I am the one referring to the user getting it from the copy he owns. The parent apparently believes that OSS companies distribute illegal copies of Windows products, which is of course nonsense in most cases I am aware of.
This is an example of an OSS company illegally distributing copies of code from the Windows operating system.
Look up the history of copyright. It was considered by the founding fathers a necessary evil, the evil being a monopoly in a capitalistic market. The British empire used a form of copyright so that people in the colonies could not make products out of rew materials that the colonies themselves produced. They had to go to Britian who made heaps of monopolistic revenue from using these raw material to produce goods. In fact, America was able to break off from Britian by breaking this form of copyright imposed by Britian. Of course this isn't stricly copyright if you want split hairs but it was before the term copyright was coined.
I really seriously don't believe that you have any clue what the word copyright means.
Clue: It's not a catch-all for whatever concept of "preventing someone from doing what they want to do" that you want to come up with next. It's specifically something that refers to intellectual works - not preventing colonists from making goods. That's another part of law entirely.
Actually, it would be in violation of the license, not the copyright if he owns a copy.
No, it'd still be in violation of copyright. The distributor is the person doing the violating, not necessarily the end user. In this case, that distributor is mplayer.hq
When you buy a CD or a book almost nothing goes to the authors; I should know, I have many friends that are musicians and writers. As for software(which is what I do for a living); the whole proprietary software industry is a scam(I should know, I did work on it for quite some years); open source on the other hand is based in the real value of software(and I should know, as I have been working on/with open source software for quite some years).
Really? Why should I believe that when you're not even posting under a real user account?
I make sure that when I spend my hard earned money it actually goes to the people that does stuff that I like; not to the people that _exploits_ them (ie., publishers, record companies and movie studios).
Da people dat exploits dem? Who dem then?
You do realize that most publishers, record companies and movie studios take the place of venture capitalists and angel investors for the content production industry? Sure there are some horror stories out there - but there are horror stories out there for every industry. But ultimately, you wouldn't have the breadth of choices you have to choose from if these people with deep pockets didn't fund the production of the movies and music.
As for your comments about "almost nothing going to the authors"... who the hell are your friends?
They appear to be singularly incompetent in arranging their contracts. Most publishing contracts for books that I've seen give you 15% royalties on the wholesale cost of the book - and typically, most books wholesale for 50% of the price you'll see them going for in a store.
The reason why the authors only get 15% is because the publishers have to eat the cost of any books that the stores don't sell. There is a high likelihood that any single book won't sell. When you add all this up, this is a really good deal for the author - they'll make a healthy profit, as will the publisher. If the book goes supernova (most don't), it's a different story. But it's also highly unlikely.
10,000 copies is a good number of sales for most books, by the way. On a $40 book, that means you make - as the author - about $3 per book, or $30,000. Not bad.
Of course, without the publisher, the author would most likely sell 1/100th that many if they're lucky.
So I don't know where you're getting your figures from, but I think you're mostly smoking large amounts of crack, and have taken up talking out of your ass.
As for breaking the law; I am a firm believer in the principle that: "It is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore dumb laws."
Sure. When it suits them. You're just a freeloading biatch.
So _you_ get over yourself and admit that you are wrong and full of shit. I don't know if you are astroturfing, trolling, or are just stupid; but to be honest, I don't care... *plonk*
Sure. I'll get over myself. Just as soon as you get your "friends" to detail exactly what their contract was, so you can explain how "unfair" it was to them. If it's worse than what I've laid out above, it's certainly not anywhere close to the industry average.
The reason, if you are so fucking moronic that you haven't grasped it yet is that the law is wrong, so I won't follow it. I don't have to bring about social change to justify not following an immoral law
You do if you want to call it civil disobedience instead of just wanting to get your music and videos for free instead of paying for them.
Copyright infringement isn't theft, you fucking moron. Dowling vs US if you don't believe me. You'd think it had been brought up enough times on Slashdot before, but apparently the more "special" amongst us need it repeating every so often.
Apparently the more "special" among us (and by that I mean people with brain capacity similar to yourself) seem to have difficulty reading complex legal documents such as Dowling vs. US, wherein on the last two pages, they equate copyright infringement with stealing.
The statutory terms at issue here, i. e., "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," traditionally have been given broad scope by the courts. For example, in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957), this Court held that the term "stolen" included all felonious takings with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether the theft would constitute larceny at common law. Id., at 417. Similarly, in Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), the Court stated that conversion "may be consummated without any intent to keep and without any wrongful taking, where the initial possession by the converter was entirely lawful. Conversion may include misuse or abuse of property. It may reach use in an unauthorized manner or to an unauthorized extent of property placed in one's custody for limited use." Id., at 271-272.
Dowling's unauthorized duplication and commercial exploitation of the copyrighted performances were intended to gain for himself the rights and benefits lawfully reserved to the copyright owner. Under Turley, supra, his acts should be [473 U.S. 207, 232] viewed as the theft of these performances. Likewise, Dowling's acts constitute the unauthorized use of another's property and are fairly cognizable as conversion under the Court's definition in Morissette.
