|
Grex > Music2 > #279: Napster: Thieves or Coolness? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
gull
|
|
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 51 of 206:
|
Sep 9 02:24 UTC 2000 |
...such as backing up expensive music CDs in case they get stolen/lost/damaged
on a trip? That's what I've been doing, anyway.
|
rcurl
|
|
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 53 of 206:
|
Sep 9 06:08 UTC 2000 |
After four attempts to compose a response to Rane, I think I shall just
quit for now. I could not have imagined a more non-sequiturish
response to my essay; I can only suggest that Rane is a copyright
fundamentalist who has never owned a tape recorder or a VCR.
|
krj
|
|
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.))
|
beeswing
|
|
response 55 of 206:
|
Sep 9 06:27 UTC 2000 |
I am Napstering as I type. Was able to download a song I had not heard
in ages, and now I want to go out and get the CD. (Tanita Tikaram).
|
md
|
|
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"?
|
krj
|
|
response 57 of 206:
|
Sep 9 14:35 UTC 2000 |
Well, I was hoping not to go into the subject of just and unjust laws,
and I was *really* hoping not to bring up Nazi Germany.
But on reflection, Rane's response to my essay puzzles me even more,
because while his hostile response to me extols the virtues of law,
a good deal of my essay documents how copyright laws have been curbed,
under Congress and under the Supreme Court, in response to the
technological changes of the last 50 years.
I do suspect that Rane is sticking to some absolutist point of view
on copyright, though, rather than a legal one. In the other Napster
item, resp:550,22 , Rane says about taping music from the radio,
"Honest people would not do it." Legally however, Congress granted
full permission for this in the Audio Home Recording Act, to the
best of my non-lawyerly understanding.
|
rcurl
|
|
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?
|
jerryr
|
|
response 59 of 206:
|
Sep 9 17:35 UTC 2000 |
seems to me many folks only obey the laws they like.
|
rcurl
|
|
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.)
|
md
|
|
response 61 of 206:
|
Sep 9 18:45 UTC 2000 |
Tell us about these "basic human rights" of yours, Rane, the ones that
override the law. Who sez?
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 206:
|
Sep 9 20:09 UTC 2000 |
I have mixed feelings about intellectual property law. I think people who
create intellectual property are certainly entitled to some sort of
protection. However, that doesn't seem to be how such laws are usually used
today. Instead they're used as weapons by corporations, to hoard ideas and
stifle competition. Take the recent "Disney Amendment" to copyright law.
It does the creator of an idea no good to have his copyright stay in effect
75 years after his death, and I doubt many people are producing more
material because they know the protection will extend that long. It does
help corporations, though.
It particularly galls me that even after a company has made a decision to
take an item out of print, it's still illegal to copy it. This is pure
hoarding. Ideally companies would release such items to the public domain,
but they rarely do. (Some Borland software being an exception.) This is
one case where copying is illegal, but I don't feel it's immoral.
"Look and feel" copyrights are another really hazy area. Where would we be
today if someone had copyrighted the look and feel of the "steering wheel
and pedals" interface to cars? :>
|
krj
|
|
response 63 of 206:
|
Sep 9 21:34 UTC 2000 |
In resp:58 Rane writes:
> 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.
You might not feel that way if you'd followed the long-running battle
between the Church of Scientology and its critics on the net.
A debate with a Scientologist runs something like this:
critic: "Scientologists believe we are infested with the spirits of
murdered space aliens."
Scientologist: "This is simply untrue. Scientology is an advanced
philosophy devoted to benefitting humans, blah blah blah."
critic: "Here, I will prove it. Here is a document in which Scientology's
founder lays out the belief in murdered space aliens"
And at this point Scientology responds with legal action for the critic
violating the copyright on the Secret Space Scriptures. Side effects
of these legal actions have included raids by armed federal marshals
on critics' homes and the seizures of their computers and papers
(happened at least three times, courts seem to have decided not to allow
that any more) and the bankruptcy of the critics.
The right to freely exchange information and engage in robust public
debate might trump copyright laws. John Hockenberry had a great essay
on msnbc.com in which he concluded that the defense of the current
copyright system would require "a Stalinist-style licensing system
for the transfer of information."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 64 of 206:
|
Sep 9 23:22 UTC 2000 |
re #54, 57: If you're genuinely puzzled by Rane's response, I think you
can better understand it by considering it a "Serdar Argic"-like reaction
to your mention of the Ten Commandments..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 206:
|
Sep 10 05:24 UTC 2000 |
Re#61: read the Bill of Rights, md. They are the law, too.
|
krj
|
|
response 66 of 206:
|
Sep 10 09:24 UTC 2000 |
Mike, resp:64 :: Ah. *Lightbulb goes off.* Perhaps Rane is reading
the intro to my essay as stating that tangible property rights have a divine
or supernatural origin, and thus are superior to intellectual
property rights created by mere men, and thus I have triggered his
anti-religion thing.
