How would you feel if you had invented something useful, yet you couldn’t make money off of it because someone else was using your design to sell and/or give away your product? Or if you had written a story, and somebody else published it?
We have patent and copyright laws because if people aren’t allowed control over their own intellectual property, nobody will bother to create it, just as you wouldn’t buy land if anyone was allowed to build on it and you could do nothing to stop them.
I’m actually not sure that Napster should be the ones they are going after, though. As pointed out, they are just providing a tool to allow people to move around pirated material. The analogy between Napster and dual-deck cassette tapes is not really valid - they are not the tools used to make copies, they are just a means of transferring the pirated products from one person to another. People have been making copies of tapes for years and giving them away, but if someone is caught selling pirated copies they are prosecuted. I think the courts should have forced Napster to give the record labels a list of everyone who allowed a transfer of copyrighted material, and allowed them to go after the individual people. True, they probably wouldn’t be able to afford to go after everyone due to legal costs, but it would be funny if someone who allowed 3000 downloads of a particular song was sued for 3000 X the price of that single.
From my previous posts, you know that I happen to be a fan of Napster. I don’t like the ruling, but the courts let it open for Napster to negotiate with the other companies, just with less leverage.
Do you get to KEEP the items you “BORROW” (note the word “borrow”) from the library?
The fact that it costs a helluva lot of money to do it on a mass scale. Or did you really think Napster runs off of a 56K modem?
If you pay sales tax on a hamburger, does that mean you get free burgers for the rest of your life? If you pay a tax on bullets (don’t know if one exists, this is a hypothetical), would that give you permission to shoot people? If you pay taxes on gasoline, would that give you permission to steal a car?
“Tax” is not punishment. “Tax” is merely an additional charge that you are required to pay for certain products. “Tax” is NOT “permission to do whatever you want”.
City Gent, you are an absolute idiot, and it’s apparent that you haven’t the foggiest idea how Napster, or Mp3’s in general, work. I don’t know what would possess you to make such a boneheaded comment.
Of COURSE somebody created the copy! It’s called “ripping” a CD. You “rip” the individual tracks and convert the resulting .Wav files to .Mp3 files. It requires deliberate intent to do this.
You’re getting a product that isn’t yours without fulfilling the requirements to legally acquire said product. How is this not stealing?
Exactly. So why are you having such a difficult time grasping the notion of illegality with regards to Napster? If you download an Mp3, then there are now two copies of something in existence when there used to be only one. Just because you can’t touch the copies with your fingers, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Three things: Quality, quantity, and availability. An Mp3 is a near-exact replica of CD music… a cassette recorder/VCR is not, as imperfections in the machine lead to degraded quality (make a copy of a copy of a copy on a cassette recorder, and you’ll begin to hear what I mean). Quantity… it takes a long time to make only ten copies of a movie on a home VCR, and it’s very difficult (relative to an Mp3 file) to store them. Availability… how is one to know if there’s a local video pirate? Unless you’re friends with the guy, you can’t. He can’t advertise, he can’t put up flyers, he can’t put up a big sign that says “Pirated videos sold here”. If he did, he’d get busted immediately.
Apparently, the courts have decided that the possibility of exploitation outweighs the legitimate uses of Napster. Think of it this way… cars are used to transport illegal drugs. If that was ALL they did, we’d ban cars instantly, right? But that’s NOT all cars do… they have lots of legitimate uses, and the amount of times that a car is used in the wrong fashion are few and far between. Not so with Napster.
No, you don’t, but that’s not the point. When you borrow and read a book from the library, you experience the author’s work without compensating him/her in any way. That you cannot do so in perpetuity does not change the fact that you read the book without buying it, and, having done so, retain the information provided in it.
In Manhattan, there are guys who sell pirated music and bootleg videos on the street corner. They’re quite open about this, and keep their illegal merchandise on a sheet so they can gather it and run away if a police officer approaches.
As for most areas, pirated videos are probably made known by word of mouth. After all, how is one to know if there’s a local drug dealer? He can’t advertise, put up flyers, or put up a big sign that says “Marijuana sold here”. If he did, he’d get busted immediately, but that doesn’t stop him.
