The fact that it is a crime doesn't make it bad Are you insane? Crimes are by definition wrong. They have been determined by society to be against the rules for living in society. Therefore, crimes are deplorable. The only laws we should have are those that protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Please. The constitution of the USA is a flexible document to contain laws governing other structures ASIDE from those. It gives the states power over these fields and the states delegate these to community level fields. Breaking laws is not just, even if you oppose them. Instead, lobby for their removal. Don't go trying to be all righteous about breaking copyright law, it isn't a righteous thing. Information was not born free of suffering, just ask any author. Therefore, the author deserves compensation for his work.
Oh please. I'm using these are DESCRIPTIONS to back up my point of view. I'm not using it to DICTATE policy. We're all talking about definitions for Piracy, I just want Theft and Stealing defined beneath it for software purposes. In the meantime, I recommend removing that large bowl of hot grits from your pants.
Perhaps I should excuse your reasoning on the late hour. Music may not be lost, but that does NOT make it alright to copy it without crediting the artist. Theft is the act of stealing, to steal is to take surreptiously, unlawfully, etc from another. I draw a parallel with espionage: you go and copy some plans for a nuclear reactor, and you're a spy, you go and copy an MP3 that's not yours and you're a moral hero? Doubtful at best. It's theft. Copyright is not just a good idea, it's the law. So what if it's business-to-business? It still applies here.
My definition is from a dead-tree source printed in 1960, but it's the only Dictionary I've got in the house...so it'll have to do.
"theft n. 1. The act or an instance of stealin; larceny. 2. [Obs] something stolen."
but that leads to stealing, which is defined as thus:
"steal v.t. 1. to take appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, especially in a secret or surreptitious manner."
Since you're taking these MP3s without permission of the author, you're stealing and then that would make it theft. Logic. Pure and simple. These definitions come from a 1960s edition of Webster's College Edition. Apparently, they were more forward thinking than they'd thought.
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession This is not the case at all. Theft is the act of stealing, which does not provide that suddenly one has it and the other does not. Let's look at espionage for the moment. Say you have a design for a nuclear reactor or something, and I go into your lab and copy the design. Have I stolen it? Yes. Do you still have it? Yes. This is theft, right? That's why they kill spies who do this right? Yes.
Theft does not require that you now have it and the other person doesn't. Here's the definition: "theft (theft) n. 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny 2. [Obs.] something stolen."
Since you've stolen their work...let's gander at steal.
"Steal (steel) v.t. 1. to take appropriate (another's property , ideas, etc) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, especially in a a secret or surreptitious manner. "
The definitions used here are from the College Edition of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language published in 1960 by the World Publishing Company and any parentheticals are THEIRS not mine.
Sounds to me like Napster is theft if it's done without permission of the copyright holder.
Lars didn't say he had a problem with people copying on the small scale (i.e. taping your friends record so you could listen in the car), he did have a problem with the digital nature of napster's theft, and the fact that napster allowed for everyone to grab a copy of their recordings at fast download times. I don't think you could find a soul out there who hasn't violated copyright at least once in their lives, Lars was being honest. No less, no more.
Don't you get it? Third generation scratchy-ass recordings is different from a perfect digital copy you'd get on Napster in MP3 format. THAT's his point. That and the scale of it. He's willing to say, yah some people copied this stuff in the past, but they did it and took a quality hit. Now, with Napster, they can do it millions of times a second AND without a quality hit. It's become easy to do what in the past was time-consuming and pointless to do.
You've raised an excellent question: Who's at fault for the "napster remixes?" Let's assume for a moment that any remix downloaded from the net is not in violation of copyright laws (since the original is altered to represent something that's NOT the original and the rest belongs to the remixer). Is the guy who grabs it from Napster at fault? Is the remixer who remixed the song at fault for not asking? Should the artist be flattered? What's the story here?
So eBay is allowed to take hours upon hours from our days by addicting us to their service, but when another service takes hours from them, they sue? Does this mean I have a case? Where's Johnny Cochrane when you need him?
Intellectual property (in this case music) is different from physical property. Physical property is a zero-sum game. I either have it, or I do not. Music is intellectual property, an infinite sum game. I can hum "Happy Birthday" while I sell the sheet music to another consumer. We both now have the knowledge required to perform "Happy Birthday." The music IS lost when you steal it because it is intellectual property, not physical property. There is a big difference.
