NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw an advert recently on a video I bought before I watched the main feture. It was a new version of the anti-piracy ones, basicly going along these lines

"You wouldn't steal a handbag" (Insert picture of man grabbing handbag)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldn't steal a car" (Shot of a guy attempting to use a slim jim to open a car door)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (Shot to guy shoplifiting a DVD out of a shop)
(long shot of girl on computer downloading movie. Movie download finishes and she leaves the room)
"Movie piracy is steeling"
"Steeling is against the law"
"Piracy is a crime"

There is however a big problem with these comparisons. And this problem underlies why people feel that piracy is not steeling. If you were to steel either a handbag or a car from someone, you are then depriving that person of a physical object. They had it, they no longer have it. If however, you make a pirate copy of a DVD or a CD you do not "take" anything from that company. You did not go to their offices and take something from them. They have not been deprived of anything they had previously. So I think calling piracy steeling is a strech. Which then raises the question, if its not piracy, what is it?

Stealing maybe but not Steeling Iron would feel left out! :p

By downloading music you are indeed depriving a person of a physical object. You deprive the artist of long green bills marked with George Washingtons. But who am I to speak, I sometimes download MP3s. *shrugs*

You are not depriving them physically of anything, but you are depriving them of any potential royalties, thus lessening their profits by illegal means. I believe the technical terms applied to this in other situations is "fraud".

By downloading music you are indeed depriving a person of a physical object. You deprive the artist of long green bills marked with George Washingtons. But who am I to speak, I sometimes download MP3s. *shrugs*

But thats the thing you see, your not. They did not have that money in the first place. You did not go to them and steel any of their money. You can argue that you indirectly did so but you didnt deprive them of anything they had previously. If thats motive for steeling, does a large supermarket built in a rural town break the law by "steeling" all the local rural shops customers and force them to close. After all it deprives them of the money they would otherwise have got doesnt it?

You are not depriving them physically of anything, but you are depriving them of any potential royalties, thus lessening their profits by illegal means. I believe the technical terms applied to this in other situations is "fraud".


Yes, this would be a better explanation for what it really is.

But, if you download a song that you really like it means that you won't buy the CD which deprives artist of the royalties they would have made off that CD. Moreover, that song is not free property, it's property of the producer, meaning you are technically stealing the property of both the producer and the artist and the record label.

The same thing applies with posting an entire book on a website..consider it plagerism (sp?).

If you didnt/couldnt download that movie/song then you'd have to buy the movie/album from the store. Therefore it is in a way depriving the artist of their earned money.

By downloading music you are indeed depriving a person of a physical object. You deprive the artist of long green bills marked with George Washingtons. But who am I to speak, I sometimes download MP3s. *shrugs*


You're incorrect.

You are not depriving the artist of anything because they do not have less money than they had before.

It isnt a zero-sum game, a copy of a movie increases the ammount of movie you have but does not decrease the ammount of money that they have.

"fraud".

Fraud implies you have made some kind of profit out of it. But if you download a piece of music from the web, you yourself have not got any extra money. You have in the sense that you would have lost money by buying said album/track at the shops but you havn't made any direct profit from it yourself.

You're incorrect.

You are not depriving the artist of anything because they do not have less money than they had before.

It isnt a zero-sum game, a copy of a movie increases the ammount of movie you have but does not decrease the ammount of money that they have.


I'm not getting your drift...

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.

Yes, this would be a better explanation for what it really is.

But then, fraud is equivilent to grand theft, and carries an unlimited maximum jail term in the U.S. Should this then be applied to pirate downloaders? Or should a separate, intermediatary, hybrid category be formed, to deal with such inconsistencies? You could call it "copyright theft". Hang on... :rolleyes:

If you didnt/couldnt download that movie/song then you'd have to buy the movie/album from the store. Therefore it is in a way depriving the artist of their earned money.

By that logic (depriving someone of money is equivlent to steeling) then does a large supermarket built in a rural town break the law by "steeling" all the local rural shops customers and force them to close. After all it deprives them of the money they would otherwise have got doesnt it?

Fraud implies you have made some kind of profit out of it. But if you download a piece of music from the web, you yourself have not got any extra money. You have in the sense that you would have lost money by buying said album/track at the shops but you havn't made any direct profit from it yourself.

That's exactly the problem. The Feds can care less if you just download the song...what they care about are the dozens of P2P users who then sell these CDs.

Fraud implies you have made some kind of profit out of it. But if you download a piece of music from the web, you yourself have not got any extra money. You have in the sense that you would have lost money by buying said album/track at the shops but you havn't made any direct profit from it yourself.

You have gained something which is worth money, by law Therefore, you have gained, as you have the same amount of currency, but more goods.

But thats the thing you see, your not. They did not have that money in the first place. You did not go to them and steel any of their money. You can argue that you indirectly did so but you didnt deprive them of anything they had previously.

Which is why downloading things is not a crime in most countries.
However, spreading (by offering them for download) those movies/songs etc often is argued to be - since you are giving away things you do not own.

By that logic (depriving someone of money is equivlent to steeling) then does a large supermarket built in a rural town break the law by "steeling" all the local rural shops customers and force them to close. After all it deprives them of the money they would otherwise have got doesnt it?

You're taking it way out of context. Your speaking about fair compitition, not taking something that belongs to someone else and spreading it through P2P applications.

I'm not getting your drift...

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.

No, what he means is you havent deprived them of money they had allready

heres an example

Cost of A movie on DVD = £16.99

Total ammount of money owned by B film company = £1,000,000

C persons bank account balance = £25,000

If C person downloads A movie from the internet and pays no money for it, the ammount of money owned by B film company doesn't change. It does not decrease. In the same way the bank account of Person C does not decrease. Company B WOULD have got money and Person C WOULD have lost money if he/she had bought the movie on DVD but they didnt. There was no physical theft involved. When Person C downloaded Movie A, Company B did not lose any money.

Well really, people who download music usually wouldn't go out and buy the CD anyway. So called "Piracy" is NOTHING more than copywright infringement. Piracy is NOT stealing. It does NOT bloody fund terrorism, I don't know who the hell came up with that, and even if it does, probably the entire capital gain is only enough to buy an AK or something. If a person intends to download something they would usually pay for, they probably had no intention of buying it in the first place even if they couldn't download it. If someone buys a copied music CD or DVD, that person probably had no intention of paying anything more than £5 for it and probably wouldn't fork out much more.

These piracy figures are based on the total amount of material 'illegally' downloaded and their total value, the figures do not take into consideration that most of these people would probably not buy the real thing even if they couldn't get the pirated one. Sure, it costs the industry, but the figures are WAY exaggerated and it hardly deprives 'hard working people of the livlihood'.

Copywright infringement. Not theft.

You're taking it way out of context. Your speaking about fair compitition, not taking something that belongs to someone else and spreading it through P2P applications.

Fair competition comes into this. The idea that piracy is competition to the media market.

If you didnt/couldnt download that movie/song then you'd have to buy the movie/album from the store. Therefore it is in a way depriving the artist of their earned money.
I like Jamil's logic!

No, what he means is you havent deprived them of money they had allready

heres an example

Cost of A movie on DVD = £16.99

Total ammount of money owned by B film company = £1,000,000

C persons bank account balance = £25,000

If C person downloads A movie from the internet and pays no money for it, the ammount of money owned by B film company doesn't change. It does not decrease. In the same way the bank account of Person C does not decrease. Company B WOULD have got money and Person C WOULD have lost money if he/she had bought the movie on DVD but they didnt. There was no physical theft involved. When Person C downloaded Movie A, Company B did not lose any money.

But they didnt GAIN anything for transfer of ownership (ie. limited copyrights) of something they have a right to lay claim to, and charge for. Hence, by offering this for free without license, you are defrauding someone of their right to their own labour. Reference: my fraud posts.

I'm not getting your drift...

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.

This is bull. Just downloading the movie does NOT mean that you will not later buy the movie. In fact the act of downloading the movie or song might cause you to later choose to buy the Movie or CD in question due to a variety of reasons.

And if you couldn't buy the movie/CD then the big businesses lose NOTHING because you would not have bought their product in the first place. The only thing that occurs in this situation is that the consumer is deprived of goods because he can't afford them, most often because of monopolistic practices on behalf of the businesses.

But they didnt GAIN anything for transfer of ownership (ie. limited copyrights) of something they have a right to lay claim to, and charge for. Hence, by offering this for free without license, you are defrauding someone of their right to their own labour. Reference: my fraud posts.

Yes, but that is *offering*. Not downloading.

Okay, it isn't stealing in that sense. It is, however, depriving the artist/recordcompany/whoever gets the money of receiving money that they otherwise would have and should be entitled to(or possibly not, depending on your viewpoint, I guess).

But then, fraud is equivilent to grand theft, and carries an unlimited maximum jail term in the U.S. Should this then be applied to pirate downloaders? Or should a separate, intermediatary, hybrid category be formed, to deal with such inconsistencies? You could call it "copyright theft". Hang on... :rolleyes:


Yes you could. But think if you were to steal all the CD's required to get 5000 songs that some have on there computers. That would be grand theft if it were from a music store at the mall. Wouldn't it? I am thinking you would get into some serious crap if you did this from a store.

Yes, but that is *offering*. Not downloading.

If no one downloaded, then no one would bother offering. Its simple cause/effect. Its as sketchy as the difference between stealing and knowingly accepting stolen goods.

Fair competition comes into this. The idea that piracy is competition to the media market.

No, to make it fair compitition a P2P application would have to make its own music and make it available for download, not someone else's music which owned by copyright.

This is bull. Just downloading the movie does NOT mean that you will not later buy the movie. In fact the act of downloading the movie or song might cause you to later choose to buy the Movie or CD in question due to a variety of reasons.

And if you couldn't buy the movie/CD then the big businesses lose NOTHING because you would not have bought their product in the first place. The only thing that occurs in this situation is that the consumer is deprived of goods because he can't afford them, most often because of monopolistic practices on behalf of the businesses.

It might not mean that for you, and it certainly doens't mean that for me since I like having the CD anyways...but 90% of those who download then burn it onto a CD and won't buy the real CD. And now with all these MP3 players the problem gets bigger.

I download movies and tv shows and music.

However, I don't really deprive anyone of any money. I'm slowly buying the dvds for the movies I have on my computer (when they're on sale...) if an artist has a cd for which I like a number of mp3s, then I'll buy the cd (eventually) and really, it allows me to sample a greater variety of music and get into many more artists, so that increases the potential purchases by yours truly.

And well, the shows i tend to download either don't have box sets or I can't find the box sets in store, or that I'm saving up to buy.

No, what he means is you havent deprived them of money they had allready

heres an example

Cost of A movie on DVD = £16.99

Total ammount of money owned by B film company = £1,000,000

C persons bank account balance = £25,000

If C person downloads A movie from the internet and pays no money for it, the ammount of money owned by B film company doesn't change. It does not decrease. In the same way the bank account of Person C does not decrease. Company B WOULD have got money and Person C WOULD have lost money if he/she had bought the movie on DVD but they didnt. There was no physical theft involved. When Person C downloaded Movie A, Company B did not lose any money.

What you are failing to show is that it costs B film company money to create A movie, which you are not paying them back for when C persons take A movie without B film companies permision.

I download movies and tv shows and music.

However, I don't really deprive anyone of any money. I'm slowly buying the dvds for the movies I have on my computer (when they're on sale...) if an artist has a cd for which I like a number of mp3s, then I'll buy the cd (eventually) and really, it allows me to sample a greater variety of music and get into many more artists, so that increases the potential purchases by yours truly.

And well, the shows i tend to download either don't have box sets or I can't find the box sets in store, or that I'm saving up to buy.

Again, this may be the case, but the majority of people who download don't have the sense to do this... a great example is me, compared to all my friends...I buy the CDs regardless of what I download...my friends burn the tracks onto a blank CD and never bother to buy the CD.

If no one downloaded, then no one would bother offering. Its simple cause/effect. Its as sketchy as the difference between stealing and knowingly accepting stolen goods.

Agreed - but the laws of most countries distinguish between the two. Only the offering would be called stealing. Wilfully buying stolen goods may make you an accomplice - but this varies from nation to nation.

Agreed - but the laws of most countries distinguish between the two. Only the offering would be called stealing. Wilfully buying stolen goods may make you an accomplice - but this varies from nation to nation.

In the United States accomplices, under a technicallity, recieve equal sentence as the person who actually did it - although this applies more for capital offenses.

But, if you download a song that you really like it means that you won't buy the CD which deprives artist of the royalties they would have made off that CD. Moreover, that song is not free property, it's property of the producer, meaning you are technically stealing the property of both the producer and the artist and the record label.

The same thing applies with posting an entire book on a website..consider it plagerism (sp?).

That's not true. There are plenty of CD's I bought because I downloaded a few songs and liked them enough to get the CD.

If I hear one hit single on the radio 20,000 times I'm going to get bored of it and not bother buying the CD. That's why I don't own a single CD on the top 40 but I've almost burned a hole through my Nellie McKay CD.

Downloading is like listening to a song off the radio. It's put into a form that accessible to the public and the public takes it as they see fit.

TV companies tried to use this same argument when VCR's came out. "If people can just tape a show then they won't watch the commercials and we'll get less money, that's stealing."

Same deal, "if people can just capture and duplicate a song then they won't buy as many CD's, that's stealing." Forget the fact that people actually began to buy MORE CD's when Napster came out.

Aside from that, musicians don't make much money from their record sales anyway. They get the most money from their shows. And a talented musician who gets an appreciative following on the internet will have more well attended concerts and make more money.

I saw an advert recently on a video I bought before I watched the main feture. It was a new version of the anti-piracy ones, basicly going along these lines

"You wouldn't steal a handbag" (Insert picture of man grabbing handbag)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldn't steal a car" (Shot of a guy attempting to use a slim jim to open a car door)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (Shot to guy shoplifiting a DVD out of a shop)
(long shot of girl on computer downloading movie. Movie download finishes and she leaves the room)
"Movie piracy is steeling"
"Steeling is against the law"
"Piracy is a crime"

There is however a big problem with these comparisons. And this problem underlies why people feel that piracy is not steeling. If you were to steel either a handbag or a car from someone, you are then depriving that person of a physical object. They had it, they no longer have it. If however, you make a pirate copy of a DVD or a CD you do not "take" anything from that company. You did not go to their offices and take something from them. They have not been deprived of anything they had previously. So I think calling piracy steeling is a strech. Which then raises the question, if its not piracy, what is it?

I work for a living.

I do what I do - and I expect to get paid for it... and I'd be pretty miffed if my employer decided not to pay me... wouldn't you?

Now - let's look at a musician... he/she works for a living, doing what he/she does.. which is making music. They want to get paid for THEIR job, just as I want to get paid for mine.

Now... how does the musician get paid?

They get paid from the sales of their product... the same as... I don't know... a Weaver get's paid for his/her product. The weaver (or his/her employer) provides all the base materials, the weaver applies talent, they get paid back, when the basket sells.

The musician's employer pays the base costs, the musician applies talent, and both get paid back when the record sells.

If you download a piece of music, and don't buy it - you are taking the 'talents' of that musician (who you OBVIOUSLY appreciate the talents OF, otherwise you wouldn't download it), without paying.

Further - that musician/production company, etc. OWNS the copyright to their material (or that of their artists). By trafficking their material OUTSIDE of the laws of copyright - you are, at the very LEAST - 'stealing' Intellectual Property.

Devil's Advocate, given previous posts. But, hey, here goes. All of my illegal music is from CD's/LPs (remember them?) which are no longer sold. As Im 19, and listen to a large variety of 70's hard rock and metal, its impossible to get my hands on the music I love without raiding my dad's collection. I dont think there is anything wrong with this sort of thing, as no one could possibly benifit from me not copying them. THis is a precedant set by the video games industry, when emulators and ROMs for out of manufacture games were considered legal, as long as no profit was made for them.

EDIT: And when i get the chance, I tend to snap up originals anyway, purely for sentimental/bragging value.

I'm not getting your drift...

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.


Not at all.

Say MGM has 100$, walmart has 100$ and it costs 1$ to make a dvd of a movie and walmart buys it for 2$ and sells it for 3$ (purely hypothetical, the numbers can be anything)

If i go to the store and steal one DVD, MGM has to spend one more dollar to make a replacement, and wal mart has to buy one more copy.

At the end, I have taken one dollar from MGM and two dollars from wal mart, I've stolen that much of value from them and deprived them of that much. The accounts even out, I am up some money and they are down some money, it is zero-sum.


If on the other hand, I download the movie from the internet, MGM still has 100$ and Walmart still has 100$ but I have the movie.

Neither MGM nor wal-mart has lost anything. Neither of them have profited, but neither of them have been deprived of anything which they once owned.

The sum isnt zero anymore, I have a few dollars worth of movie, but neither wal mart nor MGM are down any money at all.

