Major Copyright Judgement

[Yoink]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that technology is sold specifically on the basis that I should use it to convert eg my vinyl record, or tape or VHS tape (which I paid for) to a digital copy - which gives the same result as if I downloaded the MP3s or film but I believe would be considered as something very different by RIAA. Although, as I also stated, I thought they didn't allow the former activity either....so how can shops sell kit specifically for that purpose?

And, once again, you would be completely wrong on all counts. It is entirely legal for you to make a digital copy of your vinyl record, or tape, or VHS. It is not legal for you to make copies and sell them, no, but it is entirely and unquestionably and explicitly legal for you to make a copy for your personal use. And no, that is not in any way the "same" as downloading the MP3. A digitized copy of your analog "first sale" copy is not by anyone's definition the "same" as the MP3 that you would download.

 

[Gate2501]

You are the desperately trying to seize on a very limited and technical definition of the word in order to find some moral excuse for a clearly immoral practice.

No, I am trying to be extremely objective and completely separate this argument from morality, which is entirely subjective. You have now resorted to making unfounded assertions, and assigning motives to me, instead of attacking my argument.

Your argument seems to be that common folk call it theft, so it is theft. This doesn't fly in court, and the police still won't be interested in the fact that I just finished downloading season 3 of The Wire.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Except that people who don't buy something and don't download it, don't want it, and don't have it. Since the owner of the intellectual property gets to set the conditions by which you can use their property, you must abide by those conditions, including paying money. So, if you don't, then yes, the owner loses money as surely as if you had stolen the CD from the factory that makes them.

That's a false dichotomy - The alternative is that the downloader wants something, but not for the price given, and they have an opportunity to obtain it for less.

 

[Belz...]

I'm alluding to the notion that an artist, by definition almost, does something for the art itself, and not for the reward. The reward is incidental. If that artist is doing it for the reward, they are not an artist, but a businessman.

I disagree. If the art is a hobby, and they happen to make money from it, sure. But people who are professional artists make a living from their art, so the money is NOT incidental.

As an analogy, I'm a computer programmer. I do this work because I enjoy it. But the money I'm paid is NOT "incidental". I make a living from doing this type of work. And I don't cease being a "programmer" and start being a "businessman" because of this.

 

[Yoink]

I'm alluding to the notion that an artist, by definition almost, does something for the art itself, and not for the reward. The reward is incidental. If that artist is doing it for the reward, they are not an artist, but a businessman.

My argument does not rely on this narrow interpretation of what does, or does not, constitute art, or artists.

Great. Then only download the music of "true artists" who are giving the music away for free. Funny how you hate the "commercial" artists who are "betraying" their art by seeking remuneration, but you still somehow want to steal their terribly terribly corrupt music.

It isn't your right to determine how the artist makes a living. If they don't want to give the music away, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

 

[Belz...]

That's a false dichotomy - The alternative is that the downloader wants something, but not for the price given, and they have an opportunity to obtain it for less.

That's not a false dichotomy, because that was implicitly included in the choices I gave: pirates WANT and HAVE the item, at loss (or at least no gain) for the owner, whereas people who don't pirate DON'T WANT (for that price, anyway) and DON'T HAVE the item.

 

[Yoink]

No, I am trying to be extremely objective and completely separate this argument from morality, which is entirely subjective. You have now resorted to making unfounded assertions, and assigning motives to me, instead of attacking my argument.

Your argument seems to be that common folk call it theft, so it is theft. This doesn't fly in court, and the police still won't be interested in the fact that I just finished downloading season 3 of The Wire.

It doesn't have to fly in court. A) we're not in court; we're talking about how this should be perceived in the normal course of events. B) if and when it DOES get into court, then it doesn't matter that you can't use the specific term 'theft'--you use the specific terminology that applies to the case: copyright infringement. And guess what? That's still illegal.

ETA: and thanks for providing a foundation for my assertions. I'm sure that the brilliant and woefully under-employed actors in The Wire are enormously grateful to you for robbing them of the small amount of extra money they would have received from legitimate DVD sales.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Great. Then only download the music of "true artists" who are giving the music away for free.

