About theft and piracy

Great Debates
61

It is a violation; you don’t actually own the software; you own a license to use that software, and unless you’ve paid for a multi-user license, most EULAs say you can only install that software on one computer. Period. Full stop. (BTW, the OP did refer to software as well as music.)

As for your argument that there are other ways of previewing a CD, I didn’t even know that ‘listening stations’ had come back in use again–I thought they all went out in the '50s! As far as listening to the radio, I doubt I’m going to hear the latest Shriekback, Theater of Tragedy or Gene Loves Jezebel tracks on the radio.

62

so, bottom line is you want some one else’s product, but not on their terms? Your options, as far as I can see are : select another product (which may or may not serve the purpose as well), accept the product on their terms and grumble all the while, or lower your moral standards by cheating/theiving.

:shrug:

(pld re nitpick - are you saying that Paul was never compensated for writing his songs? -whoever sold 'em to Mikey - if Paul was compensated, then the original of ‘if you want control over your product don’t sell it’ remains the standard)

One thing I’m not at all getting is why people think that they have an absolute ‘right’ to something in the first place. I’m still waiting for that damn pony, ya know. Especially since what you’re talking about is suff that you merely want. who was it on the first page condemning Mercedes Bentz for pricing their cars out of that poster’s reach, when he really, really wanted it. just not at that price.

63

Not exactly, wring. The way it worked was this: Dick James Music Publishing set up a company called Northern Songs Ltd. to handle the publishing rights to Lennon/McCartney compositions (and a couple early George Harrison tunes). Lennon and McCartney were shareholders in Northern Songs, but they never owned it. (Harrison and Starr were also given some shares.) They were, at the time, a couple of kids faced with sudden success, and had no clue about music publishing, so they never have controlled the destiny of their own music with the Beatles.

Brian Epstein was a great manager for the band, but he also allowed them to be exploited in a number of ways. Their royalty rate on albums and singles was ridiculously low, and their publishing deal, while making them a lot of money, took control away from them. Both eventually got smart and took over their own publishing when they Beatles broke up.

64

wring:

The point is, if someone is not interested in distributing their intellectual property for profit, the copyright laws could be changed so that others could freely distribute said property. The point is, copyright laws have been influenced greatly by those who wish to extend their often unfairly acheived “ownership” of intellectual property indefinitely. The point is that bad copyright laws are taking away our fair use rights, doing away with competition, and even destroying free speech and scientific research. Does a record company have the right to stop programmers from developing, distributing, or even talking about legitimate computer security programs, just because these programs could possibly prevent the record company from searching your computer? Do they have the right to ban tools that could possibly be used for piracy, rather than going after the individual offenders? Is the next step to ban scientists and computer programmers from the country? Now, more than ever, it is essential that we have alternatives, that we do not allow all power to reside with an entity that will cause great harm to almost every aspect of our lives.

Huh? Bands that get no promotion are in favor of file sharing. It’s really quite simple. There is currently no way other than file sharing to hear their music. Not only are they being helped, but they acknowledge that fact. The ability of a band to build an audience without promotion means that they can get a much better deal with a label, and means that they do not have to go with a major label at all. It makes indie labels viable. Major labels try to control all aspects of production, advertising, and distribution, stifling creativity and bleeding the artists dry. If artists can produce (technology is cheaper now), advertise (word of mouth, music reviews, file sharing), and distribute (file sharing) on their own, the record companies have less leverage. So yes, the record companies are hurt. But they NEVER had the right to make extra money using monopoly and coercion in the first place!

First of all, I think we need to take a hard look at the reason why it is so easy for companies to obtain copyrights over things that rightfully belong to the author/artist. Why should Shakespeare have to sell all rights to his own works, just because he wants to get them published? Could it possibly be because the companies use their power to make unfair laws? Secondly, in your example the plays would still exist. What if they wanted to just burn the plays and never let them be distributed? I think we may be at an impasse at this point, because I simply do not believe they have the right to do that.

