The Semantics of File Sharing 506
ethericalzen writes "The LA Times has published an opinion article about the legal semantics and analogies of file sharing. The article includes arguments from those who believe file sharing is theft and those who strongly disagree. As it points out, the common analogies to theft are often incomplete or inaccurate. The author states, "balancing the interests of content creators against the public's ... is a much more complicated task than erecting a legal barrier to five-fingered discounts." He recognizes that it is not a trivial concept, and that the clamoring from both camps about definitions and moral boundaries will dictate how businesses and users function in the future."
No better then /. (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words its just an article that is what Slashdot is like every time an *AA story gets posted? Some calling it theft and others saying its not?
Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, this will either a) finally put down on paper that file sharing is not theft, or b) put down on paper that the exchange of copyrighted information is, in fact, theft, and then everyone is in a world of poop. My old VHS recordings of Red Dwarf and The Muppets will suddenly become a complicated legal quagmire.
Now, quagmire is semantically defined as...
I hate arguments by analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
OF COURSE analogies don't work.
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:5, Insightful)
The car theft analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "filesharing = theft" equation is almost entirely down to MPAA, RIAA and other organizations brainwashing people. Saying something a 1000 times doesn't make it true. If it did, downloading WOULD be theft by this point. But it's still copyright violation, which is why these groups, with their large political donations, have made copyright violation are far FAR harsher crime than theft ever was.
I break into your house and nick your Transformers DVD, at worst I'd probably go down for 30 days, unless I'm haibitual. Small fine probably. The charge will be breaking and entering, theft etc... I download Transformers from you instead, we BOTH face tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and many years in jail.
You're better off, from a jailtime perspective, heading into your local WalMart, nicking a few DVD's, then rape the cashier on the way out. You'll serve less time than if you get caught downloading the movie.
The semantic aren't really the issue here, as the powers that be want to have their cake AND eat it too. They want the association in the public eye to be IT'S THEFT! IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN STEALING A CAR! But in the back rooms they know this is bullshit, and continue to push on with copyright violation punishments being exponentially increased.
What you or I call it is irrelevant.
Shoplifting vs. Downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were true, the punishment would be the same.
Re:No better then /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed on all sides (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Artists who hope to get rich by gaming the system (as a few artists certainly have).
2) Middle men going to extreme measures (like bankrupting or jailing people, draconian drm) to protect their "right" to collect most of the money.
3) Lots of people who are happy to take content without compensating anyone for it.
There are exceptions but the status quo is pretty bad. Still, the human race has bigger problems. Pollution. Overpopulation. War. Disease. Compared to that this is all petty bullshit and a waste of words. All these people just need to stop grubbing for every last dollar and accept that sometimes life isn't going to hand them what they're due, what they're worth, or what they've earnt. Other people will take you for all that you're worth if they can - it doesn't give you the right to adopt the same attitude.
In other words: Life ain't fair. Get over it. There are many more important things than the latest film or pop song. Stop penalizing everyone you can to protect your own money grubbing arse.
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Take, for example, the current case law surrounding IR surveillance by cops. The case was basically decided by treating heat radiated from a home as "waste" so the person involved forfeited their right to privacy to that waste heat. This may seem like a bad decision, but realize that it was made in a time when IR sensors couldn't 'see' through walls effectively enough to make out features, body parts, etc (they still really can't). Once that happens, the case will come up again and the reasoning will probably be revised.
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it's "unauthorized value creation". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, arguments by analogy can and are often abused, and analogies are easy to overextend, but basic logic and common sense are tools in preventing these problems. Maybe you hate logic and common sense, too. I don't know. Understanding your position is like
Its not semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, that said it may ( or may not ) be a civil offense, and even may become a criminal offense if the IP industry gets it way, but its not by definition theft nor will it ever be.
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's consider your analogy of cloning a car:
It doesn't deprive the original owner of anything, but modern cars do require a considerable amount of investment to design and test. By cloning a car, you are taking advantage of the work and investments of the company that builds them, while choosing not compensate them for it.
The logical conclusion of your analogy is not that it is OK to clone cars, but that the clones themselves would have to be sold in a manner that reflects the fact that copies are unlimited (even if the resources and time that goes into designing and testing a car is not unlimited).
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft is Theft.
Copyright infringement is Copyright infringement.
Both illegal, but both very distinct and seperated.
Why do people not get this?
