Ok. I am not gonna get into the rest of the debate. But, this statement is rather easy to answer. In fact, it has already been answered.
Lets look at Phil’s words.
The difference is huge. Each time a song is played on the radio, the band gets paid for it. Just because you don’t pay any cash to hear it, doesn’t mean it is being played for free. When you download a band’s song from Napster you get the song for free.
pat
(Tech, happy now?)
Good point. I missed that post. I failed to mention that, and, cough was wrong.
Man 'a live. I’m beginning to think I need to turn myself in somewhere.
All kinds of issues here. Arguments, counter-arguments. Don’t agree with all of it, agree with some of it.
Still think the record industry needs to wake up and try to profit from it. It’s not going away folks. Lawsuits to shut down sites seems to me to be a bit backward thinking, IMHO.
Am I right to use Napster? I feel the tide coming agaisnt me. No, I’m not. Technically.
But I speed. And you can argue all over the place I’m breaking the law. Fine. I break the law. Technically. But it doesn’t keep me up at night.
And… this still doesn’t negate the fact that I find Bill H to be a smug S.O.B…
CnoteChris, I’ll take it as a personal favor if in future arguments, you don’t refer to me as an asshole, a son of a bitch, a fool, or any of the other inflammatory insults you utilized in this discourse. If you reread every one of my posts, you’ll see that I extended you that courtesy.
I’m not talking about terms backed by fact (or opinion of fact). For example, saying I’m smug or even self-righteous if you feel that’s true is appropriate. Of if you feel I’ve demonstrated qualities that make me a thief or whatever, then call me a thief or whatever. But terms which serve only to insult and inflame are not appreciated.
As I say, I did and will continue to extend that courtesy to you. I’d appreciate the same in return.
Cnote…
All right, I will. Here it is, painted out loud and clear:
…from http://www.reach.net/~scherer/p/copyrit1.htm#d7 (bolding theirs).
Now, are you going to provide a rebuttal, or not?
Basically, an Mp3 is not illegal. Using an Mp3 for illegal purposes, however… well… is.
(By the way… thanks for the assist, Bill. I was actually at that same site for a while 'til I realized that the above link left little to interpretation).
Quote: From Spoofe.
For sure, you can have GIGA Bytes of music files for your own personal use if they are created by yourself.
I was about to say what I was wrong about this issue. A point I made earlier in this thread.
But the closer I read this quote, the more I’m not quite so sure. ‘Created by yourself’ Seems to say to me you can record anything you want so long as you are the one creating it.
Oh, I don’t know anymore. Best to leave it to the lawyers of this world, not the bartenders.
Then again… No! I won’t go there.
Quote: From Bill
CnoteChris, I’ll take it as a personal favor if in future arguments, you don’t refer to me as an asshole, a son of a bitch, a fool, or any of the other inflammatory insults you utilized in this discourse.
And I’ll take it as a personal favor if you do likewise.
O.K. Call me an ignorant idiot, but I was under the impression that Napster was just a venue that enabled ME to download a song from YOU. I was also under the impression that Napster did not have any music on their servers. Now, if what I just said is true, then how can anybody say that getting a song from Napster is stealing, since I’m not getting the song from Napster?
What I’m trying to say is that if I download a song using Napster, from YOUR computer to MY computer, I did not get the song from Napster, I got it from YOU. I did not steal it from anybody. If it was stolen, then YOU stole it, or whoever you got it from stole it.
I also don’t get this. If I download a song using Napster, then I’m stealing, if I don’t already own the CD. Why would I download the song using Napster or whatever else, if I already owned the CD? How is downloading a song using Napster for my own use any different than recording the very same song off of the radio?
And also this. If I go out and buy a CD at Joe Blow’s Record Store and listen to it for a couple of days, then decide I don’t want it any more, if I take it to the local second hand store and sell it, then I have comitted an illegal act. Because, according to the way I read the posts in this thread, it is illegal to sell something that I already own. (Quite possibly, I read it wrong.) But if it is not illegal to sell it to a secong hand store, then why is it illegal to sell it to you? Or GIVE it to you.
