 |
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
Yeesh. Guys, downloading copyrighted works is copyright infringement, not theft. The penalties for the two are different. In fact, most copyright infrigement matters are civil, not criminal. (Selling that work again is another matter, but not really what was being talked about here.)
MPAA and RIAA have been working hard to change this, I admit, but it hasn't happened yet. Their ads are disengenuous, and are confusing the distinction on purpose. It's much more threatening to say "this is theft" than to say "this is copyright infringement".
BTW, Oncle Boris, since when have you taken corporations at their stated word? These guys have an agenda behind the misrepresentation, because it can make them more money.
The basis for the difference is pretty clear. Copying a work does nothing to deprive the owner of the original or of anything he already has. Stealing his car (or food, or whatever), quite obviously does.
--"That's a very shallow view of property- property also extends to a person's right over his work, hence the very possibility of intellectual property."
Intellectual Property has been controversial as long as it's been around. It is not a simple extentesion of property rights. It's a limited monopoly granted by the government for the ostensible purpose of encouraging innovation. In copyright's case, it originally only covered printed works that were specifically registered, and for a rather more limited time than at present. Now there's not a whole lot that isn't automatically covered by copyright, which lasts for nearly a full lifetime after the originator's death, which can hardly induce him to create new works from beyond the grave.
This is a big part of the problem. The only ones who can take advantage of the current rules are the big (and technically immortal) corporations. The worse the laws are, the more inducement there is for people to ignore and break them.
IP is broken up into four areas, each of which operates under different restrictions. People lumping them together blindly do no service to the various arguments that go on. People like MPAA and RIAA are the worst at this, because they're doing this on purpose to obsfucate their arguments. You cannot apply trade secret or patent rules to copyright, no matter how much these guys want to.
--"Exactly. Thus replicating a Ferrari would be as much theft as would replicating a movie be."
I really don't see how you can claim this, even if you are arguing from a labor theory of value. After all, it's the copier performing the extra labor, he's not taking it from anyone else. You could use the labor theory of value to argue only in the case of IP, since you could claim he's stealing someone else's "brain labor", but since the labor theory of value is complete bunk it doesn't matter.
Wraith
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies."
-- Groucho Marx
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wraith
The penalties for the two are different. [QUOTE]
Not so much these days.
Theft and copyright infrigement are fairly analogous in the scheme of things. Both involve the use of someone else's interests without their permission. While they are under different statutes and different names, its not a shock that it would be framed to the common man as being one and the same. Everyone knows what theft is, not many people know about copyrights. If you think this is manipulation or whatever, then that is on you to re-educate the masses otherwise.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wraith
The basis for the difference is pretty clear. Copying a work does nothing to deprive the owner of the original or of anything he already has. Stealing his car (or food, or whatever), quite obviously does. [QUOTE]
Copying someone's work or allowing it to be copied from your source without the creator's permission deprives that person of the right to distribute their work as they see fit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
--"Groucho Marx"
Got to give the man credit. He knew more about the human condition than most self-styled intellectuals ever will.
--"Not so much these days."
Unfortunately true. This is what massive lobbying can get you these days. Thank you, Senator Disney, I mean, Senator Hollings.
If Disney weren't so freakishly paranoid about Steamboat Willie slipping into the public domain, the problem would be a lot less. Which is strikingly hypocritical, given that Steamboat Willie, as well as most Disney works, are remarkably derivative of other peoples "Intellectual Property".
--"Both involve the use of someone else's interests without their permission. "
Maybe it's just me, but it seems pretty obvious that depriving someone of something is more serious than not depriving them of it.
--" If you think this is manipulation or whatever, then that is on you to re-educate the masses otherwise. "
Why do you think I'm bothering to post in here? I tell people this kind of thing all the time when the subject comes up. I just don't have billions of dollars cheated out of creators to run ads and fund election campaigns.
--"Copying someone's work or allowing it to be copied from your source without the creator's permission deprives that person of the right to distribute their work as they see fit."
Why not? They've still got it, right?
BTW, I would highly encourage you to read up on the history of copyright. It's very interesting.
--"Is it then legal to download the cd's?"
Depends who you ask. Most people will say "no problem". RIAA will say "No way". They don't like people converting from one media to another, they don't want you to have a digital version unless you pay again. The way they've been attacking Fair Use, it's pretty clear they want to charge you for every time you listen to it.
