Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Intellectual Property & Law => Topic started by: Xeen on 3 November 2003, 00:42
-
I'm just wondering what people think...
Yesterday I went to see a new movie at the theaters. I paid a whole $10 for it. I liked the move and today I downloaded it to watch it again sometime because I think its not fair that I have to wait half a year or so before it's on DVD. Legally this makes me a criminal to the MPAA. But what about ethically? I did after all pay a ripoff price to see the movie.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: xeen ]
-
Copying published information is/should be a basic human right (in this case it may not be technically "published" but it is still open for public viewing, which fits the same moral criteria) There is nothing wrong with it. In fact it should be the cornerstone of law for any democratic society. Corporations have no business telling you you can't copy this or that, on any basis. Any damage they can calculate from such activity is false, because they are starting from false assumptions -- that they have the right to control aspects of your life that have no effect on them, and any attempt on your part to circumvent their control over you results in "losses" for them. It is really the other way around. You are the one whose rights are being infringed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
you're only a criminal if you sell the disc
-
I'm a criminal because I watch encrypted DVD's on Linux... go figure.
-
I'm afraid you stole that film. The film studio doesn't have it any more - why? Because it's in your house. I think you should give it back.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I'm afraid you stole that film. The film studio doesn't have it any more - why? Because it's in your house. I think you should give it back.
I also stole the Mona Lisa while on tour in France. I have the negatives developing in my basement as we speak.
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I'm afraid you stole that film. The film studio doesn't have it any more - why? Because it's in your house. I think you should give it back.
Exactly why this MPAA RIAA crap is bullshit.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Copying published information is/should be a basic human right (in this case it may not be technically "published" but it is still open for public viewing, which fits the same moral criteria) There is nothing wrong with it. In fact it should be the cornerstone of law for any democratic society. Corporations have no business telling you you can't copy this or that, on any basis. Any damage they can calculate from such activity is false, because they are starting from false assumptions -- that they have the right to control aspects of your life that have no effect on them, and any attempt on your part to circumvent their control over you results in "losses" for them. It is really the other way around. You are the one whose rights are being infringed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
For the last time, movies / music / paintings are NOT information. They are pieces of art. Don't compare apples and oranges.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Copying published information is/should be a basic human right (in this case it may not be technically "published" but it is still open for public viewing, which fits the same moral criteria) There is nothing wrong with it. In fact it should be the cornerstone of law for any democratic society. Corporations have no business telling you you can't copy this or that, on any basis. Any damage they can calculate from such activity is false, because they are starting from false assumptions -- that they have the right to control aspects of your life that have no effect on them, and any attempt on your part to circumvent their control over you results in "losses" for them. It is really the other way around. You are the one whose rights are being infringed. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
If I want to see the movie that I paid for yesterday again, the MPAA expects me to go to the theater and pay again. So by downloading it, I'm not giving them the $10 that I would have otherwise. However, there are 2 flaws in this assumption:
1. Why should they assume that I would in fact go to the theater and see the movie a second time? Actually, I definately wouldn't. So they're not getting the money either way so I'm not imposing any financial damage on them.
2. What about when the DVD comes out? Say I go buy the DVD and loan it (loan, not copy) to some friend of mine. Then they are loosing the money that he/she would have otherwise paid to rent it. However it is not illegal to loan your possessions to your friends and they have no way of keeping you from doing so. So why should it be any different before the dvd is released?
And once again, how can they assume that my friend would even bother renting the dvd if I hadn't loaned it to him. Maybe he's poor and can't afford it. So again, they're not loosing any money. And actually in this case we're helping the MPAA by promoting a good movie. The more people who watch it, the more likely it is they will want to see a similar movie in the future.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
For the last time, movies / music / paintings are NOT information. They are pieces of art. Don't compare apples and oranges.
So what are you saying?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
For the last time, movies / music / paintings are NOT information. They are pieces of art. Don't compare apples and oranges.
They may not be functional in nature, but they still constitute information. But whether you call them 'information' or 'art' is irrelevant - the point still stands that they are all infintely replicable artefacts, and so (for non-commercial redistribution purposes at least) can be treated equally.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
For the last time, movies / music / paintings are NOT information. They are pieces of art. Don't compare apples and oranges.
