Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Friday Not-So-Fun Link
Another short-term victory for the sue-your-customers business model:
The recording industry Thursday won the largest judgment so far against consumers who illegally download music over the Internet when a federal jury ordered a 30-year-old Minnesota woman to pay $222,000 for copyright infringement.
Full story here. Reason's coverage of the downloading wars is here.
Update: Declan McCullagh explains why the bill is so absurdly high.
|10.5.07 @ 1:52PM|#
The only way illegal downloading is hurting the recording industry is the fact that their idiotic response to the practice has prompted me to stop buying any music at all.
|10.5.07 @ 2:00PM|#
From the article:
"It's not helping their cause. It's like prosecuting marijuana
users," said Bob Lefsetz, who writes a music-industry
newsletter.
Huh?
Copyright is evil|10.5.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Life will be so much better for everyone when we have returned to the day when all music is provided by traveling minstrels. Who needs recorded music anyway, because copyright is evil.
|10.5.07 @ 2:09PM|#
This should be an interesting, somewhat heated discussion. On your mark, get set ...
not trolling, i swear|10.5.07 @ 2:10PM|#
but, in all seriousness... aren't they sharing copywritten songs illegally?
JMR|10.5.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Another short-term victory for the sue-your-customers
business model
If they're not paying for the music, then they're not really
customers, are they?
Paul|10.5.07 @ 2:13PM|#
If they're not paying for the music, then they're not really
customers, are they?
Touche. You're suing them to make them customers.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:13PM|#
JMR: Only if they've never paid for music before and at no point in the future expect to pay for it again.
ed|10.5.07 @ 2:13PM|#
the sue-your-customers business model
Call it quibbling, but "customers" don't steal. They buy. Serial
downloaders don't buy a thing. They're common kleptomaniacs, and
they think that since they can do it, they have a
right to do it. If Reason is truly serious about
abolishing copyright protections, then take the copyright notice
off your home page and off your magazine, and let anyone, anywhere,
freely copy and distribute your articles without compensation or
attribution. In other words, let them share it.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#
...and are actually guilty, which isn't always the case with these suits, but that's another issue...
|10.5.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Copyright infringement probably should require damages to be paid, but downloading music without paying for it is not stealing.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 2:20PM|#
If Reason is truly serious about abolishing copyright
protections, . . .
I don't recall seeing a single article or post by the Reason staff
indicating that they believe intellectual property should be
abolished.
While a clear majority of the commentors on H&R are in the
anit-IP wing of the libertarian spectrum, the magazine has not
indicated in any way that they are as well.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:22PM|#
If Reason is truly serious about abolishing copyright
protections, then take the copyright notice off your home page and
off your magazine, and let anyone, anywhere, freely copy and
distribute your articles without compensation or
attribution.
What does attribution have to do with anything? Don't confuse
copyright infringement with plagiarism. (Not that I'd sue a
plagiarist - the proper response to that offense is public
shaming.)
Anyway, I can't speak for Reason as an institution, but if you
Google my name you'll find plenty of places where my articles were
recirculated without my permission by readers reposting them on
various Internet forums. I've never sued any of the people
responsible for those unauthorized reprints, and I never will. They
mean more readers for me and more, not less, traffic for this
website.
Even if I did object to the recirculation, of course, I would not
be so stupid as to try to prop up an unsustainable business model
with lawsuits guaranteed to alienate the public. What the RIAA is
doing is bad business regardless of whether it's in the right.
Jozef|10.5.07 @ 2:26PM|#
List of the offending songs, as copied from The
Consumerist:
* Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
* Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
* Janet Jackson "Let's What Awhile"
* Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm
is Gonna Get You"
* Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
* Journey "Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believing"
* Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
* Aerosmith "Cryin'"
* Linkin Park "One Step Closer
* Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
* Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
* Bryan Adams "Somebody"
* No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
* Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
* Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
* Destiny's Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
* Green Day "Basket Case"
|10.5.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Touche. You're suing them to make them customers.
Not really. They're posting heads on pikes as a warning to all
others.
$9,250 per infringement? That's not compensative or even punative.
That's retribution in the form of economic rape.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 2:33PM|#
A great article on CNET:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9791764-38.html?tag=nefd.blgs
JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22: In this case, each plaintiff has elected
to recover "statutory damages" instead of its
actual damages and profits . . .
Even as a hardcore supporter of IP rights, this stinks. The RIAA
did not try to get compensation for actual losses.
This is how a minor infringement turns into 6-figure penalties.
|10.5.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Don't confuse copyright infringement with
plagiarism.
He's not, Jesse. Plagiarism is passing off a person's ideas and
writing as one's own. He's making a point about actual copying of
actual copyrighted material, and even reason magazine would at some
point object to the free photocopying and distribution of its work
by whomever, to whomever, at any given time.
Downloaders of copyrighted music are thieves. No obfuscation on
your part (i.e., "it means more traffic for me! Yay!") will change
that.
If you don't agree with their business model, fine. And if the RIAA
is shooting itself in the foot, then so be it. But don't excuse
theft, especially wholesale theft.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Carrick: Thanks for the link - I just added it to the
post.
Jamie: I know what plagiarism is. I'm not annoyed if someone posts
my articles somewhere without my permission. I am annoyed if he
does so without attribution.
I also know what theft is. Copyright infringement is not theft --
not morally and not legally.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Oh - and I also know what obfuscation is. Answering a direct question about how I'd feel if my work were recirculated without my permission doens't fit the bill.
The Extispicator|10.5.07 @ 2:42PM|#
If this lady downloaded Richard Marx on purpose, she deserves prison, not merely a civil judgment.
|10.5.07 @ 2:43PM|#
I'm not annoyed if someone posts my articles somewhere
without my permission.
Maybe the people who sign your paychecks are.
I'm a journalist, and my bosses don't give a tin shit how I feel
about how the material I wrote for them is distributed.
|10.5.07 @ 2:47PM|#
The absurd thing here is that she was charged $222,000 for stealing 2 CDs worth of music. Anyone want to venture a guess as to whether or not you'd get the same sentence for stealing 2 CDs from a retailer?
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Maybe the people who sign your paychecks are.
I can't speak for my bosses, just for me. Reason as an
institution does not have a position on intellectual property
rights and publishes a range of views on the topic.
That said, it's clear that all that unauthorized recirculation
drives traffic to the website and brings attention to the other
work we do.
Oh, then what is it? Jaywalking?
