Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that the RIAA walked away last week from one of their 'discovery' cases seeking the identities of 'John Does' who attended Rhode Island College. We have just learned that they walked away from another one, BMG Music v. Does 1-14, in Greensboro, North Carolina. 2 of the 14 John Does had settled, but the other 12 — who hung tough — will never be identified to the RIAA lawyers and will not have to pay any 'settlement.' This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark."
I object to the verb 'sneaking' in TFA.
It suggests purpose, strategy, and some level of intelligence.
"This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark."
Just another case of advanced public relations.
I suspect the two people who paid up are now wishing that they hadn't.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over all this PIRATED MUSIC.
How many times do we have to repeat this?
*Copyright infringement is not theft*
No it isn't. No.
Now ask if NewYorkCountryLawer unequivocally condemns his own clients' alleged infringement. What kind of a lawyer would do that? A stupid one.
The RIAA's music is overpriced and crap, you wouldn't have bought it anyway, therefore you have the right to get it for free and fill your hard disks with as much of it as you like.
No, no you don't. But you aren't hurting anybody, so you may as well do it anyway.
How is it, with these "voluntary" dissimissals, the RIAA gets to walk away without paying the other side's legal fees? Where does this leave the defendants? Are they still out several thousand dollars from paying their lawyer, the same as if they had "settled" with the RIAA?
(Although, in this case, the costs might be relatively low, seeing as they would possibly be split amongst several does ...)
As has been posted here, the RIAA is changing its target from suing individuals to (trying to) sue ISPs who do not do the their dirty work (checking, tracking, denying access) for them.
Small ISPs who cannot do that (too few customers -> no business) will simply die from the RIAAs litigations, and the bigger ones (who can deal with a few less customers) are softer targets, as they have got less to loose (as opposed to an individual which can loose upto a few times his yearly income), especially not when simply ending a customers contract on the first sign of RIAA related trouble.
Lets hope the Judges are allready sensitivised to the RIAA to such a level that even seeing their paperwork will give them an instant itch ...
When someone shoots a photograph of your house, did they steal it? It seems you don't understand your own sources.
I know that despite the intense advertising campaign to call downloading music theft, legally the definition of theft requires depriving someone of their property, intellectual or otherwise. To deprive someone of any such item, they can't use it after you steal it. Therefore, while copying music is damaging to the RIAA, the RIAA's tactics of pretending that music copying is theft is just plain dishonesty.
Copying music is already illegal, so there's no need to add in theft charges. Just like there would be no need to add in murder charges for copying music because you are proverbially killing the artist.
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
If, instead of claiming that people are stealing their music, the RIAA would accept the simple fact that their product sucks, their marketing strategy sucks, their whole business plan sucks, then they could claim their problems are the result of the economic meltdown and get a few billion $$$ from Washington.
All that retreat mumbo-jumbo at the moment is just the precursor to what will be brought against the people in 2009 and beyond. Obama has selected an RIAA supporting ass. attourney general with David Ogden and now that the industry has a seat on the presidents team and wan't to "cooperate" with ISPs they don't need these awful lawsuits anymore.
... I sense a great disturbance in the warez.
My piratey sense is tingling
Careful here, how does copyright infringement force people to continue making music?
I never forced them to create music, in fact no one did. They chose to do so of their own free will. Do not try to compare this to slavery, that's just disgusting.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Regardless if you're stealing from the garage band up the road, or a RIAA member - it remains stealing.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
And slavery isn't fucking theft either. It's goddamn kidnapping, assault, probably some rape, all sorts of other crimes, but it's not theft.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
There, fixed that for you...
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical.
If any of them see light they dissolve into nothing.
Which is the real problem, people not paying for music, or people trying to make them pay for it?
*Copyright infringement is not theft*
Reading Merriam-Webster, I find "stealing" to be:
1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
So you don't think that copying music without paying for it is appropriating it without the right to do so?
E pluribus unum
it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up.
On one hand, I agree that music "sharing" is wrong - on the other hand, if downloading a few 1 dollar songs off the internet is just wrong in a petty sort of way, then the practices of the RIAA are inhuman and despicable. Me, I have a nice collection of Creative Commons music, a good portion of which has been paid for. I'm glad I don't have to be a part of the whole thing; Stealing from the RIAA is wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, doing business with them is wrong as well.
Bullshit
The thing that makes stealing stealing is the fact that you take something AWAY from the person you're stealing from.
If i steal your car, you'll be pissed off because you dont have a car anymore, not because im driving the same car without paying for it.
Appropriate (or "take") is still implying the same thing -- the taking of a physical object. It has nothing to do with creating a copy.
In fact, here's a dictionary, to back me up:
Appropriate \Ap*pro"pri*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Appropriated; p. pr. & vb. n. Appropriating.]
1. To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or
use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate
the use of a common benefit.
Creating a copy does not exclude others from creating a copy, so no.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Clear cut? Morally?
Nope.
I'm sorry, but this notion of cultural 'work', that is valuable when copied infinitely etc. is an EXTREMELY recent invention of humanity.
Civilization existed for millennia without this invention of 'copyright'.