Again, this may be the case, but the majority of people who download don't have the sense to do this... a great example is me, compared to all my friends...I buy the CDs regardless of what I download...my friends burn the tracks onto a blank CD and never bother to buy the CD.
Meh, one of my roommates bought a dvd burner and she's borrowing the dvd collections of others and burning herself copies.

That doesn't mean that everyone who has a dvd burner uses it for that purpose. Hell, a friend of mine has offered to burn my X-Men episodes (for which there are no box sets) onto dvd for me so they don't take up so much hard drive. Hell, if they offered a dvd box set of that show, I'd be all over it. Imagine, high quality and viewing without snipits of Fox kids commercials. *drools*

Hell, I owned all the episodes of Family Guy on computer before they released the box sets and I bought both of them. I tend to like having the whole set up.

I mean, when it comes to cds, burnt cds don't have quite the same feel. For one thing, mp3's sound slightly off to me, I can't explain it, for another, you're missing out on the artwork and the excitment of getting a new cd.
I burn mix cds from mp3, but those are mixes, if I lose one, I don't care. If I lose a real cd I'm upset.

That's not true. There are plenty of CD's I bought because I downloaded a few songs and liked them enough to get the CD.

If I hear one hit single on the radio 20,000 times I'm going to get bored of it and not bother buying the CD. That's why I don't own a single CD on the top 40 but I've almost burned a hole through my Nellie McKay CD.

Downloading is like listening to a song off the radio. It's put into a form that accessible to the public and the public takes it as they see fit.

TV companies tried to use this same argument when VCR's came out. "If people can just tape a show then they won't watch the commercials and we'll get less money, that's stealing."

Same deal, "if people can just capture and duplicate a song then they won't buy as many CD's, that's stealing." Forget the fact that people actually began to buy MORE CD's when Napster came out.

Aside from that, musicians don't make much money from their record sales anyway. They get the most money from their shows. And a talented musician who gets an appreciative following on the internet will have more well attended concerts and make more money.


But again, you're ignoring of what the majority of downloaders do... burn the music onto a CD and never buy it again... even downloading entire CDs for themselves..

The true problem arises when someone in school goes up to their buddy who has cable and gives them five bucks to burn them a CD...the person who agrees to it is selling property that isn't theirs.

And that's not true. Musicians make most of their money of their records...most of the money off the shows goes to paying the venues...this I know because I've been able to talk to a lot of the major bands that play down here at SOMA, a rock/punk/emo/screamo venue in San Diego.

It might not mean that for you, and it certainly doens't mean that for me since I like having the CD anyways...but 90% of those who download then burn it onto a CD and won't buy the real CD. And now with all these MP3 players the problem gets bigger.

Who says it's a problem? All it is is a differant distribution system that the mega corps haven't managed to sink their claws into and are afraid of. There are a ton of people who don't like the sound quality of MP3's, or who don't want to waste a ton of Hard Drive space with them, or whatever.

The point is, we don't know how many people only download and never purchase, and we don't even know what their personal purchasing power would be if they could actually afford to buy the product in the first place. Plus what about products that are no longer for sale, various rare out of print albums. The companies can't make any money off of those anymore since they can no longer print them. The only way to get a hold of these albums without downloading is to go on eBay and buy them, sometimes at the cost of several hundreds of dollars(or whatever currency they're selling in).

Also what about club edit's? Enthusiast edits and mixes? So really it's a tad more complex than the simple you obviously won't buy the product, so you must be stealing. In multiple cases people WILL buy the product after downloading, and in multiple cases that product is outright not for sale aside from second hand. Second hand products not netting anything for the original producers.

Meh, one of my roommates bought a dvd burner and she's borrowing the dvd collections of others and burning herself copies.

That doesn't mean that everyone who has a dvd burner uses it for that purpose. Hell, a friend of mine has offered to burn my X-Men episodes (for which there are no box sets) onto dvd for me so they don't take up so much hard drive. Hell, if they offered a dvd box set of that show, I'd be all over it. Imagine, high quality and viewing without snipits of Fox kids commercials. *drools*

Hell, I owned all the episodes of Family Guy on computer before they released the box sets and I bought both of them. I tend to like having the whole set up.

I mean, when it comes to cds, burnt cds don't have quite the same feel. For one thing, mp3's sound slightly off to me, I can't explain it, for another, you're missing out on the artwork and the excitment of getting a new cd.
I burn mix cds from mp3, but those are mixes, if I lose one, I don't care. If I lose a real cd I'm upset.

But again, you and I have some sense of it all and tend to buy the CD regardless of what we download..the majority don't.

Who says it's a problem? All it is is a differant distribution system that the mega corps haven't managed to sink their claws into and are afraid of. There are a ton of people who don't like the sound quality of MP3's, or who don't want to waste a ton of Hard Drive space with them, or whatever.

The point is, we don't know how many people only download and never purchase, and we don't even know what their personal purchasing power would be if they could actually afford to buy the product in the first place. Plus what about products that are no longer for sale, various rare out of print albums. The companies can't make any money off of those anymore since they can no longer print them. The only way to get a hold of these albums without downloading is to go on eBay and buy them, sometimes at the cost of several hundreds of dollars(or whatever currency they're selling in).

Also what about club edit's? Enthusiast edits and mixes? So really it's a tad more complex than the simple you obviously won't buy the product, so you must be stealing. In multiple cases people WILL buy the product after downloading, and in multiple cases that product is outright not for sale aside from second hand. Second hand products not netting anything for the original producers.


And that would be exactly the reason why the government deems all downloads illegal. Because it's frankly impossible to keep track of who downloads them and then buys the CDs, or who downloads them and then sells them.... that's why downloading music in general is illegal.

You are depriving the artist and the people who brought that work to you. You are stealing. The justifications just excuses-

The Robin Hood Defence-

"I'm just taking from those evil nasty corporations, Britney Spears doesn't need another jet."

Britney Spears and the execs at the company aren't taking that hit, it's the bottom line, the average joe-the baseline worker gets fired (me and my friends who lost thier jobs from small record stores and minor label distributers) and you as legitimate music compensates.

Further, major labels are owned by Sony and GE, the only reason that they are in the music and movie business at all is to generate content. Content to use on the stereos and home theaters they sell you. So while they take the hit on piracy they survive on their industry.

So who are you really nailing? The minor labels, the small companies and producers working out of thier garage etc. that struggle to bring you something. They can't afford the protections that the big companies can, and they can't afford to just 'give it' to you.

So for all the 'nobleness' in this excuse all you've really done is handed us over to the Sherrif of Nottingham. Thanks a bunch.

The Jean Valjean Excuse

"I can't afford all this music." I can't afford a Porsche either. If I take one off the factory line they aren't gonna buy that excuse either. If I stiff the guy who builds my fence because I can't afford it, he's not going to go for it. And there are cheaper alternatives out there-.99 cents per track on iTunes, subscription on Napster, NetFlix and similar deals on brick and mortar stores like Blockbuster make that excuse weaker and weaker.

"I'm gonna anyway, so deal."

Try that on the guy who built your fence. Music and films are a service, and because you found a way to not have to pay doesn't immediately legitimize it. You don't want to pay for it? Don't watch it, don't listen to it. If you're going to steal, I'm going to call you a thief. And if you get caught I'm not going to shed a tear when they treat you like a theif.

"The industry just needs to adapt."

First, bullshit. They don't need to adapt to just start giving it away. When people started stealing cars they put locks on the doors, they didn't start saying "You can't , like, own a car, man...just use the first one you find..." Producing that work so you can steal it costs money. It's got to come from somewhere. And they have adapted, as stated earlier.

"Whats the difference between me inviting friend over to watch and me putting it up on the internet for anyone to download"

If you don't have enough baseline understanding to recognize the difference between exhibition and distribution you don't know enough to enter the conversation.

"There was a music industry before, man."

Yep. Based on patronage. Those rich enough supported music for thier own purpose. So, if you want Pepsi to have the only control over the music that gets out there because the smaller artists can't afford to just give you the music, or you want to start funding the NEA a whole lot more than we can go back to the pre-recording industry.

Poor people learned instruments and made thier own music. If you really wanted that 'indie' spirit, thats what you'd do instead of stealling others efforts.

"I've given stuff away, so I should get it for free"

This isn't 'take a penny, leave a penny." If you entered into and exchange where the artist got something from you and you got their work-yes. Otherwise, you do not get to decide how their work is distributed. Think it's unreasonable? Don't buy it. It's not bread, you don't need it.

I've donated a car to charity, it's not going to justify me taking another one-not even from the people I've donated to.


Sorry, none of this washes. You found a way to steal and likely get away with it. Spade a spade-you are a thief. Own it.

Sidenote : http://www.ubersoft.net/d/20031002.html

To see the complete storyline, start here: http://www.ubersoft.net/d/20030923.html ;)

I saw an advert recently on a video I bought before I watched the main feture. It was a new version of the anti-piracy ones, basicly going along these lines

"You wouldn't steal a handbag" (Insert picture of man grabbing handbag)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldn't steal a car" (Shot of a guy attempting to use a slim jim to open a car door)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (Shot to guy shoplifiting a DVD out of a shop)
(long shot of girl on computer downloading movie. Movie download finishes and she leaves the room)
"Movie piracy is steeling"
"Steeling is against the law"
"Piracy is a crime"


in my state, the minimum fine for reckless driving is 125 dollars, while the minimum fee for stealing music is 500 dollars. because musicians need jumbo jets, not just regular jets. :rolleyes:

But again, you and I have some sense of it all and tend to buy the CD regardless of what we download..the majority don't.
I dont' know that it is the majority though.

Hell, most of my friends are university students and they still purchase cds and dvds. Perhaps fewer than they download, but that's more of an inability to afford to buy them at the moment. I don't know anyone who incorporates burnt cds into their cd collection.

Ok, I know one guy who does it, but his don't come from mp3s, he trades bootlegs from shows. As far as I know, it's just an original copy from a show that gets burnt over and over by different peopel and shipped off in exchange for other bootlegs. He even said something about mp3s of shows being burnt onto cds is looked down upon in the community...

But again, you're ignoring of what the majority of downloaders do... burn the music onto a CD and never buy it again... even downloading entire CDs for themselves..

And that's not true. Musicians make most of their money of their records...most of the money off the shows goes to paying the venues...this I know because I've been able to talk to a lot of the major bands that play down here at SOMA, a rock/punk/emo/screamo venue in San Diego.

And the musicians *I* talk to happen to make all their money off of shows and merchandising, not CD's. CD's give them about 20 dollars a year.

So since you're so into the music scene why don't you give us a source for what the majority of downloaders do?

I dont' know that it is the majority though.

Hell, most of my friends are university students and they still purchase cds and dvds. Perhaps fewer than they download, but that's more of an inability to afford to buy them at the moment. I don't know anyone who incorporates burnt cds into their cd collection.

Ok, I know one guy who does it, but his don't come from mp3s, he trades bootlegs from shows. As far as I know, it's just an original copy from a show that gets burnt over and over by different peopel and shipped off in exchange for other bootlegs. He even said something about mp3s of shows being burnt onto cds is looked down upon in the community...

The DVD collections of three of my friends are completely bootlegged editions. But I'll leave the arguing to those who are directly affected by the P2P industry.

And the musicians *I* talk to happen to make all their money off of shows and merchandising, not CD's. CD's give them about 20 dollars a year.

So since you're so into the music scene why don't you give us a source for what the majority of downloaders do?

20 dollars a year?

Take for example Guns n' Roses... when they're double album Use Your Illusion came out the band sold three million copies within the first day - using a median of about twelve dollars per album that's over thirty million dollars.

Merchandise also makes a lot of money, and that's another pirating problem...for example, in Spain people sell false band t-shirts that they make using their home printers and Spanish officials are starting to crack down on it.

20 dollars a year?

Take for example Guns n' Roses... when they're double album Use Your Illusion came out the band sold three million copies within the first day - using a median of about twelve dollars per album that's over thirty million dollars.

Merchandise also makes a lot of money, and that's another pirating problem...for example, in Spain people sell false band t-shirts that they make using their home printers and Spanish officials are starting to crack down on it.

Oh I see, so you really don't know where the money goes. Here's what happens, the artists make the song, they then sell the song to the recording companies in exchange for royalty rights. The recording company then promises to distribute their product and give them a cut of the sales normally amounting to about 2% of the net profit, if that. Now if you sell 1 Million Albums, that's a decent chunk of change, and they might even give you more in royalties, but that's beside the point. Small artists will never make enough money to survive under the current system based soley on record sales.

Now Merchandising is generally done directly by the band or the tour manager, and hence, all the profits and expenses are burdened directly by the artist, they however get 100% of the profit and that's how they make their money. The CD's for small bands tend to simply be ways to acquire fans who will then go to their show and buy merchandise.

Music Downloaders = Copyright Infringers, because that's what they're doing. It's not technically theft.
Spanish fake shirt creators = Bootleggers, because they're creating a product to sell that is not authorised by the copyright owner or tax creator.

The Music industry and movie industry claim they are entitled to the money they'd "earn" if all people paid for the movies or music they see and hear. It'skinda the dictatorship of the industry - either you buy or you can't enjoy the fruits of other people's labour. In that sense it is kinda as if you went to the barber shop and refused to pay for a new haircut. You benefited from a service without payment - which is the problem. But P2P piracy is not theft in the sense of stealing anything. It just means the industry does not get what they feel they are entitled to by copyright law. Though copyright laws are seen by many as way too restrictive, since the cost/profit margin of the music industry and movie industry is somewhat out of balance. If they did not charge such exorbitant prices, I am sure, P2P piracy would not be as popular as it is.

The point of copyrights and patents are to encourage the arts and sciences by allowing people to make some money off their ideas. When a piece of music, or a movie, or a piece of software is distributed without the permission of the creator, it destoys that motivation. While there are some problems with the way that copyright laws are currently written and enforced, the theory is still valid.

Boohoo the artists and companies make enough money anyways.

Boohoo the artists and companies make enough money anyways.

That's a separate issue. If they make too much money, stop buying their music. Make your own.

The point of copyrights and patents are to encourage the arts and sciences by allowing people to make some money off their ideas. When a piece of music, or a movie, or a piece of software is distributed without the permission of the creator, it destoys that motivation. While there are some problems with the way that copyright laws are currently written and enforced, the theory is still valid.
I have a doubt copyrights were created to allow music and movie COMPANIES to make tons of money at everyone's expense.

I have a doubt copyrights were created to allow music and movie COMPANIES to make tons of money at everyone's expense.

So you want to outlaw music companies? Okay, but that doesn't change the copyright issue. It just changes who gets involved.

The music industry has neither lost nor gained money from me and downloading. I never used to buy many albums and when I did they were in the sales. No was was I ever going to go above £10 for a cd (£15 for a double). In general I'd say I purchased about 5-6 cd's a year. Now thanks to the internet I have a much wider variety of music to listen to because before I wasn't going to fork out for an album that I didn't know if I'd like and since alot of stuff I listen to isn't played on radio I'd have no idea if I'd like it, also my friends don't like the same stuff as me so I'd not be able to hear it off them. So I still buy cd's, about the same spent each year as before, but I can buy more (due to online prices being cheaper) and not have to worry about if I'll like it or not. I actually do believe in supporting an artist I like in order for them to make more of the stuff I like. However in general I prefer individual songs rather than artists and as such my compilations far outweigh arists albums.

Now as far as films go I buy alot more due to the net. I also go to the cinema and if I like a film I'll d/l it and watch it as a stop gap until it's released on dvd. As far as films go that have been on TV for example I see no problem with downloading them, since if I recorded them on VCR nobody would bat an eyelid and say it was wrong despite the fact it's the same thing. And in alot of cases I wouldn't buy the film anyway so how are they losing money? I won't pay money for it since it's been on TV so why should I buy the dvd just so I can watch it on my computer?

hmmm nearly 2:30am time for bed I think

I download movies and tv shows and music.

However, I don't really deprive anyone of any money. I'm slowly buying the dvds for the movies I have on my computer (when they're on sale...) if an artist has a cd for which I like a number of mp3s, then I'll buy the cd (eventually) and really, it allows me to sample a greater variety of music and get into many more artists, so that increases the potential purchases by yours truly.

And well, the shows i tend to download either don't have box sets or I can't find the box sets in store, or that I'm saving up to buy.
See id say that is almost acceptable.
In NZ there are plans to alter the Copywrite act to allow this because if you own it why shouldnt you make a copy of it?
Of course that dosent mean you can flog it off to anyone else!

That's a separate issue. If they make too much money, stop buying their music. Make your own.

Exactly.

People sitting quibbling about 'why they are being forced to spend money on someone else's art, be it music or movie'...

The truth is - you download it, because you WANT it.

You desire the artistic creation of someone else, and they DESERVE to be paid for their talents, if you desire to witness them.

You don't like their music? Don't download it - nobody is going to force you to.

People should at least have the honesty to admit that they WANT the product. And, once they make that admission, why SHOULDN'T the artist get paid?

And in alot of cases I wouldn't buy the film anyway...

So why download it?

You don't like it? Don't buy it.

You do like it? Why not be honest about that, and reward the artists and producers with a fair recompense for their time and their risks?