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a first time for everything. Why can't novel situations produce a novel body of laws based on consideration of the actual harm actually caused by those novel situations per se, rather than a derivative body of laws based on some poorly-conceived and thoroughly inaccurate analogy?
A man's life is not analagous to his property. We don't use property law to try homicide cases.
And why not be literal? Are the basics of computer networking too difficult for judges and lawyers to understand on their own terms? Let's take a literal look at bandwidth "stealing" for example:
When I "steal" you bandwith, what is literally happening is that my device is making a request to your device. Your device, configured by you, activated by you, either approves or denies my request. If it approves my request, there is literally no theft--I have your written permission, recorded in the configuration of your device, to use your bandwidth. And if it denies my request, there is literally no theft, because I cannot use your bandwidth. That's the way the protocol is written, that's the way the protocol is enforced. It's literally that simple and straightforward. No need for analogies. The thing is completely understandable in terms of itself.
Re:Its not semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, im not debating if IP infringement is right or wrong as that is a totally different discussion, the only point im making here is that its NOT theft. The continued labeling of it as theft is dishonest marketing.
i am not getting it (Score:3, Insightful)
See? No need for bad or any analogies.
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:4, Insightful)
I Call It "Speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a word for "file sharing": I call it "speech". I have the Right (as in God-given, inalienable, fundamental, and/or natural -- take your pick) to repeat any speech that enters my realm of experience from any source.
Before the internet became popular, copyright did not very significantly encroach upon the territory of Free Speech. Now, no one can reasonably claim that copyright does not restrict Free Speech and education. Obviously, Free Speech is more important than copyright, just as Democracy is more important than monopoly privileges.
File sharing is Free Speech.
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose that I am an incompetent nincompoop who couldn't figure out how to secure my wireless router. You, looking for a hot spot, decide to leech, and as a result, you run up my wireless bill.
Now maybe my router did give you permission, but maybe it (and me) just either didn't want to, or couldn't figure out how to tell your device apart from my own devices.
It's just like an idiot who leaves his front door unlocked. An unlocked door does not automatically give you permission to enter. You set foot in my house without my OK, you are trespassing, lock or not. A lock doesn't grant or deny permission, it's merely an enforcement mechanism.
I may be stupid and lazy if I don't put a lock on my door, but a lack of lock doesn't give you the right to just barge in.
Similiarly, whether or not my device elects to service yours may have nothing to do with my property rights. You are running up my wireless bill without my consent, and it's just as if you stuck a machine into my outlets and ran up my power bill. My device might accept your device's requests simply because it doesn't know any better (the "no lock on the front door") part. It's still not my device that's accessing it, and furthermore, I'm not even sure if my "device" has legal power of attorney to grant access on my behalf.
Two cases where it most DEFINITELY doesn't follow is if you use forged credentials or MAC addresses to masquerade or bypass my security, and cracking my passwords and then leeching.
Just because my *device* says it's ok, doesn't mean that *I* do. There could very well be a hardware defect that lets you in. Almost like some nut case putting a sign on my front door without my permission that says "come in"
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:2, Insightful)
File Sharing != Lost Sale (Score:4, Insightful)
Every illegal download is a lost sale.
Their entitled to THOUSANDS OF TIMES THEIR ACTUAL LOSSES from every infringer they haul into court.
You can absolutely identify the infringing user and computer from nothing more than an IP address and a timestamp.
There is no other explanation for the overall decline in CD sales.
We're only doing this for the artists.
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Theft is Theft. Copyright infringement is Copyright infringement. Both illegal, but both very distinct and seperated. Why do people not get this?
Either way, you're getting something you haven't paid for, so the distinction is lost on most people.
"No, having a copy of this CD isn't stealing because it's intellectual property!" doesn't make sense to most people.
Re:Its not semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right - copyright violation in its current definition is not theft. And that's because both have clear definitions in whatever jurisdiction you happen to live in.
Now what happens if your jurisdiction changes its definition of theft? Say, to something broad like "the appropriation of property, tangible or otherwise, without explicit permission of the property owner". That encompasses copyright infringement right there. This is what a lot of IP-bound countries may well end up doing.
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:2, Insightful)
You wrote that post and expressly released it to slashdot to reproduce for people to read without compensation. You could have demanded a share of their ad revenue, sure, because your contribution adds value to their site. But then they wouldn't have used it.
That is not true of Cloverfield or the latest Nickleback CD.
