Your theory that a number (song, music, movie, app) is just 'a number', and nobody can infringe on your right to do whatever you want with 'a number'.
Oh. Not sure how you'd want me to test that, or why. You can look at sites like The Pirate Bay and see thousands of other people testing it every day.
That's exactly my point -- that's not the test of it's legality (or even right/wrong -- ignoring the law) -- that's you using your 'just a number' theory in an arena where you know you will never get caught even if the theory is flawed.
If you're still talking about that bank balance nonsense, go back and read my earlier responses in which I explained why that argument is fatally flawed. Except that you didn't expose any flaw. You cited agreements and obligations. Your contract with the bank. Trace back the agreements the same way for free downloads and you'll see that the first free downloader and all subsequent ones are in violation of the terms of sale. It's the same as you stealing money from the bank and then someone else stealing that money from you. The second theif is still a theif, even though he had no agreement with the bank.
You solicited and procured the product of the artists work. Which is quite different from asking the artist to do the work in the first place. I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding that. It doesn't matter. You still owe the artist money for the product you solicited and procured. I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding that. You're able to trace the contractual obligations between you and your car dealer all the way to guys on the assembly line getting paid. But you're unable to see the breach in contract from the first illegal downloader and all that follow. Brilliant logic dude!
Now that's rich - particularly, as you say, after everything I've posted so far. If I were really as cheap and selfish as this phony caricature you've made up, I wouldn't have bothered proposing a business model by which people like me can pay artists for their work while still retaining our rights. You didn't -- you proposed a business model in which as much profitability as possible is taken out of the picture for the artists, and you get your music for free.
I've got a better idea -- why not put your theory to test? You don't have a problem doing it with online downloads, where you essentially face no penalty even though you're in the wrong. Not so righteous now, are you? Not sure which "theory" you're referring to, but it is totally gnarly that you think I'm righteous. Cowabunga, dude! Your theory that a number (song, music, movie, app) is just 'a number', and nobody can infringe on your right to do whatever you want with 'a number'.
I asked a random torrent user to send me a copy of the song. But I didn't ask the artist to record that song in the first place; he did that of his own free will, unsolicited. If I owed compensation to either of them, it'd be the torrent user. You solicited and procured the product of the artists work. You owe the artist.
You're right, Sellaband isn't a perfect implementation of this business model, although it's closer than anything else I've seen. The basic model of a social networking site that combines artist/user profiles, messaging, audio clips, etc. with financial support and progress updates is what I wanted to point out there. But you don't get to point out only the part that suits your argument. Sellaband recognizes law, copyright, intellectual property, etc. etc. In fact, it wholeheartedly embraced them. Nice example.
Sellaband connects artists to fans and lets them raise money directly from lots of small contributions. However, instead of giving that money to the artist, they use it to rent a recording studio and produce an album; then they sell CDs and cheap/free downloads. I'd make a few changes if I could:
Let the artist set their own goal instead of a fixed $50k.
Give artists the option of doing their own recording and production. Hold the money in escrow or release it according to a schedule.
Offer free-as-in-speech downloads of every song.
It's rather rich to pretend you're batting on the same side as the artists after all you've posted so far. Your only concern seems to be your rights, and how to justify screwing the artists so you can get their product for free.
Right, but the work was done unsolicited. You solicited the song, which is the result of the work.
See sellaband.com for one example of what these middlemen could look like. Nice work Sherlock. Now read the terms and conditions on that website. I quote:
5.5 All rights in the titles on the CD, including intellectual and commercial property rights as well as master and copying rights and comparable rights are SellaBand's rights exclusively.
6.1 The believer agrees not to infringe the intellectual property in relation to brands, trade names, trade marks, copyrights of SellaBand, and notably the program and the website, and not to distribute, modify, reproduce or use in another way the brands, designs and copyrights.
Luckily, people like me have the most motivation to find new ways around that DRM, because we're the ones who want to make all those unauthorized copies. You're welcome.;) Welcome for what? I never stole any songs. I never purchased any FairPlay or PlaysForSure songs. I have ripped CDs I already owned (but never uploaded). And I'm now a customer of Amazon mp3 downloads. You can keep your loot to yourself.
Was there really some explicit agreement not to use a random number generator to decide what your balance is? Did you actually check for that clause, or did you just assume there's no way they would do that? You know, to tell you the truth, I didn't check for that clause. Damn. Well, if there is one, and they end up using it against me, you can say "I told you so". I've got a better idea -- why not put your theory to test? You don't have a problem doing it with online downloads, where you essentially face no penalty even though you're in the wrong. Not so righteous now, are you?
What he can't do is stop other people from selling books containing the same sequence of words.
Yes he can, if he wants to. Assuming you live in the US, he can do that. We the people have collectively given him this right. If you want to change that, you need to start a campaign. Good luck finding people who agree with you.
Getting paid for the original act of creating. (is their incentive)
And you, o mighty one, get to decide how that happens (i.e. only before creating, and not by selling units later).
If you pay me to write some code, I don't care if you sell it or give it away later - getting paid for writing it was all the incentive I needed.
Depends on the terms. I might be paying for ownership of the code. If not, the code is still yours to do whatever you see fit with. If you write code for some company, the code is theirs to do with as they see fit. Try taking the same code you create, and hand it over to their competitor. Watch how fast you end up in the slammer. How many more of your crazy analogies do I need to shoot down?
No, they didn't do that work for me. They've never even met me!
They couldn't possibly. They didn't know you existed. You didn't know they existed. How do they get this proposal of work to be done, and payment for said work? Do we all browse proposals for 2 hours a day?
They did it wishing that people would pay them for copies of the completed game, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to make that wish come true.
Exactly -- you're under no obligation to make the wish come true -- don't buy the game. If you 'procure' the game by some other means, well, you owe them.
But you just said I downloaded a torrent, so that means someone (or a few dozen people) was willing to give me access under a different set of terms.
Yeah? Well, whomever uploaded a free copy first is violating the first agreement they entered into. And every downloader after that is doing business with a theif who is not authorized to supply you with the download.
They have no right to dictate the terms of a transaction between two other parties.
