Christian teens stealing music

Denton Record-Chronicle ^ | 17 April 2004 | The Associated Press

[Robert_Paulson2]

"So can intellectual property be stolen?"

---

not if you still possess it after someone made a copy.
By definition, theft and stealing mean the owner does not still possess the item taken.

Folks want to redefine infringment as theft, to get public opinion to move to their side of the argument on moral grounds... but there is no changing the clear meaning of the word theft... no matter how hard the 'intellectual property' people want it to be.


This stuff was all pretty well defined via the betamax ruling and has since been attacked by the industry via the dmca... ultimately the outcome is still not resolved.

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm

In that ruling, to summarize: copying for reuse later, or rebroadcast when material has been publicly aired is legal. is not theft... but instead considered fair use... and when a copyright holder sells anything, or broadcasts anything, the FAIR USE rights ARE SOLD to the purchaser. the material of course cannot be resold...

What we are seeing here is a great divide between folks who agreed with and those who violently disageed with, the betamax ruling, whereby copying and rebroadcast, even sharing with friends via magnetic tapes and files was found to be LEGAL and proper use... as long as it was not commercial.

Many folks would overturn that ruling if they could.
I believe many would disagree with established case law and the betamax 'fair use' ruling if it were up to them.

I would not.
Overly restrictive interpretation of "Fair use" law came very close to shutting this website... even though fair use is very clearly a part of the first amendment.

Many mags and newrags want OUR type of blog off line permanently, and have gone to great expense to force jimrob to block our posting of their articles... even in textual definitions and summaries of their articles under 500 words... clearly not in violation of the fair use of their 'intellectual property'.

I don't believe you can own, or have a monopoly on an idea.
The Digital Millienium Copyright Act, funded by the media moguls, via what many believe resulted from significant and likely illegal payoffs to (then majority) republicans in the house and bi partisan (payoffs) to those within the senate... will eventually be overturned.

Why?
Because by changing the definition of a media from analogue to digital, one cannot actually take away the 'fair use' findings, stare decisis and established case law of the first amendment... no matter who it puts out of business.

Definition of "fair use" of course, remains an area in constant turmoil and debate. Current laws, clearly are in conflict. And we have not seen the end of the debate...


However, the courts have already found that fair use is NOT stealing... and even if misused, as long as no money is made, at worst it is considered ONLY copyright infringment and a civil matter. (this means burning a compilation of songs YOU own for your mother to listen to... is NOT illegal or stealing, but fair use, under the rebroadcasting provisions of the betamax rulings)

trying to felonise such action, or morally re-classify it as stealing is doomed to failure, it is also inflamatory and counterproductive to getting distribution technology to change... people have a sense that something is amiss with the 'all copies are theft' understanding of property rights. They KNOW instinctively that some sharing is implied in fair use, freedom of speech and interpretations of those in the realm of intellectual property. They also know that making copies to sell or put an artist out of business is wrong.

in other words, we can see that the folks convicted of felony payola scandals in the sixties, now will have to give up their buggy whip, skim off the top, business model for one that largely cuts them OUT of the profit picture... and face the extinction of their way of life. This happens to every business via 'survival of the fittest business model.'

Their mode of transporting music, via the old riaa payola mafia, has gone the way of the horse and the horseless carriage, in the realm of traveling longer distances.

real people who want to get to another state quickly, for business purposes, more often than not, will go by plane... instead of driving. or they telecommute via secured system tele-conferencing systems.

yes, the ferriers of the travel industry are mostly out of business today, and some older americans feel the poorer for it... reality bites.

I for one, prefer arriving in los angeles BEFORE I left chicago... instead of three days later... or three months later. I and the airlines have put the ferriers out of business, and thinned the ranks of horse traders... and dealers significantly.

reality always bites someone in the ass... aka, the wallet portion.
and the old WW2 era distribution mode of the RIAA via the vinyl stamped records and payola bribery, we can clearly see is in its final death throes. good riddance.

Nowdays you can buy a single song for as little as .50 cents. .99 on imusic. And yes, the RIAA hates it.

But it is pretty much over for them.
In another decade SOFTWARE will be distributed the same way.

And 'proprietary' systems of distribution and marketing will be gone forever. We either adapt to the new mode of communication, 'intelletual property' modes of distibution or we will go out of business.

case in point.
I went to buy the foo fighters latest cd... opened up the computer link at IRhapsody, listened to EVERY SONG on one CD and half of them on the other CD (a two cd set). It took me about 45 minutes to find out what I wanted to know... how GOOD is this cd?

