A sociologic sort of question...

[MystyGlyttyr]

I came up with this question and have been debating it back and forth with a couple of friends...sort of a tree-falling-in-the-woods question, not an actual legal question...I know the legal answer ;) (I figured a few people might get heated over the legal form of the question so I put it on Fratching, but that's not what I'm wanting to see, I'm interested in people's outlook on the philosophical part.)

Okay, there exists "Music CD A". Now we'll say that, somehow, it can be completely proven with no margin of error that never in your life you would ever buy this CD. Say it's a brain scan, Minority Report kinds of technology, something, and there is no exception, it IS proven you will never buy the CD in any way, shape or form. Therefore, "Record Company" will never and would never receive any money from you for "Music CD A".

Also, if the CD was never available online, you would never seek it out at all. If the Internet had no way of sharing music files, your only option was to buy the CD, you would never buy it.

But, the Internet does in fact exist, and you do find download "Music CD A" online for free.

Now, legally, you have broken the law. However, since it is 100% proven you would never have bought the CD, "Record Company" has taken no loss. Therefore, since there was no loss, you did not steal, since you can't steal nothing.

True or false?

I had thought up this hypothetical situation and thought I had the answer to it, but the more I debate it and think about it, the less certain I become, LOL. So, I want to see other people's thoughts. Abstract is always fascinating.

(Sidenote, this is just for amusement. Downloading stuff for free without permission is illegal whether you agree with it or not; and in reality, you can practically never prove anything 100%. I just thought this might be a fun brain exercise. Please don't take it too seriously, i.e. start flaming. Flames make Mysty sad.)

[Sylvia727]

Well, it's still theft, because one still took the music without permission. I think someone taking my creative property without permission is wrong, no matter whether or not they would ever buy it. If you don't want to pay for it, then you shouldn't be allowed to use it. Also, it would encourage people with a chance of buying the cd, be it 1% or 99%, to steal the music as well.

[Pedersen]

Now, legally, you have broken the law. However, since it is 100% proven you would never have bought the CD, "Record Company" has taken no loss. Therefore, since there was no loss, you did not steal, since you can't steal nothing.

True or false?

True, nothing has been stolen. Not one single little thing. If anything, it's been given (since bandwidth had to be used to download the music, and the bandwidth used was your own, plus that of the person who let you download from them).

Well, it's still theft, because one still took the music without permission.

Hmmm... What about taping from digital radio? Same result: I've got a copy of the song for which I paid nothing. The only difference is that I have to wait until somebody broadcasts it. Of course, to download the music, I have to wait until somebody puts a version of it online...

Yeah, this has the potential to muddy the waters even more. Sorry Mysty.

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P? The only difference that I can find is that there's only a few sources for digital radio, as opposed to many more for P2P.

[Sylvia727]

True, nothing has been stolen. Not one single little thing.

Music's been stolen. Creative property has been stolen. The time, effort, and creative energy of the artists in question has been stolen. The things I make, be they songs, sculptures, or widgets, are mine. Nobody else has the right to use them without my permission.

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P?

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

[Pedersen]

Music's been stolen. Creative property has been stolen. The time, effort, and creative energy of the artists in question has been stolen.

Interesting assertions. So, let's see, per the original post (and since you're making it your personal compositions, we'll use you and me as an example), I would never have bought your music. Never ever ever. You would never have seen one dime from me. Period.

Now, you claim that I have stolen from you. Well, part of stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something. Let's check your list of things that have been stolen:


Music. No, you have your copy. The person from whom I downloaded has theirs. No one has lost anything.
Creative property. Unless you have a different definition (which, admittedly, I am unable to devise right now), this is another name for "music", which I just addressed.
Time. Since time is the basis for my own morality code, I'll address this one more fully at the end of my post.
Effort. I'm not sure how effort can be stolen, so let's ponder. Effort is another name for work. The way it is used here, effort is a noun (as would work be a noun then). The only relevant way to use these terms when discussing music is to say that effort/work was expended in producing the music.

Now, that effort was expended to produce music. You still have your music. Your effort could only have been stolen while it was being expended. Once it's spent, it can no longer be stolen (this is similar to my time discussion, so see below).

End result: Your effort can not be stolen by somebody making an unauthorized copy after the fact. Your effort was not stolen.
Creative energy. Now this one is interesting. I'm not even sure how this could be defined in a way that could allow theft to occur. It's almost like saying "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could make another. But that Pedersen, he made an unauthorized copy of it, and now I don't have the desire to make another song."

If that's what you mean, I can see your point. Somehow, though, I don't think you were talking about future creative energy. Please clarify.


The things I make, be they songs, sculptures, or widgets, are mine. Nobody else has the right to use them without my permission.

Careful there, Sylvia727. You see, we are all the product of our environment, whether we like to admit it or not. In particular, with music, are you aware that, as far as the US is concerned, copyright law states that every song that can be written has been written?

I'm trying to find the case, but am unable to do so. Here's what happened, though: One musician sued another (they were famous names, and in the last 20 years), as the defendant had copied three notes out of the plaintiff's song and placed those three notes into his own.

The plaintiff won. The court agreed that those three notes constituted copyright infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay damages.

There's a limited number of three note combinations that can be written. In fact, that number turns out to be less than 47,000. Unfortunately, I don't remember how the math is done, but I do remember doing it to double-check. It really is less than 47,000 three note combinations that are possible.

Every single artist is infringing on everybody else's copyrights. Unless you're over 85 years old, chances are very good that everything you've ever written is copyrighted. Congratulations, you've just stolen the creative energies of millions of other musicians.

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

Wow. That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. So, let me get this straight: I don't ask for radio. It's broadcast every where I go, whether I want it or not. If I decide to record it, I'm guilty of "stealing"?

Just... wow. That sort of argument is why the anti-copyright crowd wants to abolish copyright entirely, you know. Refusal to give any ground, calling everybody a thief.

Anyway, I promised to discuss the time thing with you, so here it goes. First, a link (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=189) to provide explanation for what follows (I highly recommend reading it, as it will explain what comes after).

So, analyze the time being spent:
Artist: Spends time to compose music. Then spends time to get money to rent (or buy) equipment to produce music at an acceptable quality level.
Consumer: Spends time to get money to buy the disc (some of this money then goes back to the artist). Then spends time to listen to the music. Possibly spends time to format shift the music to be more convenient for himself.
Downloader: Spends time to find an already format shifted copy of the song. Spends time to download the song. Spends time to listen to it.

Given: Money can not buy more time, but it can allow the holder to make more effective use of their time.

By my definitions, not a single one of these people has committed an evil act. None of them has deprived any other of any amount of time. The worst thing you can say is that the downloader has not helped the artist make more effective use of the artist's time. While not an evil act, it's certainly not a nice one.

By my definitions, the worst I can say is that it's not nice. Since it's not something I want done to me, I make every effort to avoid doing it to others.

Now, let's change things a bit:
Artist: Adds restrictions (in the form of technological add-ons) that prevent the consumer from format shifting the music.
Consumer: Spends time to find a way to remove the technological restrictions to allow himself easier use of the item he bought.
Downloader: Has to search longer to find an already format shifted version of the music.

Suddenly, the artist is performing an evil act, as the artist is actively removing time from the other people in the equation. Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

From the perspective of time, no time has been stolen from the artist under any of these scenarios. The artist has either allowed things to progress as they will, or has actively spent time on selfish (and even evil) desires.

So, back to what I said earlier: Time hasn't been stolen either.

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

[ebonyknight]

Sounds like a high tech version of recording TV broadcasts or music from the radio.

If someone broadcasts TV (sports broadcast being a noted exception) or music over the air is it really illegal to record it if it's freely broad cast into mid air? (rhetorical question)

Everyone has their own morality and regardless of "intent", the law is the law. If I intend to run someone down, vs it being a negligent accident, am I not still held responsible? Now whether this law fulfils the social contract, is an ENTIRELY different matter and what this probably SHOULD be about.

Even a "minority report" type system had it's own flaws (using your example) and convicted an innocent man. There can never be a 100% way to prove you would have never bought the music in one medium vs another.

Therefore (in MY opinion only) the issue is quite moot.

Too me it's like discussing what do we do if the sun goes out tomorrow. And yes, I know you already gave your disclaimer. :)

This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assest cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.

[Boozy]

If there's no loss, I can't see how there can be theft.

