Hatch says destroy the downloaders computers.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Good for the Ninth Circuit, but this isn’t GQ. I’m not concerned with the uninformed decisions of a court that doesn’t affect me.

Yeah, well, I keep on repeating–a precident has been set. Copyright laws exist, and some people have the audacity to think that they are entitled to protect their copyright. The Ninth Circuit reflects this.

However, it should be obvious that I’m drawing a different parallel between Cross in Urine and hotlinking. Both are rude, but both are valid forms of art;

Using someone else’s resources, possibily causing them some extra cost is the “same”? No, it’s not. One can get their feathers ruffled at no extra cost; but costing someone money, no matter what the reason, is outside of merely “rude”. And certainly not “valid”.

using someone else’s images on your web page is surely as valid as sampling in rap/dance music.

Does the creator of original rap/dance music end up possibly paying extra depending on how many people are “sampling” them? Yes, or no?

If no, I fail to see your point.

You haven’t put forth a convincing case that one form of rudeness (using bandwidth that someone has accidentally allowed you to use) is any worse than the other (pissing off Christians, no pun intended).

Possibly causing someone extra expense is a HUGE difference. I have heard extreme cases of webmasters just pulling down their sites because the bandwidth theft was so bad they got sick of paying for it, and dealing with it.

Once again, ruffling someone’s feathers (or “pissing” on them) can be an asshole thing to do, but when you do all of that and leech their resources, possibly causing them extra expense?

Well, you can refuse to see the difference, but I hope it’s evident to everyone else.

The point is, for the people who are inclined to rip songs, taking it from the radio is just as easy as taking it from a CD.

Oh really?

Please. Go get on the radio and tape me a copy of Sibelius’s “Violin Concerto” in the next 2 hours. Oh, here’s one that’s even easier: tape a copy of Sibelius’s “Finlandia”–that’s a very common piece.

I immediately found several copies of it on a file-sharing program (I own the CD, LP and tape of it, so I had no problem downloading it too). The Violin Concerto had Isaac Stern as the soloist, no less! Pretty impressive. Pretty instantanious. Much more convenient than the radio.

If that necessarily involves controlling the distribution of information, then yes. Many bands do get paid for their creative work, even when it’s illegally downloaded - they’re paid with sales of concert tickets, merchandise, and other albums, that wouldn’t have been sold if not for file sharing.

And that’s fine when it works that way; sincerely, it is. But it doesn’t always work that way, and you know it.

The same is true of software, IMO. For every person who buys a copy of AutoCAD simply because he can’t find an illegal copy, there are ten people who buy a copy because they’ve used it illegally in the past. (I’ve ordered over $600 worth of software that I never would have considered buying if not for illegal downloads.)

Once again, that’s fine when it works that way. But it doesn’t always work that way.

Please answer a simple, direct, yes-or-no question:

Is Microsoft and Adobe “selfish” for trying to discourage bootleggers?

Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around; the author only deserves as much control over his intellectual output as is necessary to prevent other people from profiting from it.

Even if that means that the author loses almost all the financial benefits from their work, to the point where they can’t afford to continue to do the work anymore? Even if the work gets distributed as a sort of “public domain” so that no one is paying anything for it, and therefore the artist has to sit by and get no income from it?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Yeah, well, I keep on repeating–a precident has been set. Copyright laws exist, and some people have the audacity to think that they are entitled to protect their copyright. The Ninth Circuit reflects this.

Actually, what the Ninth Circuit reflects is a belief that causing another person to distribute their own content is equivalent to distributing that person’s content yourself, and therefore an infringement of copyright. It’s certainly possible to believe in protecting copyrights without agreeing that this is a case of copyright infringement.

Does the creator of original rap/dance music end up possibly paying extra depending on how many people are “sampling” them? Yes, or no?

Due to the nature of CDs, no, they do not. Congratulations on missing the point of the analogy: that using other artists’ work in your own creations is a respectable form of art. (Remember “Was my cowboy painting so unique, so indespensible [sic] that it was the only graphic that would have illustrated their little news story?”)

A webmaster pays more the more people access his site, but that’s true of all visitors, desired or undesired. In fact, an undesired visitor who only downloads a JPEG costs the webmaster less than a wanted visitor who downloads the JPEG, the HTML page where it appears, and the other images on that page.

Possibly causing someone extra expense is a HUGE difference. I have heard extreme cases of webmasters just pulling down their sites because the bandwidth theft was so bad they got sick of paying for it, and dealing with it.

Again, though… they only cause extra expense if you allow them to. It’s like telling your security guards to let anyone come into your store and take whatever they want, because only your friends ever come by the store - might sound like a good idea in the beginning, but it’ll come back to bite you, and it’ll be your own fault.

“But it’s so hard to fix my web server!” Boo hoo. The internet is not an easy place. How much time and effort went into writing that web server, specifically to give it the kind of control you need to keep out the bandwidth leeches?

Why, if you just throw up your hands and complain about the leeches, you’re squandering all the programmers’ time and effort. In the Ninth Circuit they’d call that copyright violation.

I immediately found several copies of it on a file-sharing program (I own the CD, LP and tape of it, so I had no problem downloading it too).

You only had no problem because you didn’t get caught. Funny how copyright works, eh?

The Violin Concerto had Isaac Stern as the soloist, no less! Pretty impressive. Pretty instantanious. Much more convenient than the radio.

Glad to see it worked for you. I’ve had a hell of a time finding classical music on Kazaa. Can you find Chopin’s Polonaise Opus 44 in F# Minor?

The radio doesn’t work very well for finding arbitrary pieces of classical music, but neither does P2P file sharing, in my experience. OTOH, there’s no question that the radio works for finding new pop singles, which are probably the most commonly traded files online. (I’m sure you’ve heard someone say “I heard that song on the radio, so I went online and…”)

And that’s fine when it works that way; sincerely, it is. But it doesn’t always work that way, and you know it.