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of copying (Score:5, Insightful)
The one point I don't think gets mentioned nearly enough is the potential value of free copying to society. We hear plenty about the supposed cost. But in a world with liberal sharing of creative works, those works will get into the hands of many more people, including people of limited means. People will be exposed to amazing works they might have otherwise missed. Works will have to compete for attention based more purely on their content, rather than on the marketing muscle behind them. New works will be created that are inspired by, and in some cases built from, the numerous creative sources made available through sharing.
Best of all, free copying creates a worldwide decentralized backup system for these works. Many works will be saved which might have been otherwise lost because they were copyrighted for far longer than they were profitable.
We are witnessing the beginning of a new era, where creativity spews forth from all corners and mixes in many unexpected ways. Much of it will be crap, but some of it will be mind-blowingly fantastic. An environment of sharing with few restrictions will make this possible, and it will preserve the best of what is produced for generations to come.
Re:No better then /. (Score:3, Insightful)
B: There are widely known methods to aquire the exact same or better object. (ripping to lossless from CD for example) But there is both the cost to leagally aquire the original and the time converting it to consider.
C: The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal. Yet filesharing or "Making available" is much more obviously in that area.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
2: These lost sales are in no way a direct representation of actual lost dollar amounts since the choice is between free and not free, DRM'd and non DRM format. Not authorized vs identical bootleg at the same cost.
3: There must be some damage to the seller if the product is being downloaded and no monetary compensation for the production of the good is received.
This whole argument about the definition of theft is manufactured just as much as the amounts being claimed lost due to piracy by the other side.
Thery're both wrong and need to get over themselves and admit what we all know.
It's theft, but not of the things that they are trying to sell us. The two are not equal.
It doesn't cost the same to manufacture and ship a CD as it does in bandwidth to download a set of 13 songs. The price/ea of other objects goes down when the number produced goes up but with CDs and downloads the price remains the same. If they sell 1 million CDs they make a certain amount of money, they make more than double if they sell 2 million because of reduces retooling and shipping discounts alone. If they sell 1 million downloads they make a certain amount. If they sell 2 million they make more than double that because of les web delevopment and bandwidth discounts. Yet we see absolutely no effort by the labels to reduce the price per song that we pay and instead see them trying to reduce the amount paid to the artists that actually make the content that they are selling. They are the most horrible group of middle men around.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft. Since no money leaves their pockets and they get something that they would normally have to pay for, it's an effort not to equate that with stealing. The same people would have a hard time justifying to a friend that they downloaded their software or song without paying for it (if it weren't GPL or CC licensed). Just because a big corporation is running the show the facts don't change. Theft is theft. If you want it and can get it legally and choose not to, you're a theif. You are making the *AA look good in comparison by not admitting it.
Free as in...? (Score:2, Insightful)
I like this quote:
Put this way, it seems obvious that the sharing of ideas (and intellectual property is essentially ideas, isn't it?) is free speech. So, the question is: Is free speech free as in beer, or free as in... my head hurts.
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:3, Insightful)
The contents of a CD, DVD, or book have been released to the public already; they're copyrighted materials. The contents of my bank account or computer, are more akin to trade secrets.
In short, you fail at analogy.
the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
radio and television (Score:5, Insightful)
business based on the distribution of books, dvds, cds, etc., meanwhile is based on the control of tangible media you need to manufacture, put on a truck, and ship to a store
what the internet did was force the radio/ tv economic model on the book/ dvd/ cd distributors
it's disruptive technology defined. and, unfortunately for entrenched business interests based on distribution of tangible media, completely irreversible and completely unstoppable
meanwhile, all of the moral arguments are complete bullshit. it's just a business earthquake, plain and simple. pointing to morality is merely crocodile tears on the part of some very powerful, but dying businesses
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume that you have the magic Star Trek matter replicator and can make a copy of the car, although it is true that you haven't deprived the owner of the car, you have deprived the manufacturer of the car. Car manufacturers do not charge the sum of the input resources; they charge extra in order to recoup the value of their design, the costs of building the factory and yes, a profit; so if you could replicate the car you have pretty much the precise analogy of copying/sharing a copyrighted item - There has clearly been a financial impact to the car manufacturer.
Of course the number of people who would replicate a free Ferrari vs. the number of people who would actually purchase one are clearly not the same, so it would be wrong of Ferrari to claim that every replicated car was a lost sale and the same is true of the entertainment industry (although that is not how they see it). I thought the article brought some interesting arguments and attempted to break down the highly polarised way in which this issue is typically presented; The entertainment industry claims that every copy cost them a billion dollars and is the same as stealing the Mona Lisa (or some such hyperbole) and file sharers claim that the entertainment industry is a bunch of monopolistic assholes who charge too much and give nothing to the artists anyway so why not steal it.