However, I have a problem with Mysty's scenario. In a Minority Report-type world where music downloads were legal as long as you could prove that you weren't going to purchase the album, no one would ever buy anything they could download.

Why would they pay for something if they can get it free with no repercussions? They could say in all honesty, "I was never going to buy it. I was always planning on downloading it for free."

So in that Minority Report world, illegal downloads would have to remain illegal until a better solution is reached to pay artists.

[rahmota]

I have to agree with Pederson in that there has been no theft if done by the rules of the scenario mysty proposed. His argument is quite solid and reasonable and beat me to most of it. So suffice to say yeah there is no stealing involved in the OP. And a lot of the stuff that the RIAA call stealign is not steal but them greedily wanting to suck as much money out of people as possible.

Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up? That sort of bad form misbehavior by companies is what causes some people to want to become pirates just to punish companies for being jerks like that.

Originally Posted by Sylvia727
None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.
Wow thats an over the top intolerant view. Same as the one the RIAA makes indeed. So the only way people are to get music is to buy an overpriced cd that may only have 1 or 2 songs on it that are any good or do without? No other options whatsoever? Maybe if more companies or artists would let you do an alacarte option on the web (some do I know but its not as common as it could/should be) piracy would go down.

Right now I side with Pederson and the pirates.

[Pedersen]

This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assest cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.

Interesting. Apparently, my side does not exist for you.

So in that Minority Report world, illegal downloads would have to remain illegal until a better solution is reached to pay artists.

And I'll have to disagree with you, as well.

My side hasn't been stated clearly enough, so I'll state it here:

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively. Furthermore, if things continue in this vein, there will be no future new works, as people will be unable to create anything without infringing on other copyrights.

The balance needs to be restored. As such, I firmly believe in the original intent of copyright law. Artists and creators do things that benefit society, and need to have a way to make a living from what they do. They need to be compensated.

To that end, I buy what I can, rather than download it. I buy my CDs, and then convert them to MP3 for use within my home and my car. I buy my books. I prefer to buy them in e-book form when I can, since I now have a device that makes electronic reading a pleasure. I buy my movies. I buy my TV shows.

Actually, TV shows are a special case in their own right: I record my shows to start. I have my own PVR. I record them, and watch when it's convenient for me. I don't distribute my recordings, though. If the show is truly special/important to me, I will buy the series when it comes out on DVD.

The one show that I am unable to buy, though? Good Eats. It's not sold in the format I would buy. You see, I want the entire series, not just specialized sections. I can't buy it. So, I'm recording it from Food Network. When I finally have the entire series, I'll make my own DVDs of it. If they sold it, I'd buy it. They don't.

So, by Sylvia727's logic, I'm a thief for recording one of my favorite shows so that I can refer to it again later.

[ebonyknight]

Interesting. Apparently, my side does not exist for you.

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively. Furthermore, if things continue in this vein, there will be no future new works, as people will be unable to create anything without infringing on other copyrights.

The balance needs to be restored. As such, I firmly believe in the original intent of copyright law. Artists and creators do things that benefit society, and need to have a way to make a living from what they do. They need to be compensated.


*This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assets cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.*

So how does that differ? You want to follow the law...you just believe it should be an earlier form. How does this still not fit?

[Pedersen]

My apologies. I misread what you wrote, and instead read something similar to "Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets need more legal protection than they already have".

Obviously, that was a mistake on my part. Though I do think that side is showing its head already, and I tend more towards a moderate/compromise position.

[ebonyknight]

No offense given or intended, so there is no need for an apology. So I don't accept. ;)

[AFPheonix]

Your tv show example is not a particularly good one, as it was already paid for by ad revenue. Dvd sales are just extra revenue on top of that.

Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.
I do agree that the record companies really do need to get with the times, though. It's pretty expensive to stay legal, not to mention less convenient, especially if you don't want to deal with DRM bullshit, and more time consuming. If record companies want to be more competitive, well, they'd better start actually COMPETING for business instead of just expecting it's always going to be there with DRM ridden expensive downloads, small catalogues, and $17 cd sales.

[protege]

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

I disagree there. I don't think it's stealing if you're recording a song being played over the airwaves. (I mean on the FM band, folks!) There's really no way that can be prevented. We're talking about several hundred (thousand?) square miles to cover.

Also, none of this really became a problem until technology progressed, and the RIAA started having fits of it. 20 years ago, plenty of people recorded songs off the radio...and nobody said a thing. However, now that there's a wider distribution base, it's now a problem :rolleyes:

What pisses me off, is that for every CD, there are one or two good songs...and the rest is just filler that sucks!

[AFPheonix]

Oh, the record companies had a huge kerfuffle over people making mix tapes off the radio, too. I think there's always a dust-up whenever new technology comes around. But rather than try to use a stick to get people to do what they want them, they need to figure out the whole carrot angle and make a product that people actually want to buy.

[Pedersen]

Your tv show example is not a particularly good one, as it was already paid for by ad revenue. Dvd sales are just extra revenue on top of that.

Have to disagree. It's a perfect example of flaws in the system.

Consider: Several copyright advocacy groups state that current copyright laws don't go far enough, and would actually make my recording this show illegal. The only way for me to have a long term copy of the show to watch later (rather than sitting down and watching when it's aired) would be to buy a copy of the DVDs.

However, Food Network does not distribute Good Eats by season, only by subject matter. This means that it is not possible to buy the entire series.

No matter how I look at it, I'm stuck. On the one hand, I've got a group who wants to make it illegal for me to record tv shows, since the producers can sell DVDs of it later, and make money from those sales. And on the other hand I've got an absolute inability to buy the DVDs that they're talking about.

Highly relevant to the discussion, I think.

[Sylvia727]

Well, part of stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something.

That's part of the definition. Another part is "taking without permission". Let's use me as an example. I am a writer and an aspiring author. If someone copies one of my stories off my computer and reads it, they are stealing from me. They have not deprived me of that story, true; I still have a copy on my computer. But they have deprived me of control of my possessions.

To claim that no harm is done to me by someone else wrongfully reading my story or listening to my music is to ignore my right to own the art (or crap) that I produce. You're saying that I have no rights to control my intangible creations. I disagree with that. I should be able to make something beautiful, and sell that to other people, without worrying that someone else will leech from my efforts by using this beauty without right.


Let's check your list of things that have been stolen:
<snip>

The values of time, effort, work, and creative energy are all based on similiar concepts. What it boils down to is this: the artist put something worthwhile into this, and the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile in order to obtain this. If the pirate doesn't think the artist put anything worthwhile into the song, then he doesn't think the song is worthwhile, and has no reason to steal. The fact that this is a song he wants to listen means that he admits this is a worthwhile product. The artist expended all of the above in order to produce this song, and he has every right to expect compensation for his work. If one doesn't want to compensate him, then one shouldn't expect to use the product.


Creative energy. Now this one is interesting. I'm not even sure how this could be defined in a way that could allow theft to occur. It's almost like saying "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could make another. But that Pedersen, he made an unauthorized copy of it, and now I don't have the desire to make another song."

If that's what you mean, I can see your point. Somehow, though, I don't think you were talking about future creative energy. Please clarify.

Almost. More like, "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could sell another. But so many people are making unauthorized copies of it that it's just not worth my time. I guess I'll get a job doing something else and only make music for my own pleasure."

In particular, with music, are you aware that, as far as the US is concerned, copyright law states that every song that can be written has been written? <snip>

chances are very good that everything you've ever written is copyrighted. Congratulations, you've just stolen the creative energies of millions of other musicians.

Wasn't aware, and quite frankly don't care. That's just asinine. The courts can define three notes as copyrighted if they want, but the rest of the world will go on thinking of music as substantially different.

Wow. That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. So, let me get this straight: I don't ask for radio. It's broadcast every where I go, whether I want it or not. If I decide to record it, I'm guilty of "stealing"?

You're sitting in a restaurant, eating a nice dinner, with beautiful music on the radio. Four minutes of your time has been enhanced by a song. The radio station compensated the artist for the act of broadcasting the music. So those four minutes are free and clear. Enjoy them with a clean conscience. However, recording the song, and playing it over and over, has not been compensated for. You are depriving the artist of the compensation due to them for their work. Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want. You could loop that song 24/7 and hear it one billion times without harming anyone else, because the artist feels that 99 cents is a fair price for his work.

Refusal to give any ground, calling everybody a thief.