From dictonary.reference.com:
in
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
They may not be functional in nature, but they still constitute information. But whether you call them 'information' or 'art' is irrelevant - the point still stands that they are all infintely replicable artefacts, and so (for non-commercial redistribution purposes at least) can be treated equally.
Good point, very true. The fact that something is copy-able is the important thing to consider here. If physical items were easily copied and there were laws against doing so, we would be having a discussion about that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by xeen:
If I want to see the movie that I paid for yesterday again, the MPAA expects me to go to the theater and pay again. So by downloading it, I'm not giving them the $10 that I would have otherwise. However, there are 2 flaws in this assumption:
1. Why should they assume that I would in fact go to the theater and see the movie a second time? Actually, I definately wouldn't. So they're not getting the money either way so I'm not imposing any financial damage on them.
2. What about when the DVD comes out? Say I go buy the DVD and loan it (loan, not copy) to some friend of mine. Then they are loosing the money that he/she would have otherwise paid to rent it. However it is not illegal to loan your possessions to your friends and they have no way of keeping you from doing so. So why should it be any different before the dvd is released?
And once again, how can they assume that my friend would even bother renting the dvd if I hadn't loaned it to him. Maybe he's poor and can't afford it. So again, they're not loosing any money. And actually in this case we're helping the MPAA by promoting a good movie. The more people who watch it, the more likely it is they will want to see a similar movie in the future.
All good points. I especially like #2. I'm glad you realize what brain-dead logic they use. ;)
-
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: '
-
quote:
However it is not illegal to loan your possessions to your friends and they have no way of keeping you from doing so. So why should it be any different before the dvd is released?
Actually (in the UK at least) I think even lending copyrighted material is illegal.
-
quote:
But that does not mean that they are unlimited in nature. They may be infinitely replicable, but only a limited number of people will benefit from them.
Aside from the finite longevity of the human race/the universe, the number of people who will potentially benefit from them is theoretically infinite.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: '
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Actually (in the UK at least) I think even lending copyrighted material is illegal.
By the way, you may be interested to know that it is not illegal to copy movies or music by P2P in Canada (It does not apply for copying CD's, though).
-
quote:
But what about ethically? I did after all pay a ripoff prince to see the movie.
Ethically this is legal, because you already paid to see the movie, whatever the MPAA may think. My view is that each person should pay, but only once per medium.
-
Of course you have to pay if you go to see it in a movie theater, or you to to a concert -- its their building after all! And I for one am glad to pay for that; after all, I don't have a big screen TV or surround sound. Plus, leaked copies of movies tend to be of poor quality.
Other than that it shouldn't be mandatory. I am a strong believer in voluntary donations. If people think something is worthwhile they will support it if need be, either financially or through some other means (programming, donating equipment, advocacy, etc.) otherwise it will just go away, but if nobody cared enough to support it is it really such a big loss?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
My view is that each person should pay, but only once per medium.
Isn't a divx(probably, either way it's a computer format) a different medium than what the cinema uses?
I don't think you're the criminal for using the movie you got (from some p2p program probably), but rather the person you got it from is the criminal. As he is giving it away to thousands of people who have never seen the movie. You, have paid for it and should be able to view it again with no problem.
-
I don't understand, Stryker. How does your post relate to what I said?
Edit: Oh, my mistake. I meant to pay once per piece of art, not per medium. Sorry for not being clear.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
Isn't a divx(probably, either way it's a computer format) a different medium than what the cinema uses?
I don't think you're the criminal for using the movie you got (from some p2p program probably), but rather the person you got it from is the criminal. As he is giving it away to thousands of people who have never seen the movie. You, have paid for it and should be able to view it again with no problem.
That's right.
You cant steal something that doesn't exist.
-
Technically, you were stealing. When you went to the movie theater, their goal was to provide you with that one showing, nothing else. Buying a movie is different because it's designed so that you can watch it whenever you want in private. Buying does not include giving it away because you still don't own the rights to the movie, just being able to view it in private.
-
quote:
Technically, you were stealing.
No, technically stealing means to unlawfully deprive someone of a tangible, finite thing that they own, so they no longer have it. No-one was deprived of anything. Thus he wasn't stealng.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
No, technically stealing means to unlawfully deprive someone of a tangible, finite thing that they own, so they no longer have it. No-one was deprived of anything. Thus he wasn't stealng.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
Stealing an idea does not deprive anyone from his idea.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
Er, exactly. That's my point. You can't "steal" an idea.
