Slashdot Mirror
AP Looks at Piracy, Misses the Point
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press has covered several stories recently about what a "huge threat" piracy is in other countries. This article, however, argues that they have perhaps missed out on the whole story by ignoring the other side of the coin. From the article: "the AP doesn't bother to mention how all that piracy helped created new and different business models for musicians in China that let them thrive despite the piracy (actually, in some cases, because of it). Nor does the AP bother to mention how software piracy helped boost certain aspects of the industry in China by decreasing the cost of inputs."
Since the AP believes its own business model is based on copyright, and gives bloggers who repost their articles a hard time, is it any surprise that they would defend copyright?
reporting on how well glaziers, builders, carpenters and building merchants also did in New Orleans after Katrina?
The original AP story just seems like more FUD that originated in the MPAA/RIAA camps.
I'm getting tired of stupid journalists who just bend over and accept the corporate line without investigating the other side of the coin.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
That stealing is ok because it was easy for a few years in the 90s?
Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you, or just flat out breaking the law (in some jurisdictions), is okay if in someone else's estimation it's actually "helping" them?
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
"Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you..."
No. Duplication of files does not meet the definition of appriation or theft of files. If you want to get it straight, you shouldn't change the subject to something entirely different in your summarization.
Where were you when the voynix came?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
Huh? Are you reading a different Slashdot to me? Every time I mention that I might consider download Futurama episodes people get mad at me!
You must be thinking of Digg.
By the way most of the statements you made are false but I won't bother to explain why because it has been done many times before. Read the archives.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
This news item does not involve theft. I suggest doing some research into the FBI "UCR" crime reporting files, and other sources of data which distinguish the many different kinds of crimes out there. You will quickly learn that there are many other types of crimes (or possible crimes) out there which are not theft. Copyright infringement isn't t he only one.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Funny post.
But slightly more seriously, if piracy somehow was stopped, would people switch to other operating systems, or would they go out and pay for a copy of Windows?
What would happen to the price of Windows as a result?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
As an anime fan, I download fansubs. Now, for the most part, this is piracy. These are television shows that have been recorded or ripped from DVDs, give subtitles, and been made available for free trade online through P2P networks.
However, it proves beneficial. Take for instance, Funimation. At conventions, the Funimation booth runs contests, and on the entry form you may list anime that you would like Funimation to consider licensing. They know these shows are being downloaded, and instead of condeming the person downloading like some other organizations, they ask if they should bring it stateside so that it may be introduced to a wider audience through American television.
I would prefer to see many organizations take this approach. I would love for record labels to ask "what unsigned artists are you listening to that you think we should consider signing".
Piracy can actually be used to a company's advantage at times, and too many seem pre-occupied with the short term loss of a $20 Ashlee Simpson CD to notice.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
But slightly more seriously, if piracy somehow was stopped, would people switch to other operating systems, or would they go out and pay for a copy of Windows?
What would happen to the price of Windows as a result?
I forgot to mention: In your answer you might want to consider richer countries (America/Europe/etc..) and poorer/3rd world countries separately.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I am guessing that these anime, if they are for sale at all, are released with DVD region codes for a region other than your own. A sure indication that they don't want money from selling them to you anyway. If they did, they would have sold copies region-free or copies specifically for your region as well. They just can't whine about "lost profits" when they clearly don't want your money anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong (and the anime companies DO sell DVD's for your region)
Where were you when the voynix came?
And nor does AP bother to state that the US itself explicitly encouraged the pirating of foreign works in its 1790 Copyright Act:
Only in 1891 the US started protecting foreign works under the Chase Act. It serves to remember that the US justified pirating foreign works as being economically beneficial for the country. Even the Chase Act wasn't too friendly to foreign authors: it did protect their rights, but the Manufacturing Clause prevented their publishers from publishing their works in the US. This clause was removed only in 1986. It took the US 101 years to join the Berne Convention.
Goes back to the old saying, "one person's pain is another person's gain" Of course piracy has benefits, but usually it only benefits the people pirating.
TFA and it's linked stories don't really go into much detail about what the actual benefits for the chinese industry are.
Can anyone supply some more information?
It's easy to invoke the old arguments about a colapsing business model and the failure of big companies to react to the market etc. etc. but how and why are chinese artists better without a working copyright system?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd like to know.
You have a good point, but let's take it one step further. In a developed country, such as the US, capital (software in this case)is relatively inexpensive and labor is relatively expensive (ie why we have H1B visas). ...
Now in the case of a developing nation, such as China, labor is relatively inexpensive and capital is relatively expensive. Numerous microeconomic models have different ways of combining capital and labor which yields output. The important thing here is that "cost" of captial goods are often the limiting factor for a developing nation. Piracy does lower this cost allowing developing nations to deliver capital intense (techy) goods at a lower per-unit cost. So one could make the arguement that by people in developed countries (such as the US) they are in effect allowing developing nations to produce good at an artifically lower price. However I don't see how lowering the price of music/videos much effect on a developed nation
1) You claim "AllofMP3" is pristine/lossless. I understood it was MP3, which is lossy. Which is it? What is their file format?
2) You claimed that AllofMP3 is "people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs". Do you have evidence of this? Did they actually steal the CD's they use as source? If, instead, they duplicated files without authorization, then they "made copies without authorization", and took nothing. Taking something and making something are two different things.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I followed a few links from that Google search but failed to find a single one that pointed to a definition in the US code that included copyright infringement as theft. If there is a link there then please post it. Otherwise stop calling a spade a theft.
Is that the word "piracy" is loaded, and that by using it, any writer immediately not only shows bias or misunderstanding of the issues, but also becomes a puppet in big corporations' propaganda show. It's much like the use of the word "war" in reference to the illegal invasion of iraq.
Tim Wu just had an article on Slate last week about how China is trying to grow their own film industry.
One of the interesting points: China has to orient (no pun intended) their films to an American audience because rampant piracy in China means that there isn't enough of a local market to support Chinese films.
I've heard the same thing from Chinese video game makers, they have to make games that will sell in places where copyright is to some degree respected because they would starve trying to live off the money they can make in their home market.
If everyone pirated everything we would have no Lord of the Rings movies, no video games like Halo or Grand Theft Auto -- we'd still have small indy films and subscription games like WoW, but piracy only works now because it's a group of parasites feeding off media that the rest of us pay for.