When I used the example of The Ten Commandments, I meant to express
that "Thou shalt not steal" was embedded in the roots of our culture,
not that it carried divine sanction. The reference to the Lord's
views on scroll copying was, um, humorous.
A simplified and less entertaining way of writing my introduction:
Tangible property rights are rooted in 4000 years of our culture and
they are learned in childhood. They thus become almost instinctual
to normal adults; this is what I mean by saying they carry
"moral force."
Intellectual property rights are only around 300 years old and they
are not taught to children. They are not instinctual to normal adults;
they are almost INCOMPREHENSIBLE to normal adults. This is what I
mean by saying that they do not carry moral force.
The rest of the essay goes on to argue that it is probable that
copyright is not meant to apply to "normal adults," any more than
anti-trust applies to the average citizen.
|
krj
|
|
response 67 of 206:
|
Sep 10 09:47 UTC 2000 |
(I left out the last line: the essay argues that copyright is meant
to apply to businesses.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 68 of 206:
|
Sep 10 10:43 UTC 2000 |
Re 46. Ken, excellent points and historical summary.
Actually, though, even leaving aside land-use regulations, NO property
rights are absolute. If a law is passed which, say, makes something you
own illegal to possess, forcing you to choose between getting rid of it
and breaking the law, you are not owed any compensation by the government.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 206:
|
Sep 10 20:04 UTC 2000 |
(Re #16: if you want to refer to my "anti-religion thing", I will have
to refer to your "pro-superstition thing".)
I agree that the tangible property "laws" go very far back in human history.
That is because life was often dependent upon tangible property (food,
shelter, weapons, and the mean to sustain these), while the idea of
intellectual property did not arise until a society developed in which
it was possible to support oneself with intellectual property. This
was certainly not easily done, and was retricted to those few that could
obtain a patron's support for their artistry, "magic", inventiveness, etc.
However, today, industries large and small have been built upon intellectual
properties. They have become essential for the maintenance and development
of our society. In my opinion, they take an equal standing with tangible
property rights. They have been encoded into law with patents and copyright.
The main difference, however, is that it is much easier to steal
intellecutal property than to steal tangible property. The fact that they
are easier to steal does not change the equivalence of the ownership of
the two. Saying the equivalance is "not instinctual" is a tautology:
of course respect for intellectual property rights is not "instinctual" -
because it is so easy to violate the right.
|
russ
|
|
response 70 of 206:
|
Sep 10 22:59 UTC 2000 |
Taking a physical object deprives someone else of its use, but
there is no such harm from making one's own copy of an object.
Ownership of the object is a natural right (*somebody* has it),
ownership of the idea of the object is not. IP is a construct.
Intellectual property rights are a compromise, authorized by the
Constitution "to promote progress in the useful arts". They are
limited monopolies, and are supposed to compensate inventors and
authors for making their creations public ("patent" is synonymous
with "obvious"); after a time, things go into the public domain
and everyone can make free use of them. 75-year copyright terms
burden the public with the court costs for defending them, and
return nothing to the public. It's time to chop them back. The
copyright term of the original US law was 17 years; that'll do.
|
krj
|
|
response 71 of 206:
|
Sep 11 00:01 UTC 2000 |
Rane, feel free to refer to my "pro-superstition" thing. I'm an atheist.
However, I'm also a student of religion, particularly of Judaism and
Christianity, because I believe it's impossible to get a good grasp
on Western culture and history without studying them.
Rane, please discuss your concept of intellectual property in the
light of the Betamax decision and the Audio Home Recording Act. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 206:
|
Sep 11 06:17 UTC 2000 |
Re #70: making a copy deprives the author/inventor of the legal right
to compensation.
I'd not holding to any particular patent/copyright law. I agree that
75 year terms are excessive. I'm only maintaining that there should
be patent/coppright protection with reasonable terms and allowances
for special cases *that also further the interests of society* (such
as personal use for educational and scientific purposes).
|
ashke
|
|
response 73 of 206:
|
Sep 11 13:48 UTC 2000 |
Legal right to compensation? That's interesting. You can ask to be
compensated, but you can't force people.
|
gull
|
|
response 74 of 206:
|
Sep 11 14:39 UTC 2000 |
Well, that's the whole problem. The current terms are, on the whole,
neither reasonable nor good for society. And they're steadily getting
worse, not better. I unfortunately don't see this situation improving any
time soon, because the people who have the money are the ones with a vested
interest in having information be restricted as much as possible. And it's
the people with the money who write the laws.
|