You can repeat that ad-infinitum, but you'll still be wrong about that. Your theft of their product is subject to (and in violation of) their terms.
I don't know if I can forgive them that easily. It's a pretty foolish thing for them to do, considering the nature of their "product".
Funny.
Oh, please. You know what I meant: the people who perform a service.
Again, you make a distinction that suits you conveniently. I know what you meant, but that doesn't make it valid.
Once the car is manufactured, it's then sold like any other physical product, by transferring ownership in exchange for money. But again, ownership isn't transferred until someone has agreed to pay for the car. The dealer doesn't just deliver a car to your doorstep, unsolicited, and then bill you for it.
Nor does he tell you what you can or can't do with the car once you've bought it. He doesn't try to limit you like copyright holders do, for example by saying you can only park it someplace where it can be seen by fewer than 10 people at a time.
The dealer certainly doesn't show up unsolicited. You wanted the car. The song doesn't store itself on your HDD unsolicited. You wanted that song. The song and the car you seeked out are products you wanted. But again you'll see the big picture in the case that suits you, and refuse to in the one that doesn't. The car is 100% your property. But there are restrictions that apply. You can't reset the odometer. You can't legally modify the car in certain ways. And much more. These restrictions are written down in the law, just the same way copyright is. You don't get to pick and choose, my friend.
And about being seen by fewer than 10 people at a time
On the other hand, if you show up uninvited and mow the lawn without talking to me first, you're giving that time away of your own free will, and I don't owe you anything for it. So every artist must ask if you want to pay for their effort to create their song before they create it, otherwise they have no right to ask for compensation? In fact, they have no right to set any terms at all, with any potential customer (the whole planet) after the fact -- this must all be done before they create the song? In your world, nobody gets to create music commercially until they get all their potential customers to sign an agreement first. You'd be stupid not to, because if you think you have a serious hit on your hands, you certainly don't want to create it, until you got as many people signed up as possible. But these people have absolutely no clue what they're signing up for. Maybe you can describe your song to them without actually creating it. Maybe you can hope they understand what you're proposing. Maybe you can hope that nobody else understands your description well enough to create the song before you. Your argument makes no sense.
And see my re-debunking above. She hasn't lost any money. She spent time recording the album and never got compensated for it, but she gave that time away of her own free will, just like the guy who showed up and mowed the lawn without asking for any money. If she did it because she thought people were going to buy copies, that's a shame, but she can blame it on her own expectations, since no one else made any promises. Your debunking doesn't work based on my re-debunking;)
The seller can't apply his own terms to someone else's transaction. This is the seller's transaction -- you're attempting to acquire the seller's property. Just a number, or otherwise. You don't get to define this as someone else's transaction just because you're doing it behind the seller's back.
He can ask any price he wants for the things he himself sells, but he can't walk into someone else's business and tell them what to charge or demand a cut of their profits. You only get to do that if you're in the Mafia. And you can't dress piracy up as "someone else's business" and absolve yourself of your obligation to pay the seller. And the Mafia wouldn't claim that they are not in the crime business -- at least they know what they are.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. They're in the same situation either way; either they've "lost" money in both cases or they haven't. Their loss is measured by their situation, not anyone else's. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. You mean artists can never lose money -- because no matter how many people are ripping them off, their situation hasn't changed?
It's part of the agreement I had with the bank when I opened the account: I wouldn't have deposited any money unless I knew I'd be able to get it back. I suppose it's probably written into some law too, but that's beside the point. I hope agreements need to be honored in your universe? Just explicit ones, or even implicit ones? Just the ones you deem fit, or the ones the law requires you to recognize? Like, for instance, was there some explicit agreement that you cannot just edit your 'just a number' balance on your monthly statement, and take it to them and have them adjust it? Was there really some explicit agreement not to use a random number generator to decide what your balance is? Did you actually check for that clause, or did you just assume there's no way they would do that?
Well, you're leaving out an important part: that party has to continually keep creating it and deserves to be compensated for their ongoing work.
If I use 100 kWh, they have to generate 100 kWh. They can't just generate 1 kWh and sell it to me 100 times (or to 100 different customers), and I can't take the electricity I bought last month and reuse it this month. So you're only ok, with a business model where continuous/ongoing work needs to be done? A writer can only be paid for writing books, not for the books that actually sold? An artist has virtually no right to get paid, but people have the rights to access his art by any means? A company making a game has no right to demand payment, but people have the right to download those games for free (against the company's wishes) and play them?
I want them to keep pushing those electrons, and if paying X cents per kWh is what it takes to convince them to keep doing it, then that's that. And if everybody were download artists and publishers creations for free, what is the incentive for them to keep creating?
Er, yes, I'd say it does matter that they're not doing extra work. Doing work on my behalf is the only reason I'd owe them any sort of compensation, so if they aren't doing that, there's nothing to compensate them for. I don't owe them anything for work they freely chose to do in the past, months or years ago, which I never asked them to do and never agreed to pay for. Studio created game thinking "gee, lots of people will like this game, so we can sell it to them for $50 a pop". Studio made game. People are unnamed. Studio did not deem it necessary to name them. Studio simply thought, those who want it will buy it (how naive of them). You wanted game. You downloaded game from bittorrent for free, burned the ISO, and played it to your hearts content. Did you rip the studio off, to the tune of $50 or not? They did the work for you (of creating the game). You did not agree to pay them, but they never agreed to work for free. The only terms under which you had access to this work of theirs was if you paid for it. Your arguments are getting more and more absurd.
Why would someone do a bunch of work for free, without anyone else asking them to do it or agreeing to pay them for it, and then complain that they aren't getting paid? They chose that fate for themselves. Oh, please do forgive them for thinking that they could create something and then sell it. They didn't chose any fate. They created, and you acted like a parasite.
If everyone in the world were to follow my logic, then artists who wanted to get paid for their work would find a paying audience before they did the work. That's what everyone else already does. Really? That's what everybody else already does?? REALLY???
Did anybody ask you to pay them for their work, before manufacturing the car you bought?
Did anybody ask you to pay them for their effort before manufacturing the computer you used?
Did you pay anybody to create the clothes you are wearing, before they were already manufactured?
