|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2006 : 17:45:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When I hear a song on the radio, I'm not paying for it. When I walk past a work of art on the street, I'm not paying for it. When I see a painting hung on the wall in the office or on campus, I'm not paying for it.
The radio station pays for it. They pay a royalty on every song they play.
But that isn't even relevent.
It is nothing at all like you copying my song and selling it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 18:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
When I hear a song on the radio, I'm not paying for it. When I walk past a work of art on the street, I'm not paying for it. When I see a painting hung on the wall in the office or on campus, I'm not paying for it.
The radio station pays for it. They pay a royalty on every song they play.
But that isn't even relevent.
It is nothing at all like you copying my song and selling it.
More than that. The idea of getting a song on the radio is so that a radio station has something for listeners because they are selling commercial time, unless they are listener or government funded. In either case, the artist who made the recording wants it on the radio for exposure. The idea is that if you like it you will go out and buy it…
Edited to add:
Songs must usually chart for a record company to make money off of their investment. A song or album will not chart if no one is buying it. If you make available free copies of songs through file sharing or however, you are absolutely cutting into sales. If an artist is not making money for a record company, the artist will be dropped. They could make some money playing live, but without new recordings, who will buy the tickets? No songs, no radio time, no one knows what you are doing. Playing only small local clubs does not pay the bills. Trust me on that. Tours usually happen in conjunction with the release of a new album. That is no accident. Unfortunately, the whole business is about sales. Everyone has to eat. Ooops, there goes your favorite band…
And all that is left are the large labels that own the mega groups who don't need new songs to survive. “Ladies and Gentleman, The Rolling Stones…”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 01:43:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Society and the law apply different standards to wrongs committed by children than they do to adults, as is appropriate... but I agree, and I don't with your statement... it's too general. For instance, it depends on the 12-year-old, the circumstances, and what was being done with these data files. For example, most aren't... but some 12-year-olds are "street-wise," arrogant, and have little or no regard for others, or other's property. Some such 12-year-olds even commit henious crimes- rare, but it happens. Albeit "exceptions to the rule," they must be somehow punished- if not rehabilitated (if possible) as well- for their own good, and society's good as well.
These people are always going to go with the criminal way of doing things. They are always going to find a way to do things the illegal way and there's no point trying to fix things so they can't. Every effort so far has done nothing to deter or slow down these people and everybody who wants to legally obtain whatever is being punished.
quote:
There are shades of gray- one couldn't judge such a situation without closely examining it, possibly in a court room. Was he probably intending to circulate or sell the information knowing this activity was wrong? I can't make a sweeping assumption based on such minimal information.
There are always shades of grey. But many of the people getting sued don't seem to be major pirates.
quote:
As for adults... "No." Whether information theft occurs via copyright violation, plagiarism, or other it's still fundamentally wrong in an ethical sense, and just because technology has presented new problems with enforcing security, we shouldn't just "throw up our arms" and say, "oh well, might as well make theft of some very valuable commodities legal" any more than were a new technological breakthrough made widely available which would enable most mechanical locks to be opened. Pending a better security solution, it doesn't make sense to throw basic ethical standards and respect for other's labors "to the wind". This is relatively new territory- we have to at least "give technology a chance" to manage the problem, even if it proves ultimately unsolvable before reaching for easy solutions that are unfair to people who've invested their time, money, talents, and sweat in these projects.
You seem to imply that that this is a "hopeless situation," maybe paralleling the "War on Drugs" in its futility, but there are big differences. That's been going on for over half-a-century at the cost of many billions of dollars and countless lives, with numerous enforcement strategies having been investigated, most having found to be ineffective as well as expensive... methods to cope with this haven't even been thoroughly investigated yet, let alone tried.
It is a hopeless situation. Especially when it comes to media. I am not trying to make parallels to anything. No analogies to common forms of theft work here. Because it's not "theft" regardless of what people want to think. The copyright holder has not lost anything. This is nothing like breaking into a house or stealing property. The only thing in common is that theft and piracy are unethical and illegal.
I don't think we should stop trying to make things better for the copyright holders but traditional attitudes have not worked, aren't working now and are probably never going to work, ever. This is new territory, come up with new solutions. Hell, with regards to music and videos, Apple's iTunes Music Store has already shown how to fix the problem. Get with the times people! |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 08:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Straw man again, of course. I haven't said anything about anyone not deserving to live.
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMackquote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Life.