I saw an advert recently on a video I bought before I watched the main feture. It was a new version of the anti-piracy ones, basicly going along these lines

"You wouldn't steal a handbag" (Insert picture of man grabbing handbag)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldn't steal a car" (Shot of a guy attempting to use a slim jim to open a car door)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (Shot to guy shoplifiting a DVD out of a shop)
(long shot of girl on computer downloading movie. Movie download finishes and she leaves the room)
"Movie piracy is steeling"
"Steeling is against the law"
"Piracy is a crime"

There is however a big problem with these comparisons. And this problem underlies why people feel that piracy is not steeling. If you were to steel either a handbag or a car from someone, you are then depriving that person of a physical object. They had it, they no longer have it. If however, you make a pirate copy of a DVD or a CD you do not "take" anything from that company. You did not go to their offices and take something from them. They have not been deprived of anything they had previously. So I think calling piracy steeling is a strech. Which then raises the question, if its not piracy, what is it?stealing is Stealing. Say you create an album. your album sells for $1.00 and you sell a million of them... that's a million dollars. lucky you.
now you create an album. I buy that album for $1.00 and (for the sake of the agument, 999,999 others buy your album. so you still get your million.) and each person puts it on their website and 1 million people download that album... for free... you get 1 Million dollars... but over a billion people have your song.
Now let's add up the costs... contracts have a set price for CD sales... we'll be generous and say 50%... so now you sell 1 million dollars worth but only get paid 500,000 then take away taxes, Agent's fee... and now you're looking at your album making about $100,000 for a sale of 1 Million dollars.
If you don't have a contract, then you add studio rental, CD printing/publishing, advertisments... and all are at public rates, Companies usually get discounted rates for contracted work. so you're making about 100,000 when hundreds of billions of people now have your work. Now you have to make another album because you're out of money.
this time, however, only 10 people by your new album ($10) and the rest download it from the sites, and share it with their friends.

thats over a billion of your dollars gone. by an act that you call "not stealing."

For everyone else who thinks the Music industry will survive dispite the piracy... That's the same mentality most shoplifters use when taking items off of the store... "the store won't miss this sale... They're crooks with their "High Prices". it's just one jacket/book/cd... I can't afford it... they can...

In regards to movies, I generally download them and IF they are any good, I'll go out and buy them. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you saying I should go and buy a movie, and if it's crap, just put it on the shelf and never watch it again. I once had a collection of 100 burnt movies, movies which I had downloaded, watched and judged. Out of those movies, I've bought 35 DVD's.

Couldn't you also say that the companies are stealing from me if I'm forced to buy 100 DVD's to know what they're about? I know you couldn't, but if it were like that, it would be ripping people off on a grand scale.

Music, on the otherhand, I download heaps of. I also generally don't buy the CD's. With computers, I have the luxury of being able to add songs from different artists, SONGS WHICH I KNOW ARE ALL GOOD, and play them. If I only had CD's to do this, I'd have to keep swapping CD's, plus I'd be buying CD's where half the songs are crap.

Again, this is ripping people off. If the companies made a machine in stores which had a huge database of music and it would burn them onto CD in mp3 form so that I could put them on my computer, any ones I want at say a cost of 25c each I'd go out and buy those CD's.

It's not really anything to do with legality, it's comparitive morality. The companies are being immoral with what they are doing, I'm going to do the same thing by "stealing" their CD's.

The only difference is that the companies can pay large campaign funds to politicians to get elected and then pass their legislation.

So why download it?

You don't like it? Don't buy it.

You do like it? Why not be honest about that, and reward the artists and producers with a fair recompense for their time and their risks?

Well congratulations on completly missing the point of what I was saying. Answer me this, if something has been shown on TV is it wrong to download it considering it was available freely if I had a TV and if I had a VCR as well I could watch it as often as I want?

And about films that I wouldn't buy but do watch, I'll even put this in bold so you don't misunderstand. If the only way to view some of these films was to buy them then I wouldn't see them. I don't impulse buy so I'm not going to get an urge to see a film, spend £10-15 on a dvd, see it once and then have it linger on the shelf gathering dust. I have no problem with going to the cinema and like I said I actually buy more films than I used to.

It's really late now and I can't sleep so I'm off to get drunk

I'm not getting your drift...

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.


thats not true, I've downloaded movies and TV episodes, then gone out and bought them at the shops, they didn't lose any money.

This is bull. Just downloading the movie does NOT mean that you will not later buy the movie. In fact the act of downloading the movie or song might cause you to later choose to buy the Movie or CD in question due to a variety of reasons.

And if you couldn't buy the movie/CD then the big businesses lose NOTHING because you would not have bought their product in the first place. The only thing that occurs in this situation is that the consumer is deprived of goods because he can't afford them, most often because of monopolistic practices on behalf of the businesses.

Thanks for letting us know your post was bull in the first sentence. If only I had taken your warning and not read the rest of you foolish logic.

If you didnt/couldnt download that movie/song then you'd have to buy the movie/album from the store. Therefore it is in a way depriving the artist of their earned money.

unless you taped the radio.. which is quite possible.. in which case.. you get the same song.. for free.. by making a copy.. leagally.. >.> So techically are you depriving them of their EARNED money ? and TECHNICALLY your not commiting copy right infrindgment because unless your distributing the songs or sharing them... your not making profit off of the product (music). So its no different then taping a movie on TNT and giving it to your friend. Because no one has made profit. And many studies show people who download songs are actually more prone to buy cds because they are willing to pay the money on cds they enjoy.. and by making music avalible online for at an extremely cheap price or free.. it opens the industry to more people who would otherwise not hear the music because of the outragous price of music cds today

So I think calling piracy steeling is a strech.

As do I. :cool:

unless you taped the radio.. which is quite possible.. in which case.. you get the same song.. for free.. by making a copy.. leagally.. >.> So techically are you depriving them of their EARNED money ? and TECHNICALLY your not commiting copy right infrindgment because unless your distributing the songs or sharing them... your not making profit off of the product (music). So its no different then taping a movie on TNT and giving it to your friend. Because no one has made profit.

Making profit is not necessary to make it a crime. Parallel: If I steal from the rich and give it all to the poor I don't make profit, but I'm still a thief. Sharing things without having the right to share them is not legal.

Television and radio stations (as well as waiting rooms, other public venues that play music etc) are in many countries required to pay fees for the right to play that music in a place where people can potentially copy it. In several countries a small extra "copying fee" is included in the price of empty tapes and cds which goes to a general artists fund. In such countries you can copy things for personal use, but that doesn't mean you magically earned the right to redistribute it. Depending on your local laws passing that TNT movie to a friend could well be a crime. A crime noone will act against, but a crime nonetheless.

In regards to movies, I generally download them and IF they are any good, I'll go out and buy them. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you saying I should go and buy a movie, and if it's crap, just put it on the shelf and never watch it again. I once had a collection of 100 burnt movies, movies which I had downloaded, watched and judged. Out of those movies, I've bought 35 DVD's.

No, you should just go to a video store and rent the movies for a couple of bucks then buy it if its worth owning. Thats what honest people do. That or sign up for Netflicks.


Couldn't you also say that the companies are stealing from me if I'm forced to buy 100 DVD's to know what they're about? I know you couldn't, but if it were like that, it would be ripping people off on a grand scale.

No, how would that be stealing? They dont force you, you choose to buy or not to buy.


Music, on the otherhand, I download heaps of. I also generally don't buy the CD's. With computers, I have the luxury of being able to add songs from different artists, SONGS WHICH I KNOW ARE ALL GOOD, and play them. If I only had CD's to do this, I'd have to keep swapping CD's, plus I'd be buying CD's where half the songs are crap.

Then use itunes. Or buy singles instead of entire CDs.


Again, this is ripping people off. If the companies made a machine in stores which had a huge database of music and it would burn them onto CD in mp3 form so that I could put them on my computer, any ones I want at say a cost of 25c each I'd go out and buy those CD's.

25c each? you must be out of your mind. Do you have any idea how much money it costs to produce a song? This machine does exist on the internet but of course they dont give the songs out for 25c each, they would go out of business. But the price is reasonable. 99c gets you a song on itunes.


It's not really anything to do with legality, it's comparitive morality. The companies are being immoral with what they are doing, I'm going to do the same thing by "stealing" their CD's.

They are not being immoral, they are just trying to make a profit. Do you have any idea how much money goes into making a cd? You have to pay the artists, studio musicians, the studio its self, technicians, producers, people to do the mixing and mastering, graphic artists and photographers for the sleeve art, etc. Alot of these people are highly trained, expensive professionals who do not work for cheap. The end result is that you have this product which cost you well over $100,000 (Ive heard estimates that go up to $500,000). This does not even take into account marketing costs and the cost for printing the CDs. Then what happens? The vast majority of the time, the album sits in the stores and nobody buys it. Most CDs are a failure and end up costing the record labels money. So, the few CDs that do not fail need to make up for not just their own costs but the costs of all the CDs that the company lost money on. You add to this the fact that alot of people are stealing the music instead of buying it and now you have a situation where the companies need to charge more to make up for all the CDs that are not selling, but they cant because if they do people will buy even less. What is happening to the record labels is truly a tragedy. Its going to be interesting to see what happens to the music industry with the record labels gone. Obviously music will still exist, but without the ability to make millions of dollars, are musicians going to be relegated to doing music part time? Or, perhaps the cost of attending live concerts will increase dramatically because it is now the only way for musicians to make money. Its certainly going to be interesting to see.

One of the most common arguments I've heard is that those who download music often buy those songs which they like anyway; that P2P (peer to peer) piracy is actually more closely akin to P2P "previewing."

Another argument is that its like making a audio tape of what you saw on the radio; is that stealing? What about using a VCR to make a tape of a movie? Is that stealing? Then why is watching a copy of last night's "Enterprise" on your computer considered stealing?

Another factor is that perhaps this technology has "replaced" some of the more traditional advertisment and product technology in the music a movie world. While this is not bad in itself, it causes the music industry and movie industry to lost out on their market share. Just like TV killed radio, P2P is hurting CD sales.

But rather than flat out banning and being antagonistic to P2P seems like a pathetic attempt to fight change. Rather than worry about that, why not crack down on illegal SELLING of matierals, rather than simple sharing. If you borrow a CD from a friend and listen to it; its not a crime right? If your friend sells you and 10,000 others a copy of his CD; then royalties have been lost, certainly that is a crime.

One of the most common arguments I've heard is that those who download music often buy those songs which they like anyway; that P2P (peer to peer) piracy is actually more closely akin to P2P "previewing."

But previewing without the owners permission.

Another argument is that its like making a audio tape of what you saw on the radio; is that stealing? What about using a VCR to make a tape of a movie? Is that stealing? Then why is watching a copy of last night's "Enterprise" on your computer considered stealing?

See my previous post - it depends on the country. If you or the broadcastingcompany paid a small amount for "copyrights" making a copy for personal use is not stealing. However, you do not have the right to redistribute this episode unless you have paid for that.
This is why downloading is often legal, but uploading isn't.

If you borrow a CD from a friend and listen to it; its not a crime right?
Technically it may be. Noone is going to act against it though.

Thanks to songs people have sent me, I might consider buying some of the albums. I've only ever been sent ONE full album.


There's also plently of FREE and LEGIT places to get MP3's. Some bands have free MP3's on their websites.

Of everything I download, I wouldn't buy more than a small amount if it wearen't possible to download it. There's a lot of things you want to have, but you don't think is worth the money. What do you do? Download it for free! Not to mention that I wouldn't be able to afford to buy even 1/10 of what I download. The only limit to how much I can download is how much I can fit on my hard drive, burn on CDs, and so on... So, of all I download, only a small portion causes any "loss" for anyone.

1) You're free to spend all of your money producing free million-dollar movies for the masses.

2) The whole ass 'they don't have the money yet' argument works for stealing it while someone's passing them the money. If I just grab money when someone's about to hand it to you, hey, not stealing, you don't have it yet.

3) It IS true that the downloading of songs, over all, increases purchases. Doesn't make it not stealing. If you grab a piece of bread, eat it, and come back a week later to pay for it half the time, and you thus pay for more bread than you would have otherwise, guess what, still stealing. Yes, it would make more sense for the company to make use of this information, and give free samples, but that's THEIR decision, not yours.

Allright.. let me try to explain copyright in a different way.

Question: can one own an idea ?
Suppose you just spend 10 years of your life developing a chemical formula that increases gasoline efficiency by 50%. Obviously, this formula is valuable. However, once you publish it, everyone can use it. Even if you don't publish it competitors may be able to discover it through reverse engineering.

Should they pay you something, since it is your idea ? Or do you say that if someone else gets rich with your idea he hasn't actually taken anything away from you ? Most western governments have adopted the first philosophy, introducing patent- and copyrights.

Under such law an artist can say his "ideas", like e.g. music, can only be used by people that have paid for it. If you obtain this music without payment being involved (either done on the side of the distributor or on your side) there is theft of intellectual property. If he or she in addition misses revenue or not is therefor not important to determine if this is theft or not.

Alien vs Predator, Alpha Centauri, Black & White, Carmageddon, Carmageddon TDR, Civilization III, Deus Ex, Diablo, Diablo II + expansion, Fallout, Gothic II, Neverwinter Nights + expansions, Quake II, Quest for Glory V, The Settlers, The Settlers II, Sim City 3000, Sim City 4000 + expansion, Starships Unlimited, Stronghold, IL2 Sturmovik, Sturmovik - Forgotten Battles, Thief, Thief II, Thief III, Tron 2.0, Master of Orion II, Beneath a Steel Sky, Total Annihilation, Freespace, Morrowind + expansions, Descent II, Abuse, Lands of Lore, Ultima 1 trough 8, Daggerfall, Doom, Doom II, Ultimate Doom, Dune, Dune II, Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Civilization...

Eh?
Oh sorry, just listing some of the games I would not have bought without piracy.
Think about the money companies would have lost if I had not been a 'thief'.

By downloading music you are indeed depriving a person of a physical object. You deprive the artist of long green bills marked with George Washingtons. But who am I to speak, I sometimes download MP3s. *shrugs*

Personally, I don't mind buying CD's. As of late I have been boycotting the industry sence they are doing the lawsuits thing. The lawsuits really killed the music for me.

Allright.. let me try to explain copyright in a different way.

Question: can one own an idea ?
Suppose you just spend 10 years of your life developing a chemical formula that increases gasoline efficiency by 50%. Obviously, this formula is valuable. However, once you publish it, everyone can use it. Even if you don't publish it competitors may be able to discover it through reverse engineering.

I do not and will not consider the copyright infringment of music or movies the same as the copyrights placed on scientific discoveries or even art or sculpture.

Scientific discoveries are made by one person and they should receive the recognition and benefits from discovering it

Paintings and sculptures are made by one person and are far more easily copied, in a literal sense, by some one not the original creator and they try to sell it as the original work and make tons of money, sculpture and painting copyright infringment more often than not results in fraud

Digital media copyright is another thing. It can be copied and sold or distributed freely; however, everyone knows its not that persons work and they arnt trying to pass it off as such to benefit from it. Do artists or writers or actors actually lose anything from copyright infringement of digital media? Doubtful, the majority of the money is going to big corporations, not the artists, and that's the exact reason for the fuss. Also, where is the study that says the distribution freely of copyrighted digital media is actually hurting the industry? I have personally bought several cd's due to the fact I downloaded the music and liked it. Also, where are the artists who distribute their own music complaining about digital distribution and not those working for big companies?

snip


Yup, and also that in precedants IT'S NOT STEALING! There's a law case (Lloyd and others, I think) where the guy was a cinema projectionist, took the film reels home, copied them, sold the copies and took it back. It was held not to be stealing because the goodness and value had not gone - so saying piracy is stealing doesn't fit with that, at least in English law.
Edit: NB - I don't download movies or anything, I'm just saying it's quite inconsistant. And you can't steal information either - it comes under a different offence, but not theft (Oxford and Moss).

Scientific discoveries are made by one person and they should receive the recognition and benefits from discovering it

Often it is in fact a team effort. Or a company effort. Which is why the company holds the patent.

Digital media copyright is another thing. It can be copied and sold or distributed freely; however, everyone knows its not that persons work and they arnt trying to pass it off as such to benefit from it.

The same can be said of copying inventions. I can create a formula and you then copy it to make products without paying me for my work. Are you saying that this is ok as long as you do not claim to be the inventor ? If not, where lies the difference with copying movies ?

Do artists or writers or actors actually lose anything from copyright infringement of digital media? Doubtful, the majority of the money is going to big corporations, not the artists, and that's the exact reason for the fuss.
This is however irrelevant to my point. I am not arguing that you are stealing an artists/inventors/companies income, nor denying the possibility you are in the end in fact increasing revenues. I just state that if you accept the concept of someone owning ideas, copying those ideas without payment is theft. If a company is abusing its artists this is of course also not right, but stealing from thieves is still stealing.

You cannot own copyright.