Are you really saying you believe downloading, possession and viewing of child porn should not be illegal?
Downloading, possession, and viewing don't harm anyone, so yes, that is what I'm saying. It should be treated the same as downloading, possessing, or viewing evidence of a street fight, a robbery, a murder, or any other harmful act -- the act itself is harmful, and should certainly be illegal, but the recorded evidence isn't.
But the act was done with the express intent of people downloading and viewing it. What other reason is there for creating kiddie porn.
Now, back on topic...
Sure, why not..:)
Agreed. But in order to lose money, you have to have the money first; you can't lose money that belongs to someone else.
Dude, you are so clutching at straws now. Guy agrees to mow your lawn for 50 bucks. Guy mows lawn. You stiff guy. Guy never had the 50 bucks to begin with. Are you saying he didn't lose 50 bucks in this transaction?
It's true that the artist didn't gain the $150 million that those ten million people could, theoretically, have given him. But that money was never his, so he didn't lose it, and he isn't tangibly harmed by not gaining it.
The tangible harm is the amount these 10 million downloaders didn't pay her. Look up the definition of tangible. Regarding the money never being hers, see the previous debunking of guy mowing lawn, and remember that the kind lady set terms that we pay $15 for her album.
you're going to have to prosecute everyone who declines to buy any particular album
You're a funny guy. I mean that seriously. How many times have I repeated now, that the seller has terms, and your options are to buy, or to not buy. You cannot just take for free. You can, however, not buy. Taking for free means, you now have her product, and she has lost income. Not buying means you do not have her product, and she has not lost any income (just that she didn't receive any from you either).
I think it's better to just say hurt feelings aren't a tangible harm.
I think it's safe to say you have a sense of humor, even if you're lacking a sense of fair-play. I agree hurt feelings are not tangible harm, and that was not even remotely my point.
The pricing of her album is her choice, not the downloaders'. No one forced her to set her goal at $1.5 million.
I'll skip your next couple paragraphs since they seem to be predicated on the ideas that (1) someone needs to dictate how much is "fair" for the artist to receive
Oh, but that's so very wrong. In those very paragraphs I expressly stated that she is not forced to set her album at any particular price (anywhere from free, to any negative number, or any positive number is fair game). I also expressly did not state that anybody can dictate what is fair -- nobody can answer that question. Not the artist, not the customers, not the government. There is only underpriced, overpriced, and optimal price. Everyone will have a different idea of fair. That's the whole point. The artist makes the best decision they can, and the market reaction tells her whether her guess was too high or too low. She can adjust, or she can not adjust the price based on this feedback from the market.
I'm not ignoring it. I agree that the importance of the number representing a program is that you can feed the number into a computer to make it do something.
But the difference is, that doesn't create an obligation for anyone (except my computer, which seems happy to do whatever I ask of it anyway). No one loses anything when I feed that number into my computer. The bank, however, does lose something when I close my account and they end up having to give me the $1000 I hacked in instead of the $100 I actually deposited.
If the bank weren't obligated to give me an amount of cash determined by my account bala
At the same time, I have advocated piracy GAAH.. that was supposed to be "At the same time, I have never advocated piracy".
Need to start hitting that preview button from time to time.
But the current law does not work that way. Why should people follow the current law if it is anti-competitive, screws retailers, screws customers, etc.? Your arguing in favor of hypothetical laws, not reality. What do you want me to do? I'm on the same side as you. I agree that we're getting screwed, and it's because the law doesn't protect our rights. I'm criticizing the current absence of such laws, and proposing they be created.
I refuse to do immoral things simply because they're "legal". And I never advocated that. I'm proposing not doing and illegal thing (downloading non-free games/movies/music/apps for free) because it is immoral in addition to being illegal.
"Legal" and "morally correct" are completely different concepts and never the twain shall meet. The problem with absolute statements. Kiddie porn is illegal and immoral. The twain have indeed met. The difference between the two is that morality is a moving target, so legislation on moral issues is difficult. In a democracy you usually end up in a majority-wins sort of situation when passing laws on issues of morality.
There is very strong evidence that piracy increases software sales in general. Not necessarily YOUR software sales, but the grown of the industry in general. What is the most pirated software application in the world, by a very wide margin? Microsoft Windows. There's simply no data to support this. You can just as easily argue that Windows is the most pirated software application in the world because it is so popular.
I could easily argue that without piracy of Windows 95 MS would be VASTLY less successful than they are today. And I could easily argue that without piracy, windows would cost less than it did today, and there would be no need for WGA stupidness. Both our arguments lack data and should not be taken seriously.
Your entire paragraph about kids playing games, growing up, etc. You have a point -- but it doesn't negate my point at all. i.e. if this effect you described does indeed exist (and I'm sure it does), it forms a business model for publishers to consider (like giving their games away for free if you can produce a valid, current, student ID or you can prove you are under 18 or something like that). It still does not mean that publishers don't have rights. And it still doesn't justify piracy. It's still up to the publisher to decide if they are cool with giving the game to someone for free, rather than being up to that person to just 'take' the game for whatever price (free) that they deem fit.
The purpose of DRM is not to "protect publisher's rights". It is explicitly to "fuck consumers, and fuck them hard" And that's why we need protection.
DRM, with proper legislative oversight/guidelines can protect the rights of both parties. No it doesn't. DRM does not allow for software entering the public domain, which is massive attack on the rights of all Americans. The laws I'm talking about don't exist (yet), so "no it can't" is a valid response, but "no it doesn't" doesn't make sense.
DRM has nothing to do with software entering the public domain. Unless I misunderstood your point. Could you please elaborate?
And again, you're talking about magical hypothetical DRM. Not reality. I am talking about the reality of DRM, which is viciously anti-consumer. Dude -- it's my thread -- I decide what we talk about here;)
But seriously, I hear you, and I agree with you. I hate FairPlay, and I hate PlaysForSure. I tell all my friends, ad-infinitum to never, never, ever purchase a DRM-d song. At the same time, I have advocated piracy, and I will never come out with circuitous arguments trying to show that by pirating music/movies/games/software I am doing the public at large a favor. I know my options (buy, or do not buy) and they have served me well so far.
