SJC You are arguing that downloading a CD is different than literally taking that CD from a store - correct? If so, and using that same argument, what do you think of the following scenario: I assume you are aware of the USB flash devices that can hold up to 1 GB. I walk into CompUSA and notice that they have a display computer with a number of MP3s being played via Windows Media player. I plug in my USB flash drive while no one is looking and transfer a number of these songs to it. Would you argue that that scenario is O.K.?
I bow to Jackie, he clearly has more knowledge on this than the rest of us, Jeff is just behind though. DD
I am not saying it is OK. This is actually less OK than downloading from Kazaa, because at least with Kazaa, someone who already has control over a copy of the digital content allows you to get yourself a copy as well (and that is still not "OK", but I think it does not harm the music industry financially). But it is also not the same as if the guy went in there and put 10 CDs in his pocket. Because if you put 10 CDs in your pocket and steal them, you deprive the rightful owner of the use of these CDs by assuming physical control over them. If you download something or copy something over to your USB stick, you are not depriving anyone of anything - if you had otherwise bought the CDs, there might be some lost revenue for the ones holding the intellectual property rights, but that is arguable, as one of the studies which I quoted tries to prove.
There are people like me who simply can't have the league pass (my apartment can't have digital cable, and there are people live outside of the country).
As far as I know, there is no law saying a buddy of your's can't tape the game for you to watch later, which is essentially what's going on with R2K.
(A little side anecdote is that a good friend of mine, who is a real expert on all the P2P stuff because he used it to download tons of movies, software and music for years is now something like the Director Anti-Piracy for the world's largest media company in Germany - and suddenly his view on the whole thing seems to have taken a full 180. I always mock him for it and tell him he is the biggest hypocrit.) My overall take on the intellectual property rights thing is this: Obviously, if there is absolutely no protection for intellectual property rights, an industry dealing with intellectual property rights cannot exist. Therefore, on the one hand, out of self-interest, they will always try to technically limit possibilities to copy and not pay - be it movies, music or computer games. However, we all know that these technical limits mostly do not work very well and/or will be outdated after some time. So they will also try to have as strong a legal protection as possible - and one way to reach a de facto strong legal protection is to use scare tactics and sue people. Thus, from their perspective, they do achieve a desired effect to an extent by suing people. But at the same time, society needs to be careful not to go overboard in enforcing the "intellectual property rights" of interested groups or companies to such an extent that it becomes a terror of a small group of interested parties over the rest of society. There are such things as the public domain and fair use. Just imagine that someone had an actually enforcable patent on hyperlinks, and everyone who uses hyperlinks would have had to pay some kind of royalty to that patent holder ever since the Internet was invented (by Al Gore ). You could say "well, the intellectual property rights of the inventor of the hyperlinks have to be protected - if you use hyperlinks and do not pay, you are 'stealing'". This would be a prime example of where enforcing the rights of a few would be to the detriment of society. I have no perfect solution for the issue. But at the same time, I know that lawsuits against people who only download and do not profit from mass distribution of other people's property would not be right. Millions and millions of people download music and other things. It would be crazy to say they are all some sort of law-breaking criminals for it. How far can copyright go? Is it right for a software company to prohibit you from selling the actual CD with software you bought to someone else when you sell your computer anyway? There was something called the "first sale doctrine" in the US which basically said that once you buy something, you have all rights to do with it whatever you want, which includes selling it. By using an approach which says if you buy software, you agree to a "license" instead of a sale contract and by other measures, companies are trying to extend the power of copyright as far as they can. There comes a point when enforcing copyright would violate the rights of the acquirer - fair use, public domain, as well as society's interest in knowledge being spread further. I think it is up to the intellectual property right holders to find technical measures and business models which allow them to still make money from their intellectual property rights. If they cannot manage to do that and just try to cement past practices in order to preserve their profits against the interests of society - tough luck. End of my rambling - hope it was not totally incoherent, as I typed it as the thoughts came into my head. DonnyMost, good luck, and regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the RIAA, I hope you or your brother will get out of this without too much financial damage. I'll leave this thread alone now .
Jackie - It just so happens I'm doing a presentation on internet piracy, I was wondering if it would be ok for me to use some of the things you have said as arguments for those who support file-sharing.
