No P2P is much more efficient full stop. The freerider problem is a separate issue. You are mixing up things that are orthogonal to each other. There is no reason why paying artists and P2P should be mutually exclusive a
Simply put, they are largely mutually exclusive to date. Once someone comes up with a way to pay artists off P2P, as you suggest, it will be more efficient provided that way is moderately viable. I'd argue that paying an umbrella organisation is a lousy way to do it, and not very efficient at all. I think for it to stand much chance of working, you'd need some degree of centralisation (like Napster), but then it's not really P2P any more.
No. It is more efficient in that it can deliver the same result at a lower cost.
No it can't. The free riders are being subsidised by paying customers. The paying customers pony up the funds for the distribution and production of the music, and the free riders, take a free ride. The system only survives in this manner because of the paying customers. If everyone were a free rider the system would collapse.
The free riders are ultimately hypocrites, because they depend on these subsidies to exist. They are parasites. Without the paying customers, noone would be able to pay the musicians operating expenses.
They perform once, and expect to get paid over and over and over again.
They expect to get paid several small sums after the fact instead of one large sum in advance.
If you can afford to be a patron for a musician, then by all means hire one. Since most of us can't
afford to pay a musicians operating costs (let alone a salary), splitting the costs across the people who benefit from the music makes sense.
This is just capitalism at work: a new technology has arisen that is much more efficient that the old one and so many now unproductive jobs disappear.
Crime should not be confused with "new technology that is much more efficient". It's only "efficient" in the sense that it's an efficient way for free riders to rip off producers of creative works. The solution to this sort of "efficiency" is to crack down hard on the free riders, rewarding them is never a solution.
Most people will agree that stealing is stealing, and is designed so that the person who is stealing gets something that he or she is not entitled to.
Common language terms like "identity theft" and "theft of services" refer to intangibles (you still have your identity, right ?) So I think this attempt to redefine theft is an attempt to portray copyright infringement as either a lesser wrong, or something that isn't wrong at all.
My agenda (which these terms do actually reflect): "copyright infringement is a civil crime, not criminal, and as such shouldn't have the emotive words associated with it, which imply that those who infringe copyrights are much the same as thugs who steal VCRs from people's lounge rooms"
It's not the same, because there's a violent aspect to stealing VCRs from living rooms -- it involves breaking and entering, which is an invasion of the victims privacy. There is direct harm to the victim.
However, it isn't that much different from something like shoplifting (a non-violent crime that is also often committed by teenagers), and even less different than a crime like securities fraud (which doesn't cause direct quantifiable losses) or fare evasion (again, never involves violence, doesn't produce direct quantifiable losses). So I'd put it in the same category as other non-violent forms of theft, especially the less direct ones. It's worth pointing out that the fact that the damage is less direct/less visible to the perpetrator does not make the perpetrator any better.
n order to explain my position, however, I believe that wholesale copyright infringement for the purposes of gaining money (ie large scale operations and bootleg merchandise) is criminal,
Like Napster, right ? I remember that most of slashdot were howling like wounded animals when they started going after napster. "Go after the users, not the technology", they said. Now that the senate is going after the users, they're still whining like spoilt children.
but downloading an mp3 is no worse than taping a show on TV, or a song off the radio.
How about uploading ? Uploading is IMO much worse, because it is illegal redistribution. The damage done by uploading is potentially much greater, and uploading is IMO not a whole lot different in its effect from large scale commercial infringement.
I don't think downloading a single track is a grave offense, but I don't think that's what this law is about either.
Under my model, the producer will still be paid according to what the market will bear. The market will simply be different. The typical conclusion that my market would lead to a dearth of intangibles strikes me as less likely than humans simply adapting to the conditions, but this is not a scientific evaluation.
Well, given your assumptions, I find it hard to challenge your conclusions. I don't agree with your model, because I think with the sort of minimal regulation you propose, you will get inefficiencies in the market resulting from things like fraud (from securities fraud and insider trading to outright scams like pyramid schemes) or even organised crime. I agree that if you're going to allow insider trading, securities fraud, and various scams, it's not inconsistent to allow copyright infringement also.
Not in any state that purports to support the free market.
I must say, that is an excellent answer. The idea that a musicians payment should be capped by some arbitrary number determined either by what slashdot poster thinks is "fair", or by some regulatory beaurocracy, is indeed anithetical to the idea of a free market.
I agree it's a flawed system, but unless Canadians are downloading music from artists that receive compensation, it's legalized piracy.
It's not exactly piracy, because the downloader is paying. They're just not paying the right person. It's a misappropriation of funds by way of incompetence (and inefficiencies in this socialist way of doing things), not by way of selfishness. I see them as being well-meaning idiots.
owever, punishment and labels should fit the crime. 1/4 million dollars and 5 years in jail is not an appropriate judgement when killers have been known to get lighter sentences, yet many advocates of using the word "Theft" rather than Piracy (such as the RIAA and various media companies) believe that a pirate deserves a sentence longer than Charles Manson's.
Keep in mind that maximum sentences are not the same thing as sentences actually served. My position is that sentences and punishments should be commensurate with those used for theft and fraud. I understand that more severe cases of fraud can carry lengthy jail terms and fines (longer than those proposed by these laws) depending on the scale of the offence.
