Nice to hear from a developer who isn't all 'death to free-loaders!!!!' and 'piracy is theft'. As someone who would rather wipe their arse with copyright law than take notice of it I get tired of people who will threaten me for not abiding by a contract I didn't sign. Especially when they start with the whole infringement = theft stuff, whether I was going to give them money or not before I certainly am not after they outright lie to me.
I can certainly understand a fear of not getting paid and am quite sympathetic to that fear when the reason for not getting paid is likely to be peoples ignorance in not supporting something they actually want just because it is free, as a charity worker I am very sympathetic in that regard.
Copyright has little to do with enabling people to pay for stuff they want to support and I would argue that it has the opposite effect of making people more ignorant of the power their money has by giving them less control over it. If you can impress on people that the worth of your work is measured by what you would need to continue working then you stand more chance of getting what you deserve than if they think your work is worth the price of a CD. The only ones who should be worried sans copyright are those who don't have a competitive product, with competitive being measured by quality rather than quantity, and those who can't be competitive because they want more than they need. The next biggest reason people might have for not giving you money if not by copyright is, in my view, ignorance caused by the unnecessary enforcement of copyright in the first place.
To give an example, recording artists use demo tapes to get known by record companies in order to get a contract and even stand any chance of making money from selling records. Imagine taking the effort put into making a demo tape and using that effort as an invitation for people who are interested to fund further work. There are already fan investment schemes going on for music artists along similar lines and considering the shaft that moderately successful artists have gotten from the music industry over the years I can only imagine it is the rich and/or ignorant who think the current way is better.
Um, copyright defines who the owner is. An artist's song is under copyright, they OWN the song. That's what having rights to it means. You score 0, because you're making things up to rationalize theft.
No, copyright grants an author certain rights to that work. They do not own the song any more or less than they did before copyright, as they do not own any copies that are made of those songs.
You can infringe upon the rights granted by copyright but that is not theft. The closest you can come to stealing their ownership of the song is plagiarism as they own the title of original author.
The right of title ownership comes because there can only be one original author, as the rights of physical property ownership comes because only one person can possess property at the same time.
The right to produce copies of the song is granted to provide a monopoly, the fact that anyone can copy the song, while infringing upon copyright, disproves any notion of ownership. You don't own the song, you own the rights granted to you by copyright.
Ofc, you can contest that by shouting 'Intellectual Property!' very loudly but you are trying to cover up thousands of years of the established concept of property.
Yet the law says both definitions are one in the same. And that makes sense. If you break my window, you've not taken anything from me, yet you've deprived me of something and are liable for the value of the window.
Smashing a window isn't theft, it is destruction of property. Copying a song isn't destruction of property. The closest I can get to your argument is 'copying a song harms my monopoly on the distribution of that song, as granted by copyright' which is a fair point but the whole point of this argument is whether copyright should hold. The fact that a right granted by copyright is harmed isn't a good argument for copyright as one possible solution to that problem is to abolish copyright.
Its the same thing; the song has value (which is why we HAVE copyright to begin with; we reconize the VALUE in art and are trying to encourage artists to create it) and you've deprived the owner the value of it. You've stolen his time which he invested in the song.
More of the same, find a new argument or come up with something new to make this one work.
Oh shut up. Go research some history, and see what artists were doing PRIOR to copyright laws. Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean what I said isn't true, and that you can dismiss it out of hand. God I hate people like... get off your ass and DO YOU'RE OWN FUCKING RESEARCH. You're willfully ignornant.
I should research to back up your argument? Sounds like a wild goose chase, I think I'll pass.
I love when people stop talking about the argument and say "oh fallacy omgomgmogm11!1." Its shows they have no point. Your reasoning is this "A implies B but B doesn't necessarly imply A therefore B doesn't imply A." Again, please go read some books, especially those written by the Founders, in addition to the cherry picked readings you've done to back your point. People love to pick and chose pieces of text that back them up, even though the whole of it wouldn't.
While I hate people shouting fallacy! fallacy! at the wrong time as much as the next person, I didn't just point out your fallacy I also explained how it was relevant. Telling me to read more books doesn't help much, if you got how you are by reading more books you're liable to make me book shy. Lemme dig out your original statement again:
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
Quite frankly, I can't say anything that makes that quote lo
No, merely equal and objective reasoning. This has nothing to do with the slippery slope..
I am not against what you say because I am worried it will be a precursor to an infringement on my own liberty. I am against what you say because it is an infringement on my own liberty.
