Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[04DarkShadowGT]

Could you please address the following, oh greatly adamant black & white one? You seem to have skipped right over it.



I'm interested to know whether you would ring the doorbell & ask them what they'd like in return for their exterior design ideas, or if they had licensed them from a designer & whether they have that designer's contact information.

Come on man, seriously? That is just a ridiculous argument.

Again, I've not been discussing legal merits... The EU just extended The Beatles' copyrights for another 20 years. Disney's Fantasia has been locked up in their "vault" for 71 years. When should these things come into the public realm? Some copyright holders simply charge too much, make it too difficult to read/view/play their works, or insist upon intrusive DRM. I support those who are worthy of support & don't support those who are unworthy.

They should come back to the public when the owners see fit. It is their property to do with as they wish. It is their goal to make money on their ideas/songs/movies/etc. It is not to make you happy. If you do not think its worth the time or money to buy something then don't buy it. But that doesn't mean it's right to steal it either. You are not entitled to anything from them. It is not your right to have easy and fast access to a movie or songs. If you want them, you need to buy them.

If you create the formula that is a cure for AIDS, you would be cool with someone copying your hard work and then giving it away for free. That's the same thing. I mean you cannot prove that someone with AIDS was going to for sure buy the cure from you, but you can prove that if they can get it for free that it certainly takes away a possible buyer.

By pirating music/movie/game/etc you are taking away possible buyers. The fact that if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't buy it is moot.

Whether a person chooses to not partake of a work or chooses to pirate that work is irrelevant. Either way, the copyright holder wasn't going to make any money from them. To think otherwise is foolish, IMO.

Its not irrelevant. You just think it is.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I fail to see how if I pay an artist for their work, why I should have to pay again to listen to it on another medium.

Even movies are legal to make copies of, if you do not distribute them and use them for only private use... since you paid for the intellectual property, you have the right to back it up.... you bought a license to view that intellectual property.

If certain corporations/agencies had it their way, this would not be the case... they have pushed real hard to have this changed in recent times.

Paying for the use of intellectual property is not the same thing as buying a physical item... it is the intellectual property you are buying... the medium is irrelevant.

The push for stricter regulations is not to safeguard intellectual property... it is to regulate distribution to the point where the medium itself is a protected service...

 

[Westside]

This thread hasn't died yet.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If this thread dies, I'll just copy it and start another one.

 

[Westside]

If this thread dies, I'll just copy it and start another one.

your funny, I like you.

 

[Prometheus]

If this thread dies, I'll just copy it and start another one.

But but but... I'll lose clicks into MY thread!!!

Oh noes!!!!





.


.

 

[steveh_131]

Just because you find it morally acceptable to steal does not mean its legal to do so or even really right to do so.

This is a bit of a paradox.

I find it morally acceptable therefore in my eyes it is right for me to do so.

I'm not saying I do so. I've given examples of all the things I've purchased.

 

[steveh_131]

Also to the point of moving things to your home theater PC, buy the blu rays that have the digital copy.

I believe this activity is technically illegal as is the software used to copy them, right?

Also do you know how long it takes to copy one and re-encode it to an h264 codec that doesn't hog up half your hard drive? It's ridiculous. Plus the same process of removing all the videos telling me I'm a criminal when I've already bought the stupid movie.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I believe this activity is technically illegal as is the software used to copy them, right?

Also do you know how long it takes to copy one and re-encode it to an h264 codec that doesn't hog up half your hard drive? It's ridiculous. Plus the same process of removing all the videos telling me I'm a criminal when I've already bought the stupid movie.

Yes and no I think....

It is illegal to produce and distribute tools that enable someone to circumvent copyright protection...

It is not illegal to possess software that is capable of circumventing copyright protection...

It is legal to make a copy of a disc you own... it falls under the fair use act.

So while that type of software is not sold in stores or distributed by US companies, I do not believe it is illegal to possess - and the process of backing up a disc is not illegal...

