You don't have ot accept his premise, just read the constitution and it will tell you specifically what the purpose of the federal government is. The preamble which is really nothing more then a statements says to "provide for the common defense". But elsewhere is specifically mentions "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." like in article IV section 4.
As for the "history or the contemporary government of the nations of the world with the highest quality of life and safest populations", I'm not really sure what your attempting to get at here. Almost all of Europe benefited from the US having a large presence in Europe during the cold war in which they were able to focus on rebuilding their societies instead of building a defense structure that they would fail at using once again. History shows us that most of these defenseless cultures either disappeared or were conquered by invading armies. And quite a bit of European countries have mandatory enlistments as well as US provided equipment which skews their spending even more.
Your probably right in that a standing army isn't always the best defense, but it's one that has proven practical throughout history and directly led to the development of those affluent societies your mentioning. It's also one that you don't want to find out you don't have after you need it. It diplomacy or whatever else works and the military isn't needed, great. But if it fails and is needed, it won't be pretty by any means.
You do realize that a good portion of defense spending is science related right?
Your trying to overly simplify something more complex then your allowing for. Currently, we spend about 26 billion on science and technology specifically but when you take the NASA budget, the Science related defense spending, the educational grants and spending, DOE, NOAA, and several other department spending, that number grows significantly. IF you add private research to the mix, we out spend every other country in the world by at least twice as much on Science R&D with a projected total for 2009 of $383,477,000,000 or about $383.5 billion.
My guess is that the Obama is talking about small increases in federal budget expenditures and increases (most likely through tax manipulation) of private expenditures.
The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance. If the money was new and not from something already productive, it would be a benefit completely. Even if it was from something less productive then it would be worth while. But as it seems in reality, it would be like pulling money from social security and medicare payments to fund welfare and Medicaid as in both serve the same goals within the segments they are targeted at. It's either a net loss or a symbolic gesture with no benefit.
I'm tired of restating the same thing in different ways in order to get you to understand what I'm saying. I've had several other people read this discussion and all of them were able to explain what I meant just fine; the problem is your comprehension, not my explanation.
That said, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on a few points; it seems the only place where we agree is that the laws need to change and that there are moral issues regarding violating the current laws. That's fine, this life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
Actually, the problem is on your insistence to look around the point but never at it. Your discussion/inclusion about the DRM just proves this point. But make no mistakes, morals are not part of this discussion. This discussion is entirely over the mechanics of copyright, what the law provides (rights and controls), what piracy subverts (rights and controls), and how that subversion means a lost profit. The amount of profit or type of profit isn't even on the table either.
DRM is very much a part of this discussion, especially when inserting a DRM protected disc into my computer can result in that disc installing software that restricts my use of my hardware, in ways entirely unrelated to that disc, without my consent, and often without my knowledge. Do you remember the Sony root-kit debacle? That software completely disabled CD-ROM drives in a lot of computers, along with the numerous other problems it caused for those who were unlucky enough to have fallen victim to it. It didn't prompt to install, it didn't notify you that it was installed, there was no mention of it anywhere on the package, the disc, or the booklet included with the disc, it just installed and devastated many PCs. Simply avoiding this risk would most certainly be protected; that's what makes it relevant.
DRM is an entirely different topic altogether. We are not talking about your rights as a consumer or through fair use. We are specifically talking about rights and control provided by a law covering copyright and how subverting it means a lost profit. It's something like 10 steps before the sony root kit or any DRM comes into play.
That said, I also have a life outside of slashdot, and this will be the last post I make in this thread.
I'm glad you also have a life outside of slashdot. However, I think you need to understand the point of this. Think about the mechanics of copyright, how it is applied by law and what it infers to the copyright owner. Follow the logic of how the law creates an scarcity to the covered material and how subverting that against or without the consent of the copyright owner creates a loss of control and a loss of profit. Keep your feelings out of it, keep your morals out of it, keep DRM out of it. Just look at what is there and follow the logic from the very state to finish, then apply your piracy. If you still can't get it, then it's probably going to be like a lot of others things you will never get.
Flat out, plain and simple, if I buy it, you made profit, if I do not buy it, you did not make profit. you maintain the right to make a copy, regardless whether I make one as well, or not. My copying does not make your right to copy suddenly disappear. Further, equating the right to copy with some magical instant profit is a fallacy.
But you did buy it. You purchased something created from it. I made a profit when something was copied and distributed when you purchased it but not when you pirated it. This means out of two copies and two distributions, only one was paid for, the other is a lost profit.
Copyright grants the exclusive control over copying and distributing something, it doesn't stop you from buying anything.
If I have no money whatsoever and I download an MP3, I was clearly not going to pay for it, there was no chance for profit, thus there was no profit lost. If I, subsequently, purchase the album, there was profit gained; if I do not, there was still no profit lost, as there still would have been no sale, thus no profit, at the time of the download.
It doesn't matter, I am entitled to a profit when I have exclusive control over copying and distributing. When someone does that without paying, I have lost a profit regardless of your intent or abilities.
You're letting your morals dictate your logic. That's where you're wrong.
No, I'm examining the mechanics of the law and the logic that follows. You on the other hand, are refusing to see that when X has a fee associated with it, and X happens without the fee being paid, a profit on X is lost.
Do I agree with you morally? There's a fair chance that I do; tell me if you're morally averse to downloading music pre-purchase, with the intent to purchase at a later date, and we'll know for sure.
Morals don't come into this at all. I personally don't care about downloading at all. But I'm not neive enough to not recognize that when X has a fee associated to it because a right of law created exclusive control and that control is violated, a profit is lost when that fee isn't rendered. There is simply no other way to look at it.
Logically, though, you're not making any sense. You're using the same logic that allowed the financial industry to trade on nonexistent funds, leading to our current economic situation; sadly, the recording industry is also following that same logic, which will, eventually, lead to their collapse.
Lol.. Your one of those. Ok, I know my intelligence is wasted now. First, the funds were not non-existent. They were devalued when the contents of the packaged defaulted. That is a mechanic of the type of trade that was happening and a condition created by improper government regulation.
When you separate your feelings about an issue from the logical facts of the issue, you look at it differently. The only reason I've gone on with you for this long about this is that I can see things from your point of view, when I start feeling my logic rather than thinking about it. As my bro-in-law is a musician, this is a debate I've had many times and heard from many points of view.
Why don't you try that yourself? I mean seriously, outline exactly how copyright works and you will see the logic that your missing. Here, I will help you. You create a work, it becomes copyrighted, the copyright law creates a right to exclusive control over copying and distributing. From that exclusive control, you are able to sell rights to copy the work and distribute it. You or some other entity purchase the right to copy and distribute or use your own to make copies and distribute it. Hopefully, someone else see the value in it and purchases it from them. When you download something (Pirate) someone is side stepping your exclusive cont
No. The law is not a justification unto itself. There's a reason theft is illegal, and it's not to do with hand-waving about "control rights", it's because physical property has fundamental scarcity, and if someone takes your physical property, you are deprived of its use while others have it. In addition it can be damaged, stolen, destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable while you do not have it, meaning you have suffered genuine, measurable and tangible loss.
None of these things apply to copyrighted material.
The law is cause unto itself and thereby justification. You can argue that you don't like the law or that it needs changed, but until it is different, then the exclusive rights to copying and distribution is defined by law. As in all the other examples, If I could remove all the wear and tear, all the potential for things that never happened, and return the property before you would ever want to use it, it's still theft. More importantly, it's still against the law to take your property rights. And that is exactly what is happening when someone makes a copy and distributes it without the copyright owners permission/consent.
Further, this is why the focus must be on the copyrighted material itself. The purpose of copyright is to apply arbitrary and artificial limitations on how copyrighted material can be distributed, so that it has some sort of scarcity and therefore can be treated in a similar fashion to physical property.
Back in the olden days, when copying and redistribution were relatively difficult and expensive, this mostly worked because each copy was, for all intents and purposes, a genuine piece of physical property (book, record, tape, etc). These days, however, when copying and redistribution facilities are ubiquitous and essentially free, the idea that copyrighted material can be treated like physical property is being graphically demonstrated as broken.
