>I don't see the difference between "You've lost nothing" and "it's ok", and I stand by my opinion that his claim is incoherent.
He was arguing about what type of illegal activity it would be, and showing that it is not stealing and telling why it would not be that. That is not the same as stating it is OK. If I state that you hiting me in the face is not murder, does similary not imply it is OK, it can be bad for a whole bunch of other reasons as well as being illegal in other ways than murder.
gee, I suppose you never borrow anything from anyone or you would "steal". Or that, when visting someone, you bring your own bought char so that you don't "steal" it by sitting on a chair you have not payed for. And so on... Fine, just realize that just because YOU feel it is OK to call all sort of things in the world stealing (hey, you can remvoe your category of "kill" since it is basically stealing of life) does not mean the law agrees with you. It so happens that the law is completely different from your view of things.
>You don't. I've bought all my CDs exactly once. No "again and again" involved.
But you might have payed again and again and again for the work on the CD in various forms and places. After all, it is the work (to which there is a copyright), in this case of the original article music, we are discussing.
>Please don't confuse the debate by playing word games. It's annoying and helps nobody.
Actually, it does help immensly since if people use all the wrong terminology, there is great confusion and people argue about the wrong things. Further, people tend to get the impression that new things apply, just because you call it something different and start argue based on that meaning you end up in a hopeless situation. So yes, using the correct terminology is vital in a debate or one get chaos. hence if you want to discuss legal matters, you should use legal terminology or people doesn't understand.
>Econ 101: The point of copyright is to force something that isn't physical property to be treated as physical property.
Completely wrong!!
> This is not rocket science, it's a requirement allowing content creators to be actors in the free market.
Not at all.
Copyright does not apply ANYTHING remotedly similar as normal property related laws does. First of all, copyright has nothing to do with ownership, while property as all to do with ownership. Holding/owning the copyright to a work (something not physical) is different from owning copies of a work (the physical thing). One does not imply the other and change of ownership of one does not imply the change of ownership of the other. Thus I can own a copy of a work, yet not hold the copyright to it. If copyright ment we should treat it as other property, it would mean no one except the copyright holder could ever own copies of a work, he could sell it but would then also sell the copyright (since they are supposed to be treated the same). Finally, copyright is about certain acts being restricted. Ownership is not about that. For example, owning something, like a rock, does not mean no one else can make an identical rock, or a copy of it. Owning something, does not mean it is forbidden for someone else to display it in public and so on. that is what copyright is about. Copyright is as far from property as one can be.
>So in fact copyright infringement is theft, simply because we define it to be so.
There is no such defintion any place. It would of course mean that if it was, we would not need any copyright laws, nor would it be any problem creating copies (since that copying something is not covered by theft nor has it ever been illegal to copy, for example a chair in your house which you own. Similary, public performance would be OK (or perhasp it is from now on to steal to put out your chair on the street for everyone to see.
> Why do we try and square the circle? Because nobody has any better ideas for how to let people get paid for making content.
We don't do that by claiming it is stealing. We do it by creating copyright laws that makes certain things that would otherwise be perfectly legal (including under theft and stealing law) to not be allowed, for example to create new copies and to make public performances.
>The choice is simple: either we define copyrighted works to be property and so copyright infringement is theft
Which is impossible since work is intangible and as far from the meaning of property as possible. The solution is to treat copyright work as copyrighted work and create whatever laws we find usefull to cover copyrighted work. There is no need to try to squeeze something into something completely different at all. you don't need to call your circle a square to calculate its area, you just apply a different algorithm to it.
> or we can use some alternative system in which it's not property and therefore cannot be traded on the open market.
What makes you think it can't be traded if it is not property? Do note that it is not the copyright nor the abstract work we trade, it is copies of it, that is, a material object into which the work is fixed. THAT is what we trade. To it, normal property laws apply. To the intangible work, copyright laws apply. It works perfectly (well reasonable well) in our society despite you yet not having discovered so.
>That's a strange statement, since the meaning of copyright is >"the right to prevent people from making copies". If I infringe >your rights, it's ok, because you still have your rights?
Were the heck did you see him state it was OK? He simply stated it is not stealing something.
>What "definition" are you using that says you can't steal an intangible? Which legal code?
The law about stealing. It doesn't apply to making copies. That is why we have this thing called copyright law to start with. Similary, laws abotu stealing doesn't include for example public performance which is also copyright infringementin many cases. Stealing has, form the law perspective nothing to do with copyright infringement and no matter how you view it will "stealing" or any definition you want of it apply to the definition of copyright infringement (which is basically performing any act that is reserved to the copyright holder).