I still think it is indefensible that companies are able to control all aspects of production and distribution to such an extent that everyone must bow to their commands. I still think it is indefensible that they are able to use their power to create ridiculously unfair and harmful laws. I think the necessity of having alternate methods of distribution outweighs the rights of the record companies to coerce artists into terrible contracts. I don’t merely “want” alternate methods of distribution to be available, I think they are essential. But no, let’s just ban scientists and programmers from the country. Let’s ban computer security, I’m sure it has no valid uses. Let’s force authors and artists to give up all the earnings that are rightfully theirs, just for the priviledge of their work being distributed. The major companies have the law on their side, heck they own the law, so everything they do is always absolutely fair and right.

65

ok so pld what you’re saying is that Paul etc. were part owners (shareholders) in the company at one time, apparently got compensation for their work, but not as much as you think they should have or in retrospect that they were worth.

how is that different from me painting a painting, selling it for $5, and some one else managing to sell it for $5 mil?

NT - your position on length of copyrights etc. still does not give you permission to steal today.

The smaller bands are in favor of shareware? And the larger ones are not, eh? could that be 'cause the smaller ones have nothing to loose in the proposition? Their stuff gets listened to, perhaps gets hot, perhaps not, but either way, they’ve been compensated for their time and effort, and w/o risk. The larger bands, of course, you don’t seem to have sympathy for their loss - and that would be why? (note I’m asking, not attempting to attribute motives to you).

Again, why do you have a right to that which you did not pay for, nor create yourself? Why do you have a right to own something at **your ** terms vs. the terms of the prior owner?

Are you justified to sneak into a movie theater w/o paying 'cause after all, there’s empty seats there and you’re not physically removing any cash from some one’s pocket?

The artist has choices, again, they may not be the ones the artist personally wishes for, but they have choices.

Dad chose to do shit piece work to support his family until his own personal designs took off, rather than hire onto a big company to market his stuff.

66

I wasn’t bringing up the McCartney deal as part of the overall debate, wring, just correcting a particular point: He didn’t sell the songs to Jackson, because they were never his to sell. He and Lennon didn’t even understand or realize until it was far too late that their Northern Songs deal meant they didn’t own their own songs.

I haven’t even taken a position on the larger debate in this thread, but I will. The issues of copyright and control and ownership are important because they frame the whole issue of file sharing.

The record labels (I’ll confine myself to that because I am not knowledgeable about the software biz) are using oligopoly powers to exercise control, and to try to increase control, over every step of music distribution, sales, and listening.

–They’ve got “copy-protection” schemes that prevent you from listening to a CD on your computer at all. The discs simply won’t play in a PC; and what’s more, they aren’t really “CDs” in the technical sense at all, because they are not created in compliance with the Red Book standards. They want to control where you listen to your music, and on what kind of device.

–They’ve got Congressmen introducing bills to allow the RIAA to hack your computer, and use denial-of-service attacks (which are illegal), to see if you’ve got copyrighted material on your computer and cripple them if you do. Of course, they don’t know if I own the music legally or not. I’ve got about a hundred vinyl records sitting in my closet; if I want a digital copy to listen to at work, it’s easier for me to download a copy of the album than to try to record vinyl onto my hard drive. They have no way to distinguish that; they just want to search my hard drive for mp3s.

–They’ve already been nailed by the FTC for price-fixing.

–They want all digital music and video devices equipped with features that would make them essentially useless.

I could go on, but others can do a better job explaining it than I have. Now, does any of this justify, in the strictest sense of the word, intellectual property theft? No – and in fact, if you search for my screen name and “Napster,” you’ll see that I’ve argued against P2P programs in the past. But each new action of the record companies convinces me that, as moral wrongs go, file sharing is around the level of double parking. The RIAA is fighting to hold on to a dying distribution model, and doing so in ways that are profoundly unethical.

67

fine by me pld, (I was the one who invoked Paul/Michael in the first place, thanks for clearing up the factual piece).

I do recall your stance in the Napster threads.

I acknowledge that I’m not as knowledgeable as you re: the shenanigans of the record co’s etc.

However, as you point out, their unethical behavior does not give others the right to steal.