Copyright is a government granted and time limited monopoly on distributing a work. It's actually owned by the whole population the whole time, we just get our rights to it taken away from us for as long as copyright lasts before they are returned to us.

Also, coypright laws doesn't exist to ensure that artists can make a living. That's just a side effect. The real reason is to promote the creation of new works for the good of us all.

It is my belief that the majority of the population of the world does not agree with current copyright laws. They're supposed to be there for our sake, and if we do not support these laws, to hell with them.

You cannot own copyright.

Copyright is a government granted and time limited monopoly on distributing a work. It's actually owned by the whole population the whole time, we just get our rights to it taken away from us for as long as copyright lasts before they are returned to us.

Also, coypright laws doesn't exist to ensure that artists can make a living. That's just a side effect. The real reason is to promote the creation of new works for the good of us all.

It is my belief that the majority of the population of the world does not agree with current copyright laws. They're supposed to be there for our sake, and if we do not support these laws, to hell with them.wrong! (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html)

i just bought a CD

i paid my money to acquire a copy of something

that copy is now mine

if i want to give my copy free to a few freinds, i can

so why do they get arrested?

i just bought a CD
i paid my money to acquire a copy of something
that copy is now mine
if i want to give my copy free to a few freinds, i can
so why do they get arrested?

You paid for one copy of the cd. So if you give that one copy to a friend, that is perfectly ok. However, you have not paid for the right to make multiple copies of the purchased copy and then spread them around.

i just bought a CD

i paid my money to acquire a copy of something

that copy is now mine

if i want to give my copy free to a few freinds, i can

so why do they get arrested?your right... you should be arrested as well for the copying and distribution of licenced material without the express written concent of the licence owner.

You paid for one copy of the cd. So if you give that one copy to a friend, that is perfectly ok. However, you have not paid for the right to make multiple copies of the purchased copy and then spread them around.

ok, then.

how is the initial scenario different from this one:

i buy a cookbook
there is a wonderful recipie for brownies in it
a few freinds like the brownies, and would like to have the recipie
i make a copy of the page with the recipie and give it to them.



that's completely legal.

why is music not?

i buy a cookbook
there is a wonderful recipie for brownies in it
a few freinds like the brownies, and would like to have the recipie
i make a copy of the page with the recipie and give it to them.
that's completely legal.
why is music not?

If the recipe is copyrighted it is NOT legal.

If the recipe is copyrighted it is NOT legal.


why not?

i bought the book, the recipies are mine

if you want to buy a copy of the original, go right ahead. i'm not stopping anybody from buying the book, and the author is not missing any sales.

people who want to buy the book will buy it whether or not i give out some of the recipies inside, and there are a great number of people who will like the brownie recipie enough to buy the book, just to see what the rest of the recipies are

why not?
i bought the book, the recipies are mine

Nope, the recipes are still owned by the writer/publisher of the book. Unless there is no "no part of this work may be copied blabla without the explicit permission of the author" clause in it.

You just bought the book. You can use the contents of the book for personal use - but you have not purchased to right to copy parts of it and distribute them to others. Unless you live in a country without copyright and/or patent laws of course. See post 76 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484471&postcount=76) for an explanation.

people who want to buy the book will buy it whether or not i give out some of the recipies inside, and there are a great number of people who will like the brownie recipie enough to buy the book, just to see what the rest of the recipies are
If true, this means it would be a clever tactic for the publisher to not copyright the book or the recipes. However, that is his choice to make. Not yours.

ok, then.

how is the initial scenario different from this one:

i buy a cookbook
there is a wonderful recipie for brownies in it
a few freinds like the brownies, and would like to have the recipie
i make a copy of the page with the recipie and give it to them.

that's completely legal.

why is music not?the difference is you are making the brownines... you can then substitute ingrediants and make changes. On a CD... you do not make the song following the cd.

two... check the book... if the recipie book states you can make and distribute copies of the recipie... then it's legal... if not, then it's not legal.

I think piracy is fine, and part of the great new internet culture.
Of course, I don't *ahem* condone it.
I do not have over 200GB of pirated movies, porn, music and programs. No way.

I always saw it this way.. before computers and internet people would tape songs off the radio they liked... and sometimes make copies for friends or make personalized music selections for people.. I really dont see what the difference is... as long as noone is trying to pass it off as thier own or selling it... *shrugs* its no biggie.....

I always saw it this way.. before computers and internet people would tape songs off the radio they liked... and sometimes make copies for friends or make personalized music selections for people.. I really dont see what the difference is... as long as noone is trying to pass it off as thier own or selling it... *shrugs* its no biggie.....Before internet/computers, the most you could distribute was what... a couple dozen at most? with internet file sharing that number increases to a million or more.

and back then what you did was still illegal... anyone couldv'e turned you in for the reward back then also. the only way to save yourself was to prove you have the original copy... which means your friends were screwed... and if enough testified against you... you wouldv'e been screwed also.

and lastly... the technology then wasn't as good as they are now. with each playing, your tape/record degrades... sound looses quality that after 20 - 30 playings can be heard. With CD's you don't get that degredation... you also don't get the radio dj talking over the music.

so tell me something:

if i hook up a tape player to my radio, and save every song that is played for my personal collection, is it stealing?

what if i do not save it to my personal collection, but i have audio-perfect memory, and can memorize the exact audio of the song and sing it to myself whenever i want. is that stealing?



$20 says that you called the first one stealing, but the second one not, despite the fact that there is essentially no difference between them.

so tell me something:

if i hook up a tape player to my radio, and save every song that is played for my personal collection, is it stealing?
Yes.
what if i do not save it to my personal collection, but i have audio-perfect memory, and can memorize the exact audio of the song and sing it to myself whenever i want. is that stealing?
No.
It is like learning a song on guitar. You are creating the music yourself in the second one.
$20 says that you called the first one stealing, but the second one not, despite the fact that there is essentially no difference between them.
But there is a difference...

I always saw it this way.. before computers and internet people would tape songs off the radio they liked... and sometimes make copies for friends or make personalized music selections for people.. I really dont see what the difference is... as long as noone is trying to pass it off as thier own or selling it... *shrugs* its no biggie.....

Radio stations pay fees for broadcasting copyrighted material. The price of your tapes may have included a small "copyright" fee. IOW: there was some payment. Copying music and then distributing it to others wasn't legal, but since the quality with non-digital copying is always reduced and this practice was so widespread and smallscale that it was impossible to act against, the record companies just didn't deem it worth the hassle.
The difference with downloading is that massdistribution, previously only possible through tv & radiostations, is now possible for everyone through the internet. It is is easy for someone to distribute his copied cd to several million people with very little loss of quality - and he wont pay the fees the radiostations did

But there is a difference...


what difference?

in both cases, i take a song that i have not paid anything for off the radio and store it.

why does the means of storage make the legality change?

what difference?

in both cases, i take a song that i have not paid anything for off the radio and store it.

why does the means of storage make the legality change?
Well, you were talking about singing the song to yourself. In that case, you are not replaying a stored recording, but you are performing it yourself. Of course, I assumed you were talking about normal human functioning here. Did I misunderstand, and did you mean that in this hypothetical situation your mind was an audio-perfect storage medium and your mouth was usable as the output? If that is the case, then yes, it would/should be illegal.

if i hook up a tape player to my radio, and save every song that is played for my personal collection, is it stealing?
That depends on your countries specific copyright laws. It is quite likely the radiostation is paying for you though- so no. However, you yourself would not be allowed to make copies of the tapes you just made for distribution.

what if i do not save it to my personal collection, but i have audio-perfect memory, and can memorize the exact audio of the song and sing it to myself whenever i want. is that stealing?

Nope. Same reason as above, with the added bonus you can't distribute your memory to your firiends.

$20 says that you called the first one stealing, but the second one not, despite the fact that there is essentially no difference between them.

Why thank you :) When will I receive my $20 ?

Well, you were talking about singing the song to yourself. In that case, you are not replaying a stored recording, but you are performing it yourself. Of course, I assumed you were talking about normal human functioning here. Did I misunderstand, and did you mean that in this hypothetical situation your mind was an audio-perfect storage medium and your mouth was usable as the output? If that is the case, then yes, it would/should be illegal.


yes, i was referring to a hypothetical audio perfect mind.



so let me get this straight:

if i have the ability to exactly reproduce any audio that i hear, i should not be allowed to use it unless i pay the person who created it originally?

how retarded is that?

does the guy who does perfect donald duck impressions have to pay royalties to disney?

translate to another medium: i suppose you want the guy with photographic memory to send a check to the louvre every time he closes his eyes and thinks back on his visit to the mona lisa, right?

because if he didn't, it would be illegal!

:rolleyes:

so tell me something:

if i hook up a tape player to my radio, and save every song that is played for my personal collection, is it stealing?

what if i do not save it to my personal collection, but i have audio-perfect memory, and can memorize the exact audio of the song and sing it to myself whenever i want. is that stealing?

$20 says that you called the first one stealing, but the second one not, despite the fact that there is essentially no difference between them.Very fine line. Technically You will get the $20. here's the frightening thing... Radio stations have a licence to broadcast music over the airwaves... and Technically, you're recording it is illegal. but, because it's for your personal collection and enjoyment, (not selling, altering or distributing the recordings) it can be argued that you are not violating Copyright LAWS. If a laywer want to nitpick and waste the time of all law enforcement agencies... he could drag you to court. but his chances of winning are slim to no fucking way.

Memorizing the song is definiately for personal enjoyment. however, start charging a fee to have people listen to you sing/play those songs back without giving credit where it's due is again against the law.

that's why its so important to get the original Copyright holder's permission to play songs... even if you 'alter' them. think about all those lawsuites that the singers are hit with claiming they "stole my song" That's why copyrights are so important.

Very fine line. Technically You will get the $20. here's the frightening thing... Radio stations have a licence to broadcast music over the airwaves... and Technically, you're recording it is illegal.

But isn't this exactly the same as the rules on taping TV shows which has most definatly been found to be legal?

You are taking profits. They should just switch to selling songs by the song instead of CD.

But isn't this exactly the same as the rules on taping TV shows which has most definatly been found to be legal?wong... Technically, recording television shows are not legal. but the law tends to turn a blind eye when it's for personal collections. (see post about radio taping) as long as you don't try to sell them on the internet or charge admission for viewing them, then you're safe. look at the credits really carefully... it states that any reproduction/distribution is illegal.

You are taking profits. They should just switch to selling songs by the song instead of CD.


when i do not give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1

when i do give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1




i buy a cookie and give half to a freind. does he have to pay the baker too?

he is enjoying the taste of the cookie without paying for it! oh no!

the baker made one cookie.
the baker sold one cookie.

the artist made one song.
the artist sold one song.


why is there a difference if two people listen to/eat it rather than one?

when i do not give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1

when i do give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1

(modern Reality)when i do give away songs:
number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
Number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1
Number of websites you posted the song on: 3
Number of downloads per websites: 100/day
Number of sales the artist is paid for: 1
Number of people who now have that song: 2100 after one week.


i buy a cookie and give half to a freind. does he have to pay the baker too?nope, because you are giving the product, not a copy of the product. when people download music/music, the person posting still has their original copy... and can make more copies.he is enjoying the taste of the cookie without paying for it! oh no!

the baker made one cookie.
the baker sold one cookie.

the artist made one song.
the artist sold one song.

why is there a difference if two people listen to/eat it rather than one?are you serious... you are comparing a physical, tangable item to a copiable file? when I give you a copy of a cd, I STILL HAVE the original CD. If I give you Half my cookie... I will be left with HALF A COOKIE.

sure the artist sold one song. but the 1000 people you gave that song to won't go out and buy the Song now... they have it. so that is lost sales and thus a lost paycheck for the artist.

Here's a better example. You study for a test. you get 89% correct... everyone else copies the brany kid and they all get 95 - 100%. because you got the lowest grade, (and your teacher is using the bell curve method of grading,) you get the only F. while everyone else gets D's C's B's and A's. that's fair... according to your reasoning.

Here's a better example. You study for a test. you get 89% correct... everyone else copies the brany kid and they all get 95 - 100%. because you got the lowest grade, (and your teacher is using the bell curve method of grading,) you get the only F. while everyone else gets D's C's B's and A's. that's fair... according to your reasoning.

but that's not it at all.

in your example, the people who copy get the money, and the one who didn't get the money gots broke.

people who download music aren't being paid for it (ie: they don't get 'the grade') and also in your case, the 'artist' (the smart kid) is giving away his 'music' (test answers) for free anyway.


fine, you want an example where i still get the entire cookie and a freind gets to enjoy it without paying?

i eat a cookie and kiss my girlfreind. :fluffle:

i ate 100% of the cookie, but someone who didn't pay a cent gets to taste it (and a bit extra ;) )

people who download music aren't being paid for it (ie: they don't get 'the grade') and also in your case, the 'artist' (the smart kid) is giving away his 'music' (test answers) for free anyway.

I agree the example is not good. Still, imagine the smart kid was not giving away the answers, but others copied them without his permission. The smart kid had probably invested time studying, the others hadn't - yet they all get the same rewards. Would you say that is fair ?

i ate 100% of the cookie, but someone who didn't pay a cent gets to taste it (and a bit extra ;) )
If she can still taste the cookie you didn't eat 100% :P

I didn't really bother to read this, but piracy is stealing. You are taking something that people are selling without paying for it, just like if you went out shoplifting. That said, I do it sometimes, and I have friends who do it constantly, and it doesn't bother me at all. It just annoys me when people try to pass it off like they aren't really breaking the law.

but that's not it at all.

in your example, the people who copy get the money, and the one who didn't get the money gots broke.

people who download music aren't being paid for it (ie: they don't get 'the grade') and also in your case, the 'artist' (the smart kid) is giving away his 'music' (test answers) for free anyway.

fine, you want an example where i still get the entire cookie and a freind gets to enjoy it without paying?

i eat a cookie and kiss my girlfreind. :fluffle:

i ate 100% of the cookie, but someone who didn't pay a cent gets to taste it (and a bit extra ;) )Err... if your girlfriend is one that will allow you to regurgitate the cookie into her mouth... then you better keep her.

but again, you are sharing the original product. the cookie... in a different state, but still it's the same (kinda... in a very disgusting way) cookie.

the kids who copy get a good grade. you (and the braney kid) studied hard but because the others "took" the answers (copying tests is not always voluntary on both sides) they also benifited. infact, because you didn't score high enough, you actually lost. where as you might have gotten an A with the bell curve... because the others got the points without paying (ie. studing) for it, they got better scores than you and you ended up with an F. artists use record sales to "grade" their albums, and thus their work and songs. the more people who copy and not buy albums causes their work to be 'cheapened' in the music industry. thus the artist get's a bad grade (lower payback) because others copied his work.

I agree the example is not good. Still, imagine the smart kid was not giving away the answers, but others copied them without his permission. The smart kid had probably invested time studying, the others hadn't - yet they all get the same rewards. Would you say that is fair ?


seeing as how they have not deprived him of anything (them copying does not make his grade go down) it's certainly not unfair for the smart student.

it's not exactly fair for the kids who copy, but in the long run, they will suffer the most (at some point, they will come to a situation where they cannot copy. then, they are screwed)

I didn't really bother to read this, but piracy is stealing. You are taking something that people are selling without paying for it, just like if you went out shoplifting. That said, I do it sometimes, and I have friends who do it constantly, and it doesn't bother me at all. It just annoys me when people try to pass it off like they aren't really breaking the law.

i quite agree that they should not pass it off as if they are not breaking the law, for there is a law against it.

i'm just arguing that the law itself is retarded.

btw: music downloading != shoplifting.

when you shoplift, you deny the seller that product, so that they cannot sell it anymore.

when you download, you have done nothing to deny the seller that ability.

they still have the songs available for sale.


[edit]
Err... if your girlfriend is one that will allow you to regurgitate the cookie into her mouth... then you better keep her.

not that literally

but again, you are sharing the original product. the cookie... in a different state, but still it's the same (kinda... in a very disgusting way) cookie.

yea, best i could come up with on a short schedule

seeing as how they have not deprived him of anything (them copying does not make his grade go down) it's certainly not unfair for the smart student.

Relatively speaking his grade *does* go down: it is no longer higher than that of others.

wrong! (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html)
In my post I presented three points: that copyright is not the same thing as ownership, that it copyright exists to promote the creation of new works and not to ensure people can make a living creating and that most people doesn't like current copyright law.