The Court invokes the familiar rule that a criminal statute is to be construed narrowly. This rule is intended to assure fair warning to the public, e. g., United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348 (1971); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931), and is applied when statutory language is ambiguous or inadequate to put persons on notice of what the legislature has made a crime. See, e. g., United States v. Bass, supra; Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 (1971); Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83 (1955). I disagree not with these principles, but with their application to this statute. As I read 2314, it is not ambiguous, but simply very broad. The statute punishes individuals who transport goods, wares, or merchandise worth $5,000 or more, knowing "the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud." 18 U.S.C. 2314. As noted above, this Court has given the terms "stolen" and "converted" broad meaning in the past. The petitioner could not have had any doubt that he was committing a theft as well as defrauding the copyright owner.
Oh, and why are you posting anonymously? Afraid to put your money where your mouth is?
In other words, because somebody encodes a media product using a closed source codec, then we must all abandon OSS?
And who says it's illegally copied if one owns said Windows distro?
Well, the fact that it's distributed separately from said distro is a bit of a giveaway. The fact that it's distributed outside of Windows at all is in violation of the copyright on the material - whether you own a copy or not. Especially so if you're a Linux user using it on your system and you don't own the copy of Windows that they came from.
If that were true, copyright would be absolutely meaningless. Posting something that you hold the copyright for does not make it public domain - *you* hold the copyright, therefore *you* have the ability to do whatever the hell you want with it. Publishing your copyrighted material, even for that magical word, 'free' doesn't automagically give others the right to distribute it as they wish.
In that case, please explain how Google and Slashdot can distribute this post as they wish.
I guess you've never heard of 'civil disobedience'. Perhaps all those niggers should have just sat in the back of the bus and kept their fucking mouths shut, right? Seeing as what they did was illegal as well. What? But those laws were unjust? But I thought it doesn't matter, it's illegal and you don't have a right to do it! That's what you said, anyway.
If you feel a law is unjust, you violate it. Simple as that. As far as I'm concerned, that is your duty as a citizen of whichever country you may live in. If you don't, then you might as well go around yelling 'nigger' to every black person you see.
Nice Godwin attempt... but as I told the other poster I replied to on this topic:
If you think this is civil disobedience, you're great at lying to yourself, or you're a real amateur when it comes to the whole civil disobedience thing.
Civil disobedience requires public demonstration of that disobedience.
Hiding behind P2P clients, on hidden networks like Freenet, or other such ruses is not anything even remotely approaching civil disobedience. It's just criminals hiding their activity from the law.
But hey, believe that it's civil disobedience if you want to. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
No, but when somebody says they don't respect the law because it is wrong, you shouldn't accuse them of just being out for what they can get. To use an anlogy somebody else brought up, you accusing the OP of trying to justify getting stuff for free is like accusing Rosa Parks of trying to get free bus rides.
If the reason is civil disobedience, then there has to be publicity to show that you're breaking the law to get it changed because you feel it's unjust.
If that truly is the case, then surely you don't care if the RIAA is suing you? So why should your IP info remain private?
Answer: Because you just freeloading. You're not committing civil disobedience at all. If you really believed in your cause, then organize and fight it in the court system. Fighting it by hiding from the law so that you can be "disobedient" in the comfort and privacy of your own home just means that you're not interested in civil disobedience at all. You just want a free ride.
Comparing the OP to Rosa Parks is rich though - you're taking a very brave woman and putting her in the same class as a petty thief. Shameful.
To put things in perspective, with P2P to reduce publishing and distrubution costs to zero, you can FULLY fund the actual artists at thier current levels based on $4 per person. That figure is easily calculated based on US population and the dollar volume of the entire US music industry and the fact under the current RIAA regime maybe MAYBE 10% of that dollar volume actually makes it to the artists.
Four lousy dollars per year, per person, to make the entire music issue go away! All the music anyone wants, all you could possibly listen to, 100% free. Artists could get just as much as they get now, but it would also entail the RIAA DROPPING DEAD. So of course the RIAA will fight tooth and nail, and spend millions lobbying and on campaign bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H contributions, to ensure that instead we just keep getting more and more oppressive laws and DRM enforcment.
Sorry, but the US government generally doesn't like these kinds of Socialist ideas. It won't fly. Especially when you start having people getting pissed at having to pay taxes for musicians they disagree with.
And with that quota system, you also remove the opportunity for ANYONE to become a musician. You now have to be a state sponsored musician, which means regulation.
Nice try to twist the truth; Pity that you are wrong and trying to create artificial differences between what is the same thing: Information.
It's an old adage, but not for that any less true: Information wants to be Free.
Information might want to be free, but there is a huge difference between information, and structured text.
If I took a book, and sorted all of its words into alphabetical order, then that is information. A book, however, is a specific ordering and combination of that information. It is a synthesis.
"Intellectual Property" is about Information control and ownership; morally bankrupt government sponsored monopolies worthy of the worst Communist dictature
Ah, you're just a fucking freeloader who is getting pissy because you feel guilty for breaking the law. Get over yourself.
Do you really think that if anyone accused of copyright violation could just say I created a large random file and it turned out to be this MP3 file? So, yeah, creating an entire song that's just like another one without hearing it as slim as a snowball's chance in hell.
No. That would be stupid, because it would be statistically unlikely. I wonder why you're so lame at arguing that you insist on changing the framework of the debate each time you get cornered.
