fracto73: Those barriers are a big issue, to me at least. If I were to download something that I could not get legally then it cannot be said that the content owner is losing money, since there is no mechanism for me to give them my money for their content.

Maybe I'm biased. I download when there are actual barriers.

I got FF:Advent Children before it was released in the US, then bought it when it was. I downloaded then entire list of albums for Machinae Supremacy because there's no way anyone in the US sold a Swedish metal band's stuff, but I bought their latest CD because they shipped it worldwide. I got my first foreign mail from that.

If I can't buy it, but I want it, I'll download it. Then I search for a way to pay them if what they make is as good as I expected. The RIAA wants this to be impossible.

bmwericus:

Personally, I don't pirate, assuming that you don't count making mix tapes from LP's and CD's that I own. Now with the iPod, I just don't need to do that anymore.


If you are breaking a DRM that is on the LP's or CD, they use to be able to get you on that, since you are infringing on profits on the "artist". That was stated you can as long as it is not copyright infringing. With that in mind RIAA would think you are still a thief for not buying two copies of that album.

Theaetetus: T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate copyright infringement for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author, not theft.

That's the difference... Legally, it's a different illegal action than theft. Colloquially, "theft" is used for both, though.


...and there's the funny thing. This thread and every one like it is lousy with people hung up on the fact that there are narrow legal distinctions between copyright infringement and theft. Yes, parse closely enough and there are differences between the two. Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

The better question to ask is why people get so hung up on this argument. Is there really such a vast group of Farkers who are legal scholars? Or is it more likely that the great number of people arguing this distinction feel better about taking something without paying for it by making this argument.

It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong.

I'm reminded of a bunch of years back, Steven Stills testifying about the downloading of music, including his. He said he was getting emails from teenagers, people not even close to being born when Love the One Your With came out. And he said he loved it and didn't care how they got the music, he'd made more than he ever imagined he could so he wasn't about to worry about money now. Someone should find that footage and play it for the head of the RIAA. His head asploding would be oh so fun to see. See the fundamental problem here is the RIAA doesn't give a rats ass about the people who actually create the stuff the record labels sell. They only care about the record labels' bottom line. The whole hurting the artist thing is just how they dress things up so as to obscure what their actual issue is.

downtownkid:
It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong.

We can change human nature, or change our business models to account for it. Which do you think is going to be successful first?

Again, I'm not willing to torch the entire internet to protect my own ability to make money. Piracy is going to happen, whatever the rationale for it, and there's nothing we can do about it short of wiping out makind's ability to send 1's and 0's to each other. So people like us (and folks who "claim" to be people, like RIAA) need to get with the program and figure out a way to adapt to this. No way around it.

downtownkid: Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

Someone had to buy it in the first place for others to download it. Then you're left with two main groups of downloaders.

1. People who wouldn't buy it anyway and you lose nothing. Without downloading they'd just borrow, or record.
2. People who want to download it first to see if it's worth buying.

You lose more money by banning downloads than by not.

downtownkid: Is there really such a vast group of Farkers who are legal scholars?

If you put all the lawyers who hang around on Fark together, you'd have a pretty big law firm. Also there are plenty of people on Fark who make a living from creative works that are copyright. And if you don't think the difference between copyright infringement and physical theft is a significant distinction, I would say you'd be the one with the lack of understanding.

Biological Ali:

maxheck: fracto73:

T.M.S.: What has been stolen and from whom?

I have no idea WHAT was stolen.


And thats the problem with your reasoning, no one is missing anything. Everyone involved has at least what they had before.

You should consult with a lawyer on that, and then tell him you're going to stiff him on his consultation fee because nothing physical was taken from him.

Eh? His time (which was specifically contracted for) was taken from him. That's not even remotely similar to a song being downloaded.

Because music, movies and books don't take time and money to create?

The point of copyright (from the creator's perspective) is to give the creator control over what is done with his work. It's a contract between the creator and society, enforced by the government. If he wants to give it away, fine. If he wants to charge $1,000,000 a copy, that's also his right.

Piracy is saying "I don't give a shiat about the contract, and I'm going to rationalize it by saying I don't like the contract, or that nothing physical was taken."

WhyteRaven74: I'm reminded of a bunch of years back, Steven Stills testifying about the downloading of music, including his. He said he was getting emails from teenagers, people not even close to being born when Love the One Your With came out. And he said he loved it and didn't care how they got the music, he'd made more than he ever imagined he could so he wasn't about to worry about money now. Someone should find that footage and play it for the head of the RIAA. His head asploding would be oh so fun to see. See the fundamental problem here is the RIAA doesn't give a rats ass about the people who actually create the stuff the record labels sell. They only care about the record labels' bottom line. The whole hurting the artist thing is just how they dress things up so as to obscure what their actual issue is.