>The theft we're talking about is money.
Money is not covered by copyright laws at all. There are typically in most countries special laws about copying money though which is also illegal. Hint, it is NOT the law about stealing. Making someone NOT get/make money is by the way neither stealing nor copyright infringement. You need to look at both theft laws and copyright laws, you seem to not know what they say. For copyright for example, not paying is not infringement, depriving someone of money is not infringement, using something without having payed the copyright holder is no tinfringement and so on. Making copies is in many cases infringement though (regardless of they money situation invovled), the same applies to various forms of public performances by the way (again, regardless of menetary situation).
>"I see it, I want it, I can get it without paying. This is great! Why won't they let me? Those bastards!"
Ehh, you still don't understand it. there are tons of way to "get it" without paying and it is all illegal and neither copyright infringement or theft. I can for example borrow it from a friend or read/listen at it at his house. or he can even give it to me. There is even cases were it IS theft (yet not copyright infirngement!!), if I for example shoplift it, or break into a house and steal a copy of the work. In neither caes did the copyright holder get paied, yet it is not copyrigth infringement. it is theft though but unless the shop or house belonged to the copyright holder, it was not from him.
Considering they have not taken anything, that would result in nothing. They have created new copies though which is something else. You can sugest that they way for the new copies they made.
>If you knew it was stolen and you were in the UK, then yes. It's known >as handling stolen goods and carries a maximum term of 14 years in jail.
Of course, this has nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringement though, since in such a case it is not stolen by the meaning of the law (doesn't matter if many people likes to call it so, the law doesn't consider it so). Those laws has to do with ownership of things. If someone makes a copy (regardless of if it is done in an infringing way or a non infringing, they are the owners of that copy (although obviously not copyrigth holders, but those are not the same thing) and can give it away. Recieveing it is not recieving stolen goods since that copy wass never stolen.
>But pervasive software licensing (which is bizarre, and AFAICT >totally unjustified) avoids 117 because the licensees arguably >don't own anything.
How so? What does licensing have to do with ownership? They are completely unrelated. Or do you know of some law stating that that you can't own anything if there is licenses involved? it is perfectly possible to own something, yet require license to do certain things with it, just as it is possible to not own something and not needing any license to dom something.
There is nothing such as "a licensed thing" (exchage thing for whatever product you want). A license is a permission to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do or alternatively you can call it the contract that llows you to do it. But something that is not forbiden, is completely irellevant to get a license for. More specifically, none of it has nothing to do about your ownership. For example, I can own a copy of, say, a book or a music CD, yet is not allowed to make certain types of copying or public performances with it. Doesn't matter if I won it. I need it because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to those. I don't need any licese to read the book or listen to the music since there is nothing forbidding me to do it (it is not an exclusive right of the copyrigth holder).
Sure, you can still provide licenses for it, for example a license to use software, but that does not turn use of it infringing if you don't have such a license. If I sell a license to breath, it won't magically turn all breathing without such a license illegal. The same applies to software, you don't need such a license to use it and just because someone DO provide such a license does not turn it illegal, nor does it magically turn it impossible to own copies of the software.
Further, it is typically the contract (or license) itself which claims that it is needed. That is, it claims that you need it because it says so. So for those licenses/contracts they claim that you don't own it so you need to agree to them and since you agree to them, you are not the owner. Obviously if you don't agree to them, what is said in them does not apply and you can be the owner and not needing them.
>Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it *is* theft. > >Stealing is depriving someone else of that product. > >Theft is simply taking that which you do not own and which you have not been given permission to posess. > >Copyright infringement=Theft. >Copyright infringement!=Stealing
If you want to discuss the legalities, check the law for definitions. Copyright infringement can be many things. One of the most common is "making a copy". Period, end of story (there are some types of copying that is not though, exceptions). It is completely irrelevant who oesn it or not. You can own the copies, yet you still can't make copies. Copyright further has nothing to do with permission to poseess and it doens't matter if you have permission to poesses it, you can still not make copies. Theft and stealing is about ownership and posesion. Copyright is not at all about any of those.
besides, your logic is all wrong. Just because A->B doesn't mean B->A. Even more, just because you have A->B and C->B doesn't in any way means A=C. That is, just because you can find a result of tehft and a result of copyrigth infringement, doesn' tmean one is the same as the other. Go back to your logic class if you need more information about logic.
