Remember though, as wrong as what is occuring might be, the crime is copyright infringement. YOu apply the term "stealing" without defining it, like others here who present similar statements, which leads to discussions on that topic which I just sparked sort of.
So, how do you define "stealing?" What about free nadl egal independent songs people can download being another source of free music people could turn to?
Extending copyright encourages creativity because it shows that if you can come up with good original concept that catches the popular imagination you can make an absolute mint off it.
But that is NOT what copyrights are about. they are not about making tons of money at all, but to encourage creativity by allowing people a temporary monopoly on a work, but AFTER that LIMITED time it HAS to enter the public domain. What you are asking for an extention on, and what Disney has done will only end up stifling creativity because those raw ideas (like just asking to draw a talking mouse for example) will be locked away and any attempt to draw one of those [talking mice] no matter how un-similar to Disney's Mickey Mouse will end up in legitation.
Disney have invested serious time and effort in building up a brand around their characters, why should they drop copyright and let others make inferior duplicates ad nauseum until the original concept is destroyed.
Because they are not (mostly) original works. They were ripped from the public domain stories. the whole "why should they drop copyright and let others make inferior duplicates ad nauseum until the original concept is destroyed." thing is horsecrap as well, IMO. The original concept would be an intellectual though, like "what would it be like if a mouse talked?" Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse are all implementations of an idea, and disney alot of the work they used was actually ripped from public domain/NonPublicDomain stories, so look who did "alot of work."
Preventing people from rehashing old ideas from the 30's and 40's is not necessarily a bad thing.
Horseshit.
The fact that true creators like Walt Disney only come along every few decades is far more stiffling to creativity than copyright.
While good creators equal good creativity in many cases, which I agree, it is not the only grat cause of stifled creativity. Disney's lobbying to extend copyrights to not only protect their icon, but to prevent people from doing what they did, that is take and make into something big out of the pbulic domain.
Copyrights are not like what they were meant to be and you know it, instead of creativity and innovation, we get "innovation" and legitation. If we keep on extending the rights, we won't have things entering the public domain that we can use to build on, improve, and morph into something new in people's lifetimes eventually. Is this REALLY what the founding fathers wanted?
SUPPORT COPYRIGHT REFORM! ALLOW PUBLIC DOMAIN TO EXPAND!
So how would you feel if you saw your hard work being passed off as the property of someone else?"
I would be pissed off greatly, and I think that is wrong, don't get me wrong, but it isn't theft. If it was, then why do we still have the idea in our head, or that IMPLEMENTATION (It is NOT an idea we are talking about here.) of an idea. Ewually wrong, but it is something else. I think it of a illegl copying and fraud mixed crime. All this does is make the facts more confusing, and on M$s part easier to influence our young minds with propaganda. A program, movie, music, ect, is NOT an idea, it is an implementation of an idea. This confusion further mixes up the real issue. Without raw ideas (draw a mouse that talks, a we need a new TV show about teens, ect, those are ideas because they are basic and very broad.) we would not be able to create things like movies and music and TV, and what M$ is doing threatens creativity because it basically locks up raw idea used for creative projects under the guise of "protecting ideas from being stolen"(copied).
It sounds like science fiction but it really happens, and it happens all the time."
If this isn't science fiction, then why is it that somebody recites an idea of mine, but I still have the idea?
Because it is not even science fiction, it is branwashing propaganda and horseshit to boot. Anybody who believes this is very dense, IMO
Right, it's OK to steal music, movies, software, etc. if you're poor. You are a moron.
It's copyright infringement. Still illegal if you don't have permission from the copyright holder to distribute, but you are further perpetuating the mornic ideas that come with protecting "IP
This is logical blastphemy, ideas are intellectual processes in the brain that until you use other senses to express, are yours. Nobody can gain access to them otherwise (yet) and if it was "stolen" by being used, then why do I still have the idea in my head, or the chunk of my brain to utilize the idea? Because it was NOT stolen, but copied. Ideas are not yours when you express then because pople can express them as well. You can (try and sometimes succeed) to protect implementations of ideas, but ideas are something basic, too basic for protection (like say somebody told you to make a talking mouse. Not everybody would do it the same way), and something that needs to be free because raw ideas are what keep the creativity going.