My liberty does not consist only of that which I want to do but that which I should be able to do. Banning me from doing something is an infringement on my liberty whether I am likely to do it or not.
My point exactly, hence disorder instead of illness. Disorder meaning something that is not of the norm, much like deviant.
As normal is merely a reference to social norm, it is bound to change as society does. As is that which is not normal. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point in history it was more abnormal to have sex over 60 than under 16.
because of the inherent danger involved in adults who sexualize children.
And when you can prove that, you'd have a point.
There's no question here, a child's image was literally used in pornographic material, this isn't like the lolicon manga issue.
Depends why child pornography is illegal, most people I have heard say it is because it cannot exist without a child having been abused. That isn't the case here.
An actual real child's picture was used for this pornographic fantasy... the man chose a specific child to use for this example. There is malicious intent in that behavior.
Uh, no. Unless you can prove that the guy is incapable of having a fantasy without carrying it out then you are only guessing at the malicious intent. As someone who has plenty of fantasies that he'd never consider going through with (as a masochist I'd not last long if I did..) I am quite resolute that fantasy != intent. If we used your logic for a pretty average guy then you'd have to lock him up for intending to rape every other female he lays eyes on. As well, I would probably be in a mental institution to stop myself committing suicide.
Good points, though I would like to point out that sexual deviation could be considered a disorder rather than an illness. To decide for someone else how they should be when there is no inherent harm in them being that way has rarely gone down well in history.
So, how is the anti-liberty movement going? What's that? You're only after the bad people? Tell you what, you can go after the bad people if I can choose who they are.
There are ground rules set for what you're allowed to do with images of children, and the person here simply violated them.
I think the issue here is that the 'ground rules' are based on selective reasoning and aren't even an effective way to stop child abuse. I don't see how the rules can be justified if they can both apply to people who have no intention of committing child abuse and fail to apply to those who do commit child abuse. The reason this I find this unjustifiable is because should you apply your reasoning to everything then probably everything would be against the rules.
If selective reasoning is ok then perhaps I can vote for a ban on religious practices next, not because I have anything against religion.. it's just I don't see why other people can make up shitty rules if I can't do the same.
I think the GP might hit a snag in their logic when they try to work out how to measure 'likely intent'. Another flaw in their perfect harm free world is how easy it is to fantasise without any material stimulus, or simply from looking at someone with clothes on. Even if you want to police peoples thoughts it's impossible, all you end up doing is pissing off those who believe a person is entitled to think whatever they damn well like.
My personal favourite issue with this kind of rhetoric is how the proponents tend to apply selective reasoning, the whole 'think of the children!' and 'the ends justify the means' nonsense that is always conflicted with their refusal to let anyone apply their logic to their own actions.
And that means he should have been arrested.. why? Disgust isn't a reason to lock people up, I could understand it if the guy was spying on them or harassing them as that is (and should be) criminal. If it was a fantasy the guy kept to himself then sure they have every right to think whatever they like of him but fuck the notion that you can pass judgement on what a guy fantasises about.
What next? Prosecuting someone who says 'fuck off and die' or who tears up a picture of someone or uses a person's picture picture as a firing range target? Is fantasising about a celebrity while having sex classed as third degree rape now?
I would not even go as far as to argue that point as it distracts from the real reason people should be tolerant of harmless behaviour, it is none of their business. As soon as you start going on the defensive you fuel the aura of guilt people perceive with deviants. If they can't appreciate on their own the value of tolerance then educate them through examples of things in their lives that should not be tolerated if you apply their standards equally. If that doesn't work then they aren't worth the effort, anything you do that manages to convince them will have lessened your chance of gaining real tolerance from those capable of it.
Slashdot and its readers all said that content owners should go after individual infringers back in 2000 when Napster was getting sued. What's changed?
That's an easy one, I wasn't reading Slashdot in 2000. Go find a time machine so you can troll somewhere more relevant.
The person deprived of something is the one which created the work to begin with.. hence why we have copyright laws to begin with. It was reconized that the original creator would not be motivated to create if they money dries, which leaves us where we were in the dark ages; rich kings directly employing an artist because they wanted something, and very little was made for the public to enjoy.
You score 0 for hitting my point. To restate:
To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something and they are deprived of nothing.
Admittedly I could have made it even less ambiguous but I would hope to be given the benefit of the doubt when unintended interpretations do not support the rest of what I am saying. I shall try and correct that by pinning the word 'deprivation' down to one particular meaning: 'To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something without the owner of the original being deprived of anything.'
Now my use of the word deprivation is distinct from your own use. You talk about deprived in the sense of denied whereas I talk about deprived in the sense of taken. To use other words, were I to copy something I would not be physically taking anything, but I would have use of my copy without needing to pay any money. In that sense, I may deny the owner of the original my money. On the other hand, I may decide to give them all the money I have, in which case they would not have been denied my money.
Now I've cleared that little misunderstanding up.. You state (and given no reference I presume it to be your opinion) that people will not create if there is not money to motivate them. That is a load of bollocks, the strongest argument for copyright is indeed to provide motivation to create but you do it no service by claiming that there is no other way.
Their intention is quite clear; to get something for nothing. Otherwise, they would pay. Paying is always an option, no one will forbid you to buy a CD or pay for a downloadable song.
How do you know their intention? By judging their actions? That seems impossible when the action you are judging is purely benign. No, you are judging the people, not the actions. Some would describe such intolerance as bigotry. As you state yourself, paying is always an option.. there is nothing stopping a copyright infringer from giving their money away.
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
Sorry, what the fuck? I'd be generous if I thought you were just trolling, I really hope you're not that ignorant. I've seen some interesting twists in logic on Slashdot but this is the first time I have seen someone pull off an association fallacy in such a spectacular way. Please explain why the guy who wrote a book about the harm principle's association with your founders in any way effects the validity of said principle. I hope it's not because you are basing the value of the principle on its proponents because its a really really simple concept and you would be far better off just applying what it actually means not what you think of the guy who wrote about it.
What does downloading a song from someone else to do promote the arts (that is, the creation of more... not the spread of something already created)?
You know, one of the cool things about typing on a computer is that you can go back and reword your sentences. Having done the work for you, you said: 'What does downloading a song from someone else do to promote creation in the arts?'. I have a question for you, why doe
Off the top of my head, no. That is based off representations of such a situation in popular media and the like though so I hope someone weighs in with a more informed opinion.
Ironically I think our court system would have done better with the sort of case you had to deal with.. but our government makes up for that by being ready to impose new legislation at the drop of a hat.
AFAIK they only provided evidence that she made the songs available. They could not have provided evidence that anyone but themselves downloaded even part of a song. The whole thing is one big fail if you introduce logic, reasoning and previous interpretations of law.
To be honest, I was expecting the first reply to involve suicide. I can't say I was pleasantly surprised though.
Just ask around. This site is full of people who are sure that there's no need to pay artists. They must have a great list of volunteers who make great films, novels, and sophisticated studio recordings that they're happy to give away. Because, that's what we keep hearing, right? That the artists hate that they are forced to sign contracts with publishers, right? So, now the internet is magic, and nobody needs to charge anything any more. What a great time to want entertainment! Yay! The quality of entertainment will only go up, now that there's no need to think of composers or authors or photographers or musicians as professionals. Passionate, penniless amateurs who produce their art part time while working landscaping jobs during the day are a much better model.
I apologise for skipping your first paragraph but it seemed largely pointless. So, who told you that we don't need to pay artists? It wasn't me, it wasn't anyone I've seen who file shares either. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be forced to pay artists for sharing their work but that is distinct from saying they shouldn't be paid.
More accurately, it is better than anything you understand to be available. I don't mean that as a jibe.. just an observation. Most people spend all their time thinking about systems that could replace the current one instead of systems that go above and beyond the current one. Socialism and communism are put forward as alternatives or compliments to capitalism.. while none of the three may work perfectly and there possibly aren't any systems that could take their place, that isn't to say there isn't a better way of doing things.
Compare the music industry of today vs. 5 or 10 years ago. CDs cost half as much now as they did then; music at the (no coincidence) top two on-line stores is DRM-free, and selection is getting really, really good. This is why iTunes is the #1 music retailer: they give customers what they want. They could not have done it if the record labels hadn't come around.
The examples you give look to me more like the frantic struggling of something about to die and just realising the extent of its predicament. They lack ANY credibility in the good faith department, there hasn't been a time in my life when they weren't doing something significant to stop progress.
Now, I acknowledge that $0.99 a track or $10 a CD still isn't low enough for you, and you won't give up your merry pirating ways until tracks are $0.25, CDs are $4.00, and musicians get 50% of the selling price. That's certainly a valid stance, but it's not accurate to say that the record labels haven't tried to meet the pirates halfway.