When I spend 60 dollars on a shitty game for my wife (Sims2) then the first disk gets messed to the point of not being able to install the game what do you do? I tried emailing EA (bahahahahaha) No response. If it weren't for a copy of the game on the internet that I downloaded I would be screwed out of my money because of a few scratches and crappy software support. I for one am glad that this and all media is out there for people to use for legitimate reasons. As an amateur musician, I also support file sharing as a way of getting out new or hard to find music. The people who bitch about pirating are multi millionaires. *snif* *snif* OOhhh you took .3 dollars out of my 300 million dollar paycheck....please.
If I pirate an album and the artist bitches I'll mail them a check for 25 cents because that's what they get if I buy their album. The company who releases it can suck me. 15-20$ for a cd that cost you 10 cents to burn?!!?! Yeah I'm crying for your losses.
In addition CD sales aren't dropping because of piracy they're dropping because your music is crap.
Also, selling songs online nets them more per track than selling cds and they don't even have any overhead for printing the media in the first place.
In short
RIAA = GREEDY SCAMMERS
Viva La Pirat
Missed the point? You've got to be kidding me.
Do the math: AP provides stories to publishers. Publishers are owned by large companies who publish stuff--like books, music, movies.
Did you REALLY expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?
Why would they publish a story that favors piracy helping people when they could push the agenda their way to protect the interests of the corporations pirates are hurting?
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it. Are the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA going a bit over the top about it? Yes. Does that somehow make piracy right? No. It's still stealing. Just because the AP isn't picking up on what some techblog mentioned on slashdot doesn't make them morons. I think we glorify our own technical punditry beyond the tempest in the teapot that it really is.
It's never about what is the "best"--it's always about what's more popular. That's where the money is. Windows and VHS are testments to that. It's all about margins and paying off the share holders.
The REAL story is going to be which of the publishers (movie studios and record labels included) survive the learning curve of the new business model--the computer as an entertainment hub. The whole MP3 thing blew up not because of piracy but because it was EASY and CHEAP. That's what consumers want--easy and a fair price. The content providers are catching on--hence all the TV-a-la-carte on the iTMS.
Is it the best? Probably not. But is it lucrative? Hell, yeah. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to figure that out.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
lmao
In most countries around the world sellers will only distribute Windows so yes a monopoly. Something that isn't a monopoly is when theres a choice at the point of purchase.
2) There ARE real other sides to this issue. For example shmucks calling things "piracy" when they are just fair-use. Or vile corporations pricing things WAY WAY too much, then ripping off the artist by paying them a fraction of the profits, then saying that "piracy" is killing their business. Or those same corporations, understanding that modern technology will destroy their buiness model, do everything they can to sabotage the new technology then complaining when people turn to piracy, not to steal the media, but instead just to put get it in a fair/reasonable format for their MP3 player that the )(*@#$ labels did not want them to.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's the difference between breach of trust and denial of goods.
I'm not just talking technically here, but as I can't be bothered to rehash the arguments right now, I'll link to to a post of mine in an old JE.
Please also note that I'm not saying that breach of trust is a good thing: society is built on trust. I am only saying that piracy and theft are not the same thing,
Wikileaks, no DNS
Culture isn't something you create, sell, market, purchase, and/or trade. Culture is something that happens amoung a people. You're eating up the line the entertainment industry keeps making that they "produce" culture, when they at best ride the cultural wave, making products that pander to, and to some degree shape, the prevailing cultural movement. The sucess of indie films, blogs, grassroots movements, and services like YouTube should be evidence enough that they aren't in control. If a large part of the Chinese populance wants western entertainment, then that IS a part of the culture.
How about the Offspring? They even tried to release one of their albums for free off the internet but were stopped by the record company.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
1) You claim "AllofMP3" is pristine/lossless. I understood it was MP3, which is lossy. Which is it? What is their file format?
You can choose the file format and bit rate when you purchase.
FLAC (a lossless format) is one of the options.
However unlike most stores, you pay per megabyte so you have to consider if having lossless is really worth paying many times the price for a relatively small increase in quality over some of the other formats available such as ogg.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Contrary to the above our current state pushes innovation and geopolitical invention. While the status quo states of the developed world push IP as a last ditch form of imperialism, developing nations and "pirates" derive new venues by running outside the highways of the status quo.
When these last issues are put to bed with one power group climbing into bed with others then the innovation that comes from the hurly burly of piracy will leave us with a status quo installed and fortified by international law. It may be that what is now seen as piracy is the last invigorated period of innovation we will see.
just my loose change
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
When I spend 60 dollars on a shitty game for my wife (Sims2) then the first disk gets messed to the point of not being able to install the game what do you do? I tried emailing EA (bahahahahaha) No response.
that's funny... My daughter lost the registration code for that same crappy game, and EA was very supportive, considering the reg code is likely to be considered more senstive than the actual media... Ten bucks and a three day wait (for the letter to arrive) and she was back in business. I can't help but think you're full of crap, but perhaps I'm wrong...
There is a choice, it's just that the choices do not do most of the things that a consumer expects (play Windows games, work with any piece of hardware, correctly display Microsoft documents, etc.)
Dell sell Linux PCs and you can purchase and use Linux on the desktop if you want. Microsoft still has a monopoly though because most people are forced to use Windows for one reason or another (For example they may already own $1000s of software and hardware that only works with Windows and not want to lose their investment).
I'll probably be modded down for this...
1) Real piracy is wrong, no matter what. There are NO 'positive effects', anymore than more allowing pick-pocketing has the positive effect of giving pick-pockets a job.
You're joking, right? Positive effects can stem from just about anything, so you're clearly overstating your argument. If there were no positive effects whatsoever, or if the negative effects dramatically outweighed the positive effects, I doubt that "piracy" would be as popular or widespread.
From my perspective, when it comese to a person's natural right to copy and redistribute data and information, it is "wrong" to try to force them not to.
Ok, I guess I'm a bad geek or something. I just never watched Futurama. Perhaps because I can't stand ads so I rarely watch TV to begin with.
That said, I didn't watch Futurama until I downloaded some episodes quite some time since the first run was cancelled. Then I downloaded the entire series and watched them. Now I own all four volumes on DVD and am looking forward to the next run.