Now the problem is that by placing more load on the electric system, I cause extra work for the power company. Right. So cutting through all the BS about mowing lawns, patterns on graph papers, physical product etc., we're down to simple cause and effect.
The energy you draw, comes from somewhere, and the people that produced it need compensation. You might call it a service or anything, but ultimately you are paying for something without any physical manifestation. (unless you want to go into mass-energy conversion, but I'll assume you don't do that on a regular basis:D). You merely recognize that some party had to create it, and deserves to be compensated.
Contrast that to recording a song off the radio, which doesn't place any extra load on anything or cause any extra work for anyone. Now for the song off the radio, you were supposed to listen to it live, or time-shift it. Not record it and play it back infinitely. By doing so, you are denying compensation to the party that created it. It doesn't matter that they're not doing extra work. You are not paying them, the compensation you owe them, for work they have already done. Cause and effect. The song you recorded off the air was created by somebody, and they want compensation. If everybody in the world were to follow your logic, at no point would anybody be obligated to make payments for the songs we own (we can just get them off the radio, or download for free), and the artists will never get paid for their work. Same case for free downloads of apps, games, movies.
Thanks for the clarification. You're most welcome. Do you get it now?
And you ended up reaching a logical conclusion, just like I have about copyright. Congratulations.
Are you really saying you believe downloading, possession and viewing of child porn should not be illegal?
just like my conclusion about copyright is only shocking if you believe axiomatically that unauthorized copying must be harmful.
I don't need belief for this. Logic does all the work, and harm can indeed be established. I'll explain after the next quote.
How do you define tangible harm?
Being deprived of property, life, or limb, mainly.
So let's consider a couple of cases (obviously hypothetical, but quite logical). Let's start by agreeing that money is not just a number -- it represents property, or the potential to acquire it, and therefore the loss of money constitutes tangible harm. Now:
An artist 'A' releases an album. It is purchased for a price of $15 by just one person (in the whole world). This person makes the album available on limewire. About 10 million people download it. Result: tangible harm to the artist.
Now let's consider a less extreme case. The situation is the same, but the numbers are more real. Like the artist sold 100,000 copies of the album, but it was still downloaded 10 million times. We don't feel so bad for the artist any more because this time she made 1.5 million dollars. But now that opens up a whole different can of worms:
Maybe the artist is indeed unhappy. She feels she should have made 150 million dollars, because she brought enjoyment to 10 million people. That's an astounding claim for anyone to be able to make
Or, maybe she would have preferred to have priced the album at 15 cents, and get the exact same total amount of money, but just be fair to everyone and distribute the cost evenly. Worse -- because she feels this way, it means that the people who downloaded the album without paying actually caused the paying customers to spend $14.85 more than they should have. So harm was done to 100,000 people instead of just one. Less harm, distributed across more people. The harm caused by the free downloaders in this case was 15 cents each of course. It's important to note that each free downloader is thinking of themselves as a drop in the ocean (which they literally are), who is not making a big difference in the big scheme of things, but the net effect they have is tangible indeed.
And now that opens up still more questions:
What if the artist is just greedy and wants to leave the price at $15 no matter how popular the album is?
Who is going to decide how much money is fair, for 10,000 sales, 10 million sales, 10 billion sales, etc.
How would the artist know what price to set? After all, the sales come after the price has been set, and not before.
And the answer to all of that is actually surprisingly easy. The market will decide. The artists take on the risk of whatever price strategy they chose. If they overprice, they lose sales (and hence revenue). If they under-price, they lose revenue. If they price it optimally (or thereabouts) -- they make about as much money as they possibly could, or gobs of money in any case. If they never wanted to make money in the first place, they can choose to just not charge. If they want money but it's not their prime motive, they can choose to just accept whatever people will pay (like radiohead recently did). Ultimately it's their creation, so they take the risk of the pricing strategy and business model, and they reap the rewards of their decision, and their creation. And (1) free downloaders cause tangible harm to actual customers and/or the artist and (2) pirates (such as AllOfMp3) get rewards without taking on risk, and without creating anything, and while causing the artists and the actual customers tangible harm. Copyright law exists to prevent that.
Well, I guess pi and e are "products" too then, in the sense that they're numbers that can be fed into a process to produce a useful result... If you can track down the guy that discovered pi around 1900 b.c. you can let him know that his copyright has expired;)
But you paid them for the price of the physical product -- so they are not at a loss, according to your logic. They have no right to demand anything other than the cost of the physical product according to your logic. Anything else infringes on your rights to access the 'words' that are belong to nobody, according to your logic.
Nope, that's not my logic. You've made up a strawman and falsely attributed it to me. Nope. It's called a strawman when I claim that some unnamed third party said something, so that I can refute it. You claimed nobody had the right to tell you what number you can copy/download. You claimed nobody had the right to tell you what number you can use on your property. These are your statements, and therefore it is your logic I used.
The book is an object that they own, and they aren't under any obligation to give it to me at all. But how can they legally stop you? You offered them 1 cent for the physical product, and they have no right to ask anything else of you. How can they discriminate between you and any other paying customer. On what grounds will they refuse your payment?
It would create a liability for the neighbor (since he's billed for the usage), and I'd have to break into his property to tap the power lines. Of course, if he agrees to let me mess with his wires and to pay for my electric usage, there's no problem. Why does he get charged more? He paid for a pattern and he got a pattern. No more and no less, before and after you tapped into his lines. You could tap in at some public location too instead of specifically from your neighbor -- you're just copying a pattern in the end.
But we're not talking about credit, we're talking about this "exclusive right to profit" that you claim people somehow get from somewhere. Credit takes many forms. The creator decides the form. It can often be monetary. The "somehow get from somewhere" would be the law, the courts, the government. Heck, even international law recognizes this.
Getting credit for your work is just a consequence of the prohibition against fraud, since anyone else who claims to have written it is lying. Again, credit takes many forms. For some people, recognition is enough. Other people prefer monetary credit.