Wow, you seem to get it but then fail to see that when that artificial scarcity is removed by someone ignoring the law, the model breaks. Now, suppose you hire an accountant, can you not pay him or her for services rendered? The accountant used your facilities, your computer, your books, your paper and provided nothing but their knowledge. Is their time and expertise their property or not? It's their right to trade it for money, your idea of nothing tangible being present breaks on this because it's all yours to begin with except for the mind of the accountant. They have a right to trade their knowledge for profit. The same right is created by copyright despite how much it would cost you to copy something.
Because they may not have bought it otherwise. If you were never going to make a sale, you have suffered no loss of profit by someone making a copy.
To put it into a (somewhat tortured) analogy you will (hopefully) understand, what you are saying is like arguing that every person who wanders into a shop but doesn't buy something, represents lost profit.
What they may have no done in the future is ancillary to what has already taken place. When the law says you have exclusive control over the copying and distribution of something, regardless of anyone's intent, when it happens it is a lost profit. Copyright doesn't give you a right to sell something and make a profit. It gives you the right of control that can be sold for a profit. We are not looking at the sale for profit, we are looking at the control for profit.
Because those people may never have bought the book from you in the first place.
But they, or someone who gave it to them, has taken my exclusive control over the copying and distribution which I use to make a profit and assumed it for themselves for their own purposes. My ability to profit was taken when that act occurred independent of if they were going to buy it or no
Yes, I have, and yes, education is a specifically listed exemption, in a short list beginning with the phrase "the purpose and character of the use", to which I spoke, and the word "including", which implies an incomplete list.
Are you sure? because your usage was to claim that something not listed was fair use because of something specifically listed.
Did I say I was part of the crime being committed? Maybe I was just walking down the street, with my legal, licensed, weapon, for which I also have a concealed carry permit, when someone else shot somebody. Who said anything about being involved?
Here is exactly your problem. You attempt to use an analogy that doesn't fit the argument your making. Of course you would have to of been part of the crime if your going to compare someone's shooting with someone's illegally copying and distributing a copyright protected work. IF your not going to at minimum, keep the relevance similar, then you might as well say the sky is blue and no one can ever change you mind as a comparison to it.
You still haven't proven that.
I don't have to prove anything. The law is specifically permission and requires you to prove your case when it isn't something specifically listed. In other words, you have to show that your use is within the law. You cannot do that when you actually look at the requirements of the law.
Something that I've been trying to leave out of this, but now see that I may have to bring up is DRM. Let's say I do buy a CD and wish to convert it to MP3s; ok, problem, that disc contains DRM that prevents that by altering the way my computer operates. By legal precedent, format shifting has been declared well within my rights. Are you saying that their right (which I've many times over admitted is violated by downloading, so you can quit pointing it out, by the way) shouldn't be fair game after they've violated mine? Because, I'll tell you what, the reason I download first is so that CD never has to enter my computer to be copied, so I don't run the risk of falling victim to the next Sony root-kit.
Fuck dude, this has nothing to do with DRM or anything. Don't attempt to change the subject. The copyright owner has specific legal rights that restrict you and I from doing something which allows them to profit. When that is done against or without their consent, it is a loss in profit to the copyright owner. If format shifting a copy of something you own and was distributed with the consent of the copyright owner is within your rights legally, then it is not a specific exclusive right given to the fucking copyright owner by copyright law. DRM doesn't even matter in this discussion.
Back to my scenario: I've purchased a CD, I can't copy it because of DRM. I could crack the DRM to copy it, but that would be a violation of the DMCA. I'm stuck, I have a legal right to format shift this CD, but no legal means by which to do so. What do I do? I download; it's a civil infraction, rather than a felony, and I have the plausible defense that I was carrying out the only non-criminal means to exercise my right to format shift purchased media.
Who cares, it's totally irrelevant in this topic. Anyways, you need to reexamine the laws on DRM. Cracking it yourself for your own personal use is not illegal when you have a legitimate right to the content.
Are you telling me it's alright for them to violate my rights? Seriously? Because that would make you a hypocrite. Or should I claim lost profit because I'm legally entitled to make MP3s of that CD but they're preventing that. It sounds pretty even to me, regardless of the order in which the download and purchase are made.
What the fuck does your rights being violated have to do with a specific situation about exclusiv
Did I say I was going to use it because it was opened? NO!
I said opening it caused damage. I was agreeing with you. Read it again.
Where I disagree with you is when you apply the same logic to copying a digital file. I didn't break a package open, I didn't degrade the value of the original file, the original file is just as it was before being copied.
And I'm saying that you can create the same exact scenario as would exist with an MP3 file at walmart and it's still not legal. That's because the physical medium is not what is at stake here, it's the control of property and the right to sell it. When you walk into walmart or some download site or wherever, your obtaining a copy in the same ways.
Speaking to the purpose and character of the use, my personal, non-commercial, copy is protected. Under our legal system, you either violate or you don't violate; there is no "well, you had a gun, it was loaded, she was shot, you're guilty even though the bullet came from someone else's gun". That's simply not how it works. If you, in turn, tell me that copying failing just a single test is a violation, I'll have to point out that educational copying of entire works has been, and is, protected, even though it fails test 3; it passes test 1 and will often pass tests 2 and 4.
Lol.. Have you even bothered reading the laws I pointed you to? For fucks sake, education is one of the specifically exemptions to the exclusive control. You can't sit there and lay claim to something that it not listed being legal by referring to something that is listed. That's like saying you can drive any car at any time because you have a drivers license that permits you to drive your own car.
And yes, in our legal system, if someone is shot in the commission of a crime that you were part of, you can be charged for her murder or wounding regardless of if you had a gun or not.
Further, my having made a personal copy, in order to evaluate a purchase decision, would seem to increase market value (should I choose to purchase) or not affect it at all (should I not choose to purchase), provided that I do not distribute copies myself. That takes care of test 4; passed.
You just don't get it do you? You have no legal right to make a copy for personal use or not before you purchase the title unless the copyright owner gives you permission. It's simply not your choice or decision to make and the law gives the copyright holder the exclusive control over it, not you. The copyright owner then sells the right to copy and distribute the protected work and when you make a copy outside of those limited sets of exclusions (and yes, your suggested usage is well outside), you are denying them profit. It's no different then walking into walmart finding an open take, copying it and walking out without making a purchase.
Did you even read what you replied to? Regardless whether I, or anyone else, sees it, it still degrades the resale value of the item, as it is now an open package and is no longer considered new; it also may be considered malicious destruction of property in some jurisdictions. Regardless of any amount of wear and tear that may or may not occur, the fact that the package is now open has caused a loss for the retailer.
I think your parse engine is broken. If someone else caused the damage and the loss is already existent, your still not allowed to use it in that way. This goes beyond any loss in value or wear and tear.
In my hypothetical situation, Wal Mart is allowing you to bring in your own equipment for the sole purpose of listening; that your equipment is capable of (and is) making a copy as you listen is inconsequential to them, as they did not expressly permit it.
You see, walmart isn't the copyright holder and walmart isn't the entity with exclusive control over copying and distribution. It they ok'ed this without the consent of the copyright holder, they are breaking the law and denying the copyright holder the profit.
Don't confuse yourself with the superficial that you come into contact with. Think about the entire mechanics of copyright, what the law provides and maybe then you will see what is right in front of you.
You do the same and show me where it's defined at all. It's a legal defense, not a piece of legislation, which is why I said it may be protected; you also may get a judge who sides with the industry and lose your ass over it. That's the thing, right there, what is and is not considered fair use is left to the interpretation of every party involved, it's not simply spelled out in the law. You can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong; which is why I said 'may be protected' rather than 'is protected'. It depends how the judge sees it.
Wow.. Just Wow.... If you would have bothered to look, you will find that it is defined by law. You will also find that the first sale doctrine provides certain rights or exclusions outside of fair use too. But none of what you claimed is in either.
Fair use is a concept in which exclusions are allowed for specific reasons. The tests applied are defined by law and are specifically to see if the exclusion exist because of the specific reason or if the exclusion is missing because it only appears to be of a specific reason. When you speak to lawyers and not some joke in a chat room, you will find out exactly what your rights to fair use are before you attempt to use something. The cases your seeing in court are where people don't know the law, post something, and then try to defend themselves with fair use. Sometimes, they are right, most of the time, they are wrong. Take Larry Flint in Hustler V Falwell. He consulted his lawyers and saw exactly what he needed to do, and when Falwell took him to court, Hustler won.