I then bought that CD for 9.00. End of story.
17 good or GREAT songs for about 50 cents each.
I have spent several hundred $$ on music we purchase that way.

When I went to another location where they did not have preview software on hand, and I did not have my copy to check with on hand either... I walked out on a purchase of the several other pieces of some of the latest plastic.

You see, the store in question, they want full price for NO preview of ANY song, so you get a cartfull of potential crap, for a LOT of money. And of course, CD's are not returnable.

The industry is pounding on arguing about intellectual property but that is not what they are seeking to protect... it's their control and monopoly of distribution. Other models are emerging that will literally wipe them out. It's not possible for it to go any other way.

IF ONLY THEY would have gotten on the bandwagon, this constant bickering over fair use would be over and done with. As it stands, the powers that be are just salivating over regulation of the internet and computers... and using this argument, to justify expansion of federal powers to regulate international and interstate trade... and to get more 'campaign' contributions from the music distribution monopolists.

Won't work.
The cat is out of the bag.
Folks in the software and recording distribution career fields, are going to have to adapt, or face loss of their incomes.. because it is really and truly over. You already can't buy vinyl. Before long, there won't be an RIAA...

[Arthalion]

Actually, the truth is opposite. Intellectual property is a relatively recent legal invention, and while copying an IP protected work may violate somebody's legal rights, it is only tangentially a morality issue. Technically, IP laws are government enforced charity...they were created to keep the town bard from starving, or to help ensure that the poor inventor saw some kind of reward for his brilliance. Until this past decade, they have NEVER held the same legal and moral authority as property rights. The reason for this is simple...you can't actually "steal" IP. You can copy it, but you've only deprived the original owner of compensation, not of product. This makes IP theft a theoretical loss, not a physical one.

When you copy a record, you're depriving a person of their promised charity. While that certainly doesn't make you a nice person, it doesn't rise to the Biblical definition of theft and isn't sinful. When the person being deprived of charity is an institution operating in a manner that's Biblically condemned anyway, the water just gets that much muddier.

[Arthalion]

So can intellectual property be stolen?

No, because it doesn't exist. The very term "intellectual property" us a stroke of marketing genius invented by international treaty lawyers over the past twenty-odd years to give traction to their quest to tighten infringement laws. Arguing about compensation rights wasn't getting them very far, so they redefined their rights as "property". Once you convince somebody that a legal right is property, it's a small leap to justify calling the violation of those rights "theft". Using the WIPO model, any legal right can potentially be redefined as property if your lawyers are savvy enough, your congressmen are sufficiently bought off, and the mainstream media buy in enough to start using your new catchphrase in their evening news broadcasts.

So no, you cannot steal something that doesn't exist. You can certainly violate somebodies right to compensation for use during their copyright period, but you cannot "steal intellectual property".

[TheOtherOne]

Too much to reply too. But thanks, I read it and agree with some, disagree with some. There were a series of very interesting articles in Technolgy Review last month. A lot of support for your positions...and the other side as well.

(Argument for more free use)
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/readme_ideas.asp?p=1

(Rebuttal for more rights control)
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_rebuttal.asp?p=1

Not sure if these are the full versions of the articles or just a summary. So check if there is more links. If you want to. (I had to pay for the print subscription! LOL)

[TheOtherOne]

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_creators.asp

One more in the series.

[sauropod]

Serious question: If I buy a book or a CD or a movie for a set price at a department store (or Best Buy or wherever), at what point do I own the piece of property?

[buckleyfan]

Why not go beat the dead horse argument pile again, and see if you can come up with another phony analogy.

Nah, I've got a better idea. Why don't you download a bunch of cds or movies off of the internet, start "Robert Paulsen's file sharing service", and heck, you might as well even let the cops know what you're doing (because it's not stealing, right?)... And then tell all of your rationalizations to the judge. They're used to listening to so much hot air, and dismissing it as such.

[Robert_Paulson2]

actually, I saw and read those debates.
GREAT links you provided.

Most of what I said in my post was influenced by what I had learned in those debates.

Of course, I am no so eloquent.
This is after all a political blog.

Even on both sides of the argument links, it seemed to me that NEITHER side was willing to carte blanche accuse all downloaders of theft.

they sought a balance.
I like the .50 cent downloads on the internet.
I occasionally buy the 99 cent ones.

If more than half of the tunes on the I-rhapsody site, are good, I buy the CD... rhapsody is a legal download system used by retailers like best buys and others, to let you preview all of the music before you buy it.

Many posters assume if you discuss both sides of the issue, and consider where things are headed, you are not being conservative... their definition of conservatism is 'keep things the same as long as possible, so as not to rock my boat."

My conviction is, conservatism looks ahead at the culture, technology, and plans how best to position ones self so as to benefit from the change that is inevitable.

The disconnect I have from other conservatives is at times they want to stop the inevitable... instead of adapting to it in a way that benefits the future. I do find that troubling... we will never go back to the highly romanticized "leave it to beaver" days... nor should we.


thanks again for the links.
The whole debate was on cable... here.

[Robert_Paulson2]

stop trying to paint me as a law breaker...
or suggesting that I should break or have broken the law in any way...

You might find it more beneficial to go check the links that have graciously been posted by other posters above this one... Many cover several sides of the current debate, the legal arguments and current pending cases before district level courts... some apparently destined for the supreme court, that intend to use the betamax ruling as a backdrop.

Then you could get back to the thread with a useful and inciteful discussion, or perhaps an even handed presentation of your own opinion.

Otherwise forget posting to me again... or find somebody else to flame war with. I don't have the desire or time to waste burning your strawman arguments or endure your nasty ad hominem accusations/attacks of a personal nature.

good evening.
thanks.

[TheOtherOne]

Even on both sides of the argument links, it seemed to me that NEITHER side was willing to carte blanche accuse all downloaders of theft.

I am of mixed opinion, like most, on this issue. I am keen to respect the individuals ownership to their own ideas. At the same time, I also have downloaded more than my fair share of videos, audio files, heck everything I can find. But, none of which I would have purchased. I consciously do not make any of my files available to others. (bad manners, good morals?) I have no idea. I borrow my brother in law's CD's and load them into my itunes. One has to be their own judge of legality, risk, morality, and good old cost benefit analysis.

After reading those articles in print I had thought of posting a 3-part series on FR about the issue. Think I should?

Later.

[Robert_Paulson2]

After reading those articles in print I had thought of posting a 3-part series on FR about the issue. Think I should?

Later.

---

yes.
with the exception of 'all file sharers belong in prison' folks, there ARE issues of 'fair use' under the law that are being formulated and interpreted as we speak.

It's good for folks to be informed so that if they are vested in the old systems, they can adapt in time to benefit from the newer distribution methods... and perhaps divest themselves of the less efficient models left over from the post WW2 industrial culture.

In another two years MOST of us will have kicked radio and public tv out of our lives, replacing them with satellite and subscription services.

This means DEATH of the FM, payola stuff we see "generating play lists, to get sales model"... that hails back to the Glen Miller, Haley and the Comets generation.

Many of us already listen to, and choose and purchase our music based on what we hear on NON commercial stations over the internet. It is changing the landscape of who gets played, purchased and promoted to influences completely outside the comprehension of RIAA types.

In another decade, MY belief is that there will be no more record labels, per se, and all artists will have gone to 'free agent' status. This means the distribution leeches, and no-longer-creative (has been) types, will be broke and looking for work at the local Denny's... whereas the real producers in the music industry, will be calling their own tune.

[Marysecretary]

I do now. I never look at dates, only things that look interesting. Oh well. Thanks.

[buckleyfan]

stop trying to paint me as a law breaker...

Why, are you? I have no idea whether you actually engage in the behavior you go to extreme measures to rationalize here. Maybe when it comes to intellectual property theft, you just like to talk about it.

Otherwise forget posting to me again... or find somebody else to flame war with. I don't have the desire or time to waste burning your strawman arguments or endure your nasty ad hominem accusations/attacks of a personal nature.

Too late, I'll post to whoever I want to, whenever I wish, thank you very much. You see, what some people (such as yourself) view as an "attack" is simply anything that splashes the cold water of reality on your bizarre logic - rationalizations about criminal behavior that you've run through your mind enough times that you are actually starting to believe it. So continue to post links and spout your justification for theft. I read all I needed to know from your first post.

[Smittie]

I never argued for or against file sharing I just noted what the copywrite law says. Most were written before anyone ever thought about the internet.