If anything, it's the OPPOSITE - the morally acceptable thing is for HUMANITY as a whole to get the most benefit, regardless of the individual...
Therefore it's up to the individual creators to do the best they can, and offer a product the people HAVE to buy and reward them, because it can't be gotten any other way, similar to paying for a performance, or paying for someone to create the music to begin with, (rather than ask for money afterwards) - similar to how it used to be done at times.
Unfortunately, digital INFORMATION is not such a limited product.
How does one mild wrong(stealing things valued at 99c) and one revolting wrong(harassment and ruining lives, often innocent, over petty theft) make a right?
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut -
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
Copying something is very different from taking something.
This isn't riaa brainwashing, it's the basic "right and wrong" thing that most folks are taught when growing up. I seem to be part of dwindling number of people who think that such actions are wrong. Who think that when I want a product, I don't have a right to just take it - even if the taking incurs no physical loss for anyone else.
Then people must be realizing that what they've been taught is nonsensical.
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. It's your business, and if they want to prevent you from downloading it they should make it harder. Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price of a CD, but still. I'm not holding my breath. It'd be nice if they realized that and adjusted their business model to suit, but I doubt it'll happen.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
What has been taken? Not the song. It is not composer's/performer's property.
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
I'm pretty sure that point has been completely discredited, it's fairly obvious that downloads do not equate to lost sales. (Their point also raises the absurd question of, buying from their competitors instead of them also deprives them of sales they could have made, so is that stealing from them?)
Of course, it'd make better economic sense for them to realize that people will download because it's easier, and because most of the stuff they're producing is crap and not worth the price of a CD, but still. I'm not holding my breath. It'd be nice if they realized that and adjusted their business model to suit, but I doubt it'll happen.
These companies are big enough that they might have a hard time going out of business fast enough to avoid having that realization forced on them. Well, at least in normal economic times.
Whaah. If you would use the term properly, no one would object.
What has been taken? Perhaps property rights have been infringed upon, but nothing has been taken.
There is a difference
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
I agree it's questionable as to whether it's legally stealing. But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
I guess it has to be repeated (at least) one more time...
No, it isn't. Unless one were to physically "take" a physical thing, that thing has not been stolen. Get it? The thing is still in the possession of it's owner. Get it?
Yes, of course it is morally wrong to make (not steal) a copy of a work for which the owner/creator has demanded compensation, but that is (pay attention now) not the same thing as theft.
An honest one? Seriously, it's a popular crime. Sooner or later he's going to get one that is guilty (at least, in the informal sense).
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Finally, they are pulling back! What's next? DRM?
Once again, there is no owner of the work. There is only the holder of the copyright. The song/video/photograph etc. is not the property; the copyright is the property. This is why people get so muddled in their thinking on this topic.
To take to one's self in exclusion of others; to claim or use as by an exclusive right; as, let no man appropriate the use of a common benefit.
Hmmm. Exclusion of others. That means it's not theft if we play it loud enough for the neighbors to hear?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
who says it's worth $0.99?
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Indeed. A landowner has exclusive rights to the use of his land. When someone comes along and decides to use it for a picnic, they are trespassing. Ergo, copyright infringers are trespassers!
You aren't stealing their property, you are stealing their money. If I take your wallet, empty it into my pocket and hand you your wallet back I've not stolen anything from you, right? You still have your wallet. This rather unclear concept in today's society of "money" is really quite abstract and you can't be prosecuted for stealing abstract things, now can you? Only physical property. So while your wallet is yours, the money in it is just an abstract concept and free for the taking.
Why is it honest to sell out your client? You realize that a lawyer's job is to be a zealous advocate (though within the bounds of the law), don't you? A lawyer is not the judge and jury. It's not the attorney's role. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter how guilty. And even if found guilty, there is the question of how much punishment the guilty person deserves. I guess you think a lawyer should just say "Yeah, my client is guilty of crossing against the light. Go ahead and shoot him. What a minute, I'll do it myself." [bang]
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I'll go the "Anonymous Coward" route...
My fiance works for a music distributor. They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices. Oh yeah, my fiance also has Multiple Sclerosis. Her MASSIVE medical expenses are paid for through health insurance provided by her company, which she will lose if she gets laid off.
So...THANK YOU for stealing music!!!
You are mostly correct, but misunderstand the situation the RIAA and all companies selling "recorded music" are in. The value of a song today isn't $0.99 on iTunes - it is zero on BearShare, LimeWire, Kazaa, Shareaza, and many, many other services. Just because iTunes can sell 1% of the downloaded music doesn't mean very much when the other 99% is freely distributed.
The RIAA's position is quite simple - stop downloading or die. They aren't going to stop free downloading which means there is no revenue in selling recorded music. Period. There is no "new business model" for them to adopt. The only possible business model is "give it all away for free" which really doesn't offer any revenue at all. Ad-supported downloads? I don't think so. Not when their "competition" is offering DRM-free, ad-free cost-free downloads.