Your original argument was:
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
Somewhat different to your new claim about MP3s. I'm not sure why I should keep responding to you given that you're such a slippery, dishonest debater.
Admit it, you learnt the theory of rationalization from someone else (and admit that you should pay for it's use according to your own view on copyright).
Nope, sorry. According to my own view on copyright - and to the law of copyright - I don't have to pay people to use their ideas. I certainly don't have to pay people to use ideas I didn't come across.
Rationalization is the process of coming up with reasons to explain your actions, even when those reasons are actually an afterthought and not the motivation behind your actions.
My specific description in the paragraph above is something I can copyright. It's not something I can patent.
The idea embodied in it cannot be patented or copyrighted.
Perhaps you should start doing some research and learn exactly what patents and copyrights are, and how they work, because frankly it's looking right now like you don't have a clue but are blustering a lot to try to make it look like you do.
Well, how do you know that society won't change it's view on copyright in the future? It is pretty clear to me that some portions of copyright law are wrong. You say pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong but then it wasn't so and many people like KKK and others believed segregation was right. How do you know that your view of copyright is right?
Because society has evolved, historically, to respect the rights and work of others. Copyright embodies respect for intellectual effort and work - much as physical labor has always been respected.
Not at all. I personally would respect copyright if it was the original, reasonable terms. But I think if anybody is mooching off of others, it's the people who expect to work hard to create something and then expect to get paid for it in perpetuity. Everybody else must work hard, and then continue to work hard. Everybody else must honour their deals. Why should creators get a free ride from society?
Hmmm... apparently you don't understand the disparity here.
The risk to the creator is that no-one will buy the work that they may have spent several years creating. They don't get paid for that work. If it doesn't sell, they get nothing in return. The costs are much higher than any individual person is willing to pay for the completed work, so you amortize this over the entire population of people willing to buy your product. This lets you sell it at a lower price, and at a higher volume.
However, to sell something in high volume, you need to protect that sale by law so that you're the only one who can sell that thing (otherwise, its value immediately drops to zero) - thus, copyright law was born.
Ignoring extended copyright terms for now (as they're not core to this debate), would you care to suggest any other mechanism by which this system can work? Please note that if you suggest a patronage model, you're immediately creating a special class of people who can create works, and excluding all others from doing so.
I don't know what you're talking about re: "honouring your deals". Perhaps you could explain further? And as for a free ride, society certainly isn't providing the up-front cost of creating the work to the creator - if it was, you might have a point. The risk is all on the creator's shoulders.
At least when you're digging trenches you know that you're going to be paid for it at the end of the day. If you want a higher reward, take higher risks. Risk not getting that paycheck, and get a bigger one. That's the way it works in this society - and it's the way it has seemingly always worked throughout history. Entrepreneurs are the people who take the biggest risks, and either fail spectacularly or garner the greatest rewards.
Strawm man argument. I am happy to pay for what they produce. I am happy to refrain from copying it for a number of years so that they can make a living. But that isn't enough for them. They want to take away my right to copy permanently. That isn't the copyright deal.
Hmmm... yet if you're agreeing with the original poster who wrote this:
Well, each time Congress extends the length of copyright or strengthens patent law, they're stealing from me, they're stealing from you, and they're stealing from each person in this country who could gain anything from that work, even if it's just 90 minutes of enjoyment from watching an old movie for free. I, for one, am outraged, and now that Congress has turned to looting from me for the benefit of the few who are wealthy and powerful, I will feel no remorse when I download music, or copy DVDs
Now, this person doesn't say to "wait a reasonable amount of time and then copy them". He's just advocating blanket copying of them.
Oh, and you do have the right to make copies for yourself - I'm not sure from your post whether you're aware of this. You just don't get to give or sell those copies to other people.
Hadn't you noticed? This is a form of boycott. If you don't give them your money under any circumstances, you aren't supporting them by giving them business. Whether or not you later go on to copy their work is immaterial, they aren't getting your money either way.
boycott
verb refuse to have commercial or social dealings with (a person, organization, or country) as a punishment or protest.
noun an act of boycotting.
Neither of these mean that you get to take what you want as well.
You need a lesson in logic. First you make the leap that copying mea
The law is questionable when it comes to this however in the fact that the owners being restricted from producing and distributing those copies are having that term made longer and are even having an attack performed against the rights that are granted in the consitution. Freedom is being attacked and taken away. My freedom is being stolen. You can not deny that with sound reasoning.
You're not free to go around killing people either. Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to do something.
That's why we have laws, and judges. The idea being that even if an idea is unpopular, it may in fact be the right thing to do. And that's where the legal system comes in - it tries to set up what is the right thing to do - even if it's not popular to the masses.
The content is owned by the person who possesses it. I assume you acknowledge this fact? Now, what the grandparent was saying is quite true. Content that the public was going to be in full control of that they already owned is being taken away from us without our consent. The attempt currently is to make it so the individual never owns the content. That's horrible and wrong in my opinion. Do you disagree?
No. The content is not owned by the person who possesses it. The media that content is distributed on is owned by the person who possesses it. The content is owned by the holder of the copyright. This is an important difference, and one that you appear to be totally unaware of.
I may or may not disagree with copyright durations. That's irrelevant. What I disagree with is people using their disagreement as an excuse to break the law and get things their own way.
