|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 206:
| 
Sep 15 21:10 UTC 2000 |
#106> I answered that questionin the other item. And I don't honestly care
if you take my argument seriously. Theft is theft.
|
scott
|
|
response 110 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:10 UTC 2000 |
Anyone know where I can get a media tax refund for the MDs and cassettes
(quite a few over the years) I've used for my own recordings?
|
krj
|
|
response 111 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:12 UTC 2000 |
Speaking of the media royalty: CNN.com ran a story which reports
that Germany is planning to put a similar tax, but a more whopping one,
on computers, modems, CD burners, and presumably other items.
The article says they were thinking about a 30% levy. This would be
handed over to the copyright industry.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 112 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:34 UTC 2000 |
I too, would like to know how the blanket royalties from blank
media sales are paid. It probably benefits the biggest record companies
the most.
I could see where a small time artist, suddenly hot, could have
more copies made onto blank media than 'e first published.
|
brighn
|
|
response 113 of 206:
|
Sep 15 22:36 UTC 2000 |
Let me clarify my position; I forget that these are linked items, and so not
everyone has read my posts on the subject already. Plus, I'm not sure I've
specifically addressed the law issue.
I rarely debate law. I debate ethics. As far as I'm concerned, the laws in
this country are so confusing and overbearingly anal-retentive that it's
pointless to discuss them. Therefore, the "lega" definitions of words are not
the most relevant to me.
(er, legal)
Copyright infringement is theft, asthe term "theft" is defined in common
parlance; I provided that definition elsewhere. Napster encourages copyright
infringement. Actually, I have no particular opinion about whether Napster
and like companies should operate; my thesis has and will continue to be:
People who use Napster or any other system to infringe on legal copyrights
are committing an immoral act. I call this immoral act "theft", as do many
others.
I have no particular problem with copyright infringement per se; I personally
find it excessive that the RIAA would get so irate about it. As immoral acts
go, stealing from the rich is fairly low on the burn-in-hell scale, especially
if yo're taking a copy, and you wouldn't normally have purchased it anyway.
I also agree with the argument that distributing "samples" for free encourages
sales, and so in the long run the benefit to the company probably outweighs
theallegedly lost sales.
The crux of my thesis doesnt concern all that. It concerns the simple fact
that people who infringe on copyrights are committing an immoral act, and all
the justifying in the world isn't going to change that. It's a principle
issue: If your opinion is that it's all right to rip Lars off because Lars
and co are ripping you off, then say so. You're doing a bad thing in response
to a worse thing. Groovy. It's this sanctimonious "we have a right to this
music, and the RIAA is depriving us" attitude that I find distasteful.
I have home copies of things. Big whoop. It was inappropriate of me. Big
whoop. Ya know what else? I do 90 on the freeway. I'm rude to people now and
then. I yell at my cat when I'm in a bad mood. Those are all roughly the same
as macking some track from some superstar. And if I were scolded for any of
them, I'd say, yeah, I ain't perfect, but I try. I wouldn't say, "Hey, I have
a right because..." (well, maybe with the speeding, but that's because if you
do the speed limit in some areas, youre more of a danger..).
So whether you want to call it theft or infringement, polygon, the point is
the same -- there's no clear legal or moral justification for making illegal
copies of copyrighted materials.
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 206:
|
Sep 15 23:04 UTC 2000 |
Re #112: I'm curious about that, too. The royalties are interesting because
they basically are saying, "we're assuming you'll pirate music using this
stuff, so we're going to make you pay us now."
The RIAA's position, then, is basically that audio burned on a CD-R data
blank is an act of piracy you can be sued over, even if the same audio would
be legal if you put it on a DAT tape. Well, not 'legal', maybe, but you're
immune from suit. This also means there is *no* legal way to listen to
copyrighted music on devices like the MP3Trip MP3 Discman; even if you own
the CD, the act of MP3'ing the songs on it and putting them on a CD-R is
illegal. This is utterly bizarre law.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 115 of 206:
|
Sep 15 23:48 UTC 2000 |
re #113: When you say things like "I have no particular problem with
copyright infringement" and then turn around and talk about it being
"an immoral act" you send out some seriously mixed signals. What, if
anything, is the distinction in your mind between "immoral" and "illegal"?
re #114: The law on these matters is bizarre because it has essentially
been written by the copyright holders. There are only a few small groups
who lobby against copyright extensions, additional restrictions, etc, and
their resources are dwarfed by the movie studios, record companies, and
book publishers whose interests all lie in the opposite direction.