The fact is your hard work is worth something, but there is no hard work in the world I can think of that is worth condemning a man to 5 years of jail and a 1/4 million dollar fine, if said work is used incorrectly
Martha Stewart is probably going to serve a few years or so just for being the *recipient* of information that she wasn't supposed to get her hands on. It's not like she was setting up a chop shop (as in boiler room) or defrauding her investors (Enron, where the finance chief faces up to 10 years after pleading guilty). Fraudsters can and should go down hard, even if they do happen to come from good middle class white families.
I assumed the latter, however, and my perspective is that of the anarcho capitalist.
Correct assumption
I staunchly do not believe in contributory infringement. This is a legal construct, not a corollary of my "intrinsic rights," the rights from which I believe all other rights are (or rather, should be) derived from.
Do you believe that there should be laws against
knowingly trafficking in stolen goods, for example ? I think the victim's property rights trump the rights of someone to trade with criminals. Allowing the sale of stolen goods creates inefficiencies in the market (because the dishonest merchant can undercut the honest merchant) and it rewards criminals.
Likewise, I don't see a compelling reason to allow you to be the beneficiary of an illegaly broken contract. The only "right" you gain by permission to do this is the "right" to interfere with and undermine the market. I think that "right" is trumped by the right of the producer to be paid according to what the market will bear.
In the first two cases you're taking up a finite space that cannot be taken by a paying customer.
But is this an issue if you're doing this during the off-peak, when space is abundant ?
I also agree that there is a cultural value in the production of intangible works, but I am not sure that there should be a monetary value attached to that. You don't charge people for the correct value of Pi, Newton's equations are free as the air you breathe. Both have contributed more to the advancement of humanity than the entire record industry, and no fat executive has spent his share of the royalties on strippers and coke.
Most scientists (including Newton) are paid for their work, though the funding mechanism itself is very different from that used for music. Usinggovernment money as the primary funding source for musicians would be inappropriate, and most people would find it objectionable.
When you bring in the term "lawless" you're straying into legal territory, which is different from moral territory
The point is that people like looters, thieves, shoplifters, and pirates do not produce anything, nor do they contribute to productivity. They attempt to willfully disrupt trade for their own benefit.
The actions of these people is not a replacement for any lawful model.
Finally when the market stops working efficiently, it's time for the market to adapt to the changing circumstances, not to force the entire world to adapt to an obsolete system.
One must identify what isn't working properly. For example, the fact that securities fraud is a problem does not justify shutting down the New York Stock Exchange. When people evade train fares, it does not justify shutting down the mass transit system. Especially in the case of securities fraud, there need to be effective laws and effective enforcement to address the problem.
As the securities system grows in complexity, and the speed of trade increases, the laws need to be refined to adapt to the new technology. The adaptions in the laws should protect fair and equitable trade, they should not pander to those who wish to disrupt it and undermine the market by exploiting inefficiencies in the system.
Don't forget that the music industry as we know it today is only half a century old, the film industry has entered into the mass production game only a quarter of a century ago with the introduction of videotape. These industries have risen rapidly, they can fall just as quickly.
They could indeed fall, and they could be replaced by better business models. But piracy is not such a model, and the fact that these industries could be replaced is not a justification for piracy. When they are replaced, they will most likely be replaced by other businesses, not a "free information" utopia.
I didn't distort your argument. You believe all pirates are theives. Canadians are pirates, by law.
Canada have a broadly based taxation system to compensate artists (CD blank media taxes). They are not thieves, because they pay for the work, though the mechanism is different (and, I would argue, somewhat flawed).
Anyways, since you aren't willing to read the dictionary and are willing to falsely state facts, I give up. I won't reply anymore. It's a pointless debate if you insit on using English improperly.
This discussion isn't and never was about "proper use of English". It's about an attempt on the part of pirates and their sympathisers to get a foothold on legitimacy by obfuscating the issue. It's not so much that I think "theft" is the most precise term that motivates me in this discussion as it is my contempt for the fact that pirates are attempting to redefine themselves as something other than common criminals, and I'm not going to let them do that.
If a creator wants to impose restrictions on their creation, they have to get you to agree to those restrictions before you obtain a copy of their work. If somebody breaks their EULA and makes a copyrighted work available for download, the downloaders are not liable for contract infringement, the provider is.
I'd argue that the downloaders are co-conspirators if they know that they are contributing to a contract infringment. But my belief is that the uploaders are the ones who should be hit hardest. Even if they are not party to the contract (that is, they download from someone who violated the contract), they still bear heavy liability for contributory infringment, and interfering with legitimate business transactions (much like securities fraud where abuse of information can undermine fair trade)
Nope, and those aren't good examples, either. There are different laws to cover your examples, with clear and proper names:
Sure, there are legal terms for them, but they are still good examples, because they are examples of common-language usages of the word "theft" that do not meet the criteria you put forth. I don't see very much of the pro-piracy herd whining about the usage of such terms (and they have come up in prior slashdot articles)
Also, I argue the difference because I know for a fact that far fewer people would puchase computers if they couldn't/wouldn't pirate.
I disagree. There are several means by which vendors make software cheaply available, usually by special editions, bundleware deals, etc. If people couldn't/wouldn't pirate, they would expend more effort in finding low-cost shareware, and in finding bundleware deals so that their new computers are outfitted with a functional base of software.