I didn't call "everyone" a thief, I just said that pirating is stealing from the artists. I agree that ground needs to be given, or more specifically that some companies have been infringing on the rights of the consumer in efforts to prevent piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Once a consumer has bought (the limited rights to) a song, he should be able to listen to it wherever and whenever he likes. The companies do not have the right to prevent him from ripping his cd to his computer or uploading it to his mp3 player.

Artist: Adds restrictions (in the form of technological add-ons) that prevent the consumer from format shifting the music. <snip>

Suddenly, the artist is performing an evil act, as the artist is actively removing time from the other people in the equation. Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

If the artist was selling the entire rights to the song in question, this would be an evil act. However, he is only selling the rights to listen to it. The consumer knows this when he purchases the song. He is not "in possession" of the song itself, just a copy for which he owns listening rights. Nobody is forcing anybody to enter this contract if they don't want to.

The artist has either allowed things to progress as they will, or has actively spent time on selfish (and even evil) desires.

I'm evil, or at least selfish, for wishing to retain control of my property? Control I have not sold or surrendered the rights to? That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. Artists are evil for wanting to be compensated for their work? For refusing to let people use their work and profit from their energy without payment?

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

Compensation for my work. I think the right to listen to my song freely is worth a dollar (or five dollars, or one cent, or whatever). If you don't pay, then you don't get the goods. It's simple.

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively.

Agreed. But that doesn't justify piracy, and I see from the rest of this post that you do make an effort to pay the creators of the work you use.

Actually, TV shows are a special case in their own right: I record my shows to start. I have my own PVR. I record them, and watch when it's convenient for me. I don't distribute my recordings, though.

TiVo and similiar programs opened the door on this one, by giving private viewers the right to record tv programs. However, the cable companies are compensating the owners of the tv shows and movies, and those owners know that the consumers have the right to record, so in essense, you have been sold the right to record the tv shows. It's very similiar, and I think the line is only going to get more blurred as technology advances, but for right now consumers have the right to record tv shows but not the radio, nor do consumers have the right to pirate music.

And a lot of the stuff that the RIAA call stealign is not steal but them greedily wanting to suck as much money out of people as possible.

Yup. I'm referring to straight up person to person copies, though.

Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up?

I had not heard that before. I hope all consumers affected got the value of their computers or relevant damages, though I rather doubt it. Sony had no right to do that, and should have been severely punished for public vandalism.

So the only way people are to get music is to buy an overpriced cd that may only have 1 or 2 songs on it that are any good or do without? No other options whatsoever? Maybe if more companies or artists would let you do an alacarte option on the web (some do I know but its not as common as it could/should be) piracy would go down.

Those are the options presented to you by many artists. If the Dunkin Donuts was only selling boxes of a dozen donuts, and you really just wanted one, would you feel justified in shoplifting a donut? If the Starbucks was only selling coffee by the pot, and you really just wanted one cup, would you feel justified in shoplifting a cup of coffee? Companies and owners can offer their products in whatever packages or formats they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[ebonyknight]

*Originally Posted by rahmota
Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up?*

I had not heard that before. I hope all consumers affected got the value of their computers or relevant damages, though I rather doubt it. Sony had no right to do that, and should have been severely punished for public vandalism.


Actually, not quite true. They were called Sony Root kits. It was Sony copy right protection (XCP, IIRC) that was installed on the user's computer without their knowledge. It installed itself when you put a sony CD into your machine. While the root kit itself was harmless, the software made the "infected" computers vulnerable to hackers.

The flak initially was because of the "invasion of privacy" by not disclosing this (essentially) Trojan virus (actually spyware) was being installed. The flak became much, much worse when hackers took advantage of this knowledge to exploit the Sony software for their own means.

Final result. Sony maintained it was protecting it's intellectual property and refused to remove it. They released software allowing you to stop it from hiding, but allowed it to remain functional. Most anti-virus/spyware programs retooled to detect and remove it, and it is considered a computer security risk.

Interesting tidbits for you guys to digest and particularly relevant to the debate. Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

Carry on. :cool:

[Pedersen]

That's part of the definition. Another part is "taking without permission". Let's use me as an example. I am a writer and an aspiring author. If someone copies one of my stories off my computer and reads it, they are stealing from me. They have not deprived me of that story, true; I still have a copy on my computer. But they have deprived me of control of my possessions.

They have deprived you of control of your possessions? How so? Unless you mean that every single copy in existence is also your possession? If so, then make very certain that none of your possessions find themselves on my hard drives or in my house, as I'm going to have to charge you rent for that space.

Either that copy is mine, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I get to charge you rent for the space. If it is, then whatever may happen with it is no longer depriving you of control of your possessions, since it is no longer your possession.

Of course, there is another option, one that you solely allude to later: That the idea is yours. Copyright law has its own foibles and flaws, to be sure, but it comes from one basic tenet: The creation of art (in all its forms) is viewed as good thing. As such, the creators of said art need to be able to control the distribution of what they have created.

It does not grant them ownership of the ideas, nor even ownership of the specific form of the expression of their ideas. It grants them the right to determine how and when that specific expression of an idea is copied from one person to another.

As it is, you are asserting something that is not in existence in any form in the law: Ownership over the expression of an idea. The reason, of course, is simple: If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.

I'm an author (still working on first novel, actually), and a programmer. I don't own these ideas. What I do own is the right to determine how those ideas are distributed.

The values of time, effort, work, and creative energy are all based on similiar concepts. What it boils down to is this: the artist put something worthwhile into this, and the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile in order to obtain this. If the pirate doesn't think the artist put anything worthwhile into the song, then he doesn't think the song is worthwhile, and has no reason to steal. The fact that this is a song he wants to listen means that he admits this is a worthwhile product. The artist expended all of the above in order to produce this song, and he has every right to expect compensation for his work. If one doesn't want to compensate him, then one shouldn't expect to use the product.

Actually, the pirate did trade something worthwhile to obtain it: His time, his bandwidth (for a download), possibly money, possibly favors to friends. All of those have a value. What he did not do is give money to the creator. And that is where he was wrong: He should have supported the creator. I agree with that. But to say he traded nothing is misleading, and weakens your original position.

Almost. More like, "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could sell another. But so many people are making unauthorized copies of it that it's just not worth my time. I guess I'll get a job doing something else and only make music for my own pleasure."

That is a shame that any creator would feel that way. I know I won't. I have to create. I know it will be pirated. I will do my best to combat it by making the terms so simple to follow that piracy is pretty much an oxymoron. The only time it becomes any different for me is when I try to make a living from it. And even then I'm working to find ways to make the piracy worthless, by making things so that legitimate customers get things that pirates cannot. That, however, is straying too far off the topic at hand.

Wasn't aware, and quite frankly don't care. That's just asinine. The courts can define three notes as copyrighted if they want, but the rest of the world will go on thinking of music as substantially different.

The world can try to think of it that way, but here's a dose of reality for you: If the courts state that it only takes 3 notes to violate copyright, then a malicious individual could legally shut down all music in this country. All that person would have to do is find the earliest recordings of any of those three note combos, and buy the rights for the song. Once all of them are bought, that person can sue everybody in the country (and win!) who dares to have a song at least three notes long.

Music dies right then. That's part of the world that we're headed to with this mad rush to strengthen copyright laws.

You're sitting in a restaurant, eating a nice dinner, with beautiful music on the radio. Four minutes of your time has been enhanced by a song. The radio station compensated the artist for the act of broadcasting the music. So those four minutes are free and clear. Enjoy them with a clean conscience. However, recording the song, and playing it over and over, has not been compensated for. You are depriving the artist of the compensation due to them for their work. Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want. You could loop that song 24/7 and hear it one billion times without harming anyone else, because the artist feels that 99 cents is a fair price for his work.

Actually, you are wrong in your description there of the restaurant. Or are you not aware that the restaurant has to pay additional fees to put radio over speakers in their dining area? That includes broadcast radio. Same if a bar puts a TV in. Additional fees have to be paid just to show a TV show, or football game.


I didn't call "everyone" a thief, I just said that pirating is stealing from the artists. I agree that ground needs to be given, or more specifically that some companies have been infringing on the rights of the consumer in efforts to prevent piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Once a consumer has bought (the limited rights to) a song, he should be able to listen to it wherever and whenever he likes. The companies do not have the right to prevent him from ripping his cd to his computer or uploading it to his mp3 player.

You're right, you didn't call "everyone" a thief, just everyone who uses a recorder to record the radio. Which, BTW, according to the federal copyright law, is perfectly legal. People are allowed to time shift broadcasts and re-listen to them.