Wouldn't that depend on your perspective of where halfway is? Personally, the record industry have nothing I want, they started becoming redundant 30 odd years ago. The record industry cannot do anything to change the fact that copying information does not constitute an agreement to pay them money. By the way, the parent poster said "should cater to their customer, should work with their customer, should take advantage of technology" which is nothing like the opinion you attribute to them.
Lots of pirates state that they pirate because of DRM or pricing or selection; the record labels seem to have taken that at face value and given the pirates what they are asking for. Piracy is bigger than ever because, of course, some people simply want things for free. This is a fact of life; when you look at the state of the music industry, they're actually not doing that badly given the economy and the fact that the new model allows customers to buy just one or two tracks at a time when before they had to buy entire CDs.
'Pirates' aren't an organisation, they are individuals. The only thing you can really attribute to them as a group is that they copy songs without permission. I do it because there isn't a justified reason not to, it need not get any more complicated than that in terms of justification. Anything I might ask for is not exclusive of that fact, after all.. the examples you give are things that normally paying customers probably consider an issue more than file-sharers. However much I want to support artists, why would I pay money to someone who is likely to sue me for doing something that I don't believe is any of their business?
Again, if the record labels haven't lowered prices enough for you to switch from pirate to purchasers, that's fine -- but it's not accurate to state that the labels aren't catering to customers.
Firstly, you seem to imply they are catering for customers which seems no more accurate. As well, you seem to describe 'piracy' as mutually exclusive to being a customer.. which is inaccurate.
One of those b-school 101 lessons is that you must recognize that some people just aren't going to be your customer no matter how hard you try, and you must scale your efforts accordingly.
Apart from the bit about 101 lessons which I have to admit ignorance to (being English), I can say I agree with this entire statement. I would add however that I don't believe the RIAA capable of recognising a customer if one bit them on the ass. Not offering a product is one thing, claiming that your industry is dying and going out of your way to kill off any attempts to meet that demand is another.
Was it established that she downloaded the tracks in question, rather than ripping them from her CDs? In either case, it's not germane, as she was nailed for distribution, not downloading.
A "good" capitalist is one that doesn't rip off stuff they're not in the mood to pay for. A good capitalist takes their business to another record label and artist and either buys their entertainment there, or finds someone who wants to work for free, and says so. The people who rip off stuff they're too cheap to pay for, but don't have the intellectual integrity to simply walk away from, are the only ones who are in a position to drive or stop this sort of thing.
An interesting reality you describe, is there an opt-out button somewhere?
Which is... what? That when an artist offers something for sale, it's no OK and "modern" to just rip them off and not pay, rather than go somewhere else for your entertainment? So modern! "Of course I just ripped off music that my favorite artist offered for sale! I'm modern, and everybody else is doing it!"
You seem to have read a lot into that post that wasn't there. Don't let the limitations of speculation get in the way of a good rant of course.
Ah, so you've got some case studies of record labels that sue other record labels who give away signed artists' work? Please, do tell.
Please try harder next time, especially when using selective quoting in responding to an AC.. it would be unfortunate for someone to read your post without reading the parents.
I'd never even heard of Dennis Kucinich (though I'm not american so cut me a bit of slack), just looked him up and although I would agree with most of his policies, I think the big vote killer is his anti-handgun stance. On a purely populist level it would mean the campaign would mostly be spent trying to explain to americans why it would be justified and on a more political level it contradicts some of his other policies from the view of a lot of liberals. I think the main reason Obama got such widespread support was he didn't actually look like he was going to make any radical changes beyond undoing what the last government did.
I think that is a good example of why the system is flawed more than the candidates.. no one is going to have a perfect set of policies and the voting system in american is very much centered around the presidential candidates policies. The idea that one man is running a country is plain unrealistic yet that is how they market it and how it tends to work out in the guise of party politics. We have similar issues in England and we're a hell of a lot smaller. The candidates keep talking about proportional representation but I'd be surprised if most of them know what that would really be, they tend to use it like a buzzword. Our recent expenses scandal showed just how unwilling they were to get their own house in order before considering what would work for the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to hear from a developer who isn't all 'death to free-loaders!!!!' and 'piracy is theft'. As someone who would rather wipe their arse with copyright law than take notice of it I get tired of people who will threaten me for not abiding by a contract I didn't sign. Especially when they start with the whole infringement = theft stuff, whether I was going to give them money or not before I certainly am not after they outright lie to me.