It's copyright infringement, a civil offense. You'll notice that
she wasn't tried for larceny.
|10.5.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Probably no biggie--the next stop for this woman will undoubtedly be a bankrutcy attorney.
|10.5.07 @ 2:49PM|#
"Call it quibbling, but "customers" don't steal."
Call it quibbling, ed, but copyright infringement isn't stealing.
So get it f*cking right before you quibble.
|10.5.07 @ 2:51PM|#
"©2007 Reason Magazine. All Rights Reserved."
Gee whiz, ed, I'd first have to know how many local folks Reason
sued for printing out a copy a certain story. Do you know the
answer, ed?
BTW: I appreciate ed making the idiotic points so that the more
intelligent of us can set the parameters of the debate.
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Only if they've never paid for music before and at no point
in the future expect to pay for it again.
What? They're being sued for illegally sharing particular
music. What does their past or future music purchases have to do
with it?
...and are actually guilty, which isn't always the case with
these suits, but that's another issue...
The award seems excessive to me, but read some articles about the
case. It looks like she was guilty. The prosecution had
her IP address, the MAC address of her cable modem, and her
username. Sure, you could come up with ways that all of
these were spoofed, but that's not the most plausible
explanation.
If you don't like the terms by which a product is being sold, don't
buy the product! Don't claim that you have a right to it on
whatever terms you want.
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Maybe the people who sign your paychecks are.
I'm sure I've read numerous times that more exposure, even free
exposure, equals more dollars down the road.
|10.5.07 @ 2:54PM|#
... it's clear that all that unauthorized recirculation
drives traffic to the website and brings attention to the other
work we do.
Happy for you. But not so here in local journalism land, where TV
talking heads and morning-show radio morons routinely read our
newspaper on the air, thereby diminishing the public's need to read
our newspaper. Thereby, as well, hurting our circulation and
diminishing our advertising dollars.
That's theft, dude. Theft of our efforts, theft of our work. You
call it "copyright infringement," a civil offense, and I agree. Why
don't we just call it "civil theft."
|10.5.07 @ 2:56PM|#
$220,000 isn't even an interest payment on what it cost the RIAA to get Sonny Bono's lips around its dick. I can only imagine how much the rest of Congress cost.
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the plaintiff's lawyer's argument that users making a copy of their own music for their own use is also theft?
|10.5.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Jamie Kelly: Why don't we call balloons pop-tarts? Sometimes
they both come in pink, so....same thing, right?
The reason it isn't called theft is because (1) you aren't being
deprived of any concrete thing, only a potential, hypothetical
profit. (2) There is no fair use for theft.
Can you imagine if somebody stole your car....but lo, it turns out
that he needed your car to try out some new rims for his other car,
and so you lose your car to him? WTF?
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 2:59PM|#
TV talking heads and morning-show radio morons routinely
read our newspaper on the air, thereby diminishing the public's
need to read our newspaper.
Bullshit. They don't "read" your articles on the air. At most, they
give a summary. When I hear a summary of an article I want to know
more about on the morning news, and I go read the whole article, I
*inevitably* read other articles.
Jozef|10.5.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the plaintiff's lawyer's argument
that users making a copy of their own music for their own use is
also theft?
Actually, that was one of RIAA's witnesses, a legal representative
of Sony. She claimed that ripping your CDs is theft
|10.5.07 @ 3:01PM|#
where TV talking heads and morning-show radio morons
routinely read our newspaper on the air
Do you guys, like, make up your own news?
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Actually, that was one of RIAA's witnesses, a legal
representative of Sony. She claimed that ripping your CDs is
theft
This is the biggest problem with the RIAA right now. It's one thing
to vigorously defend your copyrights. It's another to attempt to
undermine the entire concept of fair use.
|10.5.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the plaintiff's lawyer's argument that
users making a copy of their own music for their own use is also
theft?
Well, if you're under no contractual obligations -- i.e., if you're
a corporation of one -- obviously you can't steal from
yourself.
However, if you are under a contractual obligation, and one of the
terms of that contract is that you not copy the music for any
reason, then theoretically you could be guilty of copyright
infringement. But there's no goddamn way any corporate entity would
make that demand.
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Actually, that was one of RIAA's witnesses
I stand corrected! Nevertheless, I hope no one took her
seriously.
|10.5.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the plaintiff's lawyer's argument
that users making a copy of their own music for their own use is
also theft?
Careful. He might sue you for using "words" to describe his
"idea."
Hopefully, he never finds out about these places called "libraries"
that allow people to read books that they didn't pay for.
|10.5.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Just thought I'd point out that Reason actually does 'publish'
most of its content for free, available for download, on the web.
Unlike the RIAA's companies. And somehow it probably doesn't do
>$200,000 worth of damage to Reason. So whatever Reason's
editorial policy on this question, they are certainly not
hypocritical.
And again, even if this copyright infringement is the same as
theft, it's very petty theft--as someone above noted, who gets
fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for stealing a $30 item?
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Call it quibbling, but "customers" don't steal.
Call it quibbling, ed, but copyright infringement isn't stealing. So get it f*cking right before you quibble.
OK. Let's grant your premise. Copyright infringement isn't
stealing. Do you have a right to someone else's copyrighted
material? I say that you don't without the permission of the
copyright owner. Getting that permission usually involves paying
for it.
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 3:05PM|#
But there's no goddamn way any corporate entity would make
that demand.
Apparently, Sony would.
|10.5.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Bullshit. They don't "read" your articles on the air. At
most, they give a summary.
How much did the crystal ball and tea leaves cost you? Or do you
have an astral projection machine?
When some fuckstain gets on the air and reads quotes from sources
that we've gathered ourselves, what do you call that,
dumbass?
Do you guys, like, make up your own news?
We gather and report information. That's called "news." It's all
the rage these days.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 3:06PM|#
What? They're being sued for illegally sharing particular
music. What does their past or future music purchases have to do
with it?
It makes them customers of the music industry. Someone was
challenging my use of the phrase "sue-your-customers," and I was
explaining why I thought it was appropriate.
It looks like she was guilty.
Yeah, I agree. But that wasn't true of everyone the RIAA has served
with papers.
Rhywun|10.5.07 @ 3:09PM|#
How much did the crystal ball and tea leaves cost
you?
