Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

perdidochas wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: 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.
Hollywood's entertainment Megaloposis is built partly upon outright theft, and partly upon the complete rape of all U.S. copyright law.

When the Constitution was written, I think that copyrights were valid for something like 7 years. Today it's over 100 years. No (normal) human being lives to be 100 years old, although corporations (obviously) can. So just as obviously, copyright law has been subverted and no longer protects the creative interests of the artist (i.e., individual who wrote it), but instead protects only the financial interests of the Communist Corporation which holds the copyright.

I agree to a large extent with what you say.

Am I right to imply from your post that you would view intentional violation of Copyright Act as a sort of civil disobedience? Like tearing up draft cards and burning the flag and such?

As in, I don't care so much for personal benefit from ripping off music, it's that I am doing it as a protest against unjust laws! :)

I would only agree if you were also participating in legitimate protest, and had been involved in such for some time. What have you done to inform your congressman that you disagree with the extensions in copyright,etc.? I agree that the extensions have been absurd--when copyright law began, copyright owners had 14 yrs, which could be extended another 14 yrs. That went to 28 yrs, with a 14 yr extension. That went to 28 +28yrs at the turn of the 20th century, and then to life +50 (in 1976) (which has been the international convention since 1886), and finally to life + 70 in 1998. I have no problem with copyright, I just think that we should go back to closer to the original--say life + 14 yrs. This would allow the owner of the copyright the chance to make a good living from his work for his lifetime, yet open it up fairly quickly after his death.
What I just highlighted in bold is a lie.

Do you think Beethoven or Mozart would have been what they were if they had just written one symphony, and then "lived" off that for the rest of their lives? Are you insane? That's *not* the kind of protections that were intended w/ copyrights. Copyright is supposed to protect the creative expression of an artist for a limited, at the cost of the work ultimately passing into the public domain (at a later date).

In the current model, w/ copyrights as long as they are, you're only protecting the finances of the corporations, not the creativity of the artists.

[Todd D.]

Quote: File "sharing" is stealing copyright. Of course it's stealing. Also, it's against the law. The Catholic Church frowns on breaking the law, especially just ones.
Again, we are speaking from a moral standpoint, so appeals to "the law" are irrelevant. I understand that it is currently against the law, what I am saying is that there is no reason for it to BE against the law.

Quote: You would think differently if you were in an industry that relies on copyright to make a living. If you were a computer programmer, a musician or a author, you would understand that it truly is stealing.
Copyright laws were written to ensure a progression in the arts and sciences, not to garner a profit. There's a fundamental shift in the understanding there that people don't seem to recognize.

And, for the record, I DO work in an industry that deals with copyright laws every single day.

Quote: u buy a CD, you own the rights to play and listen to the music. You do not own the rights to distribute it. You can take your CD, and you can make copies of it for your own personal use legally--i.e. you can burn a .mp3 copy of the music, you can record it on audiocassette, you can put it on a personal mix. However, you don't have the right to give those copies to anybody else. You can give that CD to anyone else (provided you destroy all your personal copies), so, of course, you own the CD.
The way the law is currently written that is correct. Waht I am saying is that I am against that law and feel it is 100% against the concept of property rights. Either you own a CD or you do not. If you own a CD, then you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with it. If you don't have that right, then you can't say that you own something.

Quote: All I can say about filesharing, is that you have no real conception of the fact that it's cheating until you produce copyrightable materal and want to make your rightful money from your creative work. Put yourself in the shoes of the artist or the computer programmer, and you will realize that stealing someone's intellectual work is just like stealing out of their pocket.
It is an entirely contrived and incorrect definition of the word "stealing" to say so. What if the price that the artist is willing to sell said work is above what someone who would otherwise downlaod their music is willing to pay for it? Then the transaction would never take place at all, so you can't really say that the artist is any worse of. Again, you have deprived NOBODY of their property in this transaction. The artist has no "right" to make you buy his record against your will, so you clearly haven't violated his rights, the person you got it from gave it to you consentually, so you haven't violated his rights.

Quote: From a moral standpoint, a man is free to sell you what he wants, and not to sell you what he wants. When he sells you something that has a symbol (c) on it, he is only selling you limited rights in his work. That little (c) basically means that for the $15 you paid me, I am selling you the right to listen to my song and make personal copies. If you want to make copies for resale of my work which took me years of education and lots of effort to produce, you are welcome to call my agent and work out a deal, but it is likely to cost you more than $15.