As long as the copy is being made in compliance with the fair use act, it is legal. Once the copyright is infringed upon, ie: sharing the movie, making profit without the correct license, etc... it becomes illegal.

Since audio discs generally do not have copyright protection (they must be back-compatible with older cd players), the point is moot when referring to standard cds - only dvds/blue ray type discs with copyright protection fall into this category.

 

[bigg cheese]

EMI used to use DRM on audio discs, and would install software upon insertion into a compatible device (computer). It quit in '07, but it wasn't unheard of.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes and no I think....

It is illegal to produce and distribute tools that enable someone to circumvent copyright protection...

I do not believe it is illegal to possess software that is capable of circumventing copyright protection...

It is legal to make a copy of a disc you own... it falls under the fair use act.

So while that type of software is not sold in stores or distributed by US companies, I do not believe it is illegal to possess - and the process of backing up a disc is not illegal...

As long as the copy is being made in compliance with the fair use act, it is legal.

Since audio discs generally do not have copyright protection, since they must be back-compatible with older cd players, the point is moot when referring to standard cds - only dvds/blue ray type discs with copyright protection fall into this category.

Yeah I remember a lot of the programs I used to use were discontinued due to illegalities.

However, is it legal to remove the trailers and advertisements and anti-piracy ads?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

EMI used to use DRM on audio discs, and would install software upon insertion into a compatible device (computer). It quit in '07, but it wasn't unheard of.

Yes, I remember those discs... it caused a huge stir in the IT world...

It was basically a rootkit, and it installed before you were even given the chance to accept or decline the agreement...

That did not work out very well for the content provider...

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

However, is it legal to remove the trailers and advertisements and anti-piracy ads?

That is a good question... and I do not have the answer

I see no reason why it would be illegal to do so... you are not interfering with a commercial screening... but I do not know enough to give you a definite answer on that...

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Come on man, seriously? That is just a ridiculous argument.

It's not a ridiculous argument if their house was designed by a custom architect who takes pride in their exterior design skills. Those skills are no less valuable than musicians, directors, writers, etc...yet you're blowing them off , seemingly because the MAFIAA doesn't have a stake in them.

They should come back to the public when the owners see fit. It is their property to do with as they wish.

The thought that ideas can be property is ridiculous at its core.

It is their goal to make money on their ideas/songs/movies/etc. It is not to make you happy. If you do not think its worth the time or money to buy something then don't buy it. But that doesn't mean it's right to steal it either.

I don't care what their goal is. If they send their ideas out into the world & vainly attempt to protect them in a faux-secure wrapper which is too cumbersome to legally utilize, people will simply copy them for free. Please stop comparing copying to theft...they're not synonymous.

You are not entitled to anything from them. It is not your right to have easy and fast access to a movie or songs. If you want them, you need to buy them.

As a human being, I do feel entitled to partake of the accumulated ideas & arts of mankind which enter the public place. I feel responsible to financially support the ideas & arts in which I find value. However, I don't always feel responsible to support them at the level they're requesting. Movies & albums are NOT worth $20ea. All but a few videogames are NOT worth $60. Audiobooks are NOT worth $100. eBooks are NOT worth $20. With videogames, for example, I generally wait for them to go on sale for 75% off on Steam. A rare exception to this will be Battlefield 3, which I've been anticipating for about 6 years. I'll gladly pay $60ea for two copies, in order to emphatically vote for continued innovation.

If you create the formula that is a cure for AIDS, you would be cool with someone copying your hard work and then giving it away for free. That's the same thing. I mean you cannot prove that someone with AIDS was going to for sure buy the cure from you, but you can prove that if they can get it for free that it certainly takes away a possible buyer.

I'd immediately release it under the GPL & wish my competitors luck in reproducing it & bringing it to market more efficiently than I can.

By pirating music/movie/game/etc you are taking away possible buyers. The fact that if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't buy it is moot.

Someone who wouldn't exchange money for a particular idea/art is NOT a possible buyer...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There are three possibilities when someone disagrees with you.