And all you do is say wrong and give a link containing about a gazillion pages? How about being a bit more specific and tell me what you felt was wrong and then disprove that? As it is, your reply was completely useless.

seeing as how they have not deprived him of anything (them copying does not make his grade go down) it's certainly not unfair for the smart student.

it's not exactly fair for the kids who copy, but in the long run, they will suffer the most (at some point, they will come to a situation where they cannot copy. then, they are screwed)Using the Bell Curve, they stole your good grade, for many of them may have gotten lower scores than you. your 'F' may very well be an 'A'


i quite agree that they should not pass it off as if they are not breaking the law, for there is a law against it.

i'm just arguing that the law itself is retarded.

btw: music downloading != shoplifting.

when you shoplift, you deny the seller that product, so that they cannot sell it anymore.

when you download, you have done nothing to deny the seller that ability.

they still have the songs available for sale.people who provide the downloads are removing the demand that stores depend on for their survival. Less album sales means less profits for the store... if the store is small enough, they can go out of business. Less sales also means less money to the artist and the people he/she has to pay to keep singing.
Lets use your cookie example. You develop a 'wonder cookie' it's delicious, its low on calories and carbs, easy and cheap to make. you open a store and sell these cookies and it's a big hit... people are calling you the next Cookie King. However, your recipie gets posted on the web. soon everyone and their grandmother are making these cookies... Sales at your store goes down because now, with everyone making their own, why buy yours? especially to pay for rent, employee paychecks, health insurance/benifits, you're selling them over 50% cost. now that the recipe is out, you have to create another one to create another demand. you do, months later, that recipe hits the web... and you're back deep in the red. that's why Piracy is like shopplifiting... it's worse because you don't realize it's happening until it hits the point where most likely, you can't recover from.

not that literally
yea, best i could come up with on a short schedulethank god... i was ready to toss my cookies with that image. :p

How is it a stupid law? It defends people's ability to make money from their job. And as far as the example goes, you're just playing idiotic, nitpicky little games, but Í'll bite. Suppose then, that you go to a massage parlor, get a massage, then run out without paying. They can still give a massage, so it isn't stealing, right? All you did was waste their time and money for your own benefit, just like if you downloaded music.

Well congratulations on completly missing the point of what I was saying. Answer me this, if something has been shown on TV is it wrong to download it considering it was available freely if I had a TV and if I had a VCR as well I could watch it as often as I want?

And about films that I wouldn't buy but do watch, I'll even put this in bold so you don't misunderstand. If the only way to view some of these films was to buy them then I wouldn't see them. I don't impulse buy so I'm not going to get an urge to see a film, spend £10-15 on a dvd, see it once and then have it linger on the shelf gathering dust. I have no problem with going to the cinema and like I said I actually buy more films than I used to.

It's really late now and I can't sleep so I'm off to get drunk

You seem to think that 'because it is on TV', it is somehow 'free'?

Do you realise that, in order to show a movie on TV, the company/network, whatever - has to purchase special broadcast rights? So - if the average television channel wants to show a given film, it has to ensure that it can attract an audience - and, hopefully, attract advertising sponsorship.

Which is why - as other media are becoming more prevalent, less movies are being shown on 'normal' TV, and more 'reality' shows and quiz shows are shown instead... since you don't have to cover someone else's expense... and those are the cheapest forms of televisual 'entertainment' to produce.

To be honest - you aren't SUPPOSED to copy movies from TV onto your VCR. You are still infringing the copyright terms... since you are copying media to which you do not own rights... you are given NO RIGHT to copy, it is just the TV company that has rights to broadcast.

Similarly - you aren't actually SUPPOSED to copy music from the radio - since, once again, you are not permitted under the copyright.

The problem is - the law is all but unenforcable - since it is hard to prove that a certain copy of a movie was made from a certain TV broadcast. But, Peer-to-Peer transfer leaves a digital papertrail... so it CAN be enforced.

You admit yourself, you wouldn't watch most movies if you had to pay full price. Why that excludes renting, I don't understand. Or you can wait till a broadcaster pays for broadcast rights, and then view it 'free'.

so - either DON'T watch movies until they LEGITIMATELY become 'free', or pay to watch them legally.

You are STILL using the excuse that you somehow DESERVE to see someone else's work...

In my post I presented three points: that copyright is not the same thing as ownership, that it copyright exists to promote the creation of new works and not to ensure people can make a living creating and that most people doesn't like current copyright law.

And all you do is say wrong and give a link containing about a gazillion pages? How about being a bit more specific and tell me what you felt was wrong and then disprove that? As it is, your reply was completely useless.for those who don't have time to look at the pages.

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci)
ohh... it does protect ownership... it allows the "owner" to lease out his work (royalties) to others. while it does not guarentee that the person can make a living, it protects the property from being copied/altered without the owner's knowledge and/or compensation. (BTW, this is the first link... copyright basics/what is copyright)

Copyright = ownership I cannot copyright Max Berry's book because it's alreay done under his name and the name of the publishing company. now if Max signed over all rights of the book to the company, then Max Berry has no copyright privildges other than those the company will allow him.

Thanks to songs people have sent me, I might consider buying some of the albums. I've only ever been sent ONE full album.


There's also plently of FREE and LEGIT places to get MP3's. Some bands have free MP3's on their websites.

Many bands let SOME of their material be available 'free', as an incentive to buy more, or to give people a taste of their product.

That doesn't automatically 'allow' people to peddle OTHER material by the same artist.

You seem to think that 'because it is on TV', it is somehow 'free'?

Do you realise that, in order to show a movie on TV, the company/network, whatever - has to purchase special broadcast rights? So - if the average television channel wants to show a given film, it has to ensure that it can attract an audience - and, hopefully, attract advertising sponsorship.

Which is why - as other media are becoming more prevalent, less movies are being shown on 'normal' TV, and more 'reality' shows and quiz shows are shown instead... since you don't have to cover someone else's expense... and those are the cheapest forms of televisual 'entertainment' to produce.

To be honest - you aren't SUPPOSED to copy movies from TV onto your VCR. You are still infringing the copyright terms... since you are copying media to which you do not own rights... you are given NO RIGHT to copy, it is just the TV company that has rights to broadcast.

Similarly - you aren't actually SUPPOSED to copy music from the radio - since, once again, you are not permitted under the copyright.

The problem is - the law is all but unenforcable - since it is hard to prove that a certain copy of a movie was made from a certain TV broadcast. But, Peer-to-Peer transfer leaves a digital papertrail... so it CAN be enforced.

You admit yourself, you wouldn't watch most movies if you had to pay full price. Why that excludes renting, I don't understand. Or you can wait till a broadcaster pays for broadcast rights, and then view it 'free'.

so - either DON'T watch movies until they LEGITIMATELY become 'free', or pay to watch them legally.

You are STILL using the excuse that you somehow DESERVE to see someone else's work...

*sigh* it is actually very easy to enforce recording from TV/radio. Simply make the ownership of recording devices illigal, since technically it is illigal to make copies of these in the first place it would solve the problem and make you happy? As for making backups of a product you own (a right that you are entitled to) then I'm sure a few companies would soon pop up offering that if you bring your original disk/tape they can make you a backup copy for personal use and for a reasonable cost obviously :rolleyes:

As for the issue of films that I wouldn't pay for but watch anyway I'll have to disagree with you on that. No-one would get my money if it was your way and my way I get the film and no-one gets the money. This is a difference of opinion that I can't agree with you on.

I do not and will not consider the copyright infringment of music or movies the same as the copyrights placed on scientific discoveries or even art or sculpture.


That is your choice... but, unfortunately, the distinction isn't YOURS to make.

If you obtain a copy of somebody's copyrighted material, without the cover of the rights allowed by copyright, then you have 'stolen' someone else's intellectual property.

You can see how this applies in science, and even in fine art.

I suspect you refuse to see how it can apply to music or movies, as a matter of convenience.

If a musician writes a piece of music - that music is his/her creation. You have no 'right' to that material, except the rights sold or given to you.

But what makes you assume that the people who download the songs don't buy the albums as well. Or, for that matter, that the people who download the songs are financially able to buy the albums.

The reason recording of the radio does cause problems is that people don't want a crappy homemade copy they want a professional quality copy with all of the associated extras. Logically, those who do download and don't buy wouldn't have bought anyway. On the other hand, downloading, like radio, can promote sales of physical albums. People who hear a group that they like are more likely to buy that group's albums. People who hear a song that they like ar emore likely to buy that song.
There is also something that many people forget, not everything is available to everyone everywhere.
The habbit of DVD manufactures to use region encoding is an obvious example of this. If a movie is released in one region but not another then there is no way to obtain it legally and thus no one looses any revenue. Likewise, if an album has been out of print for decades then no one is losing money when it is made available for download.


Also, time shifted viewing of broadcated works (using a VCR to record TV brodcasts) is perfectly legal fair use. This was made clear in the Betamax decision.
http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing5.html

Copyright = ownership

Copyright is NOT ownership. Would you say you own your car if the car dealer gets it back after 5 years and at any time could change the rules, taking it back earlier or taking it back later? Well, I suppose you could, but you'd be wrong.

Before copyright, things belonged to no one (or everyone). When copyright was introduced, it gave a short time for the creator to profit until the copyright expired and the work again was public domain. And even though the time copyright lasts is ever pushed up by corporations and bought politicians, it is still only a time limited and government granted monopoly on copying/distribution, and NOT true ownership.

You cannot own copyright.

Copyright is a government granted and time limited monopoly on distributing a work. It's actually owned by the whole population the whole time, we just get our rights to it taken away from us for as long as copyright lasts before they are returned to us.

Also, coypright laws doesn't exist to ensure that artists can make a living. That's just a side effect. The real reason is to promote the creation of new works for the good of us all.

It is my belief that the majority of the population of the world does not agree with current copyright laws. They're supposed to be there for our sake, and if we do not support these laws, to hell with them.I think you're referreing to Trademarking. Copyright lasts as long as the holder and their estate lasts. it can be passed down from one generation to another or sold to anyone that the holder wants to sell it to.

why not?

i bought the book, the recipies are mine

if you want to buy a copy of the original, go right ahead. i'm not stopping anybody from buying the book, and the author is not missing any sales.

people who want to buy the book will buy it whether or not i give out some of the recipies inside, and there are a great number of people who will like the brownie recipie enough to buy the book, just to see what the rest of the recipies are

You didn't buy the recipes, you bought the legal right to own one copy of those recipes.

You would probably, theoretically, be allowed to copy each page of the text one time, purely for your own use - as a 'backup' of the material.

You are NOT allowed to redistribute the material OUTSIDE of the copyright laws - which are usually clearly stated in the front of the book.

yeah so if someone asks how you made a cake you can't tell them, they'll have to buy the damn book themselves :rolleyes:

Copyright is NOT ownership. Would you say you own your car if the car dealer gets it back after 5 years and at any time could change the rules, taking it back earlier or taking it back later? Well, I suppose you could, but you'd be wrong.

Before copyright, things belonged to no one (or everyone). When copyright was introduced, it gave a short time for the creator to profit until the copyright expired and the work again was public domain. And even though the time copyright lasts is ever pushed up by corporations and bought politicians, it is still only a time limited and government granted monopoly on copying/distribution, and NOT true ownership.the car dealer cannot take your car unless you did not pay for it. that is why you sign the contract saying you'll make the payments and meet the conditions (proper insurance, maintanance... etc) once you finish paying off the car, it's yours failure to uphold any part of the contract and yes, they can take it back. but only if you failed to hold your end of the bargain. they can recall it, but the recall is voluntary and failure to comply absoves the Manufacturer any injuries/damages you may get from that defect.

Wrong again. Copyright protects the owner. and copyrighting is easier than you think. the cheapest form is to mail it (registered) to yourself and not open it. the sealed envelope with the cancellation stamp is the simplist form of copywriting your material. Copyright protects the owner and their creative works. there is no time limit. Name one piece of work that is not copyrighted because "the time limit ran out"

yeah so if someone asks how you made a cake you can't tell them, they'll have to buy the damn book themselves :rolleyes:Correct. sad but true.

the proper answer would be "I got it outta (name the book)"

or even "look at the back of the box."

You didn't buy the recipes, you bought the legal right to own one copy of those recipes.

You would probably, theoretically, be allowed to copy each page of the text one time, purely for your own use - as a 'backup' of the material.

You are NOT allowed to redistribute the material OUTSIDE of the copyright laws - which are usually clearly stated in the front of the book.

Actually, a person doesn't who buys a recipe book does not buy a copy of the recipies. The person buys of copy of a book in which the recipies are presented in a certain order with accompaning text and illustrations.

Certain things, like recipies, cannot be copyrighted. It is the format and the accompaning materials that are subject to copyright. The recipies themselves are public domain and can be copied infinitly without any reprucussion other than contributing to the heat-death of the universe.

I think you're referreing to Trademarking. Copyright lasts as long as the holder and their estate lasts. it can be passed down from one generation to another or sold to anyone that the holder wants to sell it to.
I believe you're wrong about this. From the very same source you quoted: link (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html)

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

(b) Joint Works. — In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author's death.

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire. — In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

Why do you think Disney is fighting so hard to extend copyright if simply existing would ensure their copyright to last forever? Because it won't. Because they had to save Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.

So regarding recipies would it be illigal to follow a recipe and then sell the product?

But what makes you assume that the people who download the songs don't buy the albums as well. Or, for that matter, that the people who download the songs are financially able to buy the albums. The same thing that makes you assume that everyone who downloads will buy an album... and if they cannot afford a CD, then what makes you think they'll beable to afford the player.

The reason recording of the radio does cause problems is that people don't want a crappy homemade copy they want a professional quality copy with all of the associated extras. Logically, those who do download and don't buy wouldn't have bought anyway.yeah... why buy when you got what you want for free...
On the other hand, downloading, like radio, can promote sales of physical albums. People who hear a group that they like are more likely to buy that group's albums. People who hear a song that they like are more likely to buy that song. nope... out of the 15 friends who download, only one buys the cd... for his ham radio program.
There is also something that many people forget, not everything is available to everyone everywhere. for cd???

The habbit of DVD manufactures to use region encoding is an obvious example of this. If a movie is released in one region but not another then there is no way to obtain it legally and thus no one looses any revenue. ahh... they key word is Legally... ever heard of Region Modding your DVD player? they're out there and available. and downloading foriegn films onto your PC and then burning a DVD is one way to skirt the region thing.

Likewise, if an album has been out of print for decades then no one is losing money when it is made available for download.but more and more "Oldies" are coming out on CD's... and the company is the one making money off of thoses.


Also, time shifted viewing of broadcated works (using a VCR to record TV brodcasts) is perfectly legal fair use. This was made clear in the Betamax decision.
http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing5.html

I believe you're wrong about this. From the very same source you quoted: link (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html)



Why do you think Disney is fighting so hard to extend copyright if simply existing would ensure their copyright to last forever? Because it won't. Because they had to save Mickey Mouse from going into public domain.funny you missed this admendment

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

so they are renewable... granted if the estate holder fails to renew... then that's his problem... again, with the proper contract and smart thinking, you can renew the copyright. simply sign another contract and reprint the books/re-release the songs. that in effect renews the contract.

and it also means you can't 'rewrite' Beethoven's works and call them yours.

So regarding recipies would it be illigal to follow a recipe and then sell the product?Nope, just to print out the recipies and call them yours.

when i do not give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1

when i do give away songs:

number of CD's sold: 1
number of people who bought CD's: 1
number of people who posess the CD that was sold by the artist: 1




i buy a cookie and give half to a freind. does he have to pay the baker too?

he is enjoying the taste of the cookie without paying for it! oh no!

the baker made one cookie.
the baker sold one cookie.

the artist made one song.
the artist sold one song.


why is there a difference if two people listen to/eat it rather than one?

E-mail me the cookie.

You can't... and THAT is the difference.

Let's see... imagine for a second that YOU are baking the cookies... and me and my friends come round and eat them all.

You were GOING to sell those cookies, and I had some hungry friends... we SHOULD have reached an agreement, right? You wanted to sell, we wanted to buy. But - instead, we took all your cookies and ate them.

Now you have no cookies to sell.

Okay - let's look at the music. Imagine for a moment that you are a singer, and that you get paid for your singing. You write your own material... which you have collected over several years, and people love to listen to you... because of your angelic voice, and your clever lyrics.

You sell recordings of your lovely voice and clever lyrics to some friends. Now - your friends get the benefit of your voice, and your lyrics, whenever they choose... and you get to do what you do, as a means of earning a living.

So - you write some more material, and you offer to sell your recordings to your friends again - but they don't want it, because ONE of them bought it from you, and then copied it, and sold it to ALL of your friends.

So - your 'friend' that copied, got paid for YOUR angelic voice, and clever lyrics... and all your OTHER friends got your material anyway... some might have paid, some might have just copied the copies.

What did YOU get back for all your hard work?

so they are renewable...
From a different source, found through google: link (http://copylaw.com/new_articles/copyterm.html)
Copyright Duration

To understand this valuable right, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of the copyright renewal system. Before January 1978, the duration of all copyrights was split into two consecutive 28-year terms. During the last (28th) year of the initial term, authors were entitled to renew their copyrights for a further term of 28 years. Through a series of amendments to the Copyright Act, the renewal term was extended 19 years, and then an additional 20 years, for a total of 95 years (28+28+19+20=95). If an author dies before renewal time arrives, certain statutory successors (generally, the author’s family, executor or next of kin) are entitled to recapture his or her copyright for the extended term. Since pre-1978 copyrights now endure for 95 years, heirs can recapture up to 67 years (28+67=95). Works published after December 31, 1977 are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.

