The theft vs. copyright infringement it is a matter of splitting hairs, sometimes by people trying to justify what the are doing.
This is partial BS, copyright infringement and theft are legally different, and used to be tought as philosophic and legal different in terms of what occures, although tought as wrong together, but the fact that they are different is important to the debate because of the fact that the events that occure in each crime (which can be, and to alot are both equally wrong) differ, and mixing them together in a debate when one crime [in this case, theft] is NOT even relevant to the debate unless it is used to sway opinions using examples and moral language/
Look, I don't like what he did either, but if " theft of intellectual property" exists, then why are pirates not in jail for this, or being prosecuted for it?
Simple, the guy commited a copyright/GPL violation.
Yes he was wrong, but the crime is not any form theft but instead an infringement. Legally those who pointed it out are correct. Nothing was really "anek" merely copied, and the supreme court ruled piracy and copyright infringement a crime, but not theft.
Yes it's plagiarism as well. I consider plagiarism just another form of theft.
I was tought this in school, but I reject this notion, only because I was taught a different form of theft not really being tought nowadays where there has to be loss in order for theft to exist, and not hypothetical lost either.
To steal doesn't imply that the victim no longer has something. It states that something was taken from them.
Wait, was that a 360 degree flip? Doesn't "taking" in the rawest sense mean that a person was relieved of his/her use or access to? Something they had? If so (this all depends on interpretation of dictionary and law, and philosophical aspects as well), you statement was an oxymoron.
Is getting music that you did not pay for a crime or not?
That depends, are sites like emusic and dmusic.com illegal in your philosophy? Or how about a CD your friend had and wanted to give away to somebody because he got tired of it?
The crime is not that the music was not paid for per-se, but in what you are asking is a crime or not, I assume you mean downloading music without permission, which is a crime, whereas the sites offer downloading "without payig for it" but is legal because the artist(s) put it up there for download in this case.
...just because the injured party never had the money in the first place, no crime has been committed?
Oh, so now making an opposing argument using logic == saying crime X is ok? Get some glasses will you, we are only saying that the argument is illogical, not that any crime that has occured because of it.
You haven't stolen their right to a lively hood?
No I have not, I only (that is IF i admitted to comiting copyright infringement, which you assume I did by making the point I did.) made it harder. He/she can still do it, but that person must overcome the obsticals created by the potentially widespread copyright infringment of that work.
Oh, and putting words in italics to make a point doesn't make it any more correct.
That said then, and with regards to previous posts, it should be perfectly legal for me to then come to your house, hook up an electrical cord and use the electricity you pay for at no charge to me.
You in that case are using something that I can't, copying a file doesn't deprive you of use unlike electricity, which is created, but can not be kept forever/copied in infinity
Because she still has the original I've not stolen her recipe, even though I have stolen her business. Nope, no crime here.
"stolen their business"? This makes absolutely no sense, so I can not respond to this except to say that copying and selling a recipie might not be legal, but last time competition was NOT illegal, no matter what euphimism you use. And yes, "stole their business" is just a euphimism.
theft is not necessarily the act of taking, but of having something to which you don't have the right.
I was taught that http://slashdot.org/~Travelsonic/journal/ theft requires loss, and as far as I know, that in terms of copyright infringement that in order for theft, it does require loss.
For the argument that "there is no entitlement to the money", fine. But then why do you feel entitled to the music?
Nowhere did I say it, and I personally have noticed the musicians bitching about entitlement more than "pirates" and music, IMO.
Explain to me again how it is possible to take something away from somebody, when they didn't even have that something to begin with? Simple, you can't, it goes back to a certain entitlement mindset that tricks the mind into thinking that they are somehow entitled to everything just because they made something to earn dough. The laws and economics don't allow it to be so simple.
but so do people that steal music without regard for the right of the musicians to earn an honest living.
What "right" to make a living? Who said that they have the right to make money off of something? There is a right to try, but no inherit right to profits per-ce. Copyright infringement is not be right in most (there are exceptions in some cases), but thinking that you are entitled to something just because you made something is wrong. What if it sucks, should they not get a refund if they wanted it?
