|
Grex > Music2 > #280: An item in which the author talks about Napster, VMA's, Metallica and the RIAA... |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 126 responses total. |
polygon
|
|
response 90 of 126:
| 
Sep 15 19:56 UTC 2000 |
Er, I should say, into the "steal" definition. "Intellectual" modifies
"property" so that the term "intellectual property" no more fits under
"steal" than "road apple" fits under "apple".
|
brighn
|
|
response 91 of 126:
|
Sep 15 21:11 UTC 2000 |
Provide your own quotes and sources or climb down from the tower.
This is all subterfuge, anyway. The point was one with which you already
agreed, and rather than stick to the heart of the matter, you're choosing to
get into legal semantics.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 92 of 126:
|
Sep 15 22:55 UTC 2000 |
I disagree. I think there *is* a substantial difference between theft
and copyright infringement. Obviously you do too, or at least you accept
that most people recognize one, otherwise why would you care which term
is applied.
I really hate playing the analogy game with this stuff, because I think
it's ultimately bankrupt as a tool for serious analysis. Why talk about
whether it's "like theft", or "like sharing", when we can agree that it's
important enough to be talked about directly, and not by way of potentially
deceptive and ultimately inadequate comparisons?
If you insist on playing the analogy game, though, I'm curious whether
you consider parking at an expired meter "theft". If I pull into
a parking space, put a quarter in the meter for fifteen minutes'
worth of parking, and stay twenty minutes, have I "stolen" a nickel?
Does it matter if anyone else would have parked in the space during
those five minutes? Does whether or not I intentionally exceeded
the time allotted have any bearing on the severity of my offense?
Would my offense be the same if the parking garage was privately owned
by a family whose sole means of support came from the fees collected
or is it just as wrong to stick it to the man as it is to cheat the
independent operrator out of his nickel?
This sort of indirect analysis is probably pretty fascinating for certain
types (e.g. Jesuits or rabbinical students) but most of the rest of us
seem to realize that you can take it too far..
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 126:
|
Sep 15 23:11 UTC 2000 |
Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and
removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful
owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or
burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball
Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling
such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or
conception especially in infringement of a copyright
So, strictly speaking, according to www.m-w.com "theft" isn't really
correct, but "piracy" is by definition (3).
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 126:
|
Sep 16 06:50 UTC 2000 |
It goes back to the definition of property. 1b applies depending on how wide
you're willing to define property.
I only care because "theft is theft" is easier to say than "infringement is
infringement," and because I feel like this is analretentive obfuscation and
people being difficult rather than discussing the issue.
If I drop a quarter on the ground and somebody picks it up, that isn't theft.
So if i use only part of my parking meter time, and somebody else uses the
rest, they haven't stolen anything. They found something of value that had
been abandoned.
|
md
|
|
response 95 of 126:
|
Sep 16 12:03 UTC 2000 |
It would help to know how future royalties show up, if at all, in
Metallica's financial statements. It wouldn't be in the income
statement, obviously. It isn't receivables on the asset side of the
balance sheet, exactly. What, good will?
I'm guessing it has to be in there *somewhere*, because a newly
released CD that's doing well on the charts and a classic CD that
enjoys good steady sales are both very considerable assets. That is,
if you wanted to buy Metallica -- I mean, literally buy the music
group -- the value of future royalties would account for much or even
most of the sale price. That's what's being stolen.
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 126:
|
Sep 16 13:51 UTC 2000 |
Apparently Courtney Love is suing/planning to sue her record company to make
sure she actually gets some of the settlement with mp3.com.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 126:
|
Sep 16 16:31 UTC 2000 |
Did you know Jason Newsted is an admitted bisexual?
|
goose
|
|
response 98 of 126:
|
Sep 17 04:45 UTC 2000 |
HE;s from Gull LAke, MI....I always wanted to see a sign as I drove through
Gull Lake that said "The home of Jason Newsted"///but instead I get to see
that they were the Class D Girls Softball champs in 1986.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 99 of 126:
|
Sep 17 14:05 UTC 2000 |
girls softball is more hard than metallica anyhoo.
|
brighn
|
|
response 100 of 126:
|
Sep 17 17:09 UTC 2000 |
Spoken like somebody who's unaware that "harder" is a word.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 101 of 126:
|
Sep 17 18:54 UTC 2000 |
mayhap he was pointing out that a girl's softball is harder than a metallica
anyhoo (whatever that might be)
|
brighn
|
|
response 102 of 126:
|
Sep 18 01:38 UTC 2000 |
Anyhoo is a cute spelling for anyhow.
*noddles*
|
happyboy
|
|
response 103 of 126:
|
Sep 21 02:34 UTC 2000 |
anyhoo yer a patoot.
|
brighn
|
|
response 104 of 126:
|
Sep 21 13:49 UTC 2000 |
I take that as a compliment coming from happyboy
|
happyboy
|
|
response 105 of 126:
|
Sep 22 01:34 UTC 2000 |
i meant is as one, patoot.
|
brighn
|
|
response 106 of 126:
|
Sep 22 02:12 UTC 2000 |
well, good thing I took it as one, then, eh?
|
mwg
|
|
response 107 of 126:
|
Sep 22 20:58 UTC 2000 |
How to really confuse a copyright argument? Let's see...
The following happens on a continuing basis, and is entirely real, what
are the copyright implications?