Maybe this example is the exception and not the rule, but the fact of the matter is that my "piracy" or "illegal download" led to Fox getting some cash out of my pocket for the DVD. Cash that they would not have gotten otherwise. At the end of the day, I don't care what the AP says or does not say: piracy has caused me to spend more money than I would have without it. I'm tired of crappy entertainment or lack of creative writing talent ([sarcasm]I can't *WAIT* for the remake of the revenge of the nerds[/sarcasm]). I want to use it and then decide if it's worth my money: if not I move on; if so I buy it.
If I can't do that then I'll abandon/boycott/ignore the whole damn thing until I can. It's like being in the matrix and taking the red pill: once you snap out of the mindless, lemming-like world of the MPAA/RIAA/whatever-there-is-for-TV-networks-AA you take note of how crappy it was being Thomas A. Anderson.
And I'll watch nothing but TV ads & infomercials before I get suckered into the "you don't really own X any more and you have to pay $1.99 ever time you want to watch it." Sorry, but fuck that. Keep your damn blue pill.
:wq
I put "stealing" in quotes in my post for a reason. Christ, the way you fuckers insist it be called "copyright infringement" or "nonauthorized duplication" stinks of PC in the vein of "undocumented migrants" and "differently abled" to high heavens.
I fully understand the deprivation argument, thanks. And you ARE depriving them of something: the ability to sell and control their product, their creation, as they see fit. You act is if just because something can be copied nearly effortlessly, it should be, and indeed, MUST be, for the good of all humanity.
I agree that fansubbing is a good example of how "piracy" can be a good thing for all involved. Bootlegging of licensed anime, on the other hand, is a real problem. I went looking for Haibane Renmei and various Miyazaki films on ebay the other day and was somewhat surprised to find that the majority of anime on ebay appears to be bootlegs. American companies like to whine about the Chinese pirating their work (perhaps for good reason), but not much has been said about Americans buying Chinese bootlegs of Japanese shows and movies. It seems like American authorities shouldn't turn a blind eye to piracy of foreign work if they want our "intellectual property" to be respected in foreign countries. Maybe the problem is that, according to American arrogance, only American IP is worth anything. If other countries take similar attitudes, is it any surprise that "piracy" is rampant? Perhaps we should remove the plank from our own eye before removing the mote from our neighbor's.
1: Unreasonable patents caused early film makers to head out west to california, to this little place called hollywood, where they created an industry which makes billions from their product.
2: Video recorders cause hollywood to become worried because people can 'illegally' copy stuff, and they try to kill it, but it leads them into a prosperity never before seen, eventually spuring research into the dvd.
3: Filesharing causes media companies to become paranoid about loss of profit, then spurs the creation of online media delivery, again vastly increasing the potential profits of said media companies.
I wonder what the next thing is that they'll fight till it suddenly turns into a money maker?
You are making a bad assumption about "postive" effects and about the word "stem" from. Just because a person likes it does not make it a 'positive' effect. Pleasure a man gets from rape is NOT a positive effect, no matter how much he enjoys it. It is a negative effect - the guy should not be enjoying the rape.
An evil act may create a situation where good is done, but not directly so it can't "stem" from it. A good example is The Holocaust. As a reaction AGAISNT the holocaust, there was a strong movement against prejudice in all forms, which helped to remove discrimination. But it did not 'stem' from the Holocaust, it happend as a reaction against it.
People do things all the time that have negative effects that dramatically outweigh the positive effects. And they continue to do it repeately. Ask any person that has realzied they are addicted to cocaine. They will tell you they get NO positive effects, despite it being pleasureable.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I do not think that word means what you think it means... Monopoly... you do not have to have 100% of a market to be in a monopoly position... and anyway, even though Mac OSX and Linux exist and can be purchased in shops, it is the abuse of the monopoly position that matters, the illegal tieing of products to other products, the abuse where they illegally commingled windows media player and Internet explorer into the operating system so that they cannot be removed, their "market development funds" which they use as kickbacks to those OEMs who toe the line and hide their alternative offerings from the general public... the abuse of their massive advertising budget where magazines avoid printing unfavourable articles or reviews for fear of losing Microsoft advertising...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Just like there's a good side to piracy, Chris Rock found a good side to crack. For example, after midnight in the right part of town, you can get a plasma TV for $100 (out-of-box model ;)
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
In 1999 we only had modems in germany and "star wars episode 1" came out... but in germany it was released later, so people here really downloaded the whole movie through their 3kb/s connection! this took whole nights and that cost lots of money
this was the start of the development... now almost everyone has low priced broadband... without piracy this wouldn't be the case...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I think you have some good logical points in the way you view positive/negative effects and how they relate to the cause, as harsh as your language is.
I feel, however, that "evil" in the sense you're using it in is being applied to the violation of copyright law in poor taste. See Godwin's Law.
I still believe very strongly in abolishing intellectual property and especially state enforcement of it in any form. The only thing I find "evil" in this situation is your attitude and the government supporting it.
I've never seen Dell sell Linux Desktops in Europe* but then again I haven't had a PC readily assembled since I was 9. Laptops are more of an issue to be honest, you can get inferior quality custom builds but its usually cheaper/better to pay the MS tax. The only real option for Linux Laptops is Emperor and while they do imports they are not exactly cheap.
When I can get a machine without Windows and have it cheaper for the privilege I will be happy. At the moment most companies charge you more for a free OS than for a holey and expensive one.
*it may be a price issue, as I allude to generally you pay more for getting a free OS. Generally I get a list of hardware and decide what its worth at the most, if it comes to more than that its just there for a laugh and generally I ignore everything above a certain threshold. Currently all Apple hardware is there for a laugh but thats another thing.
A suitable shorthand term for copyright infringement would be useful, but "theft", "stealing" and "piracy" are all terms which already have meanings of their own: to use them for another purpose causes confusion, so I'll stick with "illegal copying". Only six syllables, and succinctly describes the exact nature of the offence being committed - making a copy of something where someone else has used the law to explicitly make such an act illegal.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Expecting a piracy story to give "all" the facts from both sides is foolish. The companies crying about piracy are the same ones advertising in that newspaper. = Lets play with public opinion!