No, that paragraphs says if I pirate, I may, eventually, buy from you; if I buy a bootleg, I will never buy from you. In the first instance, you may have lost profit, in the second, you have lost profit. Well, really, sales, noo profit; many things are sold at a loss (see: PS3) with the hopes of recouping that loss with accessory sales. For example, a label may choose to sell a new artist's CD for less than production/distribution/shelving costs in order to promote an upcoming concert tour.
What you missing is that it you are still not buying anything from me. If I control the copying and distribution rights, then I charge someone else to do that. It not like I would have a CD press and a billion dollar distribution chain just because I had a one hit wonder. Sometimes those people have the copyright, sometimes they have just distribution rights. So it doesn't matter at all if you pay a bootleger or buy it from a legitimate source, someone took a legal right that was being used to profit and used it for their own purposes without any right to do so. It's a lost profit no matter how you look at it. You possesion or guilty conscious doesn't even come into it at this stage.
So, are we arguing lost profits or violated rights here? They're really two different subjects and you're purposefully confusing the issue by treating them as though they're one in the same.
Both. Because the specific way the right was violated is also the specific way the profit is made. That's the point with the rental car, the drive in theater, going to walmart and dubbing tapes, it's all the same because the way the right was violated is also the way they make their profit. When you or anyone else violate that right and do the same as they are for profit, it doesn't matter if you delete the crap, eventually purchase it, or shove it where the sun don't shine, they have lost on the profit of whoever violated their right by doing the act that they profit from illegally.
And no, it's not confusing the situation, it inseparable because the copyright law gives someone a specific right that they can then use to profit. The law say only you can do something. If you are making a profit from doing that, and I violate the law and do it too, You are losing a profit because of what I did, not some future user who might go back and buy from you or erase the content.
Again, you're confusing the issue. Are we talking about lost profits due to piracy or violated rights due to privacy? Every time I point out that a pirate may eventually purchase, or may have never had the intention to purchase (first case, eventual profit; second case, no chance for profit) you bring up how it's taking away someone's right to distribute their work. Actually, that's also a fallacy; just because I'm distributing a copy of an MP3 doesn't preclude you from doing the same.
Pick one argument and stick to it, for the same of ever having a chance to make me see things your way.
No, I'm not confusing the issue. Your going completely out of your way to avoid the issue. The profit is made solely because of the right. When the right disappears so does the damn profit. The act of someone taking the right and performing the same act that made the profit without consent, there is profit lost to the copyright holder regardless of commercial intent, or some future act to clear a conscious.
And whether or not a pirate may eventually purchase the material is completely irrelevant. The profit model was on a copy and distribution being made. In order for the pirate to make even by purchasing the real content in the future, he would have to pay twice to cover two copies and distributions. The law gives the copyright holder the sole right to that and it's that sole right in which enables the profit. Otherwise the profit would be in the book or the CD or whatever, but as we know, they have rights and profit without an
I used to be be agains government until I had to use my local pubic utilities commission (PUC) to get a problem solved. In a matter of days, they evaluated the problem, directed SBC to fix it, and demanded I received a discounted service for the 4 months of pissing with them.
Obviously, if everyone jumped at once, they would probably be over loaded but I think this is a clear case where it's warranted. As you mentioned, state laws do put limitations on "any reason", especially if the reason covered some marketing campaign designed to get customers. Really, think about this, if they say speeds up to 5 megs and always on, regardless of what the fine print says or doesn't say, anyone would assume they are going to always get 5 megs that they can use. If that results in bandwidth usage above what they think it appropriate, then tought titties for them.
If nothing else, the PUC can force them to advertise correctly so that people know what the hell is up. As for the op using 44 gig in a week, some DVD live Linux distros are 4 gig or better, Trying out one or two of those plus a net install with all the bells and whistles with a screw up and retry can easily come close to that without trying. now imaging streaming a couple of TV programs or something from Hulu which adds junk data to the stream to confuse rippers and your there quite easily.
No we're not -- not since the gutting of the electoral college (i.e., states choosing electors by popular vote, instead of having the state legislatures pick them) and the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators, who were also supposed to be picked by the state legislatures), anyway.
I looked to make sure but could not find where the constitution ever required states to select electors in any means or procedure that wasn't always left to the state's legislature to decide.
Before, the Federal government was accountable to the State governments, and therefore indirectly accountable to the citizenry though their state representatives. But with those changes, not only are the President and Senate less accountable to the citizenry (because everybody's votes are so diluted), but the balance of power is skewed way towards the Federal government, which severely restricts the self-determination of the individual States. For example, California can't legalize marijuana because even if they directed the local and state police to stop enforcing the prohibition, the (Federal) ATF and FBI would still be running roughshod over everybody. Similarly, Montana was forced to adopt speed limits, even though they were stupid and unnecessary, because the Feds would have withheld all the transportation funding if they didn't -- something they wouldn't be able to do if the State governments were stronger.
Well, I don't think the federal government was ever supposed to be accountable to the people directly or indirectly in the same sense as is being asked for today. The constitution was originally a permissive document telling the federal government what it can do and what it must not do. It's scope was supposed to be a unified front in the matters of state and not directly impacting domestic policy outside a few specific situations. They shouldn't be involved in the drug laws, they shouldn't be involved in the rewarding people with welfare or health care or targeted tax cuts or even law enforcement in the states without the direct consent of the states.
Originally, the federal government or their elected officials was supposed to be accountable to their position in which the states and the people of those states could guide. Perhaps what changed this the most is when they changed the way the president and vice president was elected with party line voted instead of each elector voting for two people and the one with the most becoming president while the second most became the vice president.
The exception to my complaint on the feds involvement would be the post roads in which the feds are required to establish. I'm not sure withholding any funding from a state is constitutional unless it is to ensure a republic form of government in the state. Outside that, they have no real authority to do so if the constitution was limiting and permissive as originally designed.
According to the law, they have every right. They have exclusive control over the copying and distribution of their works.
Where is it that your finding they have no right to impose fees?
BTW, Libraries are specifically exempted by the laws. There are a few other specific exemptions to those exclusive rights too. Please don't conflate something specifically added to the laws giving the copyright owner control as an exemption with justification for something that doesn't reflect the law.
This becomes increasingly clear in your response to my last paragraph, in which I highlight the difference between infringement which can definitely be counted as loss of profit and infringement which can possibly be counted as loss of profit. Your reply alluded to judgment of the legitimacy of piracy; either you have a severe comprehension problem, I wasn't clear enough, or you're getting a tad impatient with the fact that I'm not simply giving in and agreeing with you.
Perhaps your just not being clear then. Because your last paragraph said you if you pirate something today, you might buy it legitimately some other day, and you may still buy the bootlegged version. Now when the law gives the copyright holder the exclusive control over copying and distribution, then any act that takes that away results in a lost profit regardless of who you eventually pay or not. You have or someone has in order for you to get the pirated or bootleged version, taken that right of control away from the copyright owner and used it for their own purposed. It doesn't matter what happens down the road, the legal right has been taken.
That said, I buy CDs from time to time; I don't buy DVDs, but that's only because, between birthday, christmas, and random gift, I typically receive all the ones I want throughout the year. How do I determine which CDs and DVDs I want? I download them and listen. I delete what I don't want, and begin acquiring legit copies of what I decide I do want.
You can attempt to justify your actions all you want. Actually, if your just downloading them, your not the breaking the law, the person who is distributing it is. And when that take the legal right that the copyright own has away in order to distribute the music to you, each copy they distribute is a lost profit. It's just that simple and no amount of you deleting or buying in the future will erase that. Surely you couldn't walk into a car lot at 3 am, take a car without permission, keep it a week, then not expect to be in trouble for theft when you go back and try to purchase it. The car lot has a legal right to control access to the car. And that right is before any wear and tear or possible damage or anything comes into the equation. So does the copyright owner.
The only thing I download without paying for is TV shows, and that's purely a moral thing. When TV was all broadcast, it was paid for by advertisements; when the community antenna came along, everyone who contributed an antenna was granted access free of charge because it improved the system. That eventually became paid cable, which, because it was being paid for outright, did not include commercials, excepting the commercials already existing on the free-to-air channels. That system works for me. I'll pay a nice monthly fee for no commercials. So, what do I do? I pay for the channels the shows I want to see are on, but I download them to watch them commercial-free. Purely a moral standing against being constantly bombarded with ads for harsh chemical cleaners and chemically-enhanced corn-syrup-based pseudo-foods, to subsidize a service I'm already paying for.