You're right, they do reap most of the benefits from anyone's records, but for the most part, they handle most of the expense: recording time, mass duplication, promotion (that's a REAL hard part, just ask an exec.) and touring, and instruments, and etc, etc. It's worth it. Trust me. I couldn't afford (without a lottery win) to do all those things myself. Some bands, perhaps, most, not at all. So labels become a big part of the industry, taking a large portion of the profits.
This isn't a zero-sum game like it used to be. Digital copies may proliferate at will for (nearly) zero cost. He had the music (that itself was what was lost) and the way he went about it was theft. Easy.
You're talking about apples and oranges. Concepts (in and of themselves) cannot be owned. Music itself is a concept, but the individuals works OF music are NOT un-ownable. Yes, you are telling the band you liked their work (not the whole album, maybe just one song) and that they should make more of it. As for your job, I'm glad you get paid for your services and I'm very happy that you find creative solutions. I am a vocal artist (albeit an unsigned amateur) and I take a great deal of pride in my work, but I own the recordings that get created. I paid people to record me, and I expect that should I ever "make it" I would want people to pay me for my work. Skill is an inherent part of it, yes, and you can't LEARN to be a great artist. It's bred-in-the-bone so to speak. Some people win the genetics lottery and are born artists. Some are not. Am I bitter? perhaps. Am I gonna dwell on it? no. But artists deserve to be rewarded for their work, stealing their work does not reward their talent/skill.
They may sign over the copyright, but there are other rights they sign over as well, synchronization which covers various and sundry other things as well as copying. However, the deals for the rights often include royalties for the band for each album sold. It works like that. Trust me.
No, but you still stole their product. It's not zero sum. See my post in the thread above this. It works like this: Money you WOULD have to spend appropriately paying for the royalty to actually legally listen: $1.00 Money you might've spent if you didn't pre-listen to the record AT the store: $15 or so. I dunno, you're still a thief. Regardless. I don't care if you think it's right (or righteous) to steal intellectual property, but the law doesn't care how you feel, only in your actions.
Why shouldn't ideas be ownable? They are already, just because you protest against the system does not give you the god-given right to reject this system and break the law. Recording artists make money because people want what they create. If you want to reward them with your listening time, buy their shit, so they'll make more. If you don't like them, don't buy them. To say that you are a programmer and would give your stuff away, how wonderfully altruistic of you, but can you say that if that software would make you rich by charging $15 per copy, you wouldn't do it? That's crap. That's like winning the lottery and not turning in the ticket. Face it, you're pissed you can't create anything worth selling and therefore you don't want to pay for anything.
Not true at all. This isn't a zero-sum game where what is stolen is determined by what's missing. Duplicate copies are made; there is no zero sum when things duplicate uncontrolled, like in digital media. So he never would have bought it, but he would've taken it (and he did) if he got it for free. You're right they didn't lose a sale per se, but they did lose the cash if that was the only way to get their music. Their property (intellectual in this case) was stolen. Easy. Open and Shut Case of Grand Theft Audio.
Copyright may be dying, but it needs to be replaced with something that makes sure the artists get credit with their work. Information isn't free (shouldn't be entirely free) and is paid for in the sweat and tears of modern creators. Their work deserves credit or we won't see any more of it. I'd love for the music Execs to have JOY instead of JOB...but most places do have to pay the bills somehow. Believe me, I think the industry does owe the world for imposing cruddy music on us, especially me. I served as Music Director for WDUB for a year...believe me, they owe me more than they realize cuz I heard some real shite while I served.
No, but it's not their JOB to "give a shit about music" but rather to make a profit for their shareholders. Unfair perhaps, since it screws good artists out of deals, but it's the industry. Small labels are there for the music and some of them produce real decent stuff (Epitaph to name one label) that "make it" industry wise. So it's a simple principle for you, DON'T BUY THE MUSIC. This doesn't give you the right to steal it because you can. Jerks like you make the Feds come down on all of us, whether or not we're doing illegal things.
There is a big difference between the two. The actors on TV get paid, and they even get paid in the syndication deals that allow their shows to be replayed ad infinitum. The actors in movies get paid. The artists get royalties for each time their song is played on the radio. This is not the case with CD recordings. People may not think it's wrong, but does that make it right? Not quite. Not at all even.
