First of all, this is not really a pitting, it’s an honest question. But I thought it safest to put it here. My intention is not to bash or even debate the views of the moderators.
The question, with some explanation, is as follows. We’ve all noticed that the rule that seems to be most strictly enforced here at the SDMB is the one about not discussing file sharing, copyright violation techniques, etc. So, okay, I can accept that this enforcement is a decision handed down from above, perhaps even from the Perfect Master himself. And obviously, the mods need to enforce the rules, if for no other reason, to keep their jobs. Understood. But there are a lot of moderators, and I’ve noticed that many of them, in the process of closing threads discussing these proscribed topics, have added comments that imply that they personally disapprove of and/or are offended by the topics. So, what I want to know (most logically from the mods themselves, if they feel like it), is, do the mods truly and personally believe that KaZaA is the root of all evil, or are they just doing their jobs?
Like I said, I am not trying to start anything with the mods. I am just curious about their true opinions, and I felt that this thread had the potential to turn into a flame war if other posters wanted to make it that way, so I posted it here. Hopefully this post will be taken in the non-hostile manner in which it is intended.
yes. Personally, I’ve found that people who make their living from selling their creative works (written or artistic) tend to be pretty damned protective of copyrights. Go figure.
I think they are “doing their jobs” as opposed to acting on their personal feelings. It doesn’t seem likely that all the moderators would just happen to be file-sharing-haters or anti-copyright-violation-activists. My guess is that the corporate attorneys for the Reader have a lot of sway with how the website is run.
Keep in mind also, that if you’ve seen, say, manhattan close 5 or 6 threads on file sharing, then he’s probably closed many more in the time you’ve been watching. They tend to get sick of enforcing the same rules over and over again.
Consider that TubaDiva is a professional musician, some others are professional writers, and others of us sometimes get paid for our writings. It’s the Reader’s stand, as well, though not as much from a legal viewpoint as from a moral one. The Reader doesn’t like people lifting stuff from THEIR paper, and so it does not want to aid others to violate copyrights.
And good for them, too. Somebody’s got to look out for intellectual property rights; goodness knows enough people are ignoring them. Hooray for the intellectual property ‘nuts!’
From what I’ve seen, and I’m sure that this varies considerably by mod, it seems to be something like this:
[ul]
[li]One part feelings that authors’ intellectual property rights should be respected.[/li][li]Two parts understanding and acceptance of the Chicago Reader’s policy against infringement.[/li][li]Forty-three parts frustration at having to close another thread or edit another article posted by some numbnuts who couldn’t be bothered to read or follow the fucking rules.[/li][li]Eleven parts having to listen to that numbnuts and all of his or her whiny friends bitch about how the evil Nazi moderators[sup]TM[/sup] are oppressing them.[/li][li]Four parts having to move that thread to the Pit where it should have been started in the first place.[/li][/ul]
Another question: have any of the mods suffered demonstrated tangible harm from file sharing? Or is it a “what if” excercise, e.g., one day if I become as well-known as Metallica, people might lift my stuff and then I’ll feel harmed? Maybe by taking up the big artists’ pet cause, you can kid yourself that you’re in the same league as them.
And as for the writers–what possible impact would file sharing have on them? KaZaA could hardly be any worse than simple plaintext e-mail forwarding, could it?
Doghouse, I would expect it’s more of an issue of what is fair and right. If you create something, you might well sympathize with those who are being harmed by filesharing or other copyright/intellectual property violations, even if your work isn’t in any imminent jeopardy of having that happen to it.
I used to do the HTML and site maintenance for a couple of websites for small (“independent”) comic books, as well as my own personal site that included comic book reviews. I was always extremely diligent about fair use, and on the sites for the comic books I put carefully worded, serious statements about what would constitute fair use of the images there or out of the comics themselves. I did that because that was what was right. Just like I knew I would get pissed off if someone swiped an image that I had spent quite a while (occasionally hours; I was a perfectionist) tweaking to look just right on different browsers, etc., or if someone appropriated parts of my reviews improperly, I knew the comic artists and writers that I did work for would be equally annoyed if people were just posting big portions of their work. It is the work of the creator (or the copyright holder, who might not be the same person), and outside of fair use allowances, it is their say how their work gets used.
Uh, how about the simple and plain fact that it is STEALING. I really do not understand how anyone can be so dense as to not realize that it is out-and-out pilfering of someone’s work. It is no different than burglarizing someone’s property.