Obviously, you don't belive in copyright law. I don't think it has much of a chance in the next 10 years of still existing. Which measn, if you stop and think about it, that the biggest distribution pipe wins. On the Internet this can mean anything from the "most bandwidth" to "highest ranking on Google". Brick and mortar are likely to continue but only as a very small niche, like the record stores still selling vinyl LPs today. It does mean that the neighorbood band, no matter how good, doesn't stand a chance again Sony and WalMart who can out-distribute them and out-mindshare them on the Internet.
It also means that compensation for "creativity" isn't going to happen much. I trust you aren't very creative and don't find this a problem. It does mean that WalMart and Sony will be selling copies of anything they can put their hands on and the original author, musician, etc. will just get swept under the rug like a hot dog stand next to a McDonalds.
This is the logical outcome of the current copyright battle. We are training every schoolchild in the Western Hemisphere that copyright is outmoded and pointless - take whatever you want. And most are absorbing the lesson quite well. So I really don't see any alternative.
The iTunes music store, among others.
This adds fuel to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally seen the light or is still sneaking around in the dark.
Does it? Really? Or, does it point to them just not having the money in this downward spiraling economy to continue these frivolous lawsuits while they, in parallel, scramble to redesign their digital content schemes?
I have a feeling that this is going to be a lull for a few years while they regroup, retask and come at the file sharers again, or seek legislation to aid their fight; the latter being less likely under the incoming administration. The RIAA (and MPAA) are not going down without one hell of a fight. This type of battle may be ending, but evil never sleeps and is constantly trying to devise new ways to overcome good. These idiots are just confused and don't see the good in what file sharing does for their (still growing) sales.
To quote Frank Herbert, "This is all far from over..."
I will never (*never*) buy anything from a company that sues its potential customers. I have donated money three times this last year to companies who produce free software. Any company benefitting from the RIAA tactics will never see a dime of my money.
Any chance they could sue to get their money back? If the settlement letter they paid off is bogus (and it demonstrably is in this case since the RIAA dropped the discovery and walked away from it, which says they had no intention of following through with prosecution) it seems to me that the RIAA gained the money through something resembling fraud.
I'm not sure if it would be fraud, or extortion, or whatever - but it just seems to me that the RIAA doesn't have a legal claim on the money. "Pay us and we won't take you to court." So someone pays. But they didn't take the non-paying people to court and dropped the case. So the settlement letter is absolutely bogus. Shouldn't be too difficult a point to make in front of a judge. IANAL though, so I might be very wrong, but it seems that way.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm not in ANY way agreeing with the tactics of, or defending the RIAA; but for a note of clarification - the theft isn't of the physical (or digital) product, it is the theft of the revenue from the licensing of that music.
Make no mistake, when you are buying a CD, or purchasing a song online (or however you purchase it), you are purchasing a personal license for the listening of that music, and "First Purchase" rights to the physical CD (which is why you can legally re-sell your used CD, but not re-sell your digital files). But in no way do you "Own" the music you purchased (you purchased a personal usage license).
I always see a lot of confusion in how this is explained when it comes to music... I've been photographer (photojournalist and commercial) for 23 yrs, and its directly analogous to how when someone uses my work without paying for it, it is theft of my revenue. If I create a piece of work that is intended for commercial purposes, I've taken the time to create it and put up the money to purchase the necessary equipment, paid the crew, bought or rented the props, etc. Licensing allows me to recoup those costs and make a living from my profession. If that same work is created to sell as a print or poster, and someone decides that they are going to make prints of it and sell (or give it away), it is a definite loss of revenue for me. People who would have purchased it from me are getting it somewhere else, because someone is giving away my work for free (or selling it without my permission).
Now; in the case of music, does the loss trickle down to the actual artists who created the music? VERY little, and not directly - Fewer new artists get signed and the labels have had to down-size, but its the record labels own fault for not keeping up with technology and the potential of loss they would suffer from operating in an analogue philosophy of business.
Its common sense that if someone can get the same thing you are selling for FREE, and it goes largely unchecked, they are going to take it.
I am careful enough with my own work that I don't make large digital files of my photos available (except to clients who purchase the rights) and I watermark my images that I want to display but need to make revenue from - Some work I license under Creative Commons on if I don't need to generate revenue from it.
Bottom line is that it is theft (you are depriving them of money) - they question just becomes whether or not you care if you are taking money from the RIAA... (and its not difficult to guess how most 99% of us are going to answer that question...)
Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
Make no mistake
You are mistaken. When you purchase a CD, you own the CD. There is no license, it is yours, and you can do with it almost as you wish. The only limit is placed upon it by the law, not the company that sold it to you. That company may opt to allow you to do more with it than you would normally be allowed to do, and for that they may demand that you pay for a license.
But make no mistake: when you buy a CD, it is yours and there is no license involved. Only the government, via the law can tell you what you cannot do with the CD.
Oh and bottom line, it is not theft. That doesn't make it OK, after all, murder, rape, kidnaping and assult aren't theft. But it still isn't theft.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That is actually somewhat debatable. While most societies considered the enslavement of foreigners, especially conquered people, to be normal, they considered the enslavement of their own to be a form of theft. One of the definitions of "Thou shall not steal" given in wikipedia is you shouldn't steal people.