If I put the CD that I BOUGHT on my computer and you download it using Napster, how did you steal it? It has been bought and paid for, legally, so how is that stealing? Like I said, I may be stupid, but I just don’t get it. If YOU had to PAY for something that I ALREADY PAID for, wouldn’t that be something on the order of the Government double taxing you, only in this case, paying for the same CD TWICE?
If I am wrong, I appologize for my rambling.
Bill…
I was just reading some posts I made before and ran accross this statement you made to Strider:
Strider, you publicly acknowledge that you’re a thief. You publicly state that you have a lack of morals and a lack of concern for the people you’re stealing from. Does this concern you? Or do you actually find these statements amusing or manly in some way?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28619
Response from Strider:
Do NOT put words in my mouth and do not assume that because I thought that guy’s preaching (was) sic. annoying that I must be an evil sinner who steals and is immoral and does not care about anything or anyone.
Is this clear enough for you or do you need more?!?!
Seems to me you’ve been going after any number of people on this issue. I never knew you took it so personally. And, you seem be the one calling names long before they call you anything.
Cheezit, you were joking, weren’t you?
(1) You aren’t paying twice. In your example, you paid once and your friend paid once. What’s so odd about that?
(2) It is not illegal to sell something to a second-hand store. You have sold the one CD you have: you don’t have it any more. There’s been no copying, and therefore no infringement of copyright law.
(3) I don’t know about the US, but knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime in Britain. How are you not culpable of a similar crime in the quote above?
(4) By allowing people to take free copies, you are denying the producer of the album sales. Now, I’m not going to debate record company profits, because that’s a whole other story, but technically, you infringed the law and as a result people have been able to get a product without paying for it.
Disclaimer: I don’t use Napster (dial-up modems & metered telecoms = not worth the effort), but I have infringed copyright law myself in the past. As has been said already, while this might not be Crime Of The Century, it is still, technically, illegal, and while it may not be the most unethical thing I could do, I believe it is immoral to deny someone the fruits of their labour. I fail to see what the problem is: by all means use Napster, but please don’t deny that you are taking something by means that the producer has not consented to.
Quote: Matt:
(2) It is not illegal to sell something to a second-hand store. You have sold the one CD you have: you don’t have it any more. There’s been no copying, and therefore no infringement of copyright law.
Isn’t this avoiding paying the artist and the record industry?
Napster is facilitating the stealing, regardless of whether they store the material or not. That’s my opinion, and was also the opinion of Judge Patel, who issued the shutdown ruling, saying something to the effect that she saw no purpose for it other than to allow people to illegally duplicate and distribute copyrighted material.
No, no, no, no, no. You need to familiarize yourself with copyright law. Buying a CD does not mean you can just start copying it and handing it out to everyone you know, in whole or in part. If I pay for it, and I put i on my computer, and you download it through Napster, we are BOTH committing copyright violations, and Napster is facilitating those violations.
I’m sure I don’t know. In any case, the only way to get the legal right to own and use a copy of that intellectual property is to pay for it.
From where you’re sitting? Nothing. Either way, it’s getting the use of intellectual property without paying for it. From the artist’s perspective? He or she got paid for every single instance of radio airplay. He or she gets paid for NOTHING every time the song is downloaded through Napster.
Technically, **in regards to recorded music, ** yes.
Please look over the copyright laws:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
It is illegal to do all three, in varying degrees.
It has been bought and paid for by YOU. That IN NO WAY gives you the legal right to duplicate and redistribute it, for pay or for free. That is a big-time copyright violation.
If you buy the new Tom Clancy book, can I just come make a copy of it?
Why do record companies even ship more than one copy of a CD, then? Buying one doesn’t give you the legal right to make copies and give it away. In fact, copyright law specifically denies you this right.
Yosemitebabe, if you don’t mind my asking, where is your site?