If people are going to twist language to fight their battles, then they are using a pawn with no ability to defend itself. It's despicable behaviour and must stop.
I agree. So tell the pirate mob to stop attempting to use linguistic trickery ("information", "copyright infringement", "sharing") as a way to pass off their behaviour as legitimate. They use the term "copyright infringement" because this term does not in itself imply a crime of the same magnitude. For example, reposting a newspaper article is copyright infringment. The very language of the term suggests a technical violation (much like a parking offence, or some other minor infraction)
If you don't think the term pirate (one that *has* been successfully co-opted for your personal enjoyment) is good enough, feel free to use the legal term: Copyright Infringement.
I'm happy with the term "thief" actually. It really hits home hard, because it is right on the money.
So, the entire nation of Canada are theives to you?
Straw man.
BTW: Your assertion that paying for pirated music (which we do by a levy) is theft is absolutely ludicrous
It is absolutely ludicrous, but it is not an "assertion by me". Personally, I think the Canadian way of doing it -- centralised payment -- is just plain dumb, and it's only half a step away from just using income taxes to fund it. It's the socialist way. I agree that one can use the socialist approach to compensate the authors of creative works, but I don't think it's the best approach at all.
Call it what you like, it is a crime. Call it what you want, but it shouldn't be a crime. Information wants to be free, we communicate for the purpose of telling one another how we feel, how we think, forming unity, or breaking it apart. This is what is wrong, not our declarations of which crime we are breaking. Hell, if it's a crime to tell someone else how you feel lyrically, lock me up and never play another piece of music near me again.
The problem is that these acts of piracy that we are discussing have very little to do with either "informing" anyone (giving someone information as in oral or written communication) or "lyrically expressing ones feelings "which suggests some sort of creative process (as if copying involves any creativity). The things that you refer to -- informing people, or creatively expressing yourself are not crimes at all, and arwe certainly not copyright infringement. You are attempting to obfuscate the issue by drawing a relationship between two completely unrelated things -- informing/creative expression, which, ironically, is quite the antithesis of actually producing creative work or informing someone.
Please consider these definitions before flaming and trolling. These are not legal (nor dictionary) definitions, just how I (and I suspect, others) use the terms. YMMV.
You're entitled to use the terms your way, but your usage has certain motives, namely to legitimise or at least attempt to obscure the moral wrongs of copyright infringement. Those that don't share your agenda have little reason to adopt a terminology that reflects that agenda.
I must be dumb or something, but can somebody explain to me why this is morally wrong, since nothing has gone missing.
Is evading a train fare morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing. Is sneaking into the back iof a movie theatre morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing. Is
securities fraud morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing.
Your simple-minded reasoning fails to recognise that there is indeed real value in the production of intangible goods. Societies that fail to recognise the value of such goods inevitably are doomed to stagnation and ignorance.
And please don't start about "lost sales",
It's more subtle than "lost sales". The problem is that lawless behaviour (like looting, stealing, fare evasion, securities fraud/insider trading etc) prevents the market from working efficiently. Instead of everyone paying their share, you have a bunch of free-riders, who every one else is ultimately subsidising.
The problem ultimately is that the free riders depend on paying customers to provide them with the service that they enjoy. In that sense, they are hippocrites in that they adopt a behaviour that they can't honestly say they wish to universalise (Kant's categorical imperative)
You're trying to define stealing as getting something of value without paying for it. The dictionary, and the law, disagree with that definition.
Theft of services, theft of identity, etc. Theft does not need to involve the removal of tangible property.
A more accepted definition can be found here: "the taking of someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it."
It's "more accepted" by the slash-herd, because it furthers their agenda of distinguishing themselves from common criminals, even though they are not substantially different.
Webster's adds that, [snip: legal definition]
This is a legal definition. There are a number of other definitions of the term. Not all of them require physical removal of property. Note that "identity theft", and "theft of services" do not meet your websters definition either.
The act of copyright infringement is fundamentally different from that of stealing. The use of the word "theft" to describe it is propaganda, pushed by special interests who would like to tie down and "own" every thought, idea, and piece of information possible. I reject it.
Exactly -- what the use of this term is about is a battle for legitimacy. Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't justify it. A self-centered grab at resources at someone elses expense is not a moral action regardless of whether the resource is tangible, physical property or not.
Instead, they are suing 12-year-olds and college students, and selling "secure" DRM CDs that won't play on your computer. They are flunking Business 101 not only by alienating an entire generation of customers, but BY TRYING TO DISMANTLE ONE OF THE MOST ASTONISHING FREE MARKETING GIFTS EVER BESTOWED ON AN INDUSTRY.
Why should they take business advice from a group of people whose primary agenda is to get "free stuff" ?
Every "solution" or "businesss model" proposed by the slashdot mob boils down to creating a way that they can get something for nothing. Offering previews is nothing new, websites like Amazon have been doing this for a long time. Marketting to a crowd whose agenda largely consists of avoiding payment is NOT a good business model. "Free, free, free" is not a business model either.
HTH,
Of course, the definition of "intrinsic rights" is debatable; I believe they include the right to private property and freedom from coercion, and nothing else.