For what constisutes copyright infringement and how it is defined, read the copyrigt law. In none of them does it say anything remoteldy close to "taking that which you do not own and which you have not been given permission to posess" Actually it has nothing at all about taking. it is defined as certain types of copying, distribution and public performances. How you fit, for example public performance into your theft is beyoned me for example and no idea were the "taking" comes from, that is not part of ANY related copyright right.
yes, but that dos not change the law. Just because many uses "stealing" when they mean copyright infringement" doesn't mean you can start to apply the moral, laws or similarities of actual stealing when discussing if an action is illegal or not or if it is imoral and so on. Then you end up all wrong. For example, if everyone sudenly start to call a common, lawfull act "murder" that does not turn that act illegal just because everyone calls it murder. That is, hoever EXACTLY how people in threads like this do it, they say "since it is stealing it is wrong" and the call it "stealing" since they indicate similarities and outcomes of an act that is similar to what happens when one actually steal something and since they call copyright infringement "stealing" they might as well apply the same law and definition and thus, the action turns wrong. That has nothing to do with language evolving.
>ZZZT! Wrong! The artist does not get paid their royalty >on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It >doesn't get any simpler than that.
Nor does he get any if I borrow it to listen or if he gives me it when he no longer wants it or if I go over to his house to listen to it and so on (in all cases, add "as oposed to buy my own copy). But then, I don't think you argue that I should not be allowed to play my CD when a friend comes visit unless he first goes out and buys one too so that he has paid royalties, right?
>So if you own the disc and everything on it, then why is the owner >of a disc with software on it (say, Windows) constrained by its end-user >license agreement?
They aren't. Although you can argue that if one DO agree to it, you are bound by it, but if you don't agree, you are not bound. if it is allowed to force people to agree to it is another story.
>By your post, it sounds to me like you're saying once you buy something >you have the right to do whatever you want with it, which I don't think >is the case for Windows.
As long as you don't break any law, yes then you can do whatever you want. The law prevent certain types of copying (you can't use it to make new copies and sell them for example) while other copying (that needed to use) is not prevented and percetly allowed. You don't need any license or permision for such things. The fact that Microsoft makes you believe so and wants to force you into such an agreement is another story.
>The technology they are currently using on CDs (and >have been using on VHS and DVD) make this difficult >to impossible.
Yes but that does not mean you should be entitled to a replacement which the original poster thought to be a requirement. Not all products in the world are made to never tear down.
The only restrictions on it is is use in various forms involving making it available for the public. Of course, you can't make NEW copies in several cases either. Ownership has nothing to do with copyright though. It applies equally regardless of if you would own the book or not. That is irellevant.
But then, although named DIGITAL Millenium Copyright Act, it doesn't restrict itslef to digital right management. It covers non digital right management as well.
>Technically, you only own the disc the media is on.
No, technically you own a copy of the work. A copy is a material object in which a work is fixed. The are one entity and the same. You can buy, sell and own copies just as you do with anything else in the world. It is unrelated to copyright and the ownership of copyright and one does not imply the other.
>You don't have any inherent right (according to contemporary licensing laws)
I am unaware of a "licening law". There are copyright laws and sales laws and such. Licenses are for giving you the irght to do something you otherwise would not be allowed to do. Listening to music for example is not something you are forbidden to do or the exclusive right of the copyright owner, hence no need for a license. Further, license has nothing to do with ownership, one does not imply the other, nor does it require the other either. It is from a license point of view completely irellevant if you own or do not own something. Similary, owning something would not mean you would need (or not need) a license either if such a thing would be required. They are unconnected.
>The license you agree to abide by -- which happens when you buy the disc --
No, there is no such agreement when you buy stuff. Selling and buying things are well established thorugh law and in the history of humans. See sales laws and consumer sale laws for how it is regulated. There is nothing about licenses agreed upin when buying something that involve copyright or which has nothing to do with copyright).
>is what makes it illegal for you to make copies for others or convert them into other >formats.
Ehh, you HAVE heared about the copyright law, right? THAT is what makes most such copying (although not all) illegal.
>The reason music is different is that you don't own it, you licence it.
No you don't. Try to find ANY basis for that in any law or similar. You do indeed own copies of the music (which of course is totally unrealted to owneing the copyright to a work of muci and one has nothing to do with the other). Licenses have to do, in copyright related issues, when you want to do something that would otherwise be restricted as exclusive to the copyright owner. Only a few specific things are, listening for example is not, no license needed.
>If they're selling me a licence to the song(s)/movie, then it should be reasonable for >me to buy a replacement for my existing media at less than the cost of someone without >an existing licence.
What do you mean by "selling a license"? A license is not a thing, it is a right to do something. You can't sell, or rather it is quite pointless to sell something not needed. For example, there is nothing forbidding you to listen to a CD you have bought, hence there is no need for any license to listen. In addition, you can at most sell licenses for something you yourself has been given the right. LiIstening is not such a thing given as a right to a copyright holder to start with.