Copyrighted materials (books, CDs, assorted format videos) are released
outside North America. They may or may not ever be released in North
America. People purchase these materials from legitimate vendors and
have them brought into the continent. In some cases this ends up
side-stepping a deliberate intent of the copyright holder for distribution
by location.
Some people argue that this is a violation of copyright because the rights
holder may have wanted to squeeze more money out of each North American
purchaser. Others say that a purchased item can end up anywhere and there
is no basis for complaint. One country has declared attempts to create
differential pricing by location-based distribution control to be
restraint of trade, and certain classes of device cannot be sold in
that country until copyright-inspired technical restrictions are deleted
or patched around so that materials for such devices may be purchased from
anywhere on the planet.
Specifics can be provided later, I am looking for opinions relating to
this situation.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 108 of 126:
|
Sep 22 22:35 UTC 2000 |
Don't worry, eventually your CDs and your eBooks will have "country codes"
built into the player just like DVDs so you won't have to fret about this..
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 126:
|
Sep 22 22:37 UTC 2000 |
Oo, good topic. And one that's become ever more relevant in the days of the
Internet. I've personally ordered CDs directly from a British website,
receiving the same price as for a domestic CD rather than for an import.
In my opinion, there's no real difference between purchasing a copyrighted
piece and importing it and purchasing any product at all and importing it...
to my knowledge, importation laws are generally limited to higher volumes than
most private consumers would reach (although I've seen the tag on some
software, especially Microsoft products, restricting sale and use to North
America). In my opinion, if I buy something from a legitimate vendor and
import (or have them import as my agent), then the only restrictions on that
purchase should be whether the imported items fall below the allowable import
limits, and whether the class of item is legal in all countries involved (for
instance, I could probably find some website which sells photos of naked
17-year-olds which are legal in their country but illegal here in the U.S.).
Now, if I import and then pirate, that goes back to infringement law...
ALTHOUGH, now that I think about it, I have some books from Ukraine that may
be inviolation of American copyright laws, or were when I purchased them,
principally a rewrite of "the Wizard of Oz" (which may be trademarked, I
dunno) and a game called "Management" which is obviously a ripoff of Monopoly
(which I know is trademarked).
I'm not sure about legalities, but as far as ethics go, I don't think it's
fair or appropriate to tell a purchaser that they can't take a legally
purchased item wherever they want to (so long as the item is legal wherever
they take it).
|
anderyn
|
|
response 110 of 126:
|
Sep 23 00:19 UTC 2000 |
Well, I have a similar thang. As many of you know, I have a daughter who's
into anime music and j-pop. Most of the available music in this country are
from Son-May, which is a company somewhere in Asia which re-records the music
and then sells it. It's legal in whatever country Son-May is located in, but
morally, that's a bootleg, and a ripoff of the artists. Only problem is --
that's often the only available music, unless one has a friend or other
contacts in Japan... Frustrating, yes. Morally problematical, yes. And of
course, until she learned about the problem, neither of us knew that Son-May
wasn't a legit company.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 111 of 126:
|
Sep 23 00:40 UTC 2000 |
re #109: That seems to have the potential to conflict pretty dramatically
with your previously stated insistence that creators be able to control the
way their works are used, and that denying them that control is theft.
|
brighn
|
|
response 112 of 126:
|
Sep 23 04:44 UTC 2000 |
#111> Yes, it does superficially seem that way, doesn't it? But, again, the
issue with copyright is that it's copy + right. As a creator, I have the right
to decide how many copies of something will be made available (not including
legal archives), and in what contexts subportions of my works are to be used,
but once I've sold a copy to somebody, they have the right to
play/read/use/view that copy wherever it's legal to play/read/use/view it,
so long as they don't violate any commercial restrictions I've explicitly or
implicitly placed on it.
Consider the alternative -- that, among the rights of the creator is included
the right to dictate to what areas a legally purchased copy can be taken. We
tend to forget that the musician isn't the only artist on the CD. There's a
photographer and/or an illustrator, a typesetter, various engineers, ... maybe
there's some cover songs on the CD ... it would be an INCREDIBLE obstacle to
the purchaser (and legal owner of) the COPY to have to be aware of all of
these artists' concerns. The only way to function in such a climate would be
to stay wherever you purchased the album, and even then, maybe you purchased
an import album in good faith, then discover later that the sculptor of the
item photographed on page 7 of the booklet doesn't want any depiction of his
art to appear in Michigan.
In contrast, the "fair use" rules of copyright law are easy enough -- you cant
reproduce something unless it's explicitly said that you can (there are legal
nuances to that, but that's the safe rule of thumb). No real obstacles to the
owner of the copy: You can play your CD wherever you go, but you can't make
copies of it. Your proper USE of the item isn't hindered... the item was
designed to be played, not copied. The copy + right belongs to the creator,
the use right (non-commercially) belongs to the legal possessor of the copy.
[This isa simplification of intellectual property law. This mingles
non-profesional legal opinion with personal ethical opinion. Where not
obvious, "right" refers to moral rights, not legal rights. I am not a lawyer.]
|
mcnally
|
|
response 113 of 126:
|
Sep 25 01:09 UTC 2000 |
(BTW, I think you can afford to leave off the "I am not a lawyer"
disclaimerrs -- nobody is going to confuse you with one based on
your posts..)
|
brighn
|
|
response 114 of 126:
|
Sep 25 04:21 UTC 2000 |
[Yes, but unlike certain others, I'm not going to put myself in harm's way
by even suggestinf I'm providing free legal advice.]
|