It's kind of like expecting a congresscritter to have a clue about anything in the tech world. Their campaigns are financed by the same companies advertising in the newspaper. = Let's get the laws written the way we want!
Same story, different day - no news here move along....
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Well, first of all, I don't think it is. I think on the whole you'll find a fairly strong libertarian[1] element amongst slashdotters. This tends to emerge as opposition to anyone trying to make them do anything. SO, you know, we're not militant on the subject of copyright, but also operating system monopolies, attempts to manipulate Internet charging, censorship, civil rights in general, and interference by foreign governments.
So I don't really thing the typical /. position is as inconsistent as you make it sound - just that you're
not looking at it from the proper perspective.
Hell yes.
They may even have needed those margins back in the days when a recording studio couldn't be whomped up with a few egg cartons, a spare room and a decent Linux box. These days. I'm not convinced that is true. I might have more sympathy if they'd release their back catalogues at something near cost - the ones where they've already recouped their production costs. Sadly, I have grave suspicions that most of the margin is "needed" for saturation advertising of manufactured but talent free wonderkind, and to support executive coke habits. (well as long as everyone else is throwing cheap prejudicial stereotypes around...)
Also increasingly, a lot of that money seems to be supporting lawsuits targeting randomly selected internet users. Don't even get me started on Sony BMG and the rootkit fiasco.
In short, I reckon they could afford to shed a bit of flab and drop costs.
That's not quite my objection...
Me? I'm the customer. Allegedly that makes me always right. Mind, I have to say that my argument is weakened by the fact I stopped buying CDs years ago because I thought them too expensive for what they were worth. And these days, with so much decent CC licence music kicking around, I find I'm hardly missing commercial music at all. So, that's who I am to dare to have an opinion, and what I've done about it. And since I've defended my position, who are you to suggest I shouldn't have one? Fair's fair.
Well said, sir. I agree.
Not a problem in itself...
Otherwise, I might as well say "how about we ignore all the facts that support your side of the argument and just talk about those that make my position look good".
I'm all in favour of finding a middle ground. Just so long as we don't shift the endpoints too far before we start looking for it.
[1] That's in the 80's sense of the word, before it was co-opted by the Gordon Gecko fanboys, that is.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
First, copyright infringement isn't theft. Courts know the difference and so do lawyers. Historically, the US is in no position to make the complaints some of the trade groups are making such as the classic complaint that only surfaces when our ox is gored, but not when we do the goring. The US copyright system has its roots in what is being called "piracy" here (without much critical examination of that language, I might add). The US copyright system didn't initially recognize foreign exclusive rights, so American book publishers were free to domestically commercially reprint Dickens' serials without paying Dickens, for example. Dickens didn't like that, but plenty of other people did.
Also, some of the distortion in the argument proposed by the MPA, RIAA, and big book publishers focuses on the plight of the artist when it is actually these organizations that have no problem screwing these same artists in situations where illicit copying and distribution haven't entered the picture.
Some forms of media we cherish were initally percieved as wrong: Radio, which you mention, was initially dismissed as "piracy". So too was cable TV, recorded performances of various kinds (analog video tape, analog audio tape, digital audio tape, digital video recorders), and sheet music.
One thing seems clear to me through the years: the organized businesses apparently don't know their business well enough to be taken seriously when they claim the sky is falling on their business model, and it's not clear to me that the businesses are properly interpreting the intent of copyright.
Digital Citizen
My dad is a professional musician.
Since time began, the record companies have always been able to totally rip-off talented artists with bad contracts because they have a death-grip on the music-industry as a whole and often artists have no viable alternative.
the music industry is pissing its pants because their fat-cat lifestyle is finally being undermined.
This period of changing (selling medium vs distributing digital data) will probably take a fairly long time - not until IP-based 'radio' and 'video' streaming becomes household and actually replacing the old technologies. By then the "little labels" will be more or less as competitive as the "big labels" for music/tv/movie. That's when the little guys and the big guys figured out a way to make money out of this new market place.
Microsoft wouldn't be as big and powerful as it is today without software piracy. Even today, the fact that a lot of copies of Windows and Office are pirated is what makes Microsoft software so ubiquitous; if everybody actually paid the price Microsoft is asking, many people would likely switch to genuinely free alternatives.
And I don't think this point is lost on Microsoft either; they could have easily piracy-proofed their systems long ago, for example, by making hardware dongles part of their PC spec. But Microsoft probably doesn't want to do that; in addition to the benefits that piracy-provided differential pricing gives them, this way, the company also has power they would otherwise not have: power to raid companies and force violators to do their bidding.
how can we have a system that lets you copy your DVD onto YOUR computer, but doesn't let you copy it on to everyone else's?
It is irrelevant what it is LEGAL to do...when you buy media, you are agreeing to the seller's terms, which may be much more restrictive than the law...and often are. If you do not like their terms, don't buy or suck it up. To break them is illegal.
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it.
Piracy might be stealing (arrrrrr!) but what does that have to do with copyright infringement?
Personally I think piracy should be reduced but they should probably leave it to the Navy because I don't think pirates and RIAA lawyers will get on well with each other.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
How is it EA's problem if -you- get the media scratched, when your average person knows that compact discs are vulnerable to damage by scratching? You can't claim negligence on their part.
If you damage part of your car through your own carelessness, when the car is functioning as designed, is it the manufacturer's problem?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Here is a representative example of what I was talking about. 14 Miyazaki films on 4 dvds, region free for $20? Something tells me that's not legit, even if the box looks believable. The seller has over 30,000 transactions, and some random sampling of recent transactions would lead me to believe that this guy doesn't sell anything but bootlegs (from what I understand, region free discs with more than 4 half-hour episodes on a disc are almost always bootlegs -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that), and he's been selling things for over a year. I don't know if it would be hard to catch the seller and convict him of a crime, but ebay could easily shut down his account if they received complaints. This seems rather public and blatant, not some shop in Chinatown with a hidden back room.
"Illegal copying" is an amoral term. If your objection to piracy is based in morality rather than legality, the term falls short. Not that I'm picking on you - there's no easy answer.
A question for all those who reject the terms "theft" or "stealing" in this context: do you feel similarly about "identity theft" or "stolen credit card numbers?" The same arguments apply.
