PDA

View Full Version : Stealing: Physical Vs. Digital


True_Avery
05-29-2008, 07:19 PM
I had an interesting conversation last night about stealing, which brought up the subject of stealing online Vs. physically taking something from the store.

Lets say someone wanted a product (Music, Game, Movie, Etc). The product is in stores and is available online for warez/file-sharing/torrent. The person considers two options:

1) Steal it physically from the store
2) Torrent the product without paying

Now, which is worse? Is the digital copy more "legit" than the physically stolen copy? Or are they both stealing?

Which brings me to my question for the thread:
Is downloading something from the internet for free when it is up for sale stealing in the same way physically taking something is?

Thread Heads-Up:
Please, I'm not making this thread to have anybody brag about how much stuff they may or may not have stolen. The forum rules still apply, and promoting illegal downloading or stealing can cause trouble for us all.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 07:41 PM
Is there a background for the options, or is it just "Online versus Physical?" Either way, it's my opinion that the reason for stealing is the one to be ashamed of. If you're attempting to steal something, than you really want that object. I ask, "Are you so drawn to that object as to steal (and potentially ruin yourself) for an object?"

It's different if you need it to survive (i.e., food or water), but when it's a trivial object, it makes the matter all the worse.

So, to answer your question, both are equally terrible (in my opinion).

Gurges-Ahter
05-29-2008, 08:10 PM
They are both stealing, but IMO physically stealing is worse because it also (and moreso) hurts the store selling the CD, not just the artists, recording industry, etc. I know some will argue that digital stealing has a 'trickle down' effect that ends up hurting the stores collectively, but IMO that damage is significantly less than physically stealing from the store.

Samuel Dravis
05-29-2008, 08:30 PM
The point I brought up was that this "stealing" online (i.e. downloading a copy online) isn't stealing-- it's copyright infringement. I don't say this to make it appear more attractive, I just don't like to equivocate the two terms.

Morally I think that copyright infringement is not nearly as bad as physical theft, given that you haven't deprived anyone of anything, but have only violated their exclusive rights granted by copyright law. This view is borne out in law, as copyright infringement is largely handled by civil courts, not criminal ones. I can even imagine some cases where it could be morally appropriate to violate copyright-- for example, copyrights on medicines in third-world countries keep the drugs from getting to all but a tiny fraction of the people that actually need them.

But for a game, or music-- I'm not terribly worried about it. Virtually everyone I've spoken to wants a "real" copy of the content anyway. I like finding songs on Youtube so that I can preview the full-length tracks before I buy a CD. Technically, many of those videos are infringing. I don't see anything wrong with them, however-- they may violate the letter of copyright law, but not the spirit (which is to promote innovation by providing a viable way of making money off of one's ideas).

However, if you're just getting it because you don't want to pay, you're wrong to do so. Not "You should be sent to prison for years!!" wrong, but wrong.

RyuuKage
05-29-2008, 08:33 PM
it's copyright infringement if you make something identical that looks the same and does the same things as something else. downloading something without paying for it is theft, regardless of what the circumstances are.

Samuel Dravis
05-29-2008, 08:38 PM
it's copyright infringement if you make something identical that looks the same and does the same things as something else. Indeed. That's exactly what happens when you download something from the internet.

downloading something without paying for it is theft, regardless of what the circumstances are.Given the above, I think it is copyright infringement, not theft.

mimartin
05-29-2008, 09:25 PM
Is downloading something from the internet for free when it is up for sale stealing in the same way physically taking something is? Steal – 1. to take or appropriate (another’s property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner. Under the letter of the law I would agree with Samuel Dravis that downloading is copyright infringement and not stealing. However going strictly by the definition, I would say it was stealing. Be it music, games or elections when you take something from someone else you have not earned then you are stealing.

Morally I do not see the difference between stealing, copyright infringement or plagiarism; they are all taking someone else’s property or ideas without their permission.

Jae Onasi
05-29-2008, 09:48 PM
Downloading something illegally is theft of intellectual property, and it's just as wrong as stealing a physical copy of the game. You are denying someone payment for their product by stealing what you should be paying for, whether that's through the electronic or physical media.

We can dress this up in a pretty little relativistic bow and make excuses all day long, but downloading illegally and stealing it that way or stealing a physical copy from the store is still theft, and it's still wrong. Calling it anything other than theft or making some kind of justification for it is just fooling ourselves.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 09:52 PM
Downloading something illegally is theft of intellectual property, and it's just as wrong as stealing a physical copy of the game. You are denying someone payment for their product by stealing what you should be paying for, whether that's through the electronic or physical media.

We can dress this up in a pretty little relativistic bow and make excuses all day long, but downloading illegally and stealing it that way or stealing a physical copy from the store is still theft, and it's still wrong. Calling it anything other than theft or making some kind of justification for it is just fooling ourselves.

I agree with this.

However, other than necessary items (food or water), why would you be stealing in the first place? If you actually take a moment and examine your actions, you'll probably realize that you are either caught up in a 'popular movement' or you are too obsessed with a material object.

Or am I the only one that thinks that?

Sabretooth
05-29-2008, 11:38 PM
To my mind, downloading or torrenting something legal from the Internet is not theft. Copyright infringement, maybe, but not theft. I am also under the belief that the whole "Internet piracy is theft" charade began as a sensationalist media way to dissuade Internet piracy.

On the Internet, when you download something, you reproduce on your computer, an exact copy of the source material, without paying a dime. I will say that I'm not entirely too sure about copyright laws. From what I know, they were imposed to avoid illegal copying in the sense that intellectual property may be hijacked (I avoided 'stolen' here) or abused by an individual other than the creator.

When you download a video game or a movie from the Internet, the name of the creators of the media is intact - you know who made it, you may enjoy it, you know whom to give credit to. You aren't "copying" it with the intention that you will put your own name on it and distribute it. Laws may say otherwise, but I believe that this is completely permissible and not copyright infringement.

As for the matter of "hurting" industries and them "losing" lots of money, I ask this: How can you lose something you never gained in the first place?

Web Rider
05-30-2008, 01:08 AM
My gut reaction is no. If I were to steal from a store, then I am depriving another customer of that product. With a finite supply, there can only be so many copies of something and only so many people will get one. Though generally everyone who wants one will get one in time. I am stealing, if nothing else, the physical product of a person's labor, or the labor of some giant machine to which I feel no sympanthy for in China.

