I'm gonna snap this record, shove it up your arse & kick it - Napster Rant.

[SPOOFE]

PLD…

1. “Happy Birthday” is still under copyright, and its holders defend that copyright vigorously. What does “freedom of speech” have to do with it?

You’re claiming that it’s against the law to sing “Happy Birthday” at someone’s party?

2. Have you noticed you’re the only one resorting to the gratuitous personal insults in this thread? Grow up, little man.

And a hearty “Fuck you, too”. If someone chooses to delude himself about a crime, that’s his perogative. And drop this condescending crap. You’re generally smart enough to know I’m not “resorting to the gratuitous insults”… I’m just throwing them in to blow off my own steam. Or perhaps you’d like to address my arguments rather than blow your trumpet on your high horse?

City Gent…

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.

And you obviously can’t read. You just restated exactly what I did.

This is why the license on your favorite software …(City Gent’s masturbation material deleted)… 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.”

And what does this have to do with the fact that you can’t compare Napster to a library?

If you say “wrong” three times, does that make it true?

It was true long before I said anything. I just felt repetition was necessary to get through the layer of fat that surrounds your brain. Apparently, after I’ve had to repeat myself several times (and YOU’VE even repeated my own words a couple times before), I was mistaken.

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.

You DO have a reading problem. When you steal a bike, you have acquired something that is not yours. When you download an illegal song off of Napster, you have acquired something that is not yours..

See, I’m putting my main points in Bold so you can find them easier… yet you still miss them. Which leads me to conclude that you are either being deliberately dense, or you have a selective-illiteracy problem.

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.

I assume, being the smart guy that you are, you kept a copy of the contract you signed when your book went to print. Does it say anything about royalties? If not, I do not know why you bring up this point (I, of course, couldn’t possibly know what you agreed to when your book went to print… or do you expect me to read your mind now, too?).

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?

You do not care at all if someone is benefitting from your own intellectual material without having legitimately acquired it? If not, I pity you. In addition, I don’t know why you continue to ignore half of what I’ve posted before.

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.

Yes you do, you create an avenue for which people may acquire the song without compensating the person who should be legally compensated. If this avenue is large enough (such as Napster), it can potentially impair the owner’s money flow considerably.

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.

You go to someone’s birthday party and charge them money to wish them a happy birthday? What kind of cold-hearted son-of-a-bitch are you?

Face it… your example of the song “Happy Birthday” is a poor one. In addition, please note that I said NOTHING about Freedom of Speech allowing one to perform a copyrighted song in public and charging money for it. Dumbshit.

Whether you call it stealing or copyright violation, I am not arguing, and never have argued, that Napster etc. is morally right.

And I never accused you of doing so. I simply stated that downloading an illegal Mp3 off of Napster is “stealing”. I cannot understand why you started such a hissy-fit over this statement of fact.

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.

Again, this is an irrelevent fact. Why do you bring it up?

Oh, and also, I’ve been informed that “felching” involves semen, not excrement. Maybe you’re doing it wrong.

You DO know what comes out of the anus, right? Connected to the large intestine? Smells like the Gent family tree?

Signed,

Wile E. Coyote, Super-Genius

As much as I think you to be a stubborn, obstinate weenie, that actually made me grin. Congratulations. Only Stoid has been able to do that.

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.

No no no, a thousand and one times NO. The assertion is “YOU do not have the right to take something which is not yours”. Period. It has nothing to do with “use”.

All right, I’ve said my bit… several times… and unless you wish to continue a flame-fest, Mr. Gent (or Mr. Dennison), that’s fine with me (I haven’t had a chance to let loose in a while). But I think we’ve both said our bit, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Dumbshits!

[pldennison]

I have rarely seen people talking past each other so much . . .

Nobody, least of all City Gent, is saying that it is not wrong to download songs off of Napster. What people are saying is that there is a legitimate difference of degree, which the existing laws clearly recognize, between depriving someone of a physical object or real property, and misusing intellectual property. The penalties are very different. (Although penalties in IP law can be quite harsh.)