Do you believe in the right to form contractual agreements ? In other words, would it be reasonable to distribute music in a way that used contract law, much like EULAs ? I believe the right to control distribution follows from the right of consenting parties to form contractual agreements, and that "leaked copyright" moral loopholes that slashdotters like to raise are disruptions of trade that ultimately stem from an illegal action, much like certain variants on securities fraud, insider trading, etc.
In both instances, the type of fraud is the same (use of an identity that isn't yours) but the consequences are completely different. Theft clearly implies a guaranteed and direct loss due to the action. No such guanrantee can be made about music downloaded from P2P.
But you still have your identity, right ? You're making up the definition of theft as you go, and I submit that you are hell-bent on making this distinction NOT because you are interested in "precise use of language", but because you are upset that pirates are being described in the same language that describes common criminals. If the criminals and their sympathisers really were so concerned about correct use of language, they wouldn't constantly abuse the word "share".
Again, the same as above. If you mange to get free long distance service illegally, for example, you are utilizing a service that was never provided to you -- a service that is directly costing the phone service money each time you abuse it.
What about taking a free ride on an almost-empty train ? What about sneaking into a movie theater ?
There are several examples of theft-of-service that do not cause direct and quantifiable losses. So these do not meet your new and improved definition of theft either. It's looking quite bad for you at this stage, isn't it ? This distinction between criminality and piracy is getting thinner and thinner as the discussion progresses (-;
No, the agenda is to correctly use the language.
No it isn't. It never has been. It's about a battle for legitimacy, and one place this battle is fought is over language. It's disingenious to argue that you're a warrior for correctness. By and large, the pirates are all-too-happy to mislead with their use of language: "information", "sharing", etc. The consistent pattern is that both sides consider the "correct" use of language to be the one that furthers their agenda.
But when people accuse me of doing things I haven't, I have a problem with it
Exactly -- this is what it boils down to. You think that you're better than a common thief, so you don't like being called one. I don't think you're any better, so I'm happy to call you one.
It's gotten pretty interesting in a purely scholarly way. We have a backlogged stockpile of literally 100 years of audio and video entertainment now. I mean, how much can a person consume? Entertainment _should_, by economic laws of supply and demand, be as cheap as tap water.
It isn't, because despite the large quantity of material, it hasn't become commoditised. Charlie Parker is still Charlie Parker. Beethoven is still Beethoven. Most people don't want to pay for a Beethoven imitator or a Charlie Parker imitator. So they pay the full price to get the real deal. If the market believed that the imitator was good enough, you would see the price drop that you predict. The fact that it hasn't happened is a sign that the market overwhelmingly does not view music as a commodity. This is consistent with my own views on music, and also those of people I know who listen to music.
>Our intuitions and ideas about whether it is wrong to take an object away from someone else don't directly apply to merely making a copy of something
Our "Intuitions and ideas" are ultimately self-serving and biased. If a given behaviour is common and seen only to have consequences for us, the natural instinct is to practice that behaviour and rationalise it. The reason that the slashdot herd's "intuitions and ideas" legitimise freeloading is that the slashdot herd benefit from freeloading.
There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment.
Yes, just like there are good reasons to have separate laws for burglary and shoplifting. There are differences in the details, but not in the morality of the perpetrator.
There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment.
Yes, because god forbid that we call a thief a thief. He's not really a thief, he's a "sharer", who is practicing "civil disobedience", or whatever, right ? The fact that he's from a good white middle class American family means that he can't possibly be a criminal, right ?
nd they're dead scared their "business model" will go the way of the dodo at any moment.
When there is widespread looting, shop owners have similar fears. This is not a reflection of flaws in the business model, it is a reflection of a state of lawlessness. Caving in to the demands of the looters is not a solution, and looting is not a "business model". If this business model is to die, it must be replaced by a better business model. Again, crime is not an acceptable business model.
they are treating millions of good Americans like criminals.
Someone who steals is not "good". They are a criminal, and should be treated like one.
Lock 'em up! bwahahahahahaha
How can you stand by a proposed law that allows for 10 years in jail for sharing files? This is more time than they gave the people who stole (which deprives someone of property, something filesharing does not) my friend's car?
(1) you're comparing the maximum sentence for one crime to a sentence actually handed out for another. Not the same thing -- you're either dishonest or stupid.
(2) The above indicates the problem -- copyright infringement is as serious crime. Copyright infringers are ripping people off, big time. I don't see it as a lesser crime, and I don't see copyright infringers as more moral than common thieves (actually, given their socio economic background, I see them as worse, because they're people who you would hope have better upbringing)
It is then quite clear that current copyright law does NOT meet that standard. The time is quite clearly obscenely long (life +50 years) and therefore not the limited times the Constitution demands, and it has been twisted in such a way (the DMCA) that it no longer is used "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" but rather to attempt to maintain absolute control.
The point is that it provides financial incentive to content creators, which does indeed promote such progress by making more funds available for that purpose.
So quit with the "evil filesharers" crap. What they are doing my be against the law, but it is a law that has become unjust,
Look, the acts of the thieves have nothing to do with the long copyright terms, because nearly all of the "shared" files are relatively new material. So this argument of yours is baloney. The thieves are common criminals, and the punishment is well deserved.