With digital items however, there is, in theory, an infinite supply of product. So long as somebody has a copy and a copy can be made of the data, the laws of supply and demand seem to fall short of this realm. I'll give that many instances of pirating for profit are copyright infringement, though I am less sure on the subject when it comes to personal use. IE: I want this just for me.

I also feel that the average price of many digital products falls well above and beyond the value of the labor that went into the project. We're all well aware that the box, the disc, and the physical item you hold in your hands is near to valueless save a particular person who wants it. Take the price of Games for the current generation of consoles, just as much work generally went into the games for the last generation of consoles, so what justifies the 20%(from 50, that's 10 bucks, to 60) increase?

I think the problem with the system at the moment is who it's addressing. While it attacks the person who pays nothing and "steals" it does not address the person who limits the production of an item to falsely inflate the price or simply raise the price of an item without reason. In short, it only addresses one form of stealing and not the other, I think a lot of companies interpret not buying their product as not liking the material, and somehow ignore a consumer's inability to simply afford the item.

El Sitherino
05-30-2008, 02:03 AM
Be it music, games or elections when you take something from someone else you have not earned then you are stealing.


Who are you taking from? It's there for download to all who come, thus not theft. It's Copyright Infringement. Their rights to that property include their choice in means to distribute the content. As they choose to sell it via CD or Download link, if you download it through an alternate party, you are violating that Copyright.

And there we have not theft. :)

As well, if you look at any sales records you will find that downloading music and movies has had no negative impact upon sales. That is a myth, and a popular one at that. If only they could do a Mythbusters episode on that. Have the EFF come in as guest stars. :D

Anyway, I prefer having a physical copy. I love packages because I'm a vain packrat.

tk102
05-30-2008, 02:30 AM
Is downloading something from the internet for free when it is up for sale stealing in the same way physically taking something is?The categorical imperative applies to both physical and digital formats. If everyone stole, there would be no such thing as property to steal, which is a contradiction. You could also argue that if everyone stole there would be no profit motive in creating any product and thus there would be no products to steal.
With digital items however, there is, in theory, an infinite supply of product. So long as somebody has a copy and a copy can be made of the data, the laws of supply and demand seem to fall short of this realm. I'll give that many instances of pirating for profit are copyright infringement, though I am less sure on the subject when it comes to personal use. IE: I want this just for me.
Interesting point. So, in theory with infinite supply, all digital products should have a price of zero? No. The flaw in this logic is in the idea that supply is infinite. That is only so when someone duplicates the copy without authorization. It's true, the cost of duplicating the copy is essentially zero, but that is a reduction of the overhead costs of the supplier. Nonetheless, the supplier is entitled to the compensation of the costs incurred in product development by the consumer receiving the product. The End User License Agreement describes this contract.
so what justifies the 20%(from 50, that's 10 bucks, to 60) increase?You the consumer justify it by purchasing the software at that price. If you do not feel the price is justified, you will not buy the product.

I think the problem with the system at the moment is who it's addressing. While it attacks the person who pays nothing and "steals" it does not address the person who limits the production of an item to falsely inflate the price or simply raise the price of an item without reason. In short, it only addresses one form of stealing and not the other
The latter is not stealing. The supplier can choose whatever monetary value to place on the product they are selling. The consumer can agree or disagree with the price. If they disagree, the product goes unsold. The exception is for monopolies in which the consumers have no choice but to buy the product offered at whatever price. The antitrust laws are in place to govern against that activity just as theft and copyright infringement laws govern against stealing.

RyuuKage
05-30-2008, 02:45 AM
Think of it this way: you're getting something for free that otherwise has a price attached. What do you call that? Disregard any so-called "technicalities"...

Sabretooth
05-30-2008, 03:15 AM
Think of it this way: you're getting something for free that otherwise has a price attached. What do you call that? Disregard any so-called "technicalities"...
The best bargain possible, obviously (disregarding the so-called "technicalities")

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 03:23 AM
Well we could wind back and forth and find all kinds of lyrical workarounds for it, but when you take something from someone without his permission, it is theft.

Rogue Nine
05-30-2008, 03:43 AM
The best bargain possible, obviously (disregarding the so-called "technicalities")
Tread very, very carefully, Sabretooth. And please read the orange text in the first post.

This is your only warning.

mimartin
05-30-2008, 09:13 AM
Who are you taking from? It's there for download to all who come, thus not theft. It's Copyright Infringement. Their rights to that property include their choice in means to distribute the content. As they choose to sell it via CD or Download link, if you download it through an alternate party, you are violating that Copyright.

And there we have not theft. :) Like I wrote in my original post in this thread, under the letter of the law…downlading is copyright infringement and not stealing. Going by the my understanding of the definition provide from Webster’s New World College Dictionary I would call it stealing (if the material was downloaded by illegal means). I don’t look down on anyone that downloads music or games, I just do not do it without paying a fee. It violates my moral code and I would not wish to saddle another with that code even if I could.

Beside my wall of CD and DVD tell me I’m a “vain packrat” too although I have gotten to downloading when I only like one song on a CD. I just download from Itunes and pay the .99 for the song or the $1.99 for videos. It has saved me because I’m running out of wall space.


Added
To those that believe that downloading copyright material without the artist and record company being paid by either the downloader or the website for the copy is not stealing, I have a few questions. Do you consider it stealing for someone to knowingly receive stolen property? The person did not steal the physical object but did benefit from the theft of the property. Is that wrong? I understand it is a crime to steal a satellite signal or cable television. How is that different from me listen to a downloaded song that another obtain illegally or is sharing illegally? I see no future benefit to the stolen television signal other than my memory of the program, but it is still considered a crime. Morally does it really make a difference if someone steals from a multimillion dollar corporation or to steals $5.00 from some bum in the streets?

Lance Monance
05-30-2008, 11:18 AM
Suppose you go to a store and steal an object.
Now suppose you had the ability to duplicate objects and you choose to do that in a store.

There is a difference: the duplicated object isn't missing, the stolen one is.

mimartin
05-30-2008, 11:32 AM
Now suppose you had the ability to duplicate objects and you choose to do that in a store.

There is a difference: the duplicated object isn't missing, the stolen one is.
Yes, but when you are talking about music, movies or games the product is the zeros and ones on the disc, not the disc itself. The music, movies or games is the product. That is what the artiest and programmers have poured their time and energy in to.

Don’t try this experiment: Take a college course that requires a written report. Copy said report word for word from a book of your choosing in the school’s library. Turn it in as your work. All you’ve done is make a copy. The original is still setting on the library shelf, but you will be accused of stealing and you will not be not be attending that university in the future.