Not because I’m into illegal crap, I just like more obscure things myself.
I too collect some of the more unknown stuff.
Okay, back on topic.
CnoteChris wrote
Again, whether I take it personally or not really ignores the issue itself. But, I will tell you why I take it so personally. There are two reasons: a) I am in the intellectual property business. I build software, not songs, but the exact threat applies to both. and b) I believe that there is a macro-problem that goes way beyond $2 being stolen here are there. I believe that the future of the world is all about intellectual property and it is detrimental to our collective future if this sort of theft is not curtailed. manhattan wrote what I believe is an excellent summary of this position several months ago. Here it is:
In the thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22954 manhattan wrote
Cheezit…
You’re right with the first part. Napster doesn’t store any of the Mp3’s that are exchanged. However, as has been shown, most people use Napster to get music that, due to the circumstances and copyright law, happens to be illegal. That’s not Napster’s only use… in fact, Napster was first created for the purpose of allowing ameteurs share their music with each other… but it’s predominantly used to trade illegal Mp3’s.
'Cuz it’s much easier to set up a playlist with a hundred songs or so, set it to random, then let it play as you do your work, than to keep popping different CD’s in and out of the CD-ROM drive. A matter of convenience, my friend.
Copyright law gives exlusive permission to the owner of the copyright to make duplicates of copyrighted material.
When you buy a CD, you pay for the right to use that CD and only that CD.
Well, you read it only slightly wrong. It’s illegal to copy something, then sell either the original or the copy. The reasoning for this is that someone is benefitting from a product without compensating the originator of the product (the party that owns the copyright).
Ah, you were only slightly off. No big thing. 'Sides, it’s good to clear up everything.
You might have me on this one, CnoteChris. I’ll have to check into it. I stand by my other points, though.
mattk is correct. From the statute site I linked earlier, chap 1, sec 109:
Makes sense. If you buy it, you should have the right to turn around and sell it. There’s no reason the original creator is entitled to a second cut. Now, if you sell a copy, on the other hand, that’s theft.
Which is exactly what record stores/grocery stores/any other kind of store does: They buy stuff from the production company, then turn around and sell it.
It’s called “capitalism”. 
Say it with me, class… ca-pi-tal-* Bill, are you chewing gum in class?!?
Bill, I have the same view as Yosimite, I do use mp3’s but I dont use napster because I dont want to take away from the Artists royalties. I do believe that they are getting screwed by the record company.
I dont support Napster, but I can see why it is getting used.
Still, it dosent take away from your attitude. so, basically, screw you and the horse you rode in on.
JohnLarrigan, you’ve written a couple of posts with mighty harsh words towards me, and I really don’t know why. I concur with everything you’ve just said (except the horse part). And I always have. Specifically, for your above post I believe
If we’re saying the same thing, but I’m a bit more adament about it, why the hostility?
First, to SPOOFE: I told you I was an idiot. :D:D Thanks for pointing out the error of my thoughts.
Bill H: In another thread, here: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
Courtney Love tell it like it “supposedly” is. I read the whole article, and if it anywhere close to accurate, most of the artists are getting screwed by the record companies, big time. I can’t be sure it is accurate, but her argument is convincing.
I hope the link works.
Oh man.
I saw this thread heading down the board and couldn’t have been happier. But here we go again.
I started this thread to take issue with Bill H… He and I don’t agree on Napster. He called me a name and I called him a name. He cleared up the name calling as far as I’m concerned. I feel I should do the same.
Bill, you and others have brought up some interesting points and links. I have learned quite a bit reading the arguments and counter-arguments made here and the other threads on this board.
I’ll continue to use Napster and whatever form it may take in the future. I will not feel bad about it either. But I will not be as adament in my own righteousness because of comments you and others have made.
From now on, I’ll only lurk on this thread. My point has been addressed and answered.
One final note, as others have mentioned, it may not be *what[/] you have argued, but more *how[/] you have argued (And, yes, the same could be said about me as well.).