I’ll be the judge of what I know, thank you.

It may not always work that way, but more often than not, it does. File sharing hasn’t harmed music sales, and every P2P user has a story about the albums/tickets/shirts he bought because of file sharing. The songs that people download without ever considering paying for are usually the same ones they’ve been hearing twice a day on the radio anyway.

Is Microsoft and Adobe “selfish” for trying to discourage bootleggers?

Yes.

All corporations are selfish by nature, though, so it’s hard to hold that against them. Looking out for the bottom line is just what companies do. For the most part, they go after businesses with unlicensed software, not individuals, which I agree with.

Even if that means that the author loses almost all the financial benefits from their work, to the point where they can’t afford to continue to do the work anymore? Even if the work gets distributed as a sort of “public domain” so that no one is paying anything for it, and therefore the artist has to sit by and get no income from it?

Any evidence that that has happened, or is this a hypothetical?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Actually, what the Ninth Circuit reflects is a belief that causing another person to distribute their own content is equivalent to distributing that person’s content yourself, and therefore an infringement of copyright. It’s certainly possible to believe in protecting copyrights without agreeing that this is a case of copyright infringement.

:shrug: In your worldview, perhaps, but you have a vastly different worldview compared to many (especially in the government) in regards to some aspects of copyright. Certainly vastly different from many copyright holders (large or small) who don’t necessarily want to have to pay for someone else’s copyright violation of their work. (i.e. bandwidth theft.)

Due to the nature of CDs, no, they do not. Congratulations on missing the point of the analogy:

Oh no, I think you missed the point. Completely. But thank you for playing.

that using other artists’ work in your own creations is a respectable form of art.

Being “inspired” by other artists’ work is valid and quite commonplace, if you actually end up creating something dramatically different and unique from it. Stealing it, with no alteration, just stealing it and plopping it on your own web page, as-is, from the copyright-holder’s site, is not. It’s lazy and unoriginal and stealing and a copyright violation.

(Remember “Was my cowboy painting so unique, so indespensible [sic] that it was the only graphic that would have illustrated their little news story?”)

What’s your point, exactly? Because my only answer to my own question is no. They wanted a generic cowboy, and they were too damned cheap to buy the clipart collection CD, or to contact me and ask me if they could use it. And, they were too cheap to pay for the extra bandwidth. Unless you want me to believe that each and every bit of “free clipart” that they also leeched and stole from other sources was also precious, unique and rare, and nothing else would have worked for them?

(Oooh, and thanks for the snide little [sic], by the way. Oh so clever you are.)

A webmaster pays more the more people access his site, but that’s true of all visitors, desired or undesired. In fact, an undesired visitor who only downloads a JPEG costs the webmaster less than a wanted visitor who downloads the JPEG, the HTML page where it appears, and the other images on that page.

And once again, you spin, spin, spin and deflect away from the point.

It’s the two things together: the bandwidth theft and the copyright violation. Stealing someone else’s content right from their server–not giving the original copyright owner proper credit for the content AND the leeching of bandwidth. But yeah, this is “perfectly valid” and OK with you, I understand.

Again, though… they only cause extra expense if you allow them to. It’s like telling your security guards to let anyone come into your store and take whatever they want, because only your friends ever come by the store - might sound like a good idea in the beginning, but it’ll come back to bite you, and it’ll be your own fault.

No. It may be folly, it may be unwise, but the “fault” of unauthorized use always lies with the thief.

“But it’s so hard to fix my web server!” Boo hoo.

You know what? Just because it’s easy for you does not mean it’s easy for everyone. I do do something, I do keep tabs on the violators, remove the stolen graphics and replace them with a nasty message. It does get the job done for the most part. It’s just a hassle, and yes, that’s because of my ignorance and also probably my server.

So, taking my ignorance out of the mix, why is it “valid” for leeches to steal someone else’s bandwidth and steal their copyrighted content simultaniously? Just because it “can” be done, even though any webmaster worth his or her salt knows it’s a sleazy and smarmy thing to do?

You only had no problem because you didn’t get caught. Funny how copyright works, eh?

True enough. At least I can provide copies of the music in CD, LP and tape form. (OK, the tape got mashed a while ago, and I’d have to dig through the massive LP collection, but it’s there.)

Glad to see it worked for you. I’ve had a hell of a time finding classical music on Kazaa. Can you find Chopin’s Polonaise Opus 44 in F# Minor?

Hey, I’d look, but I’m sure you have more resources than me.

The radio doesn’t work very well for finding arbitrary pieces of classical music, but neither does P2P file sharing, in my experience.

The radio doesn’t work well for all sorts of music, including Classical and film music. (My two favorites.) It’s rare (at least in my experience) to hear the same Classical or film score track played on the radio in a month. Compare that with file-sharing. Sure, the pickings are slim compared to pop music, but it’s there, it’s instant, and the selection is vastly better than radio. So, unless you want to contend that film music and Classical “don’t count” in this comparison between file sharing and radio, I fail to see your point.

I’ll be the judge of what I know, thank you.

I was just trying to flatter you with the assumption that you knew.

It may not always work that way, but more often than not, it does.

It does sometimes but it doesn’t other times. Do you have some substantial stats and sites indicating what the percentages are on this?

For the most part, they go after businesses with unlicensed software, not individuals, which I agree with.

So, you are now saying that selfishness is not a “bad” thing? It can be something you “agree with”?

Any evidence that that has happened, or is this a hypothetical?

Of course it’s a hypothetical now, because copyright laws are enforced. But if the “selfish” copyright owner was only allowed to “control” their so-called “intellectual output” as “necessary to prevent other people from profiting from it”, then what would stop everyone from distributing it (not-for-profit) as if it were a public domain item? I mean, really? With the Internet, it would be extremely easy to do.