Web Rider
05-30-2008, 12:33 PM
Interesting point. So, in theory with infinite supply, all digital products should have a price of zero? No. The flaw in this logic is in the idea that supply is infinite. That is only so when someone duplicates the copy without authorization. It's true, the cost of duplicating the copy is essentially zero, but that is a reduction of the overhead costs of the supplier. Nonetheless, the supplier is entitled to the compensation of the costs incurred in product development by the consumer receiving the product. The End User License Agreement describes this contract.
by golly Mr Wizard, I had no idea.

hence the "in theory, the supply is infinite". And I'm aware of what EULAs say, of course, if we all went by what the EULAs say, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You the consumer justify it by purchasing the software at that price. If you do not feel the price is justified, you will not buy the product.
If you bothered to read my post where I addressed how companies have gotten to taking that as not liking the material as opposed to not liking the price, you might actually have an argument. But taking this sentence out of the context of the paragraph in which it was written makes me wonder why I bothered to write the paragraph.

The latter is not stealing. The supplier can choose whatever monetary value to place on the product they are selling. The consumer can agree or disagree with the price. If they disagree, the product goes unsold. The exception is for monopolies in which the consumers have no choice but to buy the product offered at whatever price. The antitrust laws are in place to govern against that activity just as theft and copyright infringement laws govern against stealing.
yes, and the last time the government successfully broke up a monopoly was...1920?

Cut the sarcasm, please. Have you considered that someone might misinterpret what you've said and then answer what they thought you were asking? Give someone the benefit of the doubt before responding in a scathing tone. --Jae

tk102
05-30-2008, 04:17 PM
Not really sure what side of the bed you woke up on Web Rider, but just someone quotes you in this forum doesn't mean they're attacking you. ;)

hence the "in theory, the supply is infinite". And I'm aware of what EULAs say, of course, if we all went by what the EULAs say, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I agree.

You the consumer justify it by purchasing the software at that price. If you do not feel the price is justified, you will not buy the product.If you bothered to read my post where I addressed how companies have gotten to taking that as not liking the material as opposed to not liking the price, you might actually have an argument. But taking this sentence out of the context of the paragraph in which it was written makes me wonder why I bothered to write the paragraph.Okay...
I also feel that the average price of many digital products falls well above and beyond the value of the labor that went into the project. We're all well aware that the box, the disc, and the physical item you hold in your hands is near to valueless save a particular person who wants it. Take the price of Games for the current generation of consoles, just as much work generally went into the games for the last generation of consoles, so what justifies the 20%(from 50, that's 10 bucks, to 60) increase?There I quoted your paragraph. Your topic sentence states that the value of the digital products is overpriced in your opinion. Then you explain how packaging is not really valued, but the data itself. Then you ask what justifies a 20% increase (implying I guess that the digital product itself is what is more valued, not the packaging...?)

Your next paragraph then goes on to equate stealing with price increases that you think are unfair. After reading that paragraph, it seemed that you were building on your point in the preceding paragraph (ie. that digital products are overpriced) and asserting that price increases were because the companies were, in effect, stealing from the consumer (thus consumers steal back because they're too poor.)

That is how I understood your post. If your points were misconstrued anywhere, my apologies for my part and perhaps you could be more clear in the future and we could have a bit less meta-debating and name calling. Thanks. :)

Salzella
05-30-2008, 04:55 PM
I think perhaps the fact that its far easier to steal via the internet and digital means also is a factor. People who don't steal hard objects from, for example, a games shop, may only not do so because of the potential punishments... And since the chance of being caught when stealing via the internet is so much smaller, people are less reluctant to do so. It may be stealing technically, but inevitably not everyone bases their decision of 'right and wrong', but rather 'can or can't'.

If that made any sense >.>

Achilles
05-30-2008, 04:58 PM
Alright, at the risk of derailing things let me ask this:

For those of us that are old enough to remember cassettes (http://www.bestpc.lv/images/au.gif); did any of you ever record songs (with your boom box (http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/panasonic-rx5500.jpg)) that you heard on the radio (so that you could listen to them later on your Walkman (http://www.note-i.de/blog/uploads/walkman.gif))? Is that any different than what we're talking about here? If yes, how?

(gee, I just made myself feel ancient).

EnderWiggin
05-30-2008, 05:04 PM
Alright, at the risk of derailing things let me ask this:

For those of us that are old enough to remember cassettes; did any of you ever record songs that you heard on the radio? Is that any different than what we're talking about here? If yes, how?

Yes, I'm old enough. Yes, I did record songs. No, that's no different than torrenting music. It's wrong according to the law, but I don't think the system is right.

_EW_

KinchyB
05-30-2008, 05:31 PM
Yes, I'm old enough. Yes, I did record songs. No, that's no different than torrenting music. It's wrong according to the law, but I don't think the system is right.

Agreed!

Unfortunately as you said it is wrong according to the law. The Artist/Record Label does technically own the right to say if individuals can or cannot make copies of their work.

Although some can make an argument for "Fair Use" as it does state copyright infringement should take into consideration...

the purpose and character of the use

or

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So if you already own all the CDs making a mixed tape has no impact on the value or potential market for the copyrighted material. Therefore you are fine. Now giving that mixed tape to your friend...whole other story. Unfortunately those involved in litigation have usually distributed works to their friends or online so making the "Fair Use" argument is somewhat futile.

So, is it theft...well, downloading something for free that normally costs something is always illegal no matter what you call it.

Edit: Removed duplicate wording in the last sentence :P

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 06:00 PM
Well, the thing is that you'll never get the full information when you tape a song from radio. More information (quality) is lost each time you play the cassette as well. You're not obtaining a carbon copy of the whole song, album or a computer game etc without permission.

Also, more important, you "pay" for the song you get via the radio over the advertisement or via taxes for federal radio stations.

It is however theft, if you've copied a complete album from record/tape to tape, or a computer game, like some did in those ancient times I grew up in.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 06:13 PM
Well, the thing is that you'll never get the full information when you tape a song from radio. More information (quality) is lost each time you play the cassette as well. You're not obtaining a carbon copy of the whole song, album or a computer game etc without permission. So it's not stealing if someone only downloads one song?

Also, more important, you "pay" for the song you get via the radio over the advertisement or via taxes for federal radio stations. When I was younger and making tape recordings of songs on the radio, I wasn't paying taxes.