Further, I would argue that kidnapping is the theft of people whether or not they are used as slave labor.
"When someone shoots a photograph of your house, did they steal it? It seems you don't understand your own sources."
for some reason I don't see the parallel between shooting and thieving. care to point that out please?
the significance of a signature is insignificant
How about unconscionable contract? Even non-compete clauses have an expiration date and valuable consideration for compliance.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Creating a copy does not exclude others from creating a copy, so no.
No but your appropriating the rights holder's right to distribute; better to support a good local band and go to their proformances and buy your CDs directing from the band and let the RIAA vampyres die of their own accord.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I don't steal music because if I had to buy it I wouldn't. So there was a zero sale with either my downloading it or my not buying it. :)
When you purchase a CD, you own the CD.
but not the music on the physical media, nor the right to redistribute the contents; reselling the used physical media with it's contents are a grey-area.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If you play your music loud enough for the neighbors to hear, isn't that either disturbing the peace (if they don't like it) or public performance without permission of the copyright holder (if they do)?
*Forcing people to create music without pay is not theft*
...which is why record companies do it that way ;-)
Why not just continue conventional copyright protection for commercial use -- restaurants, television commercials, and so on -- while allowing unlimited personal use? Even without non-commercial use, there's still a revenue stream, albeit a smaller one, and still an incentive for artists to create popular music.
Plus, artists will always have live events and merchandise.
Please re-read the posting; You own the physical CD, with First Purchase rights to the physical object, but not the music. You can't do with it as you wish; you can only listen to it, make a personal use physical copy, or re-sell it under the rights as a first purchaser. You cannot use it in your film production, in a commercial, or play it in a for-profit venue without additional licensing.
and it is still theft - when you take someone else's money, you are charged with larceny (which is a subset of theft)...
Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
Musician and sound tech chiming in here, I smell a troll mod coming, but here goes anyway.
Copying music without authorization from the copyright holders is theft, no doubt about it. This notion that the copyright holder is in no way deprived of property is simplistic and misguided. Music is marketed in so many different ways and none of them are benefited by illegal file sharing.
If you think managers, agents, and labels do not investigate how much a band's music has been pirated before agreeing to promote them (or continue to promote them) you're dead wrong. If you think a band has never been deprived of market positioning because of illegal file sharing you're dead wrong. There are so many aspects that have to be in good order before anyone spends the $6-digit amount it takes to get a band the necessary attention in the mainstream, and that is exactly the market that is hit hardest by piracy.
I do not defend the RIAA's draconian tactics and failure to adapt to the market, in fact I detest what they're doing to my industry with such counter-productive campaigns. But theft is still theft.
Wanna really fight back at the RIAA? Don't buy their catalog, instead get out and see some live music and buy the albums of bands that deserve to make a living off music. Unsigned bands generally get 70-85% of album sales as profit, where signed bands are lucky to see 15%. Where would you like your money to go?
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. If the lawyer knows that his client committed an offense, and pleads not guilty, under most laws and bars, that would be grounds for sanctions, if not charges, "I swear under penalty of perjury that I believe the above to be true", and disbarrment - of course, you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of lawyers who've been sanctioned for pleading not guilty for a client that they know to be guilty of the crimes as charged.
what the fuck does 'republicans' have anything to do with this?
"No but your appropriating the rights holder's right to distribute"
Uh, no. The rights holder is still fully capable of distributing their own shit. As has been said, "appropriating" the right to distribute in this case would mean that the infringer has taken the ability for the rights holder to distribute. The only thing that has been "taken away" was being the ONLY person able to distribute (aka monopoly) the media. What is this artificial monopoly on distribution called? why COPYRIGHT of course! So what has this dirty internet person done? He's infringed on a government created monopoly (that is in practice these days unlimited, despite there being a technical limit - a limit that gets longer and longer and longer)
So as we've said. He didn't steal anything. he COMMITTED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
The only University study of the issue of which I am aware, done clear back around 2001, found that at least 80% of the cases of copying music or movies were done under circumstances in which there would have been no sale anyway! (The most obvious example being a teenager who does not have the money to buy a CD, so would not have bought it anyway.)
In such cases, what money are they "stealing"? Profits that even theoretically would not exist?
In the other 20% or so of the cases, you might have a point. But in the vast majority, no.
Further, one cannot ignore the free publicity that is given to such products by the copiers and downloaders! The movie and music industries are not exactly going broke... if they were, this all might have a lot more credibility.
But what about morally? That seems pretty clear-cut - taking someone else's work without paying for it, and without permission, is stealing.
I am reminded of a proverb/quote/saying I heard once:
If I have a penny and you have a penny and we exchange pennies, now you have a penny and I have a penny. But if I have an idea and you have an idea and we exchange ideas, now you have two ideas and I have two ideas.
If you are going to discuss copyright infringement, especially as it applies to your own business, you should know the difference. Copyright infringement is NOT theft or larceny, legally OR ethically, and if you were suspected of copyright infringement, you would not be charged with either one! The law sharply distinguishes between them, and for very good reasons.