I might think that it's really unfair that you have more money than me. After all, we're both human and have inalienable rights - why should you get more than I do? But I don't mug you and beat you to a bloody pulp in a dark alley and take your money.
Wow, a long bitter response. I must be doing something right.
No, I just don't let pompous asses get off lightly.
You might not have heard of Max Weber but you did use his theory and ideas which you probably heard of from other sources (from Psychology class or someone else using it). I don't think you just came up with the idea all on your own. It is a public domain idea that benefits everyone, including you without having to pay for every use of it.
Nope, no psychology class. Sorry. And also sorry because you Can't Copyright Ideas. You should read more on what you can and can't copyright.
Similarly, you can't copyright a phone number.
That doesn't change the fact that you have to pay when you use something that has been patented. So cough up the money to Max Weber's estate
Wait a minute, bub. We were talking about copyright. Switching topics mid-stream because you were caught out is a really lame-ass way to get out of a debate you're losing.
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
If I came up with the entire song by myself without ever hearing it, that would not be copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference? Or are you just trying to make the best out of your sloppy argument?
Antisocial heh, then I guess that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat in the bus was also antisocial since it did violate society's laws.
Yes it was. Society, however, has changed since then. The thing is, it's pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong. There is no such clear stance on copyright law - and most people actually think that copyright law is the right way to do things - and that letting people freeload is not.
Those that have forked over $1000+ for specialised proprietry software (Photoshop, Cubase etc) are the ones that have the right to say the features of the Free Software replacements are not up to scratch.
Also forgoet to mention. I do not mean the eventual complete destruction of all forms of intellectual property. There are some practices, laws, ideas in the intellectual property system we want to keep, improve, or make only minor changes to. But most of it must be dropped. One example is file-sharing. File-sharing is providing a decent transition that will create a new music ecnonomy without completely destroying the current one. The internet, computers, digital media, etc. all provide an instant savings in distribution, marketing, and other areas. The old system still remains and has even had better sales according to some. The idustry definitely is not about to fall. While the new music industry evolves, the old one will change. If society is to ever progress, we must change. The music, movie, and publishing industries can either resist or work with progress.
Reducing the cost of distribution and of goods does not reduce the cost of creating that first product, though.
Address that problem. The distribution side of it is a red herring.
Please, you and all those that argue the same point, do some reading on the subject. Also, do not get all your information on the subject from mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled for the most part by the wealthy.
I don't get all of my information from the mainstream media. I research most things that I hear passed around as 'fact', and have found a good many of them to be complete bunk. And I've done plenty of reading on the subject, thanksmuch.
Ideas are part of life. We continually produce new ideas that drive progress. The idea of an idea monopoly is about as absurd in capitalism as a monopoly on a particular area of business. It all comes down to control. Our society has grown up with intellectual property laws and therefore, many people rely on this system for a living. Those that argue that the system is corrupt, broken, a failure, anti-capitalistic, etc. are almost guaranteed resistance from those that benefit from it. Control is everything. If an industry, business, institution, etc. loses control of the market, people, etc., something will take its place.
There is a HUGE difference between an idea and a piece of intellectual property such as a copyrighted work. Ideas are ten a penny. A book cannot be equated with an "idea". It has ideas in it, but it is also built from a structure which takes a lot more work to put together than just randomly having an "idea".
Do NOT equate the two. They are not the same, even if you want them to be. Ideas are free - you cannot copyright them. You can, however, copyright an expression of an idea.
The problem is that the intellectual property system is very artificial. It goes against what comes natural. When a person finds a better way of doing something, then others may or may not copy it. It is far more efficient for society to replicate what works best. When the idea that allows for progress is in control of a specific person, etc. then it creates an artificial barrier. This barrier is supported by various means, most being legal.
It's natural to eat food when you're hungry - so laws against shoplifting in grocery stores are unnatural. It's natural to kill people who threaten you - so laws against murder are unnatural. It's natural to want to have sex with other people - so laws against murder are unnatural.
There is a difference between "natural behavior" and society - society governs natural behavior, and limits its actions for the good of the community as a whole. This means that sometimes you might not be allowed to do whatever the hell you want. Boo hoo. If you don't like it, exit the society.
And again, you mix the concept of Idea with copyrighted work. Here's an idea for you: "Two lovers, from rival families, try to find a way to be together." This has just described West Side Story, Romeo & Juliet, and Pyramus and Thisbe from ancient middle-eastern myth. However, each of those stories is significantly different from one another - but they are all based around the same basic idea.
Stop confusing the two. An idea takes no work.
Now back to the argument of compensation. If a person, institution, etc. finds a particular area of interest in pursuing, they will. It the cost is too high, then it won't be pursued. Some will argue that because of the high costs of particular endevours, we will not progress without compensation. The same people seem to forget or undermine the important of organizations life the Science Foundation. Although the size of these institutions may be small now, they would likely be larger and more efficient without intellectual property law barriers.
And where will the money come from to fund the Science Foundation? Taxes?
Hard to get the taxes to pay for things like that when your population doesn't earn much money.
In other words, you will limit progress, and return us to the days when only a very special few who were patronized or were wealthy could afford to create works. E
You have used the Max Weber's theory of rationalization in your post without compensating him. Please send send payment to his estate.