If these laws seem strange compared to other laws, it's because other laws
are usually written with some sort of consideration given to the public
interest..
|
russ
|
|
response 116 of 206:
|
Sep 16 05:30 UTC 2000 |
Re #96: So, in this "theft", what was taken?
Look at the Constitution, Paul. Copyright is a legal fiction which
is supposed to exist for the public good, as an incentive for authors
and publishers to reveal their creations to the public. They are
allowed to exercise a limited monopoly over copying for the term of
the copyright, after which the work goes into the public domain and
may be copied and used freely by the public.
There are limits on copyright even during its term. Fair use is a
label describing one set of limits. If you copy a work or part of
a work, if that copying is done under fair use the copyright owner
has no grounds for action against you. There are many non-infringing
uses for copies.
Distribution to strangers using Napster is probably an infringing use.
Regardless, it is not theft, as nothing is stolen. Stealing a book
on which the copyright is expired is theft. Copying a CD which is
under copyright is copyright violation. Two very different things.
Given the way that copyright law has been twisted to forsake the public
good for the monied interests, I'd say that Napster isn't a bad thing
at all. And I say this without having used or benefitted from it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 117 of 206:
|
Sep 16 06:44 UTC 2000 |
An act which is illegal violates public law.
An act with is immoral violates moral law.
What is stolen is the creator's right to control the distribution of their
work. Copyright is temporary because, it is assumed, the creator's rights on
distribution end shortly after their death. Copyright expiration is generally
based on the life of the creator.
|
tod
|
|
response 118 of 206:
|
Sep 16 11:38 UTC 2000 |
I like getting royalties everytime someone plays my songs in Europe.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 119 of 206:
|
Sep 16 12:06 UTC 2000 |
everyone should buy all their entertainment media in the far east, for pennies
on the dollar of u.s. prices.
|
drew
|
|
response 120 of 206:
|
Sep 16 20:31 UTC 2000 |
Napster Copyright Policy
Napster is an integrated browser and
communications system provided by Napster, Inc.,
to enable musicians and music fans to locate
bands and music available in the MP3 music
format. The MP3 files that you locate using
Napster are not stored on Napster's servers.
Napster does not, and cannot, control what
content is available to you using the Napster
browser. Napster users decide what content to
make available to others using the Napster
browser, and what content to download. Users are
responsible for complying with all applicable
federal and state laws applicable to such
content, including copyright laws.
Napster respects copyright law and expects our
users to do the same. Unauthorized copying,
distribution, modification, public display, or
public performance of copyrighted works is an
infringement of the copyright holders' rights.
You should be aware that some MP3 files may have
been created or distributed without copyright
owner authorization. As a condition to your
account with Napster, you agree that you will not
use the Napster service to infringe the
intellectual property rights of others in any
way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users
who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or
other intellectual property rights, of others. In
addition, Napster reserves the right to terminate
the account of a user and to block use of the
Napster service permanently upon any single
infringement of the rights of others in
conjunction with use of the Napster service, or
if Napster believes that user conduct is harmful
to the interests of Napster, its affiliates, or
other users, or for any other reason in Napster's
sole discretion, with or without cause.
In accordance with the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998 (the text of which may be
found on the U.S. Copyright Office web site at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/), Napster will
respond expeditiously to claims of copyright
infringement committed using the Napster service
that are reported to Napster's "Designated
Copyright Agent" identified below. If you are a
copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf
of an owner of the copyright or of any exclusive
right under the copyright, please report your
notice of infringement by completing the
following notice form and delivering it to the
Designated Copyright Agent:
NOTICE OF ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
1. Identity of the copyrighted work that you
claim has been infringed, or, if multiple
copyrighted works are covered by this
Notice, a representative list of the
copyrighted works that you claim have been
infringed using the Napster service:
2. Identification of the material that you
claim is infringing (including at a minimum
the user name under which such material is
available through the Napster service, and
the path and file name):
3. Your street or mailing address, telephone
number, and, if available, email address:
4. I hereby state that I have a good faith
belief that the disputed use of the
copyrighted material is not authorized by
the copyright owner, its agent, or the law
(e.g. fair use).
5. I hereby state that the above information in
this Notice is accurate and, under penalty
of perjury, that I am the copyright owner,
or authorized to act on behalf of the owner
of the copyright or of any exclusive right
under the copyright.
6. Electronic or physical signature of the
copyright owner or of a person authorized to
act on behalf of the owner of the copyright
or of any exclusive right under the
copyright:
Full legal
name:__________________________________
Napster user
name:__________________________________
All claims of copyright infringement should be
delivered to the following "Designated Copyright
Agent" of Napster:
Jonathan P. Earp
Napster, Inc.