I'm evil, or at least selfish, for wishing to retain control of my property? Control I have not sold or surrendered the rights to? That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. Artists are evil for wanting to be compensated for their work? For refusing to let people use their work and profit from their energy without payment?

I left this part in to specifically re-inforce something I said earlier: The specific expression of the ideas you've had are not owned by you. You only have the ownership of the right to specify how it is copied.

And yes, if you are placing in technological restrictions to prevent people from using that media themselves, privately, in the manner which best suits them (after you've been compensated), you are then acting in an evil and selfish fashion.

For example, Sony's root kit fiasco: Sony installed software on your PC without your permission (even if you explicityly said no) to prevent people ripping the CDs to MP3. This means that people are unable to use (for example) their iPods to listen to the music on the CD they legally bought. In addition, that software from Sony made their computers more vulnerable to viruses and other malware. Sony was evil and selfish.

Compensation for my work. I think the right to listen to my song freely is worth a dollar (or five dollars, or one cent, or whatever). If you don't pay, then you don't get the goods. It's simple.

Unless I record it legally from the radio. In which case, I don't pay, and I do get to listen. BTW, if you want to argue specific legalities, look up the Audio Home Recording Act and Title 17 of the US Code. Those cover what I'm talking about.

TiVo and similiar programs opened the door on this one, by giving private viewers the right to record tv programs. However, the cable companies are compensating the owners of the tv shows and movies, and those owners know that the consumers have the right to record, so in essense, you have been sold the right to record the tv shows. It's very similiar, and I think the line is only going to get more blurred as technology advances, but for right now consumers have the right to record tv shows but not the radio, nor do consumers have the right to pirate music.

The sarcastic side of me has a perfect retort for that, but I'm shutting him up for now. However, Tivo did not open that door: VCR's did. It's not as decidedly convenient, but I could easily use a VCR and a stack of tapes to capture my favorite TV shows. Furthermore, Tivo did not "give private viewers the right to record tv programs". That was decided in the 1980's by the Supreme Court of the United States in a decision of Sony v. Betamax. That decision is what specifically affirmed the right to time shift a broadcast to benefit the prospective viewer. Note: a broadcast may be time shifted, not just a television broadcast.

Consumers do not have the right to copy expressions of ideas against the wishes of their creator, though. That much you are right about.

Those are the options presented to you by many artists. If the Dunkin Donuts was only selling boxes of a dozen donuts, and you really just wanted one, would you feel justified in shoplifting a donut? If the Starbucks was only selling coffee by the pot, and you really just wanted one cup, would you feel justified in shoplifting a cup of coffee? Companies and owners can offer their products in whatever packages or formats they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Of course, these are specious arguments: I would be depriving Dunkin Donuts of a specific material possession. Same for Starbucks.

I happen to agree with you for the most part. But your arguments weaken your position. I'd like to agree with you unreservedly, but I can't. Show me why I'm wrong.

[Seshat]

I'm a writer and programmer, and have provided things to the Free Software community (usually under Creative Commons or Open Publication licences). Here's my take on the idea.


I'm a creator. Just as a person who makes a chair is a creator. I produce stuff. The fact that my stuff is intangible doesn't make it any less stuff.

At the time of its creation, the stuff I make is MINE, by virtue of my purchase of the raw materials and tools with which to create it, and by virtue of the time, skill and effort that went into its creation.

I may choose to make my creation publically available. If I make a chair, sure, I only have one copy of the stuff to make publically available. If I make an article, a story, a program, or a reference manual, I can make multiple copies available to the public.

But I believe that it's MY right to determine how many copies I make public, and under what conditions I make them public.

In actuality, I tend to make two categories of written stuff.

I make some things with the intent to make a living from them, and I sell the right to generate copies of the stuff to a publisher. That publisher then owns the right to generate copies - and someone else generating a copy of it is stealing that right that I have sold.

If too many copies are made without the publisher's okay, the publisher is likely to blame me, and likely to decide not to work with me in the future. So in a roundabout way, people making copies without the publisher's okay are stealing my future ability to earn.

The other things I make, I put under Creative Commons or some other copyleft*. Those, I'm happy to see people take freely and spread around. It means I did good work.

* Copyleft: a type of 'copyright' licence which asserts some variation of 'hey, I made this, go ahead and make as many copies as you like, but don't change it without marking your changes, and don't claim that it's your work cause it's not'. Many also include 'don't make a profit from it, cause it wasn't you who put the effort in'.



There's one more consideration. I feel stolen from, when I see (or find out about) unapproved copies of things from my 'make a living' work.

I produce plenty of work that's free for use - can't people respect my wishes regarding which of my work is free and which is paid? Do they have so little respect for the creator?

That lack of simple courtesy doesn't sap my creative urge - but it does discourage me from making my work public. If the general public doesn't respect me, why the hell should I give them anything? It especially reduces the incentive to produce copylefted work.

So I guess - the people who make unauthorised copies are stealing from themselves.

[Sylvia727]

I'm going to insert this disclaimer here, though I should have at the start. I don't know much about the current copyright laws. What I'm arguing is a combination of my understanding of the principles of laws (i.e. stealing is wrong, artists have rights to their works) and my idealism of what "should be".

Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

This is a toughie. Companies do not have the right to protect their property at the expense of honest consumers. Did Sony have the right to install spyware on private computers, in efforts to catch pirates? No. Do music companies have the right to prosecute pirates? Yes. Do music companies have the right to take from people in the act of pirating? Maaaaaybe. For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Either that copy is mine, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I get to charge you rent for the space. If it is, then whatever may happen with it is no longer depriving you of control of your possessions, since it is no longer your possession.

Since you obtained that copy illegally, good luck taking me to court. But as you reference later, it's the idea I own, not the physical copy on your hard drive.

If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.

I don't understand how you're interpreting my argument here. You think that if my argument were expressed in reality, it would mean that all creations would be categorized as plagerism? Is this because the author owns the components of the story? George Lucas can sue anybody who writes about an orphan farmboy taken under the wing of a wise and mysterious mentor? Will Shakespeare can sue anybody who writes about young lovers from feuding families?

If this is what you mean, then either you're misinterpreting me or I'm using the wrong terminology. I'm trying to say that creators own their works, as specific expressions of ideas. Shakespeare shouldn't own the word "love", nor should he own the "young lovers from feuding families" idea. But he should own the specific expressions of these components as he put them together in Romeo and Juliet.

I'm an author (still working on first novel, actually), and a programmer. I don't own these ideas. What I do own is the right to determine how those ideas are distributed.

The specific expression of the ideas you've had are not owned by you. You only have the ownership of the right to specify how it is copied.

I don't understand. You don't own it, you can just keep other people from seeing it and can charge them for seeing it. How is this substantially different from owning the idea? Perhaps that ideas are intangible, while rights are not?

Actually, the pirate did trade something worthwhile to obtain it: His time, his bandwidth (for a download), possibly money, possibly favors to friends. All of those have a value. What he did not do is give money to the creator.

You're correct. I hereby rephrase it as "the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile to the creator."

That is a shame that any creator would feel that way. I know I won't. I have to create. I know it will be pirated.

I have to write, but I don't bother sharing it with anyone because I know it's likely to be pirated. I'm not willing to let anyone else steal from me. Unless and until I get published, my work will not available anywhere besides the hard drives of myself and the folks in my critique group. I know from chatting with these folks that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Several of them used to publish their work on internet sites, only to find people who copy-and-pasted the stories onto different sites. That sort of blatant theft can be very disheartening to aspiring authors.

The world can try to think of it that way, but here's a dose of reality for you: If the courts state that it only takes 3 notes to violate copyright, then a malicious individual could legally shut down all music in this country.

I agree that the courts are smoking something out back. Also, I rather think that legal professionals deciding the definition of music is the height of hubris.

Music dies right then. That's part of the world that we're headed to with this mad rush to strengthen copyright laws.

Are you including my position in this statement? I don't equate "creators have the rights to their own works" with "creators have the right to sue anybody whose work even remotely resembles theirs".

Or are you not aware that the restaurant has to pay additional fees to put radio over speakers in their dining area?

Alright, you're enjoying this meal in your own home. Either way, the creator has been fairly compensated.

<lots of details on broadcasts and legal rights>

I know next to nothing about broadcasting, so I shall defer to the positions of people who actually have a clue about this subject.