Yes, and if every artist was as successful as he is you might have a point. However they aren't, so you don't.

downtownkid: Theaetetus: T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate copyright infringement for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author, not theft.

That's the difference... Legally, it's a different illegal action than theft. Colloquially, "theft" is used for both, though.


...and there's the funny thing. This thread and every one like it is lousy with people hung up on the fact that there are narrow legal distinctions between copyright infringement and theft. Yes, parse closely enough and there are differences between the two. Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

The better question to ask is why people get so hung up on this argument. Is there really such a vast group of Farkers who are legal scholars? Or is it more likely that the great number of people arguing this distinction feel better about taking something without paying for it by making this argument.

It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong.


I object to using the term thief for the same reasons I object to calling someone who has an abortion a murderer. It is a tactic used by people to vilify their opponents on an issue. If the facts support your case then use them, don't lie to make your point.

FightDirector: But I'm not willing to say "fark you, I've got mine" to everybody else who uses the internet. Are you?

Nope. I really don't care.

It's just tiresome to see this "nothing was stolen if you only make a copy" bullshiat.

And you can bet your ass the people who don't think it is stealing do not make their living from anything that can be stolen.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Strategeryz0r: Do you think people shoplift because they can afford something they want? No, they want it but the price is too high.

No, shoplifting is often rooted in psychological problems - kleptomania, for a non-clinical term. Winona Ryder, for example, didn't steal clothes because she was hurting for money but because she had a serious issue with thrillseeking.

Online copyright infringement has more to do with artificial and imaginary barriers to access.

While true, I've met plenty who shoplifted because of the price. Kleptomania explains a percentage of shoplifters, but not all of them.

Though I absolutely agree with your last point about artificial and imaginary barriers to access, but a company would have to be blind to not realize their pricing plays into the problem. There's a number of people(not going to say a percentage because I really don't know) who pirate, but really don't like taking the risk. They do so because otherwise they can't afford what they want to see, but they can't afford it because the price keeps going up. There are also those out there who use piracy as a means to see if they like something before they buy it.

The laws need to be adapted to the technology, but the businesses need to realize they contribute to the problem through a variety of methods they employed to combat the problem. Why would I want to buy a DRM laden DVD, that bombards me with anti-piracy commercials, and cost me 25 bucks when I can get the same thing online, for free, with all that shiat stripped out? You can't constantly raise prices and treat your paying customer like a criminal and expect them to just be ok with it. Attitudes like that are what fuel theft of your goods.

Ehcks: downtownkid: Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

Someone had to buy it in the first place for others to download it. Then you're left with two main groups of downloaders.

1. People who wouldn't buy it anyway and you lose nothing. Without downloading they'd just borrow, or record.
2. People who want to download it first to see if it's worth buying.

You lose more money by banning downloads than by not.


You are setting up a false argument by artificially limiting downloaders to those two groups. Here's a third one:

3. People who might have bought it but didn't because they found a means to acquire it illegally.

Theaetetus:
The issue is that many of the sites are outside the US, where US laws don't apply - can't take someone to court, and the MegaUpload raid couldn't have happened if all of their servers were overseas, rather than being in Virginia.

Can't take them to court in the US, these are international corporations. Just as they cooperated with local governments to facilitate the arrest of MegaUpload employees they can work with them to bring those criminals to justice under their own laws (nearly every country on the planet signed off on the Berne Convention). If the local governments are not cooperative then they need to work with the ITC and/or WTO to levy political pressure. Giving anyone (rights holders or the Attorney General) near carte blanche power to convict without trial is far from the answer. Limiting the rights of an individual without trial is tantamount to conviction without jury.

Biological Ali: downtownkid: ...and there's the funny thing. This thread and every one like it is lousy with people hung up on the fact that there are narrow legal distinctions between copyright infringement and theft. Yes, parse closely enough and there are differences between the two. Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

Eh? Your apparent notion of being "deprived of payment for our work" - that is, people downloading things only for their own personal enjoyment - would be neither copyright infringement nor theft.


What? That's absolutely not true.

downtownkid: Theaetetus: T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate copyright infringement for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author, not theft.

That's the difference... Legally, it's a different illegal action than theft. Colloquially, "theft" is used for both, though.


...and there's the funny thing. This thread and every one like it is lousy with people hung up on the fact that there are narrow legal distinctions between copyright infringement and theft. Yes, parse closely enough and there are differences between the two. Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

The better question to ask is why people get so hung up on this argument. Is there really such a vast group of Farkers who are legal scholars? Or is it more likely that the great number of people arguing this distinction feel better about taking something without paying for it by making this argument.