Anyhow, AFAIAC, the point has been made. It is indeed theft, others may choose to justify the behavior, but I believe that even they (at some level ) see that it’s a case of justification vs. no, it’s not theft (like, ok, so it’s theft, but they can afford to loose that amount, I really want it and besides they’re really bad people anyhow).

68

I find the lawsuits against Napster et al rather hypocritical. You may call it theft, wring, but I see it as laziness by the industries.

When technology makes a person’s job obsolete, the capitalist says “Tough, it is your responsibility as an employee to ensure that your skills are necessary for the current market.” But when a company’s profits are threatened by technology, all of the sudden “This is theft! They are stealing our property! We need to prosecute!” You can’t have it both ways.

Personally I stand on the side of technology both ways. It is your job to ensure that your skills are marketable, and it is your job to ensure that your product is marketable. If it can be easily copied/distributed without your consent, then it is your responsibility to either come up with a new distribution scheme or shift your market approach. It is not and should not be the job of the federal government to shut down any technological innovations that harm your business model.

69

Yes, thank you wring. I already knew the difference between Walmart and the download. The only thing i said is that one does not harm the record company more than the other. You can argue about this saying that that if everybody previewed that way, Walmart would buy one CD less (which is not going to happen anyways) because they wouldn’t need to use jukeboxes. But don’t you think that saving the environment is more important? Don’t you? :smiley:

And while i do realize that stealing even a single cent from Billy would indeed be morally wrong, i just can’t help but know that I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. Hey, you brought up the subject and asked me. So either I am evil :eek: or I am morally flexible (I don’t know any human that is perfect in that aspect) as you are yourself and as our friend Billy most certainly is. Where do I draw the line is another question. Divide $200 by whatever Gates has in it’s possesion right now and whatever percentage that is where i draw the line.

Did anybody buy that? :stuck_out_tongue:

70

tulley two things - A. technology moves quite quickly these days. The fact that some one is able to defeat your alarm system, doesn’t mean that you deserve to be the victim of theft.

B. The industries involved are making attempts to deal w/the advances, but as noted, it takes time.

G do we buy it? awww, come on.

71

So what do you say to the guy who’s been downsized because a computer can do his job? Why should employees be accountable to advancements in technology and not companies? Because theres’ a law that says so?

72

???

Technological advances help many, hurt many as well. My point (unanswered) to you was that why should a technological advancement be an acceptable justification to steal from anyone?

When the first cordless phones came out, unscrupulous people could roam around and catch onto other people’s frequency, record conversations, etc. Didn’t make it legal, moral or right.

I feel compassion for folks downsized due to the economy, technological advancements etc. My advice to any and all in those situations is to retrain for the existing world. As, it seems (and I noted) that the companies in question are attempting to do

still don’t see what this has to do w/the debate, such as it is.

73

If listening to a song without compensating the artist is stealing the artist’s labor, then so is:

  • Listening to a CD at a friend’s house
  • Running a program on a friend’s computer
  • Reading a book at the library
  • Taping a TV show and watching it more than once

Take the first example. If I go to a friend’s house and he plays the new Eminem CD for me, I get to take advantage of Eminem’s labor without paying for it. My friend may have paid for it, but I didn’t.

However, it’s not illegal or immoral. Why? Because making use of someone else’s labor without paying for it isn’t always wrong. Every time I walk through the automatic door at Safeway, I’m taking advantage of years of research, which I’ve certainly never paid for, but nobody cares.

Therefore, the conclusion that copyright infringement is immoral needs a better justification than “you’re taking advantage of the artist’s labor without paying for it.”

Stealing is wrong because you’re depriving the original owner of something. If you steal a car from the lot, the car dealer has lost thousands of dollars worth of inventory. However, a copyright holder is not made any poorer when someone pirates his works.

In some cases, pirating a copyrighted work deprives the copyright holder of a potential sale. Is a potential sale worth protecting? Well, the same is true of the situations I listed above: If I can listen to the Eminem CD at my friend’s house, I might not want to buy my own copy anymore, so the record label has lost a potential sale. If I can read a book at the library, I might not want to buy it. If I can use Microsoft Word at work, I don’t need to buy a copy to use at home.

So clearly a potential sale is not worth protecting, at least in these instances. Why should it be different in the case of file sharing?