1475 Veterans Boulevard
Redwood City, CA 94063
Voice: 650-482-9300 x8790
Fax: 650-482-9301
notice@napster.com
http://www.napster.com/terms/
|
gelinas
|
|
response 121 of 206:
|
Sep 17 00:15 UTC 2000 |
Re #117: No, "right of control" is not what's 'stolen'; *compensation* is
what's being taken. Infringing copyright means that the copyright holder
is not compensated for the copy.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 206:
|
Sep 17 04:18 UTC 2000 |
Not true. Infringement still takes place if the copyright holder distributes
their work for free but does not release that work into the public domain.
Unless the work has been released, it's illegal to copy work regardless of
the compensation or lack thereof (except as it falls under "fair use").
|
oddie
|
|
response 123 of 206:
|
Sep 17 04:30 UTC 2000 |
So if I download a legal mp3 released on mp3.com, for example, it's illegal
for me to put it on a disk and give it to a friend, even though they could
download exactly the same thing themselves at no loss to anybody?
|
brighn
|
|
response 124 of 206:
|
Sep 17 13:51 UTC 2000 |
Depends on MP3's release policy. It could be.
There are reasons why somebody would be willing to give something away for
free, but still insist that they be the only ones to distribute it. For one
thing, there may be elements of it that are necessary for the whole, that may
not be effectively communicated in copies. That's hard to see in the case of
music, but a short story may have been written with a specific font, links,
or page breaks that may be lost when passed along; or, more importantly, the
copier may decide to drop off the name of the author, either deliberately or
through oversight.
Also, companies may give something away as a promotion, taking the loss in
order to track interest in that product. A record label may be letting MP3
distribute so that the label can see who's interested in the music. The loss
in revenue is made up for a gain in market research. That benefit is lost if
people send copies to friends rather than having friends go to MP3 to
download.
I'm sure there are other reasons, too.
|
brighn
|
|
response 125 of 206:
|
Sep 17 14:03 UTC 2000 |
Frankly, I think this is why the whole issue is confusing for people... we
(Americans, especially, but capitalists in general) are taught to think of
our morality vis-a-vis property strictly in terms of $$$. If you've ever been
robbed, though, did you first fret about the money involved, or did you first
fret about the sense of violation, the emotional value of the stolen objects,
etc.? For many artists, and for those who first developped intellectual
property law, the issue isn't (solely) about money, it's about creative pride,
and the right to control what one has created. OF course, there's an element
of, "Hey, this is what I do for a lliving, I need it for my livelihood" --
and effect on market value is a major factor for determining financial
restitution in infringement cases. But there's also a sense of pride involved.
Actually, there's an item in the Music conf (from which I'm reading this
linked item) about "selling out," that is, when pop songs are used in
commercials. That would be another reason for wanting to control a freely
distributed work -- while the work is "free," it's not automatically the case
that free works may be used freely; I may not mind if people circulate my
writings free of charge, but I wouldn't want somebody gaining commecially off
of something I provided free, even if it's not the whole of what they're
doing.
|
oddie
|
|
response 126 of 206:
|
Sep 19 03:06 UTC 2000 |
The second half of #124 makes sense to me, but not the first. I was
hypothesizing about making an exact copy of the original downloaded file, so
any elements necessary for the whole in the original would also be present
in the copy.
I'm not sure about the "loss of control" argument of #125 either, but I'll
refrain from commenting on that until I've thought about it a bit more.
|
jep
|
|
response 127 of 206:
|
Sep 19 20:49 UTC 2000 |
re #106: The concept of "legal meaning" is different than the concept of
"truth". The word "theft" implies that you're taking something that
doesn't belong to you, and that you shouldn't take. Is it theft
if you're taking a rowboat without permission, in order to save
a child who is drowning? Of course not. "Murder" implies that you're
killing someone (or something) that you shouldn't have killed. It
isn't murder if you do it during a war, under the orders of a
responsible officer, within the requirements of international law
and your nation's military. These are legal, political meanings (the
lines of legality are drawn by politicians and people working for
politicians). They are *not* truth.
A significant minority (some 40% of the U.S. population; more if
the question is worded differently) believe abortion *is* murder; they
can't be dismissed as irrelevant by anyone facing reality. (And they
can't dismiss the opposing viewpoint represented by the law, either.)
A less significant minority believes copyright violation is "theft". If
they convince the state of Michigan to define it that way, the truth
doesn't change, even if the legal meaning does. Killing of the king's
deer used to be defined as a high crime; theft against the royal
personage and therefore, treason. People were hanged, drawn and
quartered for doing it.