You can hardly expect to use the rights granted by that same law as evidence that the law is necessary. I believe that by some miracle, we are actually in absolute and complete agreement over something. Yes, copyright law cannot be cited as the reason for it's own existence. The intent of copyright is to promote the creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them. This is a huge topic in and of itself. There is room for disagreement there -- as evidenced by the fact that copyright laws are not consistent across countries, and can by changed by acts of congress, and the courts. But the need for their existence is universally recognized. (perhaps not yet by you of course, but I'm assuming at this point that you are the citizen of some country so you don't really get a choice in the matter). If you're stuck in some country who's copyright laws you find to be absolutely unbearable, I hope you're at least in a democratic country so that you are able to change it if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to think, and vote, along your lines.
I believe you're claiming it would still infringe some nebulous right, but maybe I've misunderstood you. No, I'm not claiming that -- I hope the above paragraph cleared that up.
But it's my property, my computer, and these are just numbers. How can anyone tell me what numbers I can and cannot use? That child porn has already been created. I can't go back into the past and harm that child any further. My use of that number doesn't cause anyone any harm. See how your logic fails? Hmm.. no. What I see is you making a strong argument that possession and trading of child porn shouldn't be illegal. Nice try -- but that's your argument, not mine. I just applied it in the same blind manner that you did.
I don't think I've said that right is absolute. You have the right to do it because (as long as) it doesn't harm anyone. It's possible, however, that releasing private information to the public could cause tangible harm in itself. But as I said, I'm not fully convinced of that. I love that sound of an argument beginning to crumble because it's foundation was bad. How do you define tangible harm? Once you come up with a complete definition of this, you'll see how your theft of this 'number' harms the creator, and harms the people who buy the product legally.
Ah, but they are public. When you broadcast a song over the radio, or sell copies of it to millions of people you've never met and whose identities you don't care about, you're demonstrating that you don't mind if strangers hear it. That is the difference between public and private. Similarly, if you go on CNN and tell the world what your credit card number is, or offer to tell it to anyone who'll give you a few bucks, you'll have a hard time claiming that you meant to keep it private. Ah! now you're going into broadcast licenses. These songs are still copyrighted. You still have rights that need to be protected (specifically time-shifting) -- but again, your rights are not absolute (as you have finally admitted).
It harms the bank, in two ways. First, because you'd have to break into their private property in order to make that change. Second, because making that change creates a liability for them: they would be obligated to give me more money than they otherwise would, just like putting a fraudulent charge on my credit card means I'm obligated to pay more than I otherwise would. But the bank's own wealth is just a number. They can just edit that number (after all, it's their property). So it doesn't affect them if you edit your number. You don't even have to break in to their system. Just take your latest bank statement and edit your bank balance on it, and take it back to the bank and have them correct their records. It's just a number -- what do they care who's version they accept.
I fully agree it doesn't justify copyright violation. I just wanted to clarify that it is a very good reason to refuse to do business with some entity if at all practical. Agreed!
In fact, I'll go out and say it: If you pay for major label music, YOU are evil. You are harming countless artists by aiding the people that are screwing them over. If you steal major label music, and more importantly you encourage OTHERS to do so, you are helping artists because you are hurting the bottom line of the big labels, which may drive them out of business, which is good for everyone (except major label officers and investors). Do. Not. Buy. You hurt them the same amount, and you have not stolen. Do. Not. Fricking. Buy.
The labels do not play fair. The do not follow the law. It is in the best interests of consumers if they go completely out of business. Do. Not. Buy. For crying out loud -- did you read anything I said about needing laws to protect fair use? At no point have I defended the labels. If you pirate a song, you're ripping off the label to the tune of 90%, and the artist to the tune of 10%. You still have no right to do either. If you do. not. freaking. buy. you are not ripping anybody off. You don't get to enjoy the song, but nobody said the principled approach would be easy.
They're one and the same. The shape, the pattern of bits, is the application. So you admit -- it's not just a number. It's an application that does something. It's a product. I mean, that's why you wanted it in the first place. Even this waveform you buy from the energy company is indistinguishable from the energy they are supplying you. You can't very well get one without the other. Just as you can't get the application/song/movie/game without the number.
Because, as I said, the book is a physical product. If I take it, they don't have it anymore But you paid them for the price of the physical product -- so they are not at a loss, according to your logic. They have no right to demand anything other than the cost of the physical product according to your logic. Anything else infringes on your rights to access the 'words' that are belong to nobody, according to your logic.
For providing the service of pushing those electrons around. These same electrons will get pushed around even if you just tap into your neighbor's power supply. Why do you pay your power company for this service? After all, you just took a waveform -- and nobody got deprived of it.
But surely that implementation detail of a particular copyright law has no impact on the underlying right to exclusive profit that you claim a person has. The fact that copyright terms expire just means this supposed fundamental right can be freely infringed after a certain time, right? What's your point? The right to get credit for your creations (or not get credit, if you wish) is a government granted right and not a fundamental right. It is a right nonetheless. After 'x' years (implementation specific) you no longer have that right, so no - it is not being infringed after it expired.
Sharing-with-permission isn't what I was talking about, but I'm sure you already knew that. You have no clue what you're talking about, but I'm sure you'll never understand that. You can't pick and chose your cases. There's sharing with/without permission, commercial and non-commercial uses, and many many more cases. Some are legal, some are not. Some are case-specific. Some are fuzzy gray areas. Some are legal in some countries and illegal in others. What's universal, is that all countries (economies) have a concept of copyright in one form or another. If you find one that doesn't, I suggest you go live there, or do your transactions only with businesses from that country.
Yes, copying those numbers doesn't harm anyone either. It's the creation (in the case of child porn) or application (in the others) that cause harm. But it's my property, my computer, and these are just numbers. How can anyone tell me what numbers I can and cannot use? That child porn has already been created. I can't go back into the past and harm that child any further. My use of that number doesn't cause anyone any harm. See how your logic fails?
I do think it could make some sense to distinguish between "private" information that only a small, chosen set of people are granted access Why? They are just numbers. According to you, my right to use any number I choose on my own property is absolute.
"public" information which is made available to an anonymous mass audience (e.g. music and movies) They are not public information. They are copyrighted content. See how you need to start adding clauses and qualifications now that I am using your 'just a number' stance? Again, your logic has failed.
