this argument takes: Copyright violation is wrong. -> So is stealing. -> Therefore, copyright violation == stealing. This is faulty logic. It is always important to understand, not just the law, but the reason for the law. Copyright exists to reward authors. If i keep a locked warehouse full of duplicate Britney Spears CDs and Tom Clancy photocopies, the two will never see it effect their profits. If i sell them, they very well might. But both are still, technically, illegal. Now, if i break in to a Tower Records distribution center, and truck off a warehouse full of CDs, there is an immediate loss, regardless of whether i sell them or not. This is the difference between stealing and copying.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: If i keep a locked warehouse full of duplicate Britney Spears CDs and Tom Clancy photocopies, the two will never see it effect their profits. If i sell them, they very well might. But both are still, technically, illegal. The point is, if you don't pay for the royalties, then you don't bare the right to have the IP yourself. Even if you buy one Britney CD (may God have mercy on your soul) and make a 1,000 copies you are still only allowed 1 copy with your original $15 agreement. So, to own 1,000 you'd need to legally pay more. So in effect, Britney (or whoever) would be missing revenue because you didn't pay to own 1,000 copies. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: For one, it wouldn't be a molecule for molecule copy of the product. MP3s are not an exact digital copy of a recording. Jeremy Falcon wrote: downloading music is like Walgreens stealing the Listerine (or generic band - doesn't matter) and selling it to the consumer - then Pfizer didn't get paid for their product. If i go in to buy Listerine, and end up buying what is essentially the same stuff for a lower price, Pfizer doesn't get paid either. The only difference between the two scenarios are that in yours Pfizer has to eat the manufacturing and distribution costs, while in mine they are only out some R&D and advertising. I pay the distribution costs when i download music.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: MP3s are not an exact digital copy of a recording. True, but that really doesn't matter. What *really* matters is it's the same song. The molecule by molecule analogy was just for illustration. Shog9 wrote: If i go in to buy Listerine, and end up buying what is essentially the same stuff for a lower price But that's just it. Your comparison is still apples to oranges. For one, it's rarely the same stuff (usually gets watered down). But, to the point, is that they are two different products with the same goal. They are not the same product! It would be wrong for Walgreens to sell Listerine for $5 and Listerine one a different shelf (that they didn't pay for) for $2. That's the same product. Shog9 wrote: I pay the distribution costs when i download music. Which is great if you pay for your songs online. You get them cheaper, and everyone is happy. Jeremy Falcon
-
Yes, of course, theft is theft... Please identify the theft in the following scenario: Mary comes to John and tells him that she just bought a great CD of a band that John loves. John asks her to borrow it for the night so he can listen to it. He takes it home and when it's time for bed he realizes that he hasn't listened to it. "No problem", he says. He inserts the CD in his computer and copies the songs to the hard disk (in some format). The next day he returns the CD back to Mary. A week later John remembers he has a new album on his computer and finally sits down to listen. He decides that out of the 10 songs, only two are OK and the rest suck. Life goes on and John probably never listens to any of those songs again. Please tell me where the theft is -- who stole from who? Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
Just like with software, John shouldn't have access without the accompanying license. When Mary lent the CD, she lent with it the license (it was paid for, and just like you can transfer a license with software). Jeremy Falcon
-
Shog9 wrote: Funny, i can cook my own burgers too. Does that mean i'm stealing from McDonalds? You're comparing two different things. A direct analogy would be you're taking a big mac that somebody took from McDonalds without their permission in the first place, but they're giving it to you with their B2P (Burger-To-Person) network. You see, in effect those bits and bytes belong to the originator (band, ISV, etc.) as IP. My point is there's no distinction between IP and physical, tangible products like a big mac. And, if technology permitted and we could "copy" big macs molecule for molecule, we'd be in the same hole with people pirating tangible products. Shog9 wrote: Jeremy - though if we must disagree on this, i'd love to sell you some fine oak furniture that just seems to look like a bag of acorns... If you can guarantee me they'll feel soft and comfortable we may have a deal. :) Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: B2P (Burger-To-Person) network. Where do I sign up to join ? :-) Me likes the idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: B2P (Burger-To-Person) network. Where do I sign up to join ? :-) Me likes the idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Hmm... we may have created a niche market here. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
>> When I was in the US last they were charging $18 for a CD. And stay out! :laugh: (kidding) That's about right for movers. Some older and less popular ones go down from there all the way to like $8.00 -pete
palbano wrote: And stay out! :((
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
Just like with software, John shouldn't have access without the accompanying license. When Mary lent the CD, she lent with it the license (it was paid for, and just like you can transfer a license with software). Jeremy Falcon
Fine, call it unauthorized access if you like, but it's not theft. The question is, where exactly is the unauthorized access? When the CD is lent? When it's copied to the hard drive? When the music is listened to a week later (which could have just as easily come from the radio)? Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
-
There are three things I hate about buying CDs: 0) Paying for the songs I don't like 1) Having to open the damn package 2) Having to go to the store 3) Having the money go mostly to the record company, not the artist Dave Goodman dgoodman@infoway.com www.dkgoodman.com "Actio sequitur esse."