As a final note: If copyright infringement is such a problem, why did the media industry make more money when Napster was active and less after it was shut down? (it's a rehetorical question)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
It's like saying "if shoplifting is such a problem, why did retail sales increase when the economy picked up ?".
Do people like you *really* think that filesharing will stop because of some moral posturing? Or because of stricter and stricter laws?
When you have a bunch of unrepentent criminals, there's not much one can do besides simply kick their sorry asses. If these people don't understand morality, they will understand a good ass-kicking. So yes, laws will help. But what is more important is effective enforcement. Lock up a few of the big time pirates, and you'll see less big time pirates.
My opinion is equally simple: If you don't want your music shared for free, find another line of work. No laws required for that, no prison terms, no sermons from up on high. And totally compatible with the reality of the situation.
That's like saying, if you don't want your store looted, robbed, or to be completely realistic, shoplifted from, then don't set up a store. You can't stop shoplifting, so why should there be laws against it ? Most of the goods in your store "cost too much" anyway, so why blame people for doing "what comes naturally" ?
Criminals should be treated as criminals. The fact that it's easy to commit the crimes, or that the criminals don't have a guilty conscience does not excuse them.
The point at which you've made a reasoanble amount of money from it. To me, a "reasonable amount" is roughly proprtional to the time taken to create the work multiplied by the average annual wage for white collar workers. After that, the work should enter the public domain.
Oh, fantastic. You get to decide how much money the musician gets to earn ? Does that mean that they also get to decide how much money you should earn too ?
The only way it could be theft is if you somehow deleted the copies from the original author, and then published it yourself.
Just like identity theft. It's not really identity theft unless the victim forgets who he is, or at least no longer posseses the personality traits that used to define who he was. It's just "identity infringement", which of course means the perpetrator isn't necessarily a common felon after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply put, they are largely mutually exclusive to date. Once someone comes up with a way to pay artists off P2P, as you suggest, it will be more efficient provided that way is moderately viable. I'd argue that paying an umbrella organisation is a lousy way to do it, and not very efficient at all. I think for it to stand much chance of working, you'd need some degree of centralisation (like Napster), but then it's not really P2P any more.
No it can't. The free riders are being subsidised by paying customers. The paying customers pony up the funds for the distribution and production of the music, and the free riders, take a free ride. The system only survives in this manner because of the paying customers. If everyone were a free rider the system would collapse.
The free riders are ultimately hypocrites, because they depend on these subsidies to exist. They are parasites. Without the paying customers, noone would be able to pay the musicians operating expenses.
They perform once, and expect to get paid over and over and over again.
They expect to get paid several small sums after the fact instead of one large sum in advance. If you can afford to be a patron for a musician, then by all means hire one. Since most of us can't afford to pay a musicians operating costs (let alone a salary), splitting the costs across the people who benefit from the music makes sense.
Crime should not be confused with "new technology that is much more efficient". It's only "efficient" in the sense that it's an efficient way for free riders to rip off producers of creative works. The solution to this sort of "efficiency" is to crack down hard on the free riders, rewarding them is never a solution.
Common language terms like "identity theft" and "theft of services" refer to intangibles (you still have your identity, right ?) So I think this attempt to redefine theft is an attempt to portray copyright infringement as either a lesser wrong, or something that isn't wrong at all.
My agenda (which these terms do actually reflect): "copyright infringement is a civil crime, not criminal, and as such shouldn't have the emotive words associated with it, which imply that those who infringe copyrights are much the same as thugs who steal VCRs from people's lounge rooms"
It's not the same, because there's a violent aspect to stealing VCRs from living rooms -- it involves breaking and entering, which is an invasion of the victims privacy. There is direct harm to the victim.
However, it isn't that much different from something like shoplifting (a non-violent crime that is also often committed by teenagers), and even less different than a crime like securities fraud (which doesn't cause direct quantifiable losses) or fare evasion (again, never involves violence, doesn't produce direct quantifiable losses). So I'd put it in the same category as other non-violent forms of theft, especially the less direct ones. It's worth pointing out that the fact that the damage is less direct/less visible to the perpetrator does not make the perpetrator any better.
n order to explain my position, however, I believe that wholesale copyright infringement for the purposes of gaining money (ie large scale operations and bootleg merchandise) is criminal,
Like Napster, right ? I remember that most of slashdot were howling like wounded animals when they started going after napster. "Go after the users, not the technology", they said. Now that the senate is going after the users, they're still whining like spoilt children.
but downloading an mp3 is no worse than taping a show on TV, or a song off the radio.
How about uploading ? Uploading is IMO much worse, because it is illegal redistribution. The damage done by uploading is potentially much greater, and uploading is IMO not a whole lot different in its effect from large scale commercial infringement. I don't think downloading a single track is a grave offense, but I don't think that's what this law is about either.
Well, given your assumptions, I find it hard to challenge your conclusions. I don't agree with your model, because I think with the sort of minimal regulation you propose, you will get inefficiencies in the market resulting from things like fraud (from securities fraud and insider trading to outright scams like pyramid schemes) or even organised crime. I agree that if you're going to allow insider trading, securities fraud, and various scams, it's not inconsistent to allow copyright infringement also.
I must say, that is an excellent answer. The idea that a musicians payment should be capped by some arbitrary number determined either by what slashdot poster thinks is "fair", or by some regulatory beaurocracy, is indeed anithetical to the idea of a free market.
