Feel free to take over here. I’m getting a headache from that brick wall.
One last thing before I go:
and THIS is why i still visit this place. even if i do find the politics and social structure abusive.
where else can you find as in-depth an open argument as here?
Jeff: I don’t believe there is a hard and fast rule as to what is inherently wrong and right. I think morality is just set up to keep a society coherent. If that was your problem with my post. Therefore sometimes abortion IS justified though unfortunate.
Just as I believe that the unlimited exposure created by Filesharing, increases the exposure of an artist enough that it is a necessary evil to be tolerate. As I said before, what is preferrable? 50% sales from a group of 10,000 or 10% sales from a group of 100,000?
Perhaps filesharing is destroying the large music market, my only answer to this is “good” even despite their shady practices, they create an artificial market for pop music that is not representative of any kind of diversity. I don’t think that musicians have any inherent right to be rich and famous, I’d like to see more of them making a living than are, and I think if the big labels had less market share and the indies more, we’d have fewer megastars but more underground stars. Kind of like the “local” celebrity thing from before mass international media started making certain people household names. I mean, who cares about a local celebrity anymore?
In the end I think the major labels may very well be losing their market share, but I think that’s a natural extension of the market that is taking away their rights to a monopoly.
Tejota: As for “Intellectual Property” vs “Intellectual Monopoly” I refuse to exchange one propaganda for another. Maybe Intellectual property is misrepresentative but it’s a thousand fold more representative than intellectual monopoly.
I think that the original intent of copyright, 14 years, plus a 14 year renewal in case the author is still alive is reasonable. Hell I’ll even be magnanimous and apply that to corporations. However, Disney STILL having the copyright to Mickey Mouse 75-100 years later is RIDICULOUS. The fact that Tolkien’s family still holds the copyright to Lord of the Rings is ridiculous. Copyright’s were not meant to be a meal ticket in perpetuity, society cannot handle that kind of free reign. Eventually every idea would fall under SOMEONE’S copyright. Are we eventually going to pay for every little concept within an idea we have to be able to produce something?
Erek
I was inviting you to take over for me regarding the brick wall that calls itself Mr2001. The one problem I have concerning this thread is the idea that only tangible items can be stolen, something Monty commented on back on page 2. Maybe Monty will come take a crack at that wall; I’m outta here.
Ahh ok, I do agree that it is theft. My personal take on it, however is that it’s theft that benefits society as a whole. The sharing of information in my mind supercedes that of ownership of information. The idea of copyrights in my mind was to give an incentive to someone to make sure their ideas got shared and didnn’t just sit in their notebook.
Erek
Is no one willing to take on my library analogy? Consider:
A) many people use the library in lieu of buying the books they read.
B) Libraries have photocopy machine sprinkled liberally through them.
C) Most libraries have record collections, and many people check out CD’s for the sole purpose of copying them.
D) The music industry fought to keep libraries from renting AV material
E) The music industry lost, because libraries were seen as a public good, even though everyone acknowledged that they are facilitating the copying and redistribution of copywritten material.
File sharing systems are the libraries of the 21st century.
With Sam Stone’s points in mind, maybe what we need here is a new definition of stealing in light of technological progess.
Copyright/patent law long ago was based on the difficulty of making a copy of something (book, sheet music, recording, whatever). The physical act of unauthorized (by the owner) copying was kept in check largely by this difficulty.
Making a copy of a 78 RPM phono record in, say 1930, was so expensive and clumsy that intellectual theft rarely occurred in this fashion.
I not arguing that intellectual property in 2002 is any different from 1800, at least in theory. But you can see the method of copying now is so radically different that, in a practical sense, it is nearly impossible to prohibit dissemination of a work to a large audience.
The average consumer feels much differently about “stealing” if it is incredibly easy and shows no immediate, obvious bad effects (Elton John is not begging in the streets, for example, and no Cop ever knocked on my door to examine my CD or MP3 collection).
Any law which can be so easily circumvented and is unenforceable makes a mockery of law itself. Its primary outcome is but to make criminals of us all.
So in theory, file sharing may be theft. But in all practicality, such a point is moot. And the possibility that sharing benefits the artist more in the long run should at least be considered.
Uh…what was that OP again?
Uh…that’s technological progress. Damned if I know what progess is.
The hamsters nibbled my preview. 
OK, I’ll let copyright infringement be theft, but only if I also get to equate two unrelated crimes. You guys can’t have all the fun.
Let’s see… how about jaywalking and animal cruelty? I don’t like jaywalkers, and I think animal cruelty conjures up the kind of mental image I need to rile people up against jaywalkers.
How can you all just stand idly by as pedestrians cross the street in the middle of a block? They’re a hazard to drivers, they’re putting themselves in danger, and they’re drowning kittens! Wouldn’t you be enraged if you saw someone torturing a cute, defenseless little kitten in front of you? Jaywalking is no different!
If anything, jaywalking is more dangerous than drowning kittens because it happens on a much larger scale–unlike “traditional” animal cruelty, jaywalking doesn’t require firecrackers, buckets of water, or even “physical” animals. Anyone can jaywalk at any time! Won’t someone please think of the kittens?
See, this type of post is exactly why I requested that people not take Mr2001 seriously. This is a perfect example of someone being on your side of the debate and making the case for the opposition better than the opposition.
Erek
Well, mswas, I hope no one took that post seriously. It should be clear that jaywalking and animal cruelty are different.
I just don’t see why “copyright = theft” needs to be taken as gospel. It has no basis in fact or law.
I think you underestimate the audience here. You see, I have enough faith in my fellow Dopers that I believe they can tell the difference between my objection to the word theft and my pro-file-sharing arguments. Just in case there’s any confusion:
I object to the use of the word theft to describe copyright infringement because it’s loaded and misleading. Copyright infringement is a crime and theft is a crime, but they are not the same. If you steal a CD from the store, you’ve committed theft; if you illegally download a song from Kazaa, you’ve committed copyright infringement.
I object to attempts to vilify file sharing because file sharing doesn’t contradict the purpose of copyright. Copyright law is intended to provide an incentive for artists to create, and although someone unfamiliar with the facts might think otherwise, file sharing doesn’t reduce that incentive.
If someone reads my previous post and thinks “Jaywalking is animal cruelty? Nah. Now theft and copyright infringement, those are the same, it even says so in my thesaurus!” … then they can still go on to read other posts about why file sharing is beneficial. Those arguments don’t rest on any definition of the word theft.
I don’t think that you meant Jaywalking and Animal Cruelty were the same, I thought it was a dumbass example.
I get your point. However I see it as theft. I just don’t see it being the same as Physical theft, because nothing is lost from the previous owner.
Erek