It is however theft, if you've copied a complete album from record/tape to tape, or a computer game, like some did in those ancient times I grew up in.Clearly. No one is questioning that. Because that's something completely different, I don't know how well it answers my questions.

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 06:26 PM
If you download one song, it's still a quasi identical copy of the full song. If you record from radio, the song is almost never beginning to end, full of atmospheric stuff and whatnot.

When I still used MiniDiscs the recorder did not allow me to digitally copy a disc that was already a digital copy. I could however do an analogue copy as often as I wanted to (with a loss of quality each time) -- bad example, but maybe you get the idea.

As for paying taxes, well, there is still advertisement, and (that's at least what it is is Germany like), radio tax is paid per household, and at least *I* lived with my tax paying parents, so... :)

Achilles
05-30-2008, 06:38 PM
If you download one song, it's still a quasi identical copy of the full song. If you record from radio, the song is almost never beginning to end, full of atmospheric stuff and whatnot.

When I still used MiniDiscs the recorder did not allow me to digitally copy a disc that was already a digital copy. I could however do an analogue copy as often as I wanted to (with a loss of quality each time) -- bad example, but maybe you get the idea.

As for paying taxes, well, there is still advertisement, and (that's at least what it is is Germany like), radio tax is pay per household, and at least *I* lived with my tax paying parents, so... :)It seems that you're attacking the minutiae rather than addressing the point.

Perhaps I was a prodigy, but I got very good at being able to get the whole song. Top 40 stations tended to play...you guessed it: the same 40 songs over and over again. Hear them enough and you could usually identify a particular song in a note or two. Also, if you hit Pause before Record, then all you had to do was tap the Pause button to begin recording.

As for sound quality, we didn't have CDs (not that they weren't available, we simply didn't own them), so radio quality on a tape was pretty equitable to radio quality from a radio.

And yes my parents paid taxes too. Did this make me a partial owner of the music? Is that really the argument you're trying to to make here? I pay taxes when I buy a movie ticket. Does that entitle me to a crap-quality home video recording of my favorite scenes?

I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your counterarguments on the unrelated points. Do you think we could talk about the relevant ones now? :D

So, if I make a copy of a song from the radio that I have not paid for, is that theft?

mimartin
05-30-2008, 06:39 PM
For those of us that are old enough to remember cassettes (http://www.bestpc.lv/images/au.gif); did any of you ever record songs (with your boom box (http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/panasonic-rx5500.jpg)) that you heard on the radio (so that you could listen to them later on your Walkman (http://www.note-i.de/blog/uploads/walkman.gif))? Is that any different than what we're talking about here? If yes, how?


Heck, I’m old enough to remember doing this with real-to-real, 8-tracks and cassettes. Other than technical differences it was still stealing. I have no excuse I was a theft, but it did made me a music lover who owns over 3000 CDs today.

(gee, I just made myself feel ancient).You made me feel ancient too. Thanks :rolleyes:

Added: How is recording a song on the radio, different than recording a television program?

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 07:13 PM
Also, if you hit Pause before Record, then all you had to do was tap the Pause button to begin recording.An ancient trick, unknown to the younglings. XD

So, if I make a copy of a song from the radio that I have not paid for, is that theft?No. Recording from radio/tv is not theft.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 07:35 PM
No. Recording from radio/tv is not theft.Yet I've still obtained copyrighted material without paying for it.

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 07:52 PM
I've already tried to point out that you actually did pay for it. And since the radio station paid for it as well, you made a copy of legally obtained material.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 08:02 PM
I've already tried to point out that you actually did pay for it. And since the radio station paid for it as well, you made a copy of legally obtained material.No, I didn't. At best (best) some small portion of the taxes that my parents paid helped to pay the administrative costs of the government agency responsible for how that signal was transmitted to my radio, but that's it. I paid nothing. None of my parents tax money went to the radio station, the record label, or the musician(s).

Arcesious
05-30-2008, 08:04 PM
Inevitably, I think the copyright and privacy laws are going to change dramatically, whether we like it or not. There are too many idiots ruining it for those of us who aren't criminals, and due to their actions, we're the ones losing a lot of our 'internet freedoms'. But that isn't going to stop the pirating buisnesses from pirating things. I'm not worried about having to pay to download songs off of sites, I'll gladly pay if it's worth it, I'm only worried about my privacy on my computer. I don't have anything to hide, but I still want computer privacy nonetheless.

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 08:07 PM
No, I didn't. At best (best) some small portion of the taxes that my parents paid helped to pay the administrative costs of the government agency responsible for how that signal was transmitted to my radio, but that's it.And how do you think do the stations get the money to buy the rights to air the songs?

JCarter426
05-30-2008, 08:12 PM
Eh...it's a different situation with television (probably radio, too, but I know next to nothing about radio since I never listen to it, so I'll only mention television). Networks in the US are privately owned, and thus they get payed by private owners--not the viewers, however, as all major networks in the US are free to watch (as opposed to cable/satellite). Networks get their money from advertisers. Advertisers give money to networks because they know the station's viewers will see their commercials and draw in customers (at least, they hope so).

When you watch a recording, what do you do when the commercials come on? You fast-forward. The advertisers know this, and it annoys them to no end. There's also the matter of people who hit the mute button when the commercials come on, and viewers who get their shows from "other" sources (i.e. torrents).

As of now, there is no widely used method that allows the advertisers to know who's watching what and when they're watching it (note I say there is no widely used method; several exist, but none are widely used). Which means that ad reps and networks resort to polls and surveys to figure out which shows are popular (and what age groups they're popular in, etc). So the most they can figure out is who's watching what shows. But that doesn't tell them how many people actually see the commercials, whether they avoid it through the mute button, the fast-forward button, or the download button. So it's all guesswork from there. And even if all those viewers actually see the commercials, there's no way to know if the commercials actually draw in more customers.

So it's a completely different matter. The actors, writers, producers, and other staff of TV shows get paid by the networks, who get paid by advertisers, who can only hope that their commercials draw in customers. Video game developers get paid by publishers who get paid by the customers. No guesswork involved in the latter.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 08:14 PM
I don't know how it works where you are but in the U.S. radio stations are paid by advertisers. The only exception (that I am aware of) is public radio which receives some government money (via arts related funding) and contributions from listeners (like me :D).

Rev7
05-30-2008, 08:24 PM
I don't think that there is any difference between Physical Theft or Digital Theft. None what-so-ever. Theft is still theft. To myself, that is all that it comes down to.

Ray Jones
05-31-2008, 04:19 AM
So, advertisement...

