|
Grex > Music3 > #178: The Eighteenth "Napster" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 72:
| 
Apr 30 02:11 UTC 2004 |
Different ideals.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 72:
|
Apr 30 07:12 UTC 2004 |
Hmm.
|
twenex
|
|
response 30 of 72:
|
Apr 30 07:23 UTC 2004 |
Well, I don't necessarily agree. Of course, I don't believe in God, but many
of the things that the Bible proposes, "Love thy neighbour", "Thou shalt not
kill," etc., still make sense to me. If believing in God constitutes an
"ideal", then you're right. Otherwise I think you may be stretching that a
bit too far.
It's also true, of course, that it's by no means certain that all atheists
and agnostics believe in downloading, whilst not everyone who believes in God
is whiter than white.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 72:
|
Apr 30 13:52 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:28: "You shouldn't steal other people's stuff" isn't exactly an
exclusively Christian ideal, though.
|
other
|
|
response 32 of 72:
|
Apr 30 20:13 UTC 2004 |
Copyright violation is not theft.
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 72:
|
Apr 30 20:15 UTC 2004 |
Apparently, some would disagree. There's an anti-piracy organization over here
called the Federation Against Copyright Theft.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 34 of 72:
|
May 1 03:31 UTC 2004 |
Oh, that's why the conversation took off.
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 72:
|
May 3 16:59 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:32: It may not be theft in the narrow sense of the word, but it
*is* denying someone compensation for their labor.
|
twenex
|
|
response 36 of 72:
|
May 3 17:01 UTC 2004 |
Ah, so it's "being in charge of the Finance Department", then ;-)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 37 of 72:
|
May 3 18:25 UTC 2004 |
re #35: if I don't buy their product am I also "denying someone
compensation for their labor"? Pretty clearly few people would
argue that I am.
Let's imagine two scenarios, then:
In scenario A I do not buy their product and do not
infringe upon their copyright to obtain a copy unlawfully.
In scenario B I do not buy their product, but I DO
infringe upon their copyright and obtain a copy unlawfully.
The artist has the same tangible possessions and the same amount
of money in both cases, but by your definition one of these cases
is theft and the other is not. What, exactly, have I stolen?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 72:
|
May 3 20:37 UTC 2004 |
Ah, yes, the "but I wouldn't have bought a copy anyway!" defense. The
difference in the two scenarios is that in A, you're not getting
anything. In B, you're getting something for nothing, something that
cost money to create and produce.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 39 of 72:
|
May 3 23:57 UTC 2004 |
re #38:
> Ah, yes, the "but I wouldn't have bought a copy anyway!" defense.
I'm not defending anything. I'm simply trying to establish what has
been stolen.
It's clear why the copyright interests deliberately misrepresent
infringement as being theft, as it allows them to cast the debate in
terms that are much more favorable to their position. It's also an
implicit admission of their belief in the weakness of popular
agreement with their aims.
If we're going to have a useful debate about infringement (which seems
unlikely in any event) I'd prefer to be precise about what we say,
as sloppiness confuses the issue quite a bit.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 72:
|
May 5 13:04 UTC 2004 |
Are you arguing that intellectual property has no value? Or just that
"theft" is the wrong word?
|
twenex
|
|
response 41 of 72:
|
May 5 13:15 UTC 2004 |
Some people deny not just that intellectual property has no value, but htat
it does not exist. I believe Richard Stallman, the FSF of which he is a part,
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are three groups of them.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 72:
|
May 5 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 43 of 72:
|
May 5 14:56 UTC 2004 |
Heh.
I presume witting=willing?
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 72:
|
May 5 15:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 72:
|
May 5 16:14 UTC 2004 |
> (178) #40/44: David Brodbeck (gull) Wed, May 5, 2004 (09:04)
> Are you arguing that intellectual property has no value? Or just that
> "theft" is the wrong word?
In an argument it's traditional to respond to what your opponent wrote
rather than try to deduce telepathically what he meant and argue against
that. If you want to have a useful argument on this topic, don't start
by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is an "information
wants to be free" Slashbot.
I think I've quite clearly limited my objections to the misuse of the
term "theft." I don't see how I could have been any clearer, nor do I
see how you could deduce from what I have written that I am "arguing that
intellectual property has no value." Clearly it has value -- it is
bought and sold, is it not? The term "intellectual property" is a bit
of a misnomer, though, in my opinion.
Allow me to ask my question again: in the infringing case from the
two scenarios I outlined in a previous response, *what* has been stolen?
|
gregb
|
|
response 46 of 72:
|
May 5 16:24 UTC 2004 |
You have denied the profit that would have otherwise been made.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 72:
|
May 5 16:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 48 of 72:
|
May 5 16:36 UTC 2004 |
I'd like someone to go into RIAA headquarters and check
all their computer software to be properly licensed.
|
twenex
|
|
response 49 of 72:
|
May 5 16:37 UTC 2004 |
Good idea.
We at grex come up with SO many good ones, don't we?
|
gull
|
|
response 50 of 72:
|
May 5 22:37 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:45: Sorry. It's just that 99% of the time when I have this
argument, it *is* with someone who believes "information wants to be
free" and should never be bought or sold, only given away.
|
twenex
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
May 5 22:52 UTC 2004 |
Which is a valid opinion, like most others.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
May 5 23:01 UTC 2004 |
I don't think it's a valid opinion, personally. But then, most of the
people I know rely, in some form or other, on intellectual property to
make a living.
|