Similarly, it annoys me to no end when someone spouts off about how copyright holders have a "right" to earn money from their intellectual product. No one has a right to money. You have to earn it.
You're right. No one has the specific right to the cash we generally fork over for the traditional CD. However, is it wrong for them to ask for some money in return for a lifetime of entertainment? No. That's what they're trying to do: make sure they can survive on their music. I'd love to do nothing in my life but sing, but unfortunately, I'm not that good. However, that means I can support those who are good enough. It's not the RIAA's fault CDs are so damn expensive. I won't buy anything for more than $14.99. But talk to the stores about that, it's their fault, not the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that it is a crime doesn't make it bad
Are you insane? Crimes are by definition wrong. They have been determined by society to be against the rules for living in society. Therefore, crimes are deplorable. The only laws we should have are those that protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Please. The constitution of the USA is a flexible document to contain laws governing other structures ASIDE from those. It gives the states power over these fields and the states delegate these to community level fields. Breaking laws is not just, even if you oppose them. Instead, lobby for their removal. Don't go trying to be all righteous about breaking copyright law, it isn't a righteous thing. Information was not born free of suffering, just ask any author. Therefore, the author deserves compensation for his work.
and damn....I meant "using these AS..." instead of "using these ARE" Damn...some days I wonder if I'VE got grits on the brain...
Oh please. I'm using these are DESCRIPTIONS to back up my point of view. I'm not using it to DICTATE policy. We're all talking about definitions for Piracy, I just want Theft and Stealing defined beneath it for software purposes. In the meantime, I recommend removing that large bowl of hot grits from your pants.
Perhaps I should excuse your reasoning on the late hour. Music may not be lost, but that does NOT make it alright to copy it without crediting the artist. Theft is the act of stealing, to steal is to take surreptiously, unlawfully, etc from another. I draw a parallel with espionage: you go and copy some plans for a nuclear reactor, and you're a spy, you go and copy an MP3 that's not yours and you're a moral hero? Doubtful at best. It's theft. Copyright is not just a good idea, it's the law. So what if it's business-to-business? It still applies here.
My definition is from a dead-tree source printed in 1960, but it's the only Dictionary I've got in the house...so it'll have to do.
"theft n. 1. The act or an instance of stealin; larceny. 2. [Obs] something stolen."
but that leads to stealing, which is defined as thus:
"steal v.t. 1. to take appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, especially in a secret or surreptitious manner."
Since you're taking these MP3s without permission of the author, you're stealing and then that would make it theft. Logic. Pure and simple. These definitions come from a 1960s edition of Webster's College Edition. Apparently, they were more forward thinking than they'd thought.
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession This is not the case at all. Theft is the act of stealing, which does not provide that suddenly one has it and the other does not. Let's look at espionage for the moment. Say you have a design for a nuclear reactor or something, and I go into your lab and copy the design. Have I stolen it? Yes. Do you still have it? Yes. This is theft, right? That's why they kill spies who do this right? Yes.
Theft does not require that you now have it and the other person doesn't. Here's the definition:
"theft (theft) n. 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny 2. [Obs.] something stolen."
Since you've stolen their work...let's gander at steal.
"Steal (steel) v.t. 1. to take appropriate (another's property , ideas, etc) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, especially in a a secret or surreptitious manner. "
The definitions used here are from the College Edition of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language published in 1960 by the World Publishing Company and any parentheticals are THEIRS not mine.
Sounds to me like Napster is theft if it's done without permission of the copyright holder.
Will it run QTSS and handle the load adequately?
Lars didn't say he had a problem with people copying on the small scale (i.e. taping your friends record so you could listen in the car), he did have a problem with the digital nature of napster's theft, and the fact that napster allowed for everyone to grab a copy of their recordings at fast download times. I don't think you could find a soul out there who hasn't violated copyright at least once in their lives, Lars was being honest. No less, no more.
Don't you get it? Third generation scratchy-ass recordings is different from a perfect digital copy you'd get on Napster in MP3 format. THAT's his point. That and the scale of it. He's willing to say, yah some people copied this stuff in the past, but they did it and took a quality hit. Now, with Napster, they can do it millions of times a second AND without a quality hit. It's become easy to do what in the past was time-consuming and pointless to do.