And why do you think do the advertisers get money from companies to propagate their creations, and why do the advertisers pay money to radio stations to air their product propaganda?

You might not pay for a song in a specific manner, but you pay one or another way for every song blown into the ether.

It gets more clearer in the case of pay tv etc, where you have almost no advertising, at least not during the movies, but pay plenty of bucks instead.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 04:31 AM
So, advertisement...

And why do you think do the advertisers get money from companies to propagate their creations, and why do the advertisers pay money to radio stations to air their product propaganda? Advertisers pay money to radio stations so that they can advertise their company's products to consumers. Some percentage of listeners buy the product which bring revenue to the company which uses part of that revenue to pay for more advertising so that more consumers will buy their product. Hooray capitalism! What is your point?

You might not pay for a song in a specific manner, but you pay one or another way for every song blown into the ether. You really are reaching, my friend. But I'll humor you: What if my parents never buy any of the goods or services advertised on the radio? Their money goes to some other company which only advertises in newspapers (which now entitles me, as their son, to be able to steal newspapers, using the logic in the argument that you have presented). Not one of their dimes goes into the coffers of those companies that advertise on the radio. Am I now stealing when I record music off the radio?

JCarter426
05-31-2008, 04:32 AM
And why do you think do the advertisers get money from companies to propagate their creations, and why do the advertisers pay money to radio stations to air their product propaganda?

Because they think listeners/viewers will hear/see their commercials and buy their products. But they can only hope that. Copying a song/TV show is different from copying a CD/video game. The original creators of the CD/video game get paid when their product sells. Creators of a song/TV show get paid when people listen to their song or watch their show, because that's the only way advertisers can know which songs/shows are popular, and where they should spend their money. See the difference? Creators of a song or TV show get paid even if their product is stolen. It's only the advertisers that lose out in that scenario.

It gets more clearer in the case of pay tv etc, where you have almost no advertising, at least not during the movies, but pay plenty of bucks instead.
Don't know how it is where you are, but in the US, even cable/satellite have loads of commercials. They do this (I think) so that they don't have to charge insanely high monthly fees. Oh, wait a minute, they do charge insanely high monthly fees. So I guess they're just greedy. :xp:

But taking a scenario in which there are no commercials into account...

Hmm...well, that's a completely different situation altogether. Odds are you're going to pay those insanely high monthly fees even if you record your shows/movies (because you have to pay those fees in order to record them). But downloading a show/movie so that you don't have to pay those fees is another matter.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 04:45 AM
Creators of a song or TV show get paid even if their product is stolen. If that's the case, then why is there such a hubbub over downloading music? If all I want is one or two songs off an album and the argument is that the creator of a song is going to get paid even if their product is stolen, then I don't understand what the problem is.

Likewise, I should be able to download as many TV shows as I want also, correct?

JCarter426
05-31-2008, 05:05 AM
If that's the case, then why is there such a hubbub over downloading music? If all I want is one or two songs off an album and the argument is that the creator of a song is going to get paid even if their product is stolen, then I don't understand what the problem is.
Me neither. It might hurt CD sales, but does anyone buy a CD for just one song?

Downloading a whole album is another matter, of course (it's in the same category as downloading a video game, in my opinion).

Likewise, I should be able to download as many TV shows as I want also, correct?
Same as above, but with DVD sales. Though DVDs are a tad different, since they come out months after the show airs (so depending on the situation, they might be completely irrelevant). Also, I'm fairly certain that the writers/actors/producers/other staff don't get a cent from DVD sales, so it's not really copyright violation either. So while it is stealing, in a sense, I don't see how it deprives anyone of anything.

Ray Jones
05-31-2008, 08:31 AM
What if my parents never buy any of the goods or services advertised on the radio?Doesn't matter. The main thing about advertisement is that people are receiving it.

Their money goes to some other company which only advertises in newspapers (which now entitles me, as their son, to be able to steal newspapers, using the logic in the argument that you have presented).I can't see that kind of path in my logic.

Not one of their dimes goes into the coffers of those companies that advertise on the radio. Am I now stealing when I record music off the radio?No. You heard the advertisement, which is what the radio stations received their cheque for.

EnderWiggin
05-31-2008, 09:42 AM
Doesn't matter. The main thing about advertisement is that people are receiving it.

I can't see that kind of path in my logic.

No. You heard the advertisement, which is what the radio stations received their cheque for.

I disagree with the first point; if no one buys the product the advertiser will stop advertising there.
I disagree with the second point; that's exactly what your logic says to me.
I disagree with the third point; the radio stations aren't going to keep receiving checks if the consumers just listen and never buy.

I've already tried to point out that you actually did pay for it. And since the radio station paid for it as well, you made a copy of legally obtained material.

So you seriously believe that because you listen ot a bit of advertising, you are entitled to steal the intellectual property of others?

Well let's take this to its logical conclusion. What happens after (we'll use Achilles' example) you record the 30 songs on the top 40 station that you like onto tapes? Are you going to keep listening to that station? No. That's the whole point of making the copy. What happens to that advertising now, huh?

_EW_


Wow. For once you and I agree, Achilles. :xp:

Ray Jones
05-31-2008, 10:38 AM
Well, I don't steal intellectual property when I record a song from radio, which I'm not gonna sell, distribute otherwise, nor do say that I made it. No copyright is violated.

And when someone forever stops to listen to radio just because you recorded a handful of songs, well, then he's an easy to entertain mind. :)

Achilles
05-31-2008, 02:47 PM
Me neither. It might hurt CD sales, but does anyone buy a CD for just one song? Nowadays? No, I highly doubt that they do. In the bad old days, yeah, that was kinda-sorta your only choice (you younglings probably can't wrap your head around the idea of life without mp3s or cable television :))

Downloading a whole album is another matter, of course (it's in the same category as downloading a video game, in my opinion).Forgive me, but I'm still seeing this is an "it either is or it isn't" type things. Downloading music is either stealing music or it isn't (obvious exception for when musicians give their music away).

Same as above, but with DVD sales. Though DVDs are a tad different, since they come out months after the show airs (so depending on the situation, they might be completely irrelevant). Also, I'm fairly certain that the writers/actors/producers/other staff don't get a cent from DVD sales, so it's not really copyright violation either. So while it is stealing, in a sense, I don't see how it deprives anyone of anything.Were paying very much attention during the recent Writer's Guild strike, eh? :D

Yes, many players in the television industry are counting on "residuals" from DVD sales and are willing to strike for months on end for half a cent.