What I think is interesting about the car theft analogy is that entertainment industry seems to ignore the fact that while car theft is wrong, it does still happen. While people take reasonable steps to prevent car theft they are unwilling to, say, encase their cars in concrete (Which I guess still wouldn't prevent a thief with a big enough crane from taking the car). The entertainment industry seems to think they should be immune from theft and work with their lobbyists to further increase their (artificial) monopoly protection (which further alienates from many people) rather than accepting that a certain amount of theft will happen and working to find a new business model that works in the digital world. The success of music stores like iTunes shows that some people will still buy music if the price vs. convenience equation stacks up. (And yes for some people even 1c is too much to pay)
Re:Its not semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
Believe it or not, intelligent, technologically literate people can hold the opinion that copyright infringement is in fact theft. I think it takes some empathic faculty that the pro-theft crowd just doesn't have.
My sympathy for the copyright holders comes from the same source that tells me that people should not be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, limbs or lives, regardless of whether I am in one of those vulnerable groups. I am unlikely ever to write a popular song, sonnet or novel, but it is perfectly obvious to me that you have no right to steal copies of those from people who do.
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing is a verb. It is an act that involves taking something to which you're not entitled. That's it. You are, once again, conflating theft (a legal construct which involves deprivation of property) with stealing (a verb). THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that the onus under the law is on the person committing the act, not the impact on the owner.
It doesn't matter that the owner has more, even if there are infinitely many more. You aren't punished because someone has lost something; you're punished because you have committed a transgression against someone. We don't care, as a legal matter, whether you took a dollar from a dishwasher or from Donald Trump, who'd never even know it was gone. It's something that is legitimately and legally for sale, which you acquired without paying for. You have stolen. Idiotic semantic arguments (which use 'steal' and 'theft' interchangeably, but try to split hairs on fractional parts of hand-picked definitions) notwithstanding, there's no issue here.
This is worse than the utterly moronic "piracy is only on boats" horseshit that is scattered around Slashdot. Newsflash, Dexter: 'piracy' has been used in the modern sense since the 1880s. It's a word more deeply established than "computer".
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think i've bought an album without hearing what's on it in a long time though, and i'm really not likely to either. I prefer (morally, if you will) to support artists i like directly, and that's because i know the money won't actually make it to them otherwise.
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes it would be!!
If such a replicator existed, then the manufacturers of cars, candy-bars and computers absolutely would be claiming copyright (or whatever kind of "intellectual property" they could muster) on their products.
Sure it would be a stupid idea, and sure it wouldn't work ... but since when has that stopped people?
Re:I Call It "Speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
Provided those words are your own and do not infringe on any copyrighted material. Also, you do not have the right to reproduce the original picture without the authorisation of the copyright holder.
But not to release it publicly without compensation to the creator(s).
But not to repeat the information without acknowledgment of the source, or to pass it off as your own work.
The distinction here is that you are entitled to use the work (or the information provided therein), but are not entitled to the work itself. You are still expected to provide some compensation to the artist for the work, be it a painting, song or book (e.g. you can repeat the information in the book, but you still have to buy/borrow/steal the book to begin with). That is the distinction which needs to be made when comparing your definition of 'free speech' to file-sharing.
File sharing is Free Speech.
Which is the same fallacious argument as 'File sharing is Stealing'. Both are incorrect because they attempt to prove by analogy. Essentially,
which is the basis on which the article made its points. It's not stealing, nor should it be entirely free. The distribution technology evolved faster than the industry was able to, so we're left in an undefined grey area (with an industry which remains reluctant to evolve, unfortunately).
Really, file-sharing is just the next generation of tape-trading, which was never (to my knowledge) prosecuted by the RIAA. Sure, it's faster and allows more freedom in the choices (and conversely, easier to track), but the basis is the same: unauthorised (in the sense that the creator has no prior knowledge) duplication of work.
Call it semantics if you will, but your argument is flawed. (Please note that this does not mean I am against file-sharing, I am merely illustrating the flaws in the argument, which are the same flaws suffered by the RIAA/MPAA arguments.)
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you don't understand money. Yes, some people may value the piece of green paper, but it's not the paper or what's printed on it that is important.
