Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Fair enough, but my point (and I'm sure the point of the person you replied to) was just that listening to the radio is nowhere near downloading mp3s as a method to get the music you want.
I don't know about laws regarding concerts but there is a significant difference. When you download you are copying the music and that infringes copyright laws. Whatever the legal situation is in a concert, you are not copying the music.
If you don't agree with the laws you can try to change them. If you fail you're free to leave, good luck finding a country with no taxes.
What you advocate is an extreme form of capitalism, which can be defended of course, but was never embraced by enough people for it to happen. That is good in my opinion, it could easily lead to anarchy and misery.
For that new hit single to be played? The one you want to hear? 20 minutes surely isn't enough for that and even less for any song you might want to hear at any given time.
I agree piracy of software and music is stealing, I'm not so sure about the ideological aspects. On the surface it may seem to be an altruistic community because of the sharing but at the end of the day that is probably just an ill argument to try to justify the morality of it, people just want to get something for nothing. It could even be seen as capitalistic in the sense of trying to get the most you can for the least possible pay, especially since there's no risk involved.
I see a pattern there, but I don't see sharing of files included in that pattern. It's not about following the orders of "another man", but rather the orders dictated by law in democratic countries with mechanisms to change them. I'll agree it's a subject with grey areas and it's not alway easy to decide, but in my opinion piracy is not included in that pattern of going against some wrong establishment. A big difference between those cases you mention and the present is the lack of the kind of democracy we have today, which is far from perfect but certainly a lot better than anything that existed then.
Both would be stealing, in the store or at home. You're taking the content, that's what matters.
to steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
You may have a different definition, I don't know, but that's not important, it's a crime anyway.
True democracy is not black and white of course. I've seen this excerpt of a definition:
"...the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges".
You may like that or not, but I think you will agree the situation of the black people in America at that time had nothing to do with the situation of people who download illegal material nowadays. I'm glad you don't think they're proving a point.
To me that's putting things backwards, if enough people agree with you, you can and should try to change the law without breaking it. If every person breaks the laws they don't agree with you have anarchy. It may be innocuous in the case we're talking about but what if you don't agree with the right to property at all? Do you go around occupying houses and stealing things? That proves a point? You may say it does, (of course not about those things in particular but more serious things), I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, that's just not my concept of democracy. As long as there is freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to run in elections, an independent judicial system, or any means at all to try to change the law, you should use them. To me breaking the law is not a democratic method.
You are free to leave the country if you don't like the laws and you can't change them. I didn't say you should, just that you can.
People are animals, when it comes to selfishness there may be no difference. It is very relevant to know whether they gain something or not from their generosity, because they might not do it if they weren't rewarded.
But you are taking away something from the author, his exclusive right to reproduce what he created. Imagine you go to a store and steal a CD but leave a blank CD there, or even a pack of 10 if you're feeling generous. The only thing you're taking away is whatever is encoded in the CD itself and it's still stealing because what is protected by law is not only the media but the actual content. This isn't important anyway because we're only talking about a word and I am not a native speaker of English even, I could be using the wrong words, but I also note there's a british software copyright organisation called "Federation Against Software Theft".
And by the way, on the issue of courage... Going to a store, grabbing the CDs or software and walking out would be courage and for that you would be punished. Software piracy is the antithesis of courage.
I'm not a native English speaker but whatever. Piracy is stealing, as long as you recognize intellectual property. If you don't, you're breaking the law. You're free to leave the country at any time if you don't agree with the law, but good luck finding a country that doesn't have some kind of law protecting copyright.
There are mechanisms to express your disagreement with the law. Breaking it is wrong in a democratic country, it would lead to anarchy. Rosa Parks didn't have the means to express her disagreement in any other way, there was no true democracy. Are you claiming people who share files are proving a point? I'd like to see them taking their punishment then, as you say. Download whatever you want, don't use it and turn yourself in to the authorities, that might be proving a point. Would Rosa Parks be important if she had sneaked into an empty bus and left without no one noticing?
I asked that about giving because there are scientific theories stating animals are naturally selfish, acting apparently generously when they will gain something in return. Those theories may have flaws but they have pretty strong points too.
Why are people more generous than they have to be?
About the morals, it is theft in my opinion. I won't discuss the flaws of capitalist philosophy, I don't like it either, although I don't know what better system could replace it. Nevertheless, wherever there is democracy and laws citizens should abide by them. Not agreeing with a law is no reason to break it.
A while ago I stopped using pirated software and listening to mp3s of musicians who don't distribute them freely. It is theft and as such morally wrong, I think it is worrying that people will not care about right or wrong as long as there's personal gain. The interesting thing to me is that piracy is apparently a "socialist" thing as it is about sharing, but is deeply rooted in a savage capitalist philosophy of getting an advantage regardless of the means.
The numbers may be wrong, it doesn't seem to be a well conducted survey, but those numbers aren't even important in face of the real issue of piracy being censurable even if it's consequences are/were mild.
The way I read it, they are saying that regional publications will have to worry about being sued in other states and national publications will be open to law suits in "libel-friendly countries where their online articles can be read". The way they put it makes it a bilateral issue so I don't agree it's an arrogant assumption, they even focus on the possibility of American publishers being sued, not the opposite...
Slashdot Mirror
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Fair enough, but my point (and I'm sure the point of the person you replied to) was just that listening to the radio is nowhere near downloading mp3s as a method to get the music you want.