And yes, if you are placing in technological restrictions to prevent people from using that media themselves, privately, in the manner which best suits them (after you've been compensated), you are then acting in an evil and selfish fashion.

Agreed, provided that the creators are inconveniencing their customers and not just pirates. If I buy a cd, I have the right to rip it to my iPod. Et cetera, et cetera.

Of course, these are specious arguments: I would be depriving Dunkin Donuts of a specific material possession. Same for Starbucks.

I was replying strictly to the argument that one is allowed to pirate if one does not like the package deal of a cd album. However the company, be it a restaurant or a music label, chooses to offer their products is up to them.

your arguments weaken your position.

That could well be. You're delving into some specific laws and terminology I'm not familiar with. I think I've addressed everything here, point out anything you want clarification or explication on.

[BlackIronCrown]

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P? The only difference that I can find is that there's only a few sources for digital radio, as opposed to many more for P2P.

Well, from being a supporter of IPM Radio, I do know that digital radio stations do pay a very tiny licensing fee for playing the song, much like regulaar radio stations do. In 2001, it was proposed to raise this from the current .5 cents to 16 cents per song played over digital radio, but that got dropped.

Thus, in the eyes of the FCC, recording digital radio for personal usage is no different than recording regular radio for personal usage, unless done for commercial purposes. The licensing fee is paid and that's all she wrote.

Now, how many digital radio stations pay that fee is a good question. :)

Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

For the first - what is morally wrong about an artist wishing to do something for enitrely selfish reasons? If I am the Creator, is it not mine to have distributed in accordance with my dictates?

As for what has been stolen, beyond a legal definition, I would say my permission. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours and never the twain shall mix without binding ingredients. To steal fire from the cave...very well, be Prometheus if you wish, but do not be surprised at the volcanic eruption.


So, by Sylvia727's logic, I'm a thief for recording one of my favorite shows so that I can refer to it again later.

I could argue that you are not, as recording from TV to VCR or similar device is not illegal and falls under Fair Use...so long as you are not distributing. That's really the key there - distribution. The TV station has paid their licensing fees, so that's all cool and the gang.

I do need to ask - what about Boozy's point? Considering the base selfishness of humanity (which isn't enlightened self-interest), why would the average Joe pay for what he can get for free? It's really not logical.


As it is, you are asserting something that is not in existence in any form in the law: Ownership over the expression of an idea. The reason, of course, is simple: If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.


Actually, that's incorrect. Ownership over the expression of an idea is absolutely possible...so long as that idea is very strictly defined. In fact, I assert that this is what copyright is all about. I will provide examples thereof, which also relate to why your Shakespeare assertion is invalid.

I assume you know about the work "Jane Eyre", written by Charlotte Bronte. Famous book. Beloved by fans of literature across the world. Standard work of college/AP/high school English or Lit.
Miss Bronte lived before the advent of copyright law. Her works are public domain.

One Lucia Logan wrote a book called "A Hidden Passion". The book is very simply, Jane Eyre. She has admitted to just taking the book "Jane Eyre", changing the names of the characters, updating it to modern times, and making it a homosexual romance. No slick retelling. Just Cut And Paste, Find And Replace.

Ms. Logan's book is, by all criteria, considered to be plagiarized. Her punishment? Zilch. It's public domain, so there's no penalty for plagiarism of Jane Eyre.

Now, let's say someone tried to do the same thing with Harry Potter. This WOULD be considered theft of an idea....so long as there was a 75%+ correlation of ideas, terms, dialogue, etc. And by correlation, I mean EXACT correlation. To where 95% of an average paragraph was the exact same read.

(There are experts who do this for a living. Go figure.)

So, as I stated above, an idea IS owned by the author...so long as it is correspondingly detailed. Therefore, Shakespeare's ideas could not be copyrighted, but his idea of R&J could...if Shakespeare was alive today. Copyright cannot be retroactively applied.

Link for a side-by-side comparison of passages from Jane Eyre and A Hidden Passion: http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/a-hidden-passion-lucia-logan-far-too-close-for-comfort/
(Oh, and I think the 3-note case you are talking about is Vanilla Ice v. Queen & David Bowie for using the hook of "Under Pressure" without permission. However, that one was settled out of court and so you may be speaking of a different one.)

[Pedersen]

At the time of its creation, the stuff I make is MINE, by virtue of my purchase of the raw materials and tools with which to create it, and by virtue of the time, skill and effort that went into its creation.

The only issue that I have with the way this statement is made is because of derivation. Yes, the stuff you make is yours. But, with the writing bit, you made that stuff because of the contributions of others, and the stuff they made is theirs.

To help explain, I'm going to use a bit of information you revealed to me to be specific, but without revealing that here.

I know you've written a book (actually, probably more than one, but I'm only mentioning the one I know), and had that book published. I know that book, though I don't think I've read it. The only thing I will reveal about it at all is that the book was written about a technical topic, one that very likely required extensive research on the internet. This research could well have included participating in forums, IRC chat, and documentation. Possibly more, but I'm trying to keep it somewhat vague.

Without that research, your book would not have been possible. You might well have written it without doing such research during the writing, but that would simply indicate the research was complete before the book was started. You had to do it in order to write that book.

Without the ideas expressed by others that you found and read during your research, your book would have been impossible.

In stating that you own that stuff, you are taking partial ownership (possibly total ownership, depending on how strict you are) of the ideas given to you by others. Furthermore, (and I admit to possibly being wrong about this), there is no legal basis for stating you own the idea. What you have ownership of is the right to govern how copies of your work are made and distributed. Not the specific expression of the idea.

But I believe that it's MY right to determine how many copies I make public, and under what conditions I make them public.

Agreed. That's the point and purpose of copyright.

I make some things with the intent to make a living from them, and I sell the right to generate copies of the stuff to a publisher. That publisher then owns the right to generate copies - and someone else generating a copy of it is stealing that right that I have sold.

Finally! Someone who has specified what is being stolen! Thank you thank you thank you!

I can unreservedly agree with this. The right to govern the reproduction of the creative work is being stolen.

If too many copies are made without the publisher's okay, the publisher is likely to blame me, and likely to decide not to work with me in the future. So in a roundabout way, people making copies without the publisher's okay are stealing my future ability to earn.

This is an aspect I wasn't aware of. The publisher would actually put a backlash against the author? That rather sucks. I hope that hasn't happened, but I worry that I'm hearing the voice of experience.

I produce plenty of work that's free for use - can't people respect my wishes regarding which of my work is free and which is paid? Do they have so little respect for the creator?

Honestly, they do. They look at the finished product, and do not realize the amount of time that it takes for them to appreciate it is several orders of magnitude smaller than it takes for the product to be produced.

I know they're wrong, but that isn't something you can persuade people of very easily.

I'm going to insert this disclaimer here, though I should have at the start. I don't know much about the current copyright laws. What I'm arguing is a combination of my understanding of the principles of laws (i.e. stealing is wrong, artists have rights to their works) and my idealism of what "should be".

What should be rarely is what is. When arguing about what should be, you should definitely learn what is as thoroughly as possible. It helps prevent your making arguments that don't need to be made.

This is a toughie. Companies do not have the right to protect their property at the expense of honest consumers. Did Sony have the right to install spyware on private computers, in efforts to catch pirates? No. Do music companies have the right to prosecute pirates? Yes. Do music companies have the right to take from people in the act of pirating? Maaaaaybe. For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Actually, your argument has a fatal flaw in it, one that comes about due to the new digital restrictions management software that's being used lately. Itr's especially true when you add in another post of yours, where you state:

Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want.

If I'm buying that right, then I should be able to listen to that song on any device I own as well. With the digitial restrictions management that is being pushed lately, that is not possible. For instance, suppose my iPod dies. I have the right to listen to any song I've purchased from the iTunes store. The only digital music player I have does not understand AAC (the native format for iPod and iTunes).

I go online, and find an MP3, and download it. By your own statements, I'm within my rights. And yet, I could be infected with a virus that could do anything. I could lose everything on my computer. And, judging by what you've said above, I'm likely to deserve it, since:

Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Since you obtained that copy illegally, good luck taking me to court. But as you reference later, it's the idea I own, not the physical copy on your hard drive.

You are assuming obtained illegally. What if I bought one of your books? It's now taking up space in my library. What if I scanned the book into my computer, and destroyed the paper copy (but did not distribute it)? It's now taking up space on my hard drive. I've done nothing illegal.