Doesn't matter. The main thing about advertisement is that people are receiving it. Then how am I entitled to the music (in your model)?

I can't see that kind of path in my logic. Sure. Your argument was that if my parents are paying money that somehow supports the music, then I am entitled to it. Exact same thing except I've replaced "music" with "newspapers". If the argument works in one set of conditions but not the other, then something is wrong with the argument.

No. You heard the advertisement, which is what the radio stations received their cheque for.Unless I am a consumer that will purchase the product advertised or part of the marketing apparatus that helps determine ratings, this doesn't matter. In the scenario I provided (preteen male), I was neither.

Wow. For once you and I agree, Achilles. :xp: No we don't :xp: :lol:

Well, I don't steal intellectual property when I record a song from radio, which I'm not gonna sell, distribute otherwise, nor do say that I made it. No copyright is violated. Then I can download as much media as I like so long as I don't distribute it. Right?

And when someone forever stops to listen to radio just because you recorded a handful of songs, well, then he's an easy to entertain mind. :)That may be, but a personal critique is not the foundation of a solid counterargument. :)

JCarter426
05-31-2008, 03:12 PM
Nowadays? No, I highly doubt that they do. In the bad old days, yeah, that was kinda-sorta your only choice (you younglings probably can't wrap your head around the idea of life without mp3s or cable television :))
:rofl: I don't have cable or an mp3. :xp: (Actually, I don't listen to music, so I wouldn't know if one would buy a CD for one song. ;)). I was going by the premise that no one would buy an entire season just for one episode...but I guess it's a little different.

Forgive me, but I'm still seeing this is an "it either is or it isn't" type things. Downloading music is either stealing music or it isn't (obvious exception for when musicians give their music away).
Oh, yes it is stealing, no doubt there. But there's a slight difference: downloading or recording one song when you wouldn't buy the entire album does not. But if you would buy a CD just for one song, then everything just goes out the window. So I guess it depends on how well you can lie to yourself. ;)

Were paying very much attention during the recent Writer's Guild strike, eh? :D

Yes, many players in the television industry are counting on "residuals" from DVD sales and are willing to strike for months on end for half a cent.
Well, the writers gave up the residuals, did they not...or did they just settle for a lower rate? (I forget...I was just happy the strike was over :D).

But in any case, yes, it is stealing, if you define stealing as taking what one did not pay for, rather than taking something from someone without paying for it.

EnderWiggin
05-31-2008, 03:58 PM
No we don't :xp: :lol:


I think you just don't want us to agree. ;)
But we pretty much do :D

_EW_

Ray Jones
05-31-2008, 04:14 PM
Then how am I entitled to the music (in your model)?Easy. Just reread my previous posts.

Sure. Your argument was that if my parents are paying money that somehow supports the music, then I am entitled to it. Exact same thing except I've replaced "music" with "newspapers". If the argument works in one set of conditions but not the other, then something is wrong with the argument.Don't try to twist my words. I said clearly the radio songs are paid through advertisement, and with tax money.

Then I can download as much media as I like so long as I don't distribute it. Right?Nope. Because you (A) download without the copyright holder's permission, and (B) the material has not been published with the copyright holder's permission at that download location.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 04:20 PM
I think you just don't want us to agree. ;)
But we pretty much do :DThat's the sound of humor whizzing past you :D

Don't try to twist my words. I said clearly the radio songs are paid through advertisement, and with tax money. First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.

Second, if newspaper articles are paid for through advertisement (which they largely are), then I should be entitled those as well. It's your logic, sir.

Nope. Because you (A) download without the copyright holder's permission, and (B) the material has not been published with the copyright holder's permission at that download location.I used to record it without the copyright holders permission too. I don't see how that's different.

EnderWiggin
05-31-2008, 04:22 PM
That's the sound of humor whizzing past you :D

:lol:

Yeah, well. I guess that's just how today is. :D

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-31-2008, 05:56 PM
First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.

Radio in Germany might receive tax support, however.

US radio, except for public service type programs like NOAA weather radio, does not usually receive any kind of tax/gov't support, Ray.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 06:16 PM
Radio in Germany might receive tax support, however. Indeed, however I tried to point out that's not the case here in post #39.

Ray Jones
05-31-2008, 08:33 PM
First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.At least here in Germany, federal radiostations are almost completely funded by tax money. Ergo, so are the songs they play.

Second, if newspaper articles are paid for through advertisement (which they largely are), then I should be entitled those as well. It's your logic, sir.Ah, now I understand. Yes. If you pay for it (since you have to buy it) you can make a copy of the newspaper for your own personal use. :)

I used to record it without the copyright holders permission too. I don't see how that's different.The copyright holder made it available to public by selling the right to air it via radio. Again, at least here in Germany, and as long as you are not skirting any copy protection mechanisms, you are allowed to make a private copy of what you legally obtained, for your own personal use.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 08:47 PM
At least here in Germany, federal radiostations are almost completely funded by tax money. Ergo, so are the songs they play. Okay, that's great for Germany but since all the RIAA lawsuits that I know about are happening here in the U.S. I think we should play with the U.S. way of doing things in mind.

Ah, now I understand. Yes. If you pay for it (since you have to buy it) you can make a copy of the newspaper for your own personal use. :) Where did I mention anything about purchasing the newspaper? And you accuse me of twisting words?

The copyright holder made it available to public by selling the right to air it via radio. The copyright holder made it available for public recording for private use?

Gurges-Ahter
06-01-2008, 01:19 AM
I think Achilles is right here. I wasn't old enough to be aware of it, but there was some hubbub generated back in the day when VCRs became popular because of the ability to tape television shows or movies without directly paying for them. An act was passed that is the same act being applied to MP3 downloaders today, amended for digital age media, that specifically stated it is illegal to download and distribute digital media. That being said, every case thus far against downloaders has been one of getting caught for distribution, not just for downloading. Because of that I've always disabled sharing of my files on P2P networks. Torrents are different in how they work, and currently end-user dloaders are not "at risk" for breaking the law.

So I think Achilles is right in comparing this to taping from the TV or radio - the act of doing so alone isn't stealing, but the distribution of that probably is wrong on some level. I believe this was created to prevent people from selling downloaded media.

Ray Jones
06-01-2008, 06:41 AM
Where did I mention anything about purchasing the newspaper?You asked whether it would be okay to copy articles in a newspaper, because they are mostly funded through advertisements as well. Hence my answer, hence "if you pay for it", since, unlike to tuning into a radio programme, you actually have to pay to get a newspaper.