Now let's imagine you've invented a machine that can duplicate gasoline 10x via some kind of fast breeder process, but it's limited to 10x and uses up the original input.
Clearly if you're allowed to use your invention, the gasoline price will plummet due to massive gas copying, and there will be no motivation for people to dig oil out of the ground. Therefore we must immediately pass a law to prohibit use of your invention, raid the homes of people suspected of gasoline copying, and put locks on people's gas tanks that can only be unlocked by the oil companies.
Right?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
That argument is total "bullshit".
Granted, if I left the quotes off, you'd be entitled to complain about the use of prejudcial terms without support. But since I put it in quotes (and since I did it for a reason) then apparently you're not allowed to object, right? Or did I miss something?
Tell you what; feel free to suggest a non-prejorative term for copyright infringement that doesn't presuppose the moral outcome of the debate. If it's shorter than "copyright infringement" I'm sure we'd all be happy to adopt it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Another couple uncredible answers are...
artists are funded by some sort of tax on broadband/media/... as soon as that happens, some politician from florida/kansas/wisconsin gets up and wonders why we should be paying 2 Live Crew, or some other wildly popular but controvesial act.
musicians should be paid to perform, as thats where they make most of their money. There is a tier that that is true, a sort of midlevel tier that can sell out 1000 seat venues 100 nights a year, but there are many more acts below that level, that will sell 10,000 records (and since they write the songs and generally dropped their own coin to record it) actually will make 20k off those sorts of sales, but can only get 400 seat venues 50 nights a year. Without record sales at these show they are lucky if that sort of tour pays as much as a counter job at 7-11, but hey you get free beer and an 2 inch article in Spin.
Wow, a record company did something good, for once...
In Soviet Russia, backwards is everything.
It's sort of funny to compare the comments of one type of white collar crime to another. Portrait of Scammer is still on the front page. yet very few here notice any sort of parallels.
Hah! You say civil disobediance is a spit on the face of Democracy? I say Democracy cannot exist without civil disobediance. I say the two are forever juxtaposed. Civil disobediance is the breast from which Democracy suckles. Apathy and capitulation are the sustenances of tyranny.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The general population usually has a good moral compass. Throughout history, if a large number of people were breaking the law, it meant that either the laws were bad or there was an oppressive government in place.
The fact that regular people in the US can justify some form of copyright infringement means that the system is broken. The classic example is prohibition. Prohibition was created to get the country on the "right track" my "well meaning people", but all it really did was make criminals out of regular people and make organized crime a big business.
Apparently, most of the world and much of the US feels the same way today about copyright. There is going to be a lot of proverbial breaking open beer kegs on the 6 o'clock news and a lot of public raids. Then, in 20 years, after causing a rediculous amount of pain and altering the economic lanscape of the world forever, most of the governments of the world are going to say "Oops, My bad" and enact reasonable copyright protections.
I would really like to avoid those 20 years and get on with fixing the laws today.
I own a controlling interest in several corporations that own important patents on engine design. I'll just sue you into the ground to keep my income stream intact.
Hey, making up absurdly skewed examples is pretty fun!
Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
In the USA today article that was mentioned above, former Byrds frontman Roger McGuinn is used as an example of an artist that has made gains in his career through giving away mp3s for free. Of course, the mp3s he gives away are of his performances of old folk songs, not his new original material. Those songs are available on CDs, which he sells at his concerts. For a profit.
The question still remains, how do less popular artists gain from the free digital music movement? If an artist sells their own self-produced recordings (CDs or MP3s, whatever) directly to the public, and these sales make up a significant part of their income, do they really gain anything by suddenly giving away their music for free?
Lets take a New York Jazz Pianist for example. Let's call him Frank. Frank gigs constantly with four different groups all over the five bouroughs and elsewhere, and between the gigs and sales of his independently produced cds (as well as teaching/workshops) he can eek out a reasonable living. Now what if we suddenly make the whole idea of "buying music" an anachronism. Does that really help Frank?
Obviously, huge pop stars like Beyonce or Britney would be fine, because they would get commericals and other endorsement deals, and the like. They also play sold out stadium shows, but what about independent artists who mostly play smaller venues? And if you say the public will be more likely to hear their music if its free, that just isn't really true. Tons of people had free mp3s on mp3.com back in the day, and they didn't do so well.
Also another thought. It takes money to build a recording studio. Who's gonna pay for that? There won't even be any indie record labels or indie recording studios if they don't have anything they can sell to make a profit.
**Fortunately, Microsoft's new DRM implementations in Vista will blank one's monitor when using pirated media and help police such abuse.**
That is until the new DRM in Vista makes a or decides it doesn't like your home movie and blanks your monitor. Or even better, decides that your legit backup copy isn't legal and won't play it.
Or hell, simply decides that it's time to send a complete list of all your viewing history to it's makers/partners in order to provide you with "specials, discounts and promotionals targetted to your demographic"
Congratulations, you miss the point of the post! He was looking for a popular artist that didn't support all the RIAA measures. I gave him said example. And yes, I'd say 10 million sales for an album is pretty popular.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"moral relativism". Nice catch phrase, but I am not sure you understand what this means (It's quite comical). This would mean that I am okay with copying someone else's work, but not okay with someone else copying mine. Disagreeing about the definition and morality of "copyright infringement" is not moral relativism. It is just a different in opinion. It is perfectly acceptable to believe that copyright infringement is not morally wrong while theft is wrong. The beliefs do not conflict with each other.
Nope. Theft deprives the owner of the item in question.
Copyright infringement != theft.
Idiot.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
To put your completely erronenous conflation of "copyright infringement" and "theft" into perspective, here is an example of what you just said, but I have substituted two entirely different crimes than the one you mentioned:
"I put "murder" in quotes in my post for a reason. Christ, the way you fuckers insist it be called "retail fraud" or "shoplifting" stinks of PC in the vein of "illegal criminals" to high heavens."
Where were you when the voynix came?
Wow. I got marked as flamebait for that? I used to come to Slashdot for the inciteful commentary, but now it's worse than Digg. At least Digg is updated round-the-clock. I guess there's a reason I've stopped visiting Slashdot more than once a week...