I don't understand. You don't own it, you can just keep other people from seeing it and can charge them for seeing it. How is this substantially different from owning the idea? Perhaps that ideas are intangible, while rights are not?

The difference is, possibly, overly subtle, but it is a difference, and an important one. For instance, if you have children, you can move into a compound and keep people from seeing them. You can charge people for admission to the compaound (and, by extension, charge to allow people to see them). However, you don't own your children.

It is much the same with creative works. You are legally allowed to make a number of decisions that other will disagree with. However, you do not own them.

I have to write, but I don't bother sharing it with anyone because I know it's likely to be pirated.

I'm sorry to hear that. I would hope that you and your friends are aware that you can nail the people who violated your copyrights pretty savagely. Statutory damages can be as high as 150,000USD per violation. You likely won't get that much, but getting a few thousand per violation is very possible. And getting the legwork done to find the right person should be fairly simple. Believe me, without taking some extreme measures, the internet is not very anonymous.

I agree that the courts are smoking something out back. Also, I rather think that legal professionals deciding the definition of music is the height of hubris.

Actually, it wasn't the legal profession that started that. It was one musician feeling like he had been copied without permission that started the suit. The legal profession just made the decision that was asked of them.

Are you including my position in this statement? I don't equate "creators have the rights to their own works" with "creators have the right to sue anybody whose work even remotely resembles theirs".

Honestly, your position is irrelevant to that statement. I am simply showing what could happen from one malicious individual. I have even been tempted to be that individual, just to force a change to the system.

Alright, you're enjoying this meal in your own home. Either way, the creator has been fairly compensated.

Okay, now what happens if I walk down the street whistling the tune? Other people are hearing it, and nobody was compensated. Hmm, you'll tell me it's too different. Okay, so I buy a large radio, buy the CD, and walk down the street blaring the song. Is copyright infringement happening? If so, how?

I know next to nothing about broadcasting, so I shall defer to the positions of people who actually have a clue about this subject.

Learn it then. If you're arguing out a position on copyright, then this question will come up. Sorry, that's a bit harsh in my phrasing, but it is true.

Agreed, provided that the creators are inconveniencing their customers and not just pirates. If I buy a cd, I have the right to rip it to my iPod. Et cetera, et cetera.

Here's where things break down, though: The pirates are inconvenienced for an extremely short time. The regular customers, though, are inconvenienced all the time. Microsoft had a music store. Said store was selling protected WMA files. That store didn't make enough money. Microsoft is closing it, and turning off the servers. If you bought files from them, and something happens to your system that tells Windows Media Player to re-validate the license, you're screwed. That music is gone. The people who illegally broke the protections, though, are completely unaffected.

Google had a video store. Same deal.

Sony installed root kits on people's computers without their permission (and, in fact, against their specific denial of said permission).

Two new games are coming out for the PC (Spore and Mass Effect) which will have to check every 10 days to make sure that your serial number wasn't stolen by someone else.

Personally, I have an ebook reader that handles PDFs beautifully. I like reading on this device. So, I buy some PDFs from computer book publishers. They are encrypted, the one thing my device doesn't handle well. Even if it did, I have to enter the password every time I open the file. I bought a program to remove the encryption. I'm not distributing the files. I just read them and use them.

Also personally, I've seen information online that would allow me to pirate Dish Network satellite signals. Difficulty? Very low. On the other hand, my struggles with Comcast and ordinary cable took me two weeks of concerted effort to resolve.

I can continue, if you wish. My point is this: The pirates simply change a small chunk of code, and they are no longer inconvenienced. The regular customers who can't/don't do that? Screwed over.

--more in another post--

[Pedersen]

For the first - what is morally wrong about an artist wishing to do something for enitrely selfish reasons? If I am the Creator, is it not mine to have distributed in accordance with my dictates?

The issue comes about when those selfish things are being done and will only inconvenience the legitimate customer. The pirates are rarely inconvenienced, while those who struggle to remain legal are thoroughly inconvenienced. When the selfish actions drive your money away, and force people to become pirates just to not feel like you think of them as a crook just for wanting to see your creation (that you are publishing!), that's when it's wrong.

I do need to ask - what about Boozy's point? Considering the base selfishness of humanity (which isn't enlightened self-interest), why would the average Joe pay for what he can get for free? It's really not logical.

The point is to provide something for pay that cannot be gotten for free. I'm not sure what that is for music, I really am not. For books, though: Provide multiple format sizes to accomodate different readers. Same for multiple formats. Easy permission to re-download the material at a later date, in case of hard drive failure (or the equivalent). Access to private forums for registered book owners. Access to errata for registered book owners.

Similar can be done for movies. Those things can provide incentive to regular joes to buy, since they cannot download that content easily (or, in some parts, at all).

Actually, that's incorrect. Ownership over the expression of an idea is absolutely possible...so long as that idea is very strictly defined. In fact, I assert that this is what copyright is all about. I will provide examples thereof, which also relate to why your Shakespeare assertion is invalid.

--SNIP--

Now, let's say someone tried to do the same thing with Harry Potter. This WOULD be considered theft of an idea....so long as there was a 75%+ correlation of ideas, terms, dialogue, etc. And by correlation, I mean EXACT correlation. To where 95% of an average paragraph was the exact same read.

All that has been shown here is that, by luck, one person lived in a time when copyrights were allowed to expire, while another was not. This does not demonstrate ownership over an idea, just that time changes things.

So, as I stated above, an idea IS owned by the author...so long as it is correspondingly detailed. Therefore, Shakespeare's ideas could not be copyrighted, but his idea of R&J could...if Shakespeare was alive today. Copyright cannot be retroactively applied.

Heh. Wow, just as I was thinking the debate could almost be closed for me (thanks to Seshat), this statement comes out.

First: His "idea" of R&J? Nope, couldn't be copyrighted today, either. Only the specific expression (i.e.: A copy of the manuscript for the play).

Second: Copyright cannot be retroactively applied? Wow, are you in for some fun. Happy Birthday (http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) did exactly that. The various copyright extension acts that have occurred since Disney became big is another example. Basically, any time the copyright on Mickey Mouse expires, a new copyright extension bill gets pushed through Congress. Smart money says that by 2015 we'll see another extension get introduced to Congress to do just that, and that it will be in effect before 2019. Check out the latest Copyright Extension Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) for information.

(Oh, and I think the 3-note case you are talking about is Vanilla Ice v. Queen & David Bowie for using the hook of "Under Pressure" without permission. However, that one was settled out of court and so you may be speaking of a different one.)

No, it wasn't that one. I did think of it, but I do remember that this was an actual court case, with an actual judgement filed.

[Seshat]

The only issue that I have with the way this statement is made is because of derivation. Yes, the stuff you make is yours. But, with the writing bit, you made that stuff because of the contributions of others, and the stuff they made is theirs.
<snip>
Without that research, your book would not have been possible. You might well have written it without doing such research during the writing, but that would simply indicate the research was complete before the book was started. You had to do it in order to write that book.
<snip>
In stating that you own that stuff, you are taking partial ownership (possibly total ownership, depending on how strict you are) of the ideas given to you by others. Furthermore, (and I admit to possibly being wrong about this), there is no legal basis for stating you own the idea. What you have ownership of is the right to govern how copies of your work are made and distributed. Not the specific expression of the idea.


I must have misstated somehow. So I'll explain.

I don't own the ideas. Never have, never will.

I don't own the information on which my book is based. Never have, never will.

What I DO own is the particular expression of those ideas and that information.

I own one particular tutorial/reference combined work for those particular ideas. I own how it's organised, I own the exact examples I have used, I own the very specific explanations I made.

The organisation, the examples, the analogies I've drawn, the patient explaining I've done - I own that. But I don't own the information or ideas on which the book is based. Just the expression of them that is the book.


Finally! Someone who has specified what is being stolen! Thank you thank you thank you!

I can unreservedly agree with this. The right to govern the reproduction of the creative work is being stolen.

You're welcome.

This is an aspect I wasn't aware of. The publisher would actually put a backlash against the author? That rather sucks. I hope that hasn't happened, but I worry that I'm hearing the voice of experience.

The particular publisher I prefer to work with, wouldn't do it. (One of the reasons I prefer to work with them.)

However, many publishers would. And if I wanted to write a book on a topic that Publisher-I-Work-With already covers, I'd have to seek a different publisher to sell rights-to-make-copies of my new book to.