What Microsoft is doing on the other hand is brainwashing to believe that these raw thoughts can be owned, that they need unnessecary protection, and worst of all, that copying = theft, and the poster speaks for M$ easily.
You can't distribute copyrighted material, numbnuts.
Oh yeah? Then why are artists putting fee/legal music up on Dmusic.com then and are asking for it to be shared? Oh yea, because they give permission to do so. You can share copyrighted works if and only if you have the proper permissions to do so. Not never like you state, not always like *some* say, but sometimes.
Copying is copying, certain types like plagiarism and copyright infringement are wrong, but it is NOT theft legally or philosophically.
Stealing is stealing, rationalize it all you want.
A. Stealing is stealing, but copying ANYTHING as wrong as it is is legally NOT theft, and it has been philosophically argued succesfully that the two acts are notequals, despite how wrong they are.
B. So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something? Just saying copyright infringement isn't theft does not mean that the person arguing this nessecarily believes that the crime is o.k.
If you sneak into a concert is it stealing?
If you sneak into a theater is it stealing?
No, it's tresspassing.
If you download pirated code and use it, but not very often is it stealing?
If you download pirated music and listen to it is it stealing?
No, it's still the crime (I stated it's a crime, happy?) of copyright infringement/piracy.
--Grow up.
So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something even when you say it's o.k? Wait, you position is the only one you will listen to, so you make this argument hoping to end possible debate over it before it starts? I think you should grow up.
If you do not agree to the terms of the license (which may or may not allow you to use it for ammunition in your trebuchet) then you cannot use the product.
I wondered about this claim, if somebody downlaods a software, and useses it, but has one of those warnings... how is that supposed to be enforced? It's like those sites "if you are not 18 years or older you must leave..." people won't just leave, it is not really an enforcable statement.
2. Copyright should encourage creative works. Creators should be able to make BIG BUCKS (if their work is good, of course).
I personally think this should read "creators should be authorized legitimate attempts to make big bucks" because there is simply no gaurentee that "big Bucks" (as opposed to making less than that level) can and/or will be achieved, and this statement seems IMO to instill the "I made it, make me rich! " notion, whereas this revision states full knowledge that there is a legitimate attempt to make on the creator's part profit, but will fail to disclose or give hint to how much will/is wanted to be made beforehand..
6. A person who owns a copy of a copyrighted work may give or loan that work to any other person. They then have *NO RIGHT* to possess or use that work (until it is returned), including any copies made under section 4.
I disagree with this to *some* (not all) extent.
Parody, review, and criticism may make use of no more than 1% of the origonal, for them to be distributed to others.
If you are reviewing a book, or reviewing a newspaper/magazine/article, this idea is problematic, ESPECIALLY if there is alot to be quoted from a source.
Any person caught in possession of a illegally copied work will be required to buy a legal copy, and pay a fine (about the cost of a legal copy).
The only problem I have with this is how will you be able to determine if a copy of a work (say a MP3 file or AVI file) is an illegal copy, or a legal rip?
All I am saying is that RIAA backed music is considered the best becasue it is the only one the public for the most part really gets to hear, and that if they had more independent, music, then they would be able to judge on quality of the song with less of a bias, although there is no gaurentee that they will like some/most/all independent music in the first place.
statistically most music which is generally considered good is owned by RIAA members.
Isn't the RIAA music what the public is exposed to the most? No wonder the statistics are tilted in the RIAA's favor, not only that, but somehow they aquire this almost zombie brainwashed notion that if it isn't made by this or that company (in this case RIAA backed lables and artists), then it sucks, which in my opinion is inaccurate. If they had a balanced influence of indie and RIAA the statistics would be different.