[even_sven]

But there has to be an end to a copyright holder’s control of an image.

There are now legal motions against deep linking. Deep linking is linking to an individual page of a website that is not the index page. In other words, it could be illegal to link to an individual SDMB thread, or a news article. You would have to link to the front page of the newspaper or the Straight Dope front page.

That is taking things too far. The companies involved state that their website is an entire work that changes frequently, and by “deep linking” a person could get the wrong or outdated impression of their site. They claim that copyright laws prevent their site from being shown in such an “inaccurate” and “misleading” way. In reality, owners of big news sites are upset that more people read weblogs than their front pages, and will stoop to any absurdity possible to prevent independent media from being a force in the world.

So where does it end? Where does a copyright owner lose control? Or should copyright holders get to dictate everything about their work, from what order you look at it in to how long you are allowed to view it?

[yosemite]

even sven: Good points you bring up, and yes, I realize that the line has to be drawn somewhere. But “deep linking” isn’t like embedded images. At least a “deep link” takes the visitor to the copyright-holder’s actual site, so the visitor knows that yes, they are somewhere on the site that actually owns the content. And they can browse further, something (presumably) the copyright owner wants, whether or not they bitch about the “deep linking”.

Embedding someone else’s copyrighted images doesn’t do this. In the case of my stolen cowboy graphic, there is no way that the visitor of that site had any clue (unless they decide to right-click and do “View Image” which 99.99% will have no reason to do) that the cowboy image is not the “property” of the news site. They won’t be visiting my site, they won’t know I had anything to do with that cowboy picture. But all the time, the bandwidth is being leeched away from me, potentially at my expense, soley for the benefit and convenience of the webmaster of the news site.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Yosemitebabe, I’m not going to argue this anymore, I’ve already wasted too much time with you. Half of the arguments presented to you are answered with “spin spin spin” and “It’s ILLEGAL! THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAID SO!!!.” The other half are ignored entirely.

Yes, there is precedent for it being illegal. But that does not make it illegal out of the ninth circuit, so your defense cannot be “because it’s illegal” because it is not, at the moment. It is wrong, yes, but it is not illegal.

I would consider bandwidth stealing to be theft. I would not consider the act of hotlinking theft in and of itself. It brings bandwidth theft, yes, but it itself should not be a crime. Something like the law that makes it illegal to own pot, but not illegal to be high. Small distinction, but it’s there.

Furthermore, I would not consider bandwidth theft to be that much of an atrocity. I would compare it to stealing a candy bar from a convenience store. Yeah, it’s illegal, and no one would condone it, but it generally doesn’t run people into the ground. Particularily if it is entirely within the power of the webmaster to prevent it. And yeah, some shmuck might go broke because he doesn’t lock his store at night when he goes home, but that’s his fault.

When someone is complaining about rampant theft from their house because they left the door open, part of blame lies on them.

Oh, you mean if the thief is arrested, they’ll also arrest the homeowner for leaving their doors unlocked?

No, but when said homeowner demands constant police patrols in his neighborhood to make up for his own lack of vigilance, he’ll get ignored completely. That’s the price you pay for being lazy. Suck it up, start watching your own back, or stop whining. Society should not have to bend over backwards just because it would be more convenient for you.

Now, you can take my advice, listen to my arguments, or continue ignoring me and crying “Illegal! Their fault! ILLEGAL!!!”. Either way, this discussion is through.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot *
Yosemitebabe, I’m not going to argue this anymore, I’ve already wasted too much time with you.

Well, I wouldn’t want to waste your valuable time.

Half of the arguments presented to you are answered with “spin spin spin” and “It’s ILLEGAL! THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAID SO!!!.” The other half are ignored entirely.

Honey, this works both ways. And I keep repeating the “spin spin spin” and “Ninth Circuit” things because they are TRUE.

Yes, there is precedent for it being illegal. But that does not make it illegal out of the ninth circuit, so your defense cannot be “because it’s illegal” because it is not, at the moment. It is wrong, yes, but it is not illegal.

Not illegal where? Have we established where? Are you sure it’s not illegal where you are? And is not the fact that a precident has been set something significant? Or are you going to pretend that such a precident has not been set, therefore such a sentiment does not exist anywhere in the US government, and will never exist in similar rulings in the future?

Please, answer a yes or no question: Is taking (without permission) someone else’s copyrighted material onto your site right or wrong? Or do you think that no matter how recent the copyrighted material was created—if it was created yesterday, for instance—it’s “open season” and anyone else can copy it and use it without permission, without giving credit, without compensating the original creator?

I would consider bandwidth stealing to be theft. I would not consider the act of hotlinking theft in and of itself. It brings bandwidth theft, yes, but it itself should not be a crime.

So theft is not a crime?

Something like the law that makes it illegal to own pot, but not illegal to be high. Small distinction, but it’s there.

Sigh. Once again, I understand—“hotlinking” to a Public Domain image is not “illegal” that I know of. “Hotlinking” to someone else’s copyrighted material does have a precident of being illegal. Both things are “theft”, (because they are hotlinking).

So, yes or no question: Is hotlinking (especially to someone else’s copyrighted material) a " perfectly valid" thing to do? Yes, or no?

Furthermore, I would not consider bandwidth theft to be that much of an atrocity.

I’m guessing that you don’t have any websites.

I would compare it to stealing a candy bar from a convenience store. Yeah, it’s illegal, and no one would condone it, but it generally doesn’t run people into the ground.

Actually, in some cases, it has made webmasters feel compelled to shut down their websites.

Particularily if it is entirely within the power of the webmaster to prevent it.

I am (after the fact) stopping it. It’s just a huge pain in the ass, that’s all.

By the way, since you think it’s so all-fired damned easy to prevent, on my specific servers, please, enlighten me. Give me the technical low-down, blow-by-blow, on how to do it. Right off the top of your head. You must know how to do it, since you are oh-so confident that it is easy to prevent. Must be like waving a magic wand, huh?