Wraith
"The penalty for laughing in the courtroom is six months in jail: if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
Yeesh. Guys, downloading copyrighted works is copyright infringement, not theft. |
But copyright exists on the basis that IP is property. Its legal workings are very similar to that of traditional property.
quote:
The penalties for the two are different. In fact, most copyright infrigement matters are civil, not criminal. (Selling that work again is another matter, but not really what was being talked about here.)
|
It only means that officials do not strongly enforce these laws - arguably for a reason, because copyright infringement is a benign crime.
quote:
MPAA and RIAA have been working hard to change this, I admit, but it hasn't happened yet. Their ads are disengenuous, and are confusing the distinction on purpose. It's much more threatening to say "this is theft" than to say "this is copyright infringement".
|
I'm surprised that a simplistic comment like this would slip into your rather intelligent post. Their idea is that copyright infringement is a form of theft; as I previously tried to say to Pekka, rhetoric-wise, saying that copyright infringement is... copyright infringement would get them nowhere.
quote:
BTW, Oncle Boris, since when have you taken corporations at their stated word? These guys have an agenda behind the misrepresentation, because it can make them more money.
|
Of course they do. It's not like I'm defending them. Consider my intervention strictly limited to the notions of property and theft.
quote:
The basis for the difference is pretty clear. Copying a work does nothing to deprive the owner of the original or of anything he already has. Stealing his car (or food, or whatever), quite obviously does.
|
I think the idea of deprival clearly goes beyond material objects. Your argument does not take into account some assumptions relating to the spirit of the notion of property. If people put work and money into the production of IP with the idea of selling it, then they are deprived of something if they can't get paid: not only the labour, but the material resources that were consumed during the production process.
There would a clear intellectual dishonesty here if you would say that there is any important difference between being directly deprived of an object, and being deprived of payment for objects (including money, labour and resources) consumed during the production of IP with the express intent of receiving compensation for it within the frameset set by copyright laws.
quote:
Intellectual Property has been controversial as long as it's been around. It is not a simple extentesion of property rights. It's a limited monopoly granted by the government for the ostensible purpose of encouraging innovation. |
Honestly, I don't see why this definition couldn't also apply to traditional forms of property.
quote:
In copyright's case, it originally only covered printed works that were specifically registered, and for a rather more limited time than at present. Now there's not a whole lot that isn't automatically covered by copyright, which lasts for nearly a full lifetime after the originator's death, which can hardly induce him to create new works from beyond the grave.
This is a big part of the problem. The only ones who can take advantage of the current rules are the big (and technically immortal) corporations. The worse the laws are, the more inducement there is for people to ignore and break them.
|
I'm no legal expert, but don't patents expire after a certain time anyway (that is not related to the lifespan of the owner)? As for cultural productions (a non-patent form of IP), I can hear you. The extent to which property can go can hardly be justified to scope beyond a lifetime IMO.
quote:
IP is broken up into four areas, each of which operates under different restrictions. People lumping them together blindly do no service to the various arguments that go on. People like MPAA and RIAA are the worst at this, because they're doing this on purpose to obsfucate their arguments. You cannot apply trade secret or patent rules to copyright, no matter how much these guys want to.
|
Personally I've never seen record labels try to pass cultural copyrights as trade secrets or patents, but whatever.
quote:
I really don't see how you can claim this, even if you are arguing from a labor theory of value. After all, it's the copier performing the extra labor, he's not taking it from anyone else. You could use the labor theory of value to argue only in the case of IP, since you could claim he's stealing someone else's "brain labor", but since the labor theory of value is complete bunk it doesn't matter.
|
I don't know why the labor theory of value is complete bunk, and heck, I don't even know if I adhere to it, even though I guess I might, because as a commie I think that what justifies collective takeover of the means of production is the undervaluation of labor. 
Back to your point, I think this argument is a bit prematurate. Replicating a Ferrari through reverse-engineering of patented technologies would be illegal, however rebuilding one from the ground up is perfectly fine. The comparison being done here, though, assumed the hypothetical possibility of skipping the reverse-engineering step with a replicator machine - i.e, a CD burner. And as far as I know, replicating an album does not reenact the labor associated with the original creation. So at best it can justify not having to pay for the media (because it does the work), but not for the content.
BTW, it may be a bit too late, but I'd like to point out that I do despise the RIAA, and that I'm a strong proponent of lifting barriers on intellectual content. My argument here seeks to show that there is no meaningful distinction between material property and IP, if you believe in the former (which stems from a very conservative view of property). Even though this is beyond the scope of thid debate, let me just say that the reasons for which I reject most notions around physical property, are also those for which I reject most notions surrounding IP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Who's stealing? Last music I acquired was via a dual-disc CD/DVD hybrid (Rob Thomas' album). |
Asher, the taste police are coming for you.
