Are you speaking for Swedish law, of which I know nothing? Because in the USA where I live, you can certainly be sued for contributing to a harm. Most of us nerds remember the "contributory infringement" argument which was successful against Napster. Both "aid" and "abet" are terms of art, and I don't know their legal meanings in the USA, but similar things apply.
I considered an additional phrase specifying that just because it is copyright infringement also doesn't mean it's morally wrong, but I decided it was unnecessary. I see I should have added the phrase.
For me, I think it's in a vast sliding-scale gray area between okay and not okay. Basically, I agree that people should have a way to profit from intellectual endeavors; but I disagree that people have an inherent right to control their intellectual creations. It's a difficult balance. In the past we made the balance using time limits, but now we have unlimited copyrights. The only remaining balance is fair use, which we still have, mostly, but that could disappear too.
I think it's high time that our community establish Moral Copyright. (In fact, moralcopyright.com is available.) We need to have a community conversation for what copyright should be, in a moral sense, and then write that down, and then do the best we can to self-police to that standard. For instance, I like a copyright term of 15 to 20 years, transferable; with fair use rights. What if, together, we could convince places like The Pirate Bay to self-police and only have content older than 20 years? Then when the media covered the lawsuits, there would be a storyline about Legal Copyright versus Moral Copyright.
Yes. If you are tried for a crime and found not guilty you can still be sued for the same actions in civil court and have a settlement against you. I could name more than one example, but I think we need look no farther than OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty of murder in criminal court, and yet found liable for wrongful death in civil court. QED
Loosely related to this political thread, here is Obama's technology policy page which is very exciting because it is reasonably in line with general nerd opinion. So here I am, shilling for Obama during a Romney thread. I might be Offtopic but I hope I'm Informative! Here are some exceprts:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
Your statement is so plain and obvious that I'm shocked it's not blindingly obvious to the people who will eventually lose this culture war. I often step back and scratch my head, wondering why people would oppose the obvious inevitable future. Did record companies ever actually believe DRM would work? Really? Could they be so daft? It's hard to believe.
I over-used the work 'obvious', but you just can't talk about this subject without that word.
There are lots and lots of very talented musicians today, as there always have been, just don't try to discover them by listening to the radio. Corporate interests may be able to make radio suck, but they can't make all music suck. Today my favorites are Tool, White Stripes, Radiohead, J5, Buju Banton, Lyrics Born, Flaming Lips, Two Siberians... And then I also listen to a bunch of stuff from the past. The nice thing about the last century of music is that it's all recorded, so you can go discover artists that were awesome a long time ago: Wu Tang, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Phish, Sublime, Beach Boys... whatever you're into.
Discovering new artists is a challenge today. I reiterate that you can't rely on radio. I've found the IndieFeed podcasts to be pretty good, but mostly I google for my favorite artists then listen to other artists that come up on those pages. That's a good way to discover music similar to the music you already like, but not so good at finding totally new sounds. Oh, I also sometimes find a label which has a bunch of good artists, such as Rawkus Records.
Can anyone suggest non-radio ways of finding new artists? Specifically I'd like a professional to vet music for me, like a trustworthy DJ with good taste.
I just want to point out that these ongoing shenanigans show that IE is not a web browser. The whole world (including Microsoft) got together and decided exactly what a "web page" is and wrote it down in very clear specifications. So, anyone who writes a piece of software that renders a web page, as defined by those specifications, is a web browser. If you write software that does anything else, then that isn't a web browser. Therefore, insofar as IE does not render web pages, it is not a web browser. So, if anyone complains that your documents don't look right when they view them in IE, gently explain to them that your documents are web pages, and to view them the person needs a web browser, and IE isn't a web browser.
That leaves open the question of exactly what IE is.
That's funny, I've never made a web page and checked it in IE. I always assumed that would be a giant waste of time. I prefer to know what my pages look like in *web browsers*, and since IE doesn't render web pages, it isn't a web browser. Tell your customers to download a web browser -- any one will do just fine. Your customers can hardly expect your pages to render in software that isn't a web browser. Do your pages render in vi? Of course not, vi isn't a web browser. Do they render in tcpdump? Of course not, tcpdump isn't a web browser. Do they render in Notepad? Of course not notepad isn't a web browser. Do they render in IE? No? They don't render in IE? Well then IE must not be a web browser.
Mmmmm hmmmm. Okay, well then he was mistaken in claiming they 'start' at $2000. They start at $1100, that much is clear. For people who prefer screens bigger than 13", there are models higher up on the scale.
So, again, the guy was wrong in that claim.
Me, I got the 17" MBP, and I sold my firstborn to pay for it. Actually, I just saved for a couple months.