Infringing copyright is hardly morally better than stealing, is it?
That is one question that varies from personal morals/opinions of one person to another. I personally think it is only morally "better" in certain cases, equally wrong in other cases, although they are still different crimes in terms of what happens. Just my personal opinion it is.
Interesting... The idea of if no one saw you it never happened...
So as long as you are not caught it is okay... So if someone copies a huge chunk of GPLd code and sells it as their own.... As long as no one finds it then it never happened....
No, just that the crime is not nessecarily theft philosophically (succesfully argued against calling it theft) and never theft under law, but always wrong either way.
Ah but if you say that he stole from you then the people that download MP3s, and movies have also stolen.
Yeah, but unless you can prove it has happened, IE You don't have the mp3/movie anymore, then I doubt that theft can be factually applied here, but instead see it only used emotionally.
Theft doesn't necessarily have to mean depriving the original owner. A person could steal a car, joyride in it and return it in original condition before the owner needed to use it...
That statement made no sense. When that hypothetical person took that car out, for that time being they DEPRIVED the owner of the use, regardless of if he/she was using it. Either way theft requires some sort of loss, and your example further seems to suport that stance.
No, it is a bunch of 1s and 0s that unlike property can be copied, mutliated, deficated, ect near infinity, and you can somehow retain an original of that.
Slashdot Mirror
And who granted you the right to determine somebody else's ethics?
So, how do you define "stealing?" What about free nadl egal independent songs people can download being another source of free music people could turn to?
Tell her that what I am doing requires no fucking at all. ^_^
I guess I must have been lucky, I have not encountered this at all.
Funny, I thought they displayed the bitrate of the file. The quality thing I think is false, whereas getting reliability is a point I agree with.
But that is NOT what copyrights are about. they are not about making tons of money at all, but to encourage creativity by allowing people a temporary monopoly on a work, but AFTER that LIMITED time it HAS to enter the public domain. What you are asking for an extention on, and what Disney has done will only end up stifling creativity because those raw ideas (like just asking to draw a talking mouse for example) will be locked away and any attempt to draw one of those [talking mice] no matter how un-similar to Disney's Mickey Mouse will end up in legitation.
Because they are not (mostly) original works. They were ripped from the public domain stories. the whole "why should they drop copyright and let others make inferior duplicates ad nauseum until the original concept is destroyed." thing is horsecrap as well, IMO. The original concept would be an intellectual though, like "what would it be like if a mouse talked?" Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse are all implementations of an idea, and disney alot of the work they used was actually ripped from public domain/NonPublicDomain stories, so look who did "alot of work."
Horseshit.
While good creators equal good creativity in many cases, which I agree, it is not the only grat cause of stifled creativity. Disney's lobbying to extend copyrights to not only protect their icon, but to prevent people from doing what they did, that is take and make into something big out of the pbulic domain.
Copyrights are not like what they were meant to be and you know it, instead of creativity and innovation, we get "innovation" and legitation. If we keep on extending the rights, we won't have things entering the public domain that we can use to build on, improve, and morph into something new in people's lifetimes eventually. Is this REALLY what the founding fathers wanted?
SUPPORT COPYRIGHT REFORM! ALLOW PUBLIC DOMAIN TO EXPAND!
I would be pissed off greatly, and I think that is wrong, don't get me wrong, but it isn't theft. If it was, then why do we still have the idea in our head, or that IMPLEMENTATION (It is NOT an idea we are talking about here.) of an idea. Ewually wrong, but it is something else. I think it of a illegl copying and fraud mixed crime. All this does is make the facts more confusing, and on M$s part easier to influence our young minds with propaganda. A program, movie, music, ect, is NOT an idea, it is an implementation of an idea. This confusion further mixes up the real issue. Without raw ideas (draw a mouse that talks, a we need a new TV show about teens, ect, those are ideas because they are basic and very broad.) we would not be able to create things like movies and music and TV, and what M$ is doing threatens creativity because it basically locks up raw idea used for creative projects under the guise of "protecting ideas from being stolen"(copied).