It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong.

If you honestly believe that the problem is not the archaic business model, then there is no helping that. Fark will not convince you.

I also work in the indie film industry, and SOPA/PIPA is flat out stupid.

People do make money by utilizing the strength of the internet for their material, a lot of money.

The MPAA/RIAA business model has not kept pace with the technology, so they want to hobble that technology instead of using it the way so many others have. Successfully.

maxheck: is to give the creator control over what is done with his work.

And yet in practice that's not how it works. An author who wants their book republished because they see a demand is shiat out of luck if the publisher doesn't think it's worth it. Likewise, the way most record deals are structured, if the label decides to throw a song you wrote and recorded onto a compilation, there's shiat you can do about it. And then there's the fate of screenwriters. And record labels are setting up to screw songwriters in a major way in the near future.

downtownkid: Yes, and if every artist was as successful as he is you might have a point. However they aren't, so you don't.

His point actually wasn't about money, it was about being heard. At the time he testified sales of his work had gone up a decent amount. This without any of his work being in a soundtrack at the time or being promoted. He was just glad people were listening to his work and enjoying it and as it turned out a fair number of those people ended up buying his stuff. Plus he'd be the first person to tell you the money is in touring not selling records.

T.M.S.: FightDirector: But I'm not willing to say "fark you, I've got mine" to everybody else who uses the internet. Are you?

Nope. I really don't care.

It's just tiresome to see this "nothing was stolen if you only make a copy" bullshiat.

And you can bet your ass the people who don't think it is stealing do not make their living from anything that can be stolen.

Oh, absolutely. People forget about the time involved. Just on my end, if you watch a 2-minute swordfight I've put together (say, in Cyrano de Bergerac), they're not just paying for the sets and actors nd whatnot. Throw in an hour or two of rehearsal for every 5 seconds of fight, another hour of planning for every 10 seconds of fight or so, another 10-15 hours of logisitics for each and every "stunt" during that fight...and the 15 years of training I and my stunt guys have to pay for.

So while I believe they're not stealing the "product", per se...they're absolutely stealing the recompense for the time I've put in.

Again, which sucks. But short of blowing up the 'tubes, ain't gonna change. I do less residuals now, and more up-front to compensate.

downtownkid: 3. People who might have bought it but didn't because they found a means to acquire it illegally.

I can't imagine that's a very large group. People like to buy things. The economy of the US exists purely on that fact. People always try to get the newest, shiniest, most well-advertised things, and they like bragging about how much they paid. Either high, to show off their income; or low, to show off their bargain hunting. Few people brag that they downloaded something for free.

People like purchasing things even if they have no use for them. I don't understand why, but they do. Your job, if you do sell stuff, is to convince them that your stuff is better than your competitors' stuff. But if you and all your competitors make crap fewer and fewer people buy, then it's about time you pay attention to what "The customer is always right" actually means.

If no one buys your stuff, it's not because your customers are criminals. It's because your stuff isn't worth buying.

Does anyone else see the humor in the RIAA's CEO complaining about SOPA/PIPA opposition being nothing but criminals who are killing their business....

While at the same time the headline at the top of the business tab is boasting about Virgin Media's profits being up 30%?

Ehcks: T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author. Just as long as she returned the 50 cents worth of paper it was printed on.

There's a difference between profiting off someone else's work and using it for your own personal entertainment.

No there is not. Stealing is stealing.

What you do with stolen goods is immaterial.

Theaetetus: Again, [notsureifserious].

Whereas I am sure you're hopelessly dense and just prattling on about nothing related (maybe you like to read your own posts, I guess).

Have fun with that.

SweetSilverBlues: downtownkid: Theaetetus: T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate copyright infringement for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author, not theft.

That's the difference... Legally, it's a different illegal action than theft. Colloquially, "theft" is used for both, though.


...and there's the funny thing. This thread and every one like it is lousy with people hung up on the fact that there are narrow legal distinctions between copyright infringement and theft. Yes, parse closely enough and there are differences between the two. Those distinctions matter little to people like TMS and myself who are deprived of payment for our work.

The better question to ask is why people get so hung up on this argument. Is there really such a vast group of Farkers who are legal scholars? Or is it more likely that the great number of people arguing this distinction feel better about taking something without paying for it by making this argument.

It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong.

If you honestly believe that the problem is not the archaic business model, then there is no helping that. Fark will not convince you.

I also work in the indie film industry, and SOPA/PIPA is flat out stupid.

