Sorry all following for this extensive post...
I feel this way of thinking is a bit of a slippery slope, because you could apply the same thinking to a music CD and come to the same conclusion. I.e. if I shoplift a Metallica CD from bestbuy... you get the idea. However for the sake of our discussion lets explore it further indeed.
I have to draw the line at this point, because if we cannot say in any definitive way that the person B in my example did or did not steal something, what's the point of examining anything more abstractly? We could debate the topic endlessly in abstract ways, but why?
Furthermore, shouldn't the problem that your methodology cannot find a conclusive answer to my example be proof enough that either it is wrong, or needs more work to produce one?
Correct, effectively monies were denied to JKR & company from that act. However that is not stealing- it is a fair use action on my part to make the loan as the rightful owner of the purchased books (not owning the content therein, of course). Essentially, once again, permission for this action is given.
The difference is permission was not given!
So do you feel that one validates the other? Is the profit being denied in both cases what makes them equal? I do not agree with this.
I think the try before you buy paradigm and referral system is absolutely terrific and I hope it becomes the standard for the music industry. But again, unless the band / record company / etc. promoted the record in that way (making available for download) themselves, it is not what was intended and therefore permission was not given.
Perhaps you are right, and no one is being harmed. But you cannot consequently say that downloading those artists' albums from the internet is not stealing. It may be justified stealing, but it is still stealing, which is my main theme here.
I do not feel that hearing music at a friends house is stealing if you do not pay the artist for it. That falls under fair use...
Youtube, indeed very interesting! I remember reading a while back that Vicom (I think) made Google remove all of their music video content. Yet many other record companies have not done this, perhaps because they feel advertising is more valuable to them. Sort of like the radio, I guess? I do not know the ins and outs of it though.
Sampler CDs and mix tapes must be a tricky area for record labels. I do not know where they draw the line on this, but my feeling is that it falls under fair use. I only suppose this because I've never heard of record labels getting upset and filing law suits over them, and they've been around since cassette tapes or earlier. I will assume then for our discussion that permission is given, and thusly it is not stealing. If you apply the 'permission' standard to any junction point or question in this area you can usually find what I feel is the correct answer.
I must disagree. I think that if one can not find a yes or no answer to this type of question, and especially in the overly simplified example that I presented in post #62, then we're in for a whole lot more trouble when we encounter anything remotely more complicated or morally challenging.
I may sound the fool for saying so, but I would indeed not share the sandwich. Why? Because that was the stