Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some fellow traveller)   Wil confronts copyright thief, divides by zero. Smug free-netster singularity in 3 .. 2   (wilwheaton.typepad.com) divider line 362
    More: Wheaton, DRM, deep pockets, market value, Wil Wheaton, copyright, indie, pockets, DMCA takedown  
•       •       •

20814 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2009 at 1:54 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



362 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-07 06:20:07 AM  
BigG: CheeseEatingBulldog: And yet is still is legal here. (new window)

That law (16b) seems to be saying that downloading it isn't illegal, but sharing it is. And if you know something is illegally shared and you download it, is it a legal copy? Sounds questionable.


But they guy who is sharing it could be that friend lending me his new cd which I can copy. Prove otherwise.
 
2009-10-07 06:23:15 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: But they guy who is sharing it could be that friend lending me his new cd which I can copy. Prove otherwise.

Since I'm talking about making a file available online for someone to download and said nothing about loaning a CD, I'm not sure what you're going on about.
 
2009-10-07 06:23:18 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: Skawt: CheeseEatingBulldog: aerojockey: CheeseEatingBulldog

And yet is still is legal here. (new window)


No, it isn't. From the very article you just linked to:

"Websites which do not offer MP3's, but which only offer links to MP3's on other servers, are a difficult case. By itself there is nothing wrong with linking to files on a Web server (no matter where that server is located), even if the files just happen to have the extension .mp3 or contains MPEG level 1 layer 3 coded information. What is not permitted is offering copyrighted third party works without their permission. It does not matter whether these works are offered in the MP3 format, or in any other format. Someone who offers music without permission can expect nasty letters from the RIAA or the Dutch BUMA/Stemra and may even get sued if he does not co-operate with the demands of the letter."

Do you even read, or just look at the pictures?
 
2009-10-07 06:29:25 AM  
Skawt: CheeseEatingBulldog: Skawt: CheeseEatingBulldog: aerojockey: CheeseEatingBulldog

And yet is still is legal here. (new window)

No, it isn't. From the very article you just linked to:

"Websites which do not offer MP3's, but which only offer links to MP3's on other servers, are a difficult case. By itself there is nothing wrong with linking to files on a Web server (no matter where that server is located), even if the files just happen to have the extension .mp3 or contains MPEG level 1 layer 3 coded information. What is not permitted is offering copyrighted third party works without their permission. It does not matter whether these works are offered in the MP3 format, or in any other format. Someone who offers music without permission can expect nasty letters from the RIAA or the Dutch BUMA/Stemra and may even get sued if he does not co-operate with the demands of the letter."

Do you even read, or just look at the pictures?


If you had read above this refers to making availeble / sharing. Downloading is still legal as long you do not upload / share with others.

Can you even read or do the pictures distract you?
 
2009-10-07 06:31:41 AM  
BigG: CheeseEatingBulldog: But they guy who is sharing it could be that friend lending me his new cd which I can copy. Prove otherwise.

Since I'm talking about making a file available online for someone to download and said nothing about loaning a CD, I'm not sure what you're going on about.


Well I can transfer music files via say MSN, which would equate to lending a cd an copying it. And once again the uploader (sharer) is at fault but the downloader is not.
 
2009-10-07 06:35:00 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: Making a digital copy is about the same as making it out of thin air. It is no different to someone seeing a ferrari and going home and making their own, with their own tools and resources.

How do you make a ferrari go, what are you using to weld panels- you will be lucky to end up with a functional car, let alone a supercar.

That analogy would be "It's no different to someone going home after a concert, picking up their guitar and trying to play what they heard" The more we move into a digital world, the more complex the whole copyright thing becomes.

Your analogy is a simple and as foolish as "copyright=theft".
 
2009-10-07 06:37:53 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: Well I can transfer music files via say MSN, which would equate to lending a cd an copying it. And once again the uploader (sharer) is at fault but the downloader is not.

...which is what I said but I question the legality of the downloader's actions.

I can maybe see emailing a friend a file. But if the file is up for share to unknown third parties, the third party knows the share is illegal and downloads it, I'd have questions regarding if that copy is legal.
 