From a moral standpoint, that is his absolute right, and you have your absolute right not to buy it from him if you don't want to.
That little (c) that you speak of represents a monopoly over something no more real than pixies and faries. He holds a monopoly over "an idea". That's not property rights, that's so-called "intellectual property rights'. The existence of which is extraordinarily controversial, hence the reason that we are having this discussion.

Quote: And since I'm going to have to further my explanation on why its communist because Todd's intelligence is lacking here I go. Communism advocates the absence of personal property for the greater good. When you dl a song/game/book/or movie that person or company has just lost its personal property because you decided that their need to acquire money for the hard work and dedication they put into it wasn't enough for you to buy it. So the artist/writer/programmer lost their personal property, which is their "work", and is freely distributed. Now why is that fair or just?
See the above explaination for a lesson in Supply and Demand, the complete opposite of how the Communist mode of production operates. File sharing is a lesson in free market economics, how technological innovation led to the near-elimination of costs related to duplication, and how the RIAA and the MPAA tried to selfishly stifle this innovation in the name of their monetary profits. This is the same argument that they made when the VCR came out, the same argument that they made when casette tapes came out, this is the same line of reasoning that leads Ted Turner to say that he believes it's ILLEGAL to fast forward through commercials on television, etc. etc. This is a stifling of innovation that requires government intervention to protect an industry that is trying to hold on to a dying form of commerce. That's the complete opposite of a free market. Period.

Quote: Todd please don't try to find excuses for your sins, just ask for forgiveness, and try to change the actions that caused you to do it.
I don't make excuses for my sins.

Quote: On a side note I didn't do this to degrade people that do this, but to bring it to their attention that what is commonly accepted is a sin.
Yeah, who need's independent thought when you can just go on what is "commonly accepted", right?

[Duchifas]

LetsGetReal wrote: Well you don't have to worry I don't quote the Liberal Times :lol:, I'm sorry I mean the New York Times. But thanks for the info and I don't see why they wouldn't let us quote with a link. Because it would generate more views aka more clicks on the ads(generate greater income), so maybe someone should bring that to their attention.

I believe that just linking to it is not a violation. Pasting may be, though.

PS. I didn't know they were liberal. I thought they were ultra-liberal. At least for where I stand on issues. :)

[Duchifas]

Todd D. wrote: Duchifas wrote: From a moral standpoint, a man is free to sell you what he wants, and not to sell you what he wants. When he sells you something that has a symbol (c) on it, he is only selling you limited rights in his work. That little (c) basically means that for the $15 you paid me, I am selling you the right to listen to my song and make personal copies. If you want to make copies for resale of my work which took me years of education and lots of effort to produce, you are welcome to call my agent and work out a deal, but it is likely to cost you more than $15.

From a moral standpoint, that is his absolute right, and you have your absolute right not to buy it from him if you don't want to.

That little (c) that you speak of represents a monopoly over something no more real than pixies and faries. He holds a monopoly over "an idea".

That is not so, Todd. Ideas are not copyrightable. Expression is. Sometimes it is a subtle distinction with which courts struggle, but in vast majority of cases it is pretty obvious.

When I write a book about how there is a giant government conspiracy in the US, I cannot copyright that idea. You, and anyone else, are welcome to write other books about that idea - giant government conspiracy in the US. You can write as many books as you wish.

What you cannot do is copy my book verbatim or substantially and then derive profit from that, unless your copying would constitute a "fair use."

You acknowledge the difference between the two concepts, don't you?

Quote: That's not property rights, that's so-called "intellectual property rights'. The existence of which is extraordinarily controversial, hence the reason that we are having this discussion.

What is so controversial about them?

[Todd D.]

Quote: That is not so, Todd. Ideas are not copyrightable. Expression is. Sometimes it is a subtle distinction with which courts struggle, but in vast majority of cases it is pretty obvious.

When I write a book about how there is a giant government conspiracy in the US, I cannot copyright that idea. You, and anyone else, are welcome to write other books about that idea - giant government conspiracy in the US. You can write as many books as you wish.

What you cannot do is copy my book verbatim or substantially and then derive profit from that, unless your copying would constitute a "fair use."

You acknowledge the difference between the two concepts, don't you?
Of course I recognize the difference between the two, but that doesn't mean that I recognize the validity of holding that monopoly.

Quote: What is so controversial about them?
From the Wiki:
Quote: However, various schools of thought are critical of the term "intellectual property", the very concept of intellectual property, and some characterise IP as intellectual protectionism. There is ongoing debate as to whether IP laws truly operate to confer the stated public benefits, and whether the protection they are said to provide is appropriate in the context of innovation derived from such things as traditional knowledge and folklore, and patents for software and business methods. Manifestations of this controversy can be seen in the way different jurisdictions decide whether to grant intellectual property protection in relation to subject matter of this kind, and the North-South divide on issues of the role and scope of intellectual property laws.