I invent and design things all the time without receiving royalties when they’re used. It’s called “being an engineer”. (Also, note that the artists who make the songs have already been paid by the record company. The only party being “injured” by Napster is the record company; that accounts for their lawsuits.) I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t be compensated for their efforts, but rather, that some other method of compensation would better serve society. I’m envisioning something along the lines of a one-time payment for the rights to the design, after which unlimited free use by anyone is permitted. Isn’t it better for society to have free access to good ideas?
The patent and copyright laws you mention only grant limited rights (although they’re becoming less and less limited). For instance, design patents expire after 17 years. In the beginning, the law tried to strike a balance between rewarding inventors and allowing society to benefit from inventions. Nowadays, because corporations control most inventions, the laws have been perverted into mere tools for corporate control of peoples’ behavior. For instance, universities get government grants to pursue research, then they want to keep the patent rights. If the government is paying for the research, shouldn’t everyone be allowed to use the results of that research?
You say that if people couldn’t maintain private monopolies of their ideas, nobody would want to invent anything. I disagree - the software industry formerly had only weak patent protection, and rapid imitation of new products, but did this impede progress? It was only in the late 1980s, when software copyright laws were considerably tightened, that the pace of innovation slowed to what it is today (cf. Microsoft). (source: "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation, Bessen and Maskin, MIT Economics Dept. working paper no. 00-01, January 2000).
Stop with the name-calling, you’re gonna make me cry.
I said in my other post that I created the copy, but you conveniently snipped that part. This is only your first reply, and already you’re so desperate you’re quoting me out of context? If you’re so all-fired determined to pay the person who created the copy, then I should be paying myself!
You’re confusing “illegally copied” with “stolen”. I never said Napster wasn’t illegal, I just said it wasn’t theft. Using a word like “stealing” imparts meaning that just isn’t there. If I steal your bike, you can’t ride it anymore. I have directly injured you. If I make an illegal copy of some software you wrote, I only injure you to the extent that if I would have bought the software had I been unable to make a copy, and if you were in a legal position to earn royalties from it, then you would have lost the royalty on that particular unsold copy. That’s a hell of a lot different from perpetually depriving you of the the use of your idea.
My comment about how copyright laws apply to used books and records was clearly a description of the current state of the law, not an endorsement of said law. Try to read my posts a little more carefully before you mangle them.
That is exactly the point. When you borrow from the library, you do not own the works you are borrowing. They are still the property of the library. If you do not return the works, you are fined. If the works are returned in bad condition, you are fined.
But the author has a choice as to whether or not his or her works appear in the library.
Do these guys cater to millions of customers? Or just a few dozen?
Again, you are completely glossing over the sheer scope of Napster. No drug dealer has anywhere NEAR the number of customers that Napster does. THAT is the difference!
City Gent…
I did NOT “conveniently snip” that part. I found it irrelevant to the discussion, as the “acquiring” of stolen goods isn’t as harsh a crime as the “providing”.
Again, I say that you’re an idiot. You’ll see why in a second…
And this is why you’re an idiot. You are stealing from the person who created the music, since you are receiving a product for which the artist was not compensated. After downloading an illegal music track, you have something, the artist does not. The fact that your theft from the artist’s personal gain is inconsequential doesn’t matter. It’s still theft.
This is the most bullshit excuse ever… “I wouldn’t have BOUGHT the CD, so it’s all right”. I see a Jaguar over at the car lot… I’m not going to BUY the Jag, right? So it’s okay for me to take it!
The bottom line, pal: You get something that you didn’t pay for. Therefore, it’s theft.
It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, bub. The law is the law, and I think it’s a pretty damn REASONABLE one, too.
Don’t worry, CG, I don’t think you’re an idiot. Maybe a trgolofyte. But I do take a little bit of issue with this:
This isn’t entirely accurate. A couple of artists have launched their own suits against Napster or otherwise requested that their material be removed. But aside from that, the issue of artist compensation by record companies is a sticky one.
Artists, especially new artists, receive advance money for the recording of each album. Those advanced can also cover equipment and, in some cases, touring and promotion. The problem is that 100% of those advance monies are recoupable by the record companies. The artist doesn’t begin to make money until those costs are recouped, and then only pennies per unit early in their career and a few dollars later in their career. If those costs aren’t recouped, the artist is in debt to the record company. And it’s often tracked on a per-album basis; record company accounting is even screwier than movie studio accounting.