Yes, this is very insightful. I live in Juneau, Alaska and we have a tiered system here (I was surprised to learn it wasn't this way everywhere). Our vendor is GCI. I have no idea how much the rest of you pay for internet, but we pay an astounding eighty dollars for a cable modem, and that is the cheapest tier. We just upped to a higher amount this month (so I could download more porn, you know) and I bet it'll be a hundred dollars.
How is making a compilation of awesome fighting scenes not adding original contribution to the copyrighted works? Were the original copyrighted works simply compilations of awesome fighting scenes? Okay, well maybe king fu movies are a bad example because some of them really are just compilations of awesome fighting scenes.
under current law copyright infringement *is* a crime, should it be that way? perhaps not, but legally it is.
This is contrary to my understanding of copyright law. My understanding is that it is a tort, not a crime. In fact, I'm really really sure that's the case, so unless you can cite a law showing copyright infringement to be a crime, I'm going to go on with my life assuming you don't know what you're talking about.
To be clear, a crime is prosecuted by the government and results in punishments like jail, probation, community service, etc; a tort is prosecuted by a civil entity, and results in punishments like monetary damages, injunctions, etc.
Also, I'm in the USA, so if you're talking about another country, perhaps one outside of Western civilization, then your jurisdiction might be different.
Also, you make a point about the act of preparing files for copyright infringement being treated differently based on whether anyone actually downloads the files or not. You say it's dumb to treat the same action differently just because of circumstances, but I'm not really following your argument, because the law does that all the damn time. If you don't shovel your sidewalk and someone falls on it, you may be sued and lose a court judgment. But if nobody falls, there is no lawsuit. I could come up with examples like that all day long, but my watertight correct counterargument is that circumstances not only can but almost always do change the legal liability of actions.
Basically, I can tell you know nothing about the laws which govern the United States. I hope for your sake that you don't live in the USA or any country with a similar legal tradition, or else you are bound to suffer greatly for your ignorance.
There is a significant distinction between contemplating a crime (which is not a crime) and planning a crime along with a partner (which is a crime -- conspiracy). I can think of two distinctions: you have to not just contemplate the crime, but must actually move on to planning it; and you must not just plan it alone, you must plan it with help. It's a sliding scale, you know, between thinking about a crime, to planning it, to conspiring to commit it, to committing it. We punish the acts on that scale differently, and draw a line saying acts below conspiracy aren't a crime by themselves, rather just an exacerbating circumstance (premeditation).
No. Thinking about a crime isn't conspiracy to commit the crime, it's premeditation, which isn't illegal, but does make a crime more serious and susceptible to greater punishment. To commit conspiracy you must take your criminal premeditation, convert it into outward communication, and engage another human being in your criminal planning.
All countries I know of, however, DO have thought crimes: drug prohibition. Think about it: what does a drug do to you? It changes your brain chemistry, which is another way of saying it changes your thoughts. Drug prohibition, then, is making it illegal to have those thoughts. That is, literally, thought crime and thought control. Does that make drug prohibition bad public policy? Maybe not, but it is a pretty significant limitation on freedom.
Yes, you are correct, that's why downloading songs without paying for them isn't theft -- it's copyright infringement. The difference is just as you say -- you must deprive the original owner of enjoyment of the thing stolen. If I download a song from you, you can still enjoy the song, so it isn't theft, and people who claim it is theft are knowingly pushing lies. It isn't at all like stealing a car, in which case you could
And while we're on the topic, it also isn't theft to skip commercials, or to time-shift, or to place-shift, or to resell anything you own, or to loan anything you own. Furthermore, libraries doesn't facilitate theft. The entire concept is so totally wrong and bad for humanity - it's frustrating to hear such lame arguments made.
Holy crap. There are only two albums on there I'd even bother playing (Dylan, Santana) and even then I frankly wouldn't be too excited, since they aren't exactly my favorite artists. To be fair, I'm not familiar with twelve of the offerings. Maybe those twelve are AWESOME! But, I doubt it.
Did the RIAA start suing song downloaders while I was too busy reading election news? Because last I checked, they were only suing song uploaders (the infringing content providers). Also, the reason stealing a CD from a store and committing copyright infringement have such different punishments is that they are totally different crimes, not really related in any way. Furthermore the reason you get "more" punishment for copyright infringement is that copyright infringement is considered a more serious crime than petty theft, in that it causes greater damages against the 'victim'.
But seriously, you already considered all that right? What was your point again?
Slashdot Mirror
Good joke. Does that mean it's theft because I don't like Prince's music, and thus wouldn't buy any anyway?
Are you speaking for Swedish law, of which I know nothing? Because in the USA where I live, you can certainly be sued for contributing to a harm. Most of us nerds remember the "contributory infringement" argument which was successful against Napster. Both "aid" and "abet" are terms of art, and I don't know their legal meanings in the USA, but similar things apply.