Hard to use someone else's theory or plagiarize it when you've never even heard of it before.
I don't know if you realized this, but theories can't be copyrighted either. The paper that explains them can be, but the theory itsef cannot. The closest approximation of what you're trying to go for is a patent.
And yes, I know you were trying to be funny and make a point, but you did it in the lamest way possible.
And what's more - even if it were possible to copyright a theory - is that if I use someone else's theory without ever having heard of them, I'm creating my own version. That's not copyright infringement. It's certainly not anything even remotely like taking DVDs and music and copying them to "stick it to the man".
But hey, keep working on it. I'm sure you'll find a better way to rationalize your antisocial behavior. (And, by the way, it is antisocial - if you won't be governed by society's laws, you're antisocial by definition).
Slashdot Mirror
I am the one referring to the user getting it from the copy he owns. The parent apparently believes that OSS companies distribute illegal copies of Windows products, which is of course nonsense in most cases I am aware of.
s /w indows-all-20041107.zip
This is an example of an OSS company illegally distributing copies of code from the Windows operating system.
http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codec
Happy now?
Look up the history of copyright. It was considered by the founding fathers a necessary evil, the evil being a monopoly in a capitalistic market. The British empire used a form of copyright so that people in the colonies could not make products out of rew materials that the colonies themselves produced. They had to go to Britian who made heaps of monopolistic revenue from using these raw material to produce goods. In fact, America was able to break off from Britian by breaking this form of copyright imposed by Britian. Of course this isn't stricly copyright if you want split hairs but it was before the term copyright was coined.
I really seriously don't believe that you have any clue what the word copyright means.
Clue: It's not a catch-all for whatever concept of "preventing someone from doing what they want to do" that you want to come up with next. It's specifically something that refers to intellectual works - not preventing colonists from making goods. That's another part of law entirely.
Stop squirming and crack a book.
Actually, it would be in violation of the license, not the copyright if he owns a copy.
No, it'd still be in violation of copyright. The distributor is the person doing the violating, not necessarily the end user. In this case, that distributor is mplayer.hq
When you buy a CD or a book almost nothing goes to the authors; I should know, I have many friends that are musicians and writers. As for software(which is what I do for a living); the whole proprietary software industry is a scam(I should know, I did work on it for quite some years); open source on the other hand is based in the real value of software(and I should know, as I have been working on/with open source software for quite some years).
Really? Why should I believe that when you're not even posting under a real user account?
I make sure that when I spend my hard earned money it actually goes to the people that does stuff that I like; not to the people that _exploits_ them (ie., publishers, record companies and movie studios).
Da people dat exploits dem? Who dem then?
You do realize that most publishers, record companies and movie studios take the place of venture capitalists and angel investors for the content production industry? Sure there are some horror stories out there - but there are horror stories out there for every industry. But ultimately, you wouldn't have the breadth of choices you have to choose from if these people with deep pockets didn't fund the production of the movies and music.
As for your comments about "almost nothing going to the authors"... who the hell are your friends?
They appear to be singularly incompetent in arranging their contracts. Most publishing contracts for books that I've seen give you 15% royalties on the wholesale cost of the book - and typically, most books wholesale for 50% of the price you'll see them going for in a store.
The reason why the authors only get 15% is because the publishers have to eat the cost of any books that the stores don't sell. There is a high likelihood that any single book won't sell. When you add all this up, this is a really good deal for the author - they'll make a healthy profit, as will the publisher. If the book goes supernova (most don't), it's a different story. But it's also highly unlikely.
10,000 copies is a good number of sales for most books, by the way. On a $40 book, that means you make - as the author - about $3 per book, or $30,000. Not bad.
Of course, without the publisher, the author would most likely sell 1/100th that many if they're lucky.
So I don't know where you're getting your figures from, but I think you're mostly smoking large amounts of crack, and have taken up talking out of your ass.
As for breaking the law; I am a firm believer in the principle that: "It is the responsibility of every citizen to ignore dumb laws."
Sure. When it suits them. You're just a freeloading biatch.
So _you_ get over yourself and admit that you are wrong and full of shit. I don't know if you are astroturfing, trolling, or are just stupid; but to be honest, I don't care... *plonk*
Sure. I'll get over myself. Just as soon as you get your "friends" to detail exactly what their contract was, so you can explain how "unfair" it was to them. If it's worse than what I've laid out above, it's certainly not anywhere close to the industry average.
It's natural to want to have sex with other people - so laws against murder are unnatural.
We don't need to hear about your necrophilia fetish, thanksmuch.
That's what I get for copying & pasting in a hurry. It was meant to read:
It's natural to want to have sex with other people - so laws against rape are unnatural.
Yes, from what I heard, Microsoft couldn't afford a real electrician...
Not done many trade shows, have you?
You use the union guy who works for the facility. You don't get to pick who does the work.
You do if you want to call it civil disobedience instead of just wanting to get your music and videos for free instead of paying for them.
Copyright infringement isn't theft, you fucking moron. Dowling vs US if you don't believe me. You'd think it had been brought up enough times on Slashdot before, but apparently the more "special" amongst us need it repeating every so often.
Apparently the more "special" among us (and by that I mean people with brain capacity similar to yourself) seem to have difficulty reading complex legal documents such as Dowling vs. US, wherein on the last two pages, they equate copyright infringement with stealing.