Excellent points Jackie. I've learned a lot from your posts today. (still don't see the above justifying downloading without compensating the 'owner' -- but certainly highlights the ways in which the industry has attempted to extend copyright laws). A very interesting tangent. Never agreed with pricing model that said i should buy (at hyperinflated prices IMO) a separate copy of software for my work machine, home machine and lap top. Pay three times when i really just want access at different locations! And the mark-ups!! The 'high tech/digital' industry has been both an unprecedented victim of copyright infringement (do you know anyone who has not at one time had a 'shared' copy of software or music) and also one of the greatest abusers of the intents of original laws and pricing models that would govern most industries.
Check the license on your software. At the very least, oftentimes, the license allows for home and work or desktop and laptop.
ugh..Ive been brought into a piracy discussion....I'm not sure how I feel about that anyway....my take...on this issue anyway.. People who record tv shows and upload them to the internet are not causing financial harm to the producers of the show...there is no product to be bought by the ppl that are downloading it.... the (theoretical) people that make sporting events available for download are not profiting from them...and the only way that anyone loses money is if some folks may not buy LP since they can download the games...but since the games dont appear online for anywhere from 12 hours to 2 days later, that automatically weeds out the folks that have access to it via LP and dont want to wait to see it till afterwards. now...this doesnt necessarily mean that the appropriate sports associations dont care about it....but imo they care more about the people that take thier signal and charge others to watch it without the express written consent.....or make a dvd/video containing their prodcut without givngup the associations cut...
I think that the lawsuits hurt people who can least afford it. That being said, the lawsuits are really the only way RIAA has to enforce the copyright. A right not enforced is as good as no right at all. I guess we can all be thankful that they haven't pressed criminal charges as they are entitled to under the copyright laws.
I never liked the "copyrights aren't real" argument. Look, if someone steals my song, it may not seem "real" to them, but you can damn sure bet it is real to me. I worked my ass off on that and it isn't for someone else to take and do with whatever they want. If I give you permission, go for it. If I don't, leave it alone. Even if you don't want to call it theft, you can call it something else - unethical, discourteous, whatever. Just because you can't hold it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Prob because it costs much more in materials. Wait for the paperback, which costs a fraction of the hardback or the music CD.
Copywright law inhibits creativity, innovation, and production in the following way: This is a terrible analogy, really terrible, but you will get the drift of the idea as I explain it.. imagine if you copyrighted the dna template for life and nobody was allowed to use it. You would not have all the diversity that exists today. You would not have humans, birds, fish, platypus, and what not. All of these animals used part of the orginal dna template as their own. They copied it over and over again and made slight changes so as to create a new species. Now if you copyright that dna template you would not have the animals we have today. Birds, reptiles, and platypus would all be in court and subject to conviction under the law. It's in the public interest to have animals of all types. So copying in this instance is ok. We need to copy the template. The same thing applies to writing, to music, technology, and to art. We need to be able to use templates to create (watch the movie finding forrester for a practical example). We need to be able to copy them. Picasso, Elvis, and Shakespeare all copied from templates. And look at the masterworks they produced. Each of them orginal, but slight copies. Their master creations served the public interest for years to come. Almost everything in the world is built from a template. We need to have the right to use them. Perhaps at the expense of the individual artist. As to a balance between the public interest and individual rights. This is no easy answer. But all you have to do is look at how states rights were balanced against the Federal rights. Same thing. I would suggest that the subtle change we make is to allow the courts to interpret if the activity (copying) involves any long term public interest. If it does it's ok under the law. If it doesn't, then said one broke the law. This is a very powerful opportunity for the courts. It allows them to shape society through interpretation. A right the courts have long established as their own. As it stands now, they are given no room for interpretation. You either copied or you did not. Which provides a clear cut answer. But that's not good enough anymore. As with the constitution of the United States the court needs more flexibility for interpretation of the copyright law. So you can see the power that the word public interest provides to the judiciary branch in this instance. In writing, it would be easy for the plagierist tp prove their copying served a public interest. In art the same. In technology easy. Music is much more difficult. It's almost reverse. In most cases the copying of the product would not produce any public interest. So many downloaders would be convicted on breaking a copyright law. And that is fine by me, because the downloading did not stimulate any production, creativity, or innovation. Which in my opinion is the whole point.