[Duchifas]

Todd wrote: Of course I recognize the difference between the two,

Well, it didn't seem like you did. A pillar of US copyright laws is that ideas (as opposed to expressions) cannot be copyrighted.

Quote: but that doesn't mean that I recognize the validity of holding that monopoly.

Tell it to the Founding Fathers.

US CONSTITUTION:

Congress has the power to
...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

[Todd D.]

Quote: Tell it to the Founding Fathers.

US CONSTITUTION:

Congress has the power to
...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
k....I will. I disagree with them on this, and? They were not deities, they made mistakes. I would also tell them that I think their decision to allow slavery was wrong, so what?

[Duchifas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Tell it to the Founding Fathers.

US CONSTITUTION:

Congress has the power to
...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
k....I will. I disagree with them on this, and? They were not deities, they made mistakes. I would also tell them that I think their decision to allow slavery was wrong, so what?

Sure. You are entitled to that. You may also want to tell Him that His decision was also wrong on the latter issue. Although He is a Deity. ;)

But to return to where we were before the digression, since you recognize the difference between copyrighting ideas and copyrighting expressions, would you care to come up with a different response to my argument:

Todd wrote: Duchifas wrote: From a moral standpoint, a man is free to sell you what he wants, and not to sell you what he wants. When he sells you something that has a symbol (c) on it, he is only selling you limited rights in his work. That little (c) basically means that for the $15 you paid me, I am selling you the right to listen to my song and make personal copies. If you want to make copies for resale of my work which took me years of education and lots of effort to produce, you are welcome to call my agent and work out a deal, but it is likely to cost you more than $15.

From a moral standpoint, that is his absolute right, and you have your absolute right not to buy it from him if you don't want to.

That little (c) that you speak of represents a monopoly over something no more real than pixies and faries. He holds a monopoly over "an idea".

[Duchifas]

double

[Duchifas]

triple. geez.

[Todd D.]

Quote: But to return to where we were before the digression, since you recognize the difference between copyrighting ideas and copyrighting expressions, would you care to come up with a different response to my argument:
Ah, ok, I see where we are crossing here. I shouldn't have said "idea". My bad.

Expressions are not real property, in my opinion, hence the reason that I feel that it is innapropriate to assign to them a status of protection akin to "property rights". They are intangibles, the products of our mind, and the restriction of someone else using their (very real) property to create that same expression represents to me an injustice and a restriction, not to mention the damage to the general public to stifle such potential innovation.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for innovation and progression, which is precisely why I feel that this is unjust. Absent these laws, it would force companies to remain on the bleeding edge of innovation in order to retain their market position. Instead, they are allowed to rest on their laurels and the incentive to innovate is greatly reduced.

[Duchifas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: But to return to where we were before the digression, since you recognize the difference between copyrighting ideas and copyrighting expressions, would you care to come up with a different response to my argument:
Ah, ok, I see where we are crossing here. I shouldn't have said "idea". My bad.

Expressions are not real property, in my opinion, hence the reason that I feel that it is innapropriate to assign to them a status of protection akin to "property rights". They are intangibles, the products of our mind, and the restriction of someone else using their (very real) property to create that same expression represents to me an injustice and a restriction, not to mention the damage to the general public to stifle such potential innovation.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for innovation and progression, which is precisely why I feel that this is unjust. Absent these laws, it would force companies to remain on the bleeding edge of innovation in order to retain their market position. Instead, they are allowed to rest on their laurels and the incentive to innovate is greatly reduced.

Copyright laws stimulate innovation and progression by providing financial incentives to innovators. If people have no incentive to innovate, most will not. Some will, but very few. If I am really good at writing fiction, but I know that the day I publish a book, it will be immediately published by 100 other people and I will not receive a return on my investment (of time and effort in writing the book), I will not write the book. Simple as that. It's not even so much a matter of wanting, as a matter of being able to afford to spend time on producing a creative expression which will not be compensated.

From the justice perspective, I don't see why the labor of your hands is so much more worthy of protection than the labor of your mind.

[perdidochas]

connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

Not unless you sell it, or play it in a business establishment.

What is the difference from taping a song off the radio & taking it from a internet site?
Shared internet sites (EMULE, SHARAZAA, etc), use files that are available from people on their network. THOSE people are allowing anyone to take the file that they put on their computer. Many times, these files are from CDs, DVDs, cassteets (etc) that these people originally purchased. So you aren't techinically stealing from these people (or the music/movie companies) because the people that purchased the files originally are allowing you to take their file.