Theft deprives a property owner of the use of something they already own, whether that something is goods or money. Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of his/her property, therefore it is not theft.
Copyright infringement, in some circumstances but by no means all, merely deprives the work's creator of theoretical profits that could be made from the work. In the vast majority of cases involving downloads or copying of CDs and DVDs, even that is not strictly true according to studies... most of the time there would not have been a sale anyway, so there were no profits "stolen", even theoretically.
Further, even when there is a lost sale in the case of music or movies, the studio and artists are not being deprived of anywhere near the retail price of the product! Usually all they would have gotten anyway is a small fee or royalty which represents only a small fraction of the retail price.
As an ethical analogy, consider the case of a "mountain man" in the days of westward exploration of the United States. If you were to steal his horse, you would deprive him of the use of that horse, which he may well rely on for his very survival. Therefore horse theft (rustling) was a capital crime: you could be (and many people were) hung until dead for that offense.
On the other hand, if you could somehow clone that horse from some "borrowed" cells, the only thing you would be depriving the owner of would be a theoretical stud fee, assuming the owner put the horse out for stud in the first place.
Obviously, the nature and severity of these "crimes" are vastly different, and there is no rational basis for treating them the same way.
Selling the used physical media with its contents is perfectly OK; it isn't a grey area at all. Copyright doesn't prohibit redistributing something, it prohibits making and redistributing copies. The US has this explicitly as the first-sale doctine. Other countries have this under other names, or implicitly in their copyright law, but it's always there - copyright prohibits copying, not redistribution (hence "copy"right).
"Copying music without authorization from the copyright holders is theft, no doubt about it."
No, it isn't! It is copyright infringement! The two are legally quite distinct from one another, for good reasons! See my post just above a little bit.
I am not defending the copying of copyrighted material. But I *AM* putting it in its proper perspective. It is NOT stealing or theft. It may be wrong, but it is not theft.
Further, your defense of a by-now-almost-bankrupt business model for the music industry is pretty pathetic. Most bands today don't want to give up their rights to some studio that is willing to put up a 6-digit amount to promote the band, because they are more sophisticated today, and understand that the same studio is likely to keep the vast majority of the 8-digit profits.
On the other hand, I wholeheartedly endorse your final comment. Go live.
no doubt about it.
It helps everyone.
This notion that the copyright holder even exists is simplistic and misguided. Music is played and that is why it is created: to be heard, played and enjoyed. Getting money is a side issue and merely a bonus.
If you keep your trolling, expect to be modded troll, troll.
Which part of it is not stealing because the owner still has the item do you not understand?
Now thats a good idea, having Israel run by its real owners -the arabs ethnically cleansed by the jewish terrorists of the 1940's. The UN never owned the land and therefore had no right to decide who should have it. Hell we might even have amore peaceful world when justice is finally done.
Then again, with US politics bought and paid for by jewish interests, one wont hold ones breath.
noone forced the musicians to do anything... any true musician makes a work of art for the love of it. If they get compensated for it, all the better for them.
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Keep reading...
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
That's definition 3 of appropriate. You can argue that maybe Merriam-Webster didn't mean this particular definition when they used the word in the previous definition, but it's there and to me it seems to apply.
E pluribus unum
Well, apparently Merriam-Webster wasn't consulted when drafting the U.S. Code that covers COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
You can't steal people, as people are not ownable in societies where slavery is illegal. You can't steal things that are not the property of someone (or some legal entity that can own property). For example, you cannot steal leafs blowing down the street. You cannot steal air. You cannot steal ocean water. No one owns those things, taking possession of them is not theft.
Likewise, attempting to take possession of an 'unowned' person is not 'theft'.
You can't actually make a slave that way, even in places where slavery is legal, because people aren't magically slaves cause you say so. But it's not theft.
If you try to make the philosophical point that, in societies without slavery, free people are owned by 'themselves', well, people cannot actually be deprived of themselves, so cannot be 'stolen' from themselves. You cannot remove a person from said person.
In societies where slavery is legal, it is ipso facto not theft to own a slave, as the very concept of 'theft' requires some sort of unlawful action to occur. (Of course, you can steal slaves from other people, but that is not slavery being theft.)
This is not to imply that slavery is some morally okay thing, but every immoral/illegal action is not the same as theft, despite what libertarian silly people seem to think. Theft requires depriving the correct owner of the property in some manner.
Slavery is goddamn kidnapping compounded by assault. Or, if you prefer, 'false imprisonment'. It ain't 'theft'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I think that the point the RIAA is trying to make is that by depriving them of the money they would have made from selling the CD to you, you're in essence stealing it.
This may be their point, but has nothing to do with mine. Frankly, I find the actions of the RIAA to be despicable, and I can only hope that eventually they'll get called out for them in a court of law - in a way that sticks.
On one hand, I agree that music "sharing" is wrong - on the other hand, if downloading a few 1 dollar songs off the internet is just wrong in a petty sort of way, then the practices of the RIAA are inhuman and despicable
100% agreed.
Stealing from the RIAA is wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, doing business with them is wrong as well.
Also agreed. And I think CC music, or other commercial paths (pay for download direct from web site is my favorite method) is a great way to do it.