2009-10-07 06:45:54 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog:

If you had read above this refers to making availeble / sharing. Downloading is still legal as long you do not upload / share with others.


That is simply misdirection from the original point of this entire thread. This is directed at the website offering up copyrighted material, in direct violation of Dutch copyright law. Download via bittorrent, where you have to share the files you're downloading, and you're breaking the law. Currently Dutch law tolerates downloading as it is a gray area. They're only looking the other way until enough copyright owners get fed up and demand the laws be changed.

Ambiguous as the law may be towards downloading, people who pirate copyrighted works without ever intending to pay for them are thieves. The law may be gray, but the ethics are not. If you're unwilling or unable to pay for it legitimately, you shouldn't have it. It's a luxury item - you don't need it to live. Do without it until you can afford it.
 
2009-10-07 06:48:19 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog:

But it is. And the copy you make is not 100% the same as original.


ok - so what? just because there is loss/degradation inherent in the copying process - that makes things ok somehow?


Making a digital copy is about the same as making it out of thin air. It is no different to someone seeing a ferrari and going home and making their own, with their own tools and resources. Just because digital copying uses next to nothing in tools and resources doesn't make that any different.

so the IP and R&D that Ferrari puts into making the car is suddenly worth nothing?
 
2009-10-07 06:50:19 AM  
Methinks BigG and CheeseEatingBulldog are one-in-the-same. Nice alt-ing back-and-forth to convince us of you agenda. Next time, show up on a Xtian thread and take us on a tour of the teleological argument for God's existence.

Well played, sir!
 
2009-10-07 07:00:35 AM  
Maus III: Methinks BigG and CheeseEatingBulldog are one-in-the-same. Nice alt-ing back-and-forth to convince us of you agenda. Next time, show up on a Xtian thread and take us on a tour of the teleological argument for God's existence.

Well played, sir!


Agenda? We're discussing Dutch copyright law, and he's saying any download is legal and I'm not. That's certainly a weighty enough subject to push a view through alts.

But yes, because anyone who doesn't throw insults at someone he disagrees with must surely be an alt. In that vein, you're a retard.
 
2009-10-07 07:14:42 AM  
Who is Will?
 
2009-10-07 07:23:46 AM  
at80eighty: CheeseEatingBulldog:

But it is. And the copy you make is not 100% the same as original.


ok - so what? just because there is loss/degradation inherent in the copying process - that makes things ok somehow?


Making a digital copy is about the same as making it out of thin air. It is no different to someone seeing a ferrari and going home and making their own, with their own tools and resources. Just because digital copying uses next to nothing in tools and resources doesn't make that any different.

so the IP and R&D that Ferrari puts into making the car is suddenly worth nothing?


Like I said a copy is not 100% the same, so in this case if the guy built his own replica to the best of his abilities then no, it is not. That tech is in public domain. It's like me buying a ferrari, taking it apart and copy each individual part and making my own complete ferrari. Someone bought it, so IP and RD are paid for, and the product is mine after I bought it, so as long I as I don't sell the copy as real for money then no. Fair use.

That also neglects the fact that RD for ferrari for example is driven by the need to win motorsports, for which they get bucketloads of money anyway.

BigG I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.

Maus iii It is far easier to label someone as an alt instead of participating in a discussion...here let me give it a try.. Maus iii is nothing but a *IAA lacky as he doesnt agree with me! See, and as I said it, it must be true.
 
2009-10-07 07:24:09 AM  
Wil, just pull a Radiohead on him. Have it for download on your site and tell people they can pay what they feel it's worth. It'll shut the other guy down and bring more readership to you.
 
2009-10-07 07:24:53 AM  
Christian Bale: So I'd be curious to see how many have downloaded from that site. I bet it's not that substantial, and probably has reduced sales by a negligible amount. Still, Wil should get his share of ad revenue.

The advertising is a measure of damages that could be used in a court proceeding.

orindlt: The interesting question for Wil is - will you bother making future audiobooks or are there other avenues of effort that are more likely to lead to you getting compensated.