The important part is what the money represents.
Yeah, I could trade you 10 cows for a new car, but what if I don't want your car. What if I simply want to give you the 10 cows for the promise that you will give the car to whomever I denote. It's really a standardized form of bartering.
If you have to use a meatspace analogy at all (Score:2, Insightful)
In trespass, you're violating the property owner's legally conferred right to control use of his/her property.
Trespass law balances social good against property rights. For example, in the UK (if I understand right) you can't stop hikers from crossing your meadow. The analogy to hiking would be the activities that constitute fair use.
Trespass, like copyright violation, can be commercial or non-commercial. Commercial copyright infringement is like subletting your apartment without ever leasing it in the first place.
Where the analogy breaks down is that even just walking across someone's land is more intrusive than sharing a file. Another breakdown is that there's no common meatspace equivalent to inviting thousands of people to bypass a toll booth.
Re:i am not getting it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyrights have a certain commercial value, which is derived from the saleability of whatever the copyright applies to, and the fact that the copyrighted work should be unavailable from anywhere else. You can buy and sell them as much as you want, but the copyright will be commercially worthless unless its potential for money-making is used. that potential is in the form of sales, where money is handed over in exchange for a copy of the work. Value is exchanged for value.
Every time you pirate a CD, you are undermining the copyright. You have created another source from which copyrighted works can come, which eats into the value of the copyright itself. You are gaining the value of the copyrighted work, yet there is no equivalent exchange. The copyright holder ends up with a slightly depreciated version of what he owned before you pirated the work. You are stealing value from the copyright holder for your own gratification.
But that's just the way I rationalise it. I can see why people would not see piracy as stealing. I was pretty sympathetic to your viewpoint right up until here:You have. They have entitlements to their fair share, being the ones who have and who are paying for those copyrighted works, and their distribution. They are the ones lowering the barrier of entry for artists. They spend lots of money promoting artists, encouraging them, and risking their all important finances (they're a corporation after all) in doing so. They at least deserve some money if you like the music.
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:3, Insightful)
The principle that "a person's work is his own and it is not for others to take without consent" is pure fiction, at least when applied to works which are composed of information. We use other people's work all the time, without obtaining their permission first, and no one bats an eye except when those works happen to be the kind that are sold on shiny plastic discs.
Privacy doesn't even enter into it, because we're not talking about information that was meant to be kept secret. If you offer some information for sale to the public, giving it away to every stranger who shows up with money in his hand -- and especially if you give it to radio stations to be broadcast to millions of people who didn't even request it -- you can't claim that it's somehow still "private" after all that and expect to be taken seriously.
Put it this way.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the answer is "only if you made a mess or broke the door lock".
If you left everything just as it was, most people would just shrug it off.
If they called the police and said "somebody was in here and I think they copied some CDs" I'm betting they'd just shrug as well.
Favourite quote FTA: "I like the MPAA's logic that downloading a movie is the same as stealing a DVD. That would mean that those folks who get caught should be punished the same way as you would punish someone who physically stole a DVD or CD. Submitted by: Mark"
At the moment the punishment for file-sharing is much greater than the theft of physical CDs. How is this possible?
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that today, the concept of "friend" has expanded far beyond the dozen classmates and neighbors. On the internet, everyone is your "neighbor". The music industry was not prepared for this social shift, and the retail world doesn't have any idea how to adapt - it's quite likely not even possible. Distributors, wholesalers, retailers, they've all become obsolete overnight. Who needs a middleman when you can service the customer directly and all it takes is a free (or cheap) web host ?
The internet effectively disembowels a trillion-dollar industry with a single mouse click. If we must use analogies, then how about the farmer's market ? You go directly to the producer, pay a much better price for fresher produce. The grocery chain gets nothing, the truck drivers get nothing, the ad agency gets nothing... but the farmer's market, unlike the internet, is tied to a very specific physical location. You can't buy fresh tomatoes unless you live near the market. On the web, you can buy anything anywhere from anyone, and that's why the RIAA is in trouble. It's one company vs the world.
Either a history lesson or another bad analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
A. Learn to play or know someone who does
B. Wait for someone who was able to play to come by.
Since we live in a capitalist system the way to get them to come was to pay them. Been that way since forever really.
Up until about 1950 or so being a Musician was a respectable profession. You could make enough to live on. And you didn't have to go on tour, the speakeasy or night club paid you well enough.
Then along came Record Companies.