ALso, don't mix up copyright with ownership, it has nothing to do with each other and are seperate issues not related to each other. One does not imply the other and change of one does not imply the change of the other.
>For example, should my CD/DVD wear out (and, believe me, they do), I should be able to >take the worn-out medium somewhere, and get a new one for approximately cost price. I >can't do this at the moment; the business model simply doesn't allow it.
Most every country has provisions for making back ups or private use copies or has some generic fair use rules that allows similar things.
>I can't do this at the moment; the business model simply doesn't allow it.
Of course you can. The bussiness model doesn't cover or handle things you do. Although many like to pretend they do and sadly, most people believe in it.
>I believe you're in a different world to me because last time I checked in the UK at >least for the last 20 years you've bought a licence to own/watch/etc. the media but >the content it's self.
Were did you "check" that? Feel free to specify, say, a law saying this (and make sure it actually says so before you mention the name of a law).
>That is why we have disclaimers like "This video is not for resale or rent. Public >views are not allowed" etc.
That is because copyright law specifically dissallow certain such uses. That has nothng to do with owneship or licenses.
>They want it illegal to copy, illegal to break content protection systems, even >illegal to remove or bypass things like region encoding. They want market regulations.
Yes, lets regulate the work market as well. That way, they can't use manufacturing plants in one "market" to supply another market. They can't press their CDs, say, in Asia and sell them in Europe or USA, that work is region marked to Asia. Want to set up a call centre in India? Sure, but those people's work are area marked for India only, can't circumvent that and have people phoning from USA get help. And so on. SHould work great. After all, why should THEY be able to trade, ship and use workforce freely in the world when normal people and their customers are not!
>...they need to make sure that the actual iPod word is copyright protected correctly >to make sure other companies don't intentionally make money of a copyrighted word.
You seriously need to read up on copyright and trademark and the difference.
>In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for >an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect >that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an >unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by >the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense >for such ownership?
You are confusing ownership (of copies of a work) with holding/owning copyright (to the work), they are not the same thing. One does not imply the other. Works themselves are not owned, one hold copyright to them (or own the copyright to them if you prefer that verb).
I suspect you are refering to the copyright holder above and if it is acceptable for the copyright holder to protect its copyright. That is quite different from the owner of a copy of a work protects his ownership, that would be, for example me, protecting my ownership of the copy of a work, for example the CD I bought (or even copied in a non infringing way). How you would go about protecting those two different things is quite different, the laws ae different and how you should view it is different. Too often people mix them up though and try to use the measures, thinking and concept of protecting ownership of copies with ownership of copyright and end up misserably wrong (not saying you nessecarilly did that though).
>I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a >part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from >the RIAA.
It was my impression that the only recieving end of those suits are RIAA themselves, they don't distribute it further to the ones they represent.
>Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid >legal claim.
The issue most have I would say is not that they do it, it is how they do it, which in part due to the way they US system works is close to, what some would say is extortion. That is, no matter what you do, you end up losing a lot of money (guilty or not) since the only way to prove that you are unguilty, or even if guilty to get a fair trial, would cost you more than the "settlement" they offer and threaten you to go to court otherwise (which should never be a possible threat to make). Of course, people tend to pick the "easy" examples when they want a victim for that method since if putting forward someone that just died or some old lady with no computer, it turns much more obvious and there is a far higher chance for emotional sympathy as well.
>Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal >activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model", >might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the >new model that replaces it?
I suppose you are also of the opinion that no one should ever be allowed to complain unless they have a (better) solution themselves? Or that you are not allowed to think anyone has done a bad job unless you can do it better yourself? And so on.... Or?
>But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or >otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.
See how you end up hopelessly wrong when making the error I described above! It doesn't matter that you try to cover up yourself by some footnote, you stil end up wrong.
>[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't >it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready >for the consequences
You ommit several other possible ways to aquire and turn the owner of copies of a work (or alternative ways were you get in possession but not nessecarilly turns owner of such copies) that are all perfectly legal but has nothing to do with buying or would even ever end up with your money going to the copyright holder. This includes making new copies.
Slashdot Mirror
>I don't see the difference between "You've lost nothing" and "it's ok", and I stand by my opinion that his claim is incoherent.