A lot of people put their books for free online, or most of each book for free. And they believe it has lead to increased sales. The difference is that it's on their own website and its under their own control and next to links to purchase the actual book.
 
2009-10-07 07:28:23 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: BigG I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.

Except that it's not a legal copyright. It may be legal under a design patent theory. Assuming a copyright is on the Ferrari lines, your going out and re-designing the Ferrari is a violation of their right to create derivative works AND right of reproduction. And even if its not copyrighted, it could still be illegal under TRIPS under a false designation of origin theory.

Also, how would you constitute anything mechanical? Are you a cyborg?
 
2009-10-07 07:42:06 AM  
El Chode: CheeseEatingBulldog: BigG I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.

Except that it's not a legal copyright. It may be legal under a design patent theory. Assuming a copyright is on the Ferrari lines, your going out and re-designing the Ferrari is a violation of their right to create derivative works AND right of reproduction. And even if its not copyrighted, it could still be illegal under TRIPS under a false designation of origin theory.

Also, how would you constitute anything mechanical? Are you a cyborg?


I understand it is not legal copyright, but in NL the person who offers the copied goods is at fault and the downloader is not, as home copies (self made copies for personal use) are allowed. So whether or not is a legal copyright (which has no meaning in dutch law) is irrelevant.

I don't get your last sentence, but that is tough one, you see I can make a rudementry hammer or swing or boat, am I breaking copyright? If not, where is the line so long as I do not sell it as real for money. It is still personal use.

Would it not be the same as recording from the radio or tv, as long as I don't package and sell it I am not at fault.
 
2009-10-07 07:48:02 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: The Iron duke: Im always amazed by the "its not stealing.." crowd. yes, yes it is.
If you take someones earnings, your stealing asshats.
You can tell by their comments that either they steal others works or they host sites to steal others property.
Its only copyrights infringement!
screw you....

No it is not. Most people who download would not have bought the book had they have to pay for it. Thus the only reason they are downloading it is because it is there, so no sale would have taken place if downloader would have to pay. That is aside from the legal posistion, you know that thing called law, which we all have to abide by, which does not agree with your interpretation. Copyright infringement is not theft. Saying it over and over again does not make it true.

If people want to take advantage of downloaders then come up with better solutions for people to pay. I for example do not have a credit card, so there goes 99% of all possibilities to buy something online. Bring in micropayments, make content available world wide at the same time (if the new series of lost on air in the states and not in my country for 6 months, I am going to download it), quit with the huge margins already and understand physical distribution is dead.


I can't afford a ferrari, so I guess if I just take one it's not stealing. Sure this isn't something tangible, but when you can get it for free it lowers the prestige, the incentive to save up for it, and ultimately does have an impact on the bottom line.
 
2009-10-07 07:49:34 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.

Are you saying you believe someone who downloads something who is completely aware that the item is being shared illegally has no legal accountability?

I find that hard to believe and would doubt that's how your laws handle it. Can you cite an example or a publicized case?

Liken it to buying stolen goods (not stealing them from the legal owner, this example is just regarding assignment of ownership, not physical theft). In the US, if you do so knowing the goods are stolen, you're committing a crime. If you don't know they're stolen you're not. Are you saying Dutch law doesn't handle it that way?
 
2009-10-07 07:55:13 AM  
El Chode:
A lot of people put their books for free online, or most of each book for free. And they believe it has lead to increased sales. The difference is that it's on their own website and its under their own control and next to links to purchase the actual book.

It will be interesting to see if the Cory Doctorow model (which works for a very small number of people under very specific circumstances) will hold up as Ebook reachers reach a standard of adequacy. The Doctorow model works by having you give the digital copy away free as a method of enticing people to buy the physical.

Perhaps a reason that it works now is that reading a digital copy is a lesser experience than reading a physical copy.

But what happens when the experience of reading a digital copy is equivalent to the experience of reading a physical copy? How does Cory Doctorow use the free copy of the digital to entice people to pay for a non-free copy of the digital?