I considered an additional phrase specifying that just because it is copyright infringement also doesn't mean it's morally wrong, but I decided it was unnecessary. I see I should have added the phrase.
For me, I think it's in a vast sliding-scale gray area between okay and not okay. Basically, I agree that people should have a way to profit from intellectual endeavors; but I disagree that people have an inherent right to control their intellectual creations. It's a difficult balance. In the past we made the balance using time limits, but now we have unlimited copyrights. The only remaining balance is fair use, which we still have, mostly, but that could disappear too.
I think it's high time that our community establish Moral Copyright. (In fact, moralcopyright.com is available.) We need to have a community conversation for what copyright should be, in a moral sense, and then write that down, and then do the best we can to self-police to that standard. For instance, I like a copyright term of 15 to 20 years, transferable; with fair use rights. What if, together, we could convince places like The Pirate Bay to self-police and only have content older than 20 years? Then when the media covered the lawsuits, there would be a storyline about Legal Copyright versus Moral Copyright.
Yes. If you are tried for a crime and found not guilty you can still be sued for the same actions in civil court and have a settlement against you. I could name more than one example, but I think we need look no farther than OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty of murder in criminal court, and yet found liable for wrongful death in civil court. QED
theft implies denial of use. if you don't deny use, it's not theft.
the doesn't mean that copyright infringement is morally right, but it does mean copyright infringement isn't theft.
Loosely related to this political thread, here is Obama's technology policy page which is very exciting because it is reasonably in line with general nerd opinion. So here I am, shilling for Obama during a Romney thread. I might be Offtopic but I hope I'm Informative! Here are some exceprts:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
Your statement is so plain and obvious that I'm shocked it's not blindingly obvious to the people who will eventually lose this culture war. I often step back and scratch my head, wondering why people would oppose the obvious inevitable future. Did record companies ever actually believe DRM would work? Really? Could they be so daft? It's hard to believe.
I over-used the work 'obvious', but you just can't talk about this subject without that word.
There are lots and lots of very talented musicians today, as there always have been, just don't try to discover them by listening to the radio. Corporate interests may be able to make radio suck, but they can't make all music suck. Today my favorites are Tool, White Stripes, Radiohead, J5, Buju Banton, Lyrics Born, Flaming Lips, Two Siberians... And then I also listen to a bunch of stuff from the past. The nice thing about the last century of music is that it's all recorded, so you can go discover artists that were awesome a long time ago: Wu Tang, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Phish, Sublime, Beach Boys... whatever you're into.
Discovering new artists is a challenge today. I reiterate that you can't rely on radio. I've found the IndieFeed podcasts to be pretty good, but mostly I google for my favorite artists then listen to other artists that come up on those pages. That's a good way to discover music similar to the music you already like, but not so good at finding totally new sounds. Oh, I also sometimes find a label which has a bunch of good artists, such as Rawkus Records.
Can anyone suggest non-radio ways of finding new artists? Specifically I'd like a professional to vet music for me, like a trustworthy DJ with good taste.
Where is the next Zeppelin?
It's Radiohead. Check 'em out. Also, it used to be Phish.
I just want to point out that these ongoing shenanigans show that IE is not a web browser. The whole world (including Microsoft) got together and decided exactly what a "web page" is and wrote it down in very clear specifications. So, anyone who writes a piece of software that renders a web page, as defined by those specifications, is a web browser. If you write software that does anything else, then that isn't a web browser. Therefore, insofar as IE does not render web pages, it is not a web browser. So, if anyone complains that your documents don't look right when they view them in IE, gently explain to them that your documents are web pages, and to view them the person needs a web browser, and IE isn't a web browser.
That leaves open the question of exactly what IE is.
That's funny, I've never made a web page and checked it in IE. I always assumed that would be a giant waste of time. I prefer to know what my pages look like in *web browsers*, and since IE doesn't render web pages, it isn't a web browser. Tell your customers to download a web browser -- any one will do just fine. Your customers can hardly expect your pages to render in software that isn't a web browser. Do your pages render in vi? Of course not, vi isn't a web browser. Do they render in tcpdump? Of course not, tcpdump isn't a web browser. Do they render in Notepad? Of course not notepad isn't a web browser. Do they render in IE? No? They don't render in IE? Well then IE must not be a web browser.
Mmmmm hmmmm. Okay, well then he was mistaken in claiming they 'start' at $2000. They start at $1100, that much is clear. For people who prefer screens bigger than 13", there are models higher up on the scale.
So, again, the guy was wrong in that claim.
Me, I got the 17" MBP, and I sold my firstborn to pay for it. Actually, I just saved for a couple months.
You left out the most essential detail, which is where you live.