But I can't stand the attitude that says, "I'm doing this to stick it to the RIAA" -- because it just doesn't sink in that sharing of RIAA-company owned music proves and supports the RIAA's case that "piracy" is the cause of their woes.
If I want something that is not free, I pay for it. If I don't want it, I do not. If I want it, but do not think it is worth the price (OFTEN the case with modern music from RIAA companies), then I do without. You, I have no doubt, will continue to come up with your justifications to convince yourself that taking things (even copies of things) that you have not paid for, and that the creator reasonably expects compension for, is perfectly OK.
Yep, you forbidding me from freely sharing my knowledge with Bob is the worst kind of intellectual slavery.
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"? Note that I don't advocate forbidding sharing of any knowledge. I think software patents are crap too. Both of which are besides the point: music is a tangible product of a creative process. Just because you can make a copy of it without depriving the creator (or the persons designated by the creator) of his copy doesn't mean that you're not . If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for? And by what right do you do that? (There, I avoided the nasty 'stealing' word that seems to touch so many raw nerves in this thread.)
Copying something is very different from taking something.
Playing semantics games doesn't make the point invalid. If what they were selling was the bits that the music is made of, I would agree. You obviously are not paying for those bits -- you're paying for the creator's work, time, and effort.
I get it. I really do. You feel that the artist does not have the right to charge for the work in the first place - that any intellectual creation (or mostly intellectual) cannot by definition be owned by anyone.
To an extent, I even agree. Anything that is /purely intellectual/ should not be 'ownable'; such only hurts society as a whole, and retards progress. But music is not purely intellectual. Even though there is no physical product, a lot of time and physical effort go into creating it. (Ever watched a band perform or record? Not a trivial activity.).
My own moral code calls it stealing - the semantics of whether something is physically lost are irrelevant to me. There are a minority who truly feel as you do, and I can't fault that though I also can't wholly agree with it.
And then there are a whole lot more who use variations on that theme as their excuse for not wanting to pay for something with real value. (by the kneejerk reactions, I figure about 4 of the latter replied to my post, and about 2 of the former. )
No, it isn't. Unless one were to physically "take" a physical thing, that thing has not been stolen. Get it? The thing is still in the possession of it's owner. Get it?
Semantics. If you want something, and it has a monetary price, but you do not pay that price and instead take it for free (or even take a copy of it for free), then what do you call it if not stealing?
At my wedding, the photographer took a ton of pictures, then wanted me to pay for the ones I selected even though they were in digital form. Was I paying for the bits, or was I paying for his time and skill? If I chose to break into his web site and make copies of the photos instead of paying, what is that if not stealing?
The artist (or his designate) is not charging you for 1s and 0s. I should think that is obvious. He is charging for the time, effort, energy, and skill that went into creating the product. If you choose to take the product of his effort but not pay for it, not to pay for that, what do you call it?
If it was done to you, would you still call it the same thing?
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted.
A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Flimsy stuff.
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average over $20 each. The consumer really never had any choice as prices were essentially being set by a cabal of large corporations. Sure, the consumer could hear music for free over ad-supported radio, but the record companies (and occasionally artists) got a cut from that, too. Existing IP law conveniently played nice with this model, since you had to buy a piece of plastic to choose when to play it for yourself or else listen to whatever the radio station decided to play - a process heavily and often illegally influenced by the corporations. (Perhaps you've never heard of payola?) The great thing was, plastic wore out fairly quickly so you would have to buy another. Magnetic tape media was even more unreliable but much more convenient - essentially a wash. When DAT reared it's ugly head, the music industry, not the market, had it killed in congress, since they were afraid people could make infinite perfect copies and kill the golden goose.
Then came the internet and this fear suddenly became reality: instant worldwide distribution with virtually zero production cost. They greedily tried to keep the juice flowing by blocking any effort to sell digital files over the net, but existing IP and copyright law did not play well with the new model. Naturally, piracy was rampant since the average consumer knew a better deal when they saw one and Napster was king. Then they managed to co-opt Napster but I-tunes finally set the standard by negotiating a price of a dollar a track. Please take note that this was a far worse deal for the consumer than a traditional CD, since they didn't even get their piece of plastic just a DRM-laden string of electronic bits kept on as tight a leash as possible. Pent up demand meant sales soared regardless, but so did piracy, which you correctly point out is a better deal for the consumer. However, the consumer finally gets to decide where and when to listen to music - sort of like self-programmed radio without the ads.
Copyright law says the record companies get exclusive rights to sell their pieces of plastic (or digital bits) for a hundred years - a number dreamed up by big corporations with no regard for the public interest. Compare this to patents for pharmaceuticals. Hundreds of millions of R&D dollars, rigorous government mandated and supervised testing and an end-product which often saves lives. For all this effort they get 20 years of exclusive rights, (provided the drug proves safe AND effective, both of which have to be scientifically proven prior to marketing) whereas any moron who pens a ditty basically gets automatic copyright (as per the Berne convention) for a century (no thanks to Sonny Bono). Clearly the interests of the general public got bypassed when it comes to modern copyright law.