So say there's no copyright law, and some film company spends £100million on making a film. Then they release it, and everyone downloads it for free, or copies it. The film company goes bust, and no new films are made.
This is a totally unrealistic example, nothing but BS and FUD. Some group of people, large or small, will always buy something.
If you mean by "...and no new films are made." by that company, then that makes sense, but if you talk about all movie companies, then it is when you approach unrealistic idealology.
I've yet to hear an argument against copyright laws other than 'I want stuff for free.'
You must not have looked hard enough, I can find several logical arguments for reforming copyright laws so they are shorter, ect.
Is the law not right in this case? Should it be legal to copy copyrighted material?
I guess then DMUSIC is guilty of copyright infringement then:). (HINT: Downloading copyrighted works with permission, as this site shows, is legal and encouraged by independent artists.
Do you realise this would mean the end of the entire entertainment industry?
Are you psychic or something? Did you predict this, or pull it out of thin air? Copyright infringement will not kill the industry alltogether (although I think it should ).
You know, a law isn't wrong just because it means you can't get stuff for free.
True, but on that same token, the law is wrong for being used by corporations in a way that stifles innovation by allowing the bases for creativity to be locked up in corporate control indefinately.
It is stealing. Consider the situation. If there is a CD you like and it isn't online, you go buy it. The seller makes X dollars. Your friend likes the CD too, but instead of buying it, he burns a copy of yours. You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.
I love this arguemnt, only because it is so illogical.
In order to steal money from somebody, electronically or not, then that person must have it first. In your example, no money was taken away. Instead, no money was given. Is that theft? NO! Why? because theft requires loss, and not "oh I wanted to make X ammount of dollars but I wouldn't so anything blocking my goal is theft".
It's copyright infringement. Not theft, murder, DUI, DWAI, or rape.
you won't be able to take shit for free that other people want you to pay for"
So.. software companies want me to pay for really expensive photo editing software, or word processors, but I can get legal, free alternatives that are quite good.. wait, you didn't mean it like that did you?
I'd love to find out who RIAA members are stealing from. That would really stop them from spouting off that the RIAA "protects" artists by allowing them to make a living!
Simple, the RIAA aquires the artist copyrights over the work through a contract that might not always make perfect sense, then they make claims that the lawsuits are all done for the artists, but recieve minimal return from this (I read that ALL the money goes back to the RIAA's legal fund). That, and the fact that artists generally see about a dollar or less from a CD, the rest goes to the store, and much more so to the RIAA companies.
If you are depriving someone of income that they are entitled too legally...
Basically it's the "I made it, I am entitled profits off of it whether or not it sucks" attitude I see... Look, last time I looked they were entitled to try and make profits, but unless a legal transaction is taking place, they are not entitled jack shit. They are entitled to control how it is used, but that does not gaurentee income, nore should it. You have to work hard to, IMO.
As I said. Theft is still theft. Pretty simple concept really - not Orwellian at all.
And I will say it again, yes it is true, but copying is copying, a philosophical and legal difference important to the integrity of not only law and common sense but something much bigger, the English language. By calling things theft based on what they could have, but don't despite how bady they might whine or cry, you are making a illogical statement used to perpetuate a false idea, which is in fact orwellian like it or not. Look, I agree that copyright ingringement is wrong, except in a few exceptions, but you go far beyond what my morals will allow.
I am starting to get the feeling you are mis-reading. This is NOT about changing anything, this is about the blurring of the line bwteen copyright laws and theft laws, which ARE legally different. This does not change the fact that copyright infringement isi llegal, but blindly spouting the "If you want to change the current law, lobby to change it" when that isn't even being argued is lame, pointless, and downright stupid.
How they go about resolving those issues isn't nice, but theft is still theft.
Yes theft is theft, but copying is copying, not theft and follows a code of law that is different. A difference which MUST be reconized before any education on this topic begins. Yes copyright infringement isn't right MOST (there ARE excptions, of course) of the times, but statements like yours don't help education, comments that confuse two laws as the same (when comparable as different) to make a point.
do too. All these people downloading illegal material is bringing all this attention to P2P and messing it up for any legitamate users.