And yeah, some shmuck might go broke because he doesn’t lock his store at night when he goes home, but that’s his fault.

So if someone steals from him, that’s his fault?

Once again, I think you are getting the two things mixed up: the store owner who does not safeguard his store is foolhardy. But the person who actually tresspasses and steals from him is the thief, and the blame for that voluntary act of stealing lies on the thief, and the thief alone.

No, but when said homeowner demands constant police patrols in his neighborhood to make up for his own lack of vigilance, he’ll get ignored completely.

Who says I am demanding the equivalent of that? Please copy and paste an example of me saying that on this thread.

That’s the price you pay for being lazy. Suck it up, start watching your own back, or stop whining. Society should not have to bend over backwards just because it would be more convenient for you.

My goodness, you really do have a problem with reading comprehension, don’t you? And I might add, you seem like you know jack shit about web hosting and web mastering.

The fact that I don’t have any handy-dandy “turn off hotlinking” feature on my web host’s control panel does not make me “lazy”. The fact that I’m too ignorant to try to get some of the more sophisticated scripts (at least sophisticated to me) to work with my web hosting plan (which may be because I am using NT servers, as someone technically savvy than me told me) only makes me work harder. I have to monitor my web logs and manually check for hotlinkers. Like I said before, it’s a hassle. It’s work. And I resent it. I resent people who are so damned lazy and selfish that they go out of their way to leech from me, and steal my content, without giving me credit, even though they damned well ought to know that they have no right to do so. I particulalry resent being told that what these people are doing is “perfectly valid”.

Now, you can take my advice, listen to my arguments, or continue ignoring me and crying “Illegal! Their fault! ILLEGAL!!!”.

And maybe you can learn some reading comprehension?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
In your worldview, perhaps, but you have a vastly different worldview compared to many (especially in the government) in regards to some aspects of copyright.

That may be true. I also have different tastes in television and clothing - I’ve never watched Big Brother or shopped at the Gap or Old Navy. Luckily, it’s still legal to have uncommon opinions.

Certainly vastly different from many copyright holders (large or small) who don’t necessarily want to have to pay for someone else’s copyright violation of their work. (i.e. bandwidth theft.)

I don’t want to pay for someone else’s copyright violation of my work… difference is, I don’t consider linking copyright violation. (Cue “But the Ninth Circuit does!”)

Being “inspired” by other artists’ work is valid and quite commonplace, if you actually end up creating something dramatically different and unique from it. Stealing it, with no alteration, just stealing it and plopping it on your own web page, as-is, from the copyright-holder’s site, is not.

“Inspired”? That’s not how sampling works. Musicians who use sampling do, in fact, “steal” portions of other songs and plop them in their own songs, with no alteration. Recording new vocals over a sampled bass line doesn’t change the sample any more than putting text on top of a “sampled” web page background.

If one is a valid art form, so is the other, and the only difference is the method of distribution. You can’t just distribute your vocals and let the CD player add the sampled bass line; you have to combine them and distribute both, hence the royalty payments.

They wanted a generic cowboy, and they were too damned cheap to buy the clipart collection CD, or to contact me and ask me if they could use it. And, they were too cheap to pay for the extra bandwidth. Unless you want me to believe that each and every bit of “free clipart” that they also leeched and stole from other sources was also precious, unique and rare, and nothing else would have worked for them?

Maybe that’s the case. I haven’t spoken to that webmaster, or seen his page or your cowboy, so I can only speculate. Did you ask him why he chose your cowboy instead of another?

It’s like telling your security guards to let anyone come into your store and take whatever they want, because only your friends ever come by the store - might sound like a good idea in the beginning, but it’ll come back to bite you, and it’ll be your own fault.
No. It may be folly, it may be unwise, but the “fault” of unauthorized use always lies with the thief.

What thief? You told the guards that anyone could come in and take anything they want. Therefore, anyone who comes in and takes something is acting with your implicit approval.

So, you are now saying that selfishness is not a “bad” thing? It can be something you “agree with”?

In some cases, sure. If I were starving, and I had to choose between feeding myself and feeding a homeless man, I’d feed myself. It’s selfish to think of my own needs first, but I have no obligation to help anyone else.

Similarly, Adobe may perceive (rightly or wrongly) that pursuing software piracy will help their bottom line, and they have no obligation to forgive companies who are committing illegal acts with their software. In general, I think it’s a waste of time to assign a moral value to corporate selfishness.

OTOH, intellectual property law is a means to an end: the societal benefit of new artistic works and inventions. I think there is an obligation to extend that benefit as much as possible, while preserving the original artist’s monopoly on profiting from the works. That’s why I disagree with pursuing individuals who are illegally using copyrighted works for their own enjoyment.

Of course it’s a hypothetical now, because copyright laws are enforced. But if the “selfish” copyright owner was only allowed to “control” their so-called “intellectual output” as “necessary to prevent other people from profiting from it”, then what would stop everyone from distributing it (not-for-profit) as if it were a public domain item? I mean, really? With the Internet, it would be extremely easy to do.

Indeed, it already is extremely easy to do, and has been for years. So why haven’t all the record and software companies gone out of business? Why did The Eminem Show sell a record number of copies, even though it was available on the internet for weeks before its release, and Eminem’s target audience is the group most likely to download music?

I take it as an indication that noncommercial copying isn’t a significant threat to artists’ profit.

I would consider bandwidth stealing to be theft. I would not consider the act of hotlinking theft in and of itself. It brings bandwidth theft, yes, but it itself should not be a crime.
So theft is not a crime?

Spin, spin, spin!

“Bandwidth theft” is to theft as “statutory rape” is to rape. The only connection is the name.

Furthermore, I would not consider bandwidth theft to be that much of an atrocity.
I’m guessing that you don’t have any websites.

