news flash: kids pay big bucks for song theft. lady freedom smiles

[Bill_H]

Mr2001 wrote

Or perhaps, turning in Johnny’s paper as his own, that is, stealing the credit for it?

Exactly! And I’m so proud of you for finally conceding the word “theft”. Your apology is accepted.

I’ll concede that plagiarism can be called “stealing”–in fact, it’s about the only way to “steal” someone’s intellectual output–but again, plagiarism and copyright violation are very different.

Oh.

You’re back to it again. “Yes, I’ll concede that it’s ‘stealing’, but it and theft are very different.”

Whatever makes you sleep, friend.

It was not until the invention of printing in the late fifteenth century that a form of copyright protection was devised.

Thanks for doing the homework! Once again, you’ve been a good man and accepted defeat, doing my homework for me, and demonstrating that in fact, the concept of intellectual property is far from new, and has been accepted by law since the 1600’s. Thank you!

[Mort_Furd]

Pssst! Yosemitebabe, over here.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
You’re back to it again. "Yes, I’ll concede that it’s ‘stealing’, but it and theft are very different."

Are you dyslexic? Do the words “plagiarism” and “copyright violation” look the same to you?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You can’t be this dense; it must be a medical condition. I suggest you get it checked out before you embarrass yourself any more.

[Bill_H]

So you’re disputing that plagiarism is a form of copyright violation?

Oh wait, you’re already disputing that the Electronic Theft Act involves electronic theft.

So, I will concede that you’re consistant.

Look, your own quote says that credit for intellectual property was “of concern” in Roman times, and that economic rights were law since the late fifteenth century. What is in dispute here?

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
**So you’re disputing that plagiarism is a form of copyright violation?

Oh wait, you’re already disputing that the Electronic Theft Act involves electronic theft.**

Damn skippy. I’ll also dispute that the Patriot Act involves patriotism, and that the Defense of Marriage Act involves defending marriage.

You must learn to look past the title of the bill, grasshoppa.

**Look, your own quote says that credit for intellectual property was “of concern” in Roman times, and that economic rights were law since the late fifteenth century. What is in dispute here? **

Your claim that “owning an idea” is natural or obvious, and that violating copyright is immoral or “theft”.

Unless, of course, by “owning” you meant nothing further than A) receiving credit for one’s work and B) receiving a legal monopoly on distribution for a limited time as a reward and an incentive for adding to our culture. I fully support those - the first as a moral issue, the second as a public policy issue.

Copyright violation falls into the same moral category as jaywalking. Violating copyright is no more “stealing a work” than jaywalking is “stealing your way across the street”. It’s a good idea to cross at the crosswalk, but crossing in the middle of the street doesn’t make you a bad person.

[Bill_H]

Mr2001 wrote

Your claim that “owning an idea” is natural or obvious…

Uh, no. The claim was by even sven, and it was that (and I quote)

Intellectual property is not a natural or obvious right.

Your own quote was better proof that this was false then anything I’ve said! Your own quote demonstrated that indeed intellectual property has been a right that’s been accepted since roman times, and has been codified into law since the fifteenth century!

Oh, and this one is good:

Copyright violation falls into the same moral category as jaywalking.

Maybe in your morality. As I quoted earlier, stealing songs is punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison for a first time offense. Which state gives you jail time for jaywalking, which isn’t even a misdemeanor (it’s an infraction)? Maybe the state of denial! HAHAHAHA! Oh, I crack myself up. And that’s just for stealing songs. Suppose you stole something more substantial, like the source code for Windows? Wanna tell me you’ll get a $15 fine for that?

Please re-read this thread and do a bit of research before saying more silly things.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
Your own quote was better proof that this was false then anything I’ve said! Your own quote demonstrated that indeed intellectual property has been a right that’s been accepted since roman times, and has been codified into law since the fifteenth century!
[…]
As I quoted earlier, stealing songs is punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison for a first time offense.

Have you considered remedial English courses?

I mean, I can understand confusing “plagiarism” with “copyright violation”. They’re both long words, and a busy man like yourself obviously doesn’t have time to look at the individual letters to tell them apart.

But confusing “legal” and “moral”? Sure, they’re both 5 letters. But can’t you see that one word has two ascenders (y’know, the tall letters) and a descender (the hanging down ones), and the other has only a single ascender? The words have an entirely different shape.

Tell you what, why don’t you take another shot at reading my last post? Take your time, there’s no rush. I know you can do it this time, Bill.

Oh, you might want to take another look at the NET Act, too. Imprisonment for a maximum of 5 years on a first offense is only for people who reproduce or distribute over $1000 worth of copyrighted works for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Not for downloaders, and not for small-time traders.

[Bill_H]

Oh and to the people grasping for straws claiming that the “Electronic Theft Act” doesn’t deal with electronic theft:

Please find me one (just one) example of a law that calls out a crime in the name (such as “theft”, “murder”, “rape” or other) that doesn’t actually deal with that crime. Just one.