The objectionable thing there isn't that you have access to a certain 16-digit number, but that you're racking up fraudulent charges which I'll have to pay for (or at least spend my time getting them removed). In fact, plenty of companies know my social security number and credit card numbers already, and I don't mind because they don't do anything fraudulent with them. But your bank balance is just a number. Why don't you just edit it and put a different (higher) number in it's place? After all, who does that hurt?
What I'm paying them for is the electrical power, not the right to use a particular shape. And what you're paying for, is an application that does something, or a game or song or movie that has entertainment value, not a particular shape. You are conveniently seeing the big picture in one, but refusing to see it in the other.
The book is property, and they can charge whatever they want for it: it's a physical object, and I can't take it without depriving them of it.
But they can print a new one for 1 cent. Just like the software/game/music/movie people can print infinite copies at negligible cost. Why can't you just pay 1 cent and walk out?
And along the same vein -- is power a physical product? For every electron the power company pushed down the line, they took one back. They do this 60 times a second. You still have nothing in your hand that you can hold, that you bought from them. Why do you pay them?
I suppose you think Newton's heirs should have an exclusive right to profit from anything that was developed using calculus too, then. What a dismal world that would be. The copyright on his work would have long expired by now. He could have chosen to profit from it if he wanted to, and he did not -- as is often (but not always) the case in the field of math, science.
Of course, copyright isn't limited to profit anyway. Noncommercial sharing is also illegal, but I'm sure you knew that.
Wrong! Non-commercial sharing is illegal *without the permission of the copyright holder*. Even commercial, but free sharing is possible with the permission of the copyright holder. For examples, refer to the BSD license, Apache Creative Commons license, GPL, etc.
Why should anyone believe they have the "right" to dictate who can or can't have access to a certain number?
It's the same way that child porn is just a number. Or a CAD drawing for a nuclear weapon is just a number. Or your SSN is just a number. Or your credit card and other financial information is just a number.
I'm certainly not allowed to say, order $2000 worth of stuff from Amazon and enter your credit card number am I? Won't you sue me if I did that? Or will you uphold my rights to use any 'number' any way that I see fit on my net connection?
*hit submit accidentally on the other post*
* So they can lay down terms and conditions to the sale: but only on their product, and only in ways that don't trample your rights
* And you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't trample on their rights
Now do you get it? Nope. You still haven't explained what gives them the "right" to tell me what I can do with my internet connection, or how imposing their will on me counts as "terms and conditions to the sale" when I'm not their customer and haven't bought anything from them.
I did explain -- you just refuse to see it. Your right to do stuff with your 'net connection is not absolute. You cannot use it in a way that infringes their rights. Next thing you're going to claim child pornography is just a number and nobody has the right to tell you what you can do with your 'net connection.
In the same vein, their right to protect their copyright is not absolute. They cannot infringe on your rights while trying to protect their copyright.
* So they can lay down terms and conditions to the sale: but only on their product, and only in ways that don't trample your rights
* And you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't trample on their rights
Now do you get it? Nope. You still haven't explained what gives them the "right" to tell me what I can do with my internet connection, or how imposing their will on me counts as "terms and conditions to the sale" when I'm not their customer and haven't bought anything from them.
So, it's the same old double standard. They get to impose their will on me, supposedly, by telling me what I can or can't download, but I don't get to impose my will on them. Sounds like a cushy deal, as long as you're on their side of it. No, it's the same situation where:
They have rights that need to be protected
You have rights that need to be protected
Their rights are not absolute
Your rights are not absolute
So they can lay down terms and conditions to the sale: but only on their product, and only in ways that don't trample your rights
And you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't trample on their rights
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Not sure how you'd want me to test that, or why. You can look at sites like The Pirate Bay and see thousands of other people testing it every day.
That's exactly my point -- that's not the test of it's legality (or even right/wrong -- ignoring the law) -- that's you using your 'just a number' theory in an arena where you know you will never get caught even if the theory is flawed.
If you're still talking about that bank balance nonsense, go back and read my earlier responses in which I explained why that argument is fatally flawed. Except that you didn't expose any flaw. You cited agreements and obligations. Your contract with the bank. Trace back the agreements the same way for free downloads and you'll see that the first free downloader and all subsequent ones are in violation of the terms of sale. It's the same as you stealing money from the bank and then someone else stealing that money from you. The second theif is still a theif, even though he had no agreement with the bank.Now that's rich - particularly, as you say, after everything I've posted so far. If I were really as cheap and selfish as this phony caricature you've made up, I wouldn't have bothered proposing a business model by which people like me can pay artists for their work while still retaining our rights. You didn't -- you proposed a business model in which as much profitability as possible is taken out of the picture for the artists, and you get your music for free.
- Let the artist set their own goal instead of a fixed $50k.
- Give artists the option of doing their own recording and production. Hold the money in escrow or release it according to a schedule.
- Offer free-as-in-speech downloads of every song.
It's rather rich to pretend you're batting on the same side as the artists after all you've posted so far. Your only concern seems to be your rights, and how to justify screwing the artists so you can get their product for free.5.5 All rights in the titles on the CD, including intellectual and commercial property rights as well as master and copying rights and comparable rights are SellaBand's rights exclusively.
6.1 The believer agrees not to infringe the intellectual property in relation to brands, trade names, trade marks, copyrights of SellaBand, and notably the program and the website, and not to distribute, modify, reproduce or use in another way the brands, designs and copyrights.
Luckily, people like me have the most motivation to find new ways around that DRM, because we're the ones who want to make all those unauthorized copies. You're welcome.What he can't do is stop other people from selling books containing the same sequence of words.
Yes he can, if he wants to. Assuming you live in the US, he can do that. We the people have collectively given him this right. If you want to change that, you need to start a campaign. Good luck finding people who agree with you.
Getting paid for the original act of creating. (is their incentive)
And you, o mighty one, get to decide how that happens (i.e. only before creating, and not by selling units later).
If you pay me to write some code, I don't care if you sell it or give it away later - getting paid for writing it was all the incentive I needed.