I'm making an educated guess based on the fact that I've lived all
over and have NEVER seen the morning newsheads directly quoting a
newspaper. Perhaps the fact they haven't been sued yet is an
indication that they're DOING NOTHING WRONG. Dumbass.
|10.5.07 @ 3:09PM|#
The story repeats a lot of the industry-inspired myths from calling infringement "stealing" and "piracy" to assuming without much evidence that illegal downloading is causing the decline in CD sales or that illegal downloading is hurting profits overall. Notice who the paper quotes? BigChampagne, a copyright infringement troll company and Russ Crupnick of market researcher NPD Group (who's client is EMI). The person speaking in favor of the lady was a guy who sounded wacky with this marijuana analogy.
|10.5.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"How much did the crystal ball and tea leaves cost
you?"
Looks to me like the African Make-Up-Crazy-Shit bug crawled up
someone's ass.
|10.5.07 @ 3:11PM|#
SONY is a bunch of fuckwads. I decided years ago to never buy another thing from them after the stunts they pulled with the minidisc player, the DRM, and the shitty software they forced you to use with it, that would always crash and insisted on converting MP3s into their shit-sounding ATRACIII format.
|10.5.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"When some fuckstain gets on the air and reads quotes from
sources that we've gathered ourselves, what do you call that,
dumbass?"
Libel, if the person isn't really a fuckstain.
|10.5.07 @ 3:12PM|#
How can the acquisition of a copyrighted work without the consent of the rights holder not be considered stealing? Isn't that was stealing is, acquisition without consent?
|10.5.07 @ 3:13PM|#
How can the acquisition of a copyrighted work without the
consent of the rights holder not be considered stealing? Isn't that
was stealing is, acquisition without consent?
If I record something off the radio, is that stealing? The TV?
|10.5.07 @ 3:14PM|#
"Isn't that was stealing is, acquisition without
consent?"
NO!! Stealing requires the intent to permanently deprive the other
of the item. By definition, making a copy of something does not
deprive the owner of the item.
|10.5.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Perhaps the fact they haven't been sued yet is an indication
that they're DOING NOTHING WRONG.
Our lawyer has had some nice, friendly chats with the competing
media in my town.
No, we haven't sued ... yet. But we put the screws on them.
Dumbass.
|10.5.07 @ 3:16PM|#
If I record something off the radio, is that stealing? The
TV?
Originally, yes. Until the RIAA and others finally ceded the effort
to try to enforce it, and agreed to "let" people do so for home
use.
|10.5.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Music-industry executives privately acknowledged the Thomas
verdict would do nothing to stem the tide of stealing. If anything,
they said, such cases are a continuing distraction for the real
task, which is to increase legal sales, especially online.
"You can't stomp it out. People are going to get it one way or
another," said a senior executive at a major label who said he
would be fired if his name were printed.
A ray of hope, though a thin one. At least some industry types are
starting to realize suing "pirates" who have no money doesn't make
any business sense.
(Copied without permission. The Seattle Times can sue me if they
like, but I doubt they will.)
But not so here in local journalism land, where TV talking
heads and morning-show radio morons routinely read our newspaper on
the air, thereby diminishing the public's need to read our
newspaper.
How different is quoting your paper on the air different from a
link to it at (say) reason? IIRC, few papers even bother
charging readers of their websites any more. The New York Times
just stopped doing so, and the Wall Street Journal will probably
soon follow.
A solution music industry types might try: finance their
distribution sites with advertising, like newspaper sites do.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:17PM|#
How can the acquisition of a copyrighted work without the
consent of the rights holder not be considered stealing?
Here goes a poor analogy, but:
There is a difference between stealing your delivery truck and
smashing it to pieces with a sledge hammer.
In both cases, you can't make your deliveries tomorrow. But in one
case, it was literally taken from you. In the other, its value was
destroyed, even though it was left with you.
Copyright infringement is intended to prevent someone from
destroying the commercial value of a creative work. Distribution of
unauthorizied copies of a creative work destroys its value without
actually "stealing" it.
JMR|10.5.07 @ 3:18PM|#
What does attribution have to do with anything? Don't
confuse copyright infringement with plagiarism. (Not that I'd sue a
plagiarist - the proper response to that offense is public
shaming.)
questioncopyright.org
has an essay (among several good essays) that addresses this
frequent conflation of copying and attribution (what the author
calls "creditright") and how a relaxing of copyright-based
distribution restrictions makes it easier to detect
plagarism.
|10.5.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Wow, that was fun reading!
Is this the first time in legal history that technology has
rendered a section of law irrelevant or obsolete? Probably not. I'm
a strong supportter of IP rights. That said, the present legal and
technological realities are incompatible. Digital formatting of
video, text and audio has changed the landscape that copyright
battles are fought on. Like it or not, a new legal framework needs
to be worked out that will probably relegate the okd one to the
scrap bin. Like all lawmaking, it's gonna be an ugly process, but
the system as it stands now, requires a major overhaul or
replacement.
|10.5.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Looks to me like the African Make-Up-Crazy-Shit bug crawled
up someone's ass.
I think it's of the Australian variety.
|10.5.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Jamie Kelly: Lawyerly chats aren't "the screws." Hell, I could
claim I put the screws to my toilet bowl this morning.
And Jamie Kelly again, for the loss: Time shifting of TV shows is
A-OK, regardless of what the RIAA (I think you mean the MPAA)
thinks about it. It used to be fair use, but now it's
statutory.
|10.5.07 @ 3:22PM|#
How different is quoting your paper on the air different
from a link to it at (say) reason?
Because providing a "fair use" synopsis and a link brings you to
our Web site, where we have many fun and spendid advertisements for
you to click on.
www.missoulian.com
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Stealing requires the intent to permanently deprive the
other of the item
I've read this countless times. What is the source of this
definition? Because I can't find it. Stealing is taking the
property of others without their permission. No intent to
permanently deprive is required. I'm guessing you don't think
intellectual property is actual property though, so, even if we
agree on a definition of theft, we'll still have that
problem.
I'll still love you though.
|10.5.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Calling copyright infringement stealing is sort of like the idea
of Christian Rock. Since the true issue isn't very sexy, somebody
decided to throw in the new hip lingo all the kids are using.
Infringement isn't cool sounding? Call it stealing, theft,
piracy.... all of which connote depriving somebody of something,
probably with violence.
Don't try and claim the high road when you have to make up bogus
words to sell your ideas.
|10.5.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Copyright infringement is intended to prevent someone from
destroying the commercial value of a creative work. Distribution of
unauthorizied copies of a creative work destroys its value without
actually "stealing" it.
So when I take a copy of a retailer's credit card records, I
haven't actually stolen anything, I've simply reduced the value of
the data to that retailer?