He was arguing about what type of illegal activity it would be, and showing that it is not stealing and telling why it would not be that. That is not the same as stating it is OK. If I state that you hiting me in the face is not murder, does similary not imply it is OK, it can be bad for a whole bunch of other reasons as well as being illegal in other ways than murder.
gee, I suppose you never borrow anything from anyone or you would "steal". Or that, when visting someone, you bring your own bought char so that you don't "steal" it by sitting on a chair you have not payed for. And so on... Fine, just realize that just because YOU feel it is OK to call all sort of things in the world stealing (hey, you can remvoe your category of "kill" since it is basically stealing of life) does not mean the law agrees with you. It so happens that the law is completely different from your view of things.
>You don't. I've bought all my CDs exactly once. No "again and again" involved.
But you might have payed again and again and again for the work on the CD in various forms and places. After all, it is the work (to which there is a copyright), in this case of the original article music, we are discussing.
>Please don't confuse the debate by playing word games. It's annoying and helps nobody.
Actually, it does help immensly since if people use all the wrong terminology, there is great confusion and people argue about the wrong things. Further, people tend to get the impression that new things apply, just because you call it something different and start argue based on that meaning you end up in a hopeless situation. So yes, using the correct terminology is vital in a debate or one get chaos. hence if you want to discuss legal matters, you should use legal terminology or people doesn't understand.
>Econ 101: The point of copyright is to force something that isn't physical property to be treated as physical property.
Completely wrong!!
> This is not rocket science, it's a requirement allowing content creators to be actors in the free market.
Not at all.
Copyright does not apply ANYTHING remotedly similar as normal property related laws does. First of all, copyright has nothing to do with ownership, while property as all to do with ownership. Holding/owning the copyright to a work (something not physical) is different from owning copies of a work (the physical thing). One does not imply the other and change of ownership of one does not imply the change of ownership of the other. Thus I can own a copy of a work, yet not hold the copyright to it. If copyright ment we should treat it as other property, it would mean no one except the copyright holder could ever own copies of a work, he could sell it but would then also sell the copyright (since they are supposed to be treated the same). Finally, copyright is about certain acts being restricted. Ownership is not about that. For example, owning something, like a rock, does not mean no one else can make an identical rock, or a copy of it. Owning something, does not mean it is forbidden for someone else to display it in public and so on. that is what copyright is about. Copyright is as far from property as one can be.
>So in fact copyright infringement is theft, simply because we define it to be so.
There is no such defintion any place. It would of course mean that if it was, we would not need any copyright laws, nor would it be any problem creating copies (since that copying something is not covered by theft nor has it ever been illegal to copy, for example a chair in your house which you own. Similary, public performance would be OK (or perhasp it is from now on to steal to put out your chair on the street for everyone to see.
> Why do we try and square the circle? Because nobody has any better ideas for how to let people get paid for making content.
We don't do that by claiming it is stealing. We do it by creating copyright laws that makes certain things that would otherwise be perfectly legal (including under theft and stealing law) to not be allowed, for example to create new copies and to make public performances.
>The choice is simple: either we define copyrighted works to be property and so copyright infringement is theft
Which is impossible since work is intangible and as far from the meaning of property as possible. The solution is to treat copyright work as copyrighted work and create whatever laws we find usefull to cover copyrighted work. There is no need to try to squeeze something into something completely different at all. you don't need to call your circle a square to calculate its area, you just apply a different algorithm to it.
> or we can use some alternative system in which it's not property and therefore cannot be traded on the open market.
What makes you think it can't be traded if it is not property? Do note that it is not the copyright nor the abstract work we trade, it is copies of it, that is, a material object into which the work is fixed. THAT is what we trade. To it, normal property laws apply. To the intangible work, copyright laws apply. It works perfectly (well reasonable well) in our society despite you yet not having discovered so.
>That's a strange statement, since the meaning of copyright is
>"the right to prevent people from making copies". If I infringe
>your rights, it's ok, because you still have your rights?
Were the heck did you see him state it was OK? He simply stated it is not stealing something.
>What "definition" are you using that says you can't steal an intangible? Which legal code?
The law about stealing. It doesn't apply to making copies. That is why we have this thing called copyright law to start with. Similary, laws abotu stealing doesn't include for example public performance which is also copyright infringementin many cases. Stealing has, form the law perspective nothing to do with copyright infringement and no matter how you view it will "stealing" or any definition you want of it apply to the definition of copyright infringement (which is basically performing any act that is reserved to the copyright holder).
>The theft we're talking about is money.
Money is not covered by copyright laws at all. There are typically in most countries special laws about copying money though which is also illegal. Hint, it is NOT the law about stealing. Making someone NOT get/make money is by the way neither stealing nor copyright infringement. You need to look at both theft laws and copyright laws, you seem to not know what they say. For copyright for example, not paying is not infringement, depriving someone of money is not infringement, using something without having payed the copyright holder is no tinfringement and so on. Making copies is in many cases infringement though (regardless of they money situation invovled), the same applies to various forms of public performances by the way (again, regardless of menetary situation).
