response 147 of 206:

Sep 22 20:41 UTC 2000

        The creators of Mr. Fusion aren't rewarded, they'll've all signed
intellectual property agreements.

response 149 of 206:

Sep 22 21:48 UTC 2000

Queries for reality-check purpose:

If you steal a car for joyriding purposes and put it back unharmed, 
while the owner is out of town (and you know this), you haven't 
deprived the owner of its use.  Is this not theft?

There's a line in "Othello" about "who steals my purse steals trash ... 
but he who filches from me my good name takes that which enriches not 
him but makes me poor indeed."  Is Shakespeare violating the language 
by comparing slander to physical theft?

response 151 of 206:

Sep 22 22:28 UTC 2000

#146> A history teacher of mine once said that the difference between a
successful revolution and an unsuccessful one is that the successful one
suggests a viable replacement for the thing it's tearing down. He was
comparing the hippies (unsuccessful) to the American forefathers (successful).

So, be a successful revolutionary. Offer a viable replacement, instead of just
saying, "The current system stinks!" Nobody (well, except maybe David Geffen)
would suggest that the current system is perfect, but it accomplishes its
goals better than any other system that's been profferred. Don't whine,
proffer.

#147> They're rewarded by making $60K with a golden parachute, without having
to worry about sales and distribution. Damn fine reward. Really, it's
unfortuante that many engineering positions are generally tied to patent
agreements such as those in #148 (Val's father, for instance, did much of the
development of the "kneeling bus", busses for handicappers with hydraulics
in the axle to make it easier to enter and exit, but got no real credit for
it), but the company also offers something -- worry-free distribution. I've
resented my boss when our company has done flush, but now that our company
is having serious money problems, it's a nice feeling to know that I'll still
get that biweekly check, no matter what.

And maybe that's one solution to the creative/intellectual property issue in
general. There was a time when movie scriptwriters worked the same way as
everyone else -- they got paid a salary, and wrote scripts. Didn't matter if
the movie starred Garbo or Schliminsky, if it sold 5,000,000 tix or 5. Sure,
write enough crappers and you get fired, but one or two clinkers and you're
ok.

Some creative jobs are still like that. Copywriters and technical writers get
paid salary more often than commission, as do graphic designers. Convince
companies to "hire" a cadre of bands who would tour, release music, etc., on
salary. don't know how far that would fly, but frankly, that's what the Boy
Bands have already drifted towards (and that tradition is at least forty years
ago... The Monkees, The Jackson Five, The Osmonds, Banarama, Menudo, N'Sync).

#149> That's a wonderful line from Shakespeare.

Over the weekend, some punk kid snuck into our garage while Val was doing
yardwork and took her bike (the door was open for access). She chased him,
and he abandoned it a few blocks away. The police had already been called by
the time we got the bike back. Do you think they said, "Oh, well, you got the
bike back, no harm done, we won't look for him"? After all, at no point had
Valerie been deprived of the use of the bike... no theft, right?

Nope. The cops looked for about 20 minutes, and told us that the kid had a
history of making trouble and would probably be caught for something else,
and did Valerie think she could identify him if they caught him (she said she
couldn't)?

Sure, it would be a royal bastard who would press charges against someone who,
in a panic and emergency, "borrowed" a boat to save some drowning child. But
I do believe (and polygon can correct me) that it would be within their rights
to do so, even if the goods were returned in perfect condition.

response 153 of 206:

Sep 23 10:58 UTC 2000

(Yes, I would argue that taking and returning the rowboat is not theft,
but since I've been bashed for using legal definitions, I left that out.)

response 155 of 206:

Sep 23 15:18 UTC 2000

about 150:      I just wanted to have the shortest response in this item.

response 157 of 206:

Sep 24 07:49 UTC 2000

I guess it all depends on how you define "well-intentioned".  (I'd hate
to think there's a legal definition of *that*!)

response 159 of 206:

Sep 24 20:00 UTC 2000

Polygon, answer the question with one word:

Is it illegal for a private citizen to take an object which does not belong
to them, such as a boat, if they return it afterwards undamaged?

The acceptable answers are "yes" and "No."