You're right, they do reap most of the benefits from anyone's records, but for the most part, they handle most of the expense: recording time, mass duplication, promotion (that's a REAL hard part, just ask an exec.) and touring, and instruments, and etc, etc. It's worth it. Trust me. I couldn't afford (without a lottery win) to do all those things myself. Some bands, perhaps, most, not at all. So labels become a big part of the industry, taking a large portion of the profits.
This isn't a zero-sum game like it used to be. Digital copies may proliferate at will for (nearly) zero cost. He had the music (that itself was what was lost) and the way he went about it was theft. Easy.
You're talking about apples and oranges. Concepts (in and of themselves) cannot be owned. Music itself is a concept, but the individuals works OF music are NOT un-ownable. Yes, you are telling the band you liked their work (not the whole album, maybe just one song) and that they should make more of it. As for your job, I'm glad you get paid for your services and I'm very happy that you find creative solutions. I am a vocal artist (albeit an unsigned amateur) and I take a great deal of pride in my work, but I own the recordings that get created. I paid people to record me, and I expect that should I ever "make it" I would want people to pay me for my work. Skill is an inherent part of it, yes, and you can't LEARN to be a great artist. It's bred-in-the-bone so to speak. Some people win the genetics lottery and are born artists. Some are not. Am I bitter? perhaps. Am I gonna dwell on it? no. But artists deserve to be rewarded for their work, stealing their work does not reward their talent/skill.
They may sign over the copyright, but there are other rights they sign over as well, synchronization which covers various and sundry other things as well as copying. However, the deals for the rights often include royalties for the band for each album sold. It works like that. Trust me.
No, but you still stole their product. It's not zero sum. See my post in the thread above this. It works like this: Money you WOULD have to spend appropriately paying for the royalty to actually legally listen: $1.00 Money you might've spent if you didn't pre-listen to the record AT the store: $15 or so. I dunno, you're still a thief. Regardless. I don't care if you think it's right (or righteous) to steal intellectual property, but the law doesn't care how you feel, only in your actions.
Why shouldn't ideas be ownable? They are already, just because you protest against the system does not give you the god-given right to reject this system and break the law. Recording artists make money because people want what they create. If you want to reward them with your listening time, buy their shit, so they'll make more. If you don't like them, don't buy them. To say that you are a programmer and would give your stuff away, how wonderfully altruistic of you, but can you say that if that software would make you rich by charging $15 per copy, you wouldn't do it? That's crap. That's like winning the lottery and not turning in the ticket. Face it, you're pissed you can't create anything worth selling and therefore you don't want to pay for anything.
Not true at all. This isn't a zero-sum game where what is stolen is determined by what's missing. Duplicate copies are made; there is no zero sum when things duplicate uncontrolled, like in digital media. So he never would have bought it, but he would've taken it (and he did) if he got it for free. You're right they didn't lose a sale per se, but they did lose the cash if that was the only way to get their music. Their property (intellectual in this case) was stolen. Easy. Open and Shut Case of Grand Theft Audio.
No, but it's not their JOB to "give a shit about music" but rather to make a profit for their shareholders. Unfair perhaps, since it screws good artists out of deals, but it's the industry. Small labels are there for the music and some of them produce real decent stuff (Epitaph to name one label) that "make it" industry wise. So it's a simple principle for you, DON'T BUY THE MUSIC. This doesn't give you the right to steal it because you can. Jerks like you make the Feds come down on all of us, whether or not we're doing illegal things.
There is a big difference between the two. The actors on TV get paid, and they even get paid in the syndication deals that allow their shows to be replayed ad infinitum. The actors in movies get paid. The artists get royalties for each time their song is played on the radio. This is not the case with CD recordings. People may not think it's wrong, but does that make it right? Not quite. Not at all even.
You're right. No one has the specific right to the cash we generally fork over for the traditional CD. However, is it wrong for them to ask for some money in return for a lifetime of entertainment? No. That's what they're trying to do: make sure they can survive on their music. I'd love to do nothing in my life but sing, but unfortunately, I'm not that good. However, that means I can support those who are good enough. It's not the RIAA's fault CDs are so damn expensive. I won't buy anything for more than $14.99. But talk to the stores about that, it's their fault, not the RIAA.