Magnatunes.

Funny how you hate the "commercial" artists who are "betraying" their art by seeking remuneration

Do I?

but you still somehow want to steal their terribly terribly corrupt music.

Do I? And would I really be stealing it - You know, other than colloquially?

It isn't your right to determine how the artist makes a living.

It's was me (inasmuch as I am a member of the public in a vague democracy) that gave them the right to profit from their works almost in perpetuity. Why should that right not extend to removing it too?

If they don't want to give the music away, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

The right is a legal construct in the first place. It's still not stealing though. Except by your own colloquial interpretation of the word.

 

[CatInTheBag]

I disagree. If the art is a hobby, and they happen to make money from it, sure. But people who are professional artists make a living from their art, so the money is NOT incidental.

I think that was my point - Once the money becomes not incidental, and becomes and end in itself, it's the art that suffers.

As an analogy, I'm a computer programmer. I do this work because I enjoy it. But the money I'm paid is NOT "incidental". I make a living from doing this type of work. And I don't cease being a "programmer" and start being a "businessman" because of this.

I agree.

My whole point on the art part is entirely incidental, however, and tangential.

 

[Gate2501]

Yes, I am. And how am I wrong ? In both cases the "thief" now has something that doesn't belong to him, at the author's cost, whether financial or material. So where's the real difference ?

It has already been pointed out repeatedly that the gain on the part of the infringing party and the thief is not the single relevant point in such an analogy between physical and intellectual property.

Issues are rarely black and white. But in what cases _don't_ you consider copyright infringement wrong ?

Frankly, my own. I have brought this up before, as Funk knows. I am on disability and get about 700 a month to live on. I am raising a now 4 year old child and have almost zero disposable income. It isn't a sob story, I am really quite happy, but after I pay the bills and outfit/feed the kiddo I got nothin'. I can't even afford a legit OS (currently running a cracked win7).

I do spend it first if I have disposable income. I can't save it after all, my max allowed assets is 2k$ and I have to report my checking balance every few months.

I do feel a bit of a moral sting when I have 50 or 60 dollars left(very rare) at the end of the month, and I must decide what to spend it on. It ends up almost being arbitrary and more based on the release schedule of games/music/movies than what I would really like to see that little bit of money go to.

So yeah, my bias stands declared.

 

[CatInTheBag]

That's not a false dichotomy, because that was implicitly included in the choices I gave: pirates WANT and HAVE the item, at loss (or at least no gain) for the owner, whereas people who don't pirate DON'T WANT (for that price, anyway) and DON'T HAVE the item.

So these are the choices:
1. Want it: Buy it.
2. Want it: Download.
3. Want it: Do nothing.

2. and 3. "lose" the IP owner money.

 

[Yoink]

Magnatunes.

Do I?

Do I? And would I really be stealing it - You know, other than colloquially?

It's was me (inasmuch as I am a member of the public in a vague democracy) that gave them the right to profit from their works almost in perpetuity. Why should that right not extend to removing it too?

The right is a legal construct in the first place. It's still not stealing though. Except by your own colloquial interpretation of the word.

Try looking the world "colloquial" up. I must say it's no surprise to me that people stupid enough to be able to justify blatant theft to themselves with these transparently false arguments are also too stupid to understand a four-syllable word. Hint: it doesn't mean "idiosyncratic," or "invented," or "arbitrary."

As for the pathetic argument that you "gave" them the right so you can "take it away": A) if you can individually and arbitrarily remove it, it's not a "right," is it? B) the whole point of a social action like conferring a right is that it cannot be arbitrarily and individually abrogated. You "gave" women and black people the right to vote; that doesn't mean you can go to a polling booth and tell individual black people that their vote is no good.

Just because you don't think copyright laws get the balance of rights and obligations quite right does not give you the right to arbitrarily re-write them--any more than you have a right to commit any other felony because you happen to personally think the laws are ill-conceived.