I'm sticking my original definition of stealing as "acquisition
without consent". Stating that copying isn't thievery because the
original is still in possession of the rights holder doesn't pass
my smell test.
|10.5.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"I'm making an educated guess based on the fact that I've lived
all over and have NEVER seen the morning newsheads directly quoting
a newspaper"
I've only been a few places, and I see it all the time. Perhaps you
can't tell because they don't announce that they're stealing a
quote from the newspaper, but they often are. If you work for a
newspaper, you'll notice. They don't always steal quotes, usually
they just paraphrase, but it's still stealing. Of course, my
newspaper doesn't own the news, but when the local newscast has the
exact same stories we have, with the exact same information, and
almost the exact same wording, I'm not ready to believe that they
just happened to do all of the same reporting we did. Radio is
usually worse than teevee on this.
|10.5.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"What is the source of this definition? Because I can't find
it."
It's common law, so there isn't one single source. Let me try and
find one though.
|10.5.07 @ 3:25PM|#
"I'm sticking my original definition of stealing as
'acquisition without consent'."
That is NOT the definition, despite however much you wish it to be
so. These words already have definitions. You can't just make up
your own.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:27PM|#
So when I take a copy of a retailer's credit card records, I
haven't actually stolen anything, I've simply reduced the value of
the data to that retailer?
So you broke into a secure system and copied confidential
information that is not accessible to the public.
This is not comparable to infringing the copyright on a publicly
accessible creative work.
|10.5.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Libel, if the person isn't really a fuckstain.
You could make the argument that everyone at least starts out as a
fuckstain. An interuterine fuckstain, but still.
|10.5.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Let's start from a very basic premise of mine.
Can someone here -- Lamar? -- admit that a person sitting at home
downloading shitloads of music over a P2P network is doing
something wrong?
I'll be here trying to extract my Austrialian Make Up Shit Bug,
which I believe has now reach my colon.
|10.5.07 @ 3:30PM|#
"admit that a person sitting at home downloading shitloads
of music over a P2P network is doing something wrong?"
Possibly. I put my music on there in the very hopes that somebody
will download it. Still, probably not a lot of innocent downloading
going on in college campuses, for example.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Please don't confuse data crimes with civil copyright issues. It's hard enough to discuss copyright by itself.
|10.5.07 @ 3:34PM|#
...providing a "fair use" synopsis and a link brings you to
our Web site, where we have many fun and spendid advertisements for
you to click on.
www.missoulian.com
(clicks)
Ooh! Casa Pablo's Salsa!
|10.5.07 @ 3:34PM|#
This is not comparable to infringing the copyright on a
publicly accessible creative work.
Why not? Data is data. According to Lamar's referenced definition,
you can't steal data from someone because they aren't permanently
deprived of it. So are you both saying that the appropriation of
copies of data are not theft?
And if you're not saying that, how do you squeeze data
appropriation under your theft umbrella? That definition is totally
inadequate for the digital era.
|10.5.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Please don't confuse data crimes with civil copyright
issues. It's hard enough to discuss copyright by itself.
They are the same. You're the rights holder in either case. It's
irrelevant whether you've made that information more generally
available or available only to your employees.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Why not? Data is data.
I disagree completely.
And if you're not saying that, how do you squeeze data
appropriation under your theft umbrella?
Because laws regarding computer intrusions and misappropriaton of
confidential data are now on the books and these are now crimes . .
.
Because data is not just data, the information stored therein makes
a difference.
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 3:38PM|#
I understand now. Lamar is using a legal definition. Go to any
regular English language dictionary online though, and you won't
find the bit about permanently depriving the owner of its
use.
So, fine, in a legal sense, "copyright infringement" may not equal
"theft," but in a common-language sense it does. Also, I don't see
how someone has a right to take copyrighted material without paying
for it simply because they don't like the price being charged.
|10.5.07 @ 3:39PM|#
MP: You really are confusing things quite a bit. Just because "data is data" (which I disagree with), doesn't mean obtaining data in different ways for different purposes should be called the same thing.
|10.5.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Ooh! Casa Pablo's Salsa!
DUDE, that shit rules. Buy tons of it. They ship, too. Best salsa
not only in Missoula, Montana, but the whole freakin' world.
Sal Paradise|10.5.07 @ 3:39PM|#
After looking at the song list, this woman has been punished enough!
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Because a novel is not equivalent to confidential bank
records.
It doesn't matter if the content is on paper or in a bit stream.
The content is what determines criminal versus civil
infractions.
|10.5.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"So, fine, in a legal sense, 'copyright infringement' may
not equal 'theft,' but in a common-language sense it
does."
Then how do you account for fair use? Like I said before, if
somebody steals your car, can they be innocent (and keep the car)
because they needed the car for scholarly purposes?
Industry types have made a big push to put the wrong words in
people's mouths, and not being the most articulate or intelligent
country, we go for it. So, it isn't a surprise that people use the
wrong words for things.
|10.5.07 @ 3:41PM|#
I'm strongly in favor of protecting intellectual property,
including pursuing those who illegally download.
However, if the $9,250 figure is correct, I have to agree with JW
and Carrick @ 2:33. This is excessive.
At most, she should have had 3 - 10 times the legitimate price
charged as punitive damages, plus costs for a Small Debt Court (or
whatever the state court equivalent is) action.
|10.5.07 @ 3:43PM|#
And this is a court case we're talking about. Don't get on my case for using the legal definition. We're talking about a goddam legal concept. Hell, why don't we just start referring to contracts as blood-pacts?
|10.5.07 @ 3:43PM|#
After looking at the song list, this woman has been punished
enough!
Not if she enjoys it.
I'd say the best punishment, based on her downloads, would be to
lock her in a room with Schoenberg's tone poems blaring at 120
db.
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 3:45PM|#
I wasn't getting on your case. I was just trying to make sure we were all talking about the same thing.
|10.5.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Because laws regarding computer intrusions and
misappropriaton of confidential data are now on the books and these
are now crimes.
So let's be clear...you don't consider that theft? And I don't mean
legaleeze theft. I mean theft as it is commonly defined.
Because Jesse sure as heck wasn't talking about the legaleeze
definition when he said "not morally".
|10.5.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Sorry, I just don't like to be manipulated, and I feel that's what all this talk of thievery, piracy and stealing is meant to do....to make copyright infringement out to be worse than it really is.
|10.5.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Data is data. And "stealing data" shouldn't (necessarily) be a
crime. USING the stolen data to __________ (fill in the blank)
COULD be crime:
A. Using it to access another's bank account for the purpose of
taking money SHOULD be a crime.
