Posted on 04/29/2003 1:09:02 PM PDT by Mister Magoo
There are many lucid, well-reasoned posts on this thread. Yours is not one of them.
Please fill us in. What are your credentials that allow you to "get it" while those of us who disagree with you do not?
If copying is not stealing, why does the word "copyright" even exist? Could it be that it exists to define and allocate the right to copy? And, dare I say, could that imply that such right is not universal?
Not unless the government makes it impossible for artists who want their music to be shared to release it in a format that makes that possible. Of course, the RIAA would be opposed to that to, even though they have no moral reason to be, since it would undercut the power they have with the radio industry.
posted by Petronski
You presume a lot. But my illustration is not a 'specious argument.' It is an example.You're pretty fast with your accusations about breaking of the law. I'm having a discussion, you and Poohbah are making hysterical and unsubstantiated accusations.
It's unbecoming . . .
I'm moving over to the Tel Aviv homicide bombing thread
Pardon me, you are right; that should have read "specious example".
I've accused you of nothing. I did say that downloading the intellectual property of others is theft under the law. You're pretty fast with your accusations that I accused you of anything. If you insist on calling the law "unsubstantiated accusations" and "hysterical", we are unlikely to break the communication gap. I answered your question; you answered with ad homonym attacks. That's unbecoming, imho. Don't let the door hit ya . . .
posted by Not Insane
Interesting. When we buy microsoft software, we buy multiple licenses, as opposed to multiple copies. We own the right to operate on a set number of machines. We make backup copies and do so completely legally. When I buy a CD, I am buying the music on the cd. Technically, I can not only make ten copies, but if I have one copy playing in the living room, and another playing in my car stereo, I am breaking the law.
Exactally.
And that is the problem here. Technology has so blurred what is legal, what is not legal and what is technically legal but ignored, that the individual is subconsciously given the percieved right to make up his or her own mind, based on "intent."
That's BS. Technology blurred nothing; it just made it easier for people to break the law without consequence. Now that possible consequence rears it's ugly head, those people pretend things are blurred and that their "rights" are being trampled - but the law has never changed. Whether they react with bluster, threats, insults, justifications or fear and loathing - the law has remained constant. The only blur was a lapse in moral responsibility on the part of people breaking the law without consequence. Rather than change the law; they have challenged it, derided it and ultimately ignored it, but blaming technology for blurring it is another specious argument . . . er, example. It sounds good, but it's fallacious.
Because there is nothing tangible involved, and often it is something the person never would have bought, the moral lines tend to get blurred in the human mind.
Property, whether physical or intellectual is tangible - otherwise it could have no value. Whether a person would have bought it or not is a red herring. The moral lines based on the law have not changed, only the technology that made it easy to disregard the law. The tolerance of breaking the law has grown in direct proportion to the frequency - which may indeed make the law unenforceable without drastic and severe actions. RIAA are being crucified for even contemplating enforcement which seems to illustrate Poohbah's earlier, "freedom requires self-restraint" statements.
Is it moral to step on an ant on purpose? How about run over a possum on purpose?
And this bears on the discussion how?
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)You can look up "copy" yourself, if you wish, and compare. No one is missing his/her property if you copy a file. As for the copyright laws being universal, they're totally arbitrary, capricious, vary from country to country, which is to say (as an example) you could be be copying an MP3 file of Madonna's latest masterpiece while sitting at a computer in Ruthenia and not be "stealing". More, as you must know these laws have recently changed in this country.steal (TAKE AWAY) verb [I][T] stole, stolen
1 to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it: She admitted stealing the money from her employers. The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen. They were so poor they had to steal in order to eat.
In some poor communities, picking up unattended property is not considered stealing, did you know?
In this case, and in many similar situations, we allow loud, well organized interest groups to tell us what is moral and what isn't! Planned Parenthood, anyone? ACLU? And we (usually) accept their judgments without thinking! Where have the high horse riders been for the past 45 years since copying phonographic recordings have become possible and quite common? Why an outrage now? Has this become an issue now through an organic process, by some miracle of spontaneous combustion or is somebody pulling the puppet strings and manipulating public opinion?
Oxford PhD in Linguistics. Next question?
I'm not concerned. Anything that can be digitized will be swapped.
. . . And anything that can be photocopied, photographed, counterfeited or knocked-off will be bartered, sold or given away; but it's still against the law.
I'm not a church-lady, really - but, I do have an interest in the music industry and copyright laws and I generally support all laws, even when I think it should be changed and I'm working towards that end. To do otherwise leads to chaos and ignorance imho. I see too many people ignoring the law, not working to change it, and too many people in denial about breaking the law.
An author/artist/composer/whatever's "rights" under copyright law have been significantly expanded over the last century, and expecially greatly over the last few decades. It would seem that many of these "rights" have been invented out of thin air.