I still believe you're wrong.

seeing as how they have not deprived him of anything (them copying does not make his grade go down) it's certainly not unfair for the smart student.

If the tutor marks on a curve, then other students copying DOES make the one clever student lose grades.

From a different source, found through google: link (http://copylaw.com/new_articles/copyterm.html)


I still believe you're wrong.Then go ahead... feel free to try and plagerize works that are expired.

Good luck with the law suits.

however, since we are talking about CD piracy... those Copyrights are still valid. again you can contest the ownership thing... and Again I wish you luck with the law suits.

E-mail me the cookie.

You can't... and THAT is the difference.

so the legality changes due to the way it is transferred?



Let's see... imagine for a second that YOU are baking the cookies... and me and my friends come round and eat them all.

You were GOING to sell those cookies, and I had some hungry friends... we SHOULD have reached an agreement, right? You wanted to sell, we wanted to buy. But - instead, we took all your cookies and ate them.

Now you have no cookies to sell.

now what does that have to do with music?

nothing.

when someone 'steals' your music, you still have the music with you, to sell.

when someone steals your cookies, you don't have any cookies left to sell.

Okay - let's look at the music. Imagine for a moment that you are a singer, and that you get paid for your singing. You write your own material... which you have collected over several years, and people love to listen to you... because of your angelic voice, and your clever lyrics.

You sell recordings of your lovely voice and clever lyrics to some friends. Now - your friends get the benefit of your voice, and your lyrics, whenever they choose... and you get to do what you do, as a means of earning a living.

So - you write some more material, and you offer to sell your recordings to your friends again - but they don't want it, because ONE of them bought it from you, and then copied it, and sold it to ALL of your friends.

So - your 'friend' that copied, got paid for YOUR angelic voice, and clever lyrics... and all your OTHER friends got your material anyway... some might have paid, some might have just copied the copies.

What did YOU get back for all your hard work?

you assume that your circle of freinds is your entire market.

when all your freinds have it, it's not like you're never going to sell a record again, because everybody has one, there are plenty more people out there who do not even know your freinds and have not downloaded it themselves. sell to them.

besides, what kind of 'freind' are you if you're not willing to give a little away? a blank CD costs 20 cents, and burning it takes a minute. how hard was that, really, to give to a freind?

*sigh* it is actually very easy to enforce recording from TV/radio. Simply make the ownership of recording devices illigal, since technically it is illigal to make copies of these in the first place it would solve the problem and make you happy? As for making backups of a product you own (a right that you are entitled to) then I'm sure a few companies would soon pop up offering that if you bring your original disk/tape they can make you a backup copy for personal use and for a reasonable cost obviously :rolleyes:


Ownership of recording devices is legal, because you may want to use it for legal purposes. THERE ARE legal purposes of a VCR. I'm pretty sure that any VCR you purchase will quite clearly state in it's manual, that the device is NOT to be used for the illegal copying of copyrighted material.

The device ITSELF is not the problem - it is people USING it for illegal purposes that is the problem.

Is a hammer illegal? No. But, when you kill someone with it... it becomes a murder weapon. Is a VCR illegal? No. But when you illegally copy copyrighted material, it becomes the mechanism of a crime.


As for the issue of films that I wouldn't pay for but watch anyway I'll have to disagree with you on that. No-one would get my money if it was your way and my way I get the film and no-one gets the money. This is a difference of opinion that I can't agree with you on.

If you are sufficiently interested in the product to pay for it, then how can you justify copying it? You don't like it? Well - don't watch it. You do like it... then pay for it.

To illegally copy a piece of media, and then excuse it by saying you didn't really want it... is just dishonest.

If you didn't want it - you wouldn't have even copied it.

What is it that STILL makes you feel you have a RIGHT to a copy of a movie?

Ultimately - this ISN'T a difference of opinion - this is you committing criminal acts. What you and I do not 'agree on', is your justification for your crimes.

But what makes you assume that the people who download the songs don't buy the albums as well.

If they download the songs as a way to create a backup for their legally purchased cds, than that is indeed perfectly fine. The person offering the download however is most likely breaking copyright law.

If you are talking about the question if revenue is actually lost or not you are missing the point. We are talking about theft of intellectual property. Even if this theft leads to boosted sales it still isn't done with the owners consent. The fact that most recordcompanies are too stupid to actually use the new technology for their own benefit is sad - but it is their choice. You cannot make this choice for them.

Going further: paying afterwards without the sellers prior consent is in essence still theft. Otherwise every burglar could claim he was planning to pay for the goods someday when the police arrest them, and they would have to let him go when he does.

Or, for that matter, that the people who download the songs are financially able to buy the albums.

If you can't afford to buy something, you can't buy it. Too bad. I can't afford a Ferrari. So should i steal one ?

and it also means you can't 'rewrite' Beethoven's works and call them yours.

Actually you can. I point to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and various other movies based on public domain works.

However, it is unlikely that any movies will ever become public domain. Since most movies are "authored" by movie studios and studios are potentially immortal it is possible that the lifetime of the "author" will never come to an end in the case of most modern works.

Then go ahead... feel free to try and plagerize works that are expired.

Good luck with the law suits.

however, since we are talking about CD piracy... those Copyrights are still valid. again you can contest the ownership thing... and Again I wish you luck with the law suits.

What's with the personal attacks? I never contended that it's illegal to do things like copying music, only that copyright isn't the same as ownership and that it's time limited.

By the way, you should visit Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/) and wish them luck with the law suits as well. They have over 15.000 books for which copyright has expired.

What's with the personal attacks? I never contended that it's illegal to do things like copying music, only that copyright isn't the same as ownership and that it's time limited.

By the way, you should visit Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/) and wish them luck with the law suits as well. They have over 15.000 books for which copyright has expired.Not ment as a personal attack... sorry if it was viewed that way...

If you believe that, then go ahead... but if you look at the 'classic' books, the copyright is renewed at each printing and each version. the estate renews them and since the copyright is transferrable, the new 'owner' can keep renewing the copyrights.

If the estate fails to 'renew' the copyright. then it's their problem. Copyright is a protection that does protect the ownership. as long as they estate keeps the copyright up and running... then the works are protected.

and again, I say, if you believe you can win... then i really wish you luck.

Actually you can. I point to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and various other movies based on public domain works.

However, it is unlikely that any movies will ever become public domain. Since most movies are "authored" by movie studios and studios are potentially immortal it is possible that the lifetime of the "author" will never come to an end in the case of most modern works.bet ya they had to get the rights to those "public domain" works and pay for the right to alter them to...

and notice they still credit Victor Hugo...

so the legality changes due to the way it is transferred?


Yes. Something that can be replicated perfectly, at no cost, is a very different commodity to something that has to be individually constructed every time.

Currency is a good example. What gives a dollar it's value? It is PURELY determined by comparison to the value of the currency, which is largely controlled by the number of dollars allowed into circulation... with the 'arbitrary' base value being a comparison to the relative value of gold.

A dollar is ACTUALLY just a promisary note - a declaration of EQUIVALENCE of value. So - by the reaasoning on this thread, it should be okay to steal money from people - because they lose nothing in real terms... they never 'owned' the thing that money is BASED ON.

Would you object if I stole all your money?

What about if I copied your social security number (which you don't 'own') and used it to set up a bank account from which I spent huge amounts of cash? What about if I 'stole' your credit card number, and put through ONLY electronic transactions, but still spent up to the allowed limit on your card?

You see all of those as the same crime, yes? And yet - ONLY the confiscation of actual bills, would be defined as 'theft' by your version of the definitions.



now what does that have to do with music?

nothing.

when someone 'steals' your music, you still have the music with you, to sell.

when someone steals your cookies, you don't have any cookies left to sell.


The cookie-maker makes a tangible product. The music-maker makes an intangible product.

You argue that it is theft to steal something tangible, but perfectly okay to take something intangible.


you assume that your circle of freinds is your entire market.

when all your freinds have it, it's not like you're never going to sell a record again, because everybody has one, there are plenty more people out there who do not even know your freinds and have not downloaded it themselves. sell to them.

besides, what kind of 'freind' are you if you're not willing to give a little away? a blank CD costs 20 cents, and burning it takes a minute. how hard was that, really, to give to a freind?

The 'circle of friends' is a metaphor... I was trying to simplify... I didn't realise I was going to have to make it THIS simple...

I have friends in the music industry. They make music, that is their JOB.

I happen to like their music, and I think they should get PAID for their JOB.

BECAUSE I like their music, I buy their music. If I din't like it, I wouldn't buy it... but I wouldn't EXPECT them to GIVE it to me for free... because MUSIC is their JOB.

I think the real telling line in your response was this:"there are plenty more people out there who do not even know your freinds and have not downloaded it themselves".

You JUSTIFY YOUR copying of the material, and the illegal trading you might do over peer-to-peer, with the argument that other, more honest, people will still buy the product.

If you download that movie it obviously means you're not going to buy it at a DVD store which reduces the royalties of MGM, or whoever produced the movie. Meaning, you're stealing money from them.
Depends. If you never really bought DVD's before you started downloading them, is there any real difference? Secondly, I've bought several cd's if I like a majority of the songs on the cd.

If the estate fails to 'renew' the copyright. then it's their problem. Copyright is a protection that does protect the ownership. as long as they estate keeps the copyright up and running... then the works are protected.

Please find a credible source that states that copyright can be renewed infinitely and I'll believe you.

Please find a credible source that states that copyright can be renewed infinitely and I'll believe you.simple... take any classic book... look at the copyright... notice the string of dates after it. each date is a renewal of the copyright.

Depends. If you never really bought DVD's before you started downloading them, is there any real difference? Secondly, I've bought several cd's if I like a majority of the songs on the cd.but did you buy any cd's where you like only one song you downloaded? did you erase the song from your harddrive and not make any copies of it when you decided not to purchase the cd?

Ask and artist how much they get paid per-CD - it will be like .25 cents - 50 cent- never a dollar - how much money does it take to make the phyical CD - probably less then a dollar - now ship them in a truck - well you can get alotta CDs in a truck - the kid selling me the CD at the record store making minimum wage - do you see where im going with this? - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind (assuming we're talking about an actual artist here and not britney spears) - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind to me - but i have to pay 20bucks - some CDs on bigger labels have less then 12 songs -... 20 bucks.... whos stealing from who?

I don't know if it's been done, but:

Look at this (http://jamesandannie.cyberflunk.com/images/MP3_downloading_communism.jpg)

True fact.

If you can't afford to buy something, you can't buy it. Too bad. I can't afford a Ferrari. So should i steal one ?

No, but you can certainly build your one using cheaper materials.

The point of this thread is that "intelectual proterty" isn't something you can hold in your hand. In the case of physical property the possession of the property by one person necessarily means that no one else can possess the property. With intellectual property it is different. An infinite number of people can possess it without denying possession to anyone else.

Ask and artist how much they get paid per-CD - it will be like .25 cents - 50 cent- never a dollar - how much money does it take to make the phyical CD - probably less then a dollar - now ship them in a truck - well you can get alotta CDs in a truck - the kid selling me the CD at the record store making minimum wage - do you see where im going with this? - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind (assuming we're talking about an actual artist here and not britney spears) - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind to me - but i have to pay 20bucks - some CDs on bigger labels have less then 12 songs -... 20 bucks.... whos stealing from who?

You are forgetting the costs of the recordingstudio, addcampaigns, coverdesign etc. Although I believe that still is significantly less than the profit margin, true. So the company is stealing from the artist. But can you say the same about movies ?
And what do you have to do with the way the artist is treated ? Stealing from a thief is still stealing.

With intellectual property it is different. An infinite number of people can possess it without denying possession to anyone else.
And at the same time denying this person the benefits of being the owner of this knowledge. In a society where every inventor, artist etc. is just working for the community instead of himself this would be acceptable. But most western countries are capitalist, not communist.

I don't know if it's been done, but:
Look at this (http://jamesandannie.cyberflunk.com/images/MP3_downloading_communism.jpg)
True fact.
It is. Although communism isn't a red scary man - just a different model for society.

Ask and artist how much they get paid per-CD - it will be like .25 cents - 50 cent- never a dollar - how much money does it take to make the phyical CD - probably less then a dollar - now ship them in a truck - well you can get alotta CDs in a truck - the kid selling me the CD at the record store making minimum wage - do you see where im going with this? - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind (assuming we're talking about an actual artist here and not britney spears) - from less then 4 dollars to get from the artists mind to me - but i have to pay 20bucks - some CDs on bigger labels have less then 12 songs -... 20 bucks.... whos stealing from who? if you download music... you are stealing from everyone you just mentioned.

simple... take any classic book... look at the copyright... notice the string of dates after it. each date is a renewal of the copyright.
Says you. You will have to do better than that. I've done quite a bit of googling now and I can't find any source stating that copyright can be renewed forever. Only that it can be renewed a few times up to a certain amount of years.

Says you. You will have to do better than that. I've done quite a bit of googling now and I can't find any source stating that copyright can be renewed forever. Only that it can be renewed a few times up to a certain amount of years.not says me... says the copyright printed on the books themselves. check it out. I've seen copyrights going back to the mid 1800's

go ahead... take "Les Miserables" pick up the latest printing and you'll see it yourself.

now if you don't believe what's in your hand because it's not backed up on the internet... well again I say, go for it, challenge them... maybe you're right... maybe you're wrong.

not says me... says the copyright printed on the books themselves. check it out. I've seen copyrights going back to the mid 1800's

go ahead... take "Les Miserables" pick up the latest printing and you'll see it yourself.

now if you don't believe what's in your hand because it's not backed up on the internet... well again I say, go for it, challenge them... maybe you're right... maybe you're wrong.
Actually, I don't own any books that old. My Lord of the Rings book however lists 1954 and 1966 as copyright years. Copyrighted first 1954 and extended 1966 I presume. My copy of Dune only lists 1965 as year of copyright. These are the oldest books I have.

And even if a book that old had a copyright message, it could simply mean that this edition was copyrighted but the material within is not.

And here you go: Les Miserables (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/135) online from Project Gutenberg. Free to copy.

Actually, I don't own any books that old. My Lord of the Rings book however lists 1954 and 1966 as copyright years. Copyrighted first 1954 and extended 1966 I presume. My copy of Dune only lists 1965 as year of copyright. These are the oldest books I have.

And even if a book that old had a copyright message, it could simply mean that this edition was copyrighted but the material within is not.

And here you go: Les Miserables (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/135) online from Project Gutenberg. Free to copy.well, i sent the question off to the US copyright office... hope to get their response in 5 days... (if you beilieve their estimate.) the question asked was.
"noticed that copyright does expire... does this pertain to all forms of copyright? the copyright line on books go back many years... past the length of time given for the protection. (classic works) does each date signifies a renewing of the copyright? is there a limit as to how many times the copyright can be renewed?"
let's see what they say.

Oh, and please check this out... copyright (http://print.google.com/print?id=090A1wttaS0C&lpg=7&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dles%2Bmiserables&pg=4&printsec=5&sig=7wKsu34Y_fA2NT0TPqHBm2Df5TM)

Oh, and please check this out... copyright (http://print.google.com/print?id=090A1wttaS0C&lpg=7&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dles%2Bmiserables&pg=4&printsec=5&sig=7wKsu34Y_fA2NT0TPqHBm2Df5TM)
I believe that means their translation is copyrighted.

But I'm interested to hear the answer to the question you sent. I'd hate to be wrong about this, as never ending copyright to me would be a very bad thing.

I haven't dl'd a MP3 in years, but if I were to want some music today I'd be tempted. The copy protection from itunes and napster are ridiculous. A hard drive upgrade or two could cost you thousands. They are not thinking clearly. People will pay to own the song, but not rent it. They drive consumers back to piracy.

Meanwhile movies are getting almost as bad. I have to sit through over half a dozen previews just to get to the title screen to watch the movie THAT I PAID FOR!

I'm considering buying some software to copy my movies so I can watch the copies and skip the godam previews and other BS. I understand making a personal copy is legal (I own it goddam it, it should be) but the studios have been embedding sotware to prevent it somehow... Fuckers, now I have NO CHOICE but to download a pirate copy of a movie I PAID FOR!

I believe that means their translation is copyrighted.

But I'm interested to hear the answer to the question you sent. I'd hate to be wrong about this, as never ending copyright to me would be a very bad thing.right or wrong, it'll be good to know.

now... back to the original thread... that being the downloading of music/movies.

oh, and is that group going though the legal battles of the Copyrighted material or the fact that they are distributing it through a new media format (e-Books) that does mean different things.

well, i sent the question off to the US copyright office... hope to get their response in 5 days... (if you beilieve their estimate.) the question asked was.
"noticed that copyright does expire... does this pertain to all forms of copyright? the copyright line on books go back many years... past the length of time given for the protection. (classic works) does each date signifies a renewing of the copyright? is there a limit as to how many times the copyright can be renewed?"
let's see what they say.