I used to have the exact same viewpoint as you on this topic, SPOOFE, so I understand why you think I’m an idiot. When you come around to my viewpoint, as you will eventually, you’ll realize why you’re the actual idiot.
I’ll make it as simple as possible. Your definition of stealing is “receiving a product for which the artist was not compensated” Say the Backstreet Boys (you’re probably in their fan club) make an album. They get paid $X. They go home happy. Therefore, if I download a Backstreet Boys track from Napster, I am not receiving a product for which the artist was not compensated. So, this doesn’t even fall under your own overly broad definition of theft.
Now, you may argue that the record companies own the rights to the songs, so they deserve compensation for copies. That may be a legal fact, but it still doesn’t make copyright infringement equal to theft. When you infringe a copyright, you’re depriving the owner of the royalty, something that didn’t even exist until you made the copy. The artist is in the same position he was in before you made the copy. That’s fundamentally different from theft. Treating copies that can be produced at practically zero marginal cost the same way you treat material objects that can only be used by one person at a time is not warranted by the reality of the situation.
I never argued that it was OK because the “theft” was inconsequential, so don’t say I did. And I didn’t say that making a copy of something that you didn’t intend to buy was an excuse for violating the copyright, either. I only said that the gain you deprive the artist of is, in fact, only the value of the royalty, and that applies only if one would have purchased the CD at the retail price. That’s a long way from “stealing” a CD from someone. I stated that difference as a matter of fact, not as an excuse for breaking the law.
I got something I didn’t pay for, so it’s theft? Man, you’re reaching. Did you steal all the material support you got from your parents when you were a child? Did you steal the water you drank from a drinking fountain in a building you don’t own? Did you steal when you sang “Happy Birthday” without sending someone a royalty check?
Oh, by the way, it’s legal to patent a medical procedure, even if it doesn’t involve the use of an apparatus that the patentee invented, although someone’s trying to change that: http://www.heckel.org/congress/104cong/issues104/iss1127.htm
I’d be interested in hearing your vigorous defense of current intellectual property law when you’re strapped to a gurney and the doctor says “Sorry, SPOOFE, I can’t perform this lifesaving procedure on you because I haven’t paid up my license.”
Hi there, pldennison. I figured you’d be weighing in on this one. From one troglodyte to another, I think artists should be compensated generously for their work, and I always put a dollar in the saxophonist’s hat. But the current system of tight copyright and patent laws doesn’t help anyone but a few big corporate interests. On the subject of the Napster lawsuits, I believe you are right. But aren’t the artists who are party to the suits usually self-managing, i.e. not beholden to a record company?
I’m not sure this is accurate, Spoofe, but I’m too lazy to try and debunk your ascertation. Regardless I think it’s fair to say that the writing community embraces and encourages the use of libraries. Because they recognize the value of reading and exposure to their work.
I’m not sure what their feelings are about used bookstores. Personally they seem to be violating the spirit of the copyright laws just as much as Napster does. Once again, though, the author gets much needed exposure if someone recycles their book.
There is a place for shared music, books, etc. I’m not saying that ALL music should be up for grabs for free. Fee-based a la carte downloads sounds like a great idea to me.
You may be right about the artists (Metallica being the exception–I’m sure they’re under contract, but they are operating at a much higher royalty rate now). Either they’re self-managing or run their own labels.
As far as the copyrights, I agree with you in regards to Form SR copyrights, which govern the physical recordings and are where the record companies derive their teeth in this matter, but not about Form PA copyrights, which protect the songs. Not to say that corporate and private interests aren’t trying to screw that up, too. Life+70 is a perfectly reasonable time period, but Disney and the Gershwins are getting greedy.
If anyone feels really compelled to use a peer-to-peer system but is worried about artist compensation, see who adminsters their performing rights and send a check. A lot of bootleggers used to do exactly that when releasing live or otherwise unreleased material.
Theft: Party A takes something from Party B without permission or compensation. Party A has the thing, Party B does not.
Copying: Party A duplicates something owned by Party B, who is compensated. Party A has the thing, Party B has the thing plus compensation.