No, there are no copyright infringers in prison (assuming that's their only
crime). What I meant, and what others clearly understood, is that there is
a sizable component of the prison population who are of the opinion that the
crimes which landed them there were not worthy to get them there (drug users
and date rapers being among them; also among them, "righteous" terrorists such
as those who blow up abortion clinics). There is also a sizable component of
the prison population who understand why they're there, and agree fully.

response 161 of 206:

Sep 24 20:21 UTC 2000

I can't imagine the answer is yes - that would make much car theft legal.

response 163 of 206:

Sep 25 01:15 UTC 2000

  I wish I had posted right after I heard the news reports, because I've
  forgotten important detains (such as the university in question) but 
  there were a couple of news stories last week about a college student
  whose computer and other belongings had been seized after his university,
  acting on a tip from the RIAA, notified local police that he was illegally
  sharing files through Napster.  

  I think we can expect things to go badly for the unlucky few who get
  singled out as test cases -- even if there's no judgment against them
  the cost of putting up a legal defense against an RIAA determined to set
  a precedent will be well beyond the means of most Napster users or their
  families..

response 165 of 206:

Sep 25 04:20 UTC 2000

Incidentally, polygon should tell the US Department of Justice that
infringement isn't "theft." The text of the "No Electronic Theft" act, which
is entirely about copyright infringement, can be found on the DOJ's government
website at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm

Of course, that link wouldnt actually yield anything, since infringement isn't
theft, and the DOJ would know that... right?

Doing some research of my own, it seems that definitions of "theft" vary by
area, while "larceny" has a stricter definition, and is actually what
polygon's been calling theft, and that "property" can in fact include
intellectual property.

I'm curious as to how polygon responds to the DOJ's even informal use of
"theft" to include copyright infringement... your move, sir. Or, should I say,
"Better luck next time"?

response 167 of 206:

Sep 25 20:08 UTC 2000

Tell ya what, polygon. Since you're prepared to dismiss all of my sources and
unwilling to provide anything beyond an "If I recall correctly...", I'll make
you a deal:

Let's stop using the word "theft" entirely, both of us. As far as I can tell,
there's universal acceptance of "larceny" and "infringement," while legal
sources differ as to whether "larceny" is a synonym of "theft" or a subset
of "theft." 

So I'll take back all of my comments about "theft" if you'll stop making
snarky comments about me being indifferent about the meanings of words and
buying into the propaganda machine. I am suggesting a bilateral cessation of
ad hominems in favor of mature discussion, and will practice a unilateral
cessation.

The distinction with the boat makes sense now that I think about it. The
relevant issue, as I understand it, is that the person who takes the boat
returns it without ever having inconvenienced the rightful owner (or any agent
thereof). So that's what makes it not larceny, yes?

I'm not sure about the relevance of the example. It's not like Napsterites
are planning on deleting the tracks from their HDs once they're done listening
to them (and, in listening to them, somehow saving the life of a drowning
child).

The example was provided, I suppose, to give an example of an act of taking
someone else's property that wasn't, properly speaking, larceny. Granted,
then. Meant to question my claim that intent is irrelevant to the act of
larceny (and, by extension, infringement). Not granted, because the element
that makes taking the boat not larceny is because the boat is put back... if
the boat were taken to save the drowning child, and then never returned, then
(by my understanding, and polygon, do correct me if I'm wrong), the act is
still larceny. 

That is, is a mugger not guilty of larceny if he mugs in order to feed his
starving children? What makes the act larceny is that there is no intention
to return the object that's taken... and that's where "intent" is relevant.
What I meant earlier when I said that intent is irrelevant to [larceny and
infringement] is that the person's INTENT -- that is, reason -- for taking
the object doesn't mitigate whether it's illegal (although it obviously
mitigates the extent of the punishment that's meted out). 

I was in a debate on software piracy in which one person argued that he wasn't
guilty of infringement per se when he used a technically illegal copy of
software if he fully intended to either delete the software after a
self-imposed trial of 30 days or pay for the software in full. I suppose the
same argument could be made by some users of Napster, as well... I've had
friends borrow my CDs to test drive them while they decide whether to buy
their own copy (by my understanding, a fully legal act, so long as it's a
legal copy). 