It's not exactly piracy, because the downloader is paying. They're just not paying the right person. It's a misappropriation of funds by way of incompetence (and inefficiencies in this socialist way of doing things), not by way of selfishness. I see them as being well-meaning idiots.
owever, punishment and labels should fit the crime. 1/4 million dollars and 5 years in jail is not an appropriate judgement when killers have been known to get lighter sentences, yet many advocates of using the word "Theft" rather than Piracy (such as the RIAA and various media companies) believe that a pirate deserves a sentence longer than Charles Manson's.
Keep in mind that maximum sentences are not the same thing as sentences actually served. My position is that sentences and punishments should be commensurate with those used for theft and fraud. I understand that more severe cases of fraud can carry lengthy jail terms and fines (longer than those proposed by these laws) depending on the scale of the offence.
The fact is your hard work is worth something, but there is no hard work in the world I can think of that is worth condemning a man to 5 years of jail and a 1/4 million dollar fine, if said work is used incorrectly
Martha Stewart is probably going to serve a few years or so just for being the *recipient* of information that she wasn't supposed to get her hands on. It's not like she was setting up a chop shop (as in boiler room) or defrauding her investors (Enron, where the finance chief faces up to 10 years after pleading guilty). Fraudsters can and should go down hard, even if they do happen to come from good middle class white families.
Correct assumption
I staunchly do not believe in contributory infringement. This is a legal construct, not a corollary of my "intrinsic rights," the rights from which I believe all other rights are (or rather, should be) derived from.
Do you believe that there should be laws against knowingly trafficking in stolen goods, for example ? I think the victim's property rights trump the rights of someone to trade with criminals. Allowing the sale of stolen goods creates inefficiencies in the market (because the dishonest merchant can undercut the honest merchant) and it rewards criminals.
Likewise, I don't see a compelling reason to allow you to be the beneficiary of an illegaly broken contract. The only "right" you gain by permission to do this is the "right" to interfere with and undermine the market. I think that "right" is trumped by the right of the producer to be paid according to what the market will bear.
But is this an issue if you're doing this during the off-peak, when space is abundant ?
I also agree that there is a cultural value in the production of intangible works, but I am not sure that there should be a monetary value attached to that. You don't charge people for the correct value of Pi, Newton's equations are free as the air you breathe. Both have contributed more to the advancement of humanity than the entire record industry, and no fat executive has spent his share of the royalties on strippers and coke.
Most scientists (including Newton) are paid for their work, though the funding mechanism itself is very different from that used for music. Usinggovernment money as the primary funding source for musicians would be inappropriate, and most people would find it objectionable.
When you bring in the term "lawless" you're straying into legal territory, which is different from moral territory
The point is that people like looters, thieves, shoplifters, and pirates do not produce anything, nor do they contribute to productivity. They attempt to willfully disrupt trade for their own benefit. The actions of these people is not a replacement for any lawful model.
Finally when the market stops working efficiently, it's time for the market to adapt to the changing circumstances, not to force the entire world to adapt to an obsolete system.
One must identify what isn't working properly. For example, the fact that securities fraud is a problem does not justify shutting down the New York Stock Exchange. When people evade train fares, it does not justify shutting down the mass transit system. Especially in the case of securities fraud, there need to be effective laws and effective enforcement to address the problem. As the securities system grows in complexity, and the speed of trade increases, the laws need to be refined to adapt to the new technology. The adaptions in the laws should protect fair and equitable trade, they should not pander to those who wish to disrupt it and undermine the market by exploiting inefficiencies in the system.
Don't forget that the music industry as we know it today is only half a century old, the film industry has entered into the mass production game only a quarter of a century ago with the introduction of videotape. These industries have risen rapidly, they can fall just as quickly.
They could indeed fall, and they could be replaced by better business models. But piracy is not such a model, and the fact that these industries could be replaced is not a justification for piracy. When they are replaced, they will most likely be replaced by other businesses, not a "free information" utopia.
Canada have a broadly based taxation system to compensate artists (CD blank media taxes). They are not thieves, because they pay for the work, though the mechanism is different (and, I would argue, somewhat flawed).
Anyways, since you aren't willing to read the dictionary and are willing to falsely state facts, I give up. I won't reply anymore. It's a pointless debate if you insit on using English improperly.
This discussion isn't and never was about "proper use of English". It's about an attempt on the part of pirates and their sympathisers to get a foothold on legitimacy by obfuscating the issue. It's not so much that I think "theft" is the most precise term that motivates me in this discussion as it is my contempt for the fact that pirates are attempting to redefine themselves as something other than common criminals, and I'm not going to let them do that.
I'd argue that the downloaders are co-conspirators if they know that they are contributing to a contract infringment. But my belief is that the uploaders are the ones who should be hit hardest. Even if they are not party to the contract (that is, they download from someone who violated the contract), they still bear heavy liability for contributory infringment, and interfering with legitimate business transactions (much like securities fraud where abuse of information can undermine fair trade)
Sure, there are legal terms for them, but they are still good examples, because they are examples of common-language usages of the word "theft" that do not meet the criteria you put forth. I don't see very much of the pro-piracy herd whining about the usage of such terms (and they have come up in prior slashdot articles)
Also, I argue the difference because I know for a fact that far fewer people would puchase computers if they couldn't/wouldn't pirate.