B. (If) using it can be shown to have produced a loss of revenue
(then it) SHOULD be a crime.
C. etc etc etc.
CB
|10.5.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Lamar:
I agree that the judgment is way the fuck over the top. WAY the
fuck over the top.
Time for reform of the statutes that would lead to this abysmal
punishment.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Then how do you account for fair use?
Lamar has this part right.
Copyright protection covers the unauthorized copying AND
distributing of protected creative works.
The magnitude of an infringement is a function of how much of the
creative work is copied and what the financial impact is to the
owner of the copyright.
The fair use doctrine specifically defines exemptions to the
copyright protection to allow scholarly work or critical reviews of
the original work.
While it may be acceptable to say colloquially that an original
work has been "stolen", copyright infringement is not legally
theft.
|10.5.07 @ 3:49PM|#
MP: Repeat after me: Theft means that you deprive somebody of something. It's illegal, because you've taken away somebody's ability to exclusively use that private property. That's the whole reason it is illegal.
|10.5.07 @ 3:53PM|#
It doesn't matter if the content is on paper or in a bit
stream. The content is what determines criminal versus civil
infractions.
The content is irrelevant. It is the legal (and moral) rights to
the content that is relevant. As a content producer, I have 100%
rights (both morally and legally) to control how my content is
distributed.
I just can't swallow Jesse's stance.
|10.5.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Theft means that you deprive somebody of something. It's
illegal, because you've taken away somebody's ability to
exclusively use that private property. That's the whole reason it
is illegal.
Lamar...to bad you've already run...but I'll ask again...is data
appropriation theft (in the common usage of the word)?
carrick|10.5.07 @ 3:55PM|#
So let's be clear...you don't consider that theft? And I
don't mean legaleeze theft.
I absolutely call that theft.
Unauthorized copying of confidential financial records . .
theft
Industrial espionage of trade secrets . . . theft
Making a digital copy of a copyrighted move . . . not theft
Copied off the air for later viewing in your own home . . fair
use
Distribution over the internet to anyone with a fat pipe . . civil
copyright infringement
Not that complicated.
JMR|10.5.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Repeat after me: Theft means that you deprive somebody of
something. It's illegal, because you've taken away somebody's
ability to exclusively use that private property.
Much of the case of the folks looking to loosen up copyright is
based on the premise that non-scarce resources (like a song
recording) are not scarce, not "property", that the whole reason
property rights arose in the first place was the scarcity of
property, and that using the term "property" for intangible things
frames the debate incorrectly or disingenuously.
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 4:01PM|#
No question, the copyright holders (and their proxies) want to paint the infringements in the worst possible light. However, a lot of people want to download music without paying for it when its owners aren't offering it for free. People redistributing copyrighted material without the owners permission aren't simply "sharing" it. Calling it sharing is designed to make it appear less wrong than it really is.
|10.5.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Making a digital copy of a copyrighted move . . . not
theft
What caused you to make this (arbitrary) leap? So if I copy Windows
Vista, it's not theft?
Another Phil|10.5.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Much of the case of the folks looking to loosen up copyright is based on the premise that non-scarce resources (like a song recording) are not scarce, not "property", that the whole reason property rights arose in the first place was the scarcity of property, and that using the term "property" for intangible things frames the debate incorrectly or disingenuously.
OK. Let's not call it "property." As its creator, should you be
able to dictate the terms of its distribution though?
|10.5.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Does anyone think that "joyriding" isn't auto theft? The "prtmanently deprive" definition seems to indicate it isn't. Yet joyriders are often prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto. Hmmm.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:06PM|#
What caused you to make this (arbitrary) leap? So if I copy
Windows Vista, it's not theft?
Windows come with an EULA that says it can't be copied.
Putting one copy of vista on two computers at home would be a
contract violation.
Putting out on the Internet would be a copyright infringement in
addition to a contract violation.
JMR|10.5.07 @ 4:08PM|#
OK. Let's not call it "property." As its creator, should you
be able to dictate the terms of its distribution though?
That's the question. I hate to weasel, but I haven't come to
comprehensive and firm conclusions on this question.
|10.5.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Windows come with an EULA that says it can't be
copied.
A DVD comes with an FBI warning, both on the box and in a splash
screen when you play it. So it can't be copied either. But I can
rip it, decrypt it, and make it publicly available. And that's not
theft?
You're still drawing an arbitrary line between theft and non-theft
simply based on content, not on rights.
|10.5.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Do I own my own feces?
Isn't that the stupidist fucking question?
Do you want to download my feces?
Where are my meds?
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:11PM|#
From the federal government at:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
Copyright protects "original works of authorship"
that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need
not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with
the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the
following categories:
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
A common short-hand would be "creative works".
|10.5.07 @ 4:12PM|#
As its creator, should you be able to dictate the terms of
its distribution though?
Ab-so-friggin'-lutely. I don't even understand why this is a
debatable point. Seems obvious to me.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:13PM|#
You're still drawing an arbitrary line between theft and
non-theft simply based on content, not on rights.
Yes. And the difference results in criminal versus civil
penalties.
|10.5.07 @ 4:17PM|#
I think many are missing some of the facts in this case. The defendant didn't download music, she "made available" music she purchased on CD. Her lawyer showed proof of her CD purchases (and I believe a Best Buy employee testified that she was a regular music buyer). Her infringement was in the making available realm.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:18PM|#
MP, your are now arguing with someone who has spent many, many
hours on Reason saying that all forms of intellectual property are
vital to the proper operation of a civil society.
I try very hard to avoid using colloquial terms like stealing and
sharing because they are too fuzzy and usually obscure the issues
at hand.
Copyright infringement is a civil infraction not a criminal
infraction. While it may be morally equivalent to "stealing"
someone future income, it is not legally theft.
I think it is much more productive to focus on the issues
associated with infringing someone right to control the
distribution a creative work and leave words like theft out of the
picture.
|10.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Yes. And the difference results in criminal versus civil
penalties.
I am not, nor have I ever been, debating the legaleeze meaning of
theft. I'm unconcerned if the legal infrastructure dictates civil
vs. criminal penalties.
My gripe is with Jesse's statement regarding morality and it's
implied meaning that content creators have no moral right to
dictate the terms of the distribution of their content. I find that
position to be bullocks.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I think many are missing some of the facts in this case. The
defendant didn't download music, she "made available" music she
purchased on CD. Her lawyer showed proof of her CD purchases (and I
believe a Best Buy employee testified that she was a regular music
buyer). Her infringement was in the making available
realm.
