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?
Re:No better then /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 obv
Very simple to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if they convince enough people and the courts that it's theft, then legally speaking it'll be theft, BUT that hasn't happened yet, so meanwhile, the rest of us are going to keep saying its not theft
What's closer to theft is the Corporations convincing the government(s) to _retroactively_ take stuff out of the public domain and make it theirs.
When that was done we lost a lot of access/use of those stuff, stuff that we used to have the right to use freely.
What filesharing does is it makes the Corporations lose a lot of access to our money. But the last I checked, they didn't have an automatic right to our money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not the definition of theft. Not even close.
If I go to a flower field and take a deep breath, I get something I want and value, yet do not pay.
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument doesn't hold up because bread is physical. It's a collection of atoms. You can't wave a magic wand and have an exact duplication of that bread. Data is more ethereal. It's easy to duplicate.
The real argument goes like this:
If you come over to my house and take my candybar, you are in possession of a candybar and I am without.
That's theft.
In the digital age, if you come over to my house and take a copy of my CD, you are in possession of a CD, and I am *STILL IN POSSESSION OF MY FUCKING PROPERTY*, you just have an exact duplicate.
It's not theft.
The music companies want you to believe you have harmed them out of their fair share.
But what if tomorrow I invented a replicator just like you'd see on Star Trek.
I'm not against the *AA because I want free music, I'm against the *AA because they are trying to legislate against one of the basic things about computers and data. It's easy to duplicate and they don't want it to be without paying them money or fines or whatever.
They can get fucked.
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: Replication (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Imagine two scenarios:
1) I never buy The Killer's Hot Fuss. I hear their music on the radio, and I enjoy it, but I don't want to spend the money on the CD.
2) I download a copy of The Killer's Hot Fuss. I listen to it daily.
In neither of these scenarios does anyone associated with The Killer's get any money from me. I've harmed them as much in scenario 2 as I have in scenario 1. In scenario 2, they probably don't even know that I've downloaded their works.
The last quoted line of yours is the telling one
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Funny)
(8) Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, spoke up, (9) "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?"
(10) Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. (11) Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.
(12) When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." (13) So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.
sqrt(-13) For thirty pieces of silver, the boy told the Bakers what Jesus did. Then the Bakers went out and began to plot with the Fishermen how they might kill Jesus, for they thought to themselves "How are we going to get money to eat if he gives food for free?"(a)
(a) All ancient authorities do not contain verse sqrt(-13).
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 fol
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.
Re:Here's a bread analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Money is supposed to be a representation of personal bartering power, and it is also becoming increasingly abstracted from the physical medium it's used to represent.
Money started out like easy-to-barter items like precious metals.
"becoming increasingly abstracted from the physical medium" and being a "representation of personal bartering power" go hand in hand. Increasingly abstract.
Personally, I consider money to represent "favor surplus". Bartering power is too related to an exchange of goods in these service-based times. The more money you have, the more favors can you call in from the world. If you're net worth is negative, you are owing favors to the world.
Mind y
Re:The real issue is THEFT OF LABOR from writers (Score:4, Interesting)
Some may still write, many won't. The end result is that we have far less literary works, which is a net loss for society, since some of those works would be thought provoking and may cause changes in societies thinking. For example, 1984 had a fairly large impact when it was first released, an impact that had lasted for quite sometime.
As humans, part of our existence is having some kind of shared culture. Art in all its forms is important, otherwise we're just little more than animals. May as well go back to hunting and gathering.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, violating copyright is generally not a crime,* which is why pirates are being sued by the recording industry, not arrested by the police.
It is always illegal, but it is generally a violation of civil law rather than criminal law, which is a very important distinction. In countries like the USA and UK, some forms of copyright infringement are indeed crimes, but IIRC that's generally reserved for cases where someone is a
Re:No better then /. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No better then /. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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: (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
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:4, Informative)
Thus, I can only conclude that you weren't talking about mere legality, in which case I maintain that no transgression has been committed against anyone (in any but the most basic legal sense).
Now, you might point out that it's being done without the permission of someone else who isn't party to the transaction, namely the copyright holder. But that's true of the microwave too! Sears certainly didn't give me permission to get a free microwave somewhere else instead of buying one from them, and neither did any of the people selling free microwaves on eBay. Of course, their permission doesn't matter; they don't get to veto my craigslist transaction just because they'd like to sell me a microwave.