Well, it gets a little more complex than that. The manufacturers of cassette tapes pay the music industry a certain royalty because of the use in copying music. The difference between file sharing and radio, is that radio has the right to broadcast (or give) the music over the airways. They pay for that part of the copyright (radio stations pay a yearly fee to different music publishers (ASCAP, for example) in order to have the right to pubicly play the music. Joe Filesharer on his server, doesn't have such a distribution copyright.

[perdidochas]

psholtz wrote: perdidochas wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: 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.
Hollywood's entertainment Megaloposis is built partly upon outright theft, and partly upon the complete rape of all U.S. copyright law.

When the Constitution was written, I think that copyrights were valid for something like 7 years. Today it's over 100 years. No (normal) human being lives to be 100 years old, although corporations (obviously) can. So just as obviously, copyright law has been subverted and no longer protects the creative interests of the artist (i.e., individual who wrote it), but instead protects only the financial interests of the Communist Corporation which holds the copyright.

I agree to a large extent with what you say.

Am I right to imply from your post that you would view intentional violation of Copyright Act as a sort of civil disobedience? Like tearing up draft cards and burning the flag and such?

As in, I don't care so much for personal benefit from ripping off music, it's that I am doing it as a protest against unjust laws! :)

I would only agree if you were also participating in legitimate protest, and had been involved in such for some time. What have you done to inform your congressman that you disagree with the extensions in copyright,etc.? I agree that the extensions have been absurd--when copyright law began, copyright owners had 14 yrs, which could be extended another 14 yrs. That went to 28 yrs, with a 14 yr extension. That went to 28 +28yrs at the turn of the 20th century, and then to life +50 (in 1976) (which has been the international convention since 1886), and finally to life + 70 in 1998. I have no problem with copyright, I just think that we should go back to closer to the original--say life + 14 yrs. This would allow the owner of the copyright the chance to make a good living from his work for his lifetime, yet open it up fairly quickly after his death.
What I just highlighted in bold is a lie.

Do you think Beethoven or Mozart would have been what they were if they had just written one symphony, and then "lived" off that for the rest of their lives? Are you insane? That's *not* the kind of protections that were intended w/ copyrights. Copyright is supposed to protect the creative expression of an artist for a limited, at the cost of the work ultimately passing into the public domain (at a later date).

In the current model, w/ copyrights as long as they are, you're only protecting the finances of the corporations, not the creativity of the artists.

1) Should't Beethoven or Mozart been able to live off of royalties? Truly creative people (or those that love performing) aren't stopped by being able to live comfortably. Look at the Rolling Stones--they have no need to tour, they are all have as much money as they can reasonably spend.

2) I agree that the current copyright law is too long. I propose life +14 yrs as a reasonable length of time.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Tell it to the Founding Fathers.

US CONSTITUTION:

Congress has the power to
...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
k....I will. I disagree with them on this, and? They were not deities, they made mistakes. I would also tell them that I think their decision to allow slavery was wrong, so what?

Well, our country, in its short time existing, has had more than it's fair share of inventors. I think our reasonable patent laws have to do with that. An inventor needs to be able to profit off his inventions. Patents allow for that. Copyrights are the same.

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: But to return to where we were before the digression, since you recognize the difference between copyrighting ideas and copyrighting expressions, would you care to come up with a different response to my argument:
Ah, ok, I see where we are crossing here. I shouldn't have said "idea". My bad.

Expressions are not real property, in my opinion, hence the reason that I feel that it is innapropriate to assign to them a status of protection akin to "property rights". They are intangibles, the products of our mind, and the restriction of someone else using their (very real) property to create that same expression represents to me an injustice and a restriction, not to mention the damage to the general public to stifle such potential innovation.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for innovation and progression, which is precisely why I feel that this is unjust. Absent these laws, it would force companies to remain on the bleeding edge of innovation in order to retain their market position. Instead, they are allowed to rest on their laurels and the incentive to innovate is greatly reduced.

Yet, that isnt' happening. What company rests on it's laurels, in terms of relying on one invention? They aren't. The opposite would occur if patents weren't available. The payoff for R&D wouldn't be high enough if the company next to you could copy your design, and immediately use it at little or no cost to them.

Obviously, you're not an inventor or creator of copyrightable material.

[perdidochas]

Duchifas wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: But to return to where we were before the digression, since you recognize the difference between copyrighting ideas and copyrighting expressions, would you care to come up with a different response to my argument:
Ah, ok, I see where we are crossing here. I shouldn't have said "idea". My bad.

