[folklore]

Quote:

---

To this day about 80% of all CDs out there are hugely overpriced, including digital downloads.

---

And I think the Nintendo Wii is overpriced. Am I justified in stealing it? Is Nintendo asking for people to shoplift the Wii when they set the price?
You can demonize the RIAA. You can say that music is overpriced, that the RIAA exploits artists. And every word may be true. But that's just no excuse for theft. If you don't like what the music biz is putting out, don't buy it. Better yet, start your own label (or invest in one) that sells stellar music for $0.10 a disc and make a viable business out of it.
Good luck.

[JakeT]

Quote:

---

My point is that this kind of crime is simply not severely frowned upon by society

---

It's frowned upon by the victim. People generally care more about crime that could happen to them. Since most people don't own record companies, they don't care. People who want to steal music would like to think it's OK to do that. People who think stealing is wrong will frown upon it.

[Nobody]

Information should be free or at the very least it should have fair use. Corporations should not decide the laws (via legal bribing called lobbying, which most private citizens can't afford to do). I make games. I give them away, no strings attached.
Copyrights were designed to give limited protection to authors so they could make money off their work. Corporations have pushed for those limits to be expanded ever longer (Disney won't stop until there's NO time that their material becomes public domain). Copyrights were most certainly not designed to keep material from ever becoming public domain, especially long after the author has been dead. How long should you be able to own an IDEA? Patents--some of them are just absurd. Bits, information, etc., what are they? Stolen property? How do you compare a missing item containing mass to a copy of ones and zeros? Yet I've seen stiffer penalties for copying a movie than for stealing a DVD from a store. That is when I think the laws are just getting absolutely absurd.
Fair use should mean something. If I can borrow a movie from a library and watch it for free; what's the difference then if my neighbor loans me his to watch and then return? What's the difference if he makes a copy that I watch and then destroy? Can I go back and borrow the movie again from the library or my friend in the future? So REALLY and TRULY then, what's the difference if i keep the copy?? Is someone missing something in that case versus the borrowing from the library? How about digital libraries? Again, we're talking bits and copies and ideas. I don't care what your opinion is about copying; it's NOT the same as stealing something because nothing is physically missing (I buy all my movies on DVD, BTW because I believe in supporting artists and industries I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I believe copying is stealing any more than I think hearing a song on the radio is stealing. Either way I hear the same song or watch the same movie. But downloading it is stealing while borrowing it from teh library isn't? Get real. It's the same experience. The method is arbitrary. Either borrowing is wrong AND downloading is wrong or neither is wrong). If we had a model where people were honest and they supported that which they actually enjoy, there would be no need for 'copyrights' and other forms of exclusion. People would support what they love, not resist what they hate.
Music companies scream about lost money due to copying, but do they look at whether that person could have afforded to buy that music in the first place if copying weren't available? How can they definitively call that a lost sale then? What if the person borrowed it from the library to listen to it? Is that a lost sale also?
What about recording a movie on TV? Is that fair use? I've got a DVR that let's me do that. I pay to watch all kinds of shows/movies every month and I have to pay it even if I don't watch anything that month. Am I being ripped off? No, that's a contract. Ah, that's right. I don't own my movies I bought; I only own the right to watch them. So what if my disc gets a deep scratch or something and it becomes unplayable? Is the movie company going to give me another free copy because I already paid for the right to WATCH that movie? Of course not. They want me to buy another one. But I thought I bought a license to view it? Shouldn't I be able to download another copy or make a backup? They don't want me to be able to do that. They want their cake and they want to eat it too and the government is more and more often giving them just that.
What about class differences? Rich people can easily afford to buy whatever they want. Does that mean poor people should be denied access to books, music and movies? I mention that because it's really only an issue if you don't have the money to pay for it. I can afford to buy movies and music so I do so. That wasn't the case when I was a kid and my family was poor. Too bad. Do without. Go watch your neighbor's TV. The industry doesn't want me to do watch or listen to my neighbor's music, movies and games either. They want MY money even if I don't have it. They worship money. Money is god here. Capitalism rules. It's funny, though. I thought my country was based on democracy and freedom, not Capitalism. Funny how Capitalism is all there is now. Fair use is all but gone with the DMCA. I don't remember voting for that or being offered a candidate that would support my views. That's why representative democracy doesn't work. Lobbying assures only the rich are truly represented.
I could argue that copyrights should be shorter for information-based items like old arcade games that have much shorter shelf lives than say books or movies, but it only proves the laws are inadequate to FAIRLY address things. And they likely never will be because lobbying and the artificial life we give to corporations ensures the common man will NEVER be fairly represented, only the rich. History proves that is ultimately unworkable in the long run (see the French Revolution for a good example or perhaps Rome), but when the next fiscal quarter is the measure of life, you tend to not see the icebergs in the distance.

