As for theft -- it is not theft in the traditional sense.
Not in the sense that I walk away with a physical thing, as I would had I stolen a car. But the legal definition of theft does cover more ambiguous methods of acquiring something without paying for it.
If you don't accept them, you can either (1) not purchase the work and not procure it in any fashion, or (2) take the civil disobedience route, buy one, publicly infringe on it, and summon and surrender to the authorities to arrest and fine/imprison you, or (3) go write your politicians and do something constructive about it. Otherwise, you're no better than an oathbreaker.
Exactly. 100%. This is the way the system was designed to work. And it does. : )
Why shouldn't the RIAA be able to protect its property? I'd argue that it's not internet posing the problem - it's the entitlement mentality of those who use the internet to trade the RIAA's property with impunity (for now). After all is said and done, it results in a type of welfare - in the form of music - to those who feel that they're entitled to get something for nothing.
My justification was that if the record companies wanted to view their product as IP, then the physical medium was irrelevant, and having "licensed" vast amounts of music over the years, I was still entitled to those albums, both ethically and legally.
I would consider this a reasonable argument.
Yet as much as I tried, I just couldn't see it as stealing when I started downloadng albums I'd never purchased. Why not? Because, having gone about seven years without purchasing any new music, I knew with certainty that my downloading something wasn't going to result in any lost revenues.
What leads you to believe this? What about production, distribution, and promotion?
And as the shady contractual doings of the record companies became common knowledge, I had to admit that I felt absolutely no moral conflict in grabbing whatever music I felt like, knowing that I was expected to pay ~$15 to the record company and less than $1 to the artist (and about as much to the retailer).
And this is going to accomplish....?
Personally, I'd rather download only music for which I could pay a *reasonable* amount directly to the band, or free-as-in-beer music.
An equally important question: Why aren't bands making their music available so that they can accommodate this?
Okay, so this isn't nearly as coherent, concise or persuasive as I'd hoped, and is undoubtedly redundant, but dammit, it's how I feel. I believe that if Zappa were still around, he'd be fine with my having almost his entire collected works even though I've only spent about $75 retail on his stuff over the years.
Are you saying that you've paid for everything of Zappa's that you now have?
That's all well and good...but what are you (or better, what are people) most likely going to do until one of these systems exist? Won't this entitlement mentality continue? And if it does, where does the right to this entitlement come from?
I still don't understand where this entitlement to digital media - to what is essentially someone else's property, comes from. I'm open to explanations, though (and please...it would be much appreciated if the the self-aggrandizing rationalization were kept to a minimum).
Re:Fortunately, we are a nation of laws, not men
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Seems that lately, we have been a nation of laws, and men who ignore them.
Microsoft decided that they were going into a GUI environment, they devoted a huge amount of resources to the problem coming out with an extremely slick product compared to the Linux desktop that still frequently looks and feels like the product of a hobbyist.
I have to agree. I recognize that the people on the KOffice development team, for example, put a LOT of effort into the KOffice suite, but spit and polish do make a difference. And, there are some apps that, while having immense potential, are crippled by some arcane interface conventions. Dia comes to mind. So, hats off to the open source developers - just remember, that if the goal is to advance the cause of open source software, you have to attract users. In order to attract users, you have to pay attention to issues related involving usability. Simply being able to "use" an app isn't enough - when using it feels like you're riding in a well-engineered car, then you know you're on the right track.
When is the US going to get it's head out of it's sphincter...
As soon as citizens realize that being able to campaign for office has nothing to do with an elected representative's ability (or desire) to address the needs of his/her electorate.
Check this out. This FAQ regarding Palladium, in addition to the endless quest to engage in unreasonable searches (a al Carnivore and its brethren), are going to make for some interesting times. It gives rise to what I think is an important question - what happens when one or more private entities act in consort with a government to subvert the premises on which a society is founded?
They have almost nothing to offer over what the various P2P networks give you for free.
I think this should have read, "They have almost nothing to offer over what the various P2P networks give you illegally, but for free."
Re:Cost of media vs. "cost" of piracy
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
There are as many different reasons as there are copiers. You could certainly argue against any of the reasons, but to say that you don't understand the reasoning would be a serious insult to your intellect.
These are all ways that people rationalize their behavior so that they can avoid dealing with the fact that it's ultimately wrong. So, my lack of understanding comes not from where their reasons come from, or how varied they are, but why there is an expectation that their reasoning makes it right.
