response 36 of 206:

Sep 8 17:51 UTC 2000

  re #33:  So your argument is that it's not stealing because you were
  never going to buy it anyway?

  Out of curiosity, how much of that $1.25 do you think went to the studio?

response 38 of 206:

Sep 8 18:58 UTC 2000

Thats an argument for why it might be in the best interests of record
companies to tolerate the stealing that goes on on Napster. I am sure they
have considered it but have decided that the costs outweigh the benefits. 

response 40 of 206:

Sep 8 19:05 UTC 2000

Definitely read the Atlantic Monthly article on this. It's online at the
Atlantic website, and it has some fascinating data and historical precedent
that I'd never heard before. Pirating of music is nothing new, just in a new
format. 

response 42 of 206:

Sep 8 19:18 UTC 2000

"You can listen to any CD in a record store before buying - to 
preview it."   Where????   The last CD shop in Michigan which I know
allowed unlimited previewing was CD Emporium in East Lansing, and 
they closed a decade ago.

response 44 of 206:

Sep 8 19:24 UTC 2000

(Ken slipped in)

response 46 of 206:

Sep 8 21:21 UTC 2000

I'm going to put my little copyright essay here.  No slight intended to 
willard's other excellent Napster item, it just seems to fit better 
here now.
 
-------
 
Consider:  Copyrights have no moral force in our culture.
The right to tangible property goes back to the roots of Western culture:
"Thou Shalt Not Steal" is in the Ten Commandments.  And even a child 
sees that if I take something from you, you don't have it any more, and
this is a wrong.

But copying is different.  If I copy something from you, you still have
it.  The Lord did not say, "Thou shalt not copy thy neighbors' scrolls."

Copyright has never been an "absolute" right, in the sense that
most property rights are absolute.  (Let's wave off land-use regulations, OK?)
In the US, copyright law has balanced ownership incentives to
creators with access and "fair use" by the public, and the
scope of copyrights has been subject to adjustment through the years.
The Constitutional language which gives Congress control over copyright
law says that the purpose of copyright is public benefit -- *not* the
maximum profit to copyright holders.

Copyright is an economic regulation which only goes back a couple of 
hundred years, and it was designed to regulate the behavior of businesses.
It's only worked this long because until now copying machines, in the 
most general sense, were big expensive things which only businesses 
could own, and business are (1) relatively limited in number, and (2)
cost-sensitive to things like civil lawsuits.  So the civil court 
system was sufficient to keep the businesses in line.

In the 20th century, the ownership of copying machines has spilled
down into the general population.  And I had a flash of blinding
insight last night: so far, "Society" has refused to use the big
guns of copyright law against the public at large.  As the public's
copying activity has expanded, copyrights have been rolled back.

Legally, the first step was with the VCR.  In the Betamax case, the appeals 
court held Sony liable for infringement; we came very close, as a society,
to banning the VCR.  However, the Supreme Court made some new law 
out of whole cloth:  they arbitrarily decided to declare that   
"timeshifting" a TV show was not an infringement; and then they ruled
that because the VCR had newly-declared non-infringing uses, it   
could not be sued out of existence.  Copyright rolled back  
in the face of public copying activity.  

Though audio copying came first -- the music industry got really 
panicky in the heyday of cassette recorders, 
with a campaign about how "Home Taping Is Killing
Music."  -- the legal situation didn't resolve until later.
Widespread home cassette copying was tolerated for years -- I am unaware
of anyone ever being prosecuted for it.. 
Eventually in 1992, the Audio Home Recording Act 
defined a clear legal zone for private users to 
make copies without fear of being sued.  Again, copyright was rolled back.

I honestly don't know how the current struggle will turn out.
Congress gave the copyright industry and the courts a Great Big Gun
to use against the public in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
$1000 worth of illicit copies is now a felony
charge; by the standards of the law before 1995, this is draconian.