-
Fine, call it unauthorized access if you like, but it's not theft. The question is, where exactly is the unauthorized access? When the CD is lent? When it's copied to the hard drive? When the music is listened to a week later (which could have just as easily come from the radio)? Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: The question is, where exactly is the unauthorized access? When the CD is lent? When it's copied to the hard drive? When the music is listened to a week later (which could have just as easily come from the radio)? when it is copied without contract with the owner, it becomes theft. Shog is wrong, even if no one ever listens to those 1000's of CDs, the act of copying is theft. If someone copies software you wrote for sale, and only uses it for themselves or an occaisional friend, you would still feel robbed. Music is just another kind of software. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: For one, it wouldn't be a molecule for molecule copy of the product. MP3s are not an exact digital copy of a recording. Jeremy Falcon wrote: downloading music is like Walgreens stealing the Listerine (or generic band - doesn't matter) and selling it to the consumer - then Pfizer didn't get paid for their product. If i go in to buy Listerine, and end up buying what is essentially the same stuff for a lower price, Pfizer doesn't get paid either. The only difference between the two scenarios are that in yours Pfizer has to eat the manufacturing and distribution costs, while in mine they are only out some R&D and advertising. I pay the distribution costs when i download music.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...What about video clips? The only time video clips are on, are either Saturday or Sunday mornings. I'm having my beauty sleep around then, so i don't get to the clips. Sometimes I hear a song on the radio and go check out the video clip via a downloader. Its fun to watch once and then toss it, cos it takes up 40mb. Would the record companies consider that theft too or copyright breach?
-
There's always Hotstuff :) -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
Yeah, this is me. Hunting site with "obscure music"... *sigh*
-
Actually, here in Canada, I download albums off allofmp3.com for about sixty cents an album. It's a Russian site: I am staying within legal boundaries in Canada, and they are staying within legal boundaries in Russia. $.60 a CD: not bad. Jason nirgle@gmail.com SonorkID 100.611
Out of curiousity, are we sure that this website is 100% legal in itself? I've heard rumors that the operation is shady, but I personally have zero proof of that. It kinda feels like buying new high-end streo equipment from 'some guy' for a fraction of the cost... I'm weary about whether or not the source of the equipment is legal. I am just curious. : Dean 'Karnatos' Michaud
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: The question is, where exactly is the unauthorized access? When the CD is lent? When it's copied to the hard drive? When the music is listened to a week later (which could have just as easily come from the radio)? when it is copied without contract with the owner, it becomes theft. Shog is wrong, even if no one ever listens to those 1000's of CDs, the act of copying is theft. If someone copies software you wrote for sale, and only uses it for themselves or an occaisional friend, you would still feel robbed. Music is just another kind of software. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
Rob Graham wrote: when it is copied without contract with the owner, it becomes theft. Oh, so if Mary had signed a contract with John it would have been OK to copy the music? Mary was the owner. :-) Rob Graham wrote: Shog is wrong, even if no one ever listens to those 1000's of CDs, the act of copying is theft. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Some of us are capable of making the distinction between copying and stealing. Rob Graham wrote: If someone copies software you wrote for sale, and only uses it for themselves or an occaisional friend, you would still feel robbed. How can I feel "robbed" if I have no clue? And even if I knew, how can I feel "robbed" if I don't know for sure the person would have bought the software otherwise? Rob Graham wrote: Music is just another kind of software. Nope, music is different. Music can be heard over the radio, TV, at a bar, a club, a car, etc... and you never think you're stealing it. Do you ever let anyone else listen to your music? Better watch out, it may not be legal! :rolleyes:
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.