Is there not Kindergarten where you grew up? If you steal something from someone who stole it from someone else, then yes, duh, that's stealing just the same. The thing stolen didn't become public domain at that instant, it still really does *belong* to someone else. If you take something from someone who stole it and return it to it's owner, that's called 'Justice'.
"What about exploiting people because of their ignorance? or your power?"
Those things are both undeniably wrong. Is this somehow unclear to you?
"What about your duty to disobey unjust laws?"
You go girl, just watch what you define as 'unjust'. Is it simply any law that gets between you and stealing?
"Give me a relevant example and you'll get some credit, until then, NO SOUP FOR YOU!"
I definitely could use some soup. So, yeah a Mercedes is a physical resource, difficult and costly to recreate, and a recorded performance is infinitely reproduceable. But if you lose a single sale of your performance because it's available free on musicsnatch.net, then that is what was stolen from you.
Understand, I would love it if copyright laws were unneccesary because everyone felt compelled to actually pay for the things they enjoy. Then we could just distribute all intellectual property as shareware, and if you don't like it, stop using it. If you like it, you actually compensate the author accordingly.
"But, the real issue is whether copying bits ever constitutes theft."
Every time that set of copied bits is copyrighted and the author has not granted you permission to copy it, it is theft. You don't own the bits encoded on to any copyrighted audio or data CD you own. Not one of them bits is yours.
"...see the other posts on here by actual musicians who welcome the arrival of cheap redistribution..."
As do I and just about everybody else in the world. Two problems. 'Cheap' and 'free' are not the same thing. I'm sure many musicians are excited about the opportunity to get paid directly from the fans rather than through the middle man. But they still want paid in some fashion. Secondly, yes there are some who will glady dump their music into the public domain for nothing other than feedback from listeners. If I sucked less I'd even do it. But that doesn't mean all musicians do.
It really *is* as simple as 'theft is theft'. If it's copyrighted, and you don't follow the originators EULA (superceded by govermnet regulations of course, as in the 'fair use' act), you are stealing. Please live with it, because the other option is a world where there is no reason to create anything.
"Why buy a CD when you can just get the one or two songs you want off the net?"
Because when you buy a CD you aren't comitting copyright infringement.
Here are two facts for y'all.
1: The record companies are ripping us off on CD sales. They should pay themselves less, the artists more, and charge no more than $6 for CDs.
but...
2: That doesn't mean we are morally empowered to steal from them or the artists. If you don't want to pay $18 for a CD, then do without the music on said CD. A Mercedes-Benz is ridiculously over-priced, so by your thinking its cool to just bust in to the dealers lot and take as many as I want?
Only bogus, evil, thoughtless, talentless, destructive, profiteering bastards think like this. You might as well become a record industry exec.
Fight for your right to make copies of digital media which you have a legitimate license to, but stop thinking that the world owes you free professionally-produced entertainment. It doesn't. Create something yourself some time and you'll understand.
Slashdot Mirror
"What about stealing from people who steal?"
Is there not Kindergarten where you grew up? If you steal something from someone who stole it from someone else, then yes, duh, that's stealing just the same. The thing stolen didn't become public domain at that instant, it still really does *belong* to someone else. If you take something from someone who stole it and return it to it's owner, that's called 'Justice'.
"What about exploiting people because of their ignorance? or your power?"
Those things are both undeniably wrong. Is this somehow unclear to you?
"What about your duty to disobey unjust laws?"
You go girl, just watch what you define as 'unjust'. Is it simply any law that gets between you and stealing?
"Give me a relevant example and you'll get some credit, until then, NO SOUP FOR YOU!"
I definitely could use some soup. So, yeah a Mercedes is a physical resource, difficult and costly to recreate, and a recorded performance is infinitely reproduceable. But if you lose a single sale of your performance because it's available free on musicsnatch.net, then that is what was stolen from you.
Understand, I would love it if copyright laws were unneccesary because everyone felt compelled to actually pay for the things they enjoy. Then we could just distribute all intellectual property as shareware, and if you don't like it, stop using it. If you like it, you actually compensate the author accordingly.
"But, the real issue is whether copying bits ever constitutes theft."
Every time that set of copied bits is copyrighted and the author has not granted you permission to copy it, it is theft. You don't own the bits encoded on to any copyrighted audio or data CD you own. Not one of them bits is yours.
"...see the other posts on here by actual musicians who welcome the arrival of cheap redistribution..."
As do I and just about everybody else in the world. Two problems. 'Cheap' and 'free' are not the same thing. I'm sure many musicians are excited about the opportunity to get paid directly from the fans rather than through the middle man. But they still want paid in some fashion.
Secondly, yes there are some who will glady dump their music into the public domain for nothing other than feedback from listeners. If I sucked less I'd even do it. But that doesn't mean all musicians do.
It really *is* as simple as 'theft is theft'. If it's copyrighted, and you don't follow the originators EULA (superceded by govermnet regulations of course, as in the 'fair use' act), you are stealing. Please live with it, because the other option is a world where there is no reason to create anything.
"Why buy a CD when you can just get the one or two songs you want off the net?"
Because when you buy a CD you aren't comitting copyright infringement.
Here are two facts for y'all.
1: The record companies are ripping us off on CD sales. They should pay themselves less, the artists more, and charge no more than $6 for CDs.
but...
2: That doesn't mean we are morally empowered to steal from them or the artists. If you don't want to pay $18 for a CD, then do without the music on said CD. A Mercedes-Benz is ridiculously over-priced, so by your thinking its cool to just bust in to the dealers lot and take as many as I want?
Only bogus, evil, thoughtless, talentless, destructive, profiteering bastards think like this. You might as well become a record industry exec.
Fight for your right to make copies of digital media which you have a legitimate license to, but stop thinking that the world owes you free professionally-produced entertainment. It doesn't. Create something yourself some time and you'll understand.
It's because all the Amiga fanatics who can actually write code switched to Linux years ago. There is nothing left but small snippy rodents.