I contend that the copyright holder's permission doesn't matter either: they shouldn't get to veto my Pirate Bay transaction just because they'd like to sell me a copy. If I can find someone else who's willing to give me the product for free, whether it's a song or a microwave, I should be able to take them up on that offer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The transgression, if you want to separate it from the law, is that a person's work is his own and it is not for others to take without consent.
So, who gave you consent to use the English language? Did you make up words like "transgression" and "work" all by yourself, or did you take them from someone else without his consent?
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
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:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me share the contents of your laptop (Score:5, Informative)
Excellently put. Let me just add a little about why privacy is different than copyright:
The main difference between privacy and copyright is that copyrighted materials are not secrets. Copyright seeks to protect the materials after they have been published and disseminated to the public. Copyright does not and cannot influence information that is not shared publicly for profit or for free. Copyright does not restrict whether information can be shared. It restricts who is allowed to share that information.
Privacy is about protecting one's personal business from the outside world. Originally, this was just the government and neighbors. Now the scope has grown to include corporations and other malicious multinational entities. In other words, privacy is an opposite of copyright because no one seeks to share their private secrets while copyright would be meaningless in the absence of publication and dissemination.
Think of a video. One might film a video of an interesting story and sell or share it. It would make no sense to keep something like that locked up as the creator already knows the story and could easily just imagine it.
On the other hand, who would want to share a video of a secret love affair. The leak of such information would be devastating to both lovers.
Copyright proponents also often seek to violate privacy. DRM systems often include schemes which allow copyright holders to scan and sometimes even delete files on your computer from a remote location. Publishers also often compile lists of who reads what books and sell those lists for a profit (I hope you did not buy Catcher in the Rye from Amazon).
Can anyone still have any confusion about the difference between copyright and privacy?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I shared the contents of your PC with the world, would that be OK?
That is unpublished information. I have no difficulty with people holding information private. I just say if they don't want it copied, they shouldn't fucking release it and then ask the whole world not to share it. fuck 'em. Our freedom to communicate is more important than their "freedom" to profit.
How about sharing the contents of your bank account?
That is a particularly idiotic argument. Note that just because you have a copy of the information of the balance of my current account, EUR17382.68, you can't affect it. You can increment, decrement it,
Re: (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.
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...
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
Theft is generally defined as simply the act of stealing; there are many definitions of stealing, some of the common ones of which are certainly broad enough to include some or all instances of IP infringement. See definitions of theft [reference.com], steal [reference.com].
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
But you are now bound by your own argument to never, ever again use the terms "identity theft", "code theft" or "stolen secrets".
Re:Ahhh, Semantics... (Score:5, Informative)
The truth, as always, is more nuanced than attempts to simplify it to nothingness can ever be. If you were actually to read the article, you'll see that it puts forward a very good case for refusing to label file copying either as "stealing" -- because it manifestly isn't -- or as "sharing" -- because that is equally loaded.
"Stealing" and "sharing" are both weasel words. The article does go into more depth about how the term "stealing" could be rationalised, without giving the "sharing" side equal treatment, so it's a little bit inequitable. But I am persuaded by its core argument: if you want to think of file copying as "sharing", go ahead, feel free. But if you do, your using loaded language is going to legitimise the **AA using loaded language. Of course the **AAs and their equivalents in every other country are complete bastards, but that's not the point. If you want fairness, it has to start somewhere. It sure ain't going to start with the **AA, so ....
Read the FA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read the FA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the Los Angeles Times!
Have you forgotten where the movie studios are located?
Re: (Score:2)
Totally slipped my mind. Doesn't change the fact that the paper:
A: Talks about editorials that they didn't publish.
B: Mentions with clarity the primary sources and arguments for feeling that copying as theft is wrong.
C: Explains some good reasons why copying may be construed as theft, sometimes.
And concludes that the answer isn't strictly to be found by parsing literature for a good analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Content creators are not (usually) idiots. I guarantee you that some smart movie studio executives are sitting in a room somewhere on a regular basis watching what has happened to the recording industry. They've noticed that by significantly reducing piracy, music sales also plummeted. They recognize that a lot of piracy causes people to be exposed to movies, TV shows, actors, actresses, directors, etc. that they might otherwise not have bothered to rent or watch in a theater, and that a not insignifican
Re: (Score:2)
I think he misses a little, with that "acquire value without paying" (unjust enrichment) expression. Worrying about other people getting ahead isn't really a good way to look at it. (Air has value and is free. Same for Linux.) A better way to express that view might be "denial of market." If you freely acquire a good that I have a government-given monopoly for, then I don't get to sell it to you. It devalues the monopoly.