>"I see it, I want it, I can get it without paying. This is great! Why won't they let me? Those bastards!"
Ehh, you still don't understand it. there are tons of way to "get it" without paying and it is all illegal and neither copyright infringement or theft. I can for example borrow it from a friend or read/listen at it at his house. or he can even give it to me. There is even cases were it IS theft (yet not copyright infirngement!!), if I for example shoplift it, or break into a house and steal a copy of the work. In neither caes did the copyright holder get paied, yet it is not copyrigth infringement. it is theft though but unless the shop or house belonged to the copyright holder, it was not from him.
>Make them pay for what they took?
Considering they have not taken anything, that would result in nothing. They have created new copies though which is something else. You can sugest that they way for the new copies they made.
>If you knew it was stolen and you were in the UK, then yes. It's known
>as handling stolen goods and carries a maximum term of 14 years in jail.
Of course, this has nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringement though, since in such a case it is not stolen by the meaning of the law (doesn't matter if many people likes to call it so, the law doesn't consider it so). Those laws has to do with ownership of things. If someone makes a copy (regardless of if it is done in an infringing way or a non infringing, they are the owners of that copy (although obviously not copyrigth holders, but those are not the same thing) and can give it away. Recieveing it is not recieving stolen goods since that copy wass never stolen.
>But pervasive software licensing (which is bizarre, and AFAICT
>totally unjustified) avoids 117 because the licensees arguably
>don't own anything.
How so? What does licensing have to do with ownership? They are completely unrelated. Or do you know of some law stating that that you can't own anything if there is licenses involved? it is perfectly possible to own something, yet require license to do certain things with it, just as it is possible to not own something and not needing any license to dom something.
There is nothing such as "a licensed thing" (exchage thing for whatever product you want). A license is a permission to do something you would otherwise not be allowed to do or alternatively you can call it the contract that llows you to do it. But something that is not forbiden, is completely irellevant to get a license for. More specifically, none of it has nothing to do about your ownership. For example, I can own a copy of, say, a book or a music CD, yet is not allowed to make certain types of copying or public performances with it. Doesn't matter if I won it. I need it because the copyright holder has the exclusive right to those. I don't need any licese to read the book or listen to the music since there is nothing forbidding me to do it (it is not an exclusive right of the copyrigth holder).
Sure, you can still provide licenses for it, for example a license to use software, but that does not turn use of it infringing if you don't have such a license. If I sell a license to breath, it won't magically turn all breathing without such a license illegal. The same applies to software, you don't need such a license to use it and just because someone DO provide such a license does not turn it illegal, nor does it magically turn it impossible to own copies of the software.
Further, it is typically the contract (or license) itself which claims that it is needed. That is, it claims that you need it because it says so. So for those licenses/contracts they claim that you don't own it so you need to agree to them and since you agree to them, you are not the owner. Obviously if you don't agree to them, what is said in them does not apply and you can be the owner and not needing them.
>Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it *is* theft.
>
>Stealing is depriving someone else of that product.
>
>Theft is simply taking that which you do not own and which you have not been given permission to posess.
>
>Copyright infringement=Theft.
>Copyright infringement!=Stealing
If you want to discuss the legalities, check the law for definitions. Copyright infringement can be many things. One of the most common is "making a copy". Period, end of story (there are some types of copying that is not though, exceptions). It is completely irrelevant who oesn it or not. You can own the copies, yet you still can't make copies. Copyright further has nothing to do with permission to poseess and it doens't matter if you have permission to poesses it, you can still not make copies. Theft and stealing is about ownership and posesion. Copyright is not at all about any of those.
besides, your logic is all wrong. Just because A->B doesn't mean B->A. Even more, just because you have A->B and C->B doesn't in any way means A=C. That is, just because you can find a result of tehft and a result of copyrigth infringement, doesn' tmean one is the same as the other. Go back to your logic class if you need more information about logic.
For what constisutes copyright infringement and how it is defined, read the copyrigt law. In none of them does it say anything remoteldy close to "taking that which you do not own and which you have not been given permission to posess" Actually it has nothing at all about taking. it is defined as certain types of copying, distribution and public performances. How you fit, for example public performance into your theft is beyoned me for example and no idea were the "taking" comes from, that is not part of ANY related copyright right.