It's so draconian that the law has hardly been used yet.  Of the 
guesstimated 20 million Napster users, most must have $1000 worth 
of illicit songs, and so they would be slam-dunk prosecutions
under the law.  But the number of prosecutions under this
section of the DCMA is one: one poor student at the U. Oregon who 
had MP3 files on his web site.  And that prosecution was two years ago.

response 48 of 206:

Sep 8 22:23 UTC 2000

((I'm sorry, it was the No Electronic Theft Act which set a felony 
charge for non-commercial copyright infringements of $1000, not the 
DMCA.  I keep getting those two mixed up.))

response 50 of 206:

Sep 9 01:59 UTC 2000

Re #49: Yeah.  What gets me is that putting audio on a data blank is
apparently *always* an act of piracy, even if it'd otherwise be considered
fair home use.

response 52 of 206:

Sep 9 05:24 UTC 2000

Re #46: Ken apparently has a set of "absolute" laws that he follows,
while he facily ignores human laws. That is mighty convenient, to make
your own arbitrary laws. Thieves really love that theory. All of his
smoke and mirrors about "tangible" (property) and "intangible" (ideas,
concepts, inventions, compositions) are a lot of hypocracy and 
demagogery. In all of human history, what is right and wrong; what
is ethical and not ethical; have been decided by humans adopting laws
in one form or another. So called "property rights" are a human construct
adopted millenia ago, and which are now a serious problem as humans
become more crowded on the globe. Copyright laws are a human construct
adopted centuries ago, because prior to then there was little value to
individuals of their thoughts and inventions, as they could not be
defended. So "property rights" are fading, and "copyrights" are becoming
more important, as we shift from a culture of stuff to a culture of
ideas and information. 

response 54 of 206:

Sep 9 06:21 UTC 2000

((I'm also quite peeved that Rane has decided to attack my own personal
ethics, which he knows nothing about, based solely on my arguments 
and social observations in resp:46.  Rane, with regard to the topic 
currently under discussion:  I have *never* downloaded an unauthorized
piece of music from the net.  You'll have to explain to me the 
"hypocrisy and demagogery" in my essay.  Line by line, please.))

response 56 of 206:

Sep 9 11:38 UTC 2000

I'm a little surprised no one has brought up all the laws that people 
have deliberately broken, such as the apartheid laws in South Africa, 
the various laws pertaining to fugitive slaves in this country, laws 
that kept the Jews under in Nazi Germany, debtor laws in England, anti-
abortion laws in the US, and so on and on and on.  Would Rane sneer 
that it was "mighty convenient" that the heroic men and women who broke 
these laws were "making their own arbitrary laws"?  

response 58 of 206:

Sep 9 16:02 UTC 2000

I said nothing about Ken's ethics in #52: I was only responding to his
"absolutist" stance, that ethics of "property rights" somehow have an
origin other than humans at some time deciding predominantly that that
was useful (to them). The "hypocrisy and demagogery" lie in using an
absolutist stance for which there is no evidence to further his arguments.
(But I'll settle for it being just one of the two... 8^}). 

I think md gets a little carried away in #56 in making a comparison
between copyright laws, and laws that intimidate, oppress, or make
criminal, basic human rights. Is copying of copyrighted material a "basic
human right"? Laws concerning *property*, tangible or intellectual, are
the proper sphere for debate and amendment. There are no *absolutely
correct laws* in all matters of property, but only laws arrived at by
disputation and democratic processes. Society is in jeopardy when laws
arrived at by these processes are ignored or violated, when there are
means to redress errors in laws by said processes. 

How many here that think nothing of violating laws on copyright - whatever
they may be - also drive through stop signs without stopping? 

response 60 of 206:

Sep 9 18:38 UTC 2000

Yes - they tend to obey the laws they think *others* should obey - but
probably not very consistently. (I bet almost all drivers that run
red lights get furious when someone else runs a red light and almost
hits them.)