People do make money by utilizing the strength of the internet for their material, a lot of money.

The MPAA/RIAA business model has not kept pace with the technology, so they want to hobble that technology instead of using it the way so many others have. Successfully.


You're right, she never would have been raped if she hadn't dressed that way.

I'm not saying that the current business model works, but that still doesn't justify the piracy in the vast majority of the cases.

downtownkid: It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong

Try again.

Stealing actually deprives someone of something. Pirating doesn't.

Even if we ignore that pirating doesn't actually deprive peopel of anything you still have to assume that anyone who pirated it would have bought it for the actions to be just as wrong. And as has been pointed out many time people may pirate becasue they have no legit means to purchase, because they want to try it out and decide if they will purchase, etc So you are flat out wrong.

FightDirector: T.M.S.: FightDirector: But I'm not willing to say "fark you, I've got mine" to everybody else who uses the internet. Are you?

Nope. I really don't care.

It's just tiresome to see this "nothing was stolen if you only make a copy" bullshiat.

And you can bet your ass the people who don't think it is stealing do not make their living from anything that can be stolen.

Oh, absolutely. People forget about the time involved. Just on my end, if you watch a 2-minute swordfight I've put together (say, in Cyrano de Bergerac), they're not just paying for the sets and actors nd whatnot. Throw in an hour or two of rehearsal for every 5 seconds of fight, another hour of planning for every 10 seconds of fight or so, another 10-15 hours of logisitics for each and every "stunt" during that fight...and the 15 years of training I and my stunt guys have to pay for.

So while I believe they're not stealing the "product", per se...they're absolutely stealing the recompense for the time I've put in.

Again, which sucks. But short of blowing up the 'tubes, ain't gonna change. I do less residuals now, and more up-front to compensate.


But they didn't steal your time. You spent the same amount of time no matter how many copies are sold or pirated.

As I've said before, it is a crime and should be deterred, but it isn't theft.

WhyteRaven74:

downtownkid: Yes, and if every artist was as successful as he is you might have a point. However they aren't, so you don't.

His point actually wasn't about money, it was about being heard. At the time he testified sales of his work had gone up a decent amount. This without any of his work being in a soundtrack at the time or being promoted. He was just glad people were listening to his work and enjoying it and as it turned out a fair number of those people ended up buying his stuff. Plus he'd be the first person to tell you the money is in touring not selling records.


Exactly. When someone is as vastly successful as him the money isn't important any more. That is not the case for almost everyone else who makes a living in a creative field.

I look forward to your spirited argument in favor of having Mayor Bloomberg set tax policy based strictly on what benefits him most.

downtownkid: but that still doesn't justify the piracy in the vast majority of the cases.

There are thousands of albums that were never released as CDs, there's only one way to get the music that was on those albums. The record industry gave everyone a baseball bat and said "Hit me in the head!".

My eyes were rolling so much when I read that, I think I hurt myself.

liam76: downtownkid: It's as transparent as it is boring. And in the end their actions are just as wrong

Try again.

Stealing actually deprives someone of something. Pirating doesn't.

Even if we ignore that pirating doesn't actually deprive peopel of anything you still have to assume that anyone who pirated it would have bought it for the actions to be just as wrong. And as has been pointed out many time people may pirate becasue they have no legit means to purchase, because they want to try it out and decide if they will purchase, etc So you are flat out wrong.

In order for your argument to be true you would have to demonstrably prove that no person who ever pirated anything would ever have purchased it otherwise. That's a completely ludicrous statement.

So, you know, try again.

WhyteRaven74: maxheck: is to give the creator control over what is done with his work.

And yet in practice that's not how it works. An author who wants their book republished because they see a demand is shiat out of luck if the publisher doesn't think it's worth it. Likewise, the way most record deals are structured, if the label decides to throw a song you wrote and recorded onto a compilation, there's shiat you can do about it. And then there's the fate of screenwriters. And record labels are setting up to screw songwriters in a major way in the near future.

downtownkid: Yes, and if every artist was as successful as he is you might have a point. However they aren't, so you don't.

His point actually wasn't about money, it was about being heard. At the time he testified sales of his work had gone up a decent amount. This without any of his work being in a soundtrack at the time or being promoted. He was just glad people were listening to his work and enjoying it and as it turned out a fair number of those people ended up buying his stuff. Plus he'd be the first person to tell you the money is in touring not selling records.

More thinking along the lines of the outdated business model.

That's the beauty of the internet, you can reasonably self-publish, market, and distribute. You don't need an agent, label or publisher anymore.

