Political Crossfire Forums

[mattwa33193]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: You can't build exact duplicates of Honda vehicles (or any product) and sell them. If you think Honda can't and won't do something about it you are wrong.
The only reason such issues are not readily talked about is because it is impossible for individual consumers to make such duplicates on the individual level. Were that possible, you'd see much the same discussion occurring today.

Quote: Owning the plastic impliment that the music is recorded on doesn't mean you own the music and can do whatever you like with it. You didn't buy a license to copy it and give it away. You bought a licensed copy for your personal use and it states just that right there on the box when you buy it.
OOOOH! It says it on the box!

So again, you believe that when you buy a CD, you are really just leasing it from the artist, and they can tell you how to use it and how not to use it? I mean shoot, let's not stop at duplication, GNR should only be played loud. Play their CD's softly, and Axl will come to your house and sue you for not fulfilling your license!

Quote: You are essentially trying to convince yourself that because modern equipment makes creating electronic copies of copyrighted material so easy it is no longer theft.
No, what I am saying is that it was never theft, it's just that modern equipment allows the creation of those duplicates for a price less than the original purchase price, something that wasn't available until quite recently. All you are doing is creating a Mix Tape and giving it to a friend, something that Universal vs. Sony Corp said was most definitely NOT theft almost 25 years ago.

Quote: Your logic is misplaced. It is not the difficulty of infringing on a copyright that makes it theft. It is taking something that does not belong to you. Because it is easy to take does not make it any less theft.
Ah, but that's where you are wrong. It DOES belong to me the moment that the owner of that data (the TRUE owner, the person that is sharing the file) consents to send that file to me. The fact that he or she does not ask for monetary consideration for that transaction does not change the situation in any way.

Quote: That music does not belong to you, whether it is a copy or the original master is irrelevant.
I believe in property rights. Apparently, you do not.

The Betamax Ruling says that you are free to make copies FOR PERSONAL USE. You can not distribute those copies in any way, including putting them on Morpheus or giving them to your buddies.

[Todd D.]

Quote: The Betamax Ruling says that you are free to make copies FOR PERSONAL USE. You can not distribute those copies in any way, including putting them on Morpheus or giving them to your buddies.
The AHRA of 1992 refrenced the Betamax Ruling and laid out Fair Use guidelines and implicitly consented to the use of "Mix Tapes", yes, even as gifts. It's specific wording was the "use of Home Recording Devices for Non-Commercial purposes". The widespread utilization of this theory through the use of the Internet (which was still in its infancy in 1992, and far from being capable of such widespread distribution that we are dealing with today) has called the merits of that bill in to question, but that's the way that it stands right now.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Regardless of the fine point of whether filesharing it is "theft" or not, it is immoral
If it violates moral law, then it is immoral. If it is not theft, then it must be violating some other moral law. What other moral law is it violating assuming that it is not theft?

It is taking the intellectual/creative/musical works of others against their will without rewarding them for it.

Todd D. wrote: Quote: illegal
There is a great amount of controversy over whether it truly is illegal. The case is far from closed on that.

Show me the court case that puts the illegality of filesharing into question.

Todd D. wrote: Quote: and unethical regardless.
Isn't that really just another way of saying immoral?

I have NO problem with someone saying that they are against file sharing. That's fine. I don't agree, but I can see the point that is made. I just have a problem with people trying to change the definition of words in order to illicit emotional appeals. Stealing removes a piece of property from someone against their will. Fileshaing is consentual distribution of duplicated property. That's where the difference lies.

It doesn't have the consent of the creator of the intellectual property.

I do admit, as a former educational content designer, this issue bothers me. It bothers me that people think that it's ok to take work that I have worked long and hard to create, and then just copy it and give it away, thus taking away from my sales, which is money in my pocket.

Whatever you call it, it's wrong.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: The Betamax Ruling says that you are free to make copies FOR PERSONAL USE. You can not distribute those copies in any way, including putting them on Morpheus or giving them to your buddies.
The AHRA of 1992 laid out Fair Use guidelines and implicitly consented to the use of "Mix Tapes", yes, even as gifts. It's specific wording was the "use of Home Recording Devices for Non-Commercial purposes". The widespread utilization of this theory through the use of the Internet (which was still in its infancy in 1992, and far from being capable of such widespread distribution that we are dealing with today) has called the merits of that bill in to question, but that's the way that it stands right now.

I have no problem with mix tapes/CD, provided they are not sold. That is a different issue than the wholesale copying of albums/computer programs.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Show me the court case that puts the illegality of filesharing into question
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Universal Corp vs. Sony Betamax, DCHMA, etc.

Quote: It doesn't have the consent of the creator of the intellectual property.
Irrelevent, they sold their CD to someone already. The owner of the CD carries the property rights associated with them. They have no more jurisdiction over future transactions as someone from Miller can come to a bar and say that the bartender isn't charging enough.

Quote: Whatever you call it, it's wrong.
I disagree.

Quote: I have no problem with mix tapes/CD, provided they are not sold. That is a different issue than the wholesale copying of albums/computer programs.
So your problem is a matter of scope? What's the number where it becomes wrong? 1 is OK, but 500 isn't? 100? 50? What's the number?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Quote:
That music does not belong to you, whether it is a copy or the original master is irrelevant.

I believe in property rights. Apparently, you do not.

Only if you call helping yourself to other people's property "property rights".