-
The dictionary doesn't agree with you.
quote:
Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stE(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto
-
Are you saying because "to steal a kiss" is a valid use of the word steal, it's valid in the context of copying as well? Well "steal" is obviously now also used loosely in contexts other than the literal theft of tangible items. If someone has a kiss or their "thunder" stolen, they use the word "steal" informally because it conveys the idea of a wrongdoing, but no-one's exactly going to try to prosecute for theft. Similarly with copying, you may not agree with it, but it doesn't mean it's literally analogous to stealing.
-
I agree that theft is not the correct legal term for copying, but it's incorrect to say that it only refers to taking someone's possession. That was my point. Words only carry the meaning we give to them.
-
I don't think that downloading a digital media file is stealing. It isn't like you are sticking somebodies' DVD disc(one they paid for) in your pocket and leaving with it.
Digital media files are nothing more than a copy of original work. When you download a digital media file you are obtaining a copy, you aren't taking the original. When you download a file the computer you are downloading it from is simply giving you a copy, the computer you are downloading from isn't losing the file(it doesn't get deleted from the file server computer).
To me, stealing is taking something from somebody and leaving them without the item you took.
In reply to Xeens' asking if it makes him a criminal. Not at all man, it isn't like you hurt anyone by downloading that movie. Besides, you have paid $$$ to see the movie so you should have the right to be able to see it whenever you want(so you can catch parts that you may've missed). ;P
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
For the last time, movies / music / paintings are NOT information. They are pieces of art. Don't compare apples and oranges.
Art is a subset of information.
-
quote:
I downloaded it to watch it again sometime because I think its not fair that I have to wait half a year or so before it's on DVD.
I'm not going to judge you, but since this is a very interesting discussion of ethics, may I offer a question in hopes of stimulating this discussion?
Will you buy the DVD when it is released (if you intend to keep the copy you downloaded) or rent it at least once (if you intend to watch your downloaded copy only once or twice within a 24 hour period and then delete it)?
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Stealing an idea does not deprive anyone from his idea.
I'd like to comment on this. "Stealing" an idea is really a form of plagurism. When you use an original idea, without offering due credit to the originator of that idea, you deprive someone of credit, honor, reputation, and sometimes money.
I'm a scientist. I want people to take my ideas and use them! The qualifier is, they should footnote my work. The more people use and footnote my work, the better my reputation becomes. This provides me with job opportunities, opportunities at promotions, and better chances of getting grants.
I agree "stealing an idea" as it is called in the vernacular, does not deprive the original contributor of the idea. However, it does deprive him or her of other things. You don't really steal the idea as much as you steal credit for the idea.
Unless we are talking about patents, when everything gets more complicated...
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
-
quote:
I agree "stealing an idea" as it is called in the vernacular, does not deprive the original contributor of the idea. However, it does deprive him or her of other things. You don't really steal the idea as much as you steal credit for the idea.
I am a science student, and I agree with that. My point was that the term 'stealing' is not limited to physical objects.
quote:
When you use an original idea, without offering due credit to the originator of that idea, you deprive someone of credit, honor, reputation, and sometimes money.
Yes, I agree with that.
quote:
Art is a subset of information.
Art is not pure information. Art has to be interpreted in order to deduce meaningful information out of it. Art in itself is creation, not factual data.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
I'm not going to judge you, but since this is a very interesting discussion of ethics, may I offer a question in hopes of stimulating this discussion?
Will you buy the DVD when it is released (if you intend to keep the copy you downloaded) or rent it at least once (if you intend to watch your downloaded copy only once or twice within a 24 hour period and then delete it)?
Well...I intend to watch the movie once again and then delete it. And if I'm ever bored and want a good movie I'll probably rent it one day. I also sent it to another friend of mine. However, I feel that is irrelevant for two reasons:
1. If I hadn't sent it to him, the chances of him renting that video when it came out are very little. And he's not gonna keep it either, just watch it once.
2. It's absolutely no different than this situation:
I rent the DVD when it comes out on DVD. My local video store gives you DVDs for a 5 day period. During those 5 days I have the complete right to give it to anyone else as long as I return it on time. So its the same as if I just lend someone my rented DVD during that time (legally).
