# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Internet Piracy

## Kludge

So... I'm interested in why so many people don't feel companies have a right to protect their intellectual property. Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.

Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)? Why can't companies band together and form an organization to find and locate pirates through legal means?


Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?

----------


## pcosmar

Define piracy.
Explain the difference between Fair use, and piracy.

For example, if I buy a hammer,and loan it to you to use, is that piracy?
If I have a book and give it away, is that piracy?
Should you or I be tracked down and prosecuted for sharing books?

Arrgghhhh..!!

Could not vote. unknown option.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

It is still an evolving medium and while I would say no, there are many possibilities for the future which have not presented themselves.

----------


## Kludge

> Define piracy.
> Explain the difference between Fair use, and piracy.
> 
> For example, if I buy a hammer,and loan it to you to use, is that piracy?
> If I have a book and give it away, is that piracy?
> Should you or I be tracked down and prosecuted for sharing books?
> 
> Arrgghhhh..!!
> 
> Could not vote. unknown option.


Here's some make-shift definitions. First, I specifically wrote "internet piracy", so the example is irrelevant as well as because of the fact that we're talking about replicating the hammer (book) over and over and over and handing them out.

Internet Piracy - The downloading of licensed intellectual property of which you have no ownership of.

Fair use - I don't like "Fair Use" that much at all... No one has the right to what you own in any scenario. If you see a book, you don't just find the book on the internet and paste 10 pages of it, you create your own paraphrased version.

If you'd like to create a "knockoff" of an item and sell or give it away, that's fine. If you want to give out your one, un-used serial key, that's fine. But you have no right to distribute replicates of intellectual property.

----------


## pcosmar

> Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)?


BTW I consider a "rootkit" to be an act of violence. I will never use or buy anything SONY for their use of them.
protective software is fine as long as it does not interfere with fair use, or harm the customers equipment.

----------


## pcosmar

So you are saying that if I buy a book, or a music CD, I can not let anyone else read or listen, and I can not give away my copy.
I have paid for it, is it not mine to do as I wish with it.

I am not talking about selling copied CDs. That would be unethical,and illegal.

----------


## Kludge

> So you are saying that if I buy a book, or a music CD, I can not let anyone else read or listen, and I can not give away my copy.
> I have paid for it, is it not mine to do as I wish with it.
> 
> I am not talking about selling copied CDs. That would be unethical,and illegal.


You can give away or sell your CD. You can NOT replicate the CD and start handing them out. I'm unsure about letting others listen to it... I'd assume that'd be okay.

Software is much more definite on this issue in that they sell you licenses. If you are sold 20 licenses, you have a right to use one copy and do what you wish (not replicate...) with the other 19.

----------


## yongrel

Internet piracy is theft. Plain and simple.

----------


## pcosmar

> You can give away or sell your CD. You can NOT replicate the CD and start handing them out. I'm unsure about letting others listen to it... I'd assume that'd be okay.
> 
> Software is much more definite on this issue in that they sell you licenses. If you are sold 20 licenses, you have a right to use one copy and do what you wish (not replicate...) with the other 19.


That is simple for me.
I don't buy software, I have some (window$) that I have paid for that I don't use due to their EULA.
I sure wouldn't give that crap to a friend
However I do have a superior Operating System that I do put on CDs and give away.
PCLinuxOS
http://www.pclinuxos.com/

----------


## AutoDas

Do you think Photoshop became so popular because the people could afford the $999 license? Adobe has pirates to thank for their success because they provide a large community that eventually could afford it.

What should be the punishment for infringing on intellectual property? I think it's something like having to pay $2,300 in damages per song.

----------


## amy31416

> I'm unsure about letting others listen to it... I'd assume that'd be okay.


Damn that would put a serious crimp in some parties.

----------


## Kludge

> Do you think Photoshop became so popular because the people could afford the $999 license? Adobe has pirates to thank for their success because they provide a large community that eventually could afford it.
> 
> What should be the punishment for infringing on intellectual property? I think it's something like having to pay $2,300 in damages per song.


.... lol. Adobe is popular because so many people have pirated it? Is that a joke? I don't even understand how you could've gotten to that point.

Price of song x (bandwidth uploaded / size of song) + some type of community service would be a suitable punishment.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

I'm a pirate so I don't think I'll even bother voting. lol

----------


## AutoDas

> .... lol. Adobe is popular because so many people have pirated it? Is that a joke? I don't even understand how you could've gotten to that point.
> 
> Price of song x (bandwidth uploaded / size of song) + some type of community service would be a suitable punishment.


I said Adobe has a large community that can end up affording their products after a while that would not have been able any other way.

Who sets that price of song? Who gets the money from the settlement? It won't be the artist. You are thinking that they would have bought it anyways if they couldn't pirate the material. Piracy can highlight flaws in a company's  method of rep. Why do you think these record companies making so much money is beneficial to a society? Music of that culture will be supported. Record industries thought the radio would put an end to their revenue because people no longer would have to go to concerts.

----------


## Kludge

> I said Adobe has a large community that can end up affording their products after a while that would not have been able any other way.


Can you prove this true? What incentive is there to buy a product already stolen? A change of heart?




> Who sets that price of song? Who gets the money from the settlement? It won't be the artist. You are thinking that they would have bought it anyways if they couldn't pirate the material. Piracy can highlight flaws in a company's  method of rep. Why do you think these record companies making so much money is beneficial to a society? Music of that culture will be supported. Record industries thought the radio would put an end to their revenue because people no longer would have to go to concerts.


The artist didn't prosecute (and as such, receive moneys) because the music publishers are those who ultimately own the music.


It doesn't matter if someone would or wouldn't otherwise buy their music, the point is that they STOLE property. Kleptomaniacs probably wouldn't purchase everything they steal, that doesn't mean a crime didn't take place.

Society isn't relevant. Theft is an act of aggression, it's as simple as that.

----------


## AutoDas

> Can you prove this true? What incentive is there to buy a product already stolen? A change of heart?


How about knowing supporting a company that makes a product you enjoy and pays for your livelihood is in your rational self-interest.




> The artist didn't prosecute (and as such, receive moneys) because the music publishers are those who ultimately own the music.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if someone would or wouldn't otherwise buy their music, the point is that they STOLE property. Kleptomaniacs probably wouldn't purchase everything they steal, that doesn't mean a crime didn't take place.
> 
> Society isn't relevant. Theft is an act of aggression, it's as simple as that.


Stealing deprives somebody of property. Copying makes no one poorer. Putting a lid on creativity only protects a monopoly of information.

----------


## Kludge

> How about knowing supporting a company that makes a product you enjoy and pays for your livelihood is in your rational self-interest.


FFS, if you felt that bad, take out a loan and buy the damned thing. Companies like Adobe offer FREE trials. If you like it, buy it. There's no justification for aggression except in self-defense.




> Stealing deprives somebody of property. Copying makes no one poorer. Putting a lid on creativity only protects a monopoly of information.


Again, you're collectively looking at the Common Good. There's a reason companies produce goods. FOR PROFIT!!! Sure, I COULD copy millions of books off and hand them out but... IT'S THEFT!!

----------


## AutoDas

> FFS, if you felt that bad, take out a loan and buy the damned thing. Companies like Adobe offer FREE trials. If you like it, buy it. There's no justification for aggression except in self-defense.


Feeling bad about it has nothing to do with it. Read what I said, "if it's in your rational self-interest" then you obviously have a responsibility to support the company.




> Again, you're collectively looking at the Common Good. There's a reason companies produce goods. FOR PROFIT!!! Sure, I COULD copy millions of books off and hand them out but... IT'S THEFT!!


Again, I ask you this again. Would it be in your rational self-interest to do these things? If the answer is no then you have the mind of a looter.

----------


## Kludge

> Feeling bad about it has nothing to do with it. Read what I said, "if it's in your rational self-interest" then you obviously have a responsibility to support the company.


I suppose I was always under the impression that I bought a company's product because I wanted it, not because I thought it might encourage them to make more products I could steal.




> Again, I ask you this again. Would it be in your rational self-interest to do these things? If the answer is no then you have the mind of a looter.


To do what? Pay for what you stole???? You're a looter for stealing the property, not because you didn't pay for it after you stole it.