Now if you know a Musician, he or she is treated kind of like a Junkie without the fun of the Heroin. They have to have second "REAL" jobs. Artists are in the same boat. People had real paintings on their walls and you could make a real living at it. Oh and Actors too, don't forget them. And Stagehand, Ushers, ticket takers, bouncers, barkeeps, cigarette girls, hatcheck girls, etc etc etc....
Record Companies threw all these people out of work but thats ok, because they could hear music on phonographs and radios, watch TV and Movies in the theater and the productions values were much better but the plots kept going down hill. You get the picture. If not watch a movie called That Thing You Do! (1996) [imdb.com] Pay attention and you will understand what I am getting at.
Fast Forward, but before the Computers and CDs, then DVDs. Most of the people who threw those people out of work back in the 50's realized in the 70's that they were next. Nobodies could make their own music and publish in on cassettes. DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning:_Parental_Advisory [wikipedia.org]
Hello RIAA/MPAA
Well they claim that downloaders are putting people out of work, but how come the Chemical Brothers shows are always sellouts and the never get airplay? Celine Dion and Barbara Streisand tickets sell for $200 a pop. Bands don't make money from records anymore, they make if from shows. Like they used to. The ones I know (I'm from Seattle) like it that way. Give it some time, well do in the MPAA too. Seriously Hollywood blows chunks.
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Piracy is like sneaking into a movie theatre. Bam. I've done it. I've created a reasonble fucking analogy that I think holds up to moderate levels of scrutiny. Yet no one ever claimed that sneaking into a movie theatre is stealing. What is it you're stealing? You're getting something for free, but that's not stealing.
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
But have you really? The cost to copy and distribute a digital copy is essentially zero, or close to it. Otherwise everybody and their granny wouldn't be able to get everything they want off bittorrent in the first place. Any share of zero, fair or otherwise, is neccessarily still zero. These companies are trying to claim a non-zero "share" out of a zero-sized pie. It just can't work.
Now, if you'd said that the content producers, the artists themselves, were being denied their fair share then you'd be right. But lets face it, the artists have already been denied their fair share by the very companies that are supposed to represent them. That's why they make most of their money from concerts and whatnot. They're the ones that deserve some money.
I'm not trying to justify the flagrant copyright breaches that do take place. But it certainly isn't stealing, because there simply isn't anything to steal.
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: you can CALL it whatever you want (Score:1, Insightful)
It is also annoying. So people will (barring other avenues of redress) beat the shit out of you and turn it off. So laws to give another avenue of redress is made to cut down on the beatings.
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is free speech.
If there's a fire, it's a good idea to yell it out. If you cause a panic, that's bad and people could sue you for malicious actions.
Threatening to kill your neighbor is free speech.
Yup. Else why isn't Ballmer in Jail for "I'll fucking KILL Google"? If it's expected that you'll carry out that threat, rather than wait until the death has taken place, try to prevent it.
Standing across the street from an elementary school and exposing yourself is free speech.
How can having your bits out be speech?
Carrying a sign that says "F*** N***ers" in Harlem is also free speech.
Yup. See the 120dB example above however. Feel free to do this (and don't use "*"). They shouldn't have killed you, but that doesn't make you alive again. And note, they WILL be done for killing you, if caught.
Theft of service (Score:2, Insightful)
Look up theft of service. [wikipedia.org] It seems to me that that could apply to your movie theater analogy.
Re:The real issue is THEFT OF LABOR from writers (Score:1, Insightful)
Copyright is predicated on fooling people into believing all art is original and granting artists exemption from government interference against copying through monopoly while shutting out competition. None of them invented the words used in character dialogue. And that is just one minor example of the way in which they have copied the ideas of others. Don't even need to begin listing the innumerable other ideas of others they have also copied when copyright proponents continue to close their eyes and not answer criticisms which expose their argument as fraud. So they hypocritically want to copy the work of others but prevent others from copying any original work they themselves might do.
If these directors, producers, actors, and studios are so against copying, then why are they copying the ideas of others in their own work? They just copied them for their own purposes. All education whatsoever, from K-PhD occurs precisely by copying the ideas of others. Libraries exist precisely to pay for material once to be consumed by an unlimited many.
So no, it's not a bit silly at all. It's an epistemological fact that they copy innumerable ideas of others in their own work. And they have no moral, ethical, epistemological, or any other basis, upon which to argue against any form of copying, in total or in part, whatsoever.