Oh
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
When people pirate copyrighted works they steal (yes, as in take away) a small part of the copyright holder's exclusivity on the right to copy. Individually, the damage is negligible, but collectively it can be quite dramatic. This damage is not financial, it is damage to the copyright system itself, and ignoring copyright restrictions is only going to cause crap like DRM to be shoved down our throats whether we want it or not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What percentage of people who advocate piracy actually produce anything themselves that someone would want to pirate? I'm sure that there are some, but just based on averages it's pretty certain that most of these people have never lost a potential dollar to someone who just got a bootleg copy rather than paying for the product of their labor.
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
Well said.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
No, the problem with todays youth is that morals throughout history were flawed, but the previous generations all seem to think that theirs don't bear improvement. The big thing I keep hearing is "Respect for elders" without first addressing respect for everyone. Further digging seems to expose a mindset that only elders should get respect, which is more deference than respect. The movie "Time changer" exposes the problem somewhat, but it's clueless as to the faults of the generation it holds in esteem, whis is also part of the problem.
http://www.timechangermovie.com/site/home.htm
What I believe is morally right is okay and what you believe is morally right is okay.
Considering I never said it was EAs fault that the disk got scratched your point is irrelevant. I was looking to get a replacement disk. I paid to use the program and I should be able to. In addition the music that the RIAA makes most of its money off of is top 40s crap. Teenagers and housewives look for that crap on p2p sites. You obviously don't realize that they pay more for marketing on that crap than on the actual product itself...by your logic I should have to pay them for showing me a commercial...hell the expenses came out of thier pockets right??!?! IMO after 10 years EVERYTHING should be public domain. Hell they give it away over the airwaves in the first place for free. Just because someone isn't getting the $$ they used to won't make me care. Your defense of a bunch of rich pricks w/ fancy pieces of paper amuses me. I make 15k a year and if my daughter wants to listen to that NSYNC crap for a week before she goes out and wastes my $$ on the CD then am I supposed to care? Seriously. Like you've never stolen a CD before. High and mighty is laughable.
i didn't lose the reg code....the disk was fucked...big difference. Either way they never responded to over 3 requests. Whatever though THANKS TO AN ONLINE COPY I DIDN"T HAVE TO WASTE THEIR TIME AND MONEY.... Case in point.
You steal a companies' work and then they forgive you.
In your parallel, you suggest a company should ask you what bands you already know about that they should sign. In this case, you are listening to (and not paying for, I guess) music they don't own and they're asking you if they should own it.
First of all, why would you want them to own it? Second of all, if they should ask people what bands to sign, the bands wouldn't want to sign, because they would already have an audience. Why give 90% of your profits away if you already have a fan base big enough for labels to pay attention to?
So, what unsigned artists do you listen to anyway?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
That's not moral relativism either.. Moral relativism is where any opposing set of morals is okay. For instance, a moral relativist may believe rape is wrong, but if another country wants to say that rape is ok, then that's okay with the moral relativist. That is to say, he believes that morals are neither objective nor immutable. Most people would agree that there is some truth to that; some morals are relative, but many are not.
Saying that it's okay for me to copy you, but not okay for you to copy me is simple hypocracy.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Actually, "moral relativism" is what I call you, when you think that a particular moral is relative that I happen to think is absolute.
And yes, that is definitional relativism.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The history of Metalica includes a lot of live concerts and a lot of bootleg recordings of those bootleg concerts. Theese recordings were the basis and reason for Metalica's success.
Of course, a band that sucks balls, would not have success. (One can argue the point about Metalica, but a lot of people seemed to like them at some point in time)
Will the world be a worse place, if the industrialized crop of music couldn't be sold, whatever the cause?
> Apathy and capitulation are the sustenances of tyranny. One of the rare breed of eloquent sentences seen on full blue moon days on /.
That would only be moral relativism if you view copyright infringment as theft. Many of us don't, and have reasons why we think so.
A couple of examples of the difference between copyright law and property law:
1. copyrights expire, property ownership does not expire.
2. Copywritten material may be copied by private citizens for fair use. Property has no fair use exclusion that allows you to take it.
There are also natural differences (since you gave the example of a car):
If I make a copy of a song, the copyright holder does not loose anything they had. With or without permission, the act of copying does not remove the property. If I take a car (with or without permission) the owner no longer has the car.
None of this proves that copying copyrighted material is either right or wrong, just pointing out that it is inherently different to property theft.
There is also the fact that property ownership has been generally recognised by most societies throughout history. It could be regarded as self-evident. Even when people set up communities that don't acknowledge personal property rights, there is generally a tendency to re-establish property rights eventually (USSR, China, various hippy communes whose ex-members are now capitalists etc.) Property rights could be considered self-evident. Copyrights, however, are purely the result of legislation. That doesn't mean that copyright isn't good, even necessary, just that it is a different catergory of rights to property rights.
You don't have to agree, but we are not being logically inconsistent, and it isn't moral relativism.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
The U.S. Constitution made provisions for copyright (for a limited time) in order to allow society to benefit from USEFUL works. It was originally meant to give the creator of said USEFUL works a LIMITED monopoly on distribution. The idea was to make it worthwhile to the creator for producing USEFUL works by allowing him or her to recover the cost of creation and production. Much of the stuff that is released by the media cartels is not useful but rather detrimental to society. The reason why copyright infringement is so predominate is because copyright has been ABUSED.
Another question one may want to ask is, "Can a person who releases his or her work so that is can be freely redistributed make money?" This is a question one may want to ask Linus Torvalds. Here is someone who has both money and fame for something he set up to be freely redistributed. The copyright issue is not going to be resolved by the courts or new laws. It is going to be resolved by the marketplace. If a cheap subsitute for petrol is discovered or if a cheap and simple way to increase the fuel mileage of vehicles is published, then the price of petrol will decrease drastically even if there are laws put in place to ban the way of increasing fuel efficency or petrol substitute. People tend to want to do what is right and beneficial - especially when doing so is practical. It is practical for some people to use and/or produce open source products. Many people make money doing so. It is also practical for many to use Linux. Other people find it more practical to spend lots of money in order to use Microsoft products. Microsoft products are pirated rampantly, yet Microsoft thrives on selling operating systems and office software. Open source software is also rampantly copied and shared, and companies thrive on selling open source products such as Linux.