I can certainly understand a fear of not getting paid and am quite sympathetic to that fear when the reason for not getting paid is likely to be peoples ignorance in not supporting something they actually want just because it is free, as a charity worker I am very sympathetic in that regard.
Copyright has little to do with enabling people to pay for stuff they want to support and I would argue that it has the opposite effect of making people more ignorant of the power their money has by giving them less control over it. If you can impress on people that the worth of your work is measured by what you would need to continue working then you stand more chance of getting what you deserve than if they think your work is worth the price of a CD. The only ones who should be worried sans copyright are those who don't have a competitive product, with competitive being measured by quality rather than quantity, and those who can't be competitive because they want more than they need. The next biggest reason people might have for not giving you money if not by copyright is, in my view, ignorance caused by the unnecessary enforcement of copyright in the first place.
To give an example, recording artists use demo tapes to get known by record companies in order to get a contract and even stand any chance of making money from selling records. Imagine taking the effort put into making a demo tape and using that effort as an invitation for people who are interested to fund further work. There are already fan investment schemes going on for music artists along similar lines and considering the shaft that moderately successful artists have gotten from the music industry over the years I can only imagine it is the rich and/or ignorant who think the current way is better.
Um, copyright defines who the owner is. An artist's song is under copyright, they OWN the song. That's what having rights to it means. You score 0, because you're making things up to rationalize theft.
No, copyright grants an author certain rights to that work. They do not own the song any more or less than they did before copyright, as they do not own any copies that are made of those songs.
You can infringe upon the rights granted by copyright but that is not theft. The closest you can come to stealing their ownership of the song is plagiarism as they own the title of original author.
The right of title ownership comes because there can only be one original author, as the rights of physical property ownership comes because only one person can possess property at the same time.
The right to produce copies of the song is granted to provide a monopoly, the fact that anyone can copy the song, while infringing upon copyright, disproves any notion of ownership. You don't own the song, you own the rights granted to you by copyright.
Ofc, you can contest that by shouting 'Intellectual Property!' very loudly but you are trying to cover up thousands of years of the established concept of property.
Yet the law says both definitions are one in the same. And that makes sense. If you break my window, you've not taken anything from me, yet you've deprived me of something and are liable for the value of the window.
Smashing a window isn't theft, it is destruction of property. Copying a song isn't destruction of property. The closest I can get to your argument is 'copying a song harms my monopoly on the distribution of that song, as granted by copyright' which is a fair point but the whole point of this argument is whether copyright should hold. The fact that a right granted by copyright is harmed isn't a good argument for copyright as one possible solution to that problem is to abolish copyright.
Its the same thing; the song has value (which is why we HAVE copyright to begin with; we reconize the VALUE in art and are trying to encourage artists to create it) and you've deprived the owner the value of it. You've stolen his time which he invested in the song.
More of the same, find a new argument or come up with something new to make this one work.
Oh shut up. Go research some history, and see what artists were doing PRIOR to copyright laws. Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean what I said isn't true, and that you can dismiss it out of hand. God I hate people like... get off your ass and DO YOU'RE OWN FUCKING RESEARCH. You're willfully ignornant.
I should research to back up your argument? Sounds like a wild goose chase, I think I'll pass.
I love when people stop talking about the argument and say "oh fallacy omgomgmogm11!1." Its shows they have no point. Your reasoning is this "A implies B but B doesn't necessarly imply A therefore B doesn't imply A." Again, please go read some books, especially those written by the Founders, in addition to the cherry picked readings you've done to back your point. People love to pick and chose pieces of text that back them up, even though the whole of it wouldn't.
While I hate people shouting fallacy! fallacy! at the wrong time as much as the next person, I didn't just point out your fallacy I also explained how it was relevant. Telling me to read more books doesn't help much, if you got how you are by reading more books you're liable to make me book shy. Lemme dig out your original statement again:
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
Quite frankly, I can't say anything that makes that quote lo
Great, the "slippery slope" returns.
No, merely equal and objective reasoning. This has nothing to do with the slippery slope..
I am not against what you say because I am worried it will be a precursor to an infringement on my own liberty. I am against what you say because it is an infringement on my own liberty.
My liberty does not consist only of that which I want to do but that which I should be able to do. Banning me from doing something is an infringement on my liberty whether I am likely to do it or not.
My point exactly, hence disorder instead of illness. Disorder meaning something that is not of the norm, much like deviant.
As normal is merely a reference to social norm, it is bound to change as society does. As is that which is not normal. I wouldn't be surprised if at one point in history it was more abnormal to have sex over 60 than under 16.
because of the inherent danger involved in adults who sexualize children.