[scotts13]

The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that corporations are inherently evil; a concept that has ocurred to me before. Perhaps we should not allow the existence of a ficticious "person", who by definition can have no motivation other than profit?
Let's stop and think about a world where business interests are represented by their officers, who are held personally responsible for their organizations actions. The whole world would be different, and not, perhaps, for the worse.

[folklore]

I'll dodge the workers of the world unite bit of your post since it's off topic.
I'll agree that some copying should be covered by fair use, e.g., format shifting. Ripping a DVD to your iPod, for example, should be considered fair use (and currently is not so considered by the law).

Quote:

---

I don't care what your opinion is about copying; it's NOT the same as stealing something because nothing is physically missing

---

That's the problem with this discussion. We come at this from different assumptions. I assume that information is king. It is not the physical media (book, CD, DVD, flash card, whatever) that is important but the information contained on that medium that is valuable. You don't pay for a DVD. You pay for the movie on it. If you copy that movie, you've stolen it (assuming your copying isn't fair use).
More fundamentally, I do not believe that information should be free in every respect. Creators deserve fair recompense. Creators require a network of people to help them distribute the fruits of their creative labor, and each person has to get paid. We can argue over what "fair" compensation is, but the market is pretty good at finding what a fair price is for a service or product.

[j_drake]

1.

Quote:

---

If I can borrow a movie from a library and watch it for free; what's the difference then if my neighbor loans me his to watch and then return?

---

There isn't any. Only problem would be if one of you charged others to view/listen, either as a cover charge or as an actual fee.
2.

Quote:

---

What's the difference if he makes a copy that I watch and then destroy?

---

See reply to #1 above, this is really a gray area, technically that copy is only for his use.
3.

Quote:

---

Can I go back and borrow the movie again from the library or my friend in the future?

---

As long as you keep to the rules you've outlined above.
4.

Quote:

---

So REALLY and TRULY then, what's the difference if I keep the copy??

---

If you make a copy of the one from the library it wasn't yours to begin with so if nothing else you've broken the rules as laid out by the library. If it's a copy of your friends movie youve broken the copyright law that allows for fair use. Fair use applies to the original purchaser and not to anyone they decide to "loan" a copy to or to the friend that takes it upon himself to copy the item.
The reality of all of this brouhaha is that there was never much of a market for "pirated" books, the ones actually printed and bound since it really was cost prohibitive to do so, though books are sold without their covers. But now that everything is available as 1s & 0s, as you put it, the cost is really your time and the disc. So because it is so simple and easy we do our damndest to justify stealing someone else's work. And it's not just the idea being taken, it is the actual labor an author/song writer puts into their work, which is no less than the labor a painter puts into his art. Would you think of walking into a store and "borrowing" a painting, would that be OK? Didnt think so.
An artist takes an inspiration (idea) and works to translate it to a form others can enjoy, the artist-painter ends up with a solid object, paint on a canvas or board, something you can hold and touch, which is a true representation of their idea, the artist-author/musician et al ends up with something that is not solid, the CD/DVD is the equivalent of the canvas, the music the equivalent of the paint can not be touched or held but can only be truly enjoyed when you read, listen or watch.
'nuff said!

[Chris Breen]

Quote:

---

'nuff said!

---

You'd think so, but, alas, as a veteran of these discussions both here and on Playlist, 'nuff said is never enough said. To save you from a measure of frustration, let me lay out how this works:
Anyone who wasn't raised in a cave and has the barest sense of right and wrong understands that taking media you don't own -- and that the owner of that media doesn't want you to own without paying for it -- is stealing. How you react to it is where the difference lies. Opinions shake out this way:
Huh? Okay, there really are some people who don't understand that it's wrong. These are usually kids whose friends do it and figure it must be okay.
Fair Use Fair Use Fair Use These are the quasi-lawyers among us who haven't a clue how the copyright laws actually read nor the tiniest notion of what Fair Use really means. But invoking Fair Use lends a sheen of respectibility to their arguments. Those who argue Fair Use often bloviate to the point where you put a forum's Ignore This User feature to its own fair use.
Record companies are evil This is the two wrongs does make a right crowd.
I don't care And then there are those who understand that taking media you don't own is stealing but simply don't care. I'm far more sympathetic to this view than to the shouts of Fair Use. At least you're being honest about your dishonesty.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

Those who argue Fair Use often bloviate to the point where you put a forum's Ignore This User feature to its own fair use.