When I intend to use commercial software on a regular basis, I buy it even when I can copy it from somewhere else and use it for free. I bought Windows XP and use it on one (of 32 computers I own) computer. If I have to replace the motherboard on the computer and Microsoft refused to reactivate Windows, I would download a hack to reactivate Windows XP without hesitation and not feel a bit guilty for doing so. Is this considered copyright infringement? YOU BET IT IS!!! However, I bought the product and refuse to be ripped off. Would I copy the Windows XP CD and give it to another? No, I would not. However, I do not consider copying Windows 98 and redistributing it wrong (No, I haven't done so) because of the fact that 1. Microsoft no longer sells '98 or supports it and 2. Microsoft has had over seven years exclusive copyright in order to make is money back as well as a handsome profit.
A LIMITED copyright on USEFUL works serves both producer and consumer very well, however, when the balence of power shifts entirely to the copyright owner and copyright becomes unlimited then there will be a backlash when it is feasable. This backlash is occuring in the music, software, and movie industries. Copying can be beneficial to both copyright owners as well as customers. I both download for free and purchase music, movies, and software. I do not however, buy product from members of the RIAA, BSA, or MPAA. I do not like bullies nor will I support them.
Microsoft allowed anyone to copy their flagship products (Windows and Office) from '90 to the mid of this decade...and now that the world largerly depends on them, they want to stop piracy.
Exclusivity.
The one thing that makes copyright mean anything at all.
The copyright system isn't broken. People's attitudes are when they think they aren't hurting anyone. TAANSTAFL.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
My favorite model is what i call try-and-buy (just made the name up, feel free to find a beter one). It works like this:
/.), the problem is not one of lack of money to pay for content, it's one of being decieved once too many by sleazy industry tricks such as:
- Download the music, movies, games from the Internet
- If you like them, buy them
- If you don't like them, stop using them
For someone like me (and hopefully many others here in
- Music CDs whic have only 1 good track (which has been hyped-up by radio) but cost full price.
- Music CDs that won't play in some CD Players and which are hard to rip to MP3s so that i can listen them in my MP3 player.
- Games which have been hyped up by the media but turn out to be: not-really-that-fun / short / buggy / hindered-by-needless-copy-protection or in general not worth the money.
- Movies released at different times in different regions.
- Technology to artificially regionally segment markets so as to inflated prices in some markets (ie, Region Code in DVDs).
The method i described combines some level of consumer protection (since both the content producing industry and the media industry - which promotes the content - have shown themselfs not to be in any way trustworthy) with paying content producers for the content one does use and enjoy, NOT for content one neither uses nor enjoys.
In other words - reward those who make products that do satisfy their customers and NOT those that try to scam their customers.
if you are caught in blizzard in the mountines, like hell you won't break into a cabin, in order to survive, or tresspass an estate if other paths are blocked by forest fire, flood, etc. If you are fleeing disaster endagering your existance, are you not going to "borrow" a car or boat and flee?
Of course I would, but would also be liable to pay for damages etc. and return goods. I could not use a car to flee a fire and keep the car, I would have to return it, so it is not an exception to property rights in any way similar that fair use is an exception to copyrights.
Receiving the information without paying demanded fee may not be theft in classical sense of the word
So you agree? This was exactly my point. You needn't have posted, AC.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I believe you're referring to the Statute of Anne and the Licensing Act of 1662. It is no coincidence that these came about at around the same time as the printing press.
youre damned right it was no coincidence, the crown was pissed off at all this "free speech" jazz, so they instituted "copyrights" to try to choke off dissidant speech which they "disagreed" with..
Pirating software and music and giving it away without accepting cash payment was, generally speaking, legal in the past because it simply wasn't feasible to make massive quantities of software or music and give them away for free. As with the subject of copying printed works in the days before the printing press, it was a non-issue
false. people have been able to cheaply record thigs as long as i've remembered. The government explicitly approved of this en masse copying by the general public in both the betamax case and the AHRA (1992) which explicitly stated that personal recording was allowed, and people could copy whatever the heck they pleased and give it to whoever they pleased so long as it was not commercial. The only reason p2p sharing was not included in this was a loophole in the law, not becuase the law as "changing with the times".
I repeat it has been painfully easy long before the computer, the RIAA considered home taping an issue as did the mpaa, and they didnt die because of it like they screamed that they would.
"Our ancestors didn't need copyright laws, so we don't either" is a good rallying cry for P2P enthusiasts, but it breaks down on inspection. Those same P2P enthusiasts are likely very grateful for the new laws that protect them in the countless other parts of life where technology has continuously improved.
what laws? If there were other laws analogous to copyright, then companies like ford would not be allowed to use robots in their plant because it would "destroy the autoworker industry".
You cannot use things like vehicle codes or perishable food laws as examples.. there is a distinct difference between protecting public order and protecting the pocketbooks of a priveledged elite.. This is the most intellectually dishonest thing i've seen since the ISP astroturfing campaigns surrounding net neutrality.
Copyright law protects us all.
and by "us all" you mean the fatcats at the **AA cartels who probably pay you to lobby for them.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
since the beginning of law. When you buy media, you are making an agreement to abide by certain terms. If you do not follow your promises, you are breaking very basic laws that exist virtually everywhere.
If you do not like the license agreement, by all means shop elsewhere. There is far more media in the world than you could possibly consume in a thousand lifetimes (and growing). You don't need THAT song or movie.
I notice while watching many DVDs here in the UK, the movie companies have a clip before the feature that tries to give a clear message that piracy IS "stealing". This infuriates me because they are playing on the weak minded who will end up believing it.
But, if 200 years ago, someone stole some land, died, his heirs subdivided and sold it, the people who bought it subdivided it and sold it to you, the courts may let you continue to live on the stolen land.
m ation/arlington_house.html "The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee." What that link doesn't say is Mrs. Lee's son tried the pay the taxes, but was refused so that the government could take the land.
Check out "Grandfathering" of land. There are many cases where someone has started using land next to theirs. After a few years of the rightful owner not asserting his rights, depending on the state, the land becomes the property of the new "owner".