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: xeen ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
My point was that the term 'stealing' is not limited to physical objects.
Yes. There are some intangibles that can be "stolen" even if the strict legal definition is limited to tangibles.
quote:
Art is not pure information. Art has to be interpreted in order to deduce meaningful information out of it. Art in itself is creation, not factual data.
Very interesting.
You know, I think that this is one of the most stimulating philosophical threads we've had on this board.
-
If someone took credit for my work, I would call it lying, not stealing. Still wrong, but a different thing, really. Anyway it is rather beside the point, since nobody who copies a DVD would claim to have produced it!
Yeah, things like "he stole the show" or "you stole my idea" aren't correct use of the word. They're just common expressions. I couldn't get you convicted of theft if you made an outstanding acting performance during a play. ;)
What we really need to think about is whether copyright in its current form is really the best thing for society. I for one believe it is far more harmful than good. If there is to be copyright at all, it should at least be done in the spirit of the wishes of our founding fathers. The framers felt copyright should only be allowed under the condition that it be used as a means to an end to promote social progress, *not* to simply reward authors. I do not believe the current copyright regimes and mega-corporations promote social progress.
How far are the copyright and patent laws going to to go until corporations own every single thought that goes on in your head, every tune, every image, every idea? It needs to stop.
Case in point, just look at this article (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/2159241&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=155&tid=185&tid=95&tid=99&threshold=-1) on slashdot. What rubbish.
[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.
-
How are you robbing them of profits? The movie is only out in the theaters right now so it isn't like you can go out and buy a copy. Now how are you depriving them of money if the product isn't even for sale when you download a copy of it?
-
Because he won't pay for it once it comes out.
-
I'm a Cop...Stealing can be defined in any dictionary you like. However if you wanted the legal (as in the one viewed by the courts as the proper deffinition) check Blacks Law Dictionary. Now as for is it a crime... One must have a several things to determine whether a crime was committed. Probable Cause - is there significant reason or facts present to beleive a crime has been or is being committed. Reasonable belief - would a "reasonable" person (the average level headed joe in the world) beleive the act is wrong.
With those established, now you can move on to the elements of the crime... A generic reference for crime elements as they pertain to theft are these.
Larceny
1. That the accused wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld certain property from the possesion of the owner or of any other person;
2. That the property belonged to a certain person, agency or institution;
3. That the property was of a certain value, or some value; and
4. That the taking, obtaining, or withholding by the accused was with the intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person, agency or institution of the use and benefit of the property or permanently to appropriate the property for the use of the accused or for any person, agency or institution other than the owner.
Within each element, all the words you may find "Questionable" have to be defined by a court. These deffinitions can be found in Blacks Law Dictionary. I ain't about to get them for you.
That is the letter of the law...as read, black and white, no exceptions...
Cops and Attourneys and Courts also know another side of the Law... It's called the "Spirit of the Law"
What that means is simply this...A law that says stop at a posted stop sign is for the safety6 of personell and property. The letter of the law says you will always stop at the stop sign. The spirit says at 3 am, there is no other traffic around, so it's OK to "roll" through it. If a cop sees you roll through a stop sign at 3 am will he pull you over? Probably. Will he give you a ticket? If he gets attitude or finds more wrong, then yes. It is the discretion of the Officer and courts to determine applicablity of Letter vs Spirit. This is how "Case Law" is produced. A court finding that situations may not apply to certain laws by the letter, and exceptions are made.
Do I personally think it's stealing? No. As long as it is used at home and your copy remains in a destructable state. Is that based on what I just described? No. It's personal Opinion. I submitted the information concernin the "Legal Deffinition" of Larceny to stimulate factual debate based on Factual information. We can not argue opinion or ethics on a forum that has international attendance based simply on cultures. What Americans are brought up to beleive are certainly not what other nations beleive as far as rights and wrongs. Ethics are determined by an individuals culture, up-bringings, parents, environment and his own comprehension of right and wrong. Remember, perverted senses of ethics makes serial killers justify their actions as normal.
-
wouldn't the actual criminal be the one who leaked the movie or somehow made an illegal copy. he is the one that ripped it off and hes pretty much given it to you so if anyone is breaking the law its him for distributing the movie
-
Now your starting to delv into the world of Conspiracy to commit larceny...that's where that belongs, legally the answer is yes.