I think your conflating concepts here. Recording a broadcast for later viewing is fair use. Selling that broadcast or giving it away isn't. If the TV shows are offered online by the copyright holders, then your simply playing with fair use because the person who put it on the internet for you had permission. But if your access results from someone across the country recording the show and placing it someone that you can find, then that exclusive right is taken again and each distribution is a lost profit.
I still fail to see how I'm causing loss of profit for anyone, here. If I didn't download, I wouldn't be buying; there's your lost profit. If I'm not going to buy, I'm also not going to keep the download; the same as borrowing from the library, but I can
I'm pretty sure that opening the cassette tape with no intention of purchasing it would not only be morally questionable, as it reduces the value of the item, it may also be considered malicious destruction of property, for the very same reason. That's also ignoring the fact that the act of playing that cassette, in order to dub it, also degrades the original cassette.
OK, suppose that someone else opened the tape and you saw it. As for wear and tear, your not really going to see any amount that can be counted with one use. The tape is designed to be played and to not wear out quickly when do so.
Beyond that, provided that Wal-Mart were willing to allow you to bring in your own equipment and open a cassette under the guise of preview, the personal copy you may make would likely be protected as fair use, provided that you did not further distribute it. So, yes, I guess I am going to claim that it's legal and fine to dub a cassette tape, provided the owner of that cassette (not the content, the physical cassette) has given you permission.
Well, now we are back to getting permission. I doubt the "personal copy" being made would be fair use, nothing gives you a right to the content on the cassette. Fair use is one of those exceptions to rights granted by law. It gives you a right to do something that has been reserved to the copyright holder by law. It's the only legal exception to the rights created by copyright and it assumes that your use is of content you already legally obtained.
Perhaps you should read the copyright laws a little. You see, if walmart gives you a recording, or a copy of a recording, they have to give you all copies of that recording in which the copy was made. That supposed to go for your friend and neighbor too but it's never enforced. Walmart could agree to such a deal, you wouldn't have technically broken the law but walmart would have and a profit would have been lost.
That's right, personal copies, even of borrowed media, are protected by fair use.
Actually, not they are not. Fair use only applies if you have a legal right to the copyrighted works. Making unauthorized copies and distributing them does not create legal rights to it. If you made a personal copy of a CD you already obtained legally, then fair use would cover that provided you did not distribute it without transferring the original plus every other copy made from it in the same transaction.
A modified BitTorrent client which only allows one user to "borrow" a chunk of a torrent at a time (even locking the owner of the physical disk from accessing it) may actually allow all such transactions to be protected as fair use. If I'm lending sole access to that chunk of disk to you, and you choose to make a (fair-use-protected) copy of it, I haven't violated any law; while you have access, I, nor anyone else, would have access.
I pointed you to the laws, show me where you are getting this idea that copying your friends stuff is "fair use". It simply isn't so show me either in law or court case or legal opinion of a US government branch. And yes, I'm requiring that high of a level of proof because pointing to a forum for a legal opinion could carry about as much weight as "because I said so".
I simply think you are confused on the meaning of fair use.
Would it be slower? Probably. Would it be protected? Probably. Would it be fought by the industry? Probably. Would they lose? Probably. Did you ignore my point? Probably. Did I go off-topic? Yup, sorry.
See above and show where fair use is perceived in the same way you are speaking of. It isn't, never has been in the 40 plus years I have been alive, and I think when you look to show it, your going to see that you mistook something.
First of all, I need to appologise for the tone of my last reply. I was agrivated at some of the replies I was getting were people wanted to seem willfully clueless in order to maintain their points. Your post was just the one I took it out on. Hopefully This reply will be a little more civil and respectful.
Yes, my right to my property is a construct of law, damn right it is. I acknowledge possession of this laptop because it exists on my lap. I acknowledge possession of the series of bits that make up an MP3 because it exists on my hard drive.
I also acknowledge the RIAA affiliate label's possession of every copy of that song that they had in their inventory before I 'pirated' it, because all the CDs, tape reels, cassettes, digital copies used in editing, MP3s and AAC files meant for online distribution, short snippets for sale as ringtones, and whatever format those little fake-SD-card kids toys use, DO still exist in their possession, or in the possession of the stores and other distribution channels to which they were sold.
Well, it's fundamentally deeper then that. You see, simple possession doesn't make something yours. It does go a long ways to prove it is yours but if I took your laptop from your lap and placed it on mine, that would not make it mine. So please see that we aren't talking about simple possession of something here. we are talking about legal rights of ownership here. If I did take your laptop and claim it was mine because of possession, you would have a legal right to show it was yours and that I had no authority to possess it and I could be charged for theft.
With the RIAA and other Mafia organizations, possession isn't what is underlying the term of profit, it's the legal claim to it. Thinking about it in terms of physical possession only clouds the issue, you need to think about it in terms of the rights the law gives to you. In the case of your laptop, you have the right to control access to it. In the case of copyright, you have the right to control access by the control of the copying and distribution. When that right is taken from you and I copy your copyrighted work then distribute it, I have literally done the same as take your laptop without your permission and used it in a way you didn't approve of. Even if I gave it back to you, I have still violated your fundamental rights of ownership to it. If I took it and done something that you would normally charge for, then I have taken that profit from you. Even if I give the thing back before you notice it missing.
Are we arguing property rights or copyright?
Actually, we are playing with both in the areas in which they overlap. The copyright laws create an imaginary piece of property with the same rights as your laptop. They call this a right which is a little confusing so lets call it a widget instead. So the law take a work you created and invents this widget out of thin air. That widget gives you sole control over copying and distribution of your copyrighted works. When someone pirates a copyrighted work, they actually take that widget and use it for their own purposed in the same way they would your laptop. The actual copyrighted work is ancillary at this point because we are talking about a piece of property the law created because of your work. It really has nothing to do with your work other then it allows you to control aspects of it.
As for the assumption that pirating means lost profit, that really only holds water in cases of for-profit piracy. If I'm selling bootleg DVDs, every sale I make is someone who was willing to spend money, proof being that they did spend money, to attain that DVD. Those are the only instances of piracy that one can, with any certainty, declare when calculating lost profit. Me downloading an MP3 for free? Would I have paid? Maybe (no, but I'll pay if I like it enough to listen more than a couple times).
I'm implying nothing. It's a _fact_ that physical property cannot be in different places simultaneously.
And that's irrelevent because you also said they couldn't use it if it wasn't there. So if they weren't going to use it, then what. Well, you don't answer that which takes us away from the physical property and to the rights to control it. Otherwise, if they weren't going to use it, then no harm would have been done.
There are still the issues of wear and tear, and risk of damage/loss, to deal with. Again, issues inherent to physical property.
Those are ancillary and after the fact. Your not going to get wear and tear by thinking about stealing a car, your going to do it after the law was broken and the theft occurred. So instead of worrying about something after your illegally driving down the street, we need to focus on the control and legal right to that control. That is what makes stealing a car illegal and that is what makes a lost profit when someone assumes that control and gives it away without the owners permission.
The two are inseparable. Without the law, copyright is meaningless because it is a wholly artificial and arbitrary construct.
Yes, finally something we agree on.
No, they have not.
Why havn't they? I mean if the law give only me the right to copy and sell my new book, and you decide to do the same in violation of the law, why have I not suffered a loss in profit for every book I have the exclusive right to that you copy and sell or gave away? You possessing the book isn't what's exclusive to me, it's the copying and distribution that I have exclusive control over with a few exceptions. By the very nature of someone receiving a copy of the book from you instead of from me, I do not have my profit from that sale regardless of if you charged for it or not. It doesn't matter if the book is on paper, electronic bits, an MP3 of someone reading it or whatever, the construct of law makes the copying and distribution my legal right to control.
Certainly I can, because "had we not sneaked in, we never would have went to the movies". You weren't going to pay me. Whether or not you see the movie does not change this fact.