And when you can prove that, you'd have a point.
There's no question here, a child's image was literally used in pornographic material, this isn't like the lolicon manga issue.
Depends why child pornography is illegal, most people I have heard say it is because it cannot exist without a child having been abused. That isn't the case here.
An actual real child's picture was used for this pornographic fantasy... the man chose a specific child to use for this example. There is malicious intent in that behavior.
Uh, no. Unless you can prove that the guy is incapable of having a fantasy without carrying it out then you are only guessing at the malicious intent. As someone who has plenty of fantasies that he'd never consider going through with (as a masochist I'd not last long if I did..) I am quite resolute that fantasy != intent. If we used your logic for a pretty average guy then you'd have to lock him up for intending to rape every other female he lays eyes on. As well, I would probably be in a mental institution to stop myself committing suicide.
Good points, though I would like to point out that sexual deviation could be considered a disorder rather than an illness. To decide for someone else how they should be when there is no inherent harm in them being that way has rarely gone down well in history.
So, how is the anti-liberty movement going? What's that? You're only after the bad people? Tell you what, you can go after the bad people if I can choose who they are.
There are ground rules set for what you're allowed to do with images of children, and the person here simply violated them.
I think the issue here is that the 'ground rules' are based on selective reasoning and aren't even an effective way to stop child abuse. I don't see how the rules can be justified if they can both apply to people who have no intention of committing child abuse and fail to apply to those who do commit child abuse. The reason this I find this unjustifiable is because should you apply your reasoning to everything then probably everything would be against the rules.
If selective reasoning is ok then perhaps I can vote for a ban on religious practices next, not because I have anything against religion.. it's just I don't see why other people can make up shitty rules if I can't do the same.
I think the GP might hit a snag in their logic when they try to work out how to measure 'likely intent'. Another flaw in their perfect harm free world is how easy it is to fantasise without any material stimulus, or simply from looking at someone with clothes on. Even if you want to police peoples thoughts it's impossible, all you end up doing is pissing off those who believe a person is entitled to think whatever they damn well like.
My personal favourite issue with this kind of rhetoric is how the proponents tend to apply selective reasoning, the whole 'think of the children!' and 'the ends justify the means' nonsense that is always conflicted with their refusal to let anyone apply their logic to their own actions.
Mod them up for pointing out something that was in the summary?
And that means he should have been arrested.. why? Disgust isn't a reason to lock people up, I could understand it if the guy was spying on them or harassing them as that is (and should be) criminal. If it was a fantasy the guy kept to himself then sure they have every right to think whatever they like of him but fuck the notion that you can pass judgement on what a guy fantasises about.
What next? Prosecuting someone who says 'fuck off and die' or who tears up a picture of someone or uses a person's picture picture as a firing range target? Is fantasising about a celebrity while having sex classed as third degree rape now?
I would not even go as far as to argue that point as it distracts from the real reason people should be tolerant of harmless behaviour, it is none of their business. As soon as you start going on the defensive you fuel the aura of guilt people perceive with deviants. If they can't appreciate on their own the value of tolerance then educate them through examples of things in their lives that should not be tolerated if you apply their standards equally. If that doesn't work then they aren't worth the effort, anything you do that manages to convince them will have lessened your chance of gaining real tolerance from those capable of it.
Slashdot and its readers all said that content owners should go after individual infringers back in 2000 when Napster was getting sued. What's changed?
That's an easy one, I wasn't reading Slashdot in 2000. Go find a time machine so you can troll somewhere more relevant.
The person deprived of something is the one which created the work to begin with.. hence why we have copyright laws to begin with. It was reconized that the original creator would not be motivated to create if they money dries, which leaves us where we were in the dark ages; rich kings directly employing an artist because they wanted something, and very little was made for the public to enjoy.
You score 0 for hitting my point. To restate:
To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something and they are deprived of nothing.
Admittedly I could have made it even less ambiguous but I would hope to be given the benefit of the doubt when unintended interpretations do not support the rest of what I am saying. I shall try and correct that by pinning the word 'deprivation' down to one particular meaning: 'To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something without the owner of the original being deprived of anything.'
Now my use of the word deprivation is distinct from your own use. You talk about deprived in the sense of denied whereas I talk about deprived in the sense of taken. To use other words, were I to copy something I would not be physically taking anything, but I would have use of my copy without needing to pay any money. In that sense, I may deny the owner of the original my money. On the other hand, I may decide to give them all the money I have, in which case they would not have been denied my money.