I don't know about laws regarding concerts but there is a significant difference. When you download you are copying the music and that infringes copyright laws. Whatever the legal situation is in a concert, you are not copying the music.
If you don't agree with the laws you can try to change them. If you fail you're free to leave, good luck finding a country with no taxes.
What you advocate is an extreme form of capitalism, which can be defended of course, but was never embraced by enough people for it to happen. That is good in my opinion, it could easily lead to anarchy and misery.
For that new hit single to be played? The one you want to hear? 20 minutes surely isn't enough for that and even less for any song you might want to hear at any given time.
I agree piracy of software and music is stealing, I'm not so sure about the ideological aspects. On the surface it may seem to be an altruistic community because of the sharing but at the end of the day that is probably just an ill argument to try to justify the morality of it, people just want to get something for nothing. It could even be seen as capitalistic in the sense of trying to get the most you can for the least possible pay, especially since there's no risk involved.
Defending stealing may be free speech but it doesn't mean it isn't wrong. If someone agrees stealing is wrong and still defends it... that's odd.
I see a pattern there, but I don't see sharing of files included in that pattern. It's not about following the orders of "another man", but rather the orders dictated by law in democratic countries with mechanisms to change them. I'll agree it's a subject with grey areas and it's not alway easy to decide, but in my opinion piracy is not included in that pattern of going against some wrong establishment. A big difference between those cases you mention and the present is the lack of the kind of democracy we have today, which is far from perfect but certainly a lot better than anything that existed then.
Both would be stealing, in the store or at home. You're taking the content, that's what matters.
to steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
You may have a different definition, I don't know, but that's not important, it's a crime anyway.
True democracy is not black and white of course. I've seen this excerpt of a definition:
"...the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges".
You may like that or not, but I think you will agree the situation of the black people in America at that time had nothing to do with the situation of people who download illegal material nowadays. I'm glad you don't think they're proving a point.
To me that's putting things backwards, if enough people agree with you, you can and should try to change the law without breaking it. If every person breaks the laws they don't agree with you have anarchy. It may be innocuous in the case we're talking about but what if you don't agree with the right to property at all? Do you go around occupying houses and stealing things? That proves a point? You may say it does, (of course not about those things in particular but more serious things), I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, that's just not my concept of democracy. As long as there is freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to run in elections, an independent judicial system, or any means at all to try to change the law, you should use them. To me breaking the law is not a democratic method.
You are free to leave the country if you don't like the laws and you can't change them. I didn't say you should, just that you can.
People are animals, when it comes to selfishness there may be no difference. It is very relevant to know whether they gain something or not from their generosity, because they might not do it if they weren't rewarded.
hehe of course, "Federation Against Unlawful Copying of Software" aka FAUCS, wouldn't sound as appealing as FAST.
But you are taking away something from the author, his exclusive right to reproduce what he created. Imagine you go to a store and steal a CD but leave a blank CD there, or even a pack of 10 if you're feeling generous. The only thing you're taking away is whatever is encoded in the CD itself and it's still stealing because what is protected by law is not only the media but the actual content.
This isn't important anyway because we're only talking about a word and I am not a native speaker of English even, I could be using the wrong words, but I also note there's a british software copyright organisation called "Federation Against Software Theft".
And by the way, on the issue of courage... Going to a store, grabbing the CDs or software and walking out would be courage and for that you would be punished. Software piracy is the antithesis of courage.
I'm not a native English speaker but whatever. Piracy is stealing, as long as you recognize intellectual property. If you don't, you're breaking the law. You're free to leave the country at any time if you don't agree with the law, but good luck finding a country that doesn't have some kind of law protecting copyright. There are mechanisms to express your disagreement with the law. Breaking it is wrong in a democratic country, it would lead to anarchy. Rosa Parks didn't have the means to express her disagreement in any other way, there was no true democracy. Are you claiming people who share files are proving a point? I'd like to see them taking their punishment then, as you say. Download whatever you want, don't use it and turn yourself in to the authorities, that might be proving a point. Would Rosa Parks be important if she had sneaked into an empty bus and left without no one noticing? I asked that about giving because there are scientific theories stating animals are naturally selfish, acting apparently generously when they will gain something in return. Those theories may have flaws but they have pretty strong points too.
Why are people more generous than they have to be? About the morals, it is theft in my opinion. I won't discuss the flaws of capitalist philosophy, I don't like it either, although I don't know what better system could replace it. Nevertheless, wherever there is democracy and laws citizens should abide by them. Not agreeing with a law is no reason to break it.
A while ago I stopped using pirated software and listening to mp3s of musicians who don't distribute them freely. It is theft and as such morally wrong, I think it is worrying that people will not care about right or wrong as long as there's personal gain. The interesting thing to me is that piracy is apparently a "socialist" thing as it is about sharing, but is deeply rooted in a savage capitalist philosophy of getting an advantage regardless of the means. The numbers may be wrong, it doesn't seem to be a well conducted survey, but those numbers aren't even important in face of the real issue of piracy being censurable even if it's consequences are/were mild.
The way I read it, they are saying that regional publications will have to worry about being sued in other states and national publications will be open to law suits in "libel-friendly countries where their online articles can be read". The way they put it makes it a bilateral issue so I don't agree it's an arrogant assumption, they even focus on the possibility of American publishers being sued, not the opposite...