Future content creators are essentially like street performers - they perform and people choose whether or not to throw them a coin. This is where the analogy gets problematic - A street performer's work ceases when they stop performing - so people do have another incentive to throw them a coin. This isn't the case with digital content producers.
 
2009-10-07 07:57:13 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: aerojockey: CheeseEatingBulldog

And once again you can keep saying [downloading copyrighted material] is stealing, but any judge or lawyer would disagree with your interpretation of the law.

I guess you're trolling, since the above is an abject lie, but what the hell. In the USA, judges and at least one jury have ruled against downloading copyrighted material, and best as I can tell in Europe copyright is even more strictly enforced. (Pirate Bay anyone? I doubt that site would have been raided and shut down so easily in the US. Copyright is a bit harrier here since US has freedom of speech.)

Your opinion is not the law. And the law sees it differently than you do, and as you have no legal influence on me, I rather just go by what it says in the law.

I think the law very different from your "opinion".

You might want to get your facts straight sparky, in The Netherlands we pay a tax on all empty media, which is then forwarded to record/film orgs. This is aside from the law here that downloading is perfectly legal, as long as you don't upload. Furthermore, the piratebay raids are being questioned because they are actually not legally supported in Sweden or the rest of the EU for that matter. The raids were instigated by monopolistic fat cats from the *IAA orgs who bullied and bought their adaptation of the law in that case. If not, why is google still indexing torrent sites in their results without the same raids and legal stupidity?

/American law is not world law, deal with it.


*He is speaking from America, therefore he is referring to American Law*.

Can that trickle into your fat head?

\you must be tired from stocking your Torrent site
\\I can only *assume* you have a Fat Head, since I can't see it because of the 4x8 sheet of plywood - sized chip on you shoulder, Sparky
\\\de-caf, I recommends it
 
2009-10-07 07:58:34 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog:
Like I said a copy is not 100% the same, so in this case if the guy built his own replica to the best of his abilities then no, it is not. That tech is in public domain. It's like me buying a ferrari, taking it apart and copy each individual part and making my own complete ferrari. Someone bought it, so IP and RD are paid for, and the product is mine after I bought it, so as long I as I don't sell the copy as real for money then no. Fair use.


I didn't realise fair use meant "I don't care how much work you put into this. I don't have to pay you"

A ferrari engine is not public domain- it is patented. In fact, each part is patented as well as the actual body design. You will still have to buy components like spark plugs, valves, pistons, fuel tanks, body panels and so-on. At best you will have something that looks that looks like a duck, quacks like a mouse and floats like a brick.

An MP3 copy is an identical copy of the original product- If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it's a farking duck. Deal with it. If you format shift, it's still going to be a duck. Unless you mess about with it so much that the product becomes unrecognisable (which would defeat the object of copying it) you're getting the product without paying for it. Don't even try to pretend the time it actively takes you to copy a file is even vaguely close to the value of the thing you are copying.

You cannot compare a home-bodged ferrari to a copied MP3 (which is as close to 100% reproduction as you can get) The copied MP3 is, basically, the same product. The homebuilt ferrari probably has the performance ability of a robin reliant.
 
2009-10-07 07:59:10 AM  
One thing I learned today: CheeseEatingBulldog has never created any intellectual property.
 
2009-10-07 08:00:03 AM  
James F. Campbell: It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. If someone breaks into your house and steals it -- well, that's theft.

By what metric do you and record companies measure these theoretical "lost sales"? How do you determine how many people "might have" bought your stuff if they hadn't downloaded it instead?


There's an argument to be made for taking every acquisition as a lost sale. The people who download it obviously have chosen to acquire it, but they've chosen to do it without paying. Now, we know in reality that some (even most) of those freeloaders would not have paid to acquire the audiobook, but finding the number of each (those who would and wouldn't pay for it) is difficult.
 
2009-10-07 08:04:26 AM  
BigG: CheeseEatingBulldog: I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.

Are you saying you believe someone who downloads something who is completely aware that the item is being shared illegally has no legal accountability?