There are many examples of property law that are similar to the "fair use" of copyright. Remember, you can't really own land, you just rent it from the government. If they really want to use your land for something else, they will just take it and pay you "Fair market value". If you don't pay your taxes, they will take it. Check out how the US acquired the land for Arlington National Cemetery. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historical_infor
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
You point out many flawed arguements pirates make, but you are basing your entire arguement on the flawed premise that things HAVE to be the way the are for music to be created. You think it takes 10 layers of middlemen to get CDs to the public, you think you only deserve $.20 per album because the RIAA is protecting you. Sure you aren't brainwashed, those choices just might be the best ones you could make at this moment.
What you don't see is how the internet and its technologies (pioneered by pirates) are creating opportunities for artists to make some money, build fan bases and gain credibility without the industry. These artists will be the future because they are undercutting the beast that is the industry. I think that is really what people are scared of. They can not fathom a world where big money doesn't determine success, where middlemen can't "pay the mortgage" and Nielson doesn't determine whats hot.
This is why I'm not worried about music or copyrights, because there is no leash on these "myspace" artists. Copyrights are way more restrictive than just making sure people buy cds, they also limit sampling and other creative uses. These up and coming independant artists are sampling and reusing the culture around them far more than ever before, probably a lot of it has to do with digital technology. There are way to many to sue, just like the pirates, and they are actually creating new music.
I hardly ever pirate now, but thats only out of laziness, I don't really care what happens when I pirate industry music, because I don't really care about the industry. They've fucked over artists and consumers for long enough. I'm just sitting back and enjoying watching them slowly crumble while jamming out to so independant artists on their myspace page.
Fuck the RIAA, Fuck the MPAA. We don't need them to make art, I've already seen it.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Except that you're paying for the license to access the software, not for the disks themselves. If the disks get scratched, the company should replace the disk because the license - what was actually paid for - is still valid. It's in no way like a car because in that instance, you're paying for the physical car itself and implicit in that is the right to its use. With cd's, having the disk does not imply that you can use it - see site licenses where you still only get one cd. Now of course, if the EULA states that in accepting the license, the customer losesall right to get new copies of the cd, well...
No it doesn't. It doesn't say it's a bad thing, but it doesn't say it's a good thing either. It's a neutral term.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that allofmp3 was found to be legal, and that it also did not pay any money to the artists or labels. Then downloading from allofmp3 would not be "illegal copying," but would still be subject to the same objections. That's the sense in which "illegal copying" is a poor term - it may very well include legal activities. Conversely, ripping your purchased DVDs to your computer so you can watch them on your laptop might be illegal copying - but I would not include that activity in whatever-we-end-up-calling-piracy.
I sympathize with your point, but copyright law is a balance between conflicting rights. A good name will, by necessity, presuppose that the balance at least exists.
No, you are not. What an amazing concept. Fraud? WTF? You're just making stuff up.
The only "certain terms" are those provided by law, not the whim of the publisher.
You don't need THAT song or movie.
If I've paid for it, I have certain rights, under fair use; right of first sale, etc, in most countries, regardless of what small print the publisher pastes onto the package. If he doesn't want people to use it, he shouldn't sell it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
they will just take it and pay you "Fair market value"
Significantly different, don't you think, since they pay for it. Not really very similar to fair use rights at all. As for grandfathering etc, they are just methods of transfering ownership. Perhaps not entirely just, depending on your point of view, but entirely different to fair use. Fair use does not transfer the copyright to the user. The copyright owner still has the copyright when you exercise your fair use rights.
When the government resumes land, the payment acknowledges that they are taking your property (even though you were just renting it from the government). When you exercise fair use, you don't have to pay, which is an acknowledgement that you are not taking any property, therefore we say that copyright infringement is not theft (which is not to say that it isn't wrong).
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
There is a significant problem with the logical consistency of your arguement here. It is shown up by artists and other copyright holders who release their work at no charge over the internet (for various reasons). Musicians who release mp3's or allow them to be released as a way of promoting/advertising their band, for example. If your assertion that artists lose money when a song is downloaded is true, then it must cost thousands for musicians to make their own songs available for download. Except it doesn't.
Also, regarding your innuendo that I'm a thief (or copyright infringer, or both, depending on how you see it), this is an unsubstantiated and unjustified attack on my character. Read the thread, and you will see that I have not at any point said that violating copyright is good or acceptable. I have merely stated that I do not think it is theft, and given reasons why I think that. Having an opinion different to yours does not make me a thief. It is a dishonest way to argue to slander the person rather than counter the points made. I offer two points for your consideration:
1. Such character attacks, if not made anonymously, are indeed subject to the same type of legal repercussions that copyright infringement is. You are no longer in a legally superior position to a copyright infringer. Some would say morally as well.
2. If you require dishonest discussion tactics to make your point, you might need to reconsider if you point is worth making.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"it could easily be argued that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not a moral one"
This is an interesting and new form of language abuse abuse. The idea that if it is a moral issue, it does not matter which words are used to describe the crime, even if they have nothing to do with each other. Morally, is there no difference between rape and murder? Between kidnapping and arson? If this is true, then does your whole argument rest on the assertion that if it is bad, it does not matter which words are used for it?. Here's a good example of what you are advocating: "I saw a guy run a two red lights this morning. I hope the cops catch up with him before he rapes again." or "Your honor, I know he's a drug dealer. I have proof: I took a photo of him scratching my car door."
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Which came first, the idea of theft, or the legal definition?"
The idea of theft involves (prepare for a shock now): STEALING. No stealing, no taking, no theft. I really am not sure what the legal definition is. Laws vary, anyway.
"People actually can't understand where I'm coming from, and that is really sad."
Hold that thought. I'll deal with it below.
"Would it make you happy if I said that copyright infringement is not theft?"
Do you really think that it makes people understand where you are coming from when you all of a sudden argue the opposite of what you have been saying all along?
"Would it make you realise what an idiot you are if I said once again that I never thought they were?"
Your messages have argued that you thought they were. At least, up until now, when you reversed yourself.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING"
Here is the root troll. I went to the top of this news item, searched for the first occurance of the word "theft". I found this quoted in someone else's message: "Let's look at the simple black and white of the matter. Piracy is theft. Whether you agree with it or not, it's theft.". The parent contained the actual statement. The parent was modded -1 Flamebait. Quite justifiably: the statement was an incorrect one, intentionally designed to mislead and cause strife. There are others, but this was the first troll for this item.
Where were you when the voynix came?