----------


## pcosmar

I don't use Photoshop.
For image manipulation I use GIMP.
http://www.gimp.org/
For Photo management,
http://www.digikam.org/
For office work I use Open Office.
http://www.openoffice.org/

I prefer open source software so I have no need to "steal" anything, I just don't support those companies that do business in a way I disagree with.

As far as music goes, I see no difference between the Internet , and recording a song off the radio.
That is fair use. Making a copy of a CD that I buy as a back-up or to use in different machines is also fair use. Once I have paid for it I should be able to play it on my computer, my car, house stereo or MP3 player.
Some "piracy" laws would prevent that.  
I agree that *making copies for sale is wrong,* but I am speaking of fair use.

Sony pissed off a lot of people by including a *RootKit* is their CDs. This was an act of aggression, and a violation of privacy.



> Rootkits were so named because they allowed an intruder to become a root user (ie, the system administrator) of a Unix system. Since then, similar software has been developed for other operating systems, and the term rootkit has been broadened to include any software that surreptitiously alters an operating system so that an unauthorized user can take arbitrary control of the system.
> 
> Rootkits became much better known in 2005, when Sony BMG caused a scandal by including rootkit software on music CDs which altered the Windows OS to allow access to anyone aware of the rootkit's installation. Supposedly, this was done to enforce copy protection of the music on the CDs. The scandal following the discovery and subsequent public notice of this corporate-sponsored malwarea scandal made much worse by the clumsy and ill-informed statements of Sony executivesmade many users previously unfamiliar with rootkits wary.


I will not do business or support a company that does this.

----------


## BuddyRey

My definition of "piracy" differs considerably from that of others.  To me, it's only theft of intellectual property in the truest sense, and justifiably prohibited, if the source does not receive credit for his or her work (i.e., someone illegally downloads a song and replaces the artist's name with his or her own).

As a musician myself, I would just feel glad that people like my stuff, and get a kick out of seeing it proliferate online, in whatever form.  The only thing I would resent personally would be having my work co-opted and accredited to somebody else.

Intellectual property rights are very important, but record companies running to Daddy Government to help them squeeze out small fortunes from college kids is tenfold more unethical than any "criminal-minded music lover" who downloads a CD for personal use.

----------


## Kludge

Bump

----------


## coyote_sprit

It shouldn't be legal but the government shouldn't invade on privacy rights in order to find if someone has pirated something.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Here was a situations where Pirating benefited me:

There was a new PC game out that I was interested in. The specs showed that my PC *should* meet the requirements. However one part mentioned very specific video cards needed. The game was almost $50 and the store has as No software return policy. 

I decided not to buy the game just yet. i went home looked up the game site for better details, and it was only the same I had seen in the store. I checked for a demo... none. I googled for a demo.... none.

It was at that time I searched for a bit torrent, downloaded, installed, and ran a "crack" file to allow the game to run with no CD or serial number. I fired up the game, and it loaded.... But the graphics could not be sized correctly. I could only view half the screen, and could not access any graphic settings. I determined that it was likely do to the graphics card not supporting a widescreen mode. The game would not function on my PC.

So was I wrong to sample the game before buying? I tried to find a legal method of a demo, the company however did not provide one. Should I have wasted $50 on something I would not be able to use or return? I feel that with so many PC types, game requirements that you need to have a way to check anything you will want to run on a system before spending the money on it.

----------


## Zolah

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7342135.stm

"European politicians have voted down calls to throw suspected file-sharers off the net."

"The amendment called on the EC and its member nations to "avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of internet access.""

The article mentions considered-UK laws which will require ISPs to cut off internet access to customers who repeatedly use file-sharing websites, or something similar. Of course the article also says that governments can just ignore whatever EU politicians say, but at least some people are concerned about civ libs

----------


## TastyWheat

I really can't make an unbiased comment on internet piracy, but I think usage of rootkits and malicious deterrents is wrong.  I don't mind being "spied on" necessarily if I know I'm being spied on.  Some games I play load a separate process to make sure I'm not cheating.  That's perfectly fine with me.  If something is installed without my knowledge then I get pissed.  I don't think it's ever been used, but the idea of destructive deterrence has been kicked around to curb piracy.  No matter what I pirate I don't think another company has the right to wipe out my hard drive (for instance).

----------


## angelatc

> So... I'm interested in why so many people don't feel companies have a right to protect their intellectual property. Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.
> 
> Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)? Why can't companies band together and form an organization to find and locate pirates through legal means?
> 
> 
> Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?


It's funny, because the liberal left condemn the capitalists that make "too much" money, but they'll burn themselves at the stake to protect the artisans, who actually do very little to provide long term benefits to any economy except their own.  The Disney laws made sure their interests are protected far beyond, say, the "greedy" corporation that spent literally billions on developing a drug.

If we're talking about music, I think the second it gets played over the PUBLIC airwaves, then it should become public domain.  Let the bands make money off touring and t-shirts.
.
HOw many times do I have to buy my music, anyway? I can think of at least 10 albums that I had in vinyl, then cassette, some 8-track, then CD...but I'm a criminal if I now download it in an mp3? 

If we're talking about software, then let them use rootkits.  It will drive more people to the open source world.

----------


## pcosmar

What is PIRACY?

I understand that if I offer for sale material that is someone else's (movies,music or software), but what if I share music that I bought with a friend. What if I lend a disk that I purchased to a friend ?
Is that piracy? The product was purchased. Do I not have the right to use it as I wish?

This seems a way to sell the same thing over and over again. Or denying ownership of a purchased product.

----------


## constituent

i was under the impression that for theft to take place someone had to be deprived of something.

how does making a digital replication of a piece of software code, music, photographs, a movie that does no damage to the original copy deprive anyone of anything?

do the artists, programmers, etc. still get paid this way?  yes.

i for one, have been exposed to many more artists, and consequently purchased many
more albums than i ever would have w/out so many "pirated" copies of music floating around.

same thing goes for pirated software.  

not too mention the customer service model of paying for software developers to do what they do best...
put the software out there, provide support for a fee.  the better the support you give, the more people will pay you.

i support the artists/developers/etc.'s right to earn a buck from their efforts, but i don't support them using your 
tax money to come after you to enforce their business model... just not buyin' it.

----------


## Kraig

It should never be legalized, but it should be up to the owners of the software/music to find the offenders and press charges.  The government should not be passing laws that force ISPs and other internet services to spy on you, before you've done anything wrong.  If a company believes you are stealing via the web, they should have to press charges, present their case, and then get a search warrant that would allow them to lookup your records.   Not the other way around.  The way things are moving towards now is more like "someone broke into my house, I think they live in this neighborhood, so search everyone's house to see if they have my stuff".  That is bull$#@!, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

----------


## Kraig

> i was under the impression that for theft to take place someone had to be deprived of something.
> 
> how does making a digital replication of a piece of software code, music, photographs, a movie that does no damage to the original copy deprive anyone of anything?
> 
> do the artists, programmers, etc. still get paid this way?  yes.
> 
> i for one, have been exposed to many more artists, and consequently purchased many
> more albums than i ever would have w/out so many "pirated" copies of music floating around.
> 
> ...


The owner should be able to protect his property how he sees fit, if he wants to give it out for free and gain popularity, fine.  If he wants to protect it from anyone who is not willing to pay for it, make him press charges on those who stole it. 

To say that record and software companies don't lose any money at all when thousands and thousands of people are downloading and enjoying their work for free is absurd.  Most people I know laugh at me when they find out I still buy a CD from time to time.  You can't be a consumer and make your own terms for purchasing something, pay the price they ask for or find another product.  There are already ways to sample most music and software, it's not your right to dictate when and where you do that, what products you do it to, and how convenient it is for you.  They offer it to you, not the other way around.

----------


## Kludge

Bump

----------


## josephadel_3

The whole illegal downloading thing bothers me, because in my opinion it degenerates the commericial production of good music.  The majority of popular out today music sucks.  It is over-produced, heartless, and plastic.  I think stealing music perpetuates this problem.  I haven't read all the posts yet.  I will edit as necessary.  To answer the question: no, I do not think piracy should be legalized.  Stealing is stealing.  Everyone I know illegally downloads, but nevertheless, I am opposed to it.

----------


## josephadel_3

> I'm a pirate so I don't think I'll even bother voting. lol


By way of the patriot act, your IP address has been logged, and the FBI is on their way.

