Posted on 03/24/2009 9:47:56 AM PDT by max americana
>> I am pointing out that a “stolen” song and a non-sale are, in practical terms, exactly the same thing as far as the music label is concerned (in both cases, they lose nothing and gain nothing). If you’re going to let them prosecute for the former, why not the latter?
Though it may be similar “in practical terms [...] as far as the music label in concerned,” it is not the same thing in real terms, or as far as the law is concerned.
In one instance, the illicit downloader is using the property of the record company and artist without compensating them. In the other, the non-sale is choosing not to use the property. These are wholly different in legal terms.
It is legally irrelevant that intellectual property can be endlessly reproduced, while vegetables cannot.
>> People enjoy listening to songs they don’t pay for on the radio all the time. Are they stealing?
No. The radio station is paying the label and the artist for the right to play the song.
>> Because the artist loses nothing, zero, zilch, nada?
The artist doesn’t have to “lose” anything. His intellectual property was taken without compensation. It is irrelevant that intellectual property is not physical property to be “lost” — its use (absent compensation) is a violation of the property rights of the owner.
SnakeDoc
No, intellectual property is property. Again we’ll go to the dictionary:
the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
You're certainly in the minority on this one, and I'm curious as to how you justify it, since intangible things can clearly have value.
How would you account for that value if it isn't property?
>> No, fair use does not allow you to tamper with a copyright management device. That is a violation of the DMCA, fair use or not.
Fair use absolutely does allow for transfer between formats. I will concede that dvd and record companies might disagree, but they are being excessively zealous in their defense of copyright law.
Purchasing a DVD or CD necessarily includes the right to transfer the content for personal and private use. The private use of the intellectual property content of the CD or DVD is precisely what the consumer is paying for.
SnakeDoc
I'm not talking about the station -- what about the lazy, thieving moochers listening without paying a dime?
Though while we're on the subject... in the U.S. radio stations generally do NOT pay the label. As I understand it, law requires that songwriters be paid a royalty, but performers get nothing other than exposure, and RIAA isn't happy about it:
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/02/new-radio-pay-to-play-bills-pit-riaa-against-broadcasters.ars
So are the radio stations stealing?
Anyway, since when is ‘enjoying’ something a crime? People enjoy listening to songs they don’t pay for on the radio all the time. Are they stealing?
________
LOL. You do realize that the radio stations have to compensate the owner of the song, right? You are familiar with BMI and ASCAP, right? The artist is compensated for the number of times the song is played on the radio.
>> “Intellectual property” is a fictional concept.
Nonsense. Intellectual property is the intangible fruits of the labor of individuals. Computer programs, movies, TV shows, music, etc. require significant time and financial investment to produce. The companies and individuals that invest time and resources into the research, production and distribution of these items deserve to be compensated when the fruits of their labor are appropriated.
>> Property is tangible.
Not necessarily. Unfortunately for you, the law disagrees.
>> If you steal some, there is less of it left than before. You cannot steal what does not exist.
The problem is, these things do exist — and it took the resources, ingenuity and talent of countless people to produce them. They are the owners of that which they produce.
SnakeDoc
That's not the issue, Snake. Even if fair use allows what you are doing (and it's not a settled issue), there is a separate statutory provision of the DMCA that makes illegal any tampering with copyright management systems, and it is pretty well settled that fair use doesn't apply.
Thus, let's say we both have DVD copies of the same movie, "Pulp Fiction." I bought mine in 1994 and there is no encryption; I can rip it right off the DVD and onto my computer. Arguably, that's fair use and I'm entitled to do that.
You bought your copy of "Pulp Fiction" in 2008, and on your copy there is a copyright management system that encrypts the DVD to prevent ripping onto a computer. You break the encryption and rip it to your computer. Even if your copying is fair use, your action of tampering with the copyright management system is, in and of itself--and apart from your copying--a violation of the DMCA.
ISP's are required to notify law enforcement if they become aware of child porn being passed around.