I find that hard to believe and would doubt that's how your laws handle it. Can you cite an example or a publicized case?

Liken it to buying stolen goods (not stealing them from the legal owner, this example is just regarding assignment of ownership, not physical theft). In the US, if you do so knowing the goods are stolen, you're committing a crime. If you don't know they're stolen you're not. Are you saying Dutch law doesn't handle it that way?


This is called "Helen" in dutch as in the selling or receiving/buying of stolen goods. This is not the same. Because of the home copy law (for which we also pay a blank media tax) which was already in force since radio, tv and tapes, it also applies to digital media, there is no distinction. As long as I do not sell it and keep ot for personal use there is no fault.

There is a distinction between someone buying a legal from shop copy of a cd and lending it to me and me making a copy, which is legal and someone stealing a cd from a shop and letting me copy it. The latter is what you would refer to I think and the former is not as it is not redistributing stolen goods, but rather a copy of a legal one.
 
2009-10-07 08:08:58 AM  
orindlt: But what happens when the experience of reading a digital copy is equivalent to the experience of reading a physical copy? How does Cory Doctorow use the free copy of the digital to entice people to pay for a non-free copy of the digital?

More content in the print version? Allow anyone with proof of purchase of print version to receive something additional later on?

That's a great question and tougher one to answer as the electronic readers become more like physical books. Wonder what the book publishing industry is going to do when they get put into a similar position as the music industry.
 
2009-10-07 08:10:19 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: Like I said a copy is not 100% the same, so in this case if the guy built his own replica to the best of his abilities then no, it is not. That tech is in public domain. It's like me buying a ferrari, taking it apart and copy each individual part and making my own complete ferrari. Someone bought it, so IP and RD are paid for, and the product is mine after I bought it, so as long I as I don't sell the copy as real for money then no. Fair use.

That also neglects the fact that RD for ferrari for example is driven by the need to win motorsports, for which they get bucketloads of money anyway.

BigG I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.



a) you brought up cars - so 'building' implies an effort . nothing of that sort exists in digital media

b) Ferrari tech is not public domain - not by a long. freaking. shot.

c) One person buying the car does not make for the equitable reimbursement of R&D

d) I'm not neglecting any facts since like I pointed out in a) YOU brought up cars as an example so you're starting to land on your own bear traps
 
2009-10-07 08:12:46 AM  
ften: Damn audiobook-vault.com, damn them and their post 4059. They will rue the day they messed with Wil. He was like farking Doogie Howser, but in space.

Damn their long lists of Nora Roberts and other shiat authors...

So, I don't see the fuss here. None of those books are particularly interesting.
 
2009-10-07 08:16:40 AM  
Corpsie: CheeseEatingBulldog:
Like I said a copy is not 100% the same, so in this case if the guy built his own replica to the best of his abilities then no, it is not. That tech is in public domain. It's like me buying a ferrari, taking it apart and copy each individual part and making my own complete ferrari. Someone bought it, so IP and RD are paid for, and the product is mine after I bought it, so as long I as I don't sell the copy as real for money then no. Fair use.

I didn't realise fair use meant "I don't care how much work you put into this. I don't have to pay you"

A ferrari engine is not public domain- it is patented. In fact, each part is patented as well as the actual body design. You will still have to buy components like spark plugs, valves, pistons, fuel tanks, body panels and so-on. At best you will have something that looks that looks like a duck, quacks like a mouse and floats like a brick.

An MP3 copy is an identical copy of the original product- If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it's a farking duck. Deal with it. If you format shift, it's still going to be a duck. Unless you mess about with it so much that the product becomes unrecognisable (which would defeat the object of copying it) you're getting the product without paying for it. Don't even try to pretend the time it actively takes you to copy a file is even vaguely close to the value of the thing you are copying.

You cannot compare a home-bodged ferrari to a copied MP3 (which is as close to 100% reproduction as you can get) The copied MP3 is, basically, the same product. The homebuilt ferrari probably has the performance ability of a robin reliant.