It's too convenient to dismiss opposing points of view just because the
law right now happens to coincide with your preference. You appeared to
be doing that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 128 of 206:
|
Sep 19 21:00 UTC 2000 |
You should have included abortion (in the first two trimesters, etc) in
your original list of killing that is not "murder". Your subsequent
qualification of that is probably correct.
|
brighn
|
|
response 129 of 206:
|
Sep 21 13:48 UTC 2000 |
Is it theft to take a rowbnoat you shouldn't take in order to save a drowning
child? YES. Which universe are you living in, John? If you give it back, and
your intentions were good, like as not either the owner of the boat or the
court system won't punish you, but it's still theft.
Theft carries no implication of intent. Theft is easy: You possess something.
You don't have the right to possess it. You must have stolen it.
The sticking point, as I see it, is whether theft includes the component of
taking something from someone else, or if it can also include making a copy
of something you don't have the right to copy. Apparently, the legal
definition doesn't apply to the latter, but I think the vernacular definition
does.
This isn't an issue of a "less significant minority" (show me polls supporting
that, btw... you're surrounding by netizens, who seem overwhelmingly to
approve of doing what they please with other people's creative works, so your
view is tainted about what is "commonplace" in the mainstream), nor is it an
issue of what qualifies as "theft." The law determines what is legal, and has
already determined that copying a music file that you haven't paid for, but
which is oonly available at a price, is theft. The issue is whether Napster
can be held accountable for the actions of its users... that is, to what
extent a system can encourage or tolerate an illicit behavior before it's held
accountable for that behavior.
I'm surprised that nobody's dragged in the CDA and Engler v. Cyberspace,
because the core issue is similar. Napster isn't being taken to task for
copying a bunch of illegal sound files and telling the world to have at it...
they did no such thing. Napster is being taken to task for creating an
environment in which illegal behavior is encouraged, or at least not actively
discouraged.
The main difference between Napster and, say, Grex is that, while people do
illegal things with Grex as the medium, Grex was not designed for the chief
purpose of creating a climate which would lead to illegal behavior. While
Napster nominally warns about copyright infringement, their soul raison d'etre
is the exchange of copyrighted files, SOME of which may have been partially
or fully released into the public domain. Napster itself has admitted (or,
better said, alleged) that it has no control over the files that are traded.
(soul=sole, a few lines back. Damn homophones.)
|
jazz
|
|
response 130 of 206:
|
Sep 21 14:27 UTC 2000 |
I'd thought that the chief purpose of Napster was to exchange MP3
format music. Now MP3 format music doesn't have to be illegally acquired.
A number of artists legally give out their music for free. And Napster was
more than willing to work with the RIAA on creating an encrypted standard to
ensure that people wouldn't steal copyrighted works.
|
polygon
|
|
response 131 of 206:
|
Sep 21 18:13 UTC 2000 |
Re 129. "Theft carries no implication of intent. Theft is easy: You
possess something. You don't have the right to possess it. You must
have stolen it."
<polygon rolls his eyes> I realize that you don't give a damn about what
words mean, but I don't even know where to begin explaining how completely
wrong that is.
Just for starters, theft *does* require intent. Depending on the
circumstances, posession of a stolen item may be *evidence* that you are
the one who stole it, e.g., if you're caught with dozens of stolen jewels
running away from the scene of a smash-and-grab at a jewelry shop.
However, you might be the "fence" who bought the item from a burglar --
that is a whole different crime. You might not know that you don't have
the right to possess it. Circumstances matter. Intent matters.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 132 of 206:
|
Sep 21 19:10 UTC 2000 |
So if I stole something and gave it away, the person I gave it to would be
a thief, Paul? No. They recieved stolen goods, yes, but unknowingly. Thus
may be the case with Napster, as well. In many cases, an artist may have given
the music away, in order to gain publicity or for whatever other reason...
In others, it has been recorded illegally. Should I have to check every single
song that I download to be sure it's okay? How would I do this? Is it my
responsibility to assume the worst with every gift I'm given (if I don't see
a receipt, you stole it, therefore this is stolen merchandise...) or every
song I might download? Now, I happen not to use Napster, and most of the songs
I have downloaded have been from legally and morally fine sources, which I
can verify as having the artists' imprimateur. How-so-ever, what about the
ones which I can't verify? Should I assume that they're pirates? Or what?
Seems a little cynical to me.
|
jazz
|
|
response 133 of 206:
|
Sep 21 19:44 UTC 2000 |
I'd also wonder how many, for example, used CD stores stop to verify
that the CDs they buy and sell are not stolen from the artists in question.
I'm sure many people use used CD stores to fence what is in essence stolen
merchandise in much the same way (though with more impact to the party stolen
from) as Napster was used. Wherein lies the difference?
|