1. They are trolling.
2. They are stupid.
3. You are wrong.
4. You are both wrong.

Believe it or not, numbers 3 and 4 are a possibility. Even for someone as brilliant and perfect and educated as you.

Why do you say there are three possibilities and then list four? Which is it?

BTW there are so many more before you get into variations.

What this thread has shown me is that old-minded people who think this discussion is still about music on CDs believe one thing, in general, while young-minded people who are personally effected by Blu-rays with 5+ minute of unskippable advertisements, home-theater PCs with the ability to digitally store thousands of movies, smart phones capable of watching theatrical releases, and computers capable of playing videogames believe another thing, in general.

What it tells me is that old-minded people know the definition of stealing and understand the concept of intellectual property. Young-minded people don't.

 

[Bunnykid68]

What it tells me is that old-minded people know the definition of stealing and understand the concept of intellectual property. Young-minded people don't.

FTW

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What it tells me is that old-minded people know the definition of stealing and understand the concept of intellectual property. Young-minded people don't.

Steal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Copy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Intellectual Property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Criticism

Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at intellectual monopolies as harming health, preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses, and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents and business method patents.

There's a refresher course for you.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Steal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Copy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Intellectual Property:
Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There's a refresher course for you.

Three flights of stairs and that's all you got? Wikipedia made me do it?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Three flights of stairs and that's all you got? Wikipedia made me do it?

That's all it takes to show that media-copying =/= stealing & not everyone is in agreement that IP rights can/should be protected. What more do you need?

Obviously you & I are in polar-disagreement on everything except the idea of at least some citizens possessing firearms. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind about IP rights...I'm just presenting my argument that it's not necessarily immoral to make a digital copy of something. "Educational purposes" is already an exemption most agree with...but I wonder if some would extend that exemption to me making a copy of AutoCAD for learning purposes at home.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That's all it takes to show that media-copying =/= stealing & not everyone is in agreement that IP rights can/should be protected. What more do you need?

Obviously you & I are in polar-disagreement on everything except the idea of at least some citizens possessing firearms. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind about IP rights...I'm just presenting my argument that it's not necessarily immoral to make a digital copy of something. "Educational purposes" is already an exemption most agree with...but I wonder if some would extend that exemption to me making a copy of AutoCAD for learning purposes at home.

What kind of job do you do? Does it have anything to do with providing IP to the market?

Here's my personal take. There are two types of property - tangible and intellectual (IP). We probably agree that depriving someone of tangible property is theft (assuming all the elements are there). If I am wrong let me know.

There are two types of IP - IP surrounding design and IP that is desgned to be consumed. Product designs, architectural designs, eletronic design are examples of the first class. Music, and videoare the second. You could conside hardcopy books, DVDs, and CDs a hybrid of the two.

Intellectual property rights protect the innovator. IP is the crown jewel of any business. I own a dot com and a firearms manufacturing company. My world revolves around my IP. If someone can take what I have spent a lot of time and money creating without exerting the discipline and expense I have they will have an incredible market advantage over me. Why would I innovate? Why not just steal from everyone else?

You advocate a system that pays one time for a song that can be traded by people that do not pay for it. There is no way to recover the cost of the production of music, videros, etc when people who are otherwise obligated consume it for free. Hate the music companies all you want but quality music will die without their business model. Why would a producer pay to develop a movie project if everyone just downloads it for free? You advocate actions that would kill these industries if ideals were implemented on a wide scale.

IP rights aren't about the government picking winners and losers. They aren't about protecting monopolies or outdated business models. They exist to ensure that people and organizations that create intellectual property are properly compensated for the output of their work, whether it is for building or selling a car, writing a computer program, or producing and selling a song.

I get that you don't like intellectual property rights - your views are classic anarchist. I think that people are entitled to the wealth of the fruits of their labor.

I think people that steal other people's IP are thieves and should have the s**t beat out of them. They should be bankrupted and should have to pay obsene amounts of restitution for their theft.