Now I've cleared that little misunderstanding up.. You state (and given no reference I presume it to be your opinion) that people will not create if there is not money to motivate them. That is a load of bollocks, the strongest argument for copyright is indeed to provide motivation to create but you do it no service by claiming that there is no other way.
Their intention is quite clear; to get something for nothing. Otherwise, they would pay. Paying is always an option, no one will forbid you to buy a CD or pay for a downloadable song.
How do you know their intention? By judging their actions? That seems impossible when the action you are judging is purely benign. No, you are judging the people, not the actions. Some would describe such intolerance as bigotry. As you state yourself, paying is always an option.. there is nothing stopping a copyright infringer from giving their money away.
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
Sorry, what the fuck? I'd be generous if I thought you were just trolling, I really hope you're not that ignorant. I've seen some interesting twists in logic on Slashdot but this is the first time I have seen someone pull off an association fallacy in such a spectacular way. Please explain why the guy who wrote a book about the harm principle's association with your founders in any way effects the validity of said principle. I hope it's not because you are basing the value of the principle on its proponents because its a really really simple concept and you would be far better off just applying what it actually means not what you think of the guy who wrote about it.
What does downloading a song from someone else to do promote the arts (that is, the creation of more... not the spread of something already created)?
You know, one of the cool things about typing on a computer is that you can go back and reword your sentences. Having done the work for you, you said: 'What does downloading a song from someone else do to promote creation in the arts?'. I have a question for you, why doe
Off the top of my head, no. That is based off representations of such a situation in popular media and the like though so I hope someone weighs in with a more informed opinion.
As a Brit, I'm in no position to be laughing. Perhaps you haven't kept up to date on what happens over the pond, here are some examples: Digital Britain report to combat piracy as well as a forum for the report, here is some focus on the piracy aspect of the report. This is shortly after our IP minister says government will not legislate against piracy. Sneaky ISP cuts a deal with label while promising to be harder on piracy most likely to preempt the Digital Britain report.
Ironically I think our court system would have done better with the sort of case you had to deal with.. but our government makes up for that by being ready to impose new legislation at the drop of a hat.
AFAIK they only provided evidence that she made the songs available. They could not have provided evidence that anyone but themselves downloaded even part of a song. The whole thing is one big fail if you introduce logic, reasoning and previous interpretations of law.
Only one of the 24 songs she is being sued for is licensed to Capitol Records though.
To be honest, I was expecting the first reply to involve suicide. I can't say I was pleasantly surprised though.
Just ask around. This site is full of people who are sure that there's no need to pay artists. They must have a great list of volunteers who make great films, novels, and sophisticated studio recordings that they're happy to give away. Because, that's what we keep hearing, right? That the artists hate that they are forced to sign contracts with publishers, right? So, now the internet is magic, and nobody needs to charge anything any more. What a great time to want entertainment! Yay! The quality of entertainment will only go up, now that there's no need to think of composers or authors or photographers or musicians as professionals. Passionate, penniless amateurs who produce their art part time while working landscaping jobs during the day are a much better model.
I apologise for skipping your first paragraph but it seemed largely pointless. So, who told you that we don't need to pay artists? It wasn't me, it wasn't anyone I've seen who file shares either. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be forced to pay artists for sharing their work but that is distinct from saying they shouldn't be paid.
More accurately, it is better than anything you understand to be available. I don't mean that as a jibe.. just an observation. Most people spend all their time thinking about systems that could replace the current one instead of systems that go above and beyond the current one. Socialism and communism are put forward as alternatives or compliments to capitalism.. while none of the three may work perfectly and there possibly aren't any systems that could take their place, that isn't to say there isn't a better way of doing things.
Compare the music industry of today vs. 5 or 10 years ago. CDs cost half as much now as they did then; music at the (no coincidence) top two on-line stores is DRM-free, and selection is getting really, really good. This is why iTunes is the #1 music retailer: they give customers what they want. They could not have done it if the record labels hadn't come around.
The examples you give look to me more like the frantic struggling of something about to die and just realising the extent of its predicament. They lack ANY credibility in the good faith department, there hasn't been a time in my life when they weren't doing something significant to stop progress.
Now, I acknowledge that $0.99 a track or $10 a CD still isn't low enough for you, and you won't give up your merry pirating ways until tracks are $0.25, CDs are $4.00, and musicians get 50% of the selling price. That's certainly a valid stance, but it's not accurate to say that the record labels haven't tried to meet the pirates halfway.
Wouldn't that depend on your perspective of where halfway is? Personally, the record industry have nothing I want, they started becoming redundant 30 odd years ago. The record industry cannot do anything to change the fact that copying information does not constitute an agreement to pay them money. By the way, the parent poster said "should cater to their customer, should work with their customer, should take advantage of technology" which is nothing like the opinion you attribute to them.
Lots of pirates state that they pirate because of DRM or pricing or selection; the record labels seem to have taken that at face value and given the pirates what they are asking for. Piracy is bigger than ever because, of course, some people simply want things for free. This is a fact of life; when you look at the state of the music industry, they're actually not doing that badly given the economy and the fact that the new model allows customers to buy just one or two tracks at a time when before they had to buy entire CDs.
'Pirates' aren't an organisation, they are individuals. The only thing you can really attribute to them as a group is that they copy songs without permission. I do it because there isn't a justified reason not to, it need not get any more complicated than that in terms of justification. Anything I might ask for is not exclusive of that fact, after all.. the examples you give are things that normally paying customers probably consider an issue more than file-sharers. However much I want to support artists, why would I pay money to someone who is likely to sue me for doing something that I don't believe is any of their business?
Again, if the record labels haven't lowered prices enough for you to switch from pirate to purchasers, that's fine -- but it's not accurate to state that the labels aren't catering to customers.
Firstly, you seem to imply they are catering for customers which seems no more accurate. As well, you seem to describe 'piracy' as mutually exclusive to being a customer.. which is inaccurate.
One of those b-school 101 lessons is that you must recognize that some people just aren't going to be your customer no matter how hard you try, and you must scale your efforts accordingly.
Apart from the bit about 101 lessons which I have to admit ignorance to (being English), I can say I agree with this entire statement. I would add however that I don't believe the RIAA capable of recognising a customer if one bit them on the ass. Not offering a product is one thing, claiming that your industry is dying and going out of your way to kill off any attempts to meet that demand is another.
Was it established that she downloaded the tracks in question, rather than ripping them from her CDs? In either case, it's not germane, as she was nailed for distribution, not downloading.
What I don't get
A "good" capitalist is one that doesn't rip off stuff they're not in the mood to pay for. A good capitalist takes their business to another record label and artist and either buys their entertainment there, or finds someone who wants to work for free, and says so. The people who rip off stuff they're too cheap to pay for, but don't have the intellectual integrity to simply walk away from, are the only ones who are in a position to drive or stop this sort of thing.
An interesting reality you describe, is there an opt-out button somewhere?
Which is... what? That when an artist offers something for sale, it's no OK and "modern" to just rip them off and not pay, rather than go somewhere else for your entertainment? So modern! "Of course I just ripped off music that my favorite artist offered for sale! I'm modern, and everybody else is doing it!"
You seem to have read a lot into that post that wasn't there. Don't let the limitations of speculation get in the way of a good rant of course.
Ah, so you've got some case studies of record labels that sue other record labels who give away signed artists' work? Please, do tell.
Let me sidestep that common yet often misattributed fallacy and give you some possible examples of what was actually meant: Pandora UK closes due to increased royalty rates, Russian music site closes due to pressure from US and RIAA sues radio company for providing users with the ability to record from the radio.
Please try harder next time, especially when using selective quoting in responding to an AC.. it would be unfortunate for someone to read your post without reading the parents.
I'd never even heard of Dennis Kucinich (though I'm not american so cut me a bit of slack), just looked him up and although I would agree with most of his policies, I think the big vote killer is his anti-handgun stance. On a purely populist level it would mean the campaign would mostly be spent trying to explain to americans why it would be justified and on a more political level it contradicts some of his other policies from the view of a lot of liberals. I think the main reason Obama got such widespread support was he didn't actually look like he was going to make any radical changes beyond undoing what the last government did.
I think that is a good example of why the system is flawed more than the candidates.. no one is going to have a perfect set of policies and the voting system in american is very much centered around the presidential candidates policies. The idea that one man is running a country is plain unrealistic yet that is how they market it and how it tends to work out in the guise of party politics. We have similar issues in England and we're a hell of a lot smaller. The candidates keep talking about proportional representation but I'd be surprised if most of them know what that would really be, they tend to use it like a buzzword. Our recent expenses scandal showed just how unwilling they were to get their own house in order before considering what would work for the country.
Please go back to troll school and find out what a strawman is.