If you're not willing to work for those things, you don't deserve to have them.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 08:57:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
It is a hopeless situation. Especially when it comes to media. I am not trying to make parallels to anything. No analogies to common forms of theft work here. Because it's not "theft" regardless of what people want to think. The copyright holder has not lost anything. This is nothing like breaking into a house or stealing property. The only thing in common is that theft and piracy are unethical and illegal.
Pirates rape, kill, burn and loot. Piracy is theft, and calling it piracy acknowledges that.
International copyright law recognizes two important things: that the creator of a literary or artistic work (computer software is considered "literary") has a right to determine how their work is communicated to the public, and the creator has a right to determine how their work is distributed. Piracy is, at the very least, the theft of those rights from a person.
All the party's talk about "freedom of information" is fine when the information is offered for free. But nobody is entitled to information I create unless I want them to have it. A right to information conflicts with my rights of communication and distribution, and in the long run it will stomp all over peoples right to privacy, because I can't see a way to make a sharp distinction between "personal" information and information which "should" be freely distributed.
(On another note, I find the "spread of culture" stuff to be complete bunk, given just how fast "culture" moves already. Plus, it seems the only way to promote the spread of "culture" is to force people to examine art, read books, etc., which conflicts with my right to liberty. After all, people will refuse to be exposed to some "culture" if they think it sucks. And some "culture" should, rightly, not be spread about willy-nilly, like child pornography.)quote:
This is new territory, come up with new solutions.
Actually, the problem is quite old. The first US copyright law was signed by Washington in 1790. Only the scale of infringement has grown, not the fact that it happens.quote:
Hell, with regards to music and videos, Apple's iTunes Music Store has already shown how to fix the problem. Get with the times people!
iTunes hasn't fixed the problem, it has only made it smaller in scale. Songs are still being pirated. The "I wouldn't pay for it no matter what, so getting myself a free copy isn't theft" attitude still exists, even when a song only costs ninety-nine cents.
I must say, however, that I'd be interested in hearing the details of marfknox's "socialist" solution to the problems. If you've already written them up, marfknox, just tell me what page they're on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 10:29:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Pirates rape, kill, burn and loot. Piracy is theft, and calling it piracy acknowledges that.
By that logic piracy is also sexual assault, murder and arson. At any rate basing this argument on the etymology of the word 'pirate' is dubious at best.
quote:
International copyright law recognizes two important things: that the creator of a literary or artistic work (computer software is considered "literary") has a right to determine how their work is communicated to the public, and the creator has a right to determine how their work is distributed.
I agree with this in principle, but then you say this:
quote:
Piracy is, at the very least, the theft of those rights from a person.
Violations of a persons rights are not nessessarily theft. For example, infringing on a persons right to life is not theft, it is murder, or should we be calling it 'theft of life' instead? |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 01/17/2006 11:00:56 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 11:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Violations of a persons rights are not nessessarily theft. For example, infringing on a persons right to life is not theft, it is murder, or should we be calling it 'theft of life' instead?
Um, a lot of people do, indeed, call murder the "taking of life." It does rob them of a longer life.
In general, if someone is going to take one of my established freedoms from me, it's going to be without my permission. How is that not theft, unless you want to get into semantic games like you said were "dubious at best?" Whether it's the theft of my car, or theft of my rights, the result is the same: I don't have what I once had, and not because I willingly gave whatever it is away or sold it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 11:22:47 [Permalink]
|
You've made a valiant effort to derail this thread in what appears to be an increasingly desperate attempt to defend your support of thievery, Bunga. Your perceived right to pirate software, music, art, and literature has, at best, only a minuscule relationship to the issue of human rights. This time you've actually built a straw man to prop up your own straw man. I'll give you a free one today. I won't even expect you to go through the effort of knocking it down yourself. Please, allow me...quote:
Originally posted by me...
I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that those who aren't willing to work for what they get don't deserve the advantages that are generated by those who are. If you're able, but not willing, to do the work necessary to put food on your table, I believe you have a perfect right to starve yourself to death.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 11:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In general, if someone is going to take one of my established freedoms from me, it's going to be without my permission. How is that not theft, unless you want to get into semantic games like you said were "dubious at best?" Whether it's the theft of my car, or theft of my rights, the result is the same: I don't have what I once had, and not because I willingly gave whatever it is away or sold it.
The problem is one of making distinctions between crimes of different types. All crimes can be classified as 'theft' in the sense you are using the term. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 12:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
You've made a valiant effort to derail this thread in what appears to be an increasingly desperate attempt to defend your support of thievery, Bunga.