If this isn't science fiction, then why is it that somebody recites an idea of mine, but I still have the idea?
Because it is not even science fiction, it is branwashing propaganda and horseshit to boot. Anybody who believes this is very dense, IMO
It's copyright infringement. Still illegal if you don't have permission from the copyright holder to distribute, but you are further perpetuating the mornic ideas that come with protecting "IP
Oh yeah? Then why are artists putting fee/legal music up on Dmusic.com then and are asking for it to be shared? Oh yea, because they give permission to do so. You can share copyrighted works if and only if you have the proper permissions to do so. Not never like you state, not always like *some* say, but sometimes.
Copying is copying, certain types like plagiarism and copyright infringement are wrong, but it is NOT theft legally or philosophically.
A. Stealing is stealing, but copying ANYTHING as wrong as it is is legally NOT theft, and it has been philosophically argued succesfully that the two acts are notequals, despite how wrong they are. B. So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something? Just saying copyright infringement isn't theft does not mean that the person arguing this nessecarily believes that the crime is o.k.
No, it's tresspassing.
No, it's still the crime (I stated it's a crime, happy?) of copyright infringement/piracy.
So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something even when you say it's o.k? Wait, you position is the only one you will listen to, so you make this argument hoping to end possible debate over it before it starts? I think you should grow up.
I wondered about this claim, if somebody downlaods a software, and useses it, but has one of those warnings... how is that supposed to be enforced? It's like those sites "if you are not 18 years or older you must leave..." people won't just leave, it is not really an enforcable statement.
I doubt old game boy games (for the most part) had this kind of encryption.
What if the original was lost/stolen though?
I personally think this should read "creators should be authorized legitimate attempts to make big bucks" because there is simply no gaurentee that "big Bucks" (as opposed to making less than that level) can and/or will be achieved, and this statement seems IMO to instill the "I made it, make me rich! " notion, whereas this revision states full knowledge that there is a legitimate attempt to make on the creator's part profit, but will fail to disclose or give hint to how much will/is wanted to be made beforehand..
I disagree with this to *some* (not all) extent.
If you are reviewing a book, or reviewing a newspaper/magazine/article, this idea is problematic, ESPECIALLY if there is alot to be quoted from a source.
The only problem I have with this is how will you be able to determine if a copy of a work (say a MP3 file or AVI file) is an illegal copy, or a legal rip?
All I am saying is that RIAA backed music is considered the best becasue it is the only one the public for the most part really gets to hear, and that if they had more independent, music, then they would be able to judge on quality of the song with less of a bias, although there is no gaurentee that they will like some/most/all independent music in the first place.
Isn't the RIAA music what the public is exposed to the most? No wonder the statistics are tilted in the RIAA's favor, not only that, but somehow they aquire this almost zombie brainwashed notion that if it isn't made by this or that company (in this case RIAA backed lables and artists), then it sucks, which in my opinion is inaccurate. If they had a balanced influence of indie and RIAA the statistics would be different.
Nice generalization. Seriously though, there are people who do pratice what they preach here at /.
That is one question that varies from personal morals/opinions of one person to another. I personally think it is only morally "better" in certain cases, equally wrong in other cases, although they are still different crimes in terms of what happens. Just my personal opinion it is.
No, just that the crime is not nessecarily theft philosophically (succesfully argued against calling it theft) and never theft under law, but always wrong either way.
Yeah, but unless you can prove it has happened, IE You don't have the mp3/movie anymore, then I doubt that theft can be factually applied here, but instead see it only used emotionally.
That statement made no sense. When that hypothetical person took that car out, for that time being they DEPRIVED the owner of the use, regardless of if he/she was using it. Either way theft requires some sort of loss, and your example further seems to suport that stance.
No, it is a bunch of 1s and 0s that unlike property can be copied, mutliated, deficated, ect near infinity, and you can somehow retain an original of that.