I hate arguments by analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
OF COURSE analogies don't work.
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This makes the rather large assumption that I am able to configure my device with that level of detail. But it may not support such configuration, or I might not be knowledgeable enough to configure it that fully. And you certainly do not have "written permission". What is written is instructions to the device. If I get fired but the company forgets to deactivate my entry card, does that mean that I still have "written permission" to go back to the employee-only parts of their building whenever I want?
And if it denies my request, there is literally no theft, because I cannot use your bandwidth.
Exc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my example, however, there is no conflicting information that might suggest I'm doing anything wrong.
Except for generally established common sense.
But it would still be a bad analogy, if for no other reason than because it adds a layer of abstraction that isn't necessary. The thing is understandable on its own terms. You can describe it on its own terms. You can measure the harm on its own terms. You can determine whether or not it's theft on its own terms.
I have asked the electronic door lock for entry. It has granted me entry. This is completely understandable on it's own terms... and yet there is some very important external information that looking at things in this narrow technical way completely misses. Namely, that the electronic door lock isn't able to "grant" permission for me to do something I don't already have permission to do. Just like your router can't "grant" me permission that I don't already ha
Re: (Score:2)
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.
OK. Let's be clear. Some principles of the law (namely stare decicis) dictate that we can't and shouldn't just generate bodies of novel law. The law is meant to apply some strong continuity--this is why it is not uncommon to see decision today that cite english common law from hundreds of years ago. It is only with great reluctance that new law is generated or decisions made without resting largely on the past.
Homicde cases don't deal with human life as "property" because some standing law exists tha
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Explanations try to give someone a better understanding of something. And even then analogies can only go so far. They break down at some point, and if the wrong analogy is chosen, or if the audience requires a deeper understanding than an analogy can provide, it can do more harm than good. Ultimately, a good understanding of a thing can only be accomplished by studying the thing itself in terms of itself.
Arguments by an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hate arguments by analogy (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is, actually. When you download anything, you necessarily make new copies of it. Making copies of copyrighted works without authorization or an applicable exception is infringing. Take a look at 17 USC 106(1), the definition of the word 'copy' in 17 USC 101, and the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry case (in which the court discusses how it can be infringing to browse web pages that, unbeknownst to you, someone else put online unlawfully)
Re: (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 unlimite
Re: (Score:2)
"Natalie
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:4, Informative)
I'd readily agree that current US law has gone much too far in reducing the scope of fair use and overestimating the monetary value of piracy in civil and criminal cases. But it's not fundamentally wrong, it just needs tuning.
Re:The car theft analogy (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, the glass harmonica, the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, and the flexible urinary catheter. Franklin never patented his inventions; in his autobiography he wrote, "... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."[8] His inventions also included social innovations, such as paying forward.
Music, FIlm, Books.. it's our culture.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes the "Happy Birthday" song is copyrighted and still collecting fees to this day from radio stations, etc. It's set to expire in 2030 apparently (i'm sure copyright extensions will prevent that).
The real question that should be asked is, at what point does a piece of music become part of the public domain culture? What's next? A pa
Re: (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
Shoplifting vs. Downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were true, the punishment would be the same.
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.
Unlimited Supply Argument, Revisited (Score:2, Interesting)
BUT this does not mean that music should be free--it means that today's "a la carte" method of selling music is obsolete.
A rough comparision would be to the cable industry. When you subscribe to cable, you are not forced to pay for each television show that you watch (think iTunes), you simply pay a flat rate and watch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Downloading a music file in itself isn't pirating. I have hundreds of MP3's on one my websites that you can download. We own the copyright to the MP3's. You and I are doing file sharing. I let you freely copy the files, without payment, and I retain the IP rights.
It's not the file sharing that is the illegal aspect (at least not by US law, ymmv) it is the IP infringement violation that is illegal. You are stealing incomi
Re: (Score:2)
Arguments about copyright hit mainstream (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's "unauthorized value creation". (Score:4, Insightful)
sharing v. piracy isn't the question, fair use is (Score:3, Interesting)
But there is room for serious dispute over where that artificial line is drawn, and how the rules get enforced. The problem isn't that copyright makes piracy (aka "sharing") illegal. It's that technological enforcement of copyright via "digital rights management" (DRM) just goes too far in restricting human nature. And such attempts to force universities or ISPs to police their students from committing piracy is draconian (plus so lame).