The difference is irrelevant, if I somehow could replicate a ferrari to the same specs myself at home for personal use as I could make a copy of an mp3 (which btw is not the same quality as cd, does not have the cover, art on cd etc, thus not the same product) then I am putting in the same time as them, so why is their time more valuable than mine?

Oh and the work they put in has been paid for 10 times over, see sponsorship and winnings in F1 for example.

The patents on the engine etc are irrelevant if I can make my own as I am not selling or using my new made car to make money, I just want one for my own use. They do not miss a sale as in worst case I can't afford to buy one and in the best case they sell one which I copy for no profit or future income.

Archae hippy: True but then I wouldnt expect to receive 5 dollars each time some one walked past and looked at my painting hanging in the window for the rest of my life.
 
2009-10-07 08:19:50 AM  
gadian: Sorry, Wil. You know how this internet thingy works. If you put it out there for someone to listen to, then it is open for the whole world of douchebags to listen to steal. Whether you like it or not and whether its legal moral or not. Your alternative was to not put it in digital form. Maybe you should just accept smaller profit margins on the audio book and charge more for speaking in person because, really, which is more valuable?

FTFY
 
2009-10-07 08:20:45 AM  
DeCypher44: Isn't this book like 5 years old? Why the sudden interest? Is the audiobook new?

And a question: If the people who are downloading the audiobook never would have spent money on it, isn't this AT LEAST gaining interest in you, Wil? Maybe it will drive more people to WWdN?

I'm not saying I support "stealing" your work, but I don't see it as lost revenue if these people weren't going to buy it anyway.


I think Wil needs to be introduced to the Baen free library, and the musings of the librarian contained therein.
Link (new window)
Read up Wil, he actually makes some profound points, he being Eric Flint, an author.
 
2009-10-07 08:20:49 AM  
This thread is seriously lacking more dividing by 0 pics. Need more coffee to appreciate all this infringement/law bullshiat. Might take 2 gallons.

A Wil thread and this is all that's come of it?? Really? For shame Fark, for shame.
 
2009-10-07 08:21:06 AM  
mikebdoss: starsrift:

You're not stealing the item. You're stealing the investment of the artist's time.

...

Let's not talk lost sales. Let's talk - if you don't think it's worth your money, then don't get it. It's as simple as that.

What's your opinion of libraries?


I don't know about where *you* live, but my taxes go to support libraries. They buy books legally, and then loan them out to people who have helped pay for them.

/my wife's a librarian
//slashies!
 
2009-10-07 08:25:45 AM  
at80eighty: CheeseEatingBulldog: Like I said a copy is not 100% the same, so in this case if the guy built his own replica to the best of his abilities then no, it is not. That tech is in public domain. It's like me buying a ferrari, taking it apart and copy each individual part and making my own complete ferrari. Someone bought it, so IP and RD are paid for, and the product is mine after I bought it, so as long I as I don't sell the copy as real for money then no. Fair use.

That also neglects the fact that RD for ferrari for example is driven by the need to win motorsports, for which they get bucketloads of money anyway.

BigG I would constitute that the copy is legal but that the means in which it was aquired are illegal. In any case downloader / owner of copied file is not at fault.


a) you brought up cars - so 'building' implies an effort . nothing of that sort exists in digital media

b) Ferrari tech is not public domain - not by a long. freaking. shot.

c) One person buying the car does not make for the equitable reimbursement of R&D

d) I'm not neglecting any facts since like I pointed out in a) YOU brought up cars as an example so you're starting to land on your own bear traps


a) The "effort" is invisible as the machine does it for us, by your rational if I would have to copy each bit hand by hand then all of a sudden it is effort and ok. You should not confuse the tools of copying with the concept.

b) ok, wrongly worded there my bad. But if I buy a ferrari, I can take it apart or do whatever I want with it, it is mine. no longer theirs. As long as I dont sell or use my copy thereof for future profit then it is fair use. And me buying a ferrari to copy and my friend buying one and letting me copy it is not different (in dutch law). As I can borrow his new cd and perfectly legally copy it for own use. Hell, we can walk into libraries here and check out 20 cds and make legal copies of them. The originals were not stolen, so it is not selling/distributing of stolen goods (thus the difference between copyright and theft).

c) no but the sponsorship and aquimilation of profit from all their sales does.

d) no worries. I dont take this personally but rather as a learning experience in discussion and this topic.
 