Would it surprise you to hear that I have a web site?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Luckily, it’s still legal to have uncommon opinions.

Yeah, and if you (or anyone else who shares your worldview) were to be sued for alleged copyright violation, your “difference of opinion” might not persuade the court, now would it? Now that you know this precident is set, are you going to assume that having a “difference of opinion” wipes that precident away?

“Inspired”? That’s not how sampling works. Musicians who use sampling do, in fact, “steal” portions of other songs and plop them in their own songs, with no alteration. Recording new vocals over a sampled bass line doesn’t change the sample any more than putting text on top of a “sampled” web page background.

Sigh. Bad comparison. No, stealing someone’s graphic to put on your own web page isn’t “sampling”. Perhaps making a complex Photoshop collage, including many other images would be comparable to “sampling”, but not just plopping someone else’s picture onto a web site. Sorry.

If one is a valid art form, so is the othe

A artfully created collage might be considered “valid”, but not a web page with carelessly swiped graphics. Nope. Sorry. Not buying it for a second. Good spin, though.

Did you ask him why he chose your cowboy instead of another?

You’re kidding, right?

What thief? You told the guards that anyone could come in and take anything they want. Therefore, anyone who comes in and takes something is acting with your implicit approval.

Oh, you mean that the guard was instructed to tell everyone to take what they wanted, that it was free stuff, no strings attached, no rules? Was there a sign on the door saying that “The normal rules do not apply in this store. We are giving away everything!” No, unless that was the case, your analogy falls apart. On the other hand, if a stranger, not a friend of mine, comes into the store, lies and tells the guard that “Yosemitebabe said it was OK for me to take some stuff”, are they not still a thief? They know they don’t really “belong” there, and they know that if the guard knew that they were not really a friend of mine, he wouldn’t let them in. So they “break the rules”, lie, and steal stuff.

OTOH, intellectual property law is a means to an end: the societal benefit of new artistic works and inventions. I think there is an obligation to extend that benefit as much as possible, while preserving the original artist’s monopoly on profiting from the works. That’s why I disagree with pursuing individuals who are illegally using copyrighted works for their own enjoyment.

In some cases, I understand and can even agree—I don’t have any desire to track down someone who has made extra copies on their ink jet printer of some of my art or photographs. Small fry, not worth the trouble. But if they publishing my work on their site, or distributing my work elsewhere, especially if they don’t even have the decency to let anyone know that I was the originator of the work? That’s beyond unreasonable.

Why did The Eminem Show sell a record number of copies, even though it was available on the internet for weeks before its release, and Eminem’s target audience is the group most likely to download music?

Because even though it is done, it’s still relatively “underground”. People know it’s illegal. They have to be “careful”. Web sites are taken offline if they distribute MP3s or copyrighted material. Individuals are sued (as we have seen). However, if a law were passed that did away with such copyright laws, and if intellectual property could be freely and legally distributed openly, (not-for-profit, on a Public Domain way) do you know what would happen? Any website could make a high-quality MP3 of all music, and it would be always available. Movies available online, almost as soon as they are released theatrically—oh sure, not as good quality as the film, but pretty good, and enough to satisfy many people. It would be all out on the open, easily available anywhere, downloadable anywhere. Easy, easy, easy.

And you don’t think that would be different, and wouldn’t have a different impact than what we have going on now? Seriously?

“Bandwidth theft” is to theft as “statutory rape” is to rape. The only connection is the name.

Bullshit. On both counts, bullshit. When someone is forced to pay more because of the unathorized selfishness of another, that’s “theft”. And while some instances of “statutory rape” might be marginal, many are not. Unless you think that it’s not really “rape” when a 10 year old has sex with a 25 year old. (But please, let’s not get into that again…)

Would it surprise you to hear that I have a web site?

Oh sure, I know about that—but are you an artist? Care to show me some examples of your visual art, so I can see that we are (remotely) on the same page with all of this stuff?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Yeah, and if you (or anyone else who shares your worldview) were to be sued for alleged copyright violation, your “difference of opinion” might not persuade the court, now would it?

Back to “it’s ILLEGAL! (in some states)”, I see.

I’m sure you’ll be pleased to learn that I don’t link to outside images from my site without permission, so I’m not affected either way - unless (or, the way things are going, until) “deep linking” becomes illegal. Damned if I’m going to resort to linking to front pages and telling my visitors where to click.

Sigh. Bad comparison. No, stealing someone’s graphic to put on your own web page isn’t “sampling”. Perhaps making a complex Photoshop collage, including many other images would be comparable to “sampling”, but not just plopping someone else’s picture onto a web site. Sorry.

Not every song that samples uses more than one sample. Ever listen to “U Can’t Touch This”? Seems pretty unoriginal… there was no need for Hammer to swipe that music from Rick James. Yet, it’s valid art.

Did you ask him why he chose your cowboy instead of another?
You’re kidding, right?

Nope. You make all kinds of assumptions about his motivation, but that’s all they are.

Oh, you mean that the guard was instructed to tell everyone to take what they wanted, that it was free stuff, no strings attached, no rules? Was there a sign on the door saying that “The normal rules do not apply in this store. We are giving away everything!” No, unless that was the case, your analogy falls apart.

Come on, you can do better than this. What did you think I meant by “anyone can come in and take anything they want”?

You tell the guard to let anyone come in and take anything, perhaps because you assumed that only your friends would come to your store. Later, you discover that your shelves are bare because, amazingly enough, a lot of people came by and took things. Do you A) whine and complain about all those filthy thieves who obviously should have known better, B) fire the guard because obviously he should have known better than to take you at your word, or C) smack your forehead, give the guard new instructions, and call it a learning experience?

If you invite the world to download files from your web site (which, of course, is what happens when you put files on your site with unrestricted access - it’s how the web works), based on the assumption that people will only download the files you want, in the order you want, for the purposes you want, and that assumption turns out to be false… the proper thing to do is stop inviting the world in, not pout and bitch because you made a faulty assumption.