Yes, this is very insightful. I live in Juneau, Alaska and we have a tiered system here (I was surprised to learn it wasn't this way everywhere). Our vendor is GCI. I have no idea how much the rest of you pay for internet, but we pay an astounding eighty dollars for a cable modem, and that is the cheapest tier. We just upped to a higher amount this month (so I could download more porn, you know) and I bet it'll be a hundred dollars.
How is making a compilation of awesome fighting scenes not adding original contribution to the copyrighted works? Were the original copyrighted works simply compilations of awesome fighting scenes? Okay, well maybe king fu movies are a bad example because some of them really are just compilations of awesome fighting scenes.
+5, Insightful
or more like
+5, Able To Make Essential Distinctions
under current law copyright infringement *is* a crime, should it be that way? perhaps not, but legally it is.
This is contrary to my understanding of copyright law. My understanding is that it is a tort, not a crime. In fact, I'm really really sure that's the case, so unless you can cite a law showing copyright infringement to be a crime, I'm going to go on with my life assuming you don't know what you're talking about.
To be clear, a crime is prosecuted by the government and results in punishments like jail, probation, community service, etc; a tort is prosecuted by a civil entity, and results in punishments like monetary damages, injunctions, etc.
Also, I'm in the USA, so if you're talking about another country, perhaps one outside of Western civilization, then your jurisdiction might be different.
Also, you make a point about the act of preparing files for copyright infringement being treated differently based on whether anyone actually downloads the files or not. You say it's dumb to treat the same action differently just because of circumstances, but I'm not really following your argument, because the law does that all the damn time. If you don't shovel your sidewalk and someone falls on it, you may be sued and lose a court judgment. But if nobody falls, there is no lawsuit. I could come up with examples like that all day long, but my watertight correct counterargument is that circumstances not only can but almost always do change the legal liability of actions.
Basically, I can tell you know nothing about the laws which govern the United States. I hope for your sake that you don't live in the USA or any country with a similar legal tradition, or else you are bound to suffer greatly for your ignorance.
There is a significant distinction between contemplating a crime (which is not a crime) and planning a crime along with a partner (which is a crime -- conspiracy). I can think of two distinctions: you have to not just contemplate the crime, but must actually move on to planning it; and you must not just plan it alone, you must plan it with help. It's a sliding scale, you know, between thinking about a crime, to planning it, to conspiring to commit it, to committing it. We punish the acts on that scale differently, and draw a line saying acts below conspiracy aren't a crime by themselves, rather just an exacerbating circumstance (premeditation).
No. Thinking about a crime isn't conspiracy to commit the crime, it's premeditation, which isn't illegal, but does make a crime more serious and susceptible to greater punishment. To commit conspiracy you must take your criminal premeditation, convert it into outward communication, and engage another human being in your criminal planning.
All countries I know of, however, DO have thought crimes: drug prohibition. Think about it: what does a drug do to you? It changes your brain chemistry, which is another way of saying it changes your thoughts. Drug prohibition, then, is making it illegal to have those thoughts. That is, literally, thought crime and thought control. Does that make drug prohibition bad public policy? Maybe not, but it is a pretty significant limitation on freedom.
Yes, you are correct, that's why downloading songs without paying for them isn't theft -- it's copyright infringement. The difference is just as you say -- you must deprive the original owner of enjoyment of the thing stolen. If I download a song from you, you can still enjoy the song, so it isn't theft, and people who claim it is theft are knowingly pushing lies. It isn't at all like stealing a car, in which case you could
And while we're on the topic, it also isn't theft to skip commercials, or to time-shift, or to place-shift, or to resell anything you own, or to loan anything you own. Furthermore, libraries doesn't facilitate theft. The entire concept is so totally wrong and bad for humanity - it's frustrating to hear such lame arguments made.
tcpdump is now nefarious software? uh oh.
who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
The Supreme Court, traditionally; and in fact there is tons of case law on exactly that issue.
If you haven't already, I recommend half.com, which for me has been an excellent way to get used CDs for very cheap.
Holy crap. There are only two albums on there I'd even bother playing (Dylan, Santana) and even then I frankly wouldn't be too excited, since they aren't exactly my favorite artists. To be fair, I'm not familiar with twelve of the offerings. Maybe those twelve are AWESOME! But, I doubt it.
Did the RIAA start suing song downloaders while I was too busy reading election news? Because last I checked, they were only suing song uploaders (the infringing content providers). Also, the reason stealing a CD from a store and committing copyright infringement have such different punishments is that they are totally different crimes, not really related in any way. Furthermore the reason you get "more" punishment for copyright infringement is that copyright infringement is considered a more serious crime than petty theft, in that it causes greater damages against the 'victim'.
But seriously, you already considered all that right? What was your point again?