:lol:

[Duchifas]

Todd D. wrote: So, this is basically just going in circles for the past 4 pages, and I still have yet to see someone qualify the statement that it is "stealing".

I did. You still didn't explain to me why the labor of your hands and the labor of your mind should be treated differently here.

Quote: All I've seen is dogmatically repeating "it's stealing, plain and simple" and then offer some hackneyed analogy about stealing apples or stealing car stereos. Neither are comparable because in the analogies it's an involuntary transaction (Person A forcibly removes Object A from Person B), not a consentual duplication (Person A makes a copy of Object A and CONSENTUALLY gives Object A2 to Person B). Big difference there.

As I mentioned above, when you buy the CD, you are buying only what the other person is selling you. He is not selling you the right to copy and resell his music. If you appropriate that right to yourself, that's not very different from you selling my car to a third person, when I only lent it to you for an hour to pick up groceries.

Quote: Want to think that it's wrong? That's fine. That's a simple disagreement over whether intellectual property rights are valid or not. You can make good cases either way. Want to think that it's "stealing"? Then you're just going to prove you lack a functional grasp over the english language. If it was stealing, then the person you downloaded it from would no longer have their copy, which is clearly not the way that file sharing works. At best it's dumping, but even that term doesn't really work since the consequent "dump" does not deprive you of the material either.

I'll repeat my question. You photograph the secret recipe for Coca-Cola, and then distribute it. They still have their copy. But now everyone is making Classic Coke.

According to you, that is not stealing.

Quote: It's low cost duplication. Nothing more. Those that are for it believe that if you own a CD, then it is YOUR property and you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

They can only come to that conclusion by ignoring what they bought when they bought the CD.

Perhaps, you will also tell us that when you lease a car, you can go ahead and sell it. Well, sure, you can. But that's stealing, and when the lease is up, you will face the consequences.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Show me the court case that puts the illegality of filesharing into question
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Universal Corp vs. Sony Betamax, DCHMA, etc.

Quote: It doesn't have the consent of the creator of the intellectual property.
Irrelevent, they sold their CD to someone already. The owner of the CD carries the property rights associated with them. They have no more jurisdiction over future transactions as someone from Miller can come to a bar and say that the bartender isn't charging enough.

Well, most CDs I own expressly say on their label that unauthorized copy, distribution, etc. of the contents say otherwise. You do have property rights to the CD. You can give that physical CD to whoever you want. You still have the rights to do with it as you wish. Unless you have written authorization, you don't have the intellectual rights to the contents.


Todd D. wrote: Quote: Whatever you call it, it's wrong.
I disagree.

Again, have you looked at it from the other point of view? If your "bread and butter" was selling copyrighted content, how would you feel? To me that's the best judge of what is a sin.....

Quote: I have no problem with mix tapes/CD, provided they are not sold. That is a different issue than the wholesale copying of albums/computer programs.
So your problem is a matter of scope? What's the number where it becomes wrong? 1 is OK, but 500 isn't? 100? 50? What's the number?[/quote]

It has to do with the proportion of the original work. A single song off a CD is a sample of the CD.

(Legally, however, a mixed tape/CD distributed to someone else is illegal)

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: If your "bread and butter" was selling copyrighted content, how would you feel? To me that's the best judge of what is a sin

Do unto others.

Good call.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: You photograph the secret recipe for Coca-Cola, and then distribute it. They still have their copy. But now everyone is making Classic Coke.



That's a perfect analogy. I wish I would have thought of it.

[toddytodd]

perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Hi,

I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing. I see so many christian kids listening to burned Cd's like it isn't wrong. I believe this is a big problem and should be addressed more in the church. I try my best not to take advantage of things that seem so easy and innocent, but I've still done it. So I'm guilty of this too but I will work on it even more, because in the end it is wrong. Please try to do your bests to do the smallest things to avoid sin. Remember lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, and taking the lords name in vane is a sin. If you need help look at my sig, it has a beatiful verse that may help you.

Thanks,

LGR

P.S. Every sin we commit is more of a burden that Jesus Christ has to carry.
It's only stealing it you take it against the will of the person who owns it. If someone bought a CD/DVD & wants to give you a copy of it, that is fine.
If you break into someone's house/computer & take it w/o asking & w/o the owner giving you permission, that is wrong

But in the case of the CD/DVD and the copy, you own the physical CD/DVD, you don't own the right to distribute the content. I have no problem if you give or lend your CD/DVD to a friend. Just don't copy it and give it to him.

BTW, Todd, are you, or do you plan to be, in an industry that relies on selling either software or copyrighted material? If you aren't, put yourselves in their shoes when you think about this issue. If you were a movie producer, and put $10 million into your indie film, would you want copies of your movie given away?
Of course I would want compensated for my effort, but this is the world we live in....

[mcmlv]

I need to ask this to get a better understanding:

As I understand it, it is OK to record music from radio, TV what have you, for personal enjoyment. Say I record the Stones' Make It Black because I knew it will play on station X between 4 and 8. I also tell my friend, knowing that he likes it too. He says he will record it also for his personal enjoyment. His recording device malfunctions. Why can't I give him a copy that he would have made anyway?

[mcmlv]

Next question: What is the history of intellectual rights legislation, intended purposes, etc. Can someone point me to an accurate source please.
And purpose too. Yes i understand 'protection, bla bla bla' but was not the original intent to prevent others from profiting form someone else's work, as opposed to protecting profits now?