Why did The Eminem Show sell a record number of copies…?
Because even though it is done, it’s still relatively “underground”. People know it’s illegal. They have to be “careful”.

Underground or not, there are sixty million people using P2P file sharing in the United States. Don’t you think they would have at least made a dent in Eminem’s record sales, instead of driving them even higher? Do you really think all the file sharers who talk about buying albums they’ve downloaded are lying?

And you don’t think that would be different, and wouldn’t have a different impact than what we have going on now? Seriously?

Slightly more impact, I suppose, but not enough to harm artists. About twenty percent of the U.S. population already uses file sharing. Only about 60 percent of Americans have internet access at all. Do you really think the two-thirds of American internet users who don’t use file sharing are just afraid of being caught? (How many people have been sued for file sharing in the past few years… ten? Fifteen?)

When someone is forced to pay more because of the unathorized selfishness of another, that’s “theft”. And while some instances of “statutory rape” might be marginal, many are not.

“Theft” is the removal of property from its rightful owner, and “rape” is sex with an unwilling partner. The terms “bandwidth theft” and “statutory rape” are no more than attempts to demonize the perpetrators, by comparing their actions to different actions which are universally disapproved, and they dilute the real meaning of the words.

Oh sure, I know about that—but are you an artist? Care to show me some examples of your visual art, so I can see that we are (remotely) on the same page with all of this stuff?

No, I’m not an artist - but I’m sure the files on my site are bigger than any JPEG you’ve ever put on yours.

Some other sites link to the files on my site. I would prefer that they didn’t, of course; there’s important information on my HTML pages that I want everyone who downloads the files to see. But such is the nature of the web. When my bandwidth usage got near the limit, did I whine? No, I used mirror sites.

[frithrah]

There’s a lot of fun debate in this thread, but it has been hijacked far afield from the OP.
What I find striking about Hatch’s statement is that it is intended to cause harm to the recipient. Regardless of the legal debate over file sharing, the fault has always been, as far as I know, with the individual offering someone else’s copyrighted material. It has never been illegal for a recipient to receive what is freely available on the web. Am I wrong here? We can argue all day whether or not I have the right to offer an image of the “Venus de Milo,” or the complete music catalogue of Metallica, but the illegality aspect has always been on the person offering the file. It seems to set a dangerous precident to suggest that there should be legal or physically damaging repercussions to the recipient. Downloading, or viewing a webpage is not a crime in and of itself. Writing this, I think of Pete Townsend. I suppose accesing pedophilia sites is a crime, but this has nothing to do with copyrights. Personally, I feel file sharing is harmless. But I can’t imagine that even those who disagree, would feel the recipient is the liable party in the sharing transaction. This is a dangerous precident.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

It has never been illegal for a recipient to receive what is freely available on the web. Am I wrong here?

I’ve been wondering about this too. Is it truly only the uploaders who are guilty? Any copyright lawyers wanna pitch in and help?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Back to “it’s ILLEGAL! (in some states)”, I see.

But you fail to comprehend why it’s illegal, other than you “disagree” with it. So all I can do is remind you that it is illegal, and the court that decided it was illegal actually had a reason for deciding it was illegal.

unless (or, the way things are going, until) “deep linking” becomes illegal. Damned if I’m going to resort to linking to front pages and telling my visitors where to click.

Surprisingly enough, I’m with you on the “deep linking” thing. Most html pages have enough identifying information on them to let any visitor know where they are, who is the author of the content they are viewing, who is the copyright owner of the content they are viewing, and how they can navigate around the site. Usually none of these elements are present with “embedding” graphics.

Ever listen to “U Can’t Touch This”?

No, I listen to Sibelius and Jerry Goldsmith.

Seems pretty unoriginal… there was no need for Hammer to swipe that music from Rick James. Yet, it’s valid art.

I have no idea how altered it was from the original song, because I can’t recall ever hearing it, or the James song it uses. However, once again, it’s a stretch to think that some yahoo swiping whole, unaltered graphics and plopping them onto their HTML is the same as this song. A lot of different dynamics going on.

Come on, you can do better than this. What did you think I meant by “anyone can come in and take anything they want”?

Ah, I see—well, that’s a terribly innaccurate analogy, then.

No where does putting up a web site equal “open season” to bandwidth thieves. Copyright notices on each HTML page, common sense—even if there was no hypothetical “guard” there at all, seeing the notices of “DON’T STEAL THIS!” means that anyone who takes it anyway is a thief.

Do you really think all the file sharers who talk about buying albums they’ve downloaded are lying?

No—I believe that some do. I also know of several people who eschew paying for any music whatsoever. When I excitedly told a friend of my experiences buying music on Apple’s iTunes Music Store, he scoffed and said, “I’ll never pay for it. Doesn’t interest me.” Are you suggesting that such people are lying about their intention to never buy anything?

And what about the people on this very thread who admit that they possess files of music that they will never buy legitimately? Are they lying too?

Believe it or not, I really don’t think it’s horrible when a few collectors are sharing rare obscure files with each other (unless the copyright holder deliberately withdrew the thing from distribution, rather than it going out of print out of apathy). I don’t think it’s horrible to “try before you buy”. It obviously works some of the time. I do think the attitude of, “I’ll never pay for it.” is wrong and terribly selfish, however.

Slightly more impact, I suppose, but not enough to harm artists.

How do you know this? And what about other kinds of artists, like print artists (authors) or visual artists? If it was legal to make a digital file of Stephen King’s latest novel and put it online (not-for-profit) right after the book was released, do you seriously believe that this would not impact at all on King’s book sales?

“Theft” is the removal of property from its rightful owner, and “rape” is sex with an unwilling partner.