----------


## AutoDas

Of course stealing is illegal. Copying is not stealing. I buy what I like to get more stuff like it.

----------


## Fox McCloud

In my eyes, it's theft, plain and simple...however, if the artist or company puts out a song over the radio/TV/YouTube, someone records it, then converts it to an MP3 (time consuming, yes), then if the song is obtained and distributed that way, then the person should not be prosecuted, as the company "put it out there".

However, if someone copies a song directly from a CD, etc, then puts it out on the 'net...prosecute him.

Software and Movies? Same thing as above.

----------


## AutoDas

Why are people for copyright protection? It's a contract between the government and distributor, the consumer never is consulted. If no one really would pay for DRM-free music then how come iTunes became the largest distributor of music, overtaking Wal-Mart soon after announcing their DRM-free music and then Amazon becoming the second largest online distributor of just DRM-free music within 6 months. And now MSN is going to drop their DRM services.
To me, people who pirate would never have bought it in the first place.

Don't quote me or I might sue you

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> So... I'm interested in why so many people don't feel companies have a right to protect their intellectual property. Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.
> 
> Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)? Why can't companies band together and form an organization to find and locate pirates through legal means?
> 
> 
> Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?


Why don't you read an essay on the argument, instead of requesting to be spoon-fed? It's almost like you create a new thread everytime you want to learn something ha!

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

I stand *opposed* to IP.

kludge, you still committing sedition?

----------


## Kludge

> Why don't you read an essay on the argument, instead of requesting to be spoon-fed? It's almost like you create a new thread everytime you want to learn something ha!
> 
> http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
> 
> I stand *opposed* to IP.
> 
> kludge, you still committing sedition?


I use the forums for quick access to knowledge while looking for any pithy libertarian thoughts along the way =).

The essay didn't really bring up any new arguments and brought up an offensive argument that thought and creativity on the level required to make some of this property isn't scarce. ("The economic case for ordinary property rights depends on scarcity. But information is not, technically speaking, a scarce resource in the requisite sense. If A uses some material resource, that makes less of the resource for B, so we need some legal mechanism for determining who gets to use what when. But information is not like that; when A acquires information, that does not decrease B's share, so property rights are not needed.") But, if it isn't scarce and could be made by just a handful of people, why don't I see high-quality games being released every hour? Time is also a scarce resource...

----------


## Unspun

I accidentally selected "In some cases it may be justified" but what I meant to select is "of course not but gov't has no right to seek out lawbreakers".

----------


## pcosmar

Here are a few informative links for those interested.
Don't Download This Song

Also check,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/op...erland&emc=rss
http://www.drmwatch.com/
http://defectivebydesign.org/
http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/
http://daledietrich.com/imedia/categ...s-against-drm/

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.


Because it's not theft. If you shoplift the CD then it's theft because someone is deprived of something. If you copy the CD then no one is deprived of anything.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Internet Piracy - The downloading of licensed intellectual property of which you have no ownership of.


Incorrect.

In the US downloading copyrighted works is not what the RIAA has been suing people about. They have been suing them for UPLOADING (distributing) the works in question.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You can give away or sell your CD. You can NOT replicate the CD and start handing them out. I'm unsure about letting others listen to it...


You can let others listen to it so long as it's not a public performance. What defines a public performance? Well it depends on the threshold of who you let listen to the copyrighted work in which you possesses. 


There was a file sharing service a few years ago called AIMSTER based off of AOL's AIM. They claim was that since everyone who was sharing was on AIM you had to be friends with the person. The court didn't see it that way.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimster

----------


## Matt Collins

> Internet piracy is theft. Plain and simple.


Incorrect.

Merrian Websters defines theft:
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

When IP is being "pirated" no theft takes place because no one is deprived of anything.

----------


## Matt Collins

> .... lol. Adobe is popular because so many people have pirated it? Is that a joke? I don't even understand how you could've gotten to that point.


It's real simple. People use what is free when they can't afford to pay for it. When they are in a position to pay for it or in a position of purchasing authority they will go for what is familiar to them. It's all about market share. Photoshop is the de facto standard because it is the most prolific.

----------


## Matt Collins

> i was under the impression that for theft to take place someone had to be deprived of something.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

----------


## Kludge

You couldn't address all of those in one reply? =P

----------


## Kludge

> Because it's not theft. If you shoplift the CD then it's theft because someone is deprived of something. If you copy the CD then no one is deprived of anything.


Thought and time are NOT unlimited resources, especially quality thought. To say that a digital copy of a song is worth nothing is to say that no resources went into producing it, or rather that artists offer nothing and are a useless drain to make an ad hominem.




> Incorrect.
> 
> In the US downloading copyrighted works is not what the RIAA has been suing people about. They have been suing them for UPLOADING (distributing) the works in question.


Both ought to be persecuted. The RIAA has the right to focus on either end if they feel uploaders do more harm then leeches.




> Incorrect.
> 
> Merrian Websters defines theft:
> "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
> 
> When IP is being "pirated" no theft takes place because no one is deprived of anything.


See 1st argument.




> It's real simple. People use what is free when they can't afford to pay for it. When they are in a position to pay for it or in a position of purchasing authority they will go for what is familiar to them. It's all about market share. Photoshop is the de facto standard because it is the most prolific.


Which would be great - IF the producer had no problem with it. Many companies offer out free or nearly free gear simply to advertise their product - different from stealing a shirt promoting their product from a store and claiming you were just trying to help their cause. There is no nobility in aggression.

----------


## pcosmar

Add one more to those I posted above.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...25620382.shtml
Many musicians oppose the RIAA and DRM, as they do not help Musicians or fans, but only the corporate interest.

----------


## Kludge

> Add one more to those I posted above.
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...25620382.shtml
> Many musicians oppose the RIAA and DRM, as they do not help Musicians or fans, but only the corporate interest.


Because producers own the music....

----------


## smartguy911

Piracy has helped booming economy like China and India.  All those young kinds in India are learning how to use Photoshop, program on pirated software.  If a 12 year old kind wants to learn how to use photoshop, he should be allowed to because chances are later on he will buy a license if he ends up going into designing business.

----------


## Anthony T

Piracy is theft. It should never be legal. Unless you like working for free you have no room to talk. A lot of people go into making software, movies, and songs... who go unnoticed who deserve compensation.

Piracy is wrong. Its no different than walking into a store and walking out without paying it. There's no justification for it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Piracy is theft.


Please cite the law where IP infringement = theft? 





> Piracy is wrong.


Now you are confusing morality and legality. The two are NOT one in the same. Morality is a line. Legality is a line. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don't.





> Its no different than walking into a store and walking out without paying it.


Incorrect. When you shoplift you derpive someone of whatever you took. When you make an unauthorized copy of IP no one is deprived of anything. Read the dictionary as to the definition of theft or see my posts above.

----------


## Matt Collins

> To say that a digital copy of a song is worth nothing is to say that no resources went into producing it,


You fail to understand basic economics; as supply reaches infinity price reaches zero.






> Both ought to be persecuted. The RIAA has the right to focus on either end if they feel uploaders do more harm then leeches.


Again you have a lack of understanding of US copyright law. I took two semesters of it in college.

First off in most cases there is no "prosecution" Most copyright cases are handled in civil court (tort) and the plaintiff party files suit against a dependent. Only a civil court has prosecution.

Secondly, the law does not really consider downloading or receiving a copy of a copyrighted work something that can be a violation or unlawful activity. Copyright is just that - the exclusive right to copy. The RIAA can only sue people who upload and share their works because that is where the infringement takes place - at the point of copying by the person who is making the copy of offering the copies to the public.





> See 1st argument.


The price or cost of something is irrelevant regarding your points.

----------


## Kludge

> You fail to understand basic economics; as supply reaches infinity price reaches zero.


I wasn't aware creativity and intelligence were infinite. Please write me ~100 concertos by the end of the evening if you wish to prove your point accurate. If I deem them to suck, they will not count. I'm simply arguing that creativity, time and intelligence went into making the product, and should be compensated by dictates of morality.