The copyright holder made it available for public recording for private use?In analogy to publishing/selling a song on a CD or in a download portal, yes. Although music usually is not published for "recording for private use".

Achilles
06-01-2008, 07:01 AM
You asked whether it would be okay to copy articles in a newspaper, because they are mostly funded through advertisements as well.No, my question was regarding the newspapers themselves, not the articles (I thought that would have been clear given the earlier exchange, however I apologize for not being more concise).

In analogy to publishing/selling a song on a CD or in a download portal, yes. Although music usually is not published for "recording for private use".No analogy please. With regards to the context provided.

The copyright holder made it available to the radio station so that the listener could make a recording for their private use? Yes or no?

Ray Jones
06-01-2008, 08:55 AM
No, my question was regarding the newspapers themselves, not the articles (I thought that would have been clear given the earlier exchange, however I apologize for not being more concise).Aperlogy essapted.

However. You seem to put the process of making a legal *copy* of a product equal to obtaining the product *itself*, then.

The recorded song is already a copy of a legally purchased product, whereas the newspaper you take from the shelf is the original, which you still have to pay. So when you take the newspaper itself, without paying for it, you're neither making a copy, nor not stealing it.


The copyright holder made it available to the radio station so that the listener could make a recording for their private use? Yes or no?Of course not, no.

Hm.

In the first place I'd make a song available to the radio station so they'd pass me a dollar or two for it, what would you think. Beside that, I'd hope people would like the song they hear on the radio, go to the record store and buy the song, if not even the whole album or other related material like the live DVD.

Yes, I'd push my stuff to the stations so I could actually sell it.

Achilles
06-01-2008, 12:09 PM
However. You seem to put the process of making a legal *copy* of a product equal to obtaining the product *itself*, then. "Legal" copy is a qualifier that you're adding, not me. If I have three mp3s (one ripped from a cd that I've purchased, one that I've downloaded from a pay site, and one that I've obtained via some other means), how do I designate one a "copy" and another "the product"? You can't because "the copy" is "the product".

The recorded song is already a copy of a legally purchased product, whereas the newspaper you take from the shelf is the original, which you still have to pay. So when you take the newspaper itself, without paying for it, you're neither making a copy, nor not stealing it. You are arbitrarily adding a whole lot of qualifiers that have nothing to do with the discussion. I hope that it's an honest mistake and not a dishonest attempt to derail the dialog.

Of course not, no.Okay. Since you are acknowledging that music obtained this way is outside the boundaries of fair use, I don't see how you can deny that it's stealing any longer. Thanks.

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 12:52 PM
So I think Achilles is right in comparing this to taping from the TV or radio - the act of doing so alone isn't stealing, but the distribution of that probably is wrong on some level. I believe this was created to prevent people from selling downloaded media.

:confused:

I don't understand. The way I read this dialog, Achilles is saying that the act of doing so is stealing, and I agree. Downloading MP3s or taping, I think the act is stealing.

So what are you trying to say?

_EW_

Gurges-Ahter
06-01-2008, 01:40 PM
I meant to say Achilles was right for comparing downloading MP3s to taping a TV show on your VCR, or a song from the radio on a cassette tape. I made my post before I finished reading the thread. I believe neither is stealing.

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 01:42 PM
I meant to say Achilles was right for comparing downloading MP3s to taping a TV show on your VCR, or a song from the radio on a cassette tape. I made my post before I finished reading the thread. I believe neither is stealing.

Ok, just so it's clear that we think both are stealing.

_EW_

RyuuKage
06-01-2008, 02:31 PM
Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal. Copying a DVD you rented however, is stealing because it is not broadcast on a free-use station.

And like someone said earlier, its not the disc or the tape or whatever that you're buying; it's the content ON it.

and apparently the great majority of people here are perfectly fine with stealing...that's depressing...

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 02:57 PM
Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal.

Yeah, just like how LimeWire should be illegal technology.

It's not. Using it for copyright infringement is still stealing. Would you disagree?

_EW_

Achilles
06-01-2008, 03:00 PM
Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal.Depends on what the "something" is.
Copying a DVD you rented however, is stealing because it is not broadcast on a free-use station. Because it is broadcast does that make it free use?
And like someone said earlier, its not the disc or the tape or whatever that you're buying; it's the content ON it. I'm pretty sure I agree with this.
and apparently the great majority of people here are perfectly fine with stealing...that's depressing... Hmmm. What makes you say that?
Yeah, just like how LimeWire should be illegal technology. Eh? The technology itself is not illegal. The purpose it is most widely known for is illegal, but the technology itself is fine, no?

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 05:17 PM
Eh? The technology itself is not illegal. The purpose it is most widely known for is illegal, but the technology itself is fine, no?

Yeah. It was my tongue-in-cheek way of responding to the 'VCRs should be illegal' statement.

_EW_

ForeverNight
06-01-2008, 05:56 PM
I caught that one!

But, anyway, I've been following this since I noticed it, and, well, I guess I should just put my two-cents in...

If you buy the product, go ahead, make your copies, but don't distribute it. If you don't own it, and instead download it for free off of a site such as Lime-wire, then you've just stolen the product.

Because it is broadcast does that make it free use?

Yeah, it does, if you intend to copy it and keep it for your own use. I know that Von Ryan's Express was broadcast a month or so back at 8:00-10:00PM, we copied it onto a DVD-RAM just so we could watch it later(High School + Homework).

That is just like recording a song off of the radio to a cassette.

I don't know what the difference between the two is, except that the movie has a lot more people directly involved. But, since -as far as I know- recording off the radio to a cassette is legal, than so is the movie.

Gurges-Ahter
06-01-2008, 06:21 PM
That is just like recording a song off of the radio to a cassette.

I don't know what the difference between the two is, except that the movie has a lot more people directly involved. But, since -as far as I know- recording off the radio to a cassette is legal, than so is the movie.
I agree with this, but let's take the logic a step farther (and FYI, this is one reason why just downloading MP3's has yet to result in any legal action by RIAA or anyone else - only the distribution of digital media has led to legal action). Let's say you're listening to the radio and you record a song on a cassette. No harm, no foul (perhaps Achilles disagrees). What if you then transfer that recording to your computer? Is that wrong? Probably not. What's the difference, then, in just downloading the mp3? I'm not saying there's not a difference, but the line between right and wrong on this issue is definitely blurred.