 

[Yoink]

It has already been pointed out repeatedly that the gain on the part of the infringing party and the thief is not the single relevant point in such an analogy between physical and intellectual property.



Frankly, my own. I have brought this up before, as Funk knows. I am on disability and get about 700 a month to live on. I am raising a now 4 year old child and have almost zero disposable income. It isn't a sob story, I am really quite happy, but after I pay the bills and outfit/feed the kiddo I got nothin'. I can't even afford a legit OS (currently running a cracked win7).

I do spend it first if I have disposable income. I can't save it after all, my max allowed assets is 2k$ and I have to report my checking balance every few months.

I do feel a bit of a moral sting when I have 50 or 60 dollars left(very rare) at the end of the month, and I must decide what to spend it on. It ends up almost being arbitrary and more based on the release schedule of games/music/movies than what I would really like to see that little bit of money go to.

So yeah, my bias stands declared.

So you can't afford it, and therefore you have a right to steal it. Gotcha.

Do you have a right to steal books from bookstores too? If not, why not? What if you leave behind enough money to cover the actual losses to the bookstore (but not any profit)? Would that make it o.k.? Why not?

 

[Gate2501]

Try looking the world "colloquial" up. I must say it's no surprise to me that people stupid enough to be able to justify blatant theft to themselves with these transparently false arguments are also too stupid to understand a four-syllable word. Hint: it doesn't mean "idiosyncratic," or "invented," or "arbitrary."

As for the pathetic argument that you "gave" them the right so you can "take it away": A) if you can individually and arbitrarily remove it, it's not a "right," is it? B) the whole point of a social action like conferring a right is that it cannot be arbitrarily and individually abrogated. You "gave" women and black people the right to vote; that doesn't mean you can go to a polling booth and tell individual black people that their vote is no good.

Do you think you might be getting a little too fired up here? Your posts are becoming wild and crazy.

 

[Gate2501]

So you can't afford it, and therefore you have a right to steal it. Gotcha.

Do you have a right to steal books from bookstores too? If not, why not? What if you leave behind enough money to cover the actual losses to the bookstore (but not any profit)? Would that make it o.k.? Why not?

No, I don't steal things. I wouldn't want someone to take something from me, so I do not take things from others. On the other hand, if I was a recording artist, I wouldn't really care if someone like me downloaded a song to which I own the copyright, so long as I wasn't uploading it to everyone else or further sharing it(I don't).

I don't feel bad for downloading media which will make my life much more enjoyable at no loss to anyone else.

 

[Yoink]

No, I don't steal things. I wouldn't want someone to take something from me, so I do not take things from others. On the other hand, if I was a recording artist, I wouldn't really care if someone like me downloaded a song to which I own the copyright, so long as I wasn't uploading it to everyone else or further sharing it(I don't).

I don't feel bad for downloading media which will make my life much more enjoyable at no loss to anyone else.

So you would feel o.k. stealing books from a bookshop, so long as you left enough money behind to cover the actual losses?

 

[Kotatsu]

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You download it from a pirate site. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You steal it from a store. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You make one yourself. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You find one in the woods. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. A friend, who has two, gives one to you. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. A friend has grown tired of his, and is about to throw it away, and you ask if you can have it. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You pray intensely to a god of your choice, and the next morning -- as if by magic -- it is lying on your desk in a gift box with your name on it. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. A fairy gives you three wishes, and once you have used the first two to get a life-time supply of ice cream and your own geostationary space station, you spend the last wish on getting it. You now have it.

Yes, it seems you are onto something with your comparison!

 

[Yoink]

Do you think you might be getting a little too fired up here? Your posts are becoming wild and crazy.

If it's crazy, you'd think it would be easy to mount a counter-argument.

 

[WildCat]

So its all about semantics again?

Words have meanings funk. You don't get to make up definitions for common words as you see fit just for dramatic effect.

 

[Gate2501]

So you would feel o.k. stealing books from a bookshop, so long as you left enough money behind to cover the actual losses?

Dude, why can't you just talk about copyright infringement and illegal downloading.

These contrived physical theft scenarios are becoming ridiculous.