Oh, and why are you posting anonymously? Afraid to put your money where your mouth is?
I'm sick of responding to a faceless anonymous coward. If you want to continue to debate, do it under your user account.
In other words, because somebody encodes a media product using a closed source codec, then we must all abandon OSS?
And who says it's illegally copied if one owns said Windows distro?
Well, the fact that it's distributed separately from said distro is a bit of a giveaway. The fact that it's distributed outside of Windows at all is in violation of the copyright on the material - whether you own a copy or not. Especially so if you're a Linux user using it on your system and you don't own the copy of Windows that they came from.
So yes, it's illegally copied.
If that were true, copyright would be absolutely meaningless. Posting something that you hold the copyright for does not make it public domain - *you* hold the copyright, therefore *you* have the ability to do whatever the hell you want with it. Publishing your copyrighted material, even for that magical word, 'free' doesn't automagically give others the right to distribute it as they wish.
In that case, please explain how Google and Slashdot can distribute this post as they wish.
Thanks.
I guess you've never heard of 'civil disobedience'. Perhaps all those niggers should have just sat in the back of the bus and kept their fucking mouths shut, right? Seeing as what they did was illegal as well. What? But those laws were unjust? But I thought it doesn't matter, it's illegal and you don't have a right to do it! That's what you said, anyway.
If you feel a law is unjust, you violate it. Simple as that. As far as I'm concerned, that is your duty as a citizen of whichever country you may live in. If you don't, then you might as well go around yelling 'nigger' to every black person you see.
Nice Godwin attempt... but as I told the other poster I replied to on this topic:
If you think this is civil disobedience, you're great at lying to yourself, or you're a real amateur when it comes to the whole civil disobedience thing.
Civil disobedience requires public demonstration of that disobedience.
Hiding behind P2P clients, on hidden networks like Freenet, or other such ruses is not anything even remotely approaching civil disobedience. It's just criminals hiding their activity from the law.
But hey, believe that it's civil disobedience if you want to. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
No, but when somebody says they don't respect the law because it is wrong, you shouldn't accuse them of just being out for what they can get. To use an anlogy somebody else brought up, you accusing the OP of trying to justify getting stuff for free is like accusing Rosa Parks of trying to get free bus rides.
If the reason is civil disobedience, then there has to be publicity to show that you're breaking the law to get it changed because you feel it's unjust.
If that truly is the case, then surely you don't care if the RIAA is suing you? So why should your IP info remain private?
Answer: Because you just freeloading. You're not committing civil disobedience at all. If you really believed in your cause, then organize and fight it in the court system. Fighting it by hiding from the law so that you can be "disobedient" in the comfort and privacy of your own home just means that you're not interested in civil disobedience at all. You just want a free ride.
Comparing the OP to Rosa Parks is rich though - you're taking a very brave woman and putting her in the same class as a petty thief. Shameful.
To put things in perspective, with P2P to reduce publishing and distrubution costs to zero, you can FULLY fund the actual artists at thier current levels based on $4 per person. That figure is easily calculated based on US population and the dollar volume of the entire US music industry and the fact under the current RIAA regime maybe MAYBE 10% of that dollar volume actually makes it to the artists.
Four lousy dollars per year, per person, to make the entire music issue go away! All the music anyone wants, all you could possibly listen to, 100% free. Artists could get just as much as they get now, but it would also entail the RIAA DROPPING DEAD. So of course the RIAA will fight tooth and nail, and spend millions lobbying and on campaign bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H contributions, to ensure that instead we just keep getting more and more oppressive laws and DRM enforcment.
Sorry, but the US government generally doesn't like these kinds of Socialist ideas. It won't fly. Especially when you start having people getting pissed at having to pay taxes for musicians they disagree with.
And with that quota system, you also remove the opportunity for ANYONE to become a musician. You now have to be a state sponsored musician, which means regulation.
Not a good solution.
Nice try to twist the truth; Pity that you are wrong and trying to create artificial differences between what is the same thing: Information.
It's an old adage, but not for that any less true: Information wants to be Free.
Information might want to be free, but there is a huge difference between information, and structured text.
If I took a book, and sorted all of its words into alphabetical order, then that is information. A book, however, is a specific ordering and combination of that information. It is a synthesis.
"Intellectual Property" is about Information control and ownership; morally bankrupt government sponsored monopolies worthy of the worst Communist dictature
Ah, you're just a fucking freeloader who is getting pissy because you feel guilty for breaking the law. Get over yourself.
No. That would be stupid, because it would be statistically unlikely. I wonder why you're so lame at arguing that you insist on changing the framework of the debate each time you get cornered.
Your original argument was:
Somewhat different to your new claim about MP3s. I'm not sure why I should keep responding to you given that you're such a slippery, dishonest debater.
Admit it, you learnt the theory of rationalization from someone else (and admit that you should pay for it's use according to your own view on copyright).
Nope, sorry. According to my own view on copyright - and to the law of copyright - I don't have to pay people to use their ideas. I certainly don't have to pay people to use ideas I didn't come across.
Rationalization is the process of coming up with reasons to explain your actions, even when those reasons are actually an afterthought and not the motivation behind your actions.