>Language evolves...
yes, but that dos not change the law. Just because many uses "stealing" when they mean copyright infringement" doesn't mean you can start to apply the moral, laws or similarities of actual stealing when discussing if an action is illegal or not or if it is imoral and so on. Then you end up all wrong. For example, if everyone sudenly start to call a common, lawfull act "murder" that does not turn that act illegal just because everyone calls it murder. That is, hoever EXACTLY how people in threads like this do it, they say "since it is stealing it is wrong" and the call it "stealing" since they indicate similarities and outcomes of an act that is similar to what happens when one actually steal something and since they call copyright infringement "stealing" they might as well apply the same law and definition and thus, the action turns wrong. That has nothing to do with language evolving.
>ZZZT! Wrong! The artist does not get paid their royalty
>on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It
>doesn't get any simpler than that.
Nor does he get any if I borrow it to listen or if he gives me it when he no longer wants it or if I go over to his house to listen to it and so on (in all cases, add "as oposed to buy my own copy). But then, I don't think you argue that I should not be allowed to play my CD when a friend comes visit unless he first goes out and buys one too so that he has paid royalties, right?
>So if you own the disc and everything on it, then why is the owner
>of a disc with software on it (say, Windows) constrained by its end-user
>license agreement?
They aren't. Although you can argue that if one DO agree to it, you are bound by it, but if you don't agree, you are not bound. if it is allowed to force people to agree to it is another story.
>By your post, it sounds to me like you're saying once you buy something
>you have the right to do whatever you want with it, which I don't think
>is the case for Windows.
As long as you don't break any law, yes then you can do whatever you want. The law prevent certain types of copying (you can't use it to make new copies and sell them for example) while other copying (that needed to use) is not prevented and percetly allowed. You don't need any license or permision for such things. The fact that Microsoft makes you believe so and wants to force you into such an agreement is another story.
>The technology they are currently using on CDs (and
>have been using on VHS and DVD) make this difficult
>to impossible.
Yes but that does not mean you should be entitled to a replacement which the original poster thought to be a requirement. Not all products in the world are made to never tear down.
>As far as I am aware, DMCA covers only digital media and encryption.
Then you are aware wrong. It doesn't specify digital media. It applies equally much to non digital media.
>You pay for the book, but you don't own it:
Yes, you own the copy of the book.
The only restrictions on it is is use in various forms involving making it available for the public. Of course, you can't make NEW copies in several cases either. Ownership has nothing to do with copyright though. It applies equally regardless of if you would own the book or not. That is irellevant.
But then, although named DIGITAL Millenium Copyright Act, it doesn't restrict itslef to digital right management. It covers non digital right management as well.
>Technically, you only own the disc the media is on.
No, technically you own a copy of the work. A copy is a material object in which a work is fixed. The are one entity and the same. You can buy, sell and own copies just as you do with anything else in the world. It is unrelated to copyright and the ownership of copyright and one does not imply the other.
>You don't have any inherent right (according to contemporary licensing laws)
I am unaware of a "licening law". There are copyright laws and sales laws and such. Licenses are for giving you the irght to do something you otherwise would not be allowed to do. Listening to music for example is not something you are forbidden to do or the exclusive right of the copyright owner, hence no need for a license. Further, license has nothing to do with ownership, one does not imply the other, nor does it require the other either. It is from a license point of view completely irellevant if you own or do not own something. Similary, owning something would not mean you would need (or not need) a license either if such a thing would be required. They are unconnected.
>The license you agree to abide by -- which happens when you buy the disc --
No, there is no such agreement when you buy stuff. Selling and buying things are well established thorugh law and in the history of humans. See sales laws and consumer sale laws for how it is regulated. There is nothing about licenses agreed upin when buying something that involve copyright or which has nothing to do with copyright).
>is what makes it illegal for you to make copies for others or convert them into other
>formats.
Ehh, you HAVE heared about the copyright law, right? THAT is what makes most such copying (although not all) illegal.
>The reason music is different is that you don't own it, you licence it.
No you don't. Try to find ANY basis for that in any law or similar. You do indeed own copies of the music (which of course is totally unrealted to owneing the copyright to a work of muci and one has nothing to do with the other). Licenses have to do, in copyright related issues, when you want to do something that would otherwise be restricted as exclusive to the copyright owner. Only a few specific things are, listening for example is not, no license needed.
>If they're selling me a licence to the song(s)/movie, then it should be reasonable for
>me to buy a replacement for my existing media at less than the cost of someone without
>an existing licence.