It turns out that child porn laws are the thin edge of the wedge of Internet regulation. This article mentions some laws regarding online file sharing. In Europe and Canada, websites that contain "hate speech" can be shut down and their owners fined or jailed. There has been some talk of banning sites that provide instructions on how to build a bomb or commit suicide. China restricts talk of democracy as well as all types of porn. Moslem countries would like to prevent access to sites that criticize Islam.
Some people will always be offended by something somebody else is doing online. Somebody will always want a new law.
>> I’m not talking about the station — what about the lazy, thieving moochers listening without paying a dime?
The radio stations pay for the right to broadcast the songs to the “lazy, theiving moochers”, free of charge, so that advertisers will pay for time on their station. So, no, radio listeners are not violating copyright. They’re listening to paid-for material with the full consent of the station that paid for it.
>> Though while we’re on the subject... in the U.S. radio stations generally do NOT pay the label. As I understand it, law requires that songwriters be paid a royalty, but performers get nothing other than exposure, and RIAA isn’t happy about it:
This is a contractual issue between the radio stations and the record labels, and labels and their singers and songwriters. It is a contract law dispute, not a copyright dispute, and thus has no bearing on this debate.
>> So are the radio stations stealing?
No. They’re paying according to their contractual arrangement. If some don’t like the arrangement, they can try to renegotiate the contract. Radio stations are nonetheless paying for the right to play these songs.
SnakeDoc
>> Even if your copying is fair use, your action of tampering with the copyright management system is, in and of itself—and apart from your copying—a violation of the DMCA.
Perhaps. I will admit to being unfamiliar with the DMCA.
When I run DVD’s through the computer, I run them through two programs — one to move the content to the computer, and one to convert the content to a useable Itunes format.
I’m honestly not sure what the programs do to convert the files to a useable format — maybe they do decrypt in violation of the DMCA. But it seems to me legally problematic to require an end user to know precisely what constitutes “tampering with a copyright management system” — particularly when the ripping and conversion is sometimes legal fair use, and sometimes illegal decryption.
I just know that these programs rip and convert the files.
SnakeDoc
I doubt you’ll run into any issues, but just be careful.
>> I doubt you’ll run into any issues, but just be careful.
I figure the same thing. It is arguably fair use, and completely harmless (i.e. no demonstrable financial damages) since I paid for the content and am not distributing it in any way.
Media companies are understandably reluctant to give an inch on copyright matters, and thus regard even “fair use” of intellectual property as a technical violation. I doubt it is an actual violation, and doubt even further that these companies are interested in chasing down people like me. They are interested in protecting their copyrights so that they have every tool available to nail true criminals (like the guy from earlier in the thread).
SnakeDoc
I’ve seen them do Deacon Blues live about 10 years ago. I admit...I actually cried....
Downloading from the Internet without paying the copyright owner of the item downloaded also applies to things other than music. So Huck, have you ever downloaded a photo (perhaps of a sexy actress or supermodel) without first getting the permission of the copyright owner of that photo? If you have, then I guess that makes you (in your own words) "a cheap rip off artist picking someone else's pockets".
Love Frostwire. It’s underrated and that’s a good thing.
Was that the tour after 2vN came out? I don’t think the came to AZ on that tour, really irritated me, more now that they played my favorite song on it. I love everything about that song.
United States copyright laws state that a photograph is legally copyrighted the exact moment that photograph is created. So, have any of you ever downloaded a photograph from the Internet without first getting permission from the copyright owner of that photograph? You seem to enjoy getting up on your high horses and preaching to everybody about how downloading music from the Internet without paying for it, or getting the copyright owner’s permission, is stealing. The same copyright laws also apply to photographs. So, have any of you ever downloaded a photo of your favorite actress or supermodel from the Internet? Or perhaps you download a “nudie” photo now and then? Did you get the copyright owner’s permission first? Come on, fess up. It’ll be good for your conscience.
Ah — the time-tested “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?” defense. Won’t hold up in court.
SnakeDoc
I never said I was without win. I’m simply pointing out the fallacies people are using to pretend they’re without sin. I’ve violated copy right law plenty of times, I’ve just never tried to excuse it as some sort of protest against invalid laws, or not stealing because intellectual property isn’t the same as a tomato.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.