I disagree. There are several means by which vendors make software cheaply available, usually by special editions, bundleware deals, etc. If people couldn't/wouldn't pirate, they would expend more effort in finding low-cost shareware, and in finding bundleware deals so that their new computers are outfitted with a functional base of software.
If people are going to twist language to fight their battles, then they are using a pawn with no ability to defend itself. It's despicable behaviour and must stop.
I agree. So tell the pirate mob to stop attempting to use linguistic trickery ("information", "copyright infringement", "sharing") as a way to pass off their behaviour as legitimate. They use the term "copyright infringement" because this term does not in itself imply a crime of the same magnitude. For example, reposting a newspaper article is copyright infringment. The very language of the term suggests a technical violation (much like a parking offence, or some other minor infraction)
If you don't think the term pirate (one that *has* been successfully co-opted for your personal enjoyment) is good enough, feel free to use the legal term: Copyright Infringement.
I'm happy with the term "thief" actually. It really hits home hard, because it is right on the money.
So, the entire nation of Canada are theives to you?
Straw man.
BTW: Your assertion that paying for pirated music (which we do by a levy) is theft is absolutely ludicrous
It is absolutely ludicrous, but it is not an "assertion by me". Personally, I think the Canadian way of doing it -- centralised payment -- is just plain dumb, and it's only half a step away from just using income taxes to fund it. It's the socialist way. I agree that one can use the socialist approach to compensate the authors of creative works, but I don't think it's the best approach at all.
The problem is that these acts of piracy that we are discussing have very little to do with either "informing" anyone (giving someone information as in oral or written communication) or "lyrically expressing ones feelings "which suggests some sort of creative process (as if copying involves any creativity). The things that you refer to -- informing people, or creatively expressing yourself are not crimes at all, and arwe certainly not copyright infringement. You are attempting to obfuscate the issue by drawing a relationship between two completely unrelated things -- informing/creative expression, which, ironically, is quite the antithesis of actually producing creative work or informing someone.
You're entitled to use the terms your way, but your usage has certain motives, namely to legitimise or at least attempt to obscure the moral wrongs of copyright infringement. Those that don't share your agenda have little reason to adopt a terminology that reflects that agenda.
Is evading a train fare morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing. Is sneaking into the back iof a movie theatre morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing. Is securities fraud morally wrong ? Nothing has gone missing.
Your simple-minded reasoning fails to recognise that there is indeed real value in the production of intangible goods. Societies that fail to recognise the value of such goods inevitably are doomed to stagnation and ignorance.
And please don't start about "lost sales",
It's more subtle than "lost sales". The problem is that lawless behaviour (like looting, stealing, fare evasion, securities fraud/insider trading etc) prevents the market from working efficiently. Instead of everyone paying their share, you have a bunch of free-riders, who every one else is ultimately subsidising.
The problem ultimately is that the free riders depend on paying customers to provide them with the service that they enjoy. In that sense, they are hippocrites in that they adopt a behaviour that they can't honestly say they wish to universalise (Kant's categorical imperative)
Theft of services, theft of identity, etc. Theft does not need to involve the removal of tangible property.
A more accepted definition can be found here: "the taking of someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it."
It's "more accepted" by the slash-herd, because it furthers their agenda of distinguishing themselves from common criminals, even though they are not substantially different.
Webster's adds that, [snip: legal definition]
This is a legal definition. There are a number of other definitions of the term. Not all of them require physical removal of property. Note that "identity theft", and "theft of services" do not meet your websters definition either.
The act of copyright infringement is fundamentally different from that of stealing. The use of the word "theft" to describe it is propaganda, pushed by special interests who would like to tie down and "own" every thought, idea, and piece of information possible. I reject it.
Exactly -- what the use of this term is about is a battle for legitimacy. Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't justify it. A self-centered grab at resources at someone elses expense is not a moral action regardless of whether the resource is tangible, physical property or not.
Why should they take business advice from a group of people whose primary agenda is to get "free stuff" ? Every "solution" or "businesss model" proposed by the slashdot mob boils down to creating a way that they can get something for nothing. Offering previews is nothing new, websites like Amazon have been doing this for a long time. Marketting to a crowd whose agenda largely consists of avoiding payment is NOT a good business model. "Free, free, free" is not a business model either. HTH,
Do you believe in the right to form contractual agreements ? In other words, would it be reasonable to distribute music in a way that used contract law, much like EULAs ? I believe the right to control distribution follows from the right of consenting parties to form contractual agreements, and that "leaked copyright" moral loopholes that slashdotters like to raise are disruptions of trade that ultimately stem from an illegal action, much like certain variants on securities fraud, insider trading, etc.
But you still have your identity, right ? You're making up the definition of theft as you go, and I submit that you are hell-bent on making this distinction NOT because you are interested in "precise use of language", but because you are upset that pirates are being described in the same language that describes common criminals. If the criminals and their sympathisers really were so concerned about correct use of language, they wouldn't constantly abuse the word "share".
Again, the same as above. If you mange to get free long distance service illegally, for example, you are utilizing a service that was never provided to you -- a service that is directly costing the phone service money each time you abuse it.