I have ripped many of my CDs. In fact I have been listening to a
home-made, greates-hits CD during this entire thread. This is fair
use, period, regardless of what those fuckers at the RIAA
say.
But, I don't distribute my stuff to anyone else. Not one-at-a-time
on CDs or over-the-Internet to anyone that can connect. That is
where infringement occurs.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:22PM|#
My gripe is with Jesse's statement regarding
morality
I disgree with that statement as well.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:29PM|#
A DVD comes with an FBI warning, both on the box and in a
splash screen when you play it. So it can't be copied either. But I
can rip it, decrypt it, and make it publicly available. And that's
not theft?
No it's not theft. But, the DCMA makes it a civil infraction by the
mere act of attempting to defeat the copy-protection on the
DVD.
This law is the first step in the process to gut fair use.
|10.5.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Jamie Kelly | October 5, 2007, 4:11pm | #
Do I own my own feces?
I could name several art stores who would love to talk to you.
|10.5.07 @ 4:36PM|#
All fooling aside, I'm surprised nobody's refered to the
economic literature on copying. Hal Varian of Berkeley has a
working paper on his website about "Copying and Copyright," a nice
non-technical survey of the subject. You can get it (free, no less)
at:
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/2004/copying-and-copyright.pdf
A quote at length I think constitutes fair use:
"...[As] most information is born digital and that digital
information is typically very easy to copy and distribute, it is
conceivable that copyright laws may become almost impossible to
enforce. Are there ways for sellers to support themselves in such
an environment? It is worth considering some of the options. Here
is a brief list of business models that might work in a world
without effective copyright.
[List, which isn't that brief actually. Possibilities
abound.]
"All of these business models have their problems, of course, and
none is likely to yield any sort of social optimum. On the other
hand, it should be kept in mind that copyright is a second-best
solution to intellectual property provision as well.
"Perhaps the ultimate saving grace is that the same technological
advances that are making
digital content inexpensive to copy are also helping to reduce the
fixed cost of content
creation. Hundreds of thousands of people are giving away digital
content, from blogs to
garage video to open source software. The increased availability of
content due the
reduction in the cost of creating and distributing it will
presumably increase competition and reduce the price consumers pay
for legitimate access to content. This trend may serve to
counterbalance some of the forces that have lend for increased
copyright protection."
|10.5.07 @ 4:38PM|#
No it's not theft. But, the DCMA makes it a civil infraction
by the mere act of attempting to defeat the copy-protection on the
DVD.
Can I safely assume that every time you use the word "theft" you
are referring to the legal definition? If so, I really think you
should qualify that every time.
I don't really care to debate the legal definition of theft. I
consider any unauthorized acquisition/distribution (which is
considerably different from the concept of fair use) to be theft.
If you want to use other words, then fine. But it is a morally
illegitimate act to acquire/distribute content without the
acquiescence of the content producer.
And regarding fair use, although I feel that a content producer has
a right to contractually obligate a consumer to only consume
content in a particular way, I don't feel that it is an obvious
moral right deserving of a legal framework beyond basic contract
enforcement.
|10.5.07 @ 4:44PM|#
I've always assumed that sharing things that weren't yours was
not exactly up to you...
bootlegging movies on a street is the same thing, except the
defendant didn't make a profit and the downloaders didn't get a
physical object, just the in many 1's and 0's
It's all just because you can do it without a risk. It's easy, it's
almost risk free! Why not download movies and songs, why not share
them out? Free stuff for the taking!
Argue all you want over whether it's "illegal" and "theft"
according to legal def's - you're taking something that you didn't
pay for
if you still think dling and sharing is a-okay, then i'm at a
loss
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Can I safely assume that every time you use the word "theft"
you are referring to the legal definition? If so, I really think
you should qualify that every time.
When talking about copyright, I restrict myself to "infrigement".
This eliminates the problem.
But it is a morally illegitimate act to acquire/distribute
content without the acquiescence of the content
producer.
Yes and no. The purchase and resale and resale and resale ad
nauseum of a CD gets the content creator no compensation past the
first purchase. One could argue this has an impact on future sales
of new CDs, but this is clearly legitimate under copyright law
today.
And regarding fair use, although I feel that a content producer
has a right to contractually obligate a consumer to only consume
content in a particular way, . . .
Yes and no. You have no real right to prevent me from watching a
movie that I purchased in the manner that I choose so long as I am
not distributing it to anyone else. If I want to rip it, chop it,
and show it my wall as a collage, that is my right under fair
use.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 4:54PM|#
MP, note that a key aspect of showing infringement is that the
holder of the copyright has to prove financial harm.
In this case, "harm" was "proven" by the mere fact that the content
was accessible via the Internet. This resulted in "statutory
damages" instead of proven actual damages.
So even though I am vehemently opposed to "file sharing" on the
Interent, this case worries the hell out of me.
|10.5.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Argue all you want over whether it's "illegal" and "theft"
according to legal def's - you're taking something that you didn't
pay for
That's why it bugs me so much when people start getting into a
semantic debate over the legal definition of "theft". When debating
the general concept of IP, it should be pretty clear that the
debate is one concerning moral rights, not legal ones.
You have no real right to prevent me from watching a movie that
I purchased in the manner that I choose so long as I am not
distributing it to anyone else.
All I'm saying is that one has the moral right to draft a contract
that dictates those usage terms. Fair use is a legal construct that
dictates the valid terms of such a contract. There is no moral
basis for fair use which supersedes the moral right to mutual
contract. However, there are sound practical reasons for having the
Fair Use legal construct, which is why people are typically willing
to accept it and put aside their fundamental moral right to mutual
contract on any terms.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 5:19PM|#
When debating the general concept of IP, it should be pretty
clear that the debate is one concerning moral rights, not legal
ones.
What constitutes copyright infringement is a very clearly defined
by the legal system.
I have argued that owning Intellection Property is a natural right,
just like owning Physical Property. This argument is certainly made
on moral grounds.
But when we are talking specifically about the result of a trial
like the one we talked about today, we are strictly talking about
the legal ramifications of current copyright law unless you
specifically tell me you are talking about deficiencies in the
current law.
By the way, I think Fair Use is a moral construct as much as a
legal construct.
carrick|10.5.07 @ 5:20PM|#
I'm done for the day, I hope to continue this discussion with you in the future MP.
|10.5.07 @ 5:29PM|#
I'm done for the day, I hope to continue this discussion
with you in the future MP.