I usually refer to downloading copyrighted material as “stealing” as well, much in the way that illegal cable hookups are referred to as “stealing cable.” It doesn’t mean that there is actually less cable television for everyone else, or that someone else doesn’t get cable because you did; it’s a quick shorthand for illegal use of copyrighted material.

Cripes.

[CnoteChris]

Someone has to do this:

City Gent

Stole.

STOLE!

Stole?
[sup](Insert smiley)[/sup]

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by City Gent *
**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.
**

Umm… Yes you can. You can perform any song out there regardless of copyright and be paid for your performance. You may not record a copyrighted song and then sell it, but performances are allowed.

[djbdjb]

At least this clarifies the argument a little: You don’t believe artists have a property right to works that they create:

*Originally posted by City Gent *
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 [SIC]

Imagine (I think this is factual, but I don’t have references) the conflict when an agricultural society starts living near a hunter-gatherer one. The hunter gatherers claim it is absurd to “own” an apple tree. The tree is just a gift of nature, and anyone can take the fruit thereof. The agriculturalists won’t get very far just saying it is “wrong” to take the fruit of a tree that someone else planted, weeds, and waters.

About the best you can hope to do is point out how private ownership gives incentives that lead to greater production of apples.

It is the same with intellectual property: If there were no copyright, there would be some marginal artists who decline to produce art just to have it stolen. Since these artists would have chosen to produce in an environment of copyright, and people would have consumed their work, there is evidently a welfare loss without copyright protection

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by djbdjb *
**
It is the same with intellectual property: If there were no copyright, there would be some marginal artists who decline to produce art just to have it stolen. Since these artists would have chosen to produce in an environment of copyright, and people would have consumed their work, there is evidently a welfare loss without copyright protection
**

To which opponents might counter: The small amount of unproduced artwork caused by loss of copyrights is more than made up for by the fact that anyone can enjoy all the artwork that is made.

[City_Gent]

*Originally posted by CnoteChris *
**Someone has to do this:

City Gent

Stole.

STOLE!

Stole?
[sup](Insert smiley)[/sup] **

OK, you got me, sort of. Actually, I’d take back the word “stole” if I could, because they did it with the permission of the other students. I’d call it “unauthorized collaboration”, because sometimes, collaboration is permitted and even encouraged, but in that case, I specifically forbade it.

Still, this is a somewhat different situation from Napster: Passing another’s work off as your own is not the same as making an illegal copy of a song. Nobody believes that you yourself performed the song and put it on a CD, so it’s not a question of credit for original work. For the academic misconduct case to be directly comparable to the Napster case, you’d have to turn in a Xerox of someone else’s paper (including name and all) without the person’s permission and get course credit for it, which obviously would never work.

SPOOFE, I accept your proposal of a truce, if that’s what it was. I am glad that I made you grin, but I think you need to grin more. Take a walk in the woods once in a while, fer Chrissake.

[CnoteChris]

Originally posted by City Gent
OK, you got me, sort of.

I was just funnin’ around CG.

Just between you, me, and the lamppost, I’d just assume stay out of this debate for now.

I would like to add, however, that I thought your fresh approach to this issue, combined with a killer writing style, made a typically stale, yet emotionally charged, argument, refreshing to read. I thought it was funny to boot. Thanks.

I hope you stick around. You have some fans.

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, I accept your proposal of a truce, if that’s what it was. I am glad that I made you grin, but I think you need to grin more. Take a walk in the woods once in a while, fer Chrissake.

Yeah, I think you’re right… man, I miss nature… the fresh air, the cute widdle animals, the nontoxic water…

Then again, I’ll miss TV’s warm glowing warming glow.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**

As much as I think you to be a stubborn, obstinate weenie, that actually made me grin. Congratulations. Only Stoid has been able to do that.
**

I’m the only poster that can make you grin?!?!?!?!?!? Oh my god, the pressure! :eek:

[SPOOFE]

You’re the only (other) poster who has made me grin while being “a stubborn, obstinate weenie”. And I mean “weenie” in a good way.