Thus, even though Publisher-I-Work-With wouldn't have a backlash against me, unapproved copies of my work would still reduce my future earning potential.

Honestly, they do. They look at the finished product, and do not realize the amount of time that it takes for them to appreciate it is several orders of magnitude smaller than it takes for the product to be produced.

I know they're wrong, but that isn't something you can persuade people of very easily.

(sigh)

Thanks, though. It's so obvious to me that writing a book is a huge effort that I forget how 'easy' it looks to other people.



On a tangential topic:

When I sell my work to a publisher, what I'm selling is the right to make copies. In many cases, particularly for novels, authors sell 'first rights for the (blah) market'.

For instance, the Harry Potter novels have different covers (and in one case, a different name) in the UK and US markets. This would be because Rowling sold 'first publication rights to the UK market' to one publisher, and 'first publication rights to the US market' to another.

(Incidentally: if a work goes out onto the internet, it is deemed as published. This means that if the author has sold 'first publication rights' to a publisher, but it hits the net before it hits bookstores, the publisher can deem the contract broken - and can sue the author for damages. You can bankrupt an author that way.)

Anyway: the contract about markets is between the author and the publisher. This also applies to DVDs, videos, and software. This is why DVDs are region-coded, and some software is also region-coded.

I strongly disagree with region coding. (I also disagree with anything preventing an end user from keeping a personal-use copy, or ripping a song onto their personal-use MP3 player, etc.)

The 'markets' contract is between the content creator and the publisher. The end purchaser has nothing to do with that contract.

The end purchaser buys a copy of the content from the publisher. The implied contract at the store's register is the simple exchange of goods for money. One copy of the content, to be used for personal use (or at least, for use in the end purchaser's home).

If the end purchaser moves to a different region, they can take their chairs and tables and cupboards and beds with them and those things will work just fine. Why shouldn't they be able to take their DVDs and games with them to?

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

On the other hand .. you do have a copy, for personal use.

On that aspect - I'm a bit torn.

[Pedersen]

I own one particular tutorial/reference combined work for those particular ideas. I own how it's organised, I own the exact examples I have used, I own the very specific explanations I made.

Honestly, I'm not sure that even that much is owned. I know the copyrights are owned, but I'm not sure if the expression itself is. On this point, I could be wrong, though. I'd have to ask a lawyer who is much more familiar than I am with the law.

The particular publisher I prefer to work with, wouldn't do it. (One of the reasons I prefer to work with them.)

I do hope I didn't reveal anything you didn't want revealed. I apologize if I did.

However, many publishers would. And if I wanted to write a book on a topic that Publisher-I-Work-With already covers, I'd have to seek a different publisher to sell rights-to-make-copies of my new book to.

I've just learned some new bits about publishing. And am kind of annoyed with how publishers treat the authors now.

Thanks, though. It's so obvious to me that writing a book is a huge effort that I forget how 'easy' it looks to other people.

Unfortunately, it's a time thing: It only takes a few hours to read an average book. If it's really long, people might spend a couple days. And look at what people see: It's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper. They don't realize the planning that goes into it.

Even I didn't. As I said, I've got a book of my own that's struggling to be written. I'd heard about authors having story outlines, but never thought they were necessary. I've had so many false starts on this it's not funny. Now I know how necessary they are.

(Incidentally: if a work goes out onto the internet, it is deemed as published. This means that if the author has sold 'first publication rights' to a publisher, but it hits the net before it hits bookstores, the publisher can deem the contract broken - and can sue the author for damages. You can bankrupt an author that way.)

Oof. So, even if you do nothing to cause it, you can still be held liable for it? I'm definitely less fond of book publishers now.

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

On the other hand .. you do have a copy, for personal use.

On that aspect - I'm a bit torn.

Allow me to muddy the waters for you still further.

I have some older computer books, but they still have some useful information in them.

I also have an eBook reader (http://www.irextechnologies.com/products/iliad).

I would really like to have those older books in digital form for use on that reader. But they can not be purchased anywhere in digital form. Hell, some of them can not be purchased in paper form from a publisher (second hand, maybe). I would pay for them if I could, but they do not exist to be bought.

However, there are other methods. I can get a book guillotine for about $300. I can get an automated document feed scanner for about $400. That scanner comes with software to OCR the books as well. As a result, I can, for about $700, and a few weeks of my time, scan my entire library into digital form. I'd have to toss out the original pages, though, since they're no longer usable as a book.

The end result is that I have exactly one copy of the book. I have changed the format of the book, but I have exactly one copy. I'm not giving it out to anybody, as it is exclusively for my personal use and reference. So, no distribution is going on. As far as I can tell, no copyright violation of any form is occurring. So, now comes the question: Should I be in any trouble with anybody for what I have done? Legally, I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, especially if I keep the original covers around. Morally and ethically, I have no issue with it, as I have compensated the author for it already. As a result, this something I'm seriously considering doing.

Have I muddied things enough for you? :)

[Seshat]

Honestly, I'm not sure that even that much is owned. I know the copyrights are owned, but I'm not sure if the expression itself is. On this point, I could be wrong, though. I'd have to ask a lawyer who is much more familiar than I am with the law.

I'm familiar enough with copyright law: the creator of intellectual property can never own the idea, but does own the expression of the idea.

Thus, six different artists can paint a tribute to the colour blue; as can eight different poets, two authors, and five musical composers. None own the idea of the colour blue, nor the idea of a tribute to it. But each owns their particular expression of that idea.

I do hope I didn't reveal anything you didn't want revealed. I apologize if I did.

Several people here know I wrote a book. I haven't hidden that at all. Which book - yeah, that would give away my RL name pretty quickly. You concealed that - thank you.

I've just learned some new bits about publishing. And am kind of annoyed with how publishers treat the authors now.

Wait until you start shopping for contracts!

I had one publisher offer me an advance: but with a caveat. If I produced a perfectly acceptable book that fit the specifications, but they decided not to go ahead and publish it for whatever reason, I was to pay back the advance.

Even if the reason was something as ridiculous as the marketing director having a bad day.

Oh, but: while I had the contract with them, I couldn't look for someone else. Oh no. I would be contracted to produce the book for them.

Unfortunately, it's a time thing: It only takes a few hours to read an average book. If it's really long, people might spend a couple days. And look at what people see: It's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper. They don't realize the planning that goes into it.

Even I didn't. As I said, I've got a book of my own that's struggling to be written. I'd heard about authors having story outlines, but never thought they were necessary. I've had so many false starts on this it's not funny. Now I know how necessary they are.

Heh. For technical books, it's even worse. You REALLY need an outline, and it has to be one that makes sense both for novices and experts in the subject.

A LOT of thought went into the particular expression of ideas that is my book. Thought, trials with friends .. not easy or straightforward.

Oof. So, even if you do nothing to cause it, you can still be held liable for it? I'm definitely less fond of book publishers now.

Who has a copy of the work? The creator, the publisher's editor, perhaps the creator's agent, and perhaps a reviewer. If it got out, ONE of them would have to be the cause, right? And the publisher knows it wasn't HIM...

Allow me to muddy the waters for you still further.

<snip>

Should I be in any trouble with anybody for what I have done? Legally, I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, especially if I keep the original covers around.

Legally, I suspect you may actually have a problem. I'd need to check the exact wording of copyright law where you are, and probably need a lawyer's interpretation. However, it's such a small thing that I doubt anyone is ever going to chase you up for it.

Morally and ethically? Nah. I have no problem with it. You purchased one copy for your use, you're only planning to have one copy for your use. No big deal, IMO.

[Slytovhand]

I'm going to do something really strange here, and actually reply to the Original Post... and maybe make Mysty glad :D Yeah - we've discussed the whole copyright thing (which, incidentally, does have different legal technicalities depending on which country you happen to be in), and it seems that most of us are on the same page (pun intended :p)...or maybe song.... ie... pay the creator of the damn thing what they deserve.




Mysty, I would go with the 'bad' side of the argument...

Ok - you may not choose to do anything at all with the thing you've downloaded - you may not even bother to listen to it...but that doesn't mean that the next person to connect to your PC won't. I used to go network gaming with 'the guys', and before even playing, we'd do all the copying of stuff (ie - maps, jokes etc...should jokes get copyrighted?? :rolleyes:) , and at any time, one of those guys could have hooked up to that folder and gotten that file.. and then shared it with someone else, who then uploads it to the net elsewhere, and then someone who is interested in that work.