So then it's ok to sneak into the movies? Actually no it's not. Because the legal and lawful way to get into the movies was to pass through the admission gate and pay $5. The fact that they are there without doing so means they broke a law to deny you the profit. It doesn't matter if they weren't going to go if the had to pay, what matters is that they went and took advantage of the services you offered and have a legal right to control without paying. You lost a profit.
It is, in fact, fundamentally different because physical property and copyrighted information are completely different things
But the possession and control of them are not. You can have something as opposite as dogs and cats or cats and lawnmowers but the legal responsibilities and controls associated with them is the same. The law gives someone ownership of copyrighted materials and that ownership includes the sole right to determine when or how it is copies and distributed. That's the exact same fundamental control over any property regardless of whether its physical or not.
I've seen this thread concentrate on the specific act of listening to the meduim. However, this is not what is at stake here. Surely your not going to claim it is perfectly legal and fine to walk into walmart, open a cassette tape, dub it right there in the store and walk out with your copy without paying anyone are you?
This is kind of important because you having a copy of the copyrighted work isn't the issue as much as the legal right to control access to copying and distribution. When you dub the tape from a copy you purchased and use your own equipment at home, it's within the fair use which is specific exemptions to the exclusive control over the copyrighted works. But when you go into walmart, you are doing the same as with the car, using their property that they have a legal right to control without their permission. When that legal right allows them to charge for access to the copying and distribution and you side step those, they have lost a profit. Again, this profit is over their control of an item in which the law give them that right of control, not any physical medium it may be fixated on.
For fucks sake. There is no damn difference. Your right to your property is a construct of law, so is the rights of copyright. You can't acknowledge possession of something that exists only in law and ignore the same because it exist only in law.
And yes, in order for it to end up on your property, if you didn't obtain it from an approved source, you would have had to, or someone at some time, would have had to violate those rights of law. You pirating something means a lost profit whether your responsible or not.
I have found the rental car analogy insufucient for the claim I'm making but I found another car analogy that fits quite well. We all know that car analogies work best at slashdot which is why I'm attempting to stay with them. (I hope you can see the humor in that)
Anyways, Suppose that You owned a drive in movie theater and charged 5 dollars a head to get in. Now I see a tree or something on the fence line that I can use to jump the fence without damaging anything. I have a friend with a car who pays to get in and parks near that spot on the fence. When I and 4 other people jump the fence without damaging anything, walk over and get into the car and watch the two feature films, have I denied you any profit? First, lets look at the situation a little more, had we not sneaked in, we never would have went to the movies. But the fact that we are inside the complex means that you should have received $5.00 from all five of us ($25 total). Your costs are not different with us there or not. But you can't deny the fact that your out $25 dollars by our trespassing and entering illegally.
BTW, I'm not advocating the current state of offairs, I'm just stating that with it, when the use if made and it's not because of one of the limited exclusions to the distribution or copying rights granted to the copyright holder, then there is a profit being lost by the fact that something the copyright holder had an exclusive legal right to was assumed by whoever copied and distributed the works without regard to any ease of doing so.
I sort of agree. However, I was thinking more along the lines of what the founding fathers intended as the parent suggested.
Amendments would be corrections to their intent and why I do share the same concern, I'm not sure they were completely applicable to the original intent of the founding fathers or what they were trying to create.
Anyways, an interesting piece of trivia. Did you know the original 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights was supposed to be 12 but two took several and almost 200 years to pass. The first two amendment of the bill of rights failed ratification with the bill of right and didn't become amendments until well after the bill of right were in place. In fact, the first amendment in the original bill of rights was what became the 14th amendment and passed in 1868 and the second amendment passed in it entirety in 1992.
I guess that's all the better for you then. I prefer movies that allow me to escape for a short period of time, a distraction from all the reflection I have to do with real life.
Actually, the housing bubble and most of the troubled assets was largely created by the government regulation (CRA) causing banks to maintain a certain portion of their loans to "high risks" borrowers. Now it should be kept in mind that High risk does have a legal definition and we are using that definition.
But hell, why mess with details over something as simple as this right?
In short, And yes, this is very short, the government forced those sub-prime mortgages onto people. Most of them would have survived if the energy costs wouldn't have more then doubled causing the costs of other necessities to increase too.
Sure, the highly paid "experts" had a hand in it, but it wasn't capitalism at work and yes, the government changed just enough to make it possible. Maybe you should look into all of it instead of what little you are told that supports your views and party line.
Hrm... I have to disagree that failure in economics always results in a decreased standard of living, because standard of living is directly tied to technology and science which amplifies our infrastructure and production efficiency.
Yes, economic activity can stimulate advances in science and technology, but if the economy collapses, science and technology lessens impact to an extent.
Example... The invention of the refrigeration machine increased the standard of living of people in general because they could store food long term.
Your right but in being right your ignoring a couple fundamentals here. If no one can afford to purchase the refrigeration machine, they cannot benefit from the advancement of science. The moved being implemented I was speaking to go directly to the ability to afford the things you want. Lets take a look at TVs. To get a new one, a 32 inch TV 5 years ago, cost me $250. To get one the same size with the new ASTC tuner built in, I'm looking at paying almost double that. Now if the utilities triple and all my spare money is going in the gas tank just to get to and from work, I'm not going to be able to purchase that new TV. But, the same things that are going to take that technology away from me, are also going to increase the costs of producing it, shipping it, setting it on the self at the store, and eventually selling it to me. So that $500 32 inch TV will likely increase to $700 or more placing it further out of my reach.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but we aren't just talking about economic downturns here. We are talking about direct manipulation of the costs of energy that will effect everything.
Now if the economy shrinks and a lot of people go unemployed, it does not make all the refrigeration machines turn themselves off. People might not buy them as much and they will have to conserve energy in other areas, but in general their standard of living has not decreased. In fact there is a stimulus created for more efficient refrigerators that does not cost as much to run as before.
It's not about the economy shrinking as much as why it would shrink. In this case, even if the economy stays the same, people will not be able to afford to run the refrigeration machines when their electric bill doubles, their food cost increase, and they are paying two to three times as much just to get too and from work. This isn't about there being less money around because of less jobs, it's about making the existing money worth less but manipulating the costs of energy and forcing land owners to make unnecessary repairs under the guise that they can charge more rent.
Same with cars and lightbulds... Sure we can't afford to drive as much as we used to and leave the lights on all the time, but this creates a stimulus for manufactures to develop cars that run on less gas and light bulbs that don't burn out as often and use less energy.
Here the thing though, if it costs $20 grand to purchase a car that will save you $10 grand in energy over it's life time, then the only time it makes sense to buy it is when you need a new car anyways. But when you already have a working car, and the only reason you need a new car is because they jacked the gas prices up or passed a regulation that stops you from driving it, then you are being forced to spend money you wouldn't normally have to. A lot of people aren't going to be in the position to spend that kind of money when other costs are being artificially raised in order to create the scenario.
That said, the increase in costs of energy will cause a demand for solar and other methods of producing your own power without having to rely on paying a utility company.
Many businesses are doing this these days not only for the good press of going green but saving money as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have ot accept his premise, just read the constitution and it will tell you specifically what the purpose of the federal government is. The preamble which is really nothing more then a statements says to "provide for the common defense". But elsewhere is specifically mentions "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence." like in article IV section 4.
As for the "history or the contemporary government of the nations of the world with the highest quality of life and safest populations", I'm not really sure what your attempting to get at here. Almost all of Europe benefited from the US having a large presence in Europe during the cold war in which they were able to focus on rebuilding their societies instead of building a defense structure that they would fail at using once again. History shows us that most of these defenseless cultures either disappeared or were conquered by invading armies. And quite a bit of European countries have mandatory enlistments as well as US provided equipment which skews their spending even more.
Your probably right in that a standing army isn't always the best defense, but it's one that has proven practical throughout history and directly led to the development of those affluent societies your mentioning. It's also one that you don't want to find out you don't have after you need it. It diplomacy or whatever else works and the military isn't needed, great. But if it fails and is needed, it won't be pretty by any means.
You do realize that a good portion of defense spending is science related right?
Your trying to overly simplify something more complex then your allowing for. Currently, we spend about 26 billion on science and technology specifically but when you take the NASA budget, the Science related defense spending, the educational grants and spending, DOE, NOAA, and several other department spending, that number grows significantly. IF you add private research to the mix, we out spend every other country in the world by at least twice as much on Science R&D with a projected total for 2009 of $383,477,000,000 or about $383.5 billion.