I've heard the "no one is being hurt" argument before. I don't buy it, because it only addresses one side of the equiation. The other side, is that which deals with the value derived from the use of the illegally copied material. It is value derived, but not paid for, and that, in my opinion, makes it wrong. It's perhaps more commonly referred to as "getting something for nothing."
Yeah, except the current "market dynamics" are pushing the great unwashed (wrongly) toward what they perceive to be an alternative: MP3 downloads.
No, this is a choice being made by the same people whining about the RIAA. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to download MP3 files.
As for the FTC not regulating because it's a diversion, I read a piece in BusinessWeek today about the possibility of Nestlé chocolate company buying Hershey's.
Well, there are certainly some potential anti-trust issues at stake here. But, since the RIAA is an association which represents several competing entities, they're quite obviously not subject to the same rules.
Re:usability and Linux for sissies
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You make some very good points. But I don't think it has to involve removing choice, so much as it should make some of them less obvious. This is kind of how Apple handled it with OSX. Very pretty and functional interface, but if you really want to get your hands dirty, you can easily go for it.
This would seem to lend further support for my point. The FTC probably won't do anything serious, because it probably realizes that the best and most effective way to solve this problem is through normal market dynamics. Entertainment isn't like pharmaceuticals, automobiles, or medical care, where people's lives depend on fairness and accuracy. Entertainment is a diversion, and there are substitutions (even less costly ones) that are readily available. What we need is not FTC involvement, but for consumers to get off their lazy butts, break their crack addiction, and make the market work.
Yeah, just what we need...more government involvement. Just because the RIAA charges outlandish prices for material of questionable quality doesn't justify stealing what one doesn't feel like paying for. Just break the crack habit, and stop STOP BUYING THE FREAKING CDS!!!! How hard *is* that?
First and foremost, we have to remember that this is a government venture. What that means is that you have to lower your expections by about 60 IQ points. I theorize that it might go something like this:
Step 1: Acquire, pay for, and install thousands of new, electronic voting machines. Ignore the obvious, like the inability to audit the manner in which votes are tallied and reported by the software.
Step 2: Experience initial problems during a "demo day" held at some point before the election. Disregard the notion that this may very well be the beginning of a very bumby road.
Step 3: Use the newly-acquired machines during the next election, experience more problems, and be sued by a public interest group questioning the results, and demanding a detailed audit.
Step 4: Be dissed by the company that manufactured the machines, who claims that disclosing the process by which votes are tallied and reported would result in disclosure of proprietary trade secrets.
Step 5: Be backed into a corner. Wonder why no one took this issue seriously during the initial planning.
Step 6: Scrap all 19,000 voting machines, kissing the $millions they cost, goodbye. Replace them with machines from a company with a more open disclosure policy.
Step 7: Lather, Rinse....but hopefully, avoid repeating the same sordid tale over again.
President can make a mockery of the legal system - a system which serves as the foundation for our government, spawn a generation of kids who think that oral sex isn't sex, and not but three years later be entertaining contract offers that would make him the highest paid talkshow host in the history of television, this shouldn't surprise anyone. There's far too little accountability, and with respect to Clinton, absolutely no sense of shame.
It's great that you pay for what you have, but this will do nothing to solve the problem. The RIAA isn't going to change unless it has to, and the only way this will happen is to present the message in a format it can easily understand: no change, no money. Every time someone forks over their hard-earned money, they are providing the means that enable the RIAA to continue its assault on consumers of digital entertainment.
What more of a paper tiger than a spineless group of consumers who incessantly whine and moan about the RIAA, steal its music (justified, they say, by the RIAA's practices), and then (if you believe the surveys) go out and buy it anyway? (And what about those steal the content and DON'T buy the CDs? - according to the article, they could account for at least 19% of those surveyed).
Re:Cost of media vs. "cost" of piracy
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
You make a very good point. My position on this mainly deals with people who knowingly and willfully participate in the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material. Your point also lends support to my conention that "things will only get worse" if the current trend continues. I personally don't see anything wrong with making a backup copy, or media/time shifting - these should be liberties that consumers are permitted to exercise. However, in its zeal to stop people who steal and illegally distribute content, a legitimate consumer may now have to face restrictions that make this practice (technically) illegal. It sounds like you might agree that no one wins in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
As for theft -- it is not theft in the traditional sense.