Expressions are not real property, in my opinion, hence the reason that I feel that it is innapropriate to assign to them a status of protection akin to "property rights". They are intangibles, the products of our mind, and the restriction of someone else using their (very real) property to create that same expression represents to me an injustice and a restriction, not to mention the damage to the general public to stifle such potential innovation.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for innovation and progression, which is precisely why I feel that this is unjust. Absent these laws, it would force companies to remain on the bleeding edge of innovation in order to retain their market position. Instead, they are allowed to rest on their laurels and the incentive to innovate is greatly reduced.

Copyright laws stimulate innovation and progression by providing financial incentives to innovators. If people have no incentive to innovate, most will not. Some will, but very few. If I am really good at writing fiction, but I know that the day I publish a book, it will be immediately published by 100 other people and I will not receive a return on my investment (of time and effort in writing the book), I will not write the book. Simple as that. It's not even so much a matter of wanting, as a matter of being able to afford to spend time on producing a creative expression which will not be compensated.

From the justice perspective, I don't see why the labor of your hands is so much more worthy of protection than the labor of your mind.

Exactly. While I believe that current copyright protections last too long (life + 70 yrs is too long), I think the concept is essential for progress.

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

Not unless you sell it, or play it in a business establishment.

What is the difference from taping a song off the radio & taking it from a internet site?
Shared internet sites (EMULE, SHARAZAA, etc), use files that are available from people on their network. THOSE people are allowing anyone to take the file that they put on their computer. Many times, these files are from CDs, DVDs, cassteets (etc) that these people originally purchased. So you aren't techinically stealing from these people (or the music/movie companies) because the people that purchased the files originally are allowing you to take their file.

Well, it gets a little more complex than that. The manufacturers of cassette tapes pay the music industry a certain royalty because of the use in copying music. The difference between file sharing and radio, is that radio has the right to broadcast (or give) the music over the airways. They pay for that part of the copyright (radio stations pay a yearly fee to different music publishers (ASCAP, for example) in order to have the right to pubicly play the music. Joe Filesharer on his server, doesn't have such a distribution copyright.

Ah so it seems to be 'boiling down' to the RIGHT to do something, in this case, distribute/share music. I am not an attorney, but why wouldn't that then interfer with people gifting music? I buy a CD, I liked it, but don't want it anymore, then give it to my neighbor. Seems to be about the same thing (buying a CD, giving it away vs buying a CD, putting the file on line for other to share). I guess the difference then would be that giving it to someone (gifting) would go from one person to another vs online going from one person to thousands. Hm...maybe I answered my own question...

[Todd D.]

Quote: Copyright laws stimulate innovation and progression by providing financial incentives to innovators. If people have no incentive to innovate, most will not. Some will, but very few. If I am really good at writing fiction, but I know that the day I publish a book, it will be immediately published by 100 other people and I will not receive a return on my investment (of time and effort in writing the book), I will not write the book. Simple as that. It's not even so much a matter of wanting, as a matter of being able to afford to spend time on producing a creative expression which will not be compensated.
I can certainly see that as being the case, I just think that in competetive markets, the opposite would be true.

Quote: From the justice perspective, I don't see why the labor of your hands is so much more worthy of protection than the labor of your mind.
Because the labor of your hands is a product of the labor of your minds.

Quote: Yet, that isnt' happening. What company rests on it's laurels, in terms of relying on one invention? They aren't.
Microsoft, Exxon, Disney, Sony, Macintosh, Nintendo (a fairly notorious case, I might add), etc. At one time or another, their copyrights allowed them to rest on their current inventions rather than pursue further innovation.

Quote: The opposite would occur if patents weren't available. The payoff for R&D wouldn't be high enough if the company next to you could copy your design, and immediately use it at little or no cost to them.
The open-source software movement certainly seems to run counter to that theory.

[cap'n queasy]

connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

Not unless you sell it, or play it in a business establishment.

What is the difference from taping a song off the radio & taking it from a internet site?
Shared internet sites (EMULE, SHARAZAA, etc), use files that are available from people on their network. THOSE people are allowing anyone to take the file that they put on their computer. Many times, these files are from CDs, DVDs, cassteets (etc) that these people originally purchased. So you aren't techinically stealing from these people (or the music/movie companies) because the people that purchased the files originally are allowing you to take their file.

It's not illegal to download music, it is illegal to share copyrighted material with the public.

Taping a song on the radia and filesharing are the same thing.

If you tape copyrighted material and play it in a public setting the RIAA can come after you. Same goes for playing a CD in a public setting.

I used to manage a restuarant a few years back and had had RIAA come in and try to do this. We had to stop playing personal CDs to avoid a lawsuit.