Does the CD side play in regular old CD players?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No it doesn't.
It just limits his ability to make money from said distributions. Even on this point, there is no clear evidence that downloading actually hurts music and movies revenues. In fact, some research studies indicate otherwise. |
I wasn't talking about selling music, I was talking about distributing it. there is a difference in the two, that apparently I dind't convey to you and Ludd.
I believe that artists have the right to determine how to distribute their works, be it for profit, free of charge, or through some middle ground such as streaming audio/video. whether or not piracy affects anything positively or negatively is irrelevant IMHO, to what the artist/creator/owner desires to be done with their work. If you disagree with me, then that is good for you, and thusly I bid you adieu. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
--"But copyright exists on the basis that IP is property."
Which is exactly the controversial part. Look at some of the patents being issued today, that essentially apply to simple mathematical operations. If patents are allowed on ideas, do we have to pay license fees to think? How do you enforce that, anyway?
--"It only means that officials do not strongly enforce these laws "
No, it means they're civil laws, not criminal laws. These are two distinct categories in US courts. Breaking a contract or license is a civil matter. Killing someone is a criminal one.
Copyright infringement falls into the former category. Theft -- actually taking something material -- falls into the latter.
--"Their idea is that copyright infringement is a form of theft;"
Which, as a matter of US law, it isn't.
--"If people put work and money into the production of IP with the idea of selling it, then they are deprived of something if they can't get paid"
Not really. Simply making something, anything, is no guarantee of selling it. If I make a car no-one wants to buy, I'm not being deprived of anything.
--"Honestly, I don't see why this definition couldn't also apply to traditional forms of property."
Only if you're willing to posit that the government owns everything, including you. Which, I grant, there are some people on this forum who would have no problem with.
--"I'm no legal expert, but don't patents expire after a certain time anyway (that is not related to the lifespan of the owner)?"
20 years, I think. But they have other problems, which I'll get to in answer to a later point.
--"Personally I've never seen record labels try to pass cultural copyrights as trade secrets or patents, but whatever."
They usually don't try to bring trade secret laws into it, since those are pretty straight forward. However, the mere act of calling it "intellectual property" is an intentional confusion. There are four categories: patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks. The four areas of law are all distinct, and the rules for one most emphatically do not apply to the others. This is why there are patent lawyers and copyright lawers, but unless someone's gaming something, there aren't any "IP" lawyers.
--"I don't know why the labor theory of value is complete bunk"
Try reading Carl Menger's "Principles of Economics" for a much more sensible theory of value.
The argue against labor theory is pretty simple. If I have flour, water, yeast, salt, and fuel, I can spend labor to make bread, increasing value. But I can also make a horrible, inedible mess, which would actually decrease the value of what I had. It isn't labor that provides value; labor is just one factor in the equation.
--"Replicating a Ferrari through reverse-engineering of patented technologies would be illegal, however rebuilding one from the ground up is perfectly fine."
Actually, you're wrong on both counts, just in different ways. Reverse-engineering is legal, so that by itself would not make the project illegal.
However, both cases would be illegal. Thanks to the patents, but not the reverse engineering. This is because you're not allowed to use a patented mechanism, even if you arrive at it completely independently.
This is a major argument against software patents, btw. Especially given how broad they are. Software patents make it essentially impossible to write a program with infringing on something somewhere, and they aren't any different from patents on math (algorithms).
--"Any layman-level books you can reccommend?"
I'll have to see what I can find.
For the nonce, here's a slew of links on copyright:
Copyright on the Internet:
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm#lim
Copyright Issues and the Internet:
http://www.fidex.com/copyright%20issues.htm
General Information about Copyrights:
http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm
A Software Copyright Primer:
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/200...er-2000-02.html
Librarian's Index to the Internet: Copyright
http://lii.org/search?query=Copyright;searchtype=subject
Patents and Copyright:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/05.html
--"but Republicans outlawed many (most?) of the fair use arguments with the Digital Copyright Act for a New Mellenium."
The example you give is still legal. The aren't any anti-copying technologies to be circumvented on a record, so DMCA doesn't really cover it as far as I know. Copying DRM-protected CDs is another matter.
--'I don't know what the others think, but I'm just trying to say that if you believe in "normal" property, there's no way you can't believe in IP."
Sure you can. Property is tangible. "IP" is intangible, and therefore not property.
Wraith
"Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens -- and then everybody disagrees."
-- Boris Marshalov
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2005 16:12
)
I'm very anti piracy, transmission of music/work without the artist/creator's permission, but this is too much, even for me.
|