My specific description in the paragraph above is something I can copyright. It's not something I can patent.
The idea embodied in it cannot be patented or copyrighted.
Perhaps you should start doing some research and learn exactly what patents and copyrights are, and how they work, because frankly it's looking right now like you don't have a clue but are blustering a lot to try to make it look like you do.
Well, how do you know that society won't change it's view on copyright in the future? It is pretty clear to me that some portions of copyright law are wrong. You say pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong but then it wasn't so and many people like KKK and others believed segregation was right. How do you know that your view of copyright is right?
Because society has evolved, historically, to respect the rights and work of others. Copyright embodies respect for intellectual effort and work - much as physical labor has always been respected.
Hmmm... apparently you don't understand the disparity here.
The risk to the creator is that no-one will buy the work that they may have spent several years creating. They don't get paid for that work. If it doesn't sell, they get nothing in return. The costs are much higher than any individual person is willing to pay for the completed work, so you amortize this over the entire population of people willing to buy your product. This lets you sell it at a lower price, and at a higher volume.
However, to sell something in high volume, you need to protect that sale by law so that you're the only one who can sell that thing (otherwise, its value immediately drops to zero) - thus, copyright law was born.
Ignoring extended copyright terms for now (as they're not core to this debate), would you care to suggest any other mechanism by which this system can work? Please note that if you suggest a patronage model, you're immediately creating a special class of people who can create works, and excluding all others from doing so.
I don't know what you're talking about re: "honouring your deals". Perhaps you could explain further? And as for a free ride, society certainly isn't providing the up-front cost of creating the work to the creator - if it was, you might have a point. The risk is all on the creator's shoulders.
At least when you're digging trenches you know that you're going to be paid for it at the end of the day. If you want a higher reward, take higher risks. Risk not getting that paycheck, and get a bigger one. That's the way it works in this society - and it's the way it has seemingly always worked throughout history. Entrepreneurs are the people who take the biggest risks, and either fail spectacularly or garner the greatest rewards.
Strawm man argument. I am happy to pay for what they produce. I am happy to refrain from copying it for a number of years so that they can make a living. But that isn't enough for them. They want to take away my right to copy permanently. That isn't the copyright deal.
Hmmm... yet if you're agreeing with the original poster who wrote this:
Now, this person doesn't say to "wait a reasonable amount of time and then copy them". He's just advocating blanket copying of them.
Oh, and you do have the right to make copies for yourself - I'm not sure from your post whether you're aware of this. You just don't get to give or sell those copies to other people.
Hadn't you noticed? This is a form of boycott. If you don't give them your money under any circumstances, you aren't supporting them by giving them business. Whether or not you later go on to copy their work is immaterial, they aren't getting your money either way.
boycott
verb refuse to have commercial or social dealings with (a person, organization, or country) as a punishment or protest.
noun an act of boycotting.
Neither of these mean that you get to take what you want as well.
You need a lesson in logic. First you make the leap that copying mea
Just because something is the law, it doesn't make it right.
Just because you think a law is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.
The law is questionable when it comes to this however in the fact that the owners being restricted from producing and distributing those copies are having that term made longer and are even having an attack performed against the rights that are granted in the consitution. Freedom is being attacked and taken away. My freedom is being stolen. You can not deny that with sound reasoning.
You're not free to go around killing people either. Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to do something.
That's why we have laws, and judges. The idea being that even if an idea is unpopular, it may in fact be the right thing to do. And that's where the legal system comes in - it tries to set up what is the right thing to do - even if it's not popular to the masses.
The content is owned by the person who possesses it. I assume you acknowledge this fact? Now, what the grandparent was saying is quite true. Content that the public was going to be in full control of that they already owned is being taken away from us without our consent. The attempt currently is to make it so the individual never owns the content. That's horrible and wrong in my opinion. Do you disagree?
No. The content is not owned by the person who possesses it. The media that content is distributed on is owned by the person who possesses it. The content is owned by the holder of the copyright. This is an important difference, and one that you appear to be totally unaware of.
I may or may not disagree with copyright durations. That's irrelevant. What I disagree with is people using their disagreement as an excuse to break the law and get things their own way.
I might think that it's really unfair that you have more money than me. After all, we're both human and have inalienable rights - why should you get more than I do? But I don't mug you and beat you to a bloody pulp in a dark alley and take your money.
Wow, a long bitter response. I must be doing something right.
No, I just don't let pompous asses get off lightly.
You might not have heard of Max Weber but you did use his theory and ideas which you probably heard of from other sources (from Psychology class or someone else using it). I don't think you just came up with the idea all on your own. It is a public domain idea that benefits everyone, including you without having to pay for every use of it.
Nope, no psychology class. Sorry. And also sorry because you Can't Copyright Ideas. You should read more on what you can and can't copyright.
Similarly, you can't copyright a phone number.
That doesn't change the fact that you have to pay when you use something that has been patented. So cough up the money to Max Weber's estate
Wait a minute, bub. We were talking about copyright. Switching topics mid-stream because you were caught out is a really lame-ass way to get out of a debate you're losing.
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
If I came up with the entire song by myself without ever hearing it, that would not be copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference? Or are you just trying to make the best out of your sloppy argument?
Antisocial heh, then I guess that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat in the bus was also antisocial since it did violate society's laws.