> Again you have a lack of understanding of US copyright law. I took two semesters of it in college.
> 
> First off in most cases there is no "prosecution" Most copyright cases are handled in civil court (tort) and the plaintiff party files suit against a dependent. Only a civil court has prosecution.
> 
> Secondly, the law does not really consider downloading or receiving a copy of a copyrighted work something that can be a violation or unlawful activity. Copyright is just that - the exclusive right to copy. The RIAA can only sue people who upload and share their works because that is where the infringement takes place - at the point of copying by the person who is making the copy of offering the copies to the public.
> 
> 
> The price or cost of something is irrelevant regarding your points.





> *Now you are confusing morality and legality. The two are NOT one in the same. Morality is a line. Legality is a line. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don't.*


Edit: You'll note I used the word persecute, not prosecute. "1*:* to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; _specifically_ *:* to cause to suffer because of belief"

----------


## Matt Collins

> Because producers own the music....


No, not really true.

----------


## Kludge

> No, not really true.


I'm not as familiar with music contracts as I should be.

To my understanding, a producer offers a musician a contract to produce - in conjunction with other artists (special effects, cover designer etc.) - an album which is paid for by the producer and as such, owned by the producer. The artists are simply employees making a product for the company that produces CDs.

----------


## Anthony T

> Please cite the law where IP infringement = theft?


http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm




> Now you are confusing morality and legality. The two are NOT one in the same. Morality is a line. Legality is a line. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes they don't.


Congratulations! You know how to decipher what an opinion is. I never confused the difference but decided to offer my opinion. Don't lecture me on what an opinion is.




> Incorrect. When you shoplift you derpive someone of whatever you took. When you make an unauthorized copy of IP no one is deprived of anything. Read the dictionary as to the definition of theft or see my posts above.


They are deprived. By making unauthorized copies, they are deprived of what could have been gained had it been bought, not copied. If you made a piece of software and charged $100 for it, if I bought it, copied it, and gave a copy to 10 other people, its $1,000 you didn't receive because it had been copied.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Piracy may (impartially) be historically defined as involving acts of mass murder, grand theft and kidnapping on the high seas. I humbly suggest that sharing files with a friend (or oneself) for personal use is simply not the same thing as mass murder, grand theft or kidnapping on the high seas. The use of harshly pejorative and wildly inappropriate metaphors to describe (at worst) minor misbehavior by average people is a large part of the problem in the IP debate.  How is downloading an htm or doc file benign, while doing the same with an mp3 (merely a differently format of 1s and 0s) the mark of the beast, with the shift of three characters?

The ever gaseously expanding notion of perpetually protected 'intellectual property' is not universally accepted to begin with, however massively promoted it is by corporate mercantilists. Sharing or using a file (a mere copy of something) you have acquired is hardly stealing the original code or idea. Copyright itself was historically conceived of as a _very temporary_ state subsidy given to publishers to recover their costs and get a markup for initially delivering intellectual works to the public. It was not intended to bestow a permanent state-enforced monopoly on distribution of idea-based or creative products, preventing them from being readily transferred to the public domain.

I believe in capitalism and property in a *two*-way sense where originators get to sell what they own at one point, *and* consumers _get to own_ at one point, as products and services are exchanged. At the very least, when a file is bought and money is exchanged, what the seller does with what is now his property (cash) is his business, and what the buyer does with his property (the file) is his business. But under the one-way capitalism of IP laws, the consumer never gets to fully own/control what he has fully transferred money to another for. The seller's theft claims (e.g., copyright infringement) are to be extended to indefinitely controlling the consumer's usage rights, while the consumer's theft claims (e.g., being gouged to buy CDs with only one song of value on it) are disregarded. This is grossly unfair, and so the free market has responded with file sharing and other activity to de-facto level the playing field between subsidized sellers, whose ownership claims never end, and the usage rights of the public domain.

----------


## Kludge

> But under the one-way capitalism of IP laws, the consumer never gets to fully own/control what he has fully transferred money to another for. The seller's theft claims (e.g., copyright infringement) are to be extended to indefinitely controlling the consumer's usage rights, while the consumer's theft claims (e.g., being gouged to buy CDs with only one song of value on it)


Is that a joke...?
Do you mean to tell me that since bread is sold by the loaf, it's only natural that people will steal the piece of bread they want? <-- Ad hominem

Consumers have no more rights then allotted by the producer. If they want rights, they can become producers or find another producer with more lax rules.

Maybe the whole matter can be solved by forcing the consumer to sign a contract that outlines what they can and can't do with the product... Oh wait, we already do - It's called the law.

----------


## pcosmar

> Consumers have no more rights then allotted by the producer. If they want rights, they can become producers or find another producer with more lax rules.
> 
> Maybe the whole matter can be solved by forcing the consumer to sign a contract that outlines what they can and can't do with the product... Oh wait, we already do - It's called the law.


Some software does that. It is called the EULA, and after I read it I was very disturbed, 
That is why I DO NOT use micro$oft.
*EULA*



> Short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes (e.g., most EULAs of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else).


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
I use open source/GNU and Linux. That way I can alter, share, and copy my stuff without a problem.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Is that a joke...?
> Do you mean to tell me that since bread is sold by the loaf, it's only natural that people will steal the piece of bread they want? <-- Ad hominem
> 
> Consumers have no more rights then allotted by the producer. If they want rights, they can become producers or find another producer with more lax rules.
> 
> Maybe the whole matter can be solved by forcing the consumer to sign a contract that outlines what they can and can't do with the product... Oh wait, we already do - It's called the law.


Or you could call it unconscienable terms, a constructive fraud coerced under color of law. Perhaps we should simply ALL have our property rights honored, be we producers or consumers. The property rights of producers are not being questioned, its merely that the property rights of consumers BEGIN SOMEWHERE---for example, certainly after the point of purchase. 

If I have bought a pizza, it's my pizza, and the pizza maker who has transferred ownership of a pie does NOT have indefinite rights to dictate its use. The delivery guy does NOT have the right to come back and say, "we don't like the way you're wolfing it down, and besides, you didn't buy the actual pizza, you just bought usage rights to a copy produced by formula. Come on, cough it back up!"

----------


## Kludge

> Or you could call it unconscienable terms, a constructive fraud coerced under color of law. Perhaps we should simply ALL have our property rights honored, be we producers or consumers. The property rights of producers are not being questioned, its merely that the property rights of consumers BEGIN SOMEWHERE---for example, certainly after the point of purchase. 
> 
> If I have bought a pizza, it's my pizza, and the pizza maker who has transferred ownership of a pie does NOT have indefinite rights to dictate its use. The delivery guy does NOT have the right to come back and say, "we don't like the way you're wolfing it down, and besides, you didn't buy the actual pizza, you just bought usage rights to a copy produced by formula. Come on, cough it back up!"


There is no problem in the transfer of ownership, the problem lies within the transfer of formulas, of code in our case. Just as you cannot morally use a patented idea, you cannot freely distribute ideas copyrighted within software or songs without the owner's consent, which is NOT given by default.

----------


## pcosmar

People just need to avoid Copyright software, the conditions suck and the software is often over -hyped crap (VISTA)
Look for and use Copyleft software.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

----------


## Fox McCloud

> People just need to avoid Copyright software, the conditions suck and the software is often over -hyped crap (VISTA)
> Look for and use Copyleft software.
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/


Avoid Copyright software? Gee, I better toss out all my PC games, all my video-games, wipe out the software on my Wii, Playstation, Gamecube, N64, and the like....gee, I should just get rid of all my current Software except for some of the freeware I've downloaded and Ubuntu 8.

That's an extremist statement that we should avoid Copyright software....

Also, it disturbs me to no end that while some here are advocating property rights, they're perfectly complacent with stealing digital property.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's an extremist statement that we should avoid Copyright software....
> 
> Also, it disturbs me to no end that while some here are advocating property rights, they're perfectly complacent with stealing digital property.


I don't think so.
I do not advocate"stealing" from anyone. Instead, I advocate the market solution, boycott those that place unreasonable restrictions on the customer.
Micro$ofts policies disgust me, so I use other software that is more acceptable.

I do use some third party Games that were designed for window$, I purchased the game.
I DO NOT buy music that is DRM protected, I will never use any product from SONY. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...d_for_rootkit/
This kind of behavior needs to be punished, and not buying their products is the best way.

----------


## Conza88

> Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?