My guess is that the Obama is talking about small increases in federal budget expenditures and increases (most likely through tax manipulation) of private expenditures.
The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance. If the money was new and not from something already productive, it would be a benefit completely. Even if it was from something less productive then it would be worth while. But as it seems in reality, it would be like pulling money from social security and medicare payments to fund welfare and Medicaid as in both serve the same goals within the segments they are targeted at. It's either a net loss or a symbolic gesture with no benefit.
Actually, the problem is on your insistence to look around the point but never at it. Your discussion/inclusion about the DRM just proves this point. But make no mistakes, morals are not part of this discussion. This discussion is entirely over the mechanics of copyright, what the law provides (rights and controls), what piracy subverts (rights and controls), and how that subversion means a lost profit. The amount of profit or type of profit isn't even on the table either.
DRM is an entirely different topic altogether. We are not talking about your rights as a consumer or through fair use. We are specifically talking about rights and control provided by a law covering copyright and how subverting it means a lost profit. It's something like 10 steps before the sony root kit or any DRM comes into play.
I'm glad you also have a life outside of slashdot. However, I think you need to understand the point of this. Think about the mechanics of copyright, how it is applied by law and what it infers to the copyright owner. Follow the logic of how the law creates an scarcity to the covered material and how subverting that against or without the consent of the copyright owner creates a loss of control and a loss of profit. Keep your feelings out of it, keep your morals out of it, keep DRM out of it. Just look at what is there and follow the logic from the very state to finish, then apply your piracy. If you still can't get it, then it's probably going to be like a lot of others things you will never get.
But you did buy it. You purchased something created from it. I made a profit when something was copied and distributed when you purchased it but not when you pirated it. This means out of two copies and two distributions, only one was paid for, the other is a lost profit.
Copyright grants the exclusive control over copying and distributing something, it doesn't stop you from buying anything.
It doesn't matter, I am entitled to a profit when I have exclusive control over copying and distributing. When someone does that without paying, I have lost a profit regardless of your intent or abilities.
No, I'm examining the mechanics of the law and the logic that follows. You on the other hand, are refusing to see that when X has a fee associated with it, and X happens without the fee being paid, a profit on X is lost.
Morals don't come into this at all. I personally don't care about downloading at all. But I'm not neive enough to not recognize that when X has a fee associated to it because a right of law created exclusive control and that control is violated, a profit is lost when that fee isn't rendered. There is simply no other way to look at it.
Lol.. Your one of those. Ok, I know my intelligence is wasted now. First, the funds were not non-existent. They were devalued when the contents of the packaged defaulted. That is a mechanic of the type of trade that was happening and a condition created by improper government regulation.
Why don't you try that yourself? I mean seriously, outline exactly how copyright works and you will see the logic that your missing. Here, I will help you. You create a work, it becomes copyrighted, the copyright law creates a right to exclusive control over copying and distributing. From that exclusive control, you are able to sell rights to copy the work and distribute it. You or some other entity purchase the right to copy and distribute or use your own to make copies and distribute it. Hopefully, someone else see the value in it and purchases it from them. When you download something (Pirate) someone is side stepping your exclusive cont
The law is cause unto itself and thereby justification. You can argue that you don't like the law or that it needs changed, but until it is different, then the exclusive rights to copying and distribution is defined by law. As in all the other examples, If I could remove all the wear and tear, all the potential for things that never happened, and return the property before you would ever want to use it, it's still theft. More importantly, it's still against the law to take your property rights. And that is exactly what is happening when someone makes a copy and distributes it without the copyright owners permission/consent.
Wow, you seem to get it but then fail to see that when that artificial scarcity is removed by someone ignoring the law, the model breaks. Now, suppose you hire an accountant, can you not pay him or her for services rendered? The accountant used your facilities, your computer, your books, your paper and provided nothing but their knowledge. Is their time and expertise their property or not? It's their right to trade it for money, your idea of nothing tangible being present breaks on this because it's all yours to begin with except for the mind of the accountant. They have a right to trade their knowledge for profit. The same right is created by copyright despite how much it would cost you to copy something.
What they may have no done in the future is ancillary to what has already taken place. When the law says you have exclusive control over the copying and distribution of something, regardless of anyone's intent, when it happens it is a lost profit. Copyright doesn't give you a right to sell something and make a profit. It gives you the right of control that can be sold for a profit. We are not looking at the sale for profit, we are looking at the control for profit.
But they, or someone who gave it to them, has taken my exclusive control over the copying and distribution which I use to make a profit and assumed it for themselves for their own purposes. My ability to profit was taken when that act occurred independent of if they were going to buy it or no
Are you sure? because your usage was to claim that something not listed was fair use because of something specifically listed.
Here is exactly your problem. You attempt to use an analogy that doesn't fit the argument your making. Of course you would have to of been part of the crime if your going to compare someone's shooting with someone's illegally copying and distributing a copyright protected work. IF your not going to at minimum, keep the relevance similar, then you might as well say the sky is blue and no one can ever change you mind as a comparison to it.
I don't have to prove anything. The law is specifically permission and requires you to prove your case when it isn't something specifically listed. In other words, you have to show that your use is within the law. You cannot do that when you actually look at the requirements of the law.
Fuck dude, this has nothing to do with DRM or anything. Don't attempt to change the subject. The copyright owner has specific legal rights that restrict you and I from doing something which allows them to profit. When that is done against or without their consent, it is a loss in profit to the copyright owner. If format shifting a copy of something you own and was distributed with the consent of the copyright owner is within your rights legally, then it is not a specific exclusive right given to the fucking copyright owner by copyright law. DRM doesn't even matter in this discussion.
Who cares, it's totally irrelevant in this topic. Anyways, you need to reexamine the laws on DRM. Cracking it yourself for your own personal use is not illegal when you have a legitimate right to the content.
What the fuck does your rights being violated have to do with a specific situation about exclusiv
And I'm saying that you can create the same exact scenario as would exist with an MP3 file at walmart and it's still not legal. That's because the physical medium is not what is at stake here, it's the control of property and the right to sell it. When you walk into walmart or some download site or wherever, your obtaining a copy in the same ways.
Lol.. Have you even bothered reading the laws I pointed you to? For fucks sake, education is one of the specifically exemptions to the exclusive control. You can't sit there and lay claim to something that it not listed being legal by referring to something that is listed. That's like saying you can drive any car at any time because you have a drivers license that permits you to drive your own car.
And yes, in our legal system, if someone is shot in the commission of a crime that you were part of, you can be charged for her murder or wounding regardless of if you had a gun or not.
You just don't get it do you? You have no legal right to make a copy for personal use or not before you purchase the title unless the copyright owner gives you permission. It's simply not your choice or decision to make and the law gives the copyright holder the exclusive control over it, not you. The copyright owner then sells the right to copy and distribute the protected work and when you make a copy outside of those limited sets of exclusions (and yes, your suggested usage is well outside), you are denying them profit. It's no different then walking into walmart finding an open take, copying it and walking out without making a purchase.
I think your parse engine is broken. If someone else caused the damage and the loss is already existent, your still not allowed to use it in that way. This goes beyond any loss in value or wear and tear.
You see, walmart isn't the copyright holder and walmart isn't the entity with exclusive control over copying and distribution. It they ok'ed this without the consent of the copyright holder, they are breaking the law and denying the copyright holder the profit.
Don't confuse yourself with the superficial that you come into contact with. Think about the entire mechanics of copyright, what the law provides and maybe then you will see what is right in front of you.
Wow.. Just Wow.... If you would have bothered to look, you will find that it is defined by law. You will also find that the first sale doctrine provides certain rights or exclusions outside of fair use too. But none of what you claimed is in either.
Fair use is a concept in which exclusions are allowed for specific reasons. The tests applied are defined by law and are specifically to see if the exclusion exist because of the specific reason or if the exclusion is missing because it only appears to be of a specific reason. When you speak to lawyers and not some joke in a chat room, you will find out exactly what your rights to fair use are before you attempt to use something. The cases your seeing in court are where people don't know the law, post something, and then try to defend themselves with fair use. Sometimes, they are right, most of the time, they are wrong. Take Larry Flint in Hustler V Falwell. He consulted his lawyers and saw exactly what he needed to do, and when Falwell took him to court, Hustler won.