Are you really that clueless or do you simply not give a shit about taking something that does not belong to you. I liken your “any worse” scenario to asking whether there is a difference between holding up a bank with a hand gun or submachine gun.
Are you suggesting that discussion of e-mail systems be banned here? If not, why not? After all, e-mail can be used to “pilfer” copyrighted works just as easily as file sharing.
Ferret Herder–that seems fair enough, but it seems that you also recognize web sites as a legitimate medium for people to exchange images and information. I don’t see you bellowing that because the Web might facilitate some theft of your images, that the whole Web should be shut down and any discussion thereof should be eschewed henceforth and forever more.
Well, for shit’s sake folks. The file sharing systems hardly do anything but exchange copyrighted stuff. Email and the Web in general get used for lots more than just that. That’s why they clamp down on threads like “How do I get KaZAA to work right” and let threads like “How do I make an email attachment” stand.
Exchange of ideas and information good, fine. Stealing is another thing, though.
Hmmm, filesharing networks. Organized crime, anyone?
Jobs tend to select for people who believe that the rules exist for a good reason. Doesn’t matter whether the rules are about file sharing, posting links to goat porn sites, or how to make fertilizer bombs. If it’s not allowed here, they’re going to tend to put people in mod positions who’re likely to be opposed to it.
If I burglarize your house and take your DVD player, you no longer have a DVD player to use. If I make a copy of a song, you still can listen to your copy of the song.
Since I have not deprived you of anything by copying said song, I have not stolen anything. I have (probably) committed copyright infringment, but that is not the same as stealing from you.
This is why the law (at least currently) draws a distinction between stealing and copyright infringment.
I’ve downloaded hundreds of Dead and Phish shows, and a smattering of Flecktones and String Cheese Orchestra performances. In the sanctity of the law and with the blessing of the bands.
When you obtain an artistic work illegally, you deprive the artist of the royalties that they would have received had you obtained their product through legal means. And please don’t fire back with the tired old “I wasn’t going to buy it anyway” line.
Let me clarify that my last post was just to say that, yes, there are uses for file sharing that are legit in the artist’s eyes.
Although it would be nice to post a technical question to my favorite message board when [badfeministmode]my husband is not around to download for me[/badfeministmode], I have no problem with the Chicago Reader’s ban on discussion- their board, their rules.
But you have stolen/deprived income that the artist is rightfully entitled to. By your rationalization it would be okay to go out and buy the latest novel by S. King and then run off millions of copies at Kinkos to sell at half price. Okay with you right? I mean bloody hell, I didn’t deprive him of anything. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, but there’s a change coming 'round the bend. Just ask those college students that are currently being sued by the RIAA for a tidy sum. I hope they win.
Well, if this is going to turn into a debate on intellectual property, I may as well mention a point that occurred to me during the inevitable philosophical thinking session that occurred after I started this thread.
Why is it that, of all the businesses that exist in our economy, only musicians, writers, etc. have the right not to lose a sale? That is really what copyright law is doing. When you illegally download a song, you are not stealing the song - that is, the artist/label/etc. has not been deprived of any property that they previously possessed. What you are allegedly stealing is the money that the artist/label/etc. would have charged you if you had bought the recording from them, which you did not. You got it elsewhere. You did NOT steal the recording from anyone.
I run a small business on eBay. I pick up hubcaps off the roadside, recondition them, and resell them. People buy them from me because it is easier for them to pay the money and get the hubcap they need, than drive around all day stopping on the interstate trying to find a match. Suppose that were not the case; suppose hubcaps were so expensive that it made more sense for motorists to find replacements on the roadside than to buy them from me. Why is it that I am not protected legally from those lost sales? After all, I already own 4,000 hubcaps, I’ve spent a lot of time finding, repairing and cleaning them (compare to “the artist has already put effort into making the song, therefore they deserve…”). But, for me, our economy does not work that way. The law does not say that nobody except a few designated hubcap dealers can pick up hubcaps, and anyone else will be arrested on sight. The only thing the law protects is my physical property. People cannot steal the hubcaps I have in stock, but if they get them elsewhere and do not buy them from me, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.
Looking at it in this perspective, doesn’t it seem like there is something a little incongruent about copyright law when compared to the rest of our economy, which is based on the idea that if you can’t make a living selling some product because people can get it for free, then that’s your problem?