It's not that whole concept if IP and copyright law is wrong, merely that it's far too heavily skewed against the consumer and was written without taking into account the realities of the digital age. Why should record companies continue to exist in their current form? Their core business of selling pieces of plastic is in serious trouble because the consumer sees no value in participating in that market. Those days are gone for good. Think: who still uses telegraph? If nobody wants records, why do we need a record industry? Recording and promotion; perhaps, but not so much for records or CD's. The new market is all digital, where consumers can get what they want instantly and on impulse. Nobody needs music to survive - it's a luxury. What will earn record
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Copyright infringement is theft.
However, it is theft of services, not of goods.
It's very much like walking into a theater and watching a movie without buying a ticket.
You should read the article Did Hans Reiser's lawyer know he was guilty? and all of the comments, to get a more realistic perspective.
Ah, yes. "Information wants to be free"?
Information will be free, despite everyone's best efforts, and it is on the whole detrimental to attempt to prevent this.
If something is not worth paying for, what makes it worth taking without paying for?
Nothing has been taken. A copy has been produced.
And by what right do you do that?
By what right do you forbid that? The copyright holder is not (necessarily) aware of the interaction, so by what right can they interfere? It doesn't affect them any more than going with a competitor would.
You obviously are not paying for those bits -- you're paying for the creator's work, time, and effort.
So go to a concert or buy mugs and T-shirts or something.
I get it. I really do. You feel that the artist does not have the right to charge for the work in the first place
Eh, sure they do. They just shouldn't be able to restrict what I can do with the work.
To an extent, I even agree. Anything that is /purely intellectual/ should not be 'ownable'; such only hurts society as a whole, and retards progress. But music is not purely intellectual. Even though there is no physical product, a lot of time and physical effort go into creating it.
Nothing is "purely intellectual" by that standard.
My own moral code calls it stealing - the semantics of whether something is physically lost are irrelevant to me.
So the only way for you to tell when I "steal" something from you is for you to spy on me and see what I have, rather than counting what you have. Call it "wrong" if you want, but you might want to consult a dictionary.
Copyright infringement is theft.
However, it is theft of services, not of goods.
It's very much like walking into a theater and watching a movie without buying a ticket.
Right, because downloading something from a random stranger puts a load on the RIAA's servers, and maybe interferes with them providing downloads to people who pay them...
I am pointing out that copyright infringement, both ethically and legally, is quite distinct from the concept of theft!
Please, go back up to the beginning and read more of this thread. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Period. I am not saying that it is right, but it is not theft, and there are a number of very good reasons (both legal and ethical) for saying so! Try to get educated on this issue, dontmakemethink, before assuming things that ain't so.
They are no better than communists.
One could argue that the RIAA is a lot worse than the Communists were. Consider the Soviet Union: The Communists were voted out of power despite all the vote rigging that the party in power always does everywhere, and they accepted the vote. This wasn't a fluke; it has happened in most of the countries that had Communist governments. The RIAA and MPAA were never elected to their positions, and we can't vote them out. They'll be around longer than any Communist government, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. They are private corporations created by other private corporations to "coordinate" their business so that no real market could develop. Judicious bribery, uh, I mean campaign contributions, led to the draconian copyright laws that helped prevent a market in music or movies.
Maybe the move to the Internet will end this whole centrally-controlled system. Or maybe they'll find a way to bring it under control. Stay tuned ...
Don't forget, through the DMCA the "central authority" at the RIAA issues forth the command "thou shalt build X device X way, or not at all".
A command economy under the command of one corporation is no different then a command economy under the control of an authoritarian government.
Oh wait, it's worse, because, in this case, they own the media, and we're still "free" because we elect people who will loyally stand by proclaiming every day activities "theft"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I obviously can't say what he'll do once in office but his team has pretty much been called...
I know what he'll do.
he'll get right into that office near the boiler and grumble about his stapler.
Seriously, the guy is at the third tier!
My mother is a claims adjuster for a subsection of healthcare coverage, maybe I should burst into her room and start kicking her all over the place because no insurance company will cover my chronic condition?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'll go the "Anonymous Coward" route...
My fiance works for a music distributor. They make an everyday wage and they're about to layoff 400+ people from their offices. Oh yeah, my fiance also has Multiple Sclerosis. Her MASSIVE medical expenses are paid for through health insurance provided by her company, which she will lose if she gets laid off.
So...THANK YOU for stealing music!!!
I'm sorry, but maybe you should be speaking to people and campaigning for healthcare reform and universal healthcare. (for my part, I graduated college into this recession, have no job, and am also uninsurable at any price. I'm quickly plummeting toward the precipice with 2k/mo in Rx. )
If it wasn't the downturn or the pirates it would be something else, but your husband would have eventually lost his job (thus his insurance), and from there it's a quick drop into disability.
The injustice here is not your husband's upper management making horrible decisions, then waging a war against an entire generation which is supposed to be their target audience.
The injustice here is that you both have been shackled to a job because of medical care.