What you missing is that it you are still not buying anything from me. If I control the copying and distribution rights, then I charge someone else to do that. It not like I would have a CD press and a billion dollar distribution chain just because I had a one hit wonder. Sometimes those people have the copyright, sometimes they have just distribution rights. So it doesn't matter at all if you pay a bootleger or buy it from a legitimate source, someone took a legal right that was being used to profit and used it for their own purposes without any right to do so. It's a lost profit no matter how you look at it. You possesion or guilty conscious doesn't even come into it at this stage.
Both. Because the specific way the right was violated is also the specific way the profit is made. That's the point with the rental car, the drive in theater, going to walmart and dubbing tapes, it's all the same because the way the right was violated is also the way they make their profit. When you or anyone else violate that right and do the same as they are for profit, it doesn't matter if you delete the crap, eventually purchase it, or shove it where the sun don't shine, they have lost on the profit of whoever violated their right by doing the act that they profit from illegally.
And no, it's not confusing the situation, it inseparable because the copyright law gives someone a specific right that they can then use to profit. The law say only you can do something. If you are making a profit from doing that, and I violate the law and do it too, You are losing a profit because of what I did, not some future user who might go back and buy from you or erase the content.
No, I'm not confusing the issue. Your going completely out of your way to avoid the issue. The profit is made solely because of the right. When the right disappears so does the damn profit. The act of someone taking the right and performing the same act that made the profit without consent, there is profit lost to the copyright holder regardless of commercial intent, or some future act to clear a conscious.
And whether or not a pirate may eventually purchase the material is completely irrelevant. The profit model was on a copy and distribution being made. In order for the pirate to make even by purchasing the real content in the future, he would have to pay twice to cover two copies and distributions. The law gives the copyright holder the sole right to that and it's that sole right in which enables the profit. Otherwise the profit would be in the book or the CD or whatever, but as we know, they have rights and profit without an
I used to be be agains government until I had to use my local pubic utilities commission (PUC) to get a problem solved. In a matter of days, they evaluated the problem, directed SBC to fix it, and demanded I received a discounted service for the 4 months of pissing with them.
Obviously, if everyone jumped at once, they would probably be over loaded but I think this is a clear case where it's warranted. As you mentioned, state laws do put limitations on "any reason", especially if the reason covered some marketing campaign designed to get customers. Really, think about this, if they say speeds up to 5 megs and always on, regardless of what the fine print says or doesn't say, anyone would assume they are going to always get 5 megs that they can use. If that results in bandwidth usage above what they think it appropriate, then tought titties for them.
If nothing else, the PUC can force them to advertise correctly so that people know what the hell is up. As for the op using 44 gig in a week, some DVD live Linux distros are 4 gig or better, Trying out one or two of those plus a net install with all the bells and whistles with a screw up and retry can easily come close to that without trying. now imaging streaming a couple of TV programs or something from Hulu which adds junk data to the stream to confuse rippers and your there quite easily.
I looked to make sure but could not find where the constitution ever required states to select electors in any means or procedure that wasn't always left to the state's legislature to decide.
Well, I don't think the federal government was ever supposed to be accountable to the people directly or indirectly in the same sense as is being asked for today. The constitution was originally a permissive document telling the federal government what it can do and what it must not do. It's scope was supposed to be a unified front in the matters of state and not directly impacting domestic policy outside a few specific situations. They shouldn't be involved in the drug laws, they shouldn't be involved in the rewarding people with welfare or health care or targeted tax cuts or even law enforcement in the states without the direct consent of the states.
Originally, the federal government or their elected officials was supposed to be accountable to their position in which the states and the people of those states could guide. Perhaps what changed this the most is when they changed the way the president and vice president was elected with party line voted instead of each elector voting for two people and the one with the most becoming president while the second most became the vice president.
The exception to my complaint on the feds involvement would be the post roads in which the feds are required to establish. I'm not sure withholding any funding from a state is constitutional unless it is to ensure a republic form of government in the state. Outside that, they have no real authority to do so if the constitution was limiting and permissive as originally designed.
And yes, I'm just as disappointed as you.
According to the law, they have every right. They have exclusive control over the copying and distribution of their works.
Where is it that your finding they have no right to impose fees?
BTW, Libraries are specifically exempted by the laws. There are a few other specific exemptions to those exclusive rights too. Please don't conflate something specifically added to the laws giving the copyright owner control as an exemption with justification for something that doesn't reflect the law.
Perhaps your just not being clear then. Because your last paragraph said you if you pirate something today, you might buy it legitimately some other day, and you may still buy the bootlegged version. Now when the law gives the copyright holder the exclusive control over copying and distribution, then any act that takes that away results in a lost profit regardless of who you eventually pay or not. You have or someone has in order for you to get the pirated or bootleged version, taken that right of control away from the copyright owner and used it for their own purposed. It doesn't matter what happens down the road, the legal right has been taken.
You can attempt to justify your actions all you want. Actually, if your just downloading them, your not the breaking the law, the person who is distributing it is. And when that take the legal right that the copyright own has away in order to distribute the music to you, each copy they distribute is a lost profit. It's just that simple and no amount of you deleting or buying in the future will erase that. Surely you couldn't walk into a car lot at 3 am, take a car without permission, keep it a week, then not expect to be in trouble for theft when you go back and try to purchase it. The car lot has a legal right to control access to the car. And that right is before any wear and tear or possible damage or anything comes into the equation. So does the copyright owner.
I think your conflating concepts here. Recording a broadcast for later viewing is fair use. Selling that broadcast or giving it away isn't. If the TV shows are offered online by the copyright holders, then your simply playing with fair use because the person who put it on the internet for you had permission. But if your access results from someone across the country recording the show and placing it someone that you can find, then that exclusive right is taken again and each distribution is a lost profit.
OK, suppose that someone else opened the tape and you saw it. As for wear and tear, your not really going to see any amount that can be counted with one use. The tape is designed to be played and to not wear out quickly when do so.
Well, now we are back to getting permission. I doubt the "personal copy" being made would be fair use, nothing gives you a right to the content on the cassette. Fair use is one of those exceptions to rights granted by law. It gives you a right to do something that has been reserved to the copyright holder by law. It's the only legal exception to the rights created by copyright and it assumes that your use is of content you already legally obtained.
Perhaps you should read the copyright laws a little. You see, if walmart gives you a recording, or a copy of a recording, they have to give you all copies of that recording in which the copy was made. That supposed to go for your friend and neighbor too but it's never enforced. Walmart could agree to such a deal, you wouldn't have technically broken the law but walmart would have and a profit would have been lost.
Actually, not they are not. Fair use only applies if you have a legal right to the copyrighted works. Making unauthorized copies and distributing them does not create legal rights to it. If you made a personal copy of a CD you already obtained legally, then fair use would cover that provided you did not distribute it without transferring the original plus every other copy made from it in the same transaction.
I pointed you to the laws, show me where you are getting this idea that copying your friends stuff is "fair use". It simply isn't so show me either in law or court case or legal opinion of a US government branch. And yes, I'm requiring that high of a level of proof because pointing to a forum for a legal opinion could carry about as much weight as "because I said so".
I simply think you are confused on the meaning of fair use.
See above and show where fair use is perceived in the same way you are speaking of. It isn't, never has been in the 40 plus years I have been alive, and I think when you look to show it, your going to see that you mistook something.
First of all, I need to appologise for the tone of my last reply. I was agrivated at some of the replies I was getting were people wanted to seem willfully clueless in order to maintain their points. Your post was just the one I took it out on. Hopefully This reply will be a little more civil and respectful.
Well, it's fundamentally deeper then that. You see, simple possession doesn't make something yours. It does go a long ways to prove it is yours but if I took your laptop from your lap and placed it on mine, that would not make it mine. So please see that we aren't talking about simple possession of something here. we are talking about legal rights of ownership here. If I did take your laptop and claim it was mine because of possession, you would have a legal right to show it was yours and that I had no authority to possess it and I could be charged for theft.