Maybe next time I'll stay on topic instead of getting pissed at
Jesse when he says there's no moral right to IP. Have a good
weekend all, I'm out too.
|10.5.07 @ 5:48PM|#
"Does anyone think that "joyriding" isn't auto theft? The
"prtmanently deprive" definition seems to indicate it isn't. Yet
joyriders are often prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto. Hmmm."
Indeed "joyriding" isn't auto theft, at least in California. It's a
separate offense. If the prosecution can't convince the jury that
the perps wouldn't have returned the car, then he/she doesn't get a
conviction.
Jesse Walker|10.5.07 @ 6:22PM|#
My gripe is with Jesse's statement regarding
morality
I don't really want to get into this, especially at 6:20 on a
Friday afternoon. But do you actually think that copying something
is morally equivalent to taking it?
|10.5.07 @ 10:05PM|#
I don't really want to get into this, especially at 6:20 on
a Friday afternoon. But do you actually think that copying
something is morally equivalent to taking it?
When it comes to IP, yes.
Let's imagine that CDs were sold in open unsealed packages. Are you
saying that walking into a store and taking a physical CD is not
morally equivalent to walking in with a laptop and making a
digitally perfect copy? What makes matter (a physical CD)
sacrosanct but bits (the data on the CD) free? Especially when the
matter is practically worthless.
And remember Jesse, when you say "taking it", aren't you referring
to taking a copy? When we're talking about IP, we're talking about
copies. The transport mechanism is inconsequential. You don't buy a
CD because it makes a nice shiny coaster. You are paying for
content. I don't understand why you are so wedded to the transport
mechanism.
|10.5.07 @ 11:50PM|#
"But do you actually think that copying something is morally
equivalent to taking it?
When it comes to IP, yes."
Well that's a f*ckedup thing to say.
(1) Would you prefer I steal your CDs or make illegal copies of
them?
(2) Better yet, let's say you made perfectly legal backup copies of
all your CDs. Would you prefer I steal your original copies or make
illegal copies of them? You'd still have the content, so what's the
beef?
Repeat after me: There's a difference between illegally copying
something you have and stealing yours so that you don't have it
anymore.
|10.6.07 @ 12:25PM|#
"(2) Better yet, let's say you made perfectly legal backup
copies of all your CDs. Would you prefer I steal your original
copies or make illegal copies of them? You'd still have the
content, so what's the beef?"
What the heck is the point of this analogy? The "you" in this
scenario is not the relevant party here. MP himself might prefer
that you make copies of the content, rather than steal his discs.
But who cares? MP isn't the owner of the content's copyright, so in
the realm of this debate, his "preference" is irrelevant.
MP = possessor of the shiny plastic discs
X = possessor of the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute
the content
Whether or not you agree that copying is equivalent to "taking,"
your analogy is pointless. Because the "taking" or "not-taking"
that's at issue here involves X, not MP.
If you wish to argue that copying something is not "morally
equivalent to taking it," you need to focus on X and demonstrate
that this something was not taken from him.
(I happen to think that, yes, something has been taken from X: the
exclusivity of his right.)
Jesse Walker|10.6.07 @ 2:59PM|#
MP: What Lamar said (except the rude "fucked-up thing to say" bit). Taking removes your property; you don't have access to it anymore. Copying does not. It may, under certain circumstances, reduce the value of your property, but if that were theft you could defend zoning laws as anti-larceny devices.
|10.6.07 @ 4:04PM|#
The question is whether illegally copying something is the moral
equivalent of stealing something. There is a clear moral
distinction in that stealing deprives somebody of the item, and
such a distinction is written into the common law and most penal
codes.
MP and Tom have attempted to make assumptions to reduce that
distinction by assuming the physical CD holds zero value. There is
clearly value in having the original as opposed to a copy. To
ignore this reality, they have chosen to focus on the harm or
depravation caused to the IP rights holder.
This is still a poor argument because it rests on the incorrect
assumption that somebody who illegally copies a song would have
bought that song or CD. Even if we could know for sure that 50% of
those people would have gone and made a successful purchase of the
illegally copied item, we would still be left with a valid moral
distinction.
The law recognizes this distinction in a number of ways. First and
foremost, the only criminal aspect of copyright law deals with
bootlegging, where the target is not just a copy of the content,
but a business model that takes advantage of people buying the CD
but not in a way that sends money to the rights holder. Illegal
copying is a civil offense, even though Congress clearly had the
criminal aspects of bootlegging on its mind.
Second, saying that there is no moral distinction rests on the
assumption that more illegal copies in circulation causes a
reduction in sales of the item. Single songs from a CD can act like
advertising. I have personally bought hundreds of CDs
after hearing a single song that I liked, though I didn't ask if
the person who had the song on his computer bought it legally, I
suspect not. While it is within the rights holder's purview to
refuse viral marketing, one cannot claim with certainty that they
also don't benefit from it.
So when we're talking about the moral distinction between illegal
copying and stealing, we have three important points: (1) the
copier gets something lesser in value, (2) the item owner is not
deprived of his property, and (3) the rights holder only
potentially may have been harmed.
And the F word still looks better to me with the asterix.
|10.6.07 @ 8:08PM|#
I want to respond to both Jesse and Lamar, but I'll wait for the
next IP thread.
Until next time. Excelsior!
(yes Stan, I'm an IP thief)
|10.7.07 @ 8:33AM|#
"The question is whether illegally copying something is the
moral equivalent of stealing something."
Right. I understand that. All I was saying is that the analogy you
presented (11:50 p.m., 10/5) does not properly allow us to examine
any equivalence.
Aside from the closing parenthetical, my post was merely about a
rhetorical flaw.
|10.7.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Please Tom, you claimed that the person who had their CDs stolen
wasn't relevant to the morals of illegal copying, when the whole
inquiry was a comparison of illegal copying and stealing. You can't
compare stealing to illegal copying without looking at the person
stolen from.
You're the one trying to say there is no moral distinction between
copying and stealing as long as you don't bother to compare copying
to stealing.......??!!
|10.7.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"Please Tom, you claimed that the person who had their CDs
stolen wasn't relevant to the morals of illegal
copying,"
No, I simply claimed that your analogy was not adequate to make the
comparison that would need to be made for assessing
equivalence.
I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up here. Step back a
second. Imagine not that I'm some foe who may disagree with your
ultimate point, but that I am merely, say, a debate coach or a
moot-court judge.