Here's another good one, using kazaa or whatever P2P to copy files is illegal. But joining a network which shares is OK so far...Now, what if that person is "sharing" a legal authorized copy made by the manufacturer? Why is that different than say Billy Bob sharing his copy of a copy? Because the sharing of a copy is illegal, but a manufacturers copy isn't? Aren't the both copies of a few originals really? And as far as Originals go...isn't there actually only one original?
-
Another thought...
Whenever you purchase software, DVD's, whatever...You can legally make a copy of it to preserve the "original." Now if I loan this copy out, I am violating copyright laws, whether I am charging moneys for it or not. But if I loan the original to a freind, then it's legal and there is no control over that. How exactly does that work? Why make a copy to preserve the original then since it's more likely to get damaged in anothers hands than the ones of the person who paid for it?
-
Wow! Those were some great posts American Bastard.
To answer your original question, yes. There is technically only 1 original copy of the movie. The original copy is the one on the film roll in the producers' studio.
(edit)Well, since I know that you are a cop now I better watch what I say around you. J/K, I always have to poke fun at people and stuff. ;P
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
If it was considered stealing, there would be no need for seperate copyright laws. It is a violation of copyright laws, yes... but it is not stealing. Wether it's right or wrong is simply a matter of opinion. The government says it's wrong. A lot of society says it's wrong. If you don't think it's wrong, do something about it. I would but I'm still young and I honestly don't care that much about it. I don't mind paying $10 to buy a movie.
-
$10 for a movie isn't bad at all. $20 is even reasonable. However, new releases don't cost no $10 or $20. Most of the time a new release on DVD goes for $30-$50. $30 is severely borderlining what a single copy of a movie in mass copying/production is worth. Any more than $30 is outright unreasonable and is what I'd like to call highway robbery.
The same goes for Music CD's. $5 per CD would be great, $10 is borderlining acceptable. $15-$21 is highway robbery. Most of the time the CD only has a few good songs on it anyways. Why in the hell should people pay $15+ for a few good songs? After so many copies of a music album have flowed out to the public each copy of the CD is technically only worth about $2 or $3 because the sales of the first line of copies more than pays for what it costed to pay the artist, for the materials used to record the music, for the time spent by editors to make the music sound its' best and the cost of the press for that album to be mass produced.
The bad thing with music is when you buy a CD the artist only sees a small percentage of the money from the album sales. The largest percentage goes to the label and the RIAA.
CD's being a straight up rip-off is the reason why services such as iTunes is so successful. People get to buy the music that they truely want at a reasonable price. They don't have to pay the full cost for a CD with a few good songs and the rest being of trash. To make a long story short, they aren't paying for unwanted songs.
Now here is a question I have for some of you. Why is it ok for us to get raped by the entertainment world but it isn't ok for us to get a little measure of revenge on them(us fucking them over a bit). Some of the old wise prophets said, "What goes around comes around".
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.
No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.
-
quote:
Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.
What is this, some sort of retroactive definition of stealing? They never had the "profit" to begin with, so how could I possibly take it from them? I may be denying them profits, but that's a totally different situation. This is like telling me I'm stealing from a book publisher when I go to read a book at the library. Or when I lend my friend a DVD. Or when I shop at Wal-Mart instead of K-Mart. In all of those circumstances you could argue from the same logic the copyright regimes are using to defend their IP monopolies. The fact that I have to relinquish my copy of Friday After Next so my friend Joe can watch it is beside the point. After all how often would I want to watch the movie at the same time? The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch. He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch. He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.
He's not watching something you normally have to pay for.
What he downloaded is not a copy of anything that exists (yet). Their is no media you can use for tv or computer available.
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
This is just my interpretation guys, and I think it's horrible what the RIAA does, and people should not be charged for ideas. Unfotunately things such as copyright laws and "intellectual property" screw things up.
-
quote:
No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.
I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.
Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.
Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.
That's bullshit and completely off subject.
Sure infinite wasn't the best word for him to use, but you know what he means. An artist along with the recording company has the potential to get every piece of money that exists. All for whistling a few tunes. There should be some set limit, say a song can't bring in over $20,000 profit per song or something... then after that limit is reached the music may be freely distributed. Some changes should be made.