As for my side.. Music was once my escape. I would plug in, put the phones on, and just relax at the end of a long and taxing day. It was the one thing I considered sacred in life. The lawsuits from your husband's company wiped all that away and made every melody into the horrific reminder of corporate greed and corruption. Now I can't listen to an english song anymore because I know it was the american music industry which strangled the entire tech sector.
Little factoid:
DMCA was passed in '98, but not scheduled to take effect for two years.
What happened two years later? What sector is now reduced to doing nothing but hollywood's bidding. Why is steve jobs dragging his feet with blu-ray again?
I'm sorry but there's only one thing which takes my mind off the chronic pain i experience right now, and that's the fact that your pet industry put me there by killing off every tech business model which their luddite staff didn't agree with.
Had these same people had their way back at the turn of the twentieth century your husband wouldn't have been working there anyway. They don't appreciate the repeated lessons of history, however, and killed off my jobs before they were born.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
s/I does/It does... NEVER giving: EVER giving... etc.
late. tired.
Economically, there is no difference.
Movies and songs both have close to zero marginal costs when you up the number served by one. Me walking into a theatre unawares to watch a movie raises the box office's costs zilch, just as if I were to pirate a song.
Also, in both cases, my utility goes up, because I'm enjoying the service. However, since I haven't paid for it like I was supposed to, my consumer surplus goes up. My marginal utility will still go down however, and whatever satisfaction I got by cheating is that much less MU that I will seek to derive from a paid action.
By itself, then, piracy causes a loss to the industry, either directly by making them lose out on revenue you would have otherwise paid, or generally though the loss of demand that was satiated by the piracy.
The whole crux is that you become a "free rider", and rampant piracy turns media from a private good into a public good, with pirates becoming intrusive "free riders", much like a pristine beach that has been polluted and littered by offenders that get off scot free, or a river that gets ruined by companies that don't have to pay for the water they waste.
Nope, they won't quit.
Yes, the RIAA is ridiculous. Yes, they treat humans like scum. Yes, they continuously do things which makes our hair stand on end. Yes, they will continue to do their best to create new, even more idiotic laws.
And that's their job. As long as they keep getting paid by the industry, they will keep standing there as The Bad Guys To Hate. Instead of, say, the industry responsible for this.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
...is this about file-sharing? Are the 'Does' P2P network users?
Not to sell him out, but to admit, privately or non-committally, that you're pretty convinced this guy is guilty, or if not that, then many of your clients are most likely guilty.
Don't forget that the RIAA aren't the only aggressors in this ongoing feud. There are still people out there unlawfully using what they risked their precious capital to pay for.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted. A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Well spoken. Indeed, very few of us keep receiving payments for a hundred years after our work has been completed. Indeed, very few of us are around a hundred years after our work has been completed. The revenue from most of the copyrights of course goes to a few sociopathic corporations with perpetual life.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Don't forget that the RIAA aren't the only aggressors in this ongoing feud.
Yes. There's the MPAA too.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the issue is not about whether copyright should exist at all but rather how best to stimulate creativity to promote the public good rather than the interests of corporations
In order to arrive at such a radical conclusion, you must have actually gone back and read the United States Constitution.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Using that same argument stealing cable TV is not a crime.
I may still have my wallet, but I no longer have the paper or metal tokens that represent the abstract idea of money [that I could exchange for something]; So you have stolen something: the tokens - I have been deprived of them.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
I point out to you that the oldest traditional interpretations by a legal system of one of the ten commandments is that you shouldn't steal people. You respond by repeating your own logical arguments that unowned people can't be stolen. You can argue all you want that it shouldn't be classified as theft but to argue that it is impossible to be classified as theft is flying in the face of historical precedence.
A lot of time and effort go into creating mathematics also. Yet, it is not copyrighted. A lot of time and effort go into designing and building a house. Yet the bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. don't keep receiving payments for a hundred years after their work has been completed.
Well spoken. Indeed, very few of us keep receiving payments for a hundred years after our work has been completed. Indeed, very few of us are around a hundred years after our work has been completed. The revenue from most of the copyrights of course goes to a few sociopathic corporations with perpetual life.
Agreed. The notion of copyright as it is today - extending far beyond even the lifetime of the original creator - is ridiculous.
So the only way for you to tell when I "steal" something from you is for you to spy on me and see what I have, rather than counting what you have. Call it "wrong" if you want, but you might want to consult a dictionary.
When did I say that? For that matter, when did I even talk about punishment, tracking down who is doing it, etc? When I said "my own moral code calls it stealing" that doesn't meant that I think we should be hunting down the bastards and throwing them in jail. It just means I think of them as thieves and will continue to call them such.
And the people who pirate their stuff. Don't forget them. Without their actions, this mess could be resolved.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
This is the second time in the past couple of days that my jaw dropped at the beauty of one of your turns-of-phrase (the other was during your defence of the USA as a democracy). I hope that there is a one-to-one correspondence between your mood and the beauty of your compact expressions, and that events in your democracy keep you happy for the next many months.
Hmmm. Public performance is when people have been invited to be entertained. Playing music loud enough for people to hear is just refusing to exclude them from enjoyment of the downloaded music...
sudo mount --milk --sugar