What do you mean by "selling a license"? A license is not a thing, it is a right to do something. You can't sell, or rather it is quite pointless to sell something not needed. For example, there is nothing forbidding you to listen to a CD you have bought, hence there is no need for any license to listen. In addition, you can at most sell licenses for something you yourself has been given the right. LiIstening is not such a thing given as a right to a copyright holder to start with.
ALso, don't mix up copyright with ownership, it has nothing to do with each other and are seperate issues not related to each other. One does not imply the other and change of one does not imply the change of the other.
>For example, should my CD/DVD wear out (and, believe me, they do), I should be able to
>take the worn-out medium somewhere, and get a new one for approximately cost price. I
>can't do this at the moment; the business model simply doesn't allow it.
Most every country has provisions for making back ups or private use copies or has some generic fair use rules that allows similar things.
>I can't do this at the moment; the business model simply doesn't allow it.
Of course you can. The bussiness model doesn't cover or handle things you do. Although many like to pretend they do and sadly, most people believe in it.
>Try selling a copy of MS Windows on ebay.
Just because they don't allow selling of certain things does not mean it is illegal to sell such things.
>So, did I buy MS Windows, or just the right to install it?
That right is given to you by copyright law, so there is really no point in "buying" it since you allready have.
>I believe you're in a different world to me because last time I checked in the UK at
>least for the last 20 years you've bought a licence to own/watch/etc. the media but
>the content it's self.
Were did you "check" that? Feel free to specify, say, a law saying this (and make sure it actually says so before you mention the name of a law).
>That is why we have disclaimers like "This video is not for resale or rent. Public
>views are not allowed" etc.
That is because copyright law specifically dissallow certain such uses. That has nothng to do with owneship or licenses.
>They want it illegal to copy, illegal to break content protection systems, even
>illegal to remove or bypass things like region encoding. They want market regulations.
Yes, lets regulate the work market as well. That way, they can't use manufacturing plants in one "market" to supply another market. They can't press their CDs, say, in Asia and sell them in Europe or USA, that work is region marked to Asia. Want to set up a call centre in India? Sure, but those people's work are area marked for India only, can't circumvent that and have people phoning from USA get help. And so on. SHould work great. After all, why should THEY be able to trade, ship and use workforce freely in the world when normal people and their customers are not!
>...they need to make sure that the actual iPod word is copyright protected correctly
>to make sure other companies don't intentionally make money of a copyrighted word.
You seriously need to read up on copyright and trademark and the difference.
>In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for
>an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect
>that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an
>unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by
>the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense
>for such ownership?
You are confusing ownership (of copies of a work) with holding/owning copyright (to the work), they are not the same thing. One does not imply the other. Works themselves are not owned, one hold copyright to them (or own the copyright to them if you prefer that verb).
I suspect you are refering to the copyright holder above and if it is acceptable for the copyright holder to protect its copyright. That is quite different from the owner of a copy of a work protects his ownership, that would be, for example me, protecting my ownership of the copy of a work, for example the CD I bought (or even copied in a non infringing way). How you would go about protecting those two different things is quite different, the laws ae different and how you should view it is different. Too often people mix them up though and try to use the measures, thinking and concept of protecting ownership of copies with ownership of copyright and end up misserably wrong (not saying you nessecarilly did that though).
>I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a
>part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from
>the RIAA.
It was my impression that the only recieving end of those suits are RIAA themselves, they don't distribute it further to the ones they represent.
>Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid
>legal claim.
The issue most have I would say is not that they do it, it is how they do it, which in part due to the way they US system works is close to, what some would say is extortion. That is, no matter what you do, you end up losing a lot of money (guilty or not) since the only way to prove that you are unguilty, or even if guilty to get a fair trial, would cost you more than the "settlement" they offer and threaten you to go to court otherwise (which should never be a possible threat to make). Of course, people tend to pick the "easy" examples when they want a victim for that method since if putting forward someone that just died or some old lady with no computer, it turns much more obvious and there is a far higher chance for emotional sympathy as well.
>Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal
>activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model",
>might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the
>new model that replaces it?
I suppose you are also of the opinion that no one should ever be allowed to complain unless they have a (better) solution themselves? Or that you are not allowed to think anyone has done a bad job unless you can do it better yourself? And so on.... Or?
>But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or
>otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.
See how you end up hopelessly wrong when making the error I described above! It doesn't matter that you try to cover up yourself by some footnote, you stil end up wrong.
>[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't
>it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready
>for the consequences
You ommit several other possible ways to aquire and turn the owner of copies of a work (or alternative ways were you get in possession but not nessecarilly turns owner of such copies) that are all perfectly legal but has nothing to do with buying or would even ever end up with your money going to the copyright holder. This includes making new copies.
>If you disagree with the "busin