We are examining a proposition: Are copying and stealing morally
equivalent? They may or may not be. But we cannot properly judge
their equivalence by using this framework: "Would MP prefer that I
steal his CDs, or that I make illegal copies of them?"
Stealing MP's discs affects MP. Copying MP's discs affects not-MP.
(I.e., the copying affects a copyright holder somewhere.)
Two different parties are affected. Thus MP's preference is
irrelevant. Your analogy does not service the question at
hand.
Look, you could be entirely correct: Stealing and unauthorized
copying may not be morally equivalent at all. This may very well be
the most fundamental of universal truths. All I was saying is that
we can not get to it via the particular analogy you presented.
|10.7.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"Stealing MP's discs affects MP. Copying MP's discs affects
not-MP. (I.e., the copying affects a copyright holder
somewhere.)"
That's where you're wrong. Stealing MP's discs affects MP and
possibly the rights holder. Copying MP's discs does not affect MP
and possibly affects the rights holder.
Thus, the harm inflicted upon MP that is not inflicted upon him via
copying is most certainly relevant. MP is trying to factor out the
reasons that stealing is distinct from copying, then proclaim that
stealing and copying are the same. It can't be done, coach.
|10.7.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I should have added to my first paragraph that only in stealing is there certain harm. In illegal copying, there is only potential harm, but that potential harm is also present in stealing. We are left comparing the moral distinction between an act containing certain harm plus potential harm vs. an act only containing potential harm.
|10.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#
You're still not getting my point.
You asked MP which scenario HE preferred: having his discs stolen,
or having his discs copied.
You asked which scenario HE preferred.
You asked which scenario HE preferred.
You seemed to think that MP's preference in this matter would
somehow illustrate something about the moral equivalence of the two
acts.
I was simply noting that MP's preference does not, in fact,
illustrate anything about the moral equivalence of the two
acts.
I've now written it five different ways to Sunday -- quite
literally -- and you still don't seem to be understanding my
point.
You asked which scenario HE preferred.
Do you realize that's what you did?
|10.7.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Can I say it again?
You asked which scenario he preferred.
All right?
MP had written that "copying something is morally equivalent to
taking it ... When it comes to IP, yes."
You declared that to be "a fucked up thing to say," then posed this
hypothetical:
"Would you prefer I steal your original copies or
make illegal copies of them? You'd still have the content, so
what's the beef?"
And then I posted with a simple response: that this question about
MP's preferences does not address the issue of moral
equivalence.
At least I thought it was a simple response.
Christ.
|10.7.07 @ 4:19PM|#
While I'm wary of moving on until I'm certain you've understood
the flaw in your Oct. 5 post, I will address this from your
latest:
"Stealing MP's discs affects MP and possibly the rights
holder."
No, stealing MP's discs does not affect the rightsholder in any
way.
I'm starting to get the impression you have some basic
misapprehension about the nature of copyright.
|10.8.07 @ 12:56AM|#
"You asked which scenario HE preferred."
To latch onto that as if it were the only part of our discussion is
silly. Asking MP whether he preferred his discs stolen or merely
copied was a way to illustrate the deprivation aspect of stealing
with is not a concrete part of copying.
And if stealing the content on MP's discs does not affect the
rights holder is anyway, how does copying his discs? This is not my
point, as both stealing his discs and copying his discs have
ramifications for the rights holder (both reduce the likelihood
that I'll buy the CDs). While this is not a legal distinction,
you'll find that we already discussed the legal implications.
There's no doubt that, legally, there is an important and
undeniable distinction between illegal copying and stealing.
If you read the posts above, the main objection to my argument was
that I was using the legal differences in copyright and larceny
laws to support the idea that there is a moral difference. Your
johnny-come-lately posts don't even address that whole aspect. The
legal aspect is cut and dry...there is a very clear distinction in
the law. If that's your angle, good luck.
I understand copyright, at least academically, having received the
highest grade out of a class of 110 in one of the top IP lawschools
in the country, with William Patry, a reknown expert in the field.
I think I have an idea how copyright works, as well as the history
of IP protection starting from the Statute of Anne. I've written
articles on extending copyright protection to folk art and even a
neat little short story on the long forgotten art of self help in
copyright enforcement.
Your flaw is that you latched on to the tail end of a reasoned
debate, and failed to include the previously discussed legal aspect
in your questioning of my later posts.
But perhaps it would be more instructive if you just stated why you
think stealing, which deprives somebody of property, is morally
equivalent to illegal copying, which only potentially deprives
somebody of property. That'd be a good place to start.
|10.8.07 @ 8:41AM|#
"But perhaps it would be more instructive if you just stated
why you think stealing, which deprives somebody of property, is
morally equivalent to illegal copying,"
I didn't say I think that. In fact, I wrote:
"Look, you could be entirely correct: Stealing and unauthorized
copying may not be morally equivalent at all. This may very well be
the most fundamental of universal truths. All I was saying is that
we can not get to it via the particular analogy you
presented."
I think you believe I slipped into this thread to stealthily make
some larger point. I didn't. I jumped in to say, "Whoa, not a
serviceable analogy" after -- yes -- reading your entire discussion
with MP. I was right there with you guys. I'd enjoyed the debate up
to that point. But I saw it take a clumsy turn with that post, and
thought I'd be so brash as to step in and play referee.
That's all.
I don't have a fully formed stance on the whole copying = stealing
tangent. I've gone back and forth over the years, and really have
ever engaged only it because it's become such a dependably
distracting side argument in the post-Napster debates online. It's
far less interesting to me than the real issues, but half the time
it's this semantics battle that seems to invariably get fought
instead. I understand why it's crucial to establish the terms of a
debate -- so that the debate even takes place in the proper arena
in the first place -- but still I find it dreary.
I don't think it's necessary to establish that copying = stealing
to properly argue in favor of IP rights. Most IP proponents know
this too, I think, which is why they get frustrated with this part
of the debate. I'm not saying it's what you did here, but many of
our opponents glom onto some casual use of language at some point,
turn the debate into an argument about words, and the whole thing
winds up grinding gears and never getting anywhere.
I'm pretty sure you and I are flying solo here at this point, so
like MP, I'll look forward to engaging you in the next fur-flying
copyright thread...
|10.8.07 @ 9:13AM|#
"But I saw it take a clumsy turn with that post"
Was it a clumsy illustration pointing out distinctions in the
(non-legal) harmed caused by different actions, or a clumsy
understanding on your part which lead you to brashly assume it was
a poor analogy?
You'll most certainly notice that I think the non-legal aspect of
this whole argument is rather bogus.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245