2009-10-07 08:29:15 AM  
I would just sell a book next time. No e-book, no mp3, not even a dust jacket. Then I would watch that book.
 
2009-10-07 08:31:20 AM  
Ed Grubermann: James F. Campbell: It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. If someone breaks into your house and steals it -- well, that's theft.

Let's play: Spot the guy with the moral development of a 5-year-old! Congratulations! That turd you left in the toilet has a more developed sense of right and wrong that you do!


Man, I never knew the dictionary was such an asshole! It has accurate definitions of genocide, rape, and even most of the words in the quotes, "Ed Gruberman is an idiot for not understanding the difference between arguing and defining, and it is a surprise he can scrape together 5 dollars a month."

Nowhere in that post does it say "...and copyright infringement isn't wrong." Unless you have tardeyedis.
 
2009-10-07 08:35:39 AM  
So a library, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, is perfectly ok, but filesharing, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, that's bad? I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly pro-library, but really, what's the difference? Nothing's stopping a borrower from copying the material outside the library, and nothing's stopping the downloader from deleting it when it's been viewed.
 
2009-10-07 08:36:55 AM  
Sucks and all, but you could do what Cory Doctorow does and license the book under the Creative Commons with Attribution and No Commercial Use clauses... he still manages to sell quite a few print copies, and his publisher is OK with it all...
 
2009-10-07 08:37:26 AM  
Look at me hanging out with Wil!
 
2009-10-07 08:39:42 AM  
So, the 21st Century bites Wesley Crusher in the ass, eh?

/down with libraries!
 
2009-10-07 08:41:33 AM  
untaken_name: So a library, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, is perfectly ok, but filesharing, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, that's bad? I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly pro-library, but really, what's the difference? Nothing's stopping a borrower from copying the material outside the library, and nothing's stopping the downloader from deleting it when it's been viewed.

Exactly. But that would deprive fat ass music/ movie exects from making millions for doing very little. They are used to it and don't want to give it up. No matter how much the world has changed.

People overrate public stars, I mean what kind of farked up world pays more money to some pretty boy who can act than a doctor that saves lives. People should get over it and realise the world is changing and your chosen proffession simply isn't worht as much as it was. Tough shiat.
 
2009-10-07 08:45:46 AM  
Main Entry: steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\

intransitive verb 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

transitive verb 1 c : to take surreptitiously or without permission

Copyright Infringement would imply that the item/idea was made available to the public as a whole, under the conditions that they pay a fee up front (and possibly everytime it's used) for their own use. (Not in the sense of buying sneakers with a symbol on them, but in the sense of actually buying the use of the symbol itself. More apt for music and intellectual property than an audiobook or a physical item, unless being used in a widely-distributed video.)

Copying would imply that there was a consensual duplication without any sort of harm to the original or the creator.

The reason this falls under stealing is because there IS harm to the creator. Wil has not allowed a person to listen to the entire book before deciding to buy it, he has not willingly offered and consented to someone copying it from him, he has released a product for which every person that decides to download it from the alternative as opposed to buying it reduces his bank account directly... and thus his ability to eat, have a home, and entertain you farkers.
 
2009-10-07 08:47:05 AM  
untaken_name: So a library, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, is perfectly ok, but filesharing, in which a million people may read a book that is purchased once, that's bad? I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly pro-library, but really, what's the difference? Nothing's stopping a borrower from copying the material outside the library, and nothing's stopping the downloader from deleting it when it's been viewed.

Legal interaction with a library in the US is very difference. The library only allows the physical item to be checked out to one person at a time. Even with electronic books, the libraries I've dealt with only allow a certain number of check outs at a time, have a proprietary format, and have client software that enforces it.

Could I borrow a book/movie/cd/ebook from the library and copy it? Certainly. Is it legal in the US? Nope.
 