Since the companies I _"steal"_ from (LOL, simply replicating something I would not have bought in the first place is NOT THEFT.  The owner of the intellectual property, *is not being being deprived of anything*. Because in the free market I have the choice to purchase their product, for the price I want. Its called trade. I exchange my money for their product, goods or service. The clincher is: when I copy something (obtain) they are NOT being denied a sale, or PROFIT. Because, I don't want it, I don't desire it enough to pay the price they want. i.e I am not going to buy an album, when I only like one song. But as the economies of scale goes exponential, the price lowers exponentially. When it costs nothing to replicate (copy) something, then essentially the cost of it to purchase (obtain) becomes nothing.

But furthermore in the past, I have been unable to obtain a song I wanted through other various channels. The songs I wanted, where only available on itunes. So I PAID for it. Simple as that.

However, another potential rationalization I quip is that, if you were to consider it theft, which it ain't. But if you were, the companies you are taking it from, in all inevitability, are connected to various major parent companies, viacom etc. That have extensive media branches.
Now, their news branches etc, have lied to me endlessy. I have purchased their product, for news - & what I get is propaganda instead. Fair & Balanced? HHAHAH. So, I justify my actions - by paying for a service that is not what it says it is. Instead of taking an indirect action to solve the problem, going to court or embarking on changing the minds of others (_thank you Harry Browne - How I found Freedom in an Unfree world)_ I am going to take a DIRECT action. And that is of compensation, I will not give you any more of my money. Hence, I won't be paying for your products for quite some time - in order to retrieve what I paid for, but did not receive. 

But anyway, its a fallacious argument. No, I'm not 'stealing' anything. Noone is being deprived of my money, because I wouldn't have purchased it at the price they were asking for!  Quick question, so is it illegal to _NOT_ pay an income tax? HMMM>>>??????

I'll direct you all to this: Charles Leadbeater: The rise of the amateur professional On topic in regards to, it touches copyright & intellectual property. Patents etc. - they are increasing being used to SUPPRESS innovation, by multinational corporations. Watch the whole thing, very interesting stuff - or at 10min + it discusses it.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> There is no problem in the transfer of ownership, the problem lies within the transfer of formulas, of code in our case. Just as you cannot morally use a patented idea, you cannot freely distribute ideas copyrighted within software or songs without the owner's consent, which is NOT given by default.


The problem remains the _presumption_ that ideas are property in the natural scheme of things, from which said owner can grant consent or not in the first place.   I do not think they are, hence there is no moral dilemma; if the law reflects the creation of an artificial morality based on that premise that does not prove the premise is true. The historical understanding, to repeat, is that copyright is an artificial state subsidy, created as a convenience for _publishers_ to temporarily compensate them for the initial distribution of works to the public, after which the works were to become part of the public domain. The notion that creators are due to receive an infinite markup, through indefinite government subsidy via endless control of the works, is the welfare mentality of 'entitlement' as applied to ideas, and I don't buy it.

----------


## Kludge

> The problem remains the _presumption_ that ideas are property in the natural scheme of things, from which said owner can grant consent or not in the first place.   I do not think they are, hence there is no moral dilemma; if the law reflects the creation of an artificial morality based on that premise that does not prove the premise is true. The historical understanding, to repeat, is that copyright is an artificial state subsidy, created as a convenience for _publishers_ to temporarily compensate them for the initial distribution of works to the public, after which the works were to become part of the public domain. The notion that creators are due to receive an infinite markup, through indefinite government subsidy via endless control of the works, is the welfare mentality of 'entitlement' as applied to ideas, and I don't buy it.


I argue principles, not laws. Thoughts are owned by thinkers, the producers. This is why you - and no one else - has the right to know your thoughts. Thoughts are not owned by the public for they have no rights to your property - negating the right to intellectual property would be allowed only in a welfare state.

[h1]Patents and Copyrights[/h1]
Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.


    What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an _idea_. The subject of patents and copyrights is _intellectual_ property.
  An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the _idea_ which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
  It is important to note, in this connection, that a _discovery_ cannot be patented, only an _invention_. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not _create_ it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He _can *copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he *can_ demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright _theoretical_ knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the _practical_ application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, _may_ never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, _would_ never have existed.
  The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely _secures_ it—_i.e._, the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.


    Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.


    As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man _might_ have been first, does not alter the fact that he _wasn’t_. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition.



- (Stolen from) Ayn Rand

----------


## Kludge

Bump for apparent relevancy.

----------


## constituent

so how do they make their money off of used cds/dvds?

why is it acceptable for me to buy a cd (transfering money to the producer/distributor), and then physically give or sell it to a friend (transfering money to me) but not digitally?

it just seems that if the argument is "artists' right to be compensated for their work," then it is totally bunk.  you were compensated when i bought the album, but will not be when i sell the album.  so what's the answer?  ban selling used cds/dvds?

also, this seems pretty much unenforcable.  if i am allowed one backup of the data on the disk i purchased, and i lose the original disk how can i prove that i _did_ at one point own a licensed/registered copy?  (or better yet, how does a prosecutor prove i didn't?)

----------


## Kludge

The trouble is that there should be a contract signed upon purchase if the author wants to protect his works from perceived threats. The gov't decided to put a band-aid on the situation (surprise!) by trying a one-size-fits-all solution that was simply doesn't work.

EULAs are usually an excellent way to ensure that intellectual property is preserved and is widely used in software. Another great solution is selling installments of the software, as opposed to actually selling the software. Some corporations have also been reported to install rootkits in your computer... The problem there being that people claim its causing harm to their intellectual property 

The government needs to gradually desist issuing intellectual property patents and allow the free markets to come up with ways to protect their software from piracy, if possible. This may require increased corporate teamwork, such as the formation of RIAA-type organizations in all industries where physical property isn't all that is being sold. If free markets cannot come up with solutions, they will have to back out or accept weak profit margins.

Many consumers have accepted a terrible attitude in which they feel entitled to producers' innovation and creation of wealth. Producers are the ones who sustain society, not consumers.

----------


## Kludge

http://maximumpc.coverleaf.com/maximumpc/200904/?pg=14

"Another company, Brighter Minds, filed for Chapter 11 protection in January, despite the success of its World of Goo, a brilliant piece of gaming design for the ridiculous price of $20. Goo, which went out DRM-free, was subject to 90% piracy rate. Designer Ron Carmel told Joystiq that he saw torrents of the game with '500 seeders and 300 leechers.' If you're reading this and you played Goo on a stolen copy, you're a world-class jackoff, and probably would have stolen this magazine if you weren't afraid the dude at Borders would have caught you. I'd pay $20 just to kick you in the nuts."


Oh my.

----------


## FourTwenty666

No you shouldn't be able to just steal software, movies, games, and music just because you do it online. Some honest hardworking people put alot of money and heart and soul into a product that they think the world will enjoy and want to purchase, and if we just start stealing movies/ music and stuff these companies are not going to put the same effort into making high quality stuff because they just won't make their money back.

You can already see this trend with music. Nobody buys music anymore, and as a result the quality of music has dropped immensely. Its all cookie cutter and sounds the same except for underground bands that "don't care bout money". Music is now all about putting out a song that gets stuck in your head so you want to download the ringtone and maybe go to a concert. Quite sad what this has done to the music industry actually.

You people that don't agree with this, and hand away free CD's and try and justify this, really can't see this? I mean when you steal a CD or software online, and that company or artist's sales suffer as a direct result of this, it's ridiculous. It's stealing at a massive level, and it needs to have an end put to it.

I thought Ron Paul supporters agreed with the right to liberty and freedom, as long as it doesn't harm other people? Guess what by stealing other peoples hard work you are harming other people.

There is no excuse or compromise for this. It's just plain wrong.

----------


## FourTwenty666

> so how do they make their money off of used cds/dvds?
> 
> why is it acceptable for me to buy a cd (transfering money to the producer/distributor), and then physically give or sell it to a friend (transfering money to me) but not digitally?
> 
> it just seems that if the argument is "artists' right to be compensated for their work," then it is totally bunk.  you were compensated when i bought the album, but will not be when i sell the album.  so what's the answer?  ban selling used cds/dvds?
> 
> also, this seems pretty much unenforcable.  if i am allowed one backup of the data on the disk i purchased, and i lose the original disk how can i prove that i _did_ at one point own a licensed/registered copy?  (or better yet, how does a prosecutor prove i didn't?)