With the RIAA and other Mafia organizations, possession isn't what is underlying the term of profit, it's the legal claim to it. Thinking about it in terms of physical possession only clouds the issue, you need to think about it in terms of the rights the law gives to you. In the case of your laptop, you have the right to control access to it. In the case of copyright, you have the right to control access by the control of the copying and distribution. When that right is taken from you and I copy your copyrighted work then distribute it, I have literally done the same as take your laptop without your permission and used it in a way you didn't approve of. Even if I gave it back to you, I have still violated your fundamental rights of ownership to it. If I took it and done something that you would normally charge for, then I have taken that profit from you. Even if I give the thing back before you notice it missing.
Actually, we are playing with both in the areas in which they overlap. The copyright laws create an imaginary piece of property with the same rights as your laptop. They call this a right which is a little confusing so lets call it a widget instead. So the law take a work you created and invents this widget out of thin air. That widget gives you sole control over copying and distribution of your copyrighted works. When someone pirates a copyrighted work, they actually take that widget and use it for their own purposed in the same way they would your laptop. The actual copyrighted work is ancillary at this point because we are talking about a piece of property the law created because of your work. It really has nothing to do with your work other then it allows you to control aspects of it.
well, no.
And that's irrelevent because you also said they couldn't use it if it wasn't there. So if they weren't going to use it, then what. Well, you don't answer that which takes us away from the physical property and to the rights to control it. Otherwise, if they weren't going to use it, then no harm would have been done.
Those are ancillary and after the fact. Your not going to get wear and tear by thinking about stealing a car, your going to do it after the law was broken and the theft occurred. So instead of worrying about something after your illegally driving down the street, we need to focus on the control and legal right to that control. That is what makes stealing a car illegal and that is what makes a lost profit when someone assumes that control and gives it away without the owners permission.
Yes, finally something we agree on.
Why havn't they? I mean if the law give only me the right to copy and sell my new book, and you decide to do the same in violation of the law, why have I not suffered a loss in profit for every book I have the exclusive right to that you copy and sell or gave away? You possessing the book isn't what's exclusive to me, it's the copying and distribution that I have exclusive control over with a few exceptions. By the very nature of someone receiving a copy of the book from you instead of from me, I do not have my profit from that sale regardless of if you charged for it or not. It doesn't matter if the book is on paper, electronic bits, an MP3 of someone reading it or whatever, the construct of law makes the copying and distribution my legal right to control.
So then it's ok to sneak into the movies? Actually no it's not. Because the legal and lawful way to get into the movies was to pass through the admission gate and pay $5. The fact that they are there without doing so means they broke a law to deny you the profit. It doesn't matter if they weren't going to go if the had to pay, what matters is that they went and took advantage of the services you offered and have a legal right to control without paying. You lost a profit.
But the possession and control of them are not. You can have something as opposite as dogs and cats or cats and lawnmowers but the legal responsibilities and controls associated with them is the same. The law gives someone ownership of copyrighted materials and that ownership includes the sole right to determine when or how it is copies and distributed. That's the exact same fundamental control over any property regardless of whether its physical or not.
I've seen this thread concentrate on the specific act of listening to the meduim. However, this is not what is at stake here. Surely your not going to claim it is perfectly legal and fine to walk into walmart, open a cassette tape, dub it right there in the store and walk out with your copy without paying anyone are you?
This is kind of important because you having a copy of the copyrighted work isn't the issue as much as the legal right to control access to copying and distribution. When you dub the tape from a copy you purchased and use your own equipment at home, it's within the fair use which is specific exemptions to the exclusive control over the copyrighted works. But when you go into walmart, you are doing the same as with the car, using their property that they have a legal right to control without their permission. When that legal right allows them to charge for access to the copying and distribution and you side step those, they have lost a profit. Again, this profit is over their control of an item in which the law give them that right of control, not any physical medium it may be fixated on.
Well, your giving it back in a couple of says so I guess the nice kind?
Don't get upset, it was just an analogy, I'm not near as polite with people's computers.
For fucks sake. There is no damn difference. Your right to your property is a construct of law, so is the rights of copyright. You can't acknowledge possession of something that exists only in law and ignore the same because it exist only in law.
And yes, in order for it to end up on your property, if you didn't obtain it from an approved source, you would have had to, or someone at some time, would have had to violate those rights of law. You pirating something means a lost profit whether your responsible or not.
I have found the rental car analogy insufucient for the claim I'm making but I found another car analogy that fits quite well. We all know that car analogies work best at slashdot which is why I'm attempting to stay with them. (I hope you can see the humor in that)
Anyways, Suppose that You owned a drive in movie theater and charged 5 dollars a head to get in. Now I see a tree or something on the fence line that I can use to jump the fence without damaging anything. I have a friend with a car who pays to get in and parks near that spot on the fence. When I and 4 other people jump the fence without damaging anything, walk over and get into the car and watch the two feature films, have I denied you any profit? First, lets look at the situation a little more, had we not sneaked in, we never would have went to the movies. But the fact that we are inside the complex means that you should have received $5.00 from all five of us ($25 total). Your costs are not different with us there or not. But you can't deny the fact that your out $25 dollars by our trespassing and entering illegally.
BTW, I'm not advocating the current state of offairs, I'm just stating that with it, when the use if made and it's not because of one of the limited exclusions to the distribution or copying rights granted to the copyright holder, then there is a profit being lost by the fact that something the copyright holder had an exclusive legal right to was assumed by whoever copied and distributed the works without regard to any ease of doing so.
I sort of agree. However, I was thinking more along the lines of what the founding fathers intended as the parent suggested.
Amendments would be corrections to their intent and why I do share the same concern, I'm not sure they were completely applicable to the original intent of the founding fathers or what they were trying to create.
Anyways, an interesting piece of trivia. Did you know the original 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights was supposed to be 12 but two took several and almost 200 years to pass. The first two amendment of the bill of rights failed ratification with the bill of right and didn't become amendments until well after the bill of right were in place. In fact, the first amendment in the original bill of rights was what became the 14th amendment and passed in 1868 and the second amendment passed in it entirety in 1992.
I guess that's all the better for you then. I prefer movies that allow me to escape for a short period of time, a distraction from all the reflection I have to do with real life.
Actually, the housing bubble and most of the troubled assets was largely created by the government regulation (CRA) causing banks to maintain a certain portion of their loans to "high risks" borrowers. Now it should be kept in mind that High risk does have a legal definition and we are using that definition.
But hell, why mess with details over something as simple as this right?
In short, And yes, this is very short, the government forced those sub-prime mortgages onto people. Most of them would have survived if the energy costs wouldn't have more then doubled causing the costs of other necessities to increase too.
Sure, the highly paid "experts" had a hand in it, but it wasn't capitalism at work and yes, the government changed just enough to make it possible. Maybe you should look into all of it instead of what little you are told that supports your views and party line.
Your right but in being right your ignoring a couple fundamentals here. If no one can afford to purchase the refrigeration machine, they cannot benefit from the advancement of science. The moved being implemented I was speaking to go directly to the ability to afford the things you want. Lets take a look at TVs. To get a new one, a 32 inch TV 5 years ago, cost me $250. To get one the same size with the new ASTC tuner built in, I'm looking at paying almost double that. Now if the utilities triple and all my spare money is going in the gas tank just to get to and from work, I'm not going to be able to purchase that new TV. But, the same things that are going to take that technology away from me, are also going to increase the costs of producing it, shipping it, setting it on the self at the store, and eventually selling it to me. So that $500 32 inch TV will likely increase to $700 or more placing it further out of my reach.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but we aren't just talking about economic downturns here. We are talking about direct manipulation of the costs of energy that will effect everything.
It's not about the economy shrinking as much as why it would shrink. In this case, even if the economy stays the same, people will not be able to afford to run the refrigeration machines when their electric bill doubles, their food cost increase, and they are paying two to three times as much just to get too and from work. This isn't about there being less money around because of less jobs, it's about making the existing money worth less but manipulating the costs of energy and forcing land owners to make unnecessary repairs under the guise that they can charge more rent.
Here the thing though, if it costs $20 grand to purchase a car that will save you $10 grand in energy over it's life time, then the only time it makes sense to buy it is when you need a new car anyways. But when you already have a working car, and the only reason you need a new car is because they jacked the gas prices up or passed a regulation that stops you from driving it, then you are being forced to spend money you wouldn't normally have to. A lot of people aren't going to be in the position to spend that kind of money when other costs are being artificially raised in order to create the scenario.
What makes