The hard problem isn't to decide whether or not to have copyright law. It's how do we let Disney be paid for every copy of a movie, while still allowing the common man to make a backup copy of his DVD library, or lend a movie to a friend, or use a clip in a remix?
i am not getting it (Score:3, Insightful)
See? No need for bad or any analogies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Semantics of Analogies (Score:2)
Analogies are always incomplete and inaccurate (the former necessarily implies the latter, anyhow); if they were complete and accurate, they would be equivalencies, not analogies.
What is important is whether the similarities in the things which are held up as analogous support the conclusion drawn from the analogy; IOW, whether and to what degree the similarities (or, conversely, the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the analo
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: (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 th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, note that the Constitution does not grant "IP" rights. It grants
Not IP, but to Writings and Discoveries. Note that bit about "limited Times", too. Note also that it doesn't guarantee a profit.
File Sharing isn't Illegal (Score:2)
"File sharing" is just a technology that lets people share files.
When it is used to share files without authorization legal issues come up, with copyright violation being the top one.
But, if I share a Ubuntu ISO over a file sharing program, no laws anywhere are being broken.
Can we please be more specific? With specificity, it is hard to have an argument.
(The article is correct, the
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.
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.
Everyone is a thief.. (Score:3, Funny)
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
I'm invoking Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an analogy for you:
Supposing the leader of country, lets call him Hitler, made it such that all the german cultural productions couldn't be sold or broadcast unless they went through an organization of his. This organization diddled the originators out of what money they thought they were going to get. Furthermore the artists basically wanted to have their works heard by all the people, but the government decided when and what people could listen too, except for the wealthy who could pay to have their own copies of the large bodies of work.
The money raised by this organization was used to persecute a minority based on their choice of a religion that was a foundation of Christianity which is the dominant religion.
So if a person copied a piece of their culture so that they could listen to it when they wanted to should they be bankrupted for the rest of their lives?
Answer: Of course! They are a pirate, and that's how the law says we treat pirates. You want to obey the law right?
You might argue about how it depends on the use of the money. Well ok, I guess the people working for the RIAA need to open up their uses of the money so that we can judge if revenue from our culture is being spent appropriately or not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Supposing the leader of country, lets call him...
Bush!
Lets call him Bush!
Can we call him Bush?
Oh. Ok.
-
How hard is this in the US (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright created IP and is supposed to last for a limited time only to foster the creation of more creative works. We started going down the slippery slope when it got extended further and further. As people had control over things via copyright for longer and longer it looks more and more like property.
There needs to be a balance between the two competing forces some copyright holders have lots of money and have been buying congress critters for years (Disney and others) to keep expanding the scope of copyright. The people who have a lot of money as a whole but little on the average have a desire to be able to use things freely after copyright has expired. It would appear that the people in general ignore copyright it does little for them in there view. Striking a balance does not seem to hard music more than a few years old is past it's peak same for movies. Software is a bit of a special class as it's iterative so lets put that as maybe a few years without updates. To some extent go back to requiring registration of copyright but add a copy be sent to archive at the library of congress in it's most complete form (copy's of the original film or studio master as released, binary and source for software). Mix in the freedom to format shift copyright material. Allow the import of materials legally acquired in the source country. Ban any technical/contractual means restricting the application of users rights. After thats done you could look at making personal copyright infringement a minor criminal infraction like j walking or speeding nothing to go to court for and leave egregious forms like mass duplication of fake DVD's where they are. You might end up with a working system at this rate IP is the prohibition of our age it looked good on paper but not in application.
You wouldn't steal a car... (Score:4, Funny)
goes the familiar RIAA/MPAA-endorsed jingle...
And you know what? They're right. But neither would I attempt to steal the artist's living through creative accounting. I think the point they're trying to make is that they're far bigger jerks than you could ever hope to be, so don't mess with them.
Next time someone talks about filesharing as if it's stealing, remind them that you lose money on every download. You have to pay for the bandwidth, the equipment, and - by golly! - that all gets very expensive. By the time you're done, you just don't have anything left to pay the record companies... sorry!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)