Oh, and please check this out... copyright (http://print.google.com/print?id=090A1wttaS0C&lpg=7&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dles%2Bmiserables&pg=4&printsec=5&sig=7wKsu34Y_fA2NT0TPqHBm2Df5TM)
Copywright lasts for the life of the author +75 years. This number started out as +25. Every time that Mickey Mouse inches close to that length of time the Disney corporation lobbies to have that deadline extended.

Anything authored before 1923 is considered in the public domain.

There is however a big problem with these comparisons. And this problem underlies why people feel that piracy is not steeling. If you were to steel either a handbag or a car from someone, you are then depriving that person of a physical object.

Intellectual property is still property. It belongs to them and not to you. They invested time and money in it's creation in order to make a living from it's sale on the premise that it would be worth something and then you took the product of their labour without their permission and without compensating them for it. Therefore, you stole it. That's what "to steal" means.

Incidentally, that you felt you wanted it enough to take it from them in the first place indicates that you agree with them that it is not without worth.

(Hypothetical, general "you" in the above, not singling out you personally)

Personally I know "piracy" like recording songs from the radio IS technically, legally speaking, against the law. However I find that law foolish, over-simplified, and made to be broken.

Hear me out: The reason that the music industry went after P2P piracy and such is because its big enough and perfect enough a reproduction to put them in jeapordy. Audio tracks from a tape degenerate over time and usage, as do Video tapes; unless one gets a master copy of a film, the quality of the copy will be reduced with each reprinting until its totally worthless.

This situation existed for over two decades now, and piracy was of very limited concern to the industry. Induvidual usage rights were more or less unrestricted unless a SALE of an unlicensed product was made. No one considered the possibility that a mere fan of a band with a couple of mix tapes from the radio was doing anything wrong at all. There was nothing morally wrong with this technically illegal act; the law banning their doing that was never enforced because it simply went too far.

If the government made a law banning you from humming your favorite song, how likely are people to follow it? How likely is it that courts going to uphold it with zeal? The same thing went with audio tapes and VCR recordings, they could break the law because the law was just plain silly. Though it was technically illegal, it SHOULDN'T have been, but no one bothered to strike it down.

Digital changed that equation. Now perfect quality replications can be made unlimited times. The music and video industries are running scared. Consequently they lash out at multiple sources, trying to feel out their legal framework for going after this new wave of digital-perfect reproductions.

That's why these ad campaigns occur, and the seemingly unfair lawsuits against children and teenagers. The music and video industries are trying to control a technically illegal but totally unregulated portion of the market because suddenly that market got very big and dangerous. Their self-interest compels them to use their industrial might against their own customers. This creates tremendous ill-will, as well as creating a situation where those who break the law find nothing wrong with their actions.

Several things can happen here:
1) The recording industry succeeds in both changing the moral perception of all of society that P2P sharing is morally wrong and that the laws are just.

2) The recording industry fails to change this perception and fights more and more against an increasingly defiant customer base.

3) The recording industry gets smart and realizes it can re-tool its production and relearn its business practices to take P2P usage into account. To reshape the industry so that P2P doesn't hurt their business and instead focuses on using P2P to help them get new business.

Many of the arguments against P2P usage rely on the recording industry having the only "right" way of doing business. P2P has shown us that there are other methods of getting products to people, and such services should be USED not destoryed. Using advertising, releasing special songs or videos to hook potential customers into buying other things, focusing on merchendise sales that cannot be pirated digitally, cutting the massive numbers of middle-men and fluff out of the music industry, making it more effcient and less wasteful.

Basically doing what a free market should do; adapting to, not crushing innovation.

The problem with calling piracy "steeling"

I saw an advert recently on a video I bought before I watched the main feture. It was a new version of the anti-piracy ones, basicly going along these lines

"You wouldn't steal a handbag" (Insert picture of man grabbing handbag)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldn't steal a car" (Shot of a guy attempting to use a slim jim to open a car door)
(flash to girl on computer downloading movie)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (Shot to guy shoplifiting a DVD out of a shop)
(long shot of girl on computer downloading movie. Movie download finishes and she leaves the room)
"Movie piracy is steeling"
"Steeling is against the law"
"Piracy is a crime"

There is however a big problem with these comparisons. And this problem underlies why people feel that piracy is not steeling. If you were to steel either a handbag or a car from someone, you are then depriving that person of a physical object. They had it, they no longer have it. If however, you make a pirate copy of a DVD or a CD you do not "take" anything from that company. You did not go to their offices and take something from them. They have not been deprived of anything they had previously. So I think calling piracy steeling is a strech. Which then raises the question, if its not piracy, what is it?
Actually, it's "stealing", but I'm sure someone already pointed that out.

It's not about a physical object. It's about intent. You are taking something that is not yours with the intent that you acquire something that belongs to someone else; you are stealing.

Alien vs Predator, Alpha Centauri, Black & White, Carmageddon, Carmageddon TDR, Civilization III, Deus Ex, Diablo, Diablo II + expansion, Fallout, Gothic II, Neverwinter Nights + expansions, Quake II, Quest for Glory V, The Settlers, The Settlers II, Sim City 3000, Sim City 4000 + expansion, Starships Unlimited, Stronghold, IL2 Sturmovik, Sturmovik - Forgotten Battles, Thief, Thief II, Thief III, Tron 2.0, Master of Orion II, Beneath a Steel Sky, Total Annihilation, Freespace, Morrowind + expansions, Descent II, Abuse, Lands of Lore, Ultima 1 trough 8, Daggerfall, Doom, Doom II, Ultimate Doom, Dune, Dune II, Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Civilization...

Eh?
Oh sorry, just listing some of the games I would not have bought without piracy.
Think about the money companies would have lost if I had not been a 'thief'.

I guess money is made of poison or something...

Actually, it's "stealing", but I'm sure someone already pointed that out.

It's not about a physical object. It's about intent. You are taking something that is not yours with the intent that you acquire something that belongs to someone else; you are stealing.Oh, so if I 'Borrow" a person's Identitiy? that isn't theft? How about I 'borrow' your bank account and pin number. I won't touch any physical bills, so it's not stealing right?

How about I borrow your data files and passwords... those arn't physical either.

Personally I know "piracy" like recording songs from the radio IS technically, legally speaking, against the law. However I find that law foolish, over-simplified, and made to be broken.

Hear me out: The reason that the music industry went after P2P piracy and such is because its big enough and perfect enough a reproduction to put them in jeapordy. Audio tracks from a tape degenerate over time and usage, as do Video tapes; unless one gets a master copy of a film, the quality of the copy will be reduced with each reprinting until its totally worthless.

This situation existed for over two decades now, and piracy was of very limited concern to the industry. Induvidual usage rights were more or less unrestricted unless a SALE of an unlicensed product was made. No one considered the possibility that a mere fan of a band with a couple of mix tapes from the radio was doing anything wrong at all. There was nothing morally wrong with this technically illegal act; the law banning their doing that was never enforced because it simply went too far.

If the government made a law banning you from humming your favorite song, how likely are people to follow it? How likely is it that courts going to uphold it with zeal? The same thing went with audio tapes and VCR recordings, they could break the law because the law was just plain silly. Though it was technically illegal, it SHOULDN'T have been, but no one bothered to strike it down.

Digital changed that equation. Now perfect quality replications can be made unlimited times. The music and video industries are running scared. Consequently they lash out at multiple sources, trying to feel out their legal framework for going after this new wave of digital-perfect reproductions.

That's why these ad campaigns occur, and the seemingly unfair lawsuits against children and teenagers. The music and video industries are trying to control a technically illegal but totally unregulated portion of the market because suddenly that market got very big and dangerous. Their self-interest compels them to use their industrial might against their own customers. This creates tremendous ill-will, as well as creating a situation where those who break the law find nothing wrong with their actions.

Several things can happen here:
1) The recording industry succeeds in both changing the moral perception of all of society that P2P sharing is morally wrong and that the laws are just.

2) The recording industry fails to change this perception and fights more and more against an increasingly defiant customer base.

3) The recording industry gets smart and realizes it can re-tool its production and relearn its business practices to take P2P usage into account. To reshape the industry so that P2P doesn't hurt their business and instead focuses on using P2P to help them get new business.

Many of the arguments against P2P usage rely on the recording industry having the only "right" way of doing business. P2P has shown us that there are other methods of getting products to people, and such services should be USED not destoryed. Using advertising, releasing special songs or videos to hook potential customers into buying other things, focusing on merchendise sales that cannot be pirated digitally, cutting the massive numbers of middle-men and fluff out of the music industry, making it more effcient and less wasteful.

Basically doing what a free market should do; adapting to, not crushing innovation.there is another option... they stop producing CD's... Established artists struggle and new artists dissappear. the only way to hear them sing would be in live concerts where any and all recording devices are banned. Tickets would be expensive (triple digits for the bad seats.) and any and all recordings from then on are considered private properties of the artist and anyone caught with an unauthorized copy is sued by the artist personally. the lawyers gain power. weird and unlikely... but not impossible.

another option is to do away with pre-made CD's... people now download music and pay per song. this will put all those retail stores out of business... those that cannot adapt into CD Burning Stations. (good bye mom and pop stores!) then there is the regulation of downloading...making sure people don't copy the music from one cd to another... this scenario is also unlikely...

Oh, so if I 'Borrow" a person's Identitiy? that isn't theft? How about I 'borrow' your bank account and pin number. I won't touch any physical bills, so it's not stealing right?

How about I borrow your data files and passwords... those arn't physical either.

This is a good analogy, IF the person took the music they borrowed and changed it, altered it, took credit for it, made money from it etc. In fact, did nothing more than look or listen to it.

If you mean you'd like to borrow my data files by looking at them, or listening to my passwords, and NOTHING ELSE EVER CAME OF IT, why sure. Then I'd be fine with it. Moreover, since my bank account and pin number are not really part of the public domain, they are not MADE as a product to be consumed, that's also not a very good example, is it?

Face it, what you have here is an attempt at drawing a visceral response to sense of "wrongness"; not a good example at all really. Try something better next time. A better analogy is if I borrowed your book, you know, the one you worked on all these years; I borrowed and read it. If I borrowed a poem you wrote; and read it. However, lets point out that you've published this book and poem elsewhere. So how's that sound? Would you mind if I read a copy of your book without buying it?

What if I checked it out of the library? How bad would that make you feel? What if I heard a song you wrote at a party? I borrowed those sounds then, didn't I?

The point is this: unless the matieral is damaged, altered, or used to make an illicit profit from its use, the crime is basically "looking at what you shouldn't", "listening to something when you shouldn't". Publicly sold music being heard when it "shouldn't" be. A video that can be watched, one that is shown on TV nationally being seen when it "shouldn't" be.

Its not a very strong case no is it? So you create the "You STOLE it" mentality, you create analogies that have very little to do with the case at hand. It makes people defensive. It makes people think they've done something violently wrong, something deeply offensive.

What have they done? They listened to a song...a song that is played 10 times a day over the airwaves, a song they might hear in a reasturant that morning, that they overhear at work that afternoon, that they hear in the car on the way home. But if they listen to it on their computer at home then WHAM! They're stealing it, they are little more than bandits.

See what I mean about insulting and demeaning your customer base? The very act of trying to label normal, honest people as "criminal" is just silly.

This is a good analogy, IF the person took the music they borrowed and changed it, altered it, took credit for it, made money from it etc. In fact, did nothing more than look or listen to it.

If you mean you'd like to borrow my data files by looking at them, or listening to my passwords, and NOTHING ELSE EVER CAME OF IT, why sure. Then I'd be fine with it. Moreover, since my bank account and pin number are not really part of the public domain, they are not MADE as a product to be consumed, that's also not a very good example, is it? but remember, Record sales is the main money maker for recording artists and Movies/television are the breadwinners for actors... you are taking the sales/rentals from them. denying them the money buying the cd/dvd would give them... for that say I take your pin/accounts/passwords and change them... alter them so you are denied your money and information... I'm not using them... but now neither can you.

Face it, what you have here is an attempt at drawing a visceral response to sense of "wrongness"; not a good example at all really. Try something better next time. A better analogy is if I borrowed your book, you know, the one you worked on all these years; I borrowed and read it. If I borrowed a poem you wrote; and read it. However, lets point out that you've published this book and poem elsewhere. So how's that sound? Would you mind if I read a copy of your book without buying it?and if I take that book back? you don't have a copy of it... you want a copy of that book to own, you go to the store and buy it. How many downloaders actually erase and destroy their disks after listening to the song once or twice? While some actually buy the album they download... most admit that it's only if that album has alot of songs that they like... suppose the album only has one song... would you still buy that album? or will you be content with your "downloaded music"

What if I checked it out of the library? How bad would that make you feel? What if I heard a song you wrote at a party? I borrowed those sounds then, didn't I?again you have to return that library book... you CANNOT KEEP IT. music you heard at a party... but you are not KEEEPING IT. that is the key... people who download music are not returning it... they are not eraseing it... they are BURNING IT ONTO THEIR CD'S AND ADDING IT TO THEIR COLLECTION. why buy the album if you got a copy? Why pay one cent for something you can get for free?


The point is this: unless the matieral is damaged, altered, or used to make an illicit profit from its use, the crime is basically "looking at what you shouldn't", "listening to something when you shouldn't". Publicly sold music being heard when it "shouldn't" be. A video that can be watched, one that is shown on TV nationally being seen when it "shouldn't" be. so jobs being lost due to lost revenue is not Damage... the gaining fame of websites who get massive hits from people downloading is not profiting from it? Profit isn't alway money... it can be in fame.

Its not a very strong case no is it? So you create the "You STOLE it" mentality, you create analogies that have very little to do with the case at hand. It makes people defensive. It makes people think they've done something violently wrong, something deeply offensive.

What have they done? They listened to a song...a song that is played 10 times a day over the airwaves, a song they might hear in a reasturant that morning, that they overhear at work that afternoon, that they hear in the car on the way home. But if they listen to it on their computer at home then WHAM! They're stealing it, they are little more than bandits.Do you know that radio stations have to pay for the licence to play those songs? companies pay to produce the Muzak you hear in elevators. again you hear it but yes but it's not yours, the moment you download it onto "YOUR" computer you are in effect placing a CD in your pocket and taking it home. after all, as you said, it's the downloader's Computer that is "Storing" the music. You see no difference between hearing it on the radio and hearing it on your burned cd?

See what I mean about insulting and demeaning your customer base? The very act of trying to label normal, honest people as "criminal" is just silly.No... all it shows is that you see nothing wrong with taking something and putting it in your pocket and walking out of the store. So you store it on your pc... tell me, what's the difference between your pc and your shelf... it's still something you obtained without paying for it. you are keeping it for your listening pleasure. a radio will play the song but it's not always at your convience and that radio station PAID for the right to play that music. what did you compensate the artist for his work when you downloaded his music off of the net?

It is amazing what people can justify.

You did not purchase it. No one bought it for you and gave it to you as a gift.Therefore, you have no right to it.

This is the same attitude of people who will tell you straight-faced they 'found' a pen -- one that was sitting on top of your desk -- or found a umbrella -- one that was drying on a radiator.

Call it whatever the heck you want -- it was not yours, and you took it. It is stealing. Don't expect the rest of the world to respect your little semantic games, and don't get so defensive about people calling it like it is.

Oh, so if I 'Borrow" a person's Identitiy? that isn't theft? How about I 'borrow' your bank account and pin number. I won't touch any physical bills, so it's not stealing right?

How about I borrow your data files and passwords... those arn't physical either.

No, it isn't theft. The former is fraud. The later is computer intrusion. Theft, by definition, is the taking of an object with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of its use. It is impossible to deprive someone of intelluctial property.

No, it isn't theft. The former is fraud. The later is computer intrusion. Theft, by definition, is the taking of an object with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of its use. It is impossible to deprive someone of intelluctial property.nitpicking :p

ok. but it's still illegal right?

and yes it is... you never heard of all those lawsuites going around...
example of a stolen idea (http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/dog_gone.htm)

other forms of Intellectual Theft on a corporate level (http://www.sprusons.com.au/driver.asp?page=main/ip+news+and+ip+events/ip+news+%26+events/intellectual+property+theft+is+rampant&flashver=6)

Grand Theft Stolen (http://www.okpatents.com/phosita/archives/2004/10/grand_theft_was.html)

pirate v 1. to sell or transmit stolen "intellectual property" (e.g. software, compact discs, etc.) ("Pirating software is illegal.") -n 1. a person who sells or transmits stolen intellectual property. Submitted by Kaeori, KC, MO, USA, 22-10-1997. crime (related to) professions (list of) (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wrader/slang/p.html)

nitpicking :p

ok. but it's still illegal right?

and yes it is... you never heard of all those lawsuites going around...
example of a stolen idea (http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/dog_gone.htm)

other forms of Intellectual Theift on a corporate level (http://www.sprusons.com.au/driver.asp?page=main/ip+news+and+ip+events/ip+news+%26+events/intellectual+property+theft+is+rampant&flashver=6)

Grand Theft Stolen (http://www.okpatents.com/phosita/archives/2004/10/grand_theft_was.html)

No, it isn't illegal. It is, at most, a tort.
As you may have noticed these are all lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions. Theft is a crime. There is a huge difference between the two. One cannot be imprisoned for a tort, one can be imprisioned for a crime. A crime is automaticly prosecuted by the state. A tort claim is filed by the "wronged" party. A crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt a tort must be proven to a perponderance of the evidence. One cannot be compared to the other because their effects are quite different.
A crime is an act against society as much as against the individual a tort isn't. Torts don't even require actual wrongdoing. Tort law is purely about equity.