Not in the sense that I walk away with a physical thing, as I would had I stolen a car. But the legal definition of theft does cover more ambiguous methods of acquiring something without paying for it.
If you don't accept them, you can either (1) not purchase the work and not procure it in any fashion, or (2) take the civil disobedience route, buy one, publicly infringe on it, and summon and surrender to the authorities to arrest and fine/imprison you, or (3) go write your politicians and do something constructive about it. Otherwise, you're no better than an oathbreaker.
Exactly. 100%. This is the way the system was designed to work. And it does. : )
Why shouldn't the RIAA be able to protect its property? I'd argue that it's not internet posing the problem - it's the entitlement mentality of those who use the internet to trade the RIAA's property with impunity (for now). After all is said and done, it results in a type of welfare - in the form of music - to those who feel that they're entitled to get something for nothing.
My justification was that if the record companies wanted to view their product as IP, then the physical medium was irrelevant, and having "licensed" vast amounts of music over the years, I was still entitled to those albums, both ethically and legally.
I would consider this a reasonable argument.
Yet as much as I tried, I just couldn't see it as stealing when I started downloadng albums I'd never purchased. Why not? Because, having gone about seven years without purchasing any new music, I knew with certainty that my downloading something wasn't going to result in any lost revenues.
What leads you to believe this? What about production, distribution, and promotion?
And as the shady contractual doings of the record companies became common knowledge, I had to admit that I felt absolutely no moral conflict in grabbing whatever music I felt like, knowing that I was expected to pay ~$15 to the record company and less than $1 to the artist (and about as much to the retailer).
And this is going to accomplish....?
Personally, I'd rather download only music for which I could pay a *reasonable* amount directly to the band, or free-as-in-beer music.
An equally important question: Why aren't bands making their music available so that they can accommodate this?
Okay, so this isn't nearly as coherent, concise or persuasive as I'd hoped, and is undoubtedly redundant, but dammit, it's how I feel. I believe that if Zappa were still around, he'd be fine with my having almost his entire collected works even though I've only spent about $75 retail on his stuff over the years.
Are you saying that you've paid for everything of Zappa's that you now have?
That's all well and good...but what are you (or better, what are people) most likely going to do until one of these systems exist? Won't this entitlement mentality continue? And if it does, where does the right to this entitlement come from?
I still don't understand where this entitlement to digital media - to what is essentially someone else's property, comes from. I'm open to explanations, though (and please...it would be much appreciated if the the self-aggrandizing rationalization were kept to a minimum).
Seems that lately, we have been a nation of laws, and men who ignore them.
Microsoft decided that they were going into a GUI environment, they devoted a huge amount of resources to the problem coming out with an extremely slick product compared to the Linux desktop that still frequently looks and feels like the product of a hobbyist.
I have to agree. I recognize that the people on the KOffice development team, for example, put a LOT of effort into the KOffice suite, but spit and polish do make a difference. And, there are some apps that, while having immense potential, are crippled by some arcane interface conventions. Dia comes to mind. So, hats off to the open source developers - just remember, that if the goal is to advance the cause of open source software, you have to attract users. In order to attract users, you have to pay attention to issues related involving usability. Simply being able to "use" an app isn't enough - when using it feels like you're riding in a well-engineered car, then you know you're on the right track.
When is the US going to get it's head out of it's sphincter...
As soon as citizens realize that being able to campaign for office has nothing to do with an elected representative's ability (or desire) to address the needs of his/her electorate.
Check this out. This FAQ regarding Palladium, in addition to the endless quest to engage in unreasonable searches (a al Carnivore and its brethren), are going to make for some interesting times. It gives rise to what I think is an important question - what happens when one or more private entities act in consort with a government to subvert the premises on which a society is founded?
Hmmm...yes...and we could call it the Matrix.
They have almost nothing to offer over what the various P2P networks give you for free.
I think this should have read, "They have almost nothing to offer over what the various P2P networks give you illegally, but for free."
There are as many different reasons as there are copiers. You could certainly argue against any of the reasons, but to say that you don't understand the reasoning would be a serious insult to your intellect.
These are all ways that people rationalize their behavior so that they can avoid dealing with the fact that it's ultimately wrong. So, my lack of understanding comes not from where their reasons come from, or how varied they are, but why there is an expectation that their reasoning makes it right.