There is a huge difference in buying a CD, making a copy and handing it to someone else so that person doesn't have to buy it, and selling your CD you paid for to a used CD store man. Sure neither one helps the artist, but selling used goods is legal. Stealing isn't. Burning a copy of a CD or DVD or Game for someone is like if someone back in the 1800s took a book someone made and copied it word for word down into an inferior version and handed them out. It's stealing and it would not have been tolerated back then, and still shouldn't be tolerated.

lmao, no, we are not going to ban selling used CD's. You compensate the artist when you bought it, big whoop, your doing a huge disservice by then handing it out to other people for free, making COPIES, not giving away the actual CD. If you had respect for the work you were giving away and the person who made it, you would not do it, plain and simple. You can hand out your actual REAL COPY of the CD you bought all day, but once you start making copies and giving it so multiple people all have it for free, thats when it becomes wrong.

----------


## americana

Internet priracy is not theft. Theft requires taking an object from another. Anything in digital format is not an object but rather, a code. A string of 1's and 0's. Nobody can own numbers nor the sequence they are put in. Besides, IP laws are against free enterprise. http://mises.org/story/3298

----------


## UnReconstructed

I can't participate in this poll.  I need an option that says "should there even be a law?"

----------


## dannno

> You can already see this trend with music. Nobody buys music anymore, and as a result the quality of music has dropped immensely. Its all cookie cutter and sounds the same except for underground bands that "don't care bout money".


This is absolute bologna. There are tons of incredibly talented people making music. Just because they aren't promoted by the music industry and thus aren't on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. Go out on your own and go see some shows, pay the artist *real* money to go see their show!! Instead you want to give them a lousy nickel for their CD and give a $#@!load of money to the music industry?? And you're complaining about piracy?? 

Why do you need to be spoonfed music by the industry? I personally know plenty of great musicians, why do I need Capitol Records to tell me who is talented??

----------


## FourTwenty666

> This is absolute bologna. There are tons of incredibly talented people making music. Just because they aren't promoted by the music industry and thus aren't on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. Go out on your own and go see some shows, pay the artist *real* money to go see their show!! Instead you want to give them a lousy nickel for their CD and give a $#@!load of money to the music industry?? And you're complaining about piracy?? 
> 
> Why do you need to be spoonfed music by the industry? I personally know plenty of great musicians, why do I need Capitol Records to tell me who is talented??



LMAO that is not the point. Thats great that you have musicians you like and don't like capital records.

But if that is the case, why steal capital records music , hmm?

Just don't listen to it all if you don't like it, why steal  it?

Listen to the bands you like, and leave capital records music alone, don't steal it then burn massive copies to give to other people so they lose money, ignore them. Way to assume what kind of music I like as well, none of the music I listen to is on the radio, mostly independent, and I purchase their damn cd's if I am going to listen to it.  if I don't like something, I am not buying it OR stealing it OR going to see their shows, but I will support the artist's I like..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is absolute bologna. There are tons of incredibly talented people making music. Just because they aren't promoted by the music industry and thus aren't on the radio doesn't mean they don't exist. Go out on your own and go see some shows, pay the artist *real* money to go see their show!! Instead you want to give them a lousy nickel for their CD and give a $#@!load of money to the music industry?? And you're complaining about piracy?? 
> 
> Why do you need to be spoonfed music by the industry? *I personally know plenty of great musicians*, why do I need Capitol Records to tell me who is talented??


Me, for example.  (shameless, but true self promotion)

----------


## FourTwenty666

> Me, for example.  (shameless, but true self promotion)


OK, and how would you feel if you put about six months to a years worth of work into a CD, paid for a website, and released it yourself to the world, just to sell only one copy because everyone stole it after one person put it on the internet?

Cuz thats the way its going to be pretty soon at the rate this "stealing digital media" thing is going.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> LMAO that is not the point. Thats great that you have musicians you like and don't like capital records.
> 
> But if that is the case, why steal capital records music , hmm?
> 
> Just don't listen to it all if you don't like it, why steal  it?
> 
> Listen to the bands you like, and leave capital records music alone, don't steal it then burn massive copies to give to other people so they lose money, ignore them. Way to assume what kind of music I like as well, none of the music I listen to is on the radio, mostly independent, and I purchase their damn cd's if I am going to listen to it.  if I don't like something, I am not buying it OR stealing it OR going to see their shows, but I will support the artist's I like..


This represents the defective one-way cartel capitalism that is the main part of the problem. IS IT the record companies' music? IS distributing a digital copy (to oneself or others) apart from the corporate channel actually stealing the original music? No, it isn't, or there is at least disagreement on both these points adamantly assumed by the poster. The idea it is 'stealing' is the product of the government subsidy called 'copyright' music publishers use to perpetually  monopolize not just distribution, but all ideas about ownership and marketing of the products. 

Historically, piracy was understood to be kidnapping and murder on the high seas. If most of us don't construe sharing computing files as being the same thing as kidnapping and murder on the high seas, who really benefits from the negative spin term other than certain self-serving publishers? If the market has chosen to tolerate file sharing, how does it benefit from having its choices browbeaten? 

In the one-way corporate copyright model, only the business seems to ever get to 'own' anything, and only their notions as to how a profit gets made matters. Even if a copy gets purchased, the buyer is deemed to have no rights to freely share what they purchased. The worth of free individuals creating buzz and branding for the item by burning copies for others is discounted by the traditional publisher, even though this word of mouth marketing is arguably much more valuable than the copies themselves. 

In a real two-way market, there are no subsidies creating such artificial one way monopolies, and the rights of both producers and consumers to own, distribute and promote get respected. The music companies are trying to perpetuate their horse and buggy exclusive distribution business model upon a post-digital era, share-based landscape, and it isn't working. Neither will criminalizing consumer choices by calling them 'stealing' (or other self-serving corporate epithets) prevail. In the end, sharing is one form of owning, and we get to have property rights, too.

----------


## Gaius1981

I don't know -- should Rearden Steel belong to "the public"?

"Hell no", of course. Stand up for property rights!

----------


## dannno

> LMAO that is not the point. Thats great that you have musicians you like and don't like capital records.
> 
> But if that is the case, why steal capital records music , hmm?
> 
> Just don't listen to it all if you don't like it, why steal  it?
> 
> Listen to the bands you like, and leave capital records music alone, don't steal it then burn massive copies to give to other people so they lose money, ignore them. Way to assume what kind of music I like as well, none of the music I listen to is on the radio, mostly independent, and I purchase their damn cd's if I am going to listen to it.  if I don't like something, I am not buying it OR stealing it OR going to see their shows, but I will support the artist's I like..


No, what I do is I listen to whatever the $#@! I want, then if I like them I go see their show. 

When you go see a show you give the band maybe $5-$15.. when you steal their CD the band is losing out on a nickel.. do you see the difference there?? Go to 2 shows and you have given the music makers 600 worth in CD sales!! I go to a lot more shows than that, so I have given bands THOUSANDS worth in CD sales without ever buying a CD, and the whole time I'm supporting the ARTIST rather than the PROMOTERS because I don't need to be spoonfed the same $#@!ty bull$#@! Top 10 songs on the radio as everybody else!!

----------


## dannno

> OK, and how would you feel if you put about six months to a years worth of work into a CD, paid for a website, and released it yourself to the world, just to sell only one copy because everyone stole it after one person put it on the internet?
> 
> Cuz thats the way its going to be pretty soon at the rate this "stealing digital media" thing is going.


Go on tour!! I've known lots of bands who went on tour and gave away their CD's for free!!

----------


## Kludge

> I can't participate in this poll.  I need an option that says "should there even be a law?"


Were it legalized, I imagine it would be through striking current laws.

----------


## pcosmar

I disagree with the term Internet Piracy both in concept and use.
A better question is should fair use be legal.

----------


## FourTwenty666

> Go on tour!! I've known lots of bands who went on tour and gave away their CD's for free!!


And I know plenty of artists who pour their heart and soul into a cd and release it independently and hate the fact that their fans don't respect them enough to pay for a product that they use all the time..