The creator retains actual control of his work without sacrificing to the corporations. That's another reason the MPAA/RIAA is so hot to get restrictive legislation on the books. They want the myth that the ONLY way to get your work out there is through them to continue.

The internet can be the greatest thing for artists that has ever come along, so long as archaic business models are not allowed to dictate to it.

WhyteRaven74: downtownkid: but that still doesn't justify the piracy in the vast majority of the cases.

There are thousands of albums that were never released as CDs, there's only one way to get the music that was on those albums. The record industry gave everyone a baseball bat and said "Hit me in the head!".


Wow, you're all over the ice. Have any other examples of tangential issues that do nothing to support your original post now that it's been shown to be irrelevant?

I particularly like this part of SOPA:

17 (ii) to resolve to a different domain
18 name or Internet Protocol address that the
19 provider of the product or service knows,
20 reasonably should know, or reasonably be21
lieves is used by an Internet site offering
22 substantially similar infringing activities as
23 those with which the infringing foreign
24 site, or portion thereof, subject to a court
25 order under this section was associated.

In other words, if they ask you to block one site, you also have to block any other site that offers "similar infringing activities".

downtownkid: In order for your argument to be true you would have to demonstrably prove that no person who ever pirated anything would ever have purchased it otherwise. That's a completely ludicrous statement.

No, you have it backwards. The claim was that piracy is theft. For this to be true, you would have to show that every person who ever pirated anything would have purchased it otherwise.

Not only is piracy not theft simply because no one lost anything, but it's also not as bad as theft because not all pirates would have payed anyway, and some pirates do pay afterwards.

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Biological Ali: people downloading things only for their own personal enjoyment - would be neither copyright infringement

17 USC 501 doesn't require profit. Downloading things for their personal enjoyment would be copyright infringement, if they don't have a valid defense. And lack of profit isn't one.

What case would you have against an individual who downloaded something for their own personal enjoyment, and nothing else? Be specific.


I've heard this before, so I know where you are going with it. My response would be, how did you download it? The most common answers would defeat the argument you are making.

Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Biological Ali: people downloading things only for their own personal enjoyment - would be neither copyright infringement

17 USC 501 doesn't require profit. Downloading things for their personal enjoyment would be copyright infringement, if they don't have a valid defense. And lack of profit isn't one.

What case would you have against an individual who downloaded something for their own personal enjoyment, and nothing else? Be specific.

Ah, so now that you were shown to be wrong under the law, which you clearly had no understanding of, you're asking someone to make a philosophical case? Lame.

downtownkid: When someone is as vastly successful as him the money isn't important any more.

And maybe he never really cared that much in the first place. Not everyone uses the amount of money in the bank as a measure of their success.

Biological Ali:

maxheck: Because music, movies and books don't take time and money to create?



I didn't ask for (much less specifically contract for) any of those books, movies or music to be made. That's what makes your analogy inapplicable.

Whether you asked for them or be created or not, you asked for the benefits of them having been made. Otherwise, why did you take actions to obtain a copy? It wasn't pushed on you, it didn't fall onto your computer from the sky.

So basically, you want all the benefits and want to say "screw the contract because I don't like the terms." The contract exists. It's called copyright law. You buy into it by being a citizen. You might not agree with your society's drug laws, seatbelt laws, or even property laws, but you contracted for those as well.

The argument "nothing of value was taken" is patently (har) false and I wish people would quit trying to weasel with it.

The argument "I didn't contract for it" is disingenuous if you deliberately take actions to obtain something of value.

downtownkid: Biological Ali: Theaetetus: Biological Ali: people downloading things only for their own personal enjoyment - would be neither copyright infringement

17 USC 501 doesn't require profit. Downloading things for their personal enjoyment would be copyright infringement, if they don't have a valid defense. And lack of profit isn't one.

What case would you have against an individual who downloaded something for their own personal enjoyment, and nothing else? Be specific.

Ah, so now that you were shown to be wrong under the law, which you clearly had no understanding of, you're asking someone to make a philosophical case? Lame.


It seems to me he is asking for a legal argument not a philosophical one.

Ehcks: downtownkid: In order for your argument to be true you would have to demonstrably prove that no person who ever pirated anything would ever have purchased it otherwise. That's a completely ludicrous statement.

No, you have it backwards. The claim was that piracy is theft. For this to be true, you would have to show that every person who ever pirated anything would have purchased it otherwise.

Not only is piracy not theft simply because no one lost anything, but it's also not as bad as theft because not all pirates would have payed anyway, and some pirates do pay afterwards.


Wow, that wasn't predictable. I'll ignore the gaping hole in logic presented by your statement because thus argument was tired when it was made the last hundred times.