Copyright violations may be torts. They also may not be torts depending on court rulings (fair use doctrine, ect). The RIAA and MPAA want us to think that they are crimes but they are not and we should not be terrorised into treating them as if they were.

Before someone smaks me down with a relevant link, yes some extreme cases of copyright violation can be considered crimes under US law but these laws only apply to large-scale comercial operations such as those run by Asian orginized crime. I'll be the first to tell people not be buy cheaply made Hong Kong "imports" that can be found on the internet and in some Asian immigrant communities.
(Although I wouldn't say the same thing to people actually living in China, where bootlegs are so prevelant it is literally impossible to find legitimate copys of movies and software.)

Edit:One of those links mentions "trade secrets', which are not copyrighted anyway. They instead fall under the heading of industrial espionage.

No, it isn't illegal. It is, at most, a tort.
As you may have noticed these are all lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions. Theft is a crime. There is a huge difference between the two. One cannot be imprisoned for a tort, one can be imprisioned for a crime. A crime is automaticly prosecuted by the state. A tort claim is filed by the "wronged" party. A crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt a tort must be proven to a perponderance of the evidence. One cannot be compared to the other because their effects are quite different.
A crime is an act against society as much as against the individual a tort isn't. Torts don't even require actual wrongdoing. Tort law is purely about equity.

Copyright violations may be torts. They also may not be torts depending on court rulings (fair use doctrine, ect). The RIAA and MPAA want us to think that they are crimes but they are not and we should not be terrorised into treating them as if they were.

Before someone smaks me down with a relevant link, yes some extreme cases of copyright violation can be considered crimes under US law but these laws only apply to large-scale comercial operations such as those run by Asian orginized crime. I'll be the first to tell people not be buy cheaply made Hong Kong "imports" that can be found on the internet and in some Asian immigrant communities.
(Although I wouldn't say the same thing to people actually living in China, where bootlegs are so prevelant it is literally impossible to find legitimate copys of movies and software.)Not saying one should be imprisoned... but punished. Lawsuits to pay back the artists is fair compensation... and if they continue to do it....

If only Large Scale Comercial Operations can be considered crime... how large does it need to be... do you not consider the ENTERAINMENT INDUSTRY to be large enough? They touch hundreds of thousands of lives... from the aspiring music writer to the next great director...

Are you going to deny them, the workingman his due over a technicallity? it's not like they've got other forms of income. Record/DVD sales is the steady paycheck these artists get. when they retire, the royalties of these sales are what they live off of... you would deny that because to you it's not a crime?

and china is another country... US Laws are not applicable. that goes to International Law. China doesn't reconize most International Copyright laws.

now days, with the ease of unauthorized downloading and distributions, it's obvious that laws created before the web need to be updated. Theft, pure and simple, is theft. Robin Hood, tho he stole from the rich, to give to the poor still stole. while noble, it doesn't make the act right. In this day and age, Ideas can move mountains... can turn out the next Bill Gates... and if stolen, the person who created the idea, the music, the literary art, needs to be protected. the laws need to change to reflect that. while you don't want to see the crook who stole millions worth of items to profit from it, why not the same with ideas and art. especally when you know that there are proper ways of obtaining such things. How can anyone justify taking someone's hard work and not compensating them for it just because it's not a physical thing? that is their sweat and tears... their time and effort. if they cannot make a living off of that then say good bye to your favorite singers... your actors and actresses. why should they continue doing what their doing?

If you think it's so easy, let's see you do it... let's see you create your hit music and distribute it. I want to know your reaction when it's distributed and you don't see one red cent for your efforts.

and if I take that book back? you don't have a copy of it... you want a copy of that book to own, you go to the store and buy it. How many downloaders actually erase and destroy their disks after listening to the song once or twice?

And in addition: libraries pay for the right to lend out the book. Again, there is payment. Just like with radiostations etc.

Why is the concept of paying-for-something so hard ? Again: I am all in favour of the theory of communism, but last time I checked very few people here actually are living in a communist nation.

Tort law isn't about punishment. Unsusal lawsuits are limited to actual damages, except in cases of physical or mental truma do to neglegence or criminal wrongdoing. Copyright infringment is no different.
If I download a song off Kazaa I may be liable for its actual value. Songs are going for $.99 each on I-Tunes and various other online music stores so that is the most the RIAA can get from me unless I happen to get an asshat for a judge.
After the filing fee, the cost of tracking me down, and the lawyer fees the recoding companies are pretty deep in the hole. (While the RIAA has been sueing for $100,000 per song that is simply the upper limit permited under federal tort law. In the event of a trial they would still have to prove actual damages. Unfortunatly, no case has gone to trial so far, that I am aware of.)


Incidently, the need to prove actual damages is why I made a big deal about downloaders who buy after using a download to evaluate or who wouldn't have bought anyway. The RIAA and MPAA make a big deal about internet downloading "costing" them billions per year in lost sales but they have never actualy proven that those sales were lost. They just assume.

The fact is that these law suits are not about fair compensation. The compensation recieved would not even cover the court costs. They are about terrorizing the public. The MPAA and RIAA are of the mistaken belief that they can get what they want by creating a fear amongst the American Public. Not unlike a slightly less violent version Ossama Bin Laden.

I'm all for the artists being paid I'm just against the tactics used by the major industry originzations. At the moment, I'm a little angry. I'm willing to sacrifice the former to spite the latter. I know that that is an unreasonable position. However, I believe that it is the only one of my positions on this issue that is unreasonable.

Not saying one should be imprisoned... but punished. Lawsuits to pay back the artists is fair compensation... and if they continue to do it....

If only Large Scale Comercial Operations can be considered crime... how large does it need to be... do you not consider the ENTERAINMENT INDUSTRY to be large enough? They touch hundreds of thousands of lives... from the aspiring music writer to the next great director...

Are you going to deny them, the workingman his due over a technicallity? it's not like they've got other forms of income. Record/DVD sales is the steady paycheck these artists get. when they retire, the royalties of these sales are what they live off of... you would deny that because to you it's not a crime?

and china is another country... US Laws are not applicable. that goes to International Law. China doesn't reconize most International Copyright laws.

When I say large scale commercial operations I meant large scale commercial piracy operations. People churning out millions of DVDs and fake prada handbags then shipping them to the US in a container ship. It's fairly common but much less obvious than internet downloads at the moment.

Actualy, China does recognize international copyright laws. It just doesn't enforce them. Attempting to do so would be foolhardy. Chinese culture is traditionally one that doesn't recognize the idea of intellectual property.

Also, in the movie industry the working man gets paid up front. The working man doesn't see a dime of royalties. It is the producers who are, generally, already fairly rich that get the money from the royalties. There are some exceptions with self financed works. But I'm fully in support of the independant artist. It is the companies who use pseudo-terrorist tactics to enforce their marketshare that I do not agree with. I debate with you because the "downloading is theft" idea is simply a perpetuation of this tactics.

Tort law isn't about punishment. Unsusal lawsuits are limited to actual damages, except in cases of physical or mental truma do to neglegence or criminal wrongdoing. Copyright infringment is no different.
If I download a song off Kazaa I may be liable for its actual value. Songs are going for $.99 each on I-Tunes and various other online music stores so that is the most the RIAA can get from me unless I happen to get an asshat for a judge.

Which is why they in practice go after the people offering the downloads. Hey - your copy was downloaded by about 100 000 people. Others also distributed the copy *you* made. In total there are now 15 million copies circulating. Ka-ching. While the "innocent" downloader can always claim he thought the distributor paid for it, "just like those radiostation thingies".

Of course, other countries can have other laws. Stricter ones. Ones that do not distinguish between physical and intellectual property.

Oh, so if I 'Borrow" a person's Identitiy? that isn't theft? How about I 'borrow' your bank account and pin number. I won't touch any physical bills, so it's not stealing right?

How about I borrow your data files and passwords... those arn't physical either.
Um, read what I wrote again.

You are not depriving them physically of anything, but you are depriving them of any potential royalties, thus lessening their profits by illegal means.

Theoretically, yes.

However, this has been disproven (http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=tech&cat=digital_music).

Ain't facts a wonderful thing?

Theoretically, yes.

However, this has been disproven (http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=tech&cat=digital_music).

Ain't facts a wonderful thing?

You realise your 'link' doesn't point to a specific article, right?

you mean this?

I think Willamena means she (?) agrees with you and that her(?) post calls it stealing...

Theoretically, yes.
However, this has been disproven (http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=tech&cat=digital_music).
Ain't facts a wonderful thing?

Even ignoring the fact that your link points to nothing.. lets assume you are right. So what ? If I take your 1 dollar teddybear away without your consent, and then deposit 1 million dollars on your bankaccount you have made a tidy financial profit. But I still stole your teddybear. Perhaps you were silly to not sell it for the amount I offered, but that didn't give me any right to take it away.

When you DOWNLOAD a copy of the music. you are OBTAINING and CLAIMING OWNERSHIP of the song. please enlighten me. What form of COMPENSATION did the person who created this artwork recieve when you download his songs/movies?
No, you NEVER obtain ownership of the song, the producers who the artist work for own the song, you are paying for the right to play any songs on that cd in a personal setting

Free PR. If you like the artists songs you go buy the cd and tell other people its good and they should buy it, granted not everyone that downloads music does that, but some do.

I think Willamena means she (?) agrees with you and that her(?) post calls it stealing...



Even ignoring the fact that your link points to nothing.. lets assume you are right. So what ? If I take your 1 dollar teddybear away without your consent, and then deposit 1 million dollars on your bankaccount you have made a tidy financial profit. But I still stole your teddybear.
And I go buy 1 million teddy bears and hope it happens again

And I go buy 1 million teddy bears and hope it happens again

And if I give you just 1 dollar ? You can buy one new teddybear with that - so you wouldn't have suffered any loss, right ?

Well.. maybe the new one wouldn't feel like your teddybear, but hey.. you cannot point to any physical loss. Nor can you complain about not wishing to sell.. unless you agree that the musicindustry can also make such decisions. Like not wishing to sell through uncontrolled downloading.

And if I give you just 1 dollar ? You can buy one new teddybear with that - so you wouldn't have suffered any loss, right ?

Well.. maybe the new one wouldn't feel like your teddybear, but hey.. you cannot point to any physical loss. Nor can you complain about not wishing to sell.. unless you agree that the musicindustry can also make such decisions. Like not wishing to sell through uncontrolled downloading.
Does the music industry have any reason to shut down file sharing other than they are greedy bastards? Can they link file sharing DIRECTLY to a noticeable loss in profits? Or could it be the people releasing albums now are American Idol winners and 50 cent

Fraud implies you have made some kind of profit out of it. But if you download a piece of music from the web, you yourself have not got any extra money. You have in the sense that you would have lost money by buying said album/track at the shops but you havn't made any direct profit from it yourself.You aren't spending the $9.99 for the CD or the 99 cents for the song, are you? That's a financial profit that you're making off the artist.

why not?

i bought the book, the recipies are mine
No. The right for you to use that recipe is yours. The right to distribute that recipe to others is not yours.

You aren't spending the $9.99 for the CD or the 99 cents for the song, are you? That's a financial profit that you're making off the artist.

Profit means you have more money than previously. Thats not the case here.

The problem is that the law defines it as theft.

You can complain all you like, but the judge isn't likely to listen. Neither will your cellmates.

No. The right for you to use that recipe is yours. The right to distribute that recipe to others is not yours.

As I pointed out earlier, that is untrue. A person can distrubute and use any recipie in any way without legal reprecussions. There is a reason that KFC keeps the seven secret herbs and spices secret, if they didn't they would have no legal recourse against copycats. Recipies cannot be copyrighted. Specific recipie instructions can be. A compilation of recipies can be. Images and illustrations that accompany a recipie can be. Recipies themselves cannot be.
You can take the exact same recipies, significantly rewrite the instructions, and put them in a different order with different images and publish it as your own.

Piracy is stealing. What's the problem?

The problem is that the law defines it as theft.

You can complain all you like, but the judge isn't likely to listen. Neither will your cellmates.

The law defines file sharing as theft. Not downloading. So if I use Kazza to download but not share, I am being lawful

The problem is that the law defines it as theft.

You can complain all you like, but the judge isn't likely to listen. Neither will your cellmates.

As a pointed out that is untrue. Theft is a crime. Noncomercial distribution of copyrighted works without permission is a tort. Please I want people to remember this word and get it into their heads. It is a very important legal term. Criminal law is about about protecting society. Tort law is about fairness and equity. Criminal cases are disputes between the State and an individual. Civil cases are disputes between two individuals or groups. This distinction is very important.
One cannot be imprisoned for a torts. Torts don't even have to involve wrongdoing. They are purely about equity.

Even ignoring the fact that your link points to nothing..Sorry about the generalized link, I've slept about 10 hours in the past days and I had to hotfoot it to class as was.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4831

lets assume you are right. So what ? If I take your 1 dollar teddybear away without your consent, and then deposit 1 million dollars on your bankaccount you have made a tidy financial profit. But I still stole your teddybear. Perhaps you were silly to not sell it for the amount I offered, but that didn't give me any right to take it away.[/QUOTE]Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't "taking a picture of my teddy bear" be a bit more accurate, since I'm not actually losing it, nor is it taking away anyone buying the teddy bear?
The most heavily downloaded songs showed no decrease in CD sales as a result of increasing downloads. In fact, albums that sold more than 600,000 copies during this period appeared to sell better when downloaded more heavily.

What he is referencing is the Harvard whatever study, the only one it seems that didn't involve surveying people and involved monitoring networks, downloads, and sales directly thus is far more objective and realistic than any others

As I pointed out earlier, that is untrue. A person can distrubute and use any recipie in any way without legal reprecussions. There is a reason that KFC keeps the seven secret herbs and spices secret, if they didn't they would have no legal recourse against copycats. Recipies cannot be copyrighted. Specific recipie instructions can be. A compilation of recipies can be. Images and illustrations that accompany a recipie can be. Recipies themselves cannot be.
You can take the exact same recipies, significantly rewrite the instructions, and put them in a different order with different images and publish it as your own.

Actually - I would say, the 'recipe' - being the collection of ingredients AND the method, IS protected.

You cannot easily 'protect' a list of ingredients, but that is not what a 'recipe' entails... or rather, that is JUST part of the 'recipe'.

An omlette and a boiled-egg are the same ingredient - it is the 'recipe' that makes them different products.

Profit means you have more money than previously. Thats not the case here.

prof·it
<b>An advantageous gain or return; benefit.</b>

If you steal an item, you have gained something of monetary value, if you copy music, you have gained something of monetary value

That said, I personally dont think that file sharing online causes a major drop in sale of music. Most people seem to be assuming that if someone downloads music then it means they won't buy it. Personally, if I like a band I *will* buy their CD if I can find it, and in fact there's a few bands I have heard of *because* of downloading music online. I also know someone who would download the TV series 24 because it came out in America first, but he then went out and bought the boxed set when it came out later.

Just making the blanket statement "person downloads file, so owner of file loses money" is just trying to find a scapegoat for a problem. Yes, there will be some money lost to downloads, but there's probably as much if not more lost to people making pirate copys of audio CDs and selling them, yet this statement ignores that completely. Also, the presence of sites like iTunes will down CD sales, but will not cause a loss of profits for the RIAA. What do you think the betting is that this was included in the figures used to denounce piracy?


EDIT: I should proably add to that, copying of audio CDs has also become much easier since CD writers are now a fairly standard component of a PC, rather than being specialist equipment

Actually - I would say, the 'recipe' - being the collection of ingredients AND the method, IS protected.

You cannot easily 'protect' a list of ingredients, but that is not what a 'recipe' entails... or rather, that is JUST part of the 'recipe'.

An omlette and a boiled-egg are the same ingredient - it is the 'recipe' that makes them different products.

But methods aren't copyrightable either. They may be patentable but they are not copyrightable. Instructions are copyrightable in that they are unique works of expression. However the specific actions described are not copyrightable any more than one can copyright the act inserting tab a into slot b.
Instructions describing the same actions in a different literary style are not infringments of copyright.

But methods aren't copyrightable either. They may be patentable but they are not copyrightable. Instructions are copyrightable in that they are unique works of expression. However the specific actions described are not copyrightable any more than one can copyright the act inserting tab a into slot b.
Instructions describing the same actions in a different literary style are not infringments of copyright.

Actually - a written method WOULD be copyrightable, if it was separate and distinctive enough.

Like you say, tab A into slot B is unlikely to be distinctive enough to be determined as copyrightable.