2009-10-07 08:51:23 AM  
unyon: I think I'll buy a copy and restore a little karmic balance to the universe.

For every one you buy, I'll seed three.
 
2009-10-07 08:55:56 AM  
Stealing, not stealing.. who cares... the dude is being a dickmunch to Wil.
 
2009-10-07 08:56:50 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: b) ok, wrongly worded there my bad. But if I buy a ferrari, I can take it apart or do whatever I want with it, it is mine. no longer theirs. As long as I dont sell or use my copy thereof for future profit then it is fair use. And me buying a ferrari to copy and my friend buying one and letting me copy it is not different (in dutch law). As I can borrow his new cd and perfectly legally copy it for own use. Hell, we can walk into libraries here and check out 20 cds and make legal copies of them. The originals were not stolen, so it is not selling/distributing of stolen goods (thus the difference between copyright and theft).

see maybe its a fundamental mindset thing - but your law allows for the gray area - but it doesn't say it is OK either - does it? serious question

and no worries , not taking anything personally either - at this point in intrigued by the differences in views
 
2009-10-07 08:57:18 AM  
I always love the "Duh! Copyright so IS stealing you filthy, cheap pirate! Your stupid copyright infringement defence is stupid" comments.

It's not.

The fact that theft and assault are different doesn't make one ok and one not.

Copyright infringement and stealing are likewise different phenomena. This does not make either one right or wrong, it simply is true.

If you can't hold more than one concept in your mind at a time then you are a farking retard.
 
2009-10-07 09:01:37 AM  
at80eighty: oh. my. god.

I was just googling 'clown sweater' for the hell of it & found this


Heh. I've been there before. Ages and ages ago.

James F. Campbell: It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. If someone breaks into your house and steals it -- well, that's theft.

By what metric do you and record companies measure these theoretical "lost sales"? How do you determine how many people "might have" bought your stuff if they hadn't downloaded it instead?


I look at it this way: let's say you're a customer, and you want to buy this audiobook. You, however, find there's a way to get it FOR FREE. Do you pay the $20 (or whatever it is) out of the goodness of your own heart, because it's the right thing to do? Or, do you SAVE yourself $20 and get it for free, even if it is (at the very least) unethical? That $20 you could've spent would've gone towards production costs, distribution, marketing, and (probably $1 of it, once all is said and done) wil's cost of living. Enough people opt to save themselves $20 and get the audiobook for free, and suddenly wil isn't able to keep up with all the costs of putting that book out there to begin with, let alone feed his family. It's not like we're talking millions of dollars of profit. It's not like wil is like that fat-assed, big-jowled Exxon exec, diving into and swimming around in his money a-la Scrooge McDuck. He's trying to make a living doing what he does best, just like you probably are.

There's probably no concrete way of saying $X was lost from copyright infringement, but money WAS lost. No, it's not stealing. Stealing indicates that there was something there, that the money was already in wil's pocket, and you reached in there and took it. Instead, this is denying him his right to that income. Still an incredibly dick move.

Anyone who up and says, "it's ok coz it's not stealing" is just rationalizing and trying to appease their conscience. The semantics mean little. They're still being a dick.
 
2009-10-07 09:02:21 AM  
at80eighty: oh. my. god.

I was just googling 'clown sweater' for the hell of it & found this


Dear gods...it's a farkin' EPIDEMIC!

/ hold me...I'm scared of clown sweaters.
 
2009-10-07 09:04:24 AM  
CheeseEatingBulldog: The originals were not stolen, so it is not selling/distributing of stolen goods (thus the difference between copyright and theft).

I did some digging since you didn't provide any citations, and came up with this gem:

When it comes to KaZaA and other peer-to-peer services, the Minister drew a clear line. That kind of private use is exempted from copyright. "That also applies when a private copy is made from an original that is illegally made available, without the permission of the author."Link (new window)

That seems to be implying that I can even legally knowingly copy a stolen CD (as long as I do not take part in stealing it).

I find that amazing.
 
Displayed 50 of 362 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report