Yes it was. Society, however, has changed since then. The thing is, it's pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong. There is no such clear stance on copyright law - and most people actually think that copyright law is the right way to do things - and that letting people freeload is not.
Nice quote. Pity you too don't seem to understand the difference between an idea and a copyrighted work.
They're not the same.
Those that have forked over $1000+ for specialised proprietry software (Photoshop, Cubase etc) are the ones that have the right to say the features of the Free Software replacements are not up to scratch.
I guess that includes me then.
Well, heck, whatever it takes for you to feel better about taking someone else's work without compensating them, I guess.
It's amazing how easy it is to rationalize those things away, isn't it?
I guess the mods don't like it when they're reminded that copyright infringement is illegal no matter how you try to justify it.
Lame.
Also forgoet to mention. I do not mean the eventual complete destruction of all forms of intellectual property. There are some practices, laws, ideas in the intellectual property system we want to keep, improve, or make only minor changes to. But most of it must be dropped. One example is file-sharing. File-sharing is providing a decent transition that will create a new music ecnonomy without completely destroying the current one. The internet, computers, digital media, etc. all provide an instant savings in distribution, marketing, and other areas. The old system still remains and has even had better sales according to some. The idustry definitely is not about to fall. While the new music industry evolves, the old one will change. If society is to ever progress, we must change. The music, movie, and publishing industries can either resist or work with progress.
Reducing the cost of distribution and of goods does not reduce the cost of creating that first product, though.
Address that problem. The distribution side of it is a red herring.
Please, you and all those that argue the same point, do some reading on the subject. Also, do not get all your information on the subject from mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled for the most part by the wealthy.
I don't get all of my information from the mainstream media. I research most things that I hear passed around as 'fact', and have found a good many of them to be complete bunk. And I've done plenty of reading on the subject, thanksmuch.
Ideas are part of life. We continually produce new ideas that drive progress. The idea of an idea monopoly is about as absurd in capitalism as a monopoly on a particular area of business. It all comes down to control. Our society has grown up with intellectual property laws and therefore, many people rely on this system for a living. Those that argue that the system is corrupt, broken, a failure, anti-capitalistic, etc. are almost guaranteed resistance from those that benefit from it. Control is everything. If an industry, business, institution, etc. loses control of the market, people, etc., something will take its place.
There is a HUGE difference between an idea and a piece of intellectual property such as a copyrighted work. Ideas are ten a penny. A book cannot be equated with an "idea". It has ideas in it, but it is also built from a structure which takes a lot more work to put together than just randomly having an "idea".
Do NOT equate the two. They are not the same, even if you want them to be. Ideas are free - you cannot copyright them. You can, however, copyright an expression of an idea.
The problem is that the intellectual property system is very artificial. It goes against what comes natural. When a person finds a better way of doing something, then others may or may not copy it. It is far more efficient for society to replicate what works best. When the idea that allows for progress is in control of a specific person, etc. then it creates an artificial barrier. This barrier is supported by various means, most being legal.
It's natural to eat food when you're hungry - so laws against shoplifting in grocery stores are unnatural. It's natural to kill people who threaten you - so laws against murder are unnatural. It's natural to want to have sex with other people - so laws against murder are unnatural.
There is a difference between "natural behavior" and society - society governs natural behavior, and limits its actions for the good of the community as a whole. This means that sometimes you might not be allowed to do whatever the hell you want. Boo hoo. If you don't like it, exit the society.
And again, you mix the concept of Idea with copyrighted work. Here's an idea for you: "Two lovers, from rival families, try to find a way to be together." This has just described West Side Story, Romeo & Juliet, and Pyramus and Thisbe from ancient middle-eastern myth. However, each of those stories is significantly different from one another - but they are all based around the same basic idea.
Stop confusing the two. An idea takes no work.
Now back to the argument of compensation. If a person, institution, etc. finds a particular area of interest in pursuing, they will. It the cost is too high, then it won't be pursued. Some will argue that because of the high costs of particular endevours, we will not progress without compensation. The same people seem to forget or undermine the important of organizations life the Science Foundation. Although the size of these institutions may be small now, they would likely be larger and more efficient without intellectual property law barriers.
And where will the money come from to fund the Science Foundation? Taxes?
Hard to get the taxes to pay for things like that when your population doesn't earn much money.
In other words, you will limit progress, and return us to the days when only a very special few who were patronized or were wealthy could afford to create works. E
You have used the Max Weber's theory of rationalization in your post without compensating him. Please send send payment to his estate.
Hard to use someone else's theory or plagiarize it when you've never even heard of it before.
I don't know if you realized this, but theories can't be copyrighted either. The paper that explains them can be, but the theory itsef cannot. The closest approximation of what you're trying to go for is a patent.
And yes, I know you were trying to be funny and make a point, but you did it in the lamest way possible.
And what's more - even if it were possible to copyright a theory - is that if I use someone else's theory without ever having heard of them, I'm creating my own version. That's not copyright infringement. It's certainly not anything even remotely like taking DVDs and music and copying them to "stick it to the man".
But hey, keep working on it. I'm sure you'll find a better way to rationalize your antisocial behavior. (And, by the way, it is antisocial - if you won't be governed by society's laws, you're antisocial by definition).