74

Mr2001 I never claimed that listening to the song w/o compensation was theft. I claimed that downloading it (causing it to be in your possession) was.

In fact, I repeatedly suggested that there were legal means to hear /test out a C/D , such as ‘listening to it on the radio, listening to it at the store, at a friends, borrowing it from the library’. Any of which either a) involved compensation to the owner and/or b) was allowed by the owner

75

This argument about theft needs some clarification. When someone takes my car, it is stealing my property. When someone is pirating music/software, it is denying compensation for a product. These are two distinct things. My car is not available for public sale.

If someone is trying to sell me a car and I choose not to buy it because there is a machine that duplicates cars free of charge, then it is the auto maker’s job to account for that feat of technology. We shouldn’t be limiting our technological capabilities just because they happen not to coincide with the concerns of certain businesses.

To answer your question directly, I don’t see this as theft the way you do. I see this as a natural progression of technology, and just like any major advancement some people win and some people lose. It is the job of the businesses, not the government, to deal with it. To use your cell phone example, it was the responsibility of the cell phone companies to create digital phones that discouraged piracy made easy by the early analogue phones.

76

and of course, as I pointed out, the companies are making attempts to catch up with technology. However, any technological advance does take time.

Like I said - if the theif manages to bypass your alarm system, does that mean he gets a walk since it was your obligation to keep up w/the technology?

77

If you are against the record companies and their legal* but reprehensible tactics, boycott them. That means not listening to any music put out by any company of which you disapprove. Otherwise, all you are trying to do is justify actions which you know are wrong.

Nightime posted:

No way in hell should it be. If I am Michaelangelo’s distant heir, and I sculpt David II every bit as good as the original and decide to then destroy it, should you come along and take it away from me because I don’t wish to profit? Or perhaps you feel you should be able to endlessly copy my David II because I chose to only make one?

Let’s move it to music. I’m a famous performer who decides to retire in a blaze of glory. I will play one last concert of all new music in a stadium, with open bidding on the seating. I’m offering a unique product, one time only, never to be released in any other form. If you can’t afford the seats, do you still have a right to my work, simply because I choose not to distribute it? Why?

*Legal in that anyone can try to influence Congress to pass laws in their favor, whether or not said laws stand up to judicial review.

78

Actually, if my earlier-corrected knowledge of fair use of copyrighted material is accurate, all of these fall under that heading.

Stealing would be copying the CD or program, copying the entire book, or charging people to watch the TV show. Fair use also ends when you make an item you own available for mass distribution, whether or not you profit from it.

US Copyright Office

Discussed in this thread

You could play that one Eminem CD to the entire world (but please let me off first). You could play it repeatedly. But you can’t let anyone else have a copy of it. [Actually, that is a very gross exaggeration and I know it, else Internet radio wouldn’t be having the problems it is. Again, I feel as if RIAA is being an ass in their handling of the situation, but it doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to pirate the material].

79

Well, one could argue that destroying intellectual property is theft from society. By creating intellectual property and then displaying it to the public, you’re making an implicit transaction with society in which society gets the intellectual property and you recieve compensation (wealth, fame, …). When you destroy said property, you do not lose your half of the deal but society does. If you’ve shown your David II to the world, you have an obligation to continue doing so (at a profit if you want) or to give (or sell) it to someone who will.

80

As I said earlier, the thief taking my property (IMHO since IANAL) is different from the napster issue. In one situation, a private individual has a unique possesion on private property that is being taken without permission by another private individual. With napster, you have unauthorized duplication of a product for sale by a company to the public. I don’t think these are identical “crimes” and should not be treated as such.

As for the hypothetical famous performer, D_Odds, I would argue he has whatever rights to his performance that he can secure. He has the right to search entrants and not allow recording devices to the show, but if a bootleg somehow escapes then I think he is SOL. However bootlegs are almost uniformly of poor quality, so what bands do is release an official version of superior quality. This way they combat the pirates and still make some money out of the deal. In other words - and this is the main point I’m trying to make - it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure the succesful sales of the product. I don’t believe we should have the federal government running around saving corporations from pirates.