The fact that the “Patriot act” isn’t about patriot missiles (or whatever the lame ass excuse was) is about as relevant that “Jenna’s law” doesn’t just apply to people named Jenna.

Just one. and when you can’t find one, just stop this “what does ‘theft’ really mean” argument. It’s as dumb as saying that since “a stolen kiss” is a loving thing that stealing someone’s property is beautiful too. Please.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Bill H. *
Please find me one (just one) example of a law that calls out a crime in the name (such as “theft”, “murder”, “rape” or other) that doesn’t actually deal with that crime. Just one.

Been there, done that. Don’t you remember discussing the No Electronic Theft Act, right here, in this very thread?

You have yet to prove that the NET Act has anything to do with theft. Unlike you, I actually read the Act, and it deals with copyright infringement. Doesn’t say a thing about theft once you get past the title.

[Ms2001]

Although, you could be right after all: the act is called “No Electronic Theft”, and it deals with no electronic theft whatsoever.

[Bill_H]

All I can figure is you’re joking. You made a claim, that a piece of law that has a crime mentioned in the title doesn’t necessarily pertain to that crime. Prove it. Show one instance to back up your claim that just because this is called the “No Electronic Theft Act”, that it doesn’t have to relate to electronic theft.

Find one piece of legislation called the “Anti-rape act” that doesn’t relate to rape, or the “Murder Reduction Act” that doesn’t relate to murder.

Prove it or retract it.

And in the meantime, I’ll bask in the joy that four punks are paying for their crime of theft (or in your terms, free love), and there’ll be more to follow soon enough. Hey, who’s that knocking on your door?

[LilShieste]

Referring back to the thing mentioned in the OP:

How does the RIAA distinguish which mp3 files were downloaded vs which mp3 files were ripped from a CD by that person? Granted, I’m not very keen on the whole “Let’s let the RIAA hack into people’s computers, so they can find pirated music”, but I would be pretty hacked off if the RIAA deleted 1-2 gigabytes worth of mp3s that I actually own.

On another note: back in the day, I used to download a LOT of mp3s. Nowadays, I don’t find myself doing it. Basically because I do see it as wrong, since I wasn’t paying for the CD. Yet, I don’t agree with how the RIAA is going about handling this whole matter. I almost get the feeling that the people in charge of RIAA sit around in a meeting room brainstorming a bunch of ridiculous ideas, that would have little chance of being effectively implemented… at best.
LilShieste

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Bill H.
Show one instance to back up your claim that just because this is called the “No Electronic Theft Act”, that it doesn’t have to relate to electronic theft.

Look, it’s simple. Read the text of the NET Act. It has nothing to do with stealing; it’s a bill about copyright infringement.

If you want to claim that copyright infringement is stealing, well, you got a lot of 'splaining to do. When you steal something from me, I don’t have it any more. Do you understand how that differs from copyright infringement?

If you want to claim that the word “theft” is appropriate because a copyright infringement bill includes the word “theft” in its title, thus the crime described in the bill must be theft, then the same logic dictates that the Patriot Act must be about patriotism and the Brady Bill must be about the Brady Bunch. (Hint: They aren’t.)

And in the meantime, I’ll bask in the joy that four punks are paying for their crime of theft (or in your terms, free love),

My terms, huh? Point out the post where I said that, or admit you made it up.

and there’ll be more to follow soon enough. Hey, who’s that knocking on your door?

Probably Amazon, delivering the CDs I bought after hearing the songs online.

Originally posted by LilShieste
How does the RIAA distinguish which mp3 files were downloaded vs which mp3 files were ripped from a CD by that person? Granted, I’m not very keen on the whole “Let’s let the RIAA hack into people’s computers, so they can find pirated music”, but I would be pretty hacked off if the RIAA deleted 1-2 gigabytes worth of mp3s that I actually own.

Whether you downloaded them or ripped them yourself, sharing them is still illegal. The RIAA won’t know you have the files if you aren’t sharing them.

[Bill_H]

Mr2001 wrote

If you want to claim that the word “theft” is appropriate because a copyright infringement bill includes the word “theft” in its title, thus the crime described in the bill must be theft, then the same logic dictates that the Patriot Act must be about patriotism and the Brady Bill must be about the Brady Bunch.

There is just no other word to describe this then stupid. Just plain stupid. Call it winning if you like but I will not argue this “theft is not theft” point with you any further. Saying “No, you’re wrong” is not enough. Posturing ridiculous claims involving Mike Brady is not enough. Claim black is white, theft is not theft all you like. It doesn’t make it so.

The law is crystal on the matter, your words won’t make the theft any more legal and it certainly won’t make it any more moral.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Bill H.
There is just no other word to describe this then stupid.

The fact that you can admit it so easily speaks volumes about your character. Kudos to you, sir.

Now, since you haven’t found a post where I called copyright infringement “free love” (and you never will), when can we expect to see your retraction and/or apology?