Depends on the terms. I might be paying for ownership of the code. If not, the code is still yours to do whatever you see fit with. If you write code for some company, the code is theirs to do with as they see fit. Try taking the same code you create, and hand it over to their competitor. Watch how fast you end up in the slammer. How many more of your crazy analogies do I need to shoot down?
No, they didn't do that work for me. They've never even met me!
They couldn't possibly. They didn't know you existed. You didn't know they existed. How do they get this proposal of work to be done, and payment for said work? Do we all browse proposals for 2 hours a day?
They did it wishing that people would pay them for copies of the completed game, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to make that wish come true.
Exactly -- you're under no obligation to make the wish come true -- don't buy the game. If you 'procure' the game by some other means, well, you owe them.
But you just said I downloaded a torrent, so that means someone (or a few dozen people) was willing to give me access under a different set of terms.
Yeah? Well, whomever uploaded a free copy first is violating the first agreement they entered into. And every downloader after that is doing business with a theif who is not authorized to supply you with the download.
They have no right to dictate the terms of a transaction between two other parties.
You can repeat that ad-infinitum, but you'll still be wrong about that. Your theft of their product is subject to (and in violation of) their terms.
I don't know if I can forgive them that easily. It's a pretty foolish thing for them to do, considering the nature of their "product".
Funny.
Oh, please. You know what I meant: the people who perform a service.
Again, you make a distinction that suits you conveniently. I know what you meant, but that doesn't make it valid.
Once the car is manufactured, it's then sold like any other physical product, by transferring ownership in exchange for money. But again, ownership isn't transferred until someone has agreed to pay for the car. The dealer doesn't just deliver a car to your doorstep, unsolicited, and then bill you for it.
Nor does he tell you what you can or can't do with the car once you've bought it. He doesn't try to limit you like copyright holders do, for example by saying you can only park it someplace where it can be seen by fewer than 10 people at a time.
The dealer certainly doesn't show up unsolicited. You wanted the car. The song doesn't store itself on your HDD unsolicited. You wanted that song. The song and the car you seeked out are products you wanted. But again you'll see the big picture in the case that suits you, and refuse to in the one that doesn't. The car is 100% your property. But there are restrictions that apply. You can't reset the odometer. You can't legally modify the car in certain ways. And much more. These restrictions are written down in the law, just the same way copyright is. You don't get to pick and choose, my friend.
And about being seen by fewer than 10 people at a time
If I use 100 kWh, they have to generate 100 kWh. They can't just generate 1 kWh and sell it to me 100 times (or to 100 different customers), and I can't take the electricity I bought last month and reuse it this month. So you're only ok, with a business model where continuous/ongoing work needs to be done? A writer can only be paid for writing books, not for the books that actually sold? An artist has virtually no right to get paid, but people have the rights to access his art by any means? A company making a game has no right to demand payment, but people have the right to download those games for free (against the company's wishes) and play them? I want them to keep pushing those electrons, and if paying X cents per kWh is what it takes to convince them to keep doing it, then that's that. And if everybody were download artists and publishers creations for free, what is the incentive for them to keep creating? Er, yes, I'd say it does matter that they're not doing extra work. Doing work on my behalf is the only reason I'd owe them any sort of compensation, so if they aren't doing that, there's nothing to compensate them for. I don't owe them anything for work they freely chose to do in the past, months or years ago, which I never asked them to do and never agreed to pay for. Studio created game thinking "gee, lots of people will like this game, so we can sell it to them for $50 a pop". Studio made game. People are unnamed. Studio did not deem it necessary to name them. Studio simply thought, those who want it will buy it (how naive of them). You wanted game. You downloaded game from bittorrent for free, burned the ISO, and played it to your hearts content. Did you rip the studio off, to the tune of $50 or not? They did the work for you (of creating the game). You did not agree to pay them, but they never agreed to work for free. The only terms under which you had access to this work of theirs was if you paid for it. Your arguments are getting more and more absurd. Why would someone do a bunch of work for free, without anyone else asking them to do it or agreeing to pay them for it, and then complain that they aren't getting paid? They chose that fate for themselves. Oh, please do forgive them for thinking that they could create something and then sell it. They didn't chose any fate. They created, and you acted like a parasite. If everyone in the world were to follow my logic, then artists who wanted to get paid for their work would find a paying audience before they did the work. That's what everyone else already does. Really? That's what everybody else already does?? REALLY???
Did anybody ask you to pay them for their work, before manufacturing the car you bought?
Did anybody ask you to pay them for their effort before manufacturing the computer you used?
Did you pay anybody to create the clothes you are wearing, before they were already manufactured?
Buy, or do not buy. Stop stealing dude.
Are you really saying you believe downloading, possession and viewing of child porn should not be illegal? Downloading, possession, and viewing don't harm anyone, so yes, that is what I'm saying. It should be treated the same as downloading, possessing, or viewing evidence of a street fight, a robbery, a murder, or any other harmful act -- the act itself is harmful, and should certainly be illegal, but the recorded evidence isn't.
But the act was done with the express intent of people downloading and viewing it. What other reason is there for creating kiddie porn.
Now, back on topic...
Sure, why not.. :)
Agreed. But in order to lose money, you have to have the money first; you can't lose money that belongs to someone else.
Dude, you are so clutching at straws now. Guy agrees to mow your lawn for 50 bucks. Guy mows lawn. You stiff guy. Guy never had the 50 bucks to begin with. Are you saying he didn't lose 50 bucks in this transaction?
It's true that the artist didn't gain the $150 million that those ten million people could, theoretically, have given him. But that money was never his, so he didn't lose it, and he isn't tangibly harmed by not gaining it.
The tangible harm is the amount these 10 million downloaders didn't pay her. Look up the definition of tangible. Regarding the money never being hers, see the previous debunking of guy mowing lawn, and remember that the kind lady set terms that we pay $15 for her album.
you're going to have to prosecute everyone who declines to buy any particular album
You're a funny guy. I mean that seriously. How many times have I repeated now, that the seller has terms, and your options are to buy, or to not buy. You cannot just take for free. You can, however, not buy. Taking for free means, you now have her product, and she has lost income. Not buying means you do not have her product, and she has not lost any income (just that she didn't receive any from you either).
I think it's better to just say hurt feelings aren't a tangible harm.