Samuel Dravis
06-01-2008, 07:16 PM
The AHRA explicitly states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_Infringeme nt_Actions)that recording off the radio with an analog device is perfectly legal and that no action can be taken against people who do so for personal use. Using digital means to record is somewhat less clear, but from what I can tell the action is virtually the same.

Ray Jones
06-01-2008, 07:32 PM
"Legal" copy is a qualifier that you're adding, not me. If I have three mp3s (one ripped from a cd that I've purchased, one that I've downloaded from a pay site, and one that I've obtained via some other means), how do I designate one a "copy" and another "the product"? You can't because "the copy" is "the product".Ah. Now it is suddenly about mp3s? I thought we were talking about taping from radio, and stealing newspapers in this case.

You are arbitrarily adding a whole lot of qualifiers that have nothing to do with the discussion. I hope that it's an honest mistake and not a dishonest attempt to derail the dialog.:dozey: *pokes you in the eye*

I vaguely remember you coming up with the whole newspaper stuff. Eh.

Okay. Since you are acknowledging that music obtained this way is outside the boundaries of fair use, I don't see how you can deny that it's stealing any longer. Thanks.I have acknowledged no such thing.

And tearing parts of my post out of context to make them sound as if won't change that either.

EnderWiggin
06-01-2008, 08:06 PM
The AHRA explicitly states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_Infringeme nt_Actions)that recording off the radio with an analog device is perfectly legal and that no action can be taken against people who do so for personal use. Using digital means to record is somewhat less clear, but from what I can tell the action is virtually the same.

I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for sharing it with us.

_EW_

Achilles
06-02-2008, 02:26 AM
The AHRA explicitly states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_Infringeme nt_Actions)that recording off the radio with an analog device is perfectly legal and that no action can be taken against people who do so for personal use. Using digital means to record is somewhat less clear, but from what I can tell the action is virtually the same.Okay, this clears up not only the question I was trying to get answered but the larger question I had once I we'd addressed the first one (as much as can be expected anyway).

Thanks for the info.

Ah. Now it is suddenly about mp3s? I thought we were talking about taping from radio, and stealing newspapers in this case. For the purposes of making my point regarding "copies" vs. "product", yes I introduced a scenario involving mp3s.

:dozey: *pokes you in the eye*

I vaguely remember you coming up with the whole newspaper stuff. Eh. Huge difference between using an analogy to make a point and trying to change the argument. :dozey: *pokes you in the eye back*

I have acknowledged no such thing.

And tearing parts of my post out of context to make them sound as if won't change that either.If you'd like to change your answer now, feel free however I think it's a moot point now compliments of Mr. Dravis' post.

Ray Jones
06-02-2008, 05:02 AM
For the purposes of making my point regarding "copies" vs. "product", yes I introduced a scenario involving mp3s.So you invoke newspapers and radio taping on analogue cassettes all over your posts, just to suddenly switch the whole thread of discussion back to digital media and try to nail previous statements made regarding a totally different matter to it? You did not really expect that one to work out for your argumentation, did you?



Huge difference between using an analogy to make a point and trying to change the argument.My...I was merely explaining why the newspaper analogy that you introduced does not work. I mean you come up with it, I reply to it, and instead of coming back in a consent manner you then tell me I'm derailing the dialogue? Why did you drag it into "the dialogue" in the first place when you want it to stay monologue, or expect a certain set of answers that make your stuff look good and undisputed?

Plus, after I rendered your newspaper analogy useless, you now try to wind it all up and to turn it into something I'd come up with, probably aiming to derail discussion. You did not even spend one single second with trying to counter my argument any more. All you went is "hoho, slow there, this does not belong here".

You've lost me with that one, seriously. If you want your argumentation to go unheeded, you might as well adhere from posting it at all, or, at least consider adding a disclaimer stating whether or not you want that particular part of your post to find response, or not, and if so, you might as well outline responses that would fit with your day just to go sure.



If you'd like to change your answer nowWut??

You, sir, deliberately misquoted my response to support your own "argumentation". Next up, you propose an abstraction of that misquoted content, being far beyond good and bad, obviously to gain even more support for your increasingly weak argumentation. I pointed that out and you now seriously tell me "go ahead and change your answer"? To what? To fit it into your idea of "the dialogue"? Are you really serious about that kind of strategy?

How about you posting a correction at least regarding your misquotation instead?



I think it's a moot point now compliments of Mr. Dravis' post.In other words, and despite all the newspaper crap, weasel tactics, and attempts to insult my mind with the belief I would not notice you twisting my own statements --

recording off the radio is not theft, thus Ray 1 : Achilles 0



kthxbai

Achilles
06-02-2008, 11:11 AM
recording off the radio is not theft, thus Ray 1 : Achilles 0:lol: I think the "victory" is Sam's but congratulations nonetheless. :)

Since the rest of my response will only drag this thread off-topic (and I hate it when the mods snip my long posts) you'll get the rest via PM.

Ray Jones
06-02-2008, 11:37 AM
no need to bother, really

Samuel Dravis
06-06-2008, 03:39 AM
Surely we don't want to equate what the law says with the moral appropriateness of the act. It would not be right to steal even if the law said that you could do so without legal repercussions, correct? For make no mistake: it still is taking someone else's work for free when you record off the radio. The difference is that you're protected by statute from being sued for doing it. The question that needs answering is: What benefit does copyright law provide for our society?

Here is an interesting speech (http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm) on just this subject. Though written long ago, I think it is equally applicable to our time.

Web Rider
06-06-2008, 01:16 PM
I dunno if anyone's brought it up, but apparently there's a new treaty being discussed at the G8 in relation to this, to quote the poster:

Just found out about this new proposed 'law'. Don't know if anyone has heard of it yet, it's fairly new. If passed, this law would enable serious breaches of privacy, allowing border patrols/Customs officials to confiscate and destroy items they suspect of holding copyright-infringing material, and also allowing rights holders to bypass the justice system and "expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer" of their IP rights from ISPs themselves.


http://www.techcentral.ie/article.aspx?id=12145

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterf...Trade_Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA...trade_agreement (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement) (2007, leaked May 22, 2008)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...der-guards.html (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html)

http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/acta/

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2815/


While we're off speculating about what is or isn't legal or moral or stealing, they're changing the rules on us.

El Sitherino
06-06-2008, 06:33 PM
This is why I do not have any issues with pirates or any other such downloaders. If anyone wants to get into an argument about what is morally acceptable, they need to start looking at the tactics of these rule enforcers. You can't completely alienate another individuals human rights claiming personal ownership rights, or the right to distribute your medium in your defined means.