Even if that partner is 10 years old, but doesn’t resist? What about 5 years old? That’s not “rape”?

No, I’m not an artist - but I’m sure the files on my site are bigger than any JPEG you’ve ever put on yours.

I never doubted it. And I never doubted that you were not an artist.

Some other sites link to the files on my site. I would prefer that they didn’t, of course; there’s important information on my HTML pages that I want everyone who downloads the files to see. But such is the nature of the web. When my bandwidth usage got near the limit, did I whine? No, I used mirror sites.

Tell me—is anyone who downloads your file left unaware that you created the file (I presume it’s software)? Don’t you have an identifying message (readme file, etc.) on the software? Or are they left with the impression that the leeching webmaster that linked to your software is actually the copyright owner of the software (if it is software) that you created? Yes, or no?

If no, it’s not really all that similar to imbedded graphics, now, is it?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I have no idea how altered it was from the original song, because I can’t recall ever hearing it, or the James song it uses. However, once again, it’s a stretch to think that some yahoo swiping whole, unaltered graphics and plopping them onto their HTML is the same as this song. A lot of different dynamics going on.

Nope, it’s pretty much the same. The music of “U Can’t Touch This” is nothing more than the first few seconds of “Superfreak”, looped over and over.

No where does putting up a web site equal “open season” to bandwidth thieves. Copyright notices on each HTML page, common sense—even if there was no hypothetical “guard” there at all, seeing the notices of “DON’T STEAL THIS!” means that anyone who takes it anyway is a thief.

But you see, there is a guard - your web server. And whether you were aware of it or not, you told him to let anyone come in and take (a copy of) anything they want, in any order, at any time.

If you specifically mentioned on your site that linking to it was not allowed, well, you may have a point: visitors should take your word rather than the guard’s. But most sites don’t mention that.

Are you suggesting that such people are lying about their intention to never buy anything?

I have no reason to believe there are more of them than file sharers who do buy albums.

And what about the people on this very thread who admit that they possess files of music that they will never buy legitimately? Are they lying too?

Nope. Hell, I’ll admit it myself. I’ve downloaded songs that I heard on the radio with no intention of buying them. It’s nothing more than using Kazaa as a replacement for the radio - who does it harm if I listen to the song once a day on my computer instead of on my radio?

Like I said earlier, the files people download and never pay for are most likely the same ones they’ve already heard for free, and could be hearing for free anyway.

If it was legal to make a digital file of Stephen King’s latest novel and put it online (not-for-profit) right after the book was released, do you seriously believe that this would not impact at all on King’s book sales?

Not significantly. Some people (A) would look at the book online and decide not to buy it - either because they can now read it for free, or because they would have bought it without reading it, but decide it’s not worth buying after they flip through it online. Some people (B) would look at it online and decide to buy it (or another King book) - either because they have new respect for King after reading his work, or because they wanted to flip through it for free before buying it. Some people © would never have bought it, and some other people (D) would buy it no matter what.

I don’t believe A + C is more people than B + D.

Even if that partner is 10 years old, but doesn’t resist? What about 5 years old? That’s not “rape”?

If it were rape, they wouldn’t need another law specifically designed to cover it; rape is already illegal.

Please, start a new thread if you want to debate the age of consent again. I’d rather not.

Tell me—is anyone who downloads your file left unaware that you created the file (I presume it’s software)?

I often meet people who are surprised to learn that I’m the author of this software, so I would say yes.

Now, what makes you think that visitors to this other site would assume that the other webmaster–who’s presumably a journalist, not an artist–drew your cowboy? Anyone familiar with the web knows that sites can contain content from other sites, especially images; everyone has seen the same rainbow line, spinning “NEW!” icon, and smiley faces on several unrelated sites.

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**How do you know this? And what about other kinds of artists, like print artists (authors) or visual artists? If it was legal to make a digital file of Stephen King’s latest novel and put it online (not-for-profit) right after the book was released, do you seriously believe that this would not impact at all on King’s book sales?
**

Not really.

There are groups that exist on IRC and Usenet for trading new/recently released books.

While I don’t have statistics, I supremely doubt it has any significant impact on sales.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Nope, it’s pretty much the same. The music of “U Can’t Touch This” is nothing more than the first few seconds of “Superfreak”, looped over and over.

I’ve never heard it, and I apologize, but your description of it just isn’t doin’ it for me.

If you specifically mentioned on your site that linking to it was not allowed, well, you may have a point: visitors should take your word rather than the guard’s. But most sites don’t mention that.

But, bandwidth theft is a well-known no-no. People should not think they are entitled to leech and steal something since they already know it is a “no no”.

And, my sites do ask that visitors not “steal” or hotlink.

I have a “linkware” site that gives away free graphics. I have in bold lettering on the top of every page my terms: Give me credit when you use these graphics, DON’T HOTLINK. (And I describe what hotlinking is, just in case there is any confusion.)

Does that many any difference? Nope. They still hotlink. They don’t give me credit.

I have no reason to believe there are more of them than file sharers who do buy albums.

So, there are a certain amount of thieves that use these music files, never, ever intending to pay for their use. Why should the copyright holders be OK with this?

who does it harm if I listen to the song once a day on my computer instead of on my radio?

Because (once again) those are not the terms that the artist wanted their work released. And there are real reasons why artists don’t want their work released via file sharing.

We’ve already covered this: radio and filesharing are NOT the same. Which is why you can’t turn on the radio and listen to Sibelius’s “Finlandia” right away.

Like I said earlier, the files people download and never pay for are most likely the same ones they’ve already heard for free, and could be hearing for free anyway.

Wanna give me some substantial cites proving this? And what difference does it make anyway? If they are using, wanting to use, but won’t pay, they are leeches. And all file sharing is doing is making it ultimately easier and more convenient to be leeches.