Making copyright laws increasingly restrictive has not demonstrably contributed to innovation; much of the greatest music and literature the world has even known was produced when copyright laws were far more lax than they are today.
A hundred years ago, it would have been unthinkable that copyright law could be used to prevent the spread of songs 'by ear', or the public performance of songs so-learned. Not today--"Happy Birthday" anyone?
BTW, I suspect the real reason Disney et al. are seeking to make copyrights perpetual is not so they can continue to collect royalties on their old work, but rather to avoid having the new works come under competition from other works which--though much older--are nonetheless far better.
There is a difference between counterfeiting and copying. A counterfeit makes a false claim to being original; a copy need make no such claim.
BTW, let me ask a somewhat-related question: if someone purchases a printer (as opposed to, say, leasing it), does that person have a right to refill its ink cartridges, and to make such modifications to the printer or cartridges as are necessary to make them work?
That depends to what use the music is put.
BTW, one thing I remember thinking ages ago that record companies should have done (probably too late now) would be to provide a means by which people could show that they purchased particular music, but not make such tagging mandatory nor have it degrade audio quality as "watermarking" approaches do. Players would not require such marks to play the media, but would validate and display them if they exist.
The fact is that many consumers like to have their stuff marked as theirs. Press a button on my player and, if I've bought the disk, it shows the ID of the publisher and my name. Of course, the RIAA would hate having such a system be voluntary, but being voluntary is the only way such a system would be willingly adopted.
Why would people who want to have their music widely distributed have to have any encryption at all?
Isn't unbridled capitalism wonderful? For each new opera and symphony, we get 1,000,000 odes to raw sex.
Could someone please explain the difference between the following actions:
1. I connect a videotape recorder to my television and record a movie for later viewing. I view the tape at my own convenience and keep it. Is this illegal? If so, why?
2. I connect a cassette recorder to my receiver and record an FM radio broadcast. I keep the tape and play it when I wish. Is this illegal? If so, why?
3. I connect a minidisc recorder to my computer, and record a streaming Internet radio broadcast to MD. I play the MD at my convenience. Is this illegal? If so, why?
3. I borrow a CD from the local public library and play it 10 times on my portable CD player. Is this illegal? If so, why?
4. I borrow the same CD from the local public library and record it onto cassette tape. I return the CD to the library, and play the cassette tape 3 times. Is this illegal? If so, why?
5. I borrow the same CD in 3 and 4 above, and this time I play it 10 times on my computer's CD drive. Is this illegal? If so, why?
6. I borrow the same CD as in 3, 4, and 5 above, and this time make a copy of it in mp3 format. I return the CD and listen to the mp3 files 3 times. Is this illegal? If so, why?
7. I download files (selections from the same CD title that is available at my public library in 3, 4, 5 and 6 above) from "alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bluegrass". I then copy them to cassette tape. Is this illegal? Why?
8. I download files (selections from the same CD title that is available at my public library in 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 above) from "alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bluegrass". I then copy them to minidisc. Is this illegal? Why?
I realize there are subtle differences in the above examples. When one records from "broadcast" (television, FM radio, streaming audio), I am assuming that the "broadcaster" is paying some kind of compensation to the owner of the copyrighted material. I'm also aware of significant court cases from years past that give "end recorders" the right to "fair use" of the material (presuming that they record only for personal use and do not distribute or sell the material for profit).
But where does "fair use" apply to the case of borrowing a CD from the public library and then recording it as you listen to it? Certainly, it is legal to borrow the CD and listen to it. But where is the "fine line" drawn between listening (and recording) the same track from the radio, or from the [legally obtained] source from the public library? You still have a copy of material you did not "pay for".
In most cases, libraries do not buy the CD's that they have available for borrowing/listening - these are "donated" to them, placed into the library's collection, often "for free" (that is, the donator received no compensation for the gift, not even a tax deduction). Let's take this a little further:
Have not the audio NEWSGROUPS become the equivalent of "libraries" of a sort, repositories of "donated" music? Those who post to the audio newsgroups receive no compensation, can take no tax deduction for the material they are "donating". Once placed into the newsgroups, the material can be "checked out" (i.e., downloaded) by "vistors" to that newsgroup. A "cyber-library", if you wish.
I'm thinking that - in time - the concept of "fair use" will have to be expanded, or redefined. If it is "fair use" to record video source information from a broadcast source to video tape, how can it _not_ be fair use to record the same broadcast directly to digital/video hard disk?
If it is "fair use" to record audio source information from FM radio to cassette tape, how can it _not_ be fair use to record the same audio information from a streaming webcast directly to audio/hard disk?
Ultimately the question of "fair use" may transmogrify into something called "compensated use". That is, "fair use" will remain "fair" so long as the end user is not deriving income from the "usage".
Cheers!
- John
But the donor bought the recording, and presumably not on the black market.
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.