-
quote:
There should be some set limit, say a song can't bring in over $20,000 profit per song or something... then after that limit is reached the music may be freely distributed. Some changes should be made.
That's better. But the problem remains that the people will actually have to BUY the songs before they are released for free, which in some cases may never happen, because everyone will wait for the song to be released for free (that is, if they don't rip it off with Kazaa first).
[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
That's better. But the problem remains that the people will actually have to BUY the songs before they are released for free, which in some cases may never happen, because everyone will wait for the song to be released for free (that is, if they don't rip it off with Kazaa first).
I wouldn't wait. I know it could take months, or even years, to get it free. And I know there are enough people willing to pay that it'd be freely available soon anyways. Pretty much every song is freely available already through kazaa and other such p2p networks. They still make a nice profit. The only drawback of setting a limit would be that some people would wait until that limit is reached, lots of people wouldn't wait though... they'd still go out and buy it.
-
Infinite is the best word to use. Infinite doesn't mean "eternal" or "going on forever" - it just means a lack of any finite limit. You're suggesting that artists should be able to earn infinitely for one piece of work. It doesn't matter that in practice the limited length of their lifespan, the amount of hard disk space on earth, whatever etc. is going to eventually stop them making money, the point is you see an artist as being entitled to an amount of income that's a function of how many people (infinite) that will use their work, rather than of how much work that they've done.
-
ok, now we're starting to get off topic...thought the extras are excellent "food for thought" the question was...am I a thief?
Artists are entitled to royalties...ie...the $30.00 you pay for a DVD, one of the actors may only make $.02c on that. this encludes everyone from the producer to the actor (yes this includes the guy in the credits that's only listed as "man with funny wig")
There is specific law concerning copyright infringement. Most is based on case law. Any copyright infringement generally falls under the larceny clauses. Why you might ask.
an Artist/creator cannot as we all know, copyright a bar of music or a line of code...however wrap the whole song/program/movie together...and it is the creation...thus the copyright...
Now for those of you who like to read between the lines
I have X movie...
I "share" it in 3 parts on a "sharing network" such as edonkey or bit torrent...
by what I said previously is that copyright infrngement? what about the rights of the persons involved in it's creation...are they entitled to anything from my "sharing?"
-
Right...as I read through this, there are some peeps trying to find loop holes for all ready existant laws...I do not for a minute denounce that law has not caught up with tech...but some laws need no change o keep up...
If someone sells you a stolen car, you are still getting processed for recieving stolen goods. The means are available for any member of society to check the validity of a purchase.
This is still larceny... any questions? then read or go to your local PD, they will be more than happy to tell you what to look at. To find loop holes you have to compare to case law, not book law. Loop holes are made through case law. Book law is finite and ca only be changed by the courts as certain circumstances are brought up.
All laws in most modern societies are based on the ten commandments...whether your religeous or not, you have to admit, they form a credible foundation for harmony in society. The rest of the laws are just derivatives of them.
-
By the way...you don't have to watch what you say around me...I am far fom innocent and I could care less here...being a cop is a job I do, not who I am...I am sworn to protect my community, not yours :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
I wouldn't wait. I know it could take months, or even years, to get it free. And I know there are enough people willing to pay that it'd be freely available soon anyways. Pretty much every song is freely available already through kazaa and other such p2p networks. They still make a nice profit. The only drawback of setting a limit would be that some people would wait until that limit is reached, lots of people wouldn't wait though... they'd still go out and buy it.
The only way I can think of to implement such a system and addressing those drawbacks would be that the producer makes a one-time sale of his rights to the article directly to the public. Basically, he would set up an expo, a bit like a painter sells his paintings, but he would demo his songs instead. The whole assembly would negociate a price with the artiste, where both would have the choice to accept or decline the offers. Once the song is sold, the costs would be split up among the people in the assembly. This way, no one would be able to 'steal' the artiste's art, since it won't be available until he sells it. Thus, the artiste gets a reasonable, reliable source of revenue, without being screwed up by corporations, and the public will be free to do whatever they want with the works, including distributing the music for a fee to reimburse what he paid for, without being screwed up by corporations. Also, the artist can still make more money if it's more popular with the public, because since both the artiste and the public can negociate, then the offer and demand rules can apply.