That, after all, isn't too much different to someone shoplifting from a store for stuff they'll never use, and then give it away (or sell) to someone else.

Does that answer your hypothetical?



Oh - Pedersen... your query about how to allow some form of the music to be available, but have to pay for the whole lot... that's the 30 second previews available online...

As for the 'only 2 songs on an entire album worth listening to' argument... change your style of music :p ... I rarely have that problem with my bands.


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.


I'll second that-read the EULA-it's significantly less restrictive than itunes.
And amazon has NO DRM*


*I have never downloaded anything I didn't purchase-the reason I loke the no DRM is I had to backup to my new computer and had issues with my cd burner-took 7 tries to get a working copy to transfer-couldn't have done that with itunes.

[rahmota]

Originally Posted by AFPheonix
Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.
Okay thats good to know. Thank you.

[BlackIronCrown]

The issue comes about when those selfish things are being done and will only inconvenience the legitimate customer.

So you are saying I do not have the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which a person will buy the product I have created?
I find it strange that a shopowner can reserve the right to refuse service if not paid in cash or some other restriction and I cannot do the same.
If a customer does not like the terms and conditions I am wanting to do business under, they certainly have the right to vote with their wallet and go elsewhere. Is this not a valid precept?

The point is to provide something for pay that cannot be gotten for free. I'm not sure what that is for music, I really am not. For books, though: Provide multiple format sizes to accomodate different readers. Same for multiple formats. Easy permission to re-download the material at a later date, in case of hard drive failure (or the equivalent). Access to private forums for registered book owners. Access to errata for registered book owners.

Similar can be done for movies. Those things can provide incentive to regular joes to buy, since they cannot download that content easily (or, in some parts, at all).

This simply goes back to what I just said. Why cannot I dictate the terms under which I wish customers to buy my material, so long as they are lawful? Why should I HAVE to do these things? Where does this "obligation" to the customer come forth?

I control supply. Demand is simply generated by people who want what I supply.


Check out the latest Copyright Extension Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) for information.


*reads* I see no problem with this. It merely further keeps the copyright in the hands of the creator and his descendants.

[lordlundar]

It's an interesting scenario Mysty, but an odd one. It's boils down to if there is no possible way you would want this, why would you pirate it? Kinda moots it out.

I'll give one that's not only effective, but relevant:

Game company A makes Game A about 20 years ago, and published it all in house. Now that company tanked 10 years ago and is completely gone. No buyout, no new owners for the game, etc. Now Game A has been sold and resold numerous times, and it's been years since the game has generated any money for this company, well before the company tanked.

Now this game has been put up for download completely free with the declaration of abandonware. The thing is, the authors were not the ones who put it up. Now there is absolute proof that the authors would not have made a dime on this, but by the letter of the law it is illegal. Now with no loss and no profit, is is really stealing?

[Pedersen]

Wait until you start shopping for contracts!

Doubt I ever will. What I want to write will be an entertaining story, but I doubt it will be marketable through anything other than self-publishing. That's fine by me.

Who has a copy of the work? The creator, the publisher's editor, perhaps the creator's agent, and perhaps a reviewer. If it got out, ONE of them would have to be the cause, right? And the publisher knows it wasn't HIM...

Right. We both know that nobody in a publishing house would ever let a pre-release copy of a book sneak out the door :smirk:

Legally, I suspect you may actually have a problem. I'd need to check the exact wording of copyright law where you are, and probably need a lawyer's interpretation. However, it's such a small thing that I doubt anyone is ever going to chase you up for it.

Morally and ethically? Nah. I have no problem with it. You purchased one copy for your use, you're only planning to have one copy for your use. No big deal, IMO.

Even legally, I doubt I would have a problem, at least in the USA. Format shifting is legal, and that's precisely what I'm doing. Not a planned for version of it, to be sure, but that is what I'm doing. For other countries, who knows? Not me, that's for sure.

So you are saying I do not have the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which a person will buy the product I have created?
I find it strange that a shopowner can reserve the right to refuse service if not paid in cash or some other restriction and I cannot do the same.

Actually, I'm willing to make a concession here: You can publish it using whatever DRM tools you wish, provided you lose all copyright on it.

I'll use me, again, as an example. Just three days ago (Thursday night), I found out that Dean Koontz is publishing a new Odd Thomas novel. I love the character, so I went looking to see if I would be able to purchase an e-version of it. I found a site that would offer me an Adobe PDF eBook of the new book. Also of another book I'd been looking for.

To say I was thrilled would be an understatement. I eagerly bought a pre-order for the new book, and bought the older book. Downloaded the older book, and went to transfer to my iLiad. Went through a bunch of contortions to download the file, and then tried to read it.

It wouldn't work. I've got Adobe Acrobat Reader 8. And I couldn't read the file. Went back to the retailer, and read their help pages. Seems I have to have "Adobe Digital Editions" to read it. However, since I run Linux, that program is not even an option. They have since refunded me, as they should have.

Now, here's the moronic part: I can sign onto any of a number of pirate networks (gnutella, limewire, edonkey, etc). I can do a download of a PDF. I can then read that PDF on my iLiad, without a problem. All of which is illegal, and costs me nothing.

I can't even give money to get what I want. I want to be legal. I want to reward the content creators. And I cannot do so. They won't let me.

Fine, you wanna use the DRM crap? Go for it. But, IMHO, you should lose all copyright protection, because by using the DRM, you are saying that copyright law isn't good enough for you. If it isn't good enough, then you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

This simply goes back to what I just said. Why cannot I dictate the terms under which I wish customers to buy my material, so long as they are lawful? Why should I HAVE to do these things? Where does this "obligation" to the customer come forth?

Why should society reward you as a creator? Why should society give you the benefit of control over your creation? Why should I not just take it, and let anybody I wish read it? Why should I not get the law changed to make your actions illegal? Where does this obligation of society to the creator come from?

Here's a hint for you: Copyright is not natural, it is not normal. It, along with trademark protection and patent protection, are done to try to make creation happen for the betterment of society. Now, with the way copyright is currently, we are entering a stage where new creations will be impossible, as nearly everything is a derivative of something else. And the people who claim that their work deserves protection since theirs is new and others do not since the other stuff is old (Romeo and Juliet, for example) display the height of hubris.

Tell me why Shakespeare's heirs should not be receiving royalties, while you should (as should your own heirs), and make it airtight. Because that's the final problem that copyright is facing.

*reads* I see no problem with this. It merely further keeps the copyright in the hands of the creator and his descendants.

You see nothing wrong with a government extending the copyrights over something where the original creator is DEAD, has been for quite some time, and the only purpose of the extension is to keep Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain (and therefore being ineligible for use as a trademark)?

Damn, and I thought I was jaded.

[otakuneko]

Now with no loss and no profit, is is really stealing?

How could something that is not owned be stolen? ;)

Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

Absolutely not.

For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Absolutely not. (again!)

The company spreading the viruses would be just as guilty of computer crime as would be the kid down the street if he did the same thing.

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

Ah, but that analogy fails in that the owner of the paperback did not make the hardback himself. Of course you are not entitled to a second copy owned by someone else. However, if you have the ability to make a second copy for yourself (as ripping a CD is doing) then go for it.

The way I see it, if I buy a game, a CD, a DVD, what have you, it's none of anyone's business what I do with it short of distributing copies of it to others. I can read it, listen to it, watch it, rip it, install it on all my computers, use it to build furniture, even loan the original to a relative. Whatever. It's no one's business but my own, not until I start distributing copies.


Back to the OP: It is not theft, and it is not copyright infringement until I begin sharing it out. Then you have to prove that the people I shared it to wouldn't buy it either.

I do this sort of thing all the time with PC games and anime. I will grab a pirated copy first, judge it, then delete it if I don't like it enough to buy it.

The anime industry is generally far more tolerant of this behavior, and I consider this an enlightened attitude. I won't buy an anime (or a game) if I haven't seen it first (though some anime gets a special exception, such as Miyazaki films, and extra seasons of a proven anime). Thus, in my case, at least, piracy leads directly to sales.

I'm also speculative that the tolerance shown by the anime industry is a direct result of fansubbing. It's essentially free market research, though this should apply to other industries as well. After all, a wise developer once said, "Don't worry if they pirate your software. Worry if they don't."

[lordlundar]

How could something that is not owned be stolen? ;)

Ahh, but by the letter of the law, the IP is still owned by the former owner of the company, but they have not made any effort to pursue for profit in over a decade.