[LilShieste]

Mr2001 said:

Whether you downloaded them or ripped them yourself, sharing them is still illegal. The RIAA won’t know you have the files if you aren’t sharing them.

So the only mp3 files they would be able to delete are ones that are being shared? Maybe I’m thinking too much into it, but I think it would take a combination of pretty good (and impressive) software and a lot of manpower to do this to a massive number of computers.

Just for clarification: I understand (I think) what you are saying, Mr2001, I just don’t think it’s a feasible idea at all (wow, go RIAA yet again).
LilShieste

[LilShieste]

Bill H. said:

The law is crystal on the matter, your words won’t make the theft any more legal and it certainly won’t make it any more moral.

Perhaps the law isn’t as “crystal clear” on the matter as some people think. Granted, some people will claim it is not stealing because the record industry makes so much profit anyway, but I think there are a lot of people who believe the law should be a little more straight-forward about this particular subject. Considering the way some laws are worded (i.e. taking an entire paragraph to state one sentence), it’s probably going to have to be done in this case as well.
LilShieste

[asterion]

All right, here we go again in the gray areas of the law. I just bought a used CD (Blues Traveler’s Four, if you’re interested), and tracks 10 and 11 don’t play properly because of CD damage. Now, I haven’t tried resurfacing it yet (though I intend to), but say for the sake of argument I have resurfaced it and it still doesn’t work. Now, in fairness, I’m not a big fan of Blues Traveler (I bought it mostly for Run-Around and Hook), but I am a completionist. So, I own a legal copy of the CD. I can’t get two of the tracks to play properly. I am going to rip this CD to mp3 anyway so that I can use my cd/mp3 player and take the mp3s back to school, where I will put them on my school computer. So, seeing as how I have a legal copy, what is to prevent me from downloading those two tracks (which won’t be encoded as highly as I will do for the rest of the CD) and have my conscience free and clear?

Or, here’s another one. I play in a school band. The school claims the copyright to the performance itself, and then of course there are the copyrights to the individual works (although we obviously bought performance rights.) So what happens when I share these files? After all, there will be better performances of Mars or the overture to Colas Beuregnon or Heroes Lost and Fallen out there, so I don’t think anyone who really cares about music will hang onto a bunch of performances by non-music major college students (except for the student and his family for vanity purposes.) Do I have any right to the performance, seeing as how I actually played these pieces? Will anyone care that there’s one more pretty crappy interpretation of those pieces out there when they can go and buy a CD done by a professional group?

Let’s extend that. Say I actually am a good pianist/organist (I’m not by any stretch of the imagination) and I decide to record myself playing some of Bach’s stuff for organ, say Toccata and Fugue in D minor. Now, this piece is clearly in the public domain. I could claim a copyright to my specific performance, but I decide not to and release it to the net. This is free and clear, right?

Now let’s go to a work that’s not in the public domain, say something by Tori Amos. I can buy the sheet music of Tori Amos’ stuff, after all. Let’s assume I can pay extra for performance rights (I don’t know if you can, but let’s say so.) Pretend also that I can actually sing as well as she. So, I record something by Tori Amos and release this to the net. Now, this isn’t the original work. It’s my personal interpretation of the work. What if I release this to the net? Am I free and clear? After all, it’s just me playing Tori Amos using an upright piano and the recording equipment I have in the house. I had performance rights, so I could have put together a concert of Asterion Plays Tori Amos. I don’t know if I could have charged people for it, but let’s say I wouldn’t to keep the scenario about the same with releasing it to the net.

Or how about cover bands? Some cover bands can probably fall under parody (such as playing Metallica in a bluegrass style, perhaps.) Obviously, actual parody is protected (see Weird Al. Well, maybe you wouldn’t actually want to see Weird Al, but anyway.) How about a local band that plays Beatles songs in a club where they get paid for their work? Is what they’re doing legal? After all, everything the Beatles have ever done is still under copyright. What if they took a copy of their performance and released it to the net? Are they legal or not?

Okay, maybe the last three examples have clear-cut answers in the law. But how about the first two? I’d wager not.

[LilShieste]

I agree, asterion. These are things that I think need to be addressed directly just so ambiguity can be removed as much as possible from any anti-theft/anti-piracy laws.
LilShieste

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by LilShieste *
Mr2001 said:
So the only mp3 files they would be able to delete are ones that are being shared? Maybe I’m thinking too much into it, but I think it would take a combination of pretty good (and impressive) software and a lot of manpower to do this to a massive number of computers.

Well, AFAIK it isn’t law (and probably never will be), so they aren’t able to delete any files today.

But if it did pass, I imagine they’d log onto a P2P network, find the largest file sharers, and hack into their computers, collecting evidence, deleting files, or whatever they feel like doing. If you aren’t sharing a lot of files, they wouldn’t single you out - their intent is to disrupt the P2P network by eliminating the supply of files, not to harass individual users.