Copyright violation/unathorized copying/intellectual property theft/piracy: Party A duplicates something owned by Party B, who is not compensated. Party A has something, Party B still has something, but Party B has no compensation.
Okay, so theft of intellectual property is not exactly the same as theft of an object. It certainly is enough like it to be shortened to “theft” for the purpose of conversation when “of intellectual property” is understood by all parties.
People objecting to the label of “theft” sometimes argue that they would not have paid the money for the CD anyway, therefore nobody is deprived of anything, therefore “theft” is inappropriate. Others feel that the owner of the property is deprived of his right to profit from said ownership for anyone benefitting from its creation, whether or not you would have paid for the CD. The (current anyway) law upholds this view, therefore it is certainly still “theft.”
I was willing to give you leeway before, but not now. Not only are you an idiot, you puddle of stagnant semen, but you jump to rash and ignorant conclusions.
The problem is, it’s NOT that simple. For each album sold, a certain percentage goes into the pockets of the artist who made it. There may be exceptions to this rule (people who sell all rights to proceeds for more money up front), but this is generally how it works. Therefore, by downloading an illegal Mp3, you are receiving something for which the owner was not compensated. This is “stealing”.
Why shouldn’t they?
Are you getting dumber? Note your own use of the word “depriving”.
It is NOT fundamentally different from theft. You are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. You cannot possibly be any more wrong. You are so wrong, you make creationism seem right by comparison.
I’ll tell you why you’re wrong, you Wile E. Coyote stunt double… YOU are receiving something which you do not deserve.
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy. More of the “I wasn’t gonna buy it anyway” argument.
Do you even know the definition of the word “stealing”?
And you accuse ME of “reaching”? You are the dumbest fucking idiot on this Board! 1. The material support from my parents was GIVEN to me. 2. A drinking fountain is generally a PUBLIC device. 3. It’s called “freedom of speech”, you fucking idiot.
What the fuck does that have to do with music?!? It just PROVES MY POINT that it is perfectly reasonable to copyright/patent intellectual material.
If the doctor hasn’t paid up his license, then he’s one fucking idiot. What does this have to do with the present argument?
Wow. You give a dollar to some random shmoe you see on the street. That makes you King of the Universe. Idiot.
Here it is, real simple, just for you. If I got any simpler than this, I’d be using handpuppets and single-syllable words.
Stealing is twofold: The person who steals, and the person he steals from. In stealing, one person is deprived of something that is rightfully theirs (in this case, the intellectual property in addition to the royalties), and the other person gains something that is NOT rightfully theirs (in this case, getting music for free). Unless you’re willing to suggest that the amount of time you have to wait to DL the file is payment enough to get the music, I do not understand how you can say this isn’t stealing.
Don’t try to justify it by calling something it’s not, you self-deluded hunk of freshly-felched rectal excrement.
Well, the individual libraries have to buy the work anyway, so the artist receives compensation. While I agree that no rationally-minded writer/musician/etc. would refuse to expand his/her work into the public domain, I would imagine it possible for an artist/etc. to be anal enough to refuse to allow libraries to buy the books. But again, that’d be sheer foolishness.
You obviously don’t know anything about copyright law. The law says that a single book may be lent or resold at the complete discretion of its owner. Libraries lend copies of books. This is a completely different situation from making illegal copies. This is why the license on your favorite software (which is probably the cult how-to title “Whoring your mother for fun and profit”) says “You have the right to treat this software just like a book. When we say ‘just like a book’, we mean that you can have one copy installed on any one computer at one time, and you can keep a backup copy for your own protection. If you sell or give away the license, you must delete your previous copy.”
If you say “wrong” three times, does that make it true? I guess we disagree on the term “fundamentally different”. To me, the fact that when I steal your bike, you no longer have a bike is fundamentally different from when I download a song from Napster, and the artist (and everyone else) still has the song.
I happen to have written a book. It’s an obscure technical tract that is not a trade book, so there are two methods for obtaining said book:
Order a copy directly from the publisher and pay $30.00 or so. I get a small cut from this (it may be $3 or 30 cents, I really don’t remember).
Xerox someone else’s copy.