Personally, I still feel that infringement is infringement is infringement,
and if there's anywhere the analogy between larceny and infringement breaks
down, it's in the direction of making infringement a worse crime, because if
you abscond with someone's boat, you can make reparations later by returning
the boat, but if you allow 500,000 Napsterites to copy your Metallica MP3,
it's much harder to track down all of those people and make them delete their
copies (and many of them have probably already given a dozen friends copies,
and so on). The only reparation that can be made easily is to pay royalties
(which is what the RIAA really wants anyway, money money money).

Also, with the "test drive" issue (both for software and music), there are
enough resources out there that if a company seriously wants to allow users
to "test drive" their software or music, they will. If they choose not to
allow that to happen, that's their moral (and currently, legal) right, since
they came up with it in the first place.

Issues like mandatory licensing and Napster go against the philosophy this
country was founded on. Mandatory licensing, for instance, says that, while
the creator of art should be compensated for that art, the art itself belongs
to the culture, not the creator. That's simply not true. The spirit of
intellectual property law (at least, before the lawyers mucked it up in all
directions) is that the creator can decide whether to give the art to the
culture, or to hoard it. While the most moral course is to release it for
sufficient compensation to make a decent living (or for no compensation when
a decent living can be made elsewhere), it's a personal moral choice, and as
immoral as it may be to hoard cultural artifacts and demand excessive
compensation for them, it's also immoral to force your own morality upon
someone else by acting in a way that's indifferent to them.

There, that's my flag-waving, tear-jerking, anthem-playing, high horse stance.
I've already admitted that I have plenty of infringed-upon copies of things,
and will probably continue to have. Consider the academic: Most journal
articles are copyrighted by the publisher, not the author (in contrast to most
magazine articles and books), and so many professors can't distribute their
own articles to their own classes because it infringes upon the journal's
copyright. Regardless of where intellectual property started out, it's mucked
up now, no debates. 

So I'm not looking for some grand return and deletion of all things infringed.
My beef is with people who freely infringe upon copyrights and show no remorse
at all. I infringe; it's legally and morally wrong; in graduate school, it
was necessary for survival, and in the real world, well, I'm a pampered
American who's convinced he needs a ton of shit to survive. 

My beef is with Napsterites (and anyone else, for that matter) who decry the
evil RIAA and the evil Metallica and act like it's perfectly ok to do what
they do (infringe), and even a Good and Righteous thing, the same that people
who bomb abortion clinics because abortion is murder (in their view) cry foul
when they're arrested for it (which is what I meant by the prison comment,
and I wasn't the first person to make such a comment).

(And *NO* I'm not saying that macking a Metallica track off Napster is
anywhere near as immoral as blowing up an abortion clinic.)

I hope that's clear enough now.

response 169 of 206:

Sep 25 20:55 UTC 2000

#168, part 1> Getting fired and getting swallowed up in debt are two different
things. You get fired, you move on. You don't have a chapter 11 company around
your neck.

#168, part 2> Any use of a word that somebody doesn't agree with has become
"spin." Further discussion on this topic really doesn't belong here. Feel free
to start a linguistics item and tell me where it is. Otherwise, I'm done.

response 171 of 206:

Sep 26 01:03 UTC 2000

  re #167:  you paint with a pretty broad brush..

  I have a large collection (1300-1500, I stopped counting years ago..)
  of legal CDs and a grand total of THREE unauthorized copies of works
  which I do not otherwise own, both of which are recordings which can no
  longer be purchased (at least not new) in this country..

  I have never, even once, used Napster.

  I will admit to having a fair number of CDs (100-200) duplicated
  onto CD-R; after a theft from my car I am no longer willing to carry
  my sometimes irreplacable originals around with me..  According to
  what has been posted recently these duplicates, made for my own use,
  may be technically illegal -- I thought at the time I made them that
  I was entitled to make and keep copies of legally purchased works for
  archival purposes.

  My objections to the behavior we see from the RIAA and the record
  companies are not founded on a desire to listen to all of the music
  I want for free, nor on any nonsensical anti-capitalist conviction
  that property is theft (there's that word again..) or any other such
  foolishness..  I'm upset with them because:

     a) they are not responsive to the desires of consumers,
     b) their hypocritical posturings about "artists' rights" are
        extremely distasteful to me,
     c) they are engaged in a methodical campaign to use leverage
        the money and influence they already have to get the government
        to give them even MORE control over the way customers may use
        their products and they have far overstepped the traditional
        compromise position between author's/publisher's rights and
        consumer's rights.