I think it's safe to say you have a sense of humor, even if you're lacking a sense of fair-play. I agree hurt feelings are not tangible harm, and that was not even remotely my point.
The pricing of her album is her choice, not the downloaders'. No one forced her to set her goal at $1.5 million.
I'll skip your next couple paragraphs since they seem to be predicated on the ideas that (1) someone needs to dictate how much is "fair" for the artist to receive
Oh, but that's so very wrong. In those very paragraphs I expressly stated that she is not forced to set her album at any particular price (anywhere from free, to any negative number, or any positive number is fair game). I also expressly did not state that anybody can dictate what is fair -- nobody can answer that question. Not the artist, not the customers, not the government. There is only underpriced, overpriced, and optimal price. Everyone will have a different idea of fair. That's the whole point. The artist makes the best decision they can, and the market reaction tells her whether her guess was too high or too low. She can adjust, or she can not adjust the price based on this feedback from the market.
I'm not ignoring it. I agree that the importance of the number representing a program is that you can feed the number into a computer to make it do something.
But the difference is, that doesn't create an obligation for anyone (except my computer, which seems happy to do whatever I ask of it anyway). No one loses anything when I feed that number into my computer. The bank, however, does lose something when I close my account and they end up having to give me the $1000 I hacked in instead of the $100 I actually deposited.
If the bank weren't obligated to give me an amount of cash determined by my account bala
Need to start hitting that preview button from time to time.
The energy you draw, comes from somewhere, and the people that produced it need compensation. You might call it a service or anything, but ultimately you are paying for something without any physical manifestation. (unless you want to go into mass-energy conversion, but I'll assume you don't do that on a regular basis :D). You merely recognize that some party had to create it, and deserves to be compensated.
Contrast that to recording a song off the radio, which doesn't place any extra load on anything or cause any extra work for anyone. Now for the song off the radio, you were supposed to listen to it live, or time-shift it. Not record it and play it back infinitely. By doing so, you are denying compensation to the party that created it. It doesn't matter that they're not doing extra work. You are not paying them, the compensation you owe them, for work they have already done. Cause and effect. The song you recorded off the air was created by somebody, and they want compensation. If everybody in the world were to follow your logic, at no point would anybody be obligated to make payments for the songs we own (we can just get them off the radio, or download for free), and the artists will never get paid for their work. Same case for free downloads of apps, games, movies. Thanks for the clarification. You're most welcome. Do you get it now?And you ended up reaching a logical conclusion, just like I have about copyright. Congratulations.
Are you really saying you believe downloading, possession and viewing of child porn should not be illegal?
just like my conclusion about copyright is only shocking if you believe axiomatically that unauthorized copying must be harmful.
I don't need belief for this. Logic does all the work, and harm can indeed be established. I'll explain after the next quote.
How do you define tangible harm?
Being deprived of property, life, or limb, mainly.
So let's consider a couple of cases (obviously hypothetical, but quite logical). Let's start by agreeing that money is not just a number -- it represents property, or the potential to acquire it, and therefore the loss of money constitutes tangible harm. Now:
And now that opens up still more questions:
And the answer to all of that is actually surprisingly easy. The market will decide. The artists take on the risk of whatever price strategy they chose. If they overprice, they lose sales (and hence revenue). If they under-price, they lose revenue. If they price it optimally (or thereabouts) -- they make about as much money as they possibly could, or gobs of money in any case. If they never wanted to make money in the first place, they can choose to just not charge. If they want money but it's not their prime motive, they can choose to just accept whatever people will pay (like radiohead recently did). Ultimately it's their creation, so they take the risk of the pricing strategy and business model, and they reap the rewards of their decision, and their creation. And (1) free downloaders cause tangible harm to actual customers and/or the artist and (2) pirates (such as AllOfMp3) get rewards without taking on risk, and without creating anything, and while causing the artists and the actual customers tangible harm. Copyright law exists to prevent that.
phew.. ;)
But
But they can print a new one for 1 cent. Just like the software/game/music/movie people can print infinite copies at negligible cost. Why can't you just pay 1 cent and walk out?
And along the same vein -- is power a physical product? For every electron the power company pushed down the line, they took one back. They do this 60 times a second. You still have nothing in your hand that you can hold, that you bought from them. Why do you pay them?
I suppose you think Newton's heirs should have an exclusive right to profit from anything that was developed using calculus too, then. What a dismal world that would be. The copyright on his work would have long expired by now. He could have chosen to profit from it if he wanted to, and he did not -- as is often (but not always) the case in the field of math, science. Of course, copyright isn't limited to profit anyway. Noncommercial sharing is also illegal, but I'm sure you knew that.Wrong! Non-commercial sharing is illegal *without the permission of the copyright holder*. Even commercial, but free sharing is possible with the permission of the copyright holder. For examples, refer to the BSD license, Apache Creative Commons license, GPL, etc.
But I'm sure you already knew that.
It's the same way that child porn is just a number. Or a CAD drawing for a nuclear weapon is just a number. Or your SSN is just a number. Or your credit card and other financial information is just a number.
I'm certainly not allowed to say, order $2000 worth of stuff from Amazon and enter your credit card number am I? Won't you sue me if I did that? Or will you uphold my rights to use any 'number' any way that I see fit on my net connection?
* And you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't trample on their rights
Now do you get it?
Nope. You still haven't explained what gives them the "right" to tell me what I can do with my internet connection, or how imposing their will on me counts as "terms and conditions to the sale" when I'm not their customer and haven't bought anything from them.
I did explain -- you just refuse to see it. Your right to do stuff with your 'net connection is not absolute. You cannot use it in a way that infringes their rights. Next thing you're going to claim child pornography is just a number and nobody has the right to tell you what you can do with your 'net connection.
In the same vein, their right to protect their copyright is not absolute. They cannot infringe on your rights while trying to protect their copyright.
Now do you get it?
* And you are free to do as you please, as long as you don't trample on their rights
Now do you get it? Nope. You still haven't explained what gives them the "right" to tell me what I can do with my internet connection, or how imposing their will on me counts as "terms and conditions to the sale" when I'm not their customer and haven't bought anything from them.
Now do you get it?