What about taking a free ride on an almost-empty train ? What about sneaking into a movie theater ? There are several examples of theft-of-service that do not cause direct and quantifiable losses. So these do not meet your new and improved definition of theft either. It's looking quite bad for you at this stage, isn't it ? This distinction between criminality and piracy is getting thinner and thinner as the discussion progresses (-;
No, the agenda is to correctly use the language.
No it isn't. It never has been. It's about a battle for legitimacy, and one place this battle is fought is over language. It's disingenious to argue that you're a warrior for correctness. By and large, the pirates are all-too-happy to mislead with their use of language: "information", "sharing", etc. The consistent pattern is that both sides consider the "correct" use of language to be the one that furthers their agenda.
But when people accuse me of doing things I haven't, I have a problem with it
Exactly -- this is what it boils down to. You think that you're better than a common thief, so you don't like being called one. I don't think you're any better, so I'm happy to call you one.
It isn't, because despite the large quantity of material, it hasn't become commoditised. Charlie Parker is still Charlie Parker. Beethoven is still Beethoven. Most people don't want to pay for a Beethoven imitator or a Charlie Parker imitator. So they pay the full price to get the real deal. If the market believed that the imitator was good enough, you would see the price drop that you predict. The fact that it hasn't happened is a sign that the market overwhelmingly does not view music as a commodity. This is consistent with my own views on music, and also those of people I know who listen to music.
Our "Intuitions and ideas" are ultimately self-serving and biased. If a given behaviour is common and seen only to have consequences for us, the natural instinct is to practice that behaviour and rationalise it. The reason that the slashdot herd's "intuitions and ideas" legitimise freeloading is that the slashdot herd benefit from freeloading.
There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment.
Yes, just like there are good reasons to have separate laws for burglary and shoplifting. There are differences in the details, but not in the morality of the perpetrator.
There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment.
Yes, because god forbid that we call a thief a thief. He's not really a thief, he's a "sharer", who is practicing "civil disobedience", or whatever, right ? The fact that he's from a good white middle class American family means that he can't possibly be a criminal, right ?
nd they're dead scared their "business model" will go the way of the dodo at any moment.
When there is widespread looting, shop owners have similar fears. This is not a reflection of flaws in the business model, it is a reflection of a state of lawlessness. Caving in to the demands of the looters is not a solution, and looting is not a "business model". If this business model is to die, it must be replaced by a better business model. Again, crime is not an acceptable business model.
they are treating millions of good Americans like criminals.
Someone who steals is not "good". They are a criminal, and should be treated like one. Lock 'em up! bwahahahahahaha
No it isn't.
How can you stand by a proposed law that allows for 10 years in jail for sharing files? This is more time than they gave the people who stole (which deprives someone of property, something filesharing does not) my friend's car?
(1) you're comparing the maximum sentence for one crime to a sentence actually handed out for another. Not the same thing -- you're either dishonest or stupid.
(2) The above indicates the problem -- copyright infringement is as serious crime. Copyright infringers are ripping people off, big time. I don't see it as a lesser crime, and I don't see copyright infringers as more moral than common thieves (actually, given their socio economic background, I see them as worse, because they're people who you would hope have better upbringing)
It is then quite clear that current copyright law does NOT meet that standard. The time is quite clearly obscenely long (life +50 years) and therefore not the limited times the Constitution demands, and it has been twisted in such a way (the DMCA) that it no longer is used "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" but rather to attempt to maintain absolute control.
The point is that it provides financial incentive to content creators, which does indeed promote such progress by making more funds available for that purpose.
So quit with the "evil filesharers" crap. What they are doing my be against the law, but it is a law that has become unjust,
Look, the acts of the thieves have nothing to do with the long copyright terms, because nearly all of the "shared" files are relatively new material. So this argument of yours is baloney. The thieves are common criminals, and the punishment is well deserved.
As a final note: If copyright infringement is such a problem, why did the media industry make more money when Napster was active and less after it was shut down? (it's a rehetorical question)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. It's like saying "if shoplifting is such a problem, why did retail sales increase when the economy picked up ?".
When you have a bunch of unrepentent criminals, there's not much one can do besides simply kick their sorry asses. If these people don't understand morality, they will understand a good ass-kicking. So yes, laws will help. But what is more important is effective enforcement. Lock up a few of the big time pirates, and you'll see less big time pirates.
My opinion is equally simple: If you don't want your music shared for free, find another line of work. No laws required for that, no prison terms, no sermons from up on high. And totally compatible with the reality of the situation.
That's like saying, if you don't want your store looted, robbed, or to be completely realistic, shoplifted from, then don't set up a store. You can't stop shoplifting, so why should there be laws against it ? Most of the goods in your store "cost too much" anyway, so why blame people for doing "what comes naturally" ?
Criminals should be treated as criminals. The fact that it's easy to commit the crimes, or that the criminals don't have a guilty conscience does not excuse them.
Oh, fantastic. You get to decide how much money the musician gets to earn ? Does that mean that they also get to decide how much money you should earn too ?
Just like identity theft. It's not really identity theft unless the victim forgets who he is, or at least no longer posseses the personality traits that used to define who he was. It's just "identity infringement", which of course means the perpetrator isn't necessarily a common felon after all.