Using the words 'piracy' or 'copyright infringement' instead of 'thievery' would be more correct here. Even if you feel that piracy is theft, it's obvious that Bunga is only in favor of making piracy legal and not other "types of theft".
Saying that Bunga supports thievery is also an oversimplification and thus a strawman. It's like someone accusing you of supporting deception since you are a magician. There's obviously more to it than that. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 01/17/2006 12:41:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 12:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
The problem is one of making distinctions between crimes of different types. All crimes can be classified as 'theft' in the sense you are using the term.
Which is irrelevant, since what Bunga has proposed is that taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of any sort. So yes, arson is "theft by fire"; murder is "theft of life"; extortion is "theft by coercion" and public urination is "theft of public cleanliness." It doesn't matter that we have multiple words for different kinds of theft when the issue at hand is whether or not "copyright infringement" is ethically defensible as not theft in any way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 13:23:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
The problem is one of making distinctions between crimes of different types. All crimes can be classified as 'theft' in the sense you are using the term.
Which is irrelevant,
It's relevant to our ability to communicate. The word 'theft' without a qualifier does not mean murder or arson or kidnapping it means 'theft of property or service'. You might call a murderer a 'thief of life' but you would never call him a 'thief' without specifing 'of life' and it would be misleading if you did.quote:
...since what Bunga has proposed is that taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of any sort.
That's merely because language is flexible. If I were to say that speeding is not theft of any sort would you feel that I was being misleading? Would you respond that speeding is theft of society's right to be free of speeders?
quote:
So yes, arson is "theft by fire"; murder is "theft of life"; extortion is "theft by coercion" and public urination is "theft of public cleanliness." It doesn't matter that we have multiple words for different kinds of theft when the issue at hand is whether or not "copyright infringement" is ethically defensible as not theft in any way.
Well if we're going to use theft to describe all crimes then we better start being very careful not to merely say 'theft' when what we mean is 'theft of property or services', otherwise we're gonna have a hard time understanding each other. So to rephrase what Bunga said, taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of property or services. It would however constitute theft of rights granted under copyright law. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt...
Using the words 'piracy' or 'copyright infringement' instead of 'thievery' would be more correct here. Even if you feel that piracy is theft, it's obvious that Bunga is only in favor of making piracy legal and not other "types of theft".
Part of my livelihood depends on being compensated for publishing, performing, or otherwise disseminating the results of my creativity, time, and effort. If someone cuts into my livelihood by taking the results of my work, without fulfilling my terms regarding due compensation, I don't see how that can be more succinctly described as anything but theft. But okay dv82matt, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the terminology here.
sed -e s/theft/theft by piracy/g
There, that ought to keep everyone happy. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone takes the results of your work without providing you your required compensation, you're welcome to use whichever synonym for the word "theft" you find comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:11:24 [Permalink]
|
I see your point, Matt. But then, since international law recognizes intellectual property, I'd have to disagree that copyright infringement is not "theft of property or services" (though it would not be "theft of physical property..."). And given that some people consider artists to be providing services more than they supply products, I'd also have to disagree that copyright infringement is not "theft of property or services."
Of course, the political party Bunga brought to our notice is attempting to eliminate the very notion of "intellectual property," thus making the current theft not theft, but because I don't buy the "spread the culture" rationalization, and current copyright laws include exemptions for education and criticism (thus eliminating the concern that copyrights impede the spread of "knowledge"), the only reason I can see for getting rid of the notion that intellectual property is partially legally equivalent to physical property is so that consumers of intellectual properties can access them more cheaply. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 14:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Part of my livelihood depends on being compensated for publishing, performing, or otherwise disseminating the results of my creativity, time, and effort. If someone cuts into my livelihood by taking the results of my work, without fulfilling my terms regarding due compensation, I don't see how that can be more succinctly described as anything but theft.
I'd still say piracy or copyright infringement is more precise. After all we're not talking about a burglary.quote:
But okay dv82matt, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the terminology here.
sed -e s/theft/theft by piracy/g
There, that ought to keep everyone happy.
Sorry I don't know what you're trying to prove with this. Is it a definition?quote:
But as far as I'm concerned, if someone takes the results of your work without providing you your required compensation, you're welcome to use whichever synonym for the word "theft" you find comfortable.
Well it comes across like you're just using the word 'thievery' to get a rise out of people. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