Not significantly. Some people (A) would look at the book online and decide not to buy it - either because they can now read it for free, or because they would have bought it without reading it, but decide it’s not worth buying after they flip through it online. Some people (B) would look at it online and decide to buy it (or another King book) - either because they have new respect for King after reading his work, or because they wanted to flip through it for free before buying it. Some people (C) would never have bought it, and some other people (D) would buy it no matter what.

I don’t believe A + C is more people than B + D.

Huh? You mean that if there was a “free e-books” section on a big-name website (say, something like a free version of Amazon.com) that more people (penny-pinching people) wouldn’t find it far more tempting to just read and never buy? I don’t believe that for a second. I believe that the balance would change if “free e-books” was “mainstream” instead of a somewhat “underground” system.

Even though books are being exchanged online right now, it’s still “underground”, and requires some know-how on where to look, how to navigate the software, how to compile fragmented files (I don’t even know how that is done), and so forth.

If releasing e-books or music files (as a not-for-profit “public domain” thing) were legal and mainstream, how easy it would be to set up an “AOL-easy” website, with all books in easy PDF format, easy to find in search engines, easy to download and open, easy to play or read. All the files would be instantly accesscable, of good quality, virus-free, easy, easy, easy. Anyone, even the newest of newbies could find the material, and use it. That’s not the way it is now.

For instance, the Apple iTunes Music Store: If you are not a Mac user you probably don’t know how it works, but it’s really wonderful and easy. Fast downloads, good quality music, easy to find what you want, etc. etc. etc.

You mean that if people had access to a “free” legal version of this sort of setup, they wouldn’t flock to it in droves? Trust me—it’s much nicer than file sharing.

(And an aside: When iTunes ports over to Windows and gets a bigger selection of music, will you buy your music there, or will you still download free files that are available from Apple?)

If it were rape, they wouldn’t need another law specifically designed to cover it; rape is already illegal.

But if that 10 year old was “really asking for it”, then that’s not rape, since no one was forced.

Please, start a new thread if you want debate the age of consent again. I’d rather not.

Yeah, I agree. Besides, it was rather wearying for you to be the “lone voice in the wilderness”, wasn’t it?

I often meet people who are surprised to learn that I’m the author of this software, so I would say yes.

You didn’t answer the question: Does your software have any identifying information on it (your URL, your name, etc.?). Or is it stripped of all identifying information, thus giving people the impression that some anonymous author wrote it?

Yes, or no?

Now, what makes you think that visitors to this other site would assume that the other webmaster–who’s presumably a journalist, not an artist–drew your cowboy?

They may not assume that he drew it, but they’ll assume he has rights to display it, (since it is, after all, being displayed on his website), or perhaps that he got it out of one of those “royalty free” CDs. They’ll assume it was done by an anonymous nobody who gave away rights to the cowboy art.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I’ve never heard it, and I apologize, but your description of it just isn’t doin’ it for me.

Hmm. I’d suggest buying the CDs, but I doubt you’d want to do that just for a worn-out debate on the SDMB. If only there were a way you could hear music online, without having to buy the whole CD…

I guess Amazon’s previews will do. I haven’t listened to them (no sound card here) but hopefully they’ll illustrate my point:
Rick James - Ultimate Collection
MC Hammer - Greatest Hits

But, bandwidth theft is a well-known no-no. People should not think they are entitled to leech and steal something since they already know it is a “no no”.

It may be well known that many webmasters don’t like it, but to anyone familiar to the web, and especially those who have been around since the beginning, linking to content from other sites is perfectly natural. After all, the web was created by technical people intimately familiar with open source, not artists demanding control over everything they bring forth.

So, there are a certain amount of thieves that use these music files, never, ever intending to pay for their use. Why should the copyright holders be OK with this?

More to the point, why should it matter whether the copyright holders are OK with it or not? Why should copyright holders be able to control how their works are used?

If releasing e-books or music files (as a not-for-profit “public domain” thing) were legal and mainstream, how easy it would be to set up an “AOL-easy” website, with all books in easy PDF format, easy to find in search engines, easy to download and open, easy to play or read. All the files would be instantly accesscable, of good quality, virus-free, easy, easy, easy. Anyone, even the newest of newbies could find the material, and use it. That’s not the way it is now.

It’s close. I typed in “stephen king the shining pdf” on Google, and got 5 hits to download the book on the first page.

You mean that if people had access to a “free” legal version of this sort of setup, they wouldn’t flock to it in droves? Trust me—it’s much nicer than file sharing.

Some people would, sure. But reading a book on your computer is nothing like reading a real book. If people wanted to read books on their computers, e-books would be a lot more popular than they are now.

(And an aside: When iTunes ports over to Windows and gets a bigger selection of music, will you buy your music there, or will you still download free files that are available from Apple?)

Sure, if they have what I’m looking for, and if I can convert the music to a format that will be useful to me without too much hassle. If I understand correctly, iTunes uses AAC files. I can’t play AAC files in my car, portable CD player, DVD player, or Palm handheld, but I can play MP3s.

I’m not opposed to compensating artists and authors; I’m opposed to being forced to choose between paying for content and not having it at all, especially when the only difference between using content for free the “good” way and the “bad” way is timing, medium, or geographic location.

For example, I’ve been using NewsBin Pro to download episodes of Loveline from Usenet (which is probably illegal, but I could be listening to it for free online, or even on the radio if I lived in Seattle, so it doesn’t bother me). The trial period ran out, and it started showing nag screens. Now, I could have cracked it, like I did when I used NewsBin a few years ago, but instead I paid $40 for it - because I’ve used it at my leisure and liked it, and I feel it’s worth paying for.

You didn’t answer the question: Does your software have any identifying information on it (your URL, your name, etc.?). Or is it stripped of all identifying information, thus giving people the impression that some anonymous author wrote it?

Nope. The identifying information is there, but people don’t care to go out of their way to see it. I believe you said the same thing about JPEG comment blocks.