---

Ah, if it were only that easy here...

[j_drake]

Actually Chris the 'nuff said' was just another way for me to say "ahh, end of rant'.
I would never take it upon myself to declare a discussion/debate over, or ever think that my words or ideas would represent the end all on any subject, especially one as volatile and polarizing as this one.
Mostly 'cause I'd be jumping back in as the debate rambled on, which we both know it will! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurtster]

Well I used the term 'Fair use' so turn your ignore filters on now I guess.
I'm no lawyer. I know that once upon a time there was a court ruling regarding VCRs that centered around "fair use", which sounds like a reasonable term for what people do when they record something on their VCR from TV. I knoe the DMCA is another law that conflicts with fair use, and that there hasn't been a sufficient enough challenge to the DMCA to clarify for the record what all this stuff really means. Again, I don't claim to be a lawyer.
I don't use the term to justify theft. I use it to describe how I treat this kind of media. I don't want to rip any artist or company off. Just like with vinyl records in the 70s and 80s, and as with books, I will loan friends various media including music. I will borrow music and I will buy the stuff I like and discard the stuff I don't. If that's bloviating then consider yourself bloviated upon in a fair use sort of a way.

[Johnno]

Quote:

---

You can loan a CD to a friend, but if the friend copies it and keeps the copy, the friend is a thief. And you're an accessory to theft.
Why is this hard for some people to understand?
I can loan a book from my personal library to a friend, and no theft occurs. If he photocopies the book, gives me back my copy, and keeps his photocopy of the entire book, then that is theft. Same with a CD. You can loan a CD to a friend, but if the friend copies it and keeps the copy, the friend is a thief. And you're an accessory to theft.

---

]

It is very simple: making a copy of a borrowed item that is then returned to its owner is by no means construable as theft. Theft means taking something from someone AND thereby taking that persons use right. Ideas are free, knowledge is free but earned. If someone has an idea first they have the opportunity to use that idea first, first discovery or creation does not by right give a person sole use of that idea, merely a measure of advantage. It is a legal lie to suggest that perpetual copyright is not theft. Indeed it can be argued that copyright and patent law is based on a legal fiction that ideas and knowledge can be exclusively owned and licensed because distribution must be constrained.When in reality enforcement of the legal fiction of copyright and patent actively stifles the economy, and well being of the majority of the population. Stepping outside the issue of copyright, and drawing on an example from patent stupidities - The founder of Suntech Corp (in china -makes solar panels) is prevented by Australian patent law from using technology that he personally was responsible for developing. So the worlds largest supplier of solar panels can not utilise the most efficient (and bet for the planet) solution.


While I can't be bothered copying music, I have often had to resort to copying research books, obtained from libraries on inter-loan making them available to me for several years. These books were not readily available, at a reasonable price in NZ - this copying was legal under the fair use law /copyright law in the early 1990's (changed to no fair use in 1994). Access to this information then enabled me to formulate a policy suggestion that reportedly saved lives. In the current copyright environment, the resulting advice would likely have been inadequate. At the same time as copyright laws have become more draconian public libraries are disposing of "excess stock" and book lending clubs are vanishing. While I have sympathy for major corporations who are struggling to market their wares to a global population of 7 billion, my sympathy is constrained by the fact that their price, and chosen modes of distribution are designed to leave 6 billion either without access or defined as thieves. Just who are the thieves? Is it those who can't afford to spend ($25) on a CD that costs 50 cents to produce and $2 to distribute world wide, or is it those who promote the widespread access to ideas and knowledge by sharing their purchases with others less fortunate, and acknowledge the creative initiative of an artist. Sharing advantages the artist by enhancing market penetration, without incurring further reproduction costs. I now of one artist who has made a good living producing limited runs in his "basement", and sells items over the internet - without the aid of a major publishing house, and will never be concerned with copyright infringements - the more people share copies of his work - the more they buy the original - because the original has quality. Money grubbing corporations need to get real, and fire their lawyers (expensive), give up on lobbying (expensive) reduce their unit price, and start paying artists.

[Tipadoo]

If I own a copy of the media, I want to do what I want with it. That's why I spent the ridiculous amount of money for it to begin with. If the media companies cannot be flexible with this, then they will never win. I want to be able to borrow my buddy's movie without the fear of there being a hidden gps device installed in it notifying some cc watcher that this bit of media isn't at it's proper home and with it's proper owner. It sounds wacko, but you know that any media company would love this much control and would take it if offered.
I have read all of the posts and I'm impressed with the arguments on both sides of the coin. I think that's the key, both sides are right. Now the tricky part, appease both sides.