Since I’ve never gotten a royalty check, and I’ve seen copies of my book floating around, I assume I’m being cheated out of my royalty. Would I rather have the royalties? Sure, maybe I could buy a new oven mitt. Do I consider it stealing? No. I still have the book. Why is this so hard for you to get through your hollow little head?
Consider further that when some big shot says he “owns” a song, that literally means he owns the rights to it. If I make an illegal copy of the song (not that I endorse such practices), I in no way impair the ability of the “owner” to continue demanding royalties for the other copies he makes. The ability to make such demands is what people mean when they say they “own” a song.
Perhaps there is common ground here. I will agree that an unauthorized copy may represent theft of the royalty, but it does not represent theft of the actual work. That is a very significant difference to me and I daresay to many people, since the law clearly specifies different penalties for actual material theft compared to copyright violation.
Well, you don’t deserve my forbearance, but you got that. Since you consider that stealing, I revoke my forbearance and now feel free to mention that your current sexual partner is probably a vegetable and a large quantity of Crisco.
Are you familiar with the concept that rights can sometimes conflict with each other? I have freedom of speech, but that does not mean I can legally perform a copyrighted song in public and charge money for it. Choad.
Whether you call it stealing or copyright violation, I am not arguing, and never have argued, that Napster etc. is morally right. In fact, I downloaded some of pldennison’s songs off Napster and offered to send him a check, which he graciously declined. Go 'head, ask him. As much as you would evidently like to believe it, I never said copyright violation was legal or moral. I just said it wasn’t stealing.
Oh, and also, I’ve been informed that “felching” involves semen, not excrement. Maybe you’re doing it wrong.
I don’t know why people make so much of this; it is immaterial.
A has something that B wants, but A does not want to let B use it.
The something has the property that A can’t tell if B used his thing; i.e. A is still able to “use” it in some sense.(though not in its total sense: A’s use is not only to listen to the song himself but to sell it. If B is allowed to steal it and start re-selling, A looses the “sell use” and only has the “listen use”).
That does not make it right for B to steal it and then tell A , “well, you can still ‘use’ it”.
Try this: A blind miser buys a famous painting and refuses to let people (even people that would pay) look at it. Would it be right to steal it under the grounds that the BM is unable to use the painting, and thus is not deprived in any way? Yes. The person owns it, and that means he can decide what to do with it.
I think you intended to say “No” where you said “Yes”.
You’re just asserting what you’re claiming to prove: Ownership of an object means you can do anything you want with it, therefore, it’s OK.
Suppose Bill Gates decided that he wanted to buy the one hundred most valuable paintings in the world and make a big bonfire with them. Could he do it, legally? I suppose so. But does this kind of extreme interpretation of private property really serve society in the long run, or does it just encourage hoarding? If we take this absolutist view of property rights, it permits things like someone buying up the habitat of an endangered species and paving it over. Technically, he’s only exercising his rights, but actually, he’s hurting everyone but himself. American society doesn’t permit such an absolutist interpretation of property rights, and rightly so, in my opinion. In the case of copyrights, the interests of society may supersede those of the owner. I’m not a communist, so I don’t think society’s interests should always trump individual rights, but it shouldn’t be the other way around, either.
I’d like to expand on my comment that making an illegal copy of a copyrighted work is not tantamount to stealing the entire per-copy fee. Suppose you make an album and sell it for $10 a copy.
Scenario 1: 1,000 people buy the album. You get $10,000. In that sense, your interest in the album’s copyright is worth $10,000, because presumably if someone had offered you $10,001 for the rights to the album, you’d sell. Now, the value of a good is inherent in the good; it doesn’t depend on the details of how it is bought and sold.
Scenario 2: Somebody secretly copies the master and posts it to Napster before the album goes on sale. Since it’s free, a lot more than 1,000 people download it - suppose 10,000 - and nobody buys it. You’re out the value of your copyright ($10,000), but it’s due to the actions of 10,000 people. If you want to put a price tag on each person’s piracy, it’s $1, not $10; a substantial difference, and I think these are realistic numbers. If you took the consuming public to court, you’d only get $10,000 in actual damages, because that’s all you lost. (Punitive damages aren’t related to economic loss, so they don’t count here.)
If you’re so all-fired determined to pay the person who created the copy, then I should be paying myself!