Not only that, but the feeble-minded legit users, or those that are easily frightened that they might be sued won't download indie music even though that indie music is legal to download/share, even though it is the RIAA music that is being targeted.
"$250,000 is what they demand" per song I don't understand.
The students were charged with direct copyright infringement for illegally downloading music files from the Internet, a crime punishable by fines of $250,000 and up to three years in prison, according to the RIAA Web site. They might also be held liable for statutory damages and lost profits.
3) To scare people away from downloading illegally
This I find easy to believe, but I am suspicious about this point. The only reason why is because I know that independent artists share music online on P2P/websitwes for free, and if the RIAA successfully pounds the message that basically "ALL YOUR LEGAL DOWNLOADS ARE BELONG TO US[or else they are illegal]" then websites where independent artists put music up are somewhat threatened because the music they put up for example is legal, but people will think it is illegal because of what the "Good 'Ol RIAA told 'em"
By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to. So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading.
I feel sorry for the independent artists who share the music online (websites & P2P) because by scaring people off of donloading in the "free " way, the RIAA is also will most likely (that is if they succed) make it diffucult for legal sites like DMusic.com, where they have free/legal music up for download from indepndent aritsts, to get people to
$250,000 is what they demand, $20,000 is what has been settled at/around, but either way it is still too much if you were basing it off of Itunes pricing/song, unless of course you had 20,000 songs.
Slashdot Mirror
This is partial BS, copyright infringement and theft are legally different, and used to be tought as philosophic and legal different in terms of what occures, although tought as wrong together, but the fact that they are different is important to the debate because of the fact that the events that occure in each crime (which can be, and to alot are both equally wrong) differ, and mixing them together in a debate when one crime [in this case, theft] is NOT even relevant to the debate unless it is used to sway opinions using examples and moral language/
Look, I don't like what he did either, but if " theft of intellectual property" exists, then why are pirates not in jail for this, or being prosecuted for it? Simple, the guy commited a copyright/GPL violation. Yes he was wrong, but the crime is not any form theft but instead an infringement. Legally those who pointed it out are correct. Nothing was really "anek" merely copied, and the supreme court ruled piracy and copyright infringement a crime, but not theft.
I was tought this in school, but I reject this notion, only because I was taught a different form of theft not really being tought nowadays where there has to be loss in order for theft to exist, and not hypothetical lost either.
Wait, was that a 360 degree flip? Doesn't "taking" in the rawest sense mean that a person was relieved of his/her use or access to? Something they had? If so (this all depends on interpretation of dictionary and law, and philosophical aspects as well), you statement was an oxymoron.
Just a side note: I never said I did or didn't pirate music/movies. But yeah, this is true.
That depends, are sites like emusic and dmusic.com illegal in your philosophy? Or how about a CD your friend had and wanted to give away to somebody because he got tired of it? The crime is not that the music was not paid for per-se, but in what you are asking is a crime or not, I assume you mean downloading music without permission, which is a crime, whereas the sites offer downloading "without payig for it" but is legal because the artist(s) put it up there for download in this case.
Oh, so now making an opposing argument using logic == saying crime X is ok? Get some glasses will you, we are only saying that the argument is illogical, not that any crime that has occured because of it.
No I have not, I only (that is IF i admitted to comiting copyright infringement, which you assume I did by making the point I did.) made it harder. He/she can still do it, but that person must overcome the obsticals created by the potentially widespread copyright infringment of that work. Oh, and putting words in italics to make a point doesn't make it any more correct.
You in that case are using something that I can't, copying a file doesn't deprive you of use unlike electricity, which is created, but can not be kept forever/copied in infinity
"stolen their business"? This makes absolutely no sense, so I can not respond to this except to say that copying and selling a recipie might not be legal, but last time competition was NOT illegal, no matter what euphimism you use. And yes, "stole their business" is just a euphimism.
I was taught that http://slashdot.org/~Travelsonic/journal/ theft requires loss, and as far as I know, that in terms of copyright infringement that in order for theft, it does require loss.