I've heard the "no one is being hurt" argument before. I don't buy it, because it only addresses one side of the equiation. The other side, is that which deals with the value derived from the use of the illegally copied material. It is value derived, but not paid for, and that, in my opinion, makes it wrong. It's perhaps more commonly referred to as "getting something for nothing."
Yeah, except the current "market dynamics" are pushing the great unwashed (wrongly) toward what they perceive to be an alternative: MP3 downloads.
No, this is a choice being made by the same people whining about the RIAA. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to download MP3 files.
As for the FTC not regulating because it's a diversion, I read a piece in BusinessWeek today about the possibility of Nestlé chocolate company buying Hershey's.
Well, there are certainly some potential anti-trust issues at stake here. But, since the RIAA is an association which represents several competing entities, they're quite obviously not subject to the same rules.
You make some very good points. But I don't think it has to involve removing choice, so much as it should make some of them less obvious. This is kind of how Apple handled it with OSX. Very pretty and functional interface, but if you really want to get your hands dirty, you can easily go for it.
Do you really think the contrived crap promoted by the RIAA constitutes culture??? Please.
This would seem to lend further support for my point. The FTC probably won't do anything serious, because it probably realizes that the best and most effective way to solve this problem is through normal market dynamics. Entertainment isn't like pharmaceuticals, automobiles, or medical care, where people's lives depend on fairness and accuracy. Entertainment is a diversion, and there are substitutions (even less costly ones) that are readily available. What we need is not FTC involvement, but for consumers to get off their lazy butts, break their crack addiction, and make the market work.
Yeah, just what we need...more government involvement. Just because the RIAA charges outlandish prices for material of questionable quality doesn't justify stealing what one doesn't feel like paying for. Just break the crack habit, and stop STOP BUYING THE FREAKING CDS!!!! How hard *is* that?
Easy indeed. I'm no fan of Bush, either.
First and foremost, we have to remember that this is a government venture. What that means is that you have to lower your expections by about 60 IQ points. I theorize that it might go something like this:
Step 1: Acquire, pay for, and install thousands of new, electronic voting machines. Ignore the obvious, like the inability to audit the manner in which votes are tallied and reported by the software.
Step 2: Experience initial problems during a "demo day" held at some point before the election. Disregard the notion that this may very well be the beginning of a very bumby road.
Step 3: Use the newly-acquired machines during the next election, experience more problems, and be sued by a public interest group questioning the results, and demanding a detailed audit.
Step 4: Be dissed by the company that manufactured the machines, who claims that disclosing the process by which votes are tallied and reported would result in disclosure of proprietary trade secrets.
Step 5: Be backed into a corner. Wonder why no one took this issue seriously during the initial planning.
Step 6: Scrap all 19,000 voting machines, kissing the $millions they cost, goodbye. Replace them with machines from a company with a more open disclosure policy.
Step 7: Lather, Rinse....but hopefully, avoid repeating the same sordid tale over again.
Thanks for the clarification. : )
President can make a mockery of the legal system - a system which serves as the foundation for our government, spawn a generation of kids who think that oral sex isn't sex, and not but three years later be entertaining contract offers that would make him the highest paid talkshow host in the history of television, this shouldn't surprise anyone. There's far too little accountability, and with respect to Clinton, absolutely no sense of shame.
It's great that you pay for what you have, but this will do nothing to solve the problem. The RIAA isn't going to change unless it has to, and the only way this will happen is to present the message in a format it can easily understand: no change, no money. Every time someone forks over their hard-earned money, they are providing the means that enable the RIAA to continue its assault on consumers of digital entertainment.
What more of a paper tiger than a spineless group of consumers who incessantly whine and moan about the RIAA, steal its music (justified, they say, by the RIAA's practices), and then (if you believe the surveys) go out and buy it anyway? (And what about those steal the content and DON'T buy the CDs? - according to the article, they could account for at least 19% of those surveyed).
You make a very good point. My position on this mainly deals with people who knowingly and willfully participate in the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material. Your point also lends support to my conention that "things will only get worse" if the current trend continues. I personally don't see anything wrong with making a backup copy, or media/time shifting - these should be liberties that consumers are permitted to exercise. However, in its zeal to stop people who steal and illegally distribute content, a legitimate consumer may now have to face restrictions that make this practice (technically) illegal. It sounds like you might agree that no one wins in this case.