----------


## FourTwenty666

> This represents the defective one-way cartel capitalism that is the main part of the problem. IS IT the record companies' music? IS distributing a digital copy (to oneself or others) apart from the corporate channel actually stealing the original music? No, it isn't, or there is at least disagreement on both these points adamantly assumed by the poster. The idea it is 'stealing' is the product of the government subsidy called 'copyright' music publishers use to perpetually  monopolize not just distribution, but all ideas about ownership and marketing of the products. 
> 
> Historically, piracy was understood to be kidnapping and murder on the high seas. If most of us don't construe sharing computing files as being the same thing as kidnapping and murder on the high seas, who really benefits from the negative spin term other than certain self-serving publishers? If the market has chosen to tolerate file sharing, how does it benefit from having its choices browbeaten? 
> 
> In the one-way corporate copyright model, only the business seems to ever get to 'own' anything, and only their notions as to how a profit gets made matters. Even if a copy gets purchased, the buyer is deemed to have no rights to freely share what they purchased. The worth of free individuals creating buzz and branding for the item by burning copies for others is discounted by the traditional publisher, even though this word of mouth marketing is arguably much more valuable than the copies themselves. 
> 
> In a real two-way market, there are no subsidies creating such artificial one way monopolies, and the rights of both producers and consumers to own, distribute and promote get respected. The music companies are trying to perpetuate their horse and buggy exclusive distribution business model upon a post-digital era, share-based landscape, and it isn't working. Neither will criminalizing consumer choices by calling them 'stealing' (or other self-serving corporate epithets) prevail. In the end, sharing is one form of owning, and we get to have property rights, too.


So someone puts a ton of work into making a song, and copyrights it, you don't think that that song then belongs to them and only them? and that the OWNER of the copyright can choose if they want their music to be sold or given away for free? What is the point of copyrights then? Should we just nix copyrights altogether? I really don't understand your argument, music is music and people work hard on it just like people work hard to put together cars, or any other physical commodity. It's wrong to think that just because music can be transferred to a digital format it is OK to take something someone worked hard on to sell as a product for free.

If music cannot be copyrighted and the owner then choose if he wants to sell it or give it away for free, then the same should be for any product / idea. Get rid of copyrights and patents all together then? I mean why should you be able to come up with a great idea and patent it and always get paid for it but musicians cannot? Do you think Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Nat King Cole, or any legendary musician would agree with this? I think we can at the very least give musicians the respect to choose if they would like their work to be freely handed around or if they wish to only sell it..

----------


## dannno

> And I know plenty of artists who pour their heart and soul into a cd and release it independently and hate the fact that their fans don't respect them enough to pay for a product that they use all the time..


Small bands don't make money selling CD's, and I doubt people listened to their CD's "all the time".

I keep explaining that bands don't make money on CD's, promoters do. Bands make money touring. If you care about the band, go see their show, buying their CD does nothing but make money for their promoter.

And no, I don't think there should be copyrights on music. There would be a lot more innovation if there wasn't, which is ironic because a lot of people mistakenly say the opposite. 

To be honest, I think there would be a lot more innovation if there were no patents either. If you want to make money off your invention, then don't tell anybody how to make it. Patents describe precisely how to make something.. so if you don't patent it, then people might not figure out how to make it..

The only way this can be taken advantage of is in a Federal Reserve world with a dishonest currency where corporations go around stealing people's ideas and investing in them rather than investing directly into the individual/business/creator who is likely the best at understanding their invention.


People will always make music. If bands stop making music, then I will. And so will HB. It is something people enjoy and are willing to pay for, but that doesn't mean I should be arrested for making a replica of something that I've already paid for (a cd) and giving it to somebody. If anything, my friend might go see there show and essentially give them the same as buying 100-300 CD's.

----------


## FourTwenty666

> Small bands don't make money selling CD's, and I doubt people listened to their CD's "all the time".
> 
> I keep explaining that bands don't make money on CD's, promoters do. Bands make money touring. If you care about the band, go see their show, buying their CD does nothing but make money for their promoter.
> 
> And no, I don't think there should be copyrights on music. There would be a lot more innovation if there wasn't, which is ironic because a lot of people mistakenly say the opposite. 
> 
> To be honest, I think there would be a lot more innovation if there were no patents either. If you want to make money off your invention, then don't tell anybody how to make it. Patents describe precisely how to make something.. so if you don't patent it, then people might not figure out how to make it..
> 
> The only way this can be taken advantage of is in a Federal Reserve world with a dishonest currency where corporations go around stealling people's ideas and investing in them rather than investing directly into the indidual/business/creator who is likely the best at understanding their invention.


Look I don't like the fed either but I think your tying it in too much. Once again, I wasn't talking about bands on major labels that time, if you wanna use that as an excuse to steal their music go for it, but I won't buy it or steal it if I don't agree with the company or don't like the music. That last post was referring to independent artists like "Buckethead" who actually probably make like 10 bucks a CD since it is released INDEPENDENTLY. Either way though, I don't agree with what your saying music should not be able to just be taken for free if the person who MADE it and OWNS it does not want it to be that way.

----------


## LibForestPaul

So... I'm interested in why so many people don't feel companies have a right to protect their intellectual property. Why doesn't theft still equate to aggression if it's done over the internet.

Why don't companies have the right to use protection software (or rootkits, if they note it somewhere)? Why can't companies band together and form an organization to find and locate pirates through legal means?


Since when did we become opportunistic and hypocritical looters?

1. Congress has became tools of big business.
99 year copyright law
DMCA

You believe it is theft. It is not. It is copyright infrigement. There is no theft because there is nothing tangible. i.e. There is no property.

2. Rootkits. They do have a right to use rootkits, as long as it is disclosed. Otherwise, it is malware.

When the laws are made equitable, piracy will fade away.
i.e. Many software game companies are including harsh DRM software within their products. There products are pirated days even before release. The "cracked" software actually has MORE functionality than software that is paid for legally. Why would any consumer pay for something with less functionality, that may cause his system to behave erratice, has no recourse if the program is faulty, when a free cracked copy that works flawless is available?

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. But I will NEVER purchase heavily laden DRM.


P.S.
Do you backup your music to your computer/ipod/CDR?
Do you make copies of your DVD's?
Do you photocopy pages of books, collections?


Examples of photocopy re-use that may require copyright permission: 
   Photocopying a trade magazine article to share with your colleagues.  

   Photocopying an analyst or research report to distribute to customers or prospects. 

   Photocopying competitive literature to distribute to your sales force. 

   Purchasing a single subscription to a publication or newsletter and photocopying it for distribution company-wide.

----------


## dannno

> Either way though, I don't agree with what your saying music should not be able to just be taken for free if the person who MADE it and OWNS it does not want it to be that way.


They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me. 

If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.

----------


## FourTwenty666

> They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me. 
> 
> If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.


Absolutely not, you are making a huge stretch there to justify actions that are wrong by law. You cannot copyright a damn spoon, it is not intellectual property, anyone can make a spoon. People will laugh at you if you try to copyright a spoon, people take music/ movies more seriously as it takes much more original thought to make. You can't go out and take someone's music and remake it and sell it the exact same way, intellectual property and copyright laws prevent this for a reason, because it is wrong... not all laws are right, but the right to come up with an idea and protect it is right. You don't seem to grasp that. Coming up with music is alot different than "coming up with a spoon", LMAO

That was a horrible comparison...

A much better one would be you cannot take someone's spoon that has pretty copyrighted artwork on it and then distribute it, but you can make your own spoon with a pretty design on it and then sell it to your hearts content. The former would just be copying someone else's work and if you wanna be known as a unoriginal fraud and hack, that is what you would do

----------


## Kraig

I don't know if you can say internet piracy is an act of aggression because the company isn't really losing anything.  The most they can say they are losing is a potential sale, but if the person downloading whatever software isn't convinced he is willing to pay for it, was there ever a potential sale?

If you think about the music side of piracy, the record labels exist as a way to help the artist get the music out to the world.  Even if your music is good, if you are only popular in the town you are from there is going to be a very limited amount of $ you can make from that one town.  What record companies did is basically say "we are big enough to do what you can't, we can get your music around the country and around the world".   Then music has suddenly become a million or billion dollar industry, with a large percentage going to the label rather than the artist.  

Well now times have changed, the artist can now get his music to the world as an individual, and the record label is becoming obsolete.  420 was on to something when he said "anyone can make a spoon".  Well guess what, anyone can make a copy of a CD, probably more people than those who would be able to make a decent spoon.  People generally place value on things based on how easy they are to do and once something becomes so easy that anyone can do it, few will pay for it, it becomes a luxury item for a niche group.  The artists role of taking instruments and creating music is not being replaced, the label's role of mass replication and distribution is being replaced because it is so easy to do people are not willing to pay for it.  