Nowhere did I say it, and I personally have noticed the musicians bitching about entitlement more than "pirates" and music, IMO.
Explain to me again how it is possible to take something away from somebody, when they didn't even have that something to begin with? Simple, you can't, it goes back to a certain entitlement mindset that tricks the mind into thinking that they are somehow entitled to everything just because they made something to earn dough. The laws and economics don't allow it to be so simple.
What "right" to make a living? Who said that they have the right to make money off of something? There is a right to try, but no inherit right to profits per-ce. Copyright infringement is not be right in most (there are exceptions in some cases), but thinking that you are entitled to something just because you made something is wrong. What if it sucks, should they not get a refund if they wanted it?
This is a totally unrealistic example, nothing but BS and FUD. Some group of people, large or small, will always buy something. If you mean by "...and no new films are made." by that company, then that makes sense, but if you talk about all movie companies, then it is when you approach unrealistic idealology.
You must not have looked hard enough, I can find several logical arguments for reforming copyright laws so they are shorter, ect.
I guess then DMUSIC is guilty of copyright infringement then :). (HINT: Downloading copyrighted works with permission, as this site shows, is legal and encouraged by independent artists.
Are you psychic or something? Did you predict this, or pull it out of thin air? Copyright infringement will not kill the industry alltogether (although I think it should ).
True, but on that same token, the law is wrong for being used by corporations in a way that stifles innovation by allowing the bases for creativity to be locked up in corporate control indefinately.
Then why not sue for/prosecute under theft laws then?
I love this arguemnt, only because it is so illogical.
In order to steal money from somebody, electronically or not, then that person must have it first. In your example, no money was taken away. Instead, no money was given. Is that theft? NO! Why? because theft requires loss, and not "oh I wanted to make X ammount of dollars but I wouldn't so anything blocking my goal is theft". It's copyright infringement. Not theft, murder, DUI, DWAI, or rape.
So the kids being brainwashed into telling on their parents for thoughtcrime, or the Junior Anti-Sex League don't involve youth?
So.. software companies want me to pay for really expensive photo editing software, or word processors, but I can get legal, free alternatives that are quite good.. wait, you didn't mean it like that did you?
Simple, the RIAA aquires the artist copyrights over the work through a contract that might not always make perfect sense, then they make claims that the lawsuits are all done for the artists, but recieve minimal return from this (I read that ALL the money goes back to the RIAA's legal fund). That, and the fact that artists generally see about a dollar or less from a CD, the rest goes to the store, and much more so to the RIAA companies.
Basically it's the "I made it, I am entitled profits off of it whether or not it sucks" attitude I see... Look, last time I looked they were entitled to try and make profits, but unless a legal transaction is taking place, they are not entitled jack shit. They are entitled to control how it is used, but that does not gaurentee income, nore should it. You have to work hard to, IMO.
I am starting to get the feeling you are mis-reading. This is NOT about changing anything, this is about the blurring of the line bwteen copyright laws and theft laws, which ARE legally different. This does not change the fact that copyright infringement isi llegal, but blindly spouting the "If you want to change the current law, lobby to change it" when that isn't even being argued is lame, pointless, and downright stupid.
He did NOT say that it was not a crime, just that the crime is copyright inferingement, no theft. Where did you get the "its not a crime" line from?
does NOT sound like to me:
One you talk about distibution, the other whether or not you created it or not, which is NOT always compatable.
Not only that, but the feeble-minded legit users, or those that are easily frightened that they might be sued won't download indie music even though that indie music is legal to download/share, even though it is the RIAA music that is being targeted.
I feel sorry for the independent artists who share the music online (websites & P2P) because by scaring people off of donloading in the "free " way, the RIAA is also will most likely (that is if they succed) make it diffucult for legal sites like DMusic.com, where they have free/legal music up for download from indepndent aritsts, to get people to
$250,000 is what they demand, $20,000 is what has been settled at/around, but either way it is still too much if you were basing it off of Itunes pricing/song, unless of course you had 20,000 songs.