In the future I think the artists will find better and better ways to market themselves without using a label, and labels are probably on the way out.  It was only a job for dirty salesmen anyways.

----------


## Pennsylvania

Analogy:

1 - Person A genetically engineers a new mutation of tobacco plant which is better suited to arid environments, resulting in greater cost-effectiveness.
2 - Person A sells person B one such organic tobacco plant with the stipulation that he may not reproduce the plant
3 - Person B uses seeds from said tobacco plant to generate new tobacco plants for _personal use_.

Regardless of whether person B's actions represent a breach of contract, there is no justification for legal pursuit of the issue. In the future, person A would wisely not sell to person B, yes, but if the government does not exist to enforce morality, then it cannot mend "broken promises".

----------


## FourTwenty666

> I don't know if you can say internet piracy is an act of aggression because the company isn't really losing anything.  The most they can say they are losing is a potential sale, but if the person downloading whatever software isn't convinced he is willing to pay for it, was there ever a potential sale?
> 
> If you think about the music side of piracy, the record labels exist as a way to help the artist get the music out to the world.  Even if your music is good, if you are only popular in the town you are from there is going to be a very limited amount of $ you can make from that one town.  What record companies did is basically say "we are big enough to do what you can't, we can get your music around the country and around the world".   Then music has suddenly become a million or billion dollar industry, with a large percentage going to the label rather than the artist.  
> 
> Well now times have changed, the artist can now get his music to the world as an individual, and the record label is becoming obsolete.  420 was on to something when he said "anyone can make a spoon".  Well guess what, anyone can make a copy of a CD, probably more people than those who would be able to make a decent spoon.  People generally place value on things based on how easy they are to do and once something becomes so easy that anyone can do it, few will pay for it, it becomes a luxury item for a niche group.  The artists role of taking instruments and creating music is not being replaced, the label's role of mass replication and distribution is being replaced because it is so easy to do people are not willing to pay for it.  
> 
> In the future I think the artists will find better and better ways to market themselves without using a label, and labels are probably on the way out.  It was only a job for dirty salesmen anyways.


Ok so would you agree with this then? Someone makes a spoon with art work that rivals mona lisa on it. Someone buys that beautiful spoon at the store. They rip off the artwork and put it onto their own spoons to give away. Do you think this is right or should that person just come up with their OWN artwork to put on the spoon then give away?

----------


## DamianTV

Sure they have a right to protect their product.  But not at the price of my Privacy.

Corporations long ago were not recognized with having the same rights as individuals.  But thru the efforts of those who would abuse such rights, they've had laws changed and got what they wanted.  Corporations now have more rights than the people.

----------


## Kludge

Speaking of privacy, I was called yesterday to be told that an IRS agent will be coming into my house in a few hours to see if business write-offs are actually being used.



Needless to say, but I took down my Communist Henry Paulson "Patriotism is Paying Taxes" poster, and am considering removing the Gadsden flag, too.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> They don't "own" it after they have sold it to me. 
> 
> If I go out and buy a wooden spoon, go home and make a copy of it and give it away, I'm free to do so. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. This is the same thing.


This transfer of ownership or rights is the main point, whether the spoon analogy is a good analogy or not. The existence of copyright does not cancel other parties' rights (especially after a transaction), or reduce them to privileges. What would we say to a pizza delivery guy who came back after he dropped off the food, saying "we don't like the way you are sharing the pizza with your buddies. You don't own the pizza, just usage permissions within our parameters. Cough it back up." Do music consumers have a right to go back to the publisher and say "we don't approve of your sharing the money we gave you to your workers, go give it back?"

Copyright was originally meant to be a *temporary* government approved monopoly granted to *publishers* (not authors) to enable them to complete *initial* publishing of work until they could get their money back---after which the work was to become part of the public domain. It was not intended to become the  open-ended or never ending, permanent subsidy that is promoted today.  A true free market would not have copyright at all, and would operate on a non-exclusive distribution business model that did not have the state inflating the value of a given publisher. Alternatively, publishers could enter contractual agreements with the authors to create any exclusivity desired (focused on the company's unique promotion, not unique delivery of the product). Currently the market clearly is moving  towards a post bottleneck, non-exclusive distribution model in its choices, so the corporate mantra of "only we own" is becoming increasingly moot.

----------


## Kraig

> Ok so would you agree with this then? Someone makes a spoon with art work that rivals mona lisa on it. Someone buys that beautiful spoon at the store. They rip off the artwork and put it onto their own spoons to give away. Do you think this is right or should that person just come up with their OWN artwork to put on the spoon then give away?


Aren't replicas of the mona lisa available all over the place?  How does their value stack up to the original?  I think that answers itself.

What you are saying is absolutely no different than inventing the wheel and saying it's wrong for people to copy the idea.

----------


## peepnklown

*Constituent* hit the nail on the head!

----------


## tribute_13

I don't buy into the whole intellectual property bull$#@!. 

As far as downloading music, I don't think entertainers should make money through CD sales. A true entertainer makes their money through ticket sales and concerts.

This roots out the $#@! performers from the good ones. Keeps the market clean.

----------


## nayjevin

devil's advocate:

all a person owns is his ability to create -- his creation is his voluntary entry of an example of his ownership (talent) into the public domain.

----------


## nayjevin

> My definition of "piracy" differs considerably from that of others.  To me, it's only theft of intellectual property in the truest sense, and justifiably prohibited, if the source does not receive credit for his or her work (i.e., someone illegally downloads a song and replaces the artist's name with his or her own).
> 
> As a musician myself, I would just feel glad that people like my stuff, and get a kick out of seeing it proliferate online, in whatever form.  The only thing I would resent personally would be having my work co-opted and accredited to somebody else.
> 
> Intellectual property rights are very important, but record companies running to Daddy Government to help them squeeze out small fortunes from college kids is tenfold more unethical than any "criminal-minded music lover" who downloads a CD for personal use.


QFT

additionally, I think

anyone creating works of art should be doing so in the hopes that it proliferates widely - not that it brings great profit.

their efforts to make it proliferate if they so choose - such as building a website with advertisements, burning and labeling a DVD or CD of it and selling it, performing live -- should all bring profit -- but a person experiencing a duplicate of that work (i.e. downloading a dvd or cd) should not be restricted IMO

----------


## nayjevin

devil's advocate:




> Thought and time are NOT unlimited resources, especially quality thought. To say that a digital copy of a song is worth nothing is to say that no resources went into producing it, or rather that artists offer nothing and are a useless drain to make an ad hominem.


the digital copy does not represent time and resources, nor quality of thought - it represents a duplicate of that one chunk of time/resources it took to make it.

a copy multiplies the effect of time/resources.

theft of a copy steals the ability to use that original chunk of time/resources from one person and gives it to another

sharing digital content online multiplies the effect of each piece of work without taking the ability to use it away from anyone.

-- I've entered the text of this post voluntarily into the public domain -- thereby leaving you free to use it, quote it, alter it, sell it, repackage it, etc.  The free market should boycott you should you do so for evil.

----------


## Kludge

> I don't buy into the whole intellectual property bull$#@!. 
> 
> As far as downloading music, I don't think entertainers should make money through CD sales. A true entertainer makes their money through ticket sales and concerts.
> 
> This roots out the $#@! performers from the good ones. Keeps the market clean.


Idunno. I enjoy music from my house, but I've only gone to two concerts... -- wasn't fond of a bunch of fools around me screaming, coughing, and chain-smoking. I don't think I'll ever go to another unless someone really wants me to, and I like them.

Sound quality of a CD is far superior, anyway.

----------


## andrewh817

I believe in unrestricted access to information so I'm definitely against prosecution for internet piracy as that is the next step towards a censored internet.

But you know something?  It really sucks that people making quality art or music can no longer make a living doing what they do.  But guess what....... that's natural selection and the only reason this piracy is so "controversial" is all the record company lobbyists begging the government for no competition.

----------


## cindy25

British paperback books have something printed that they may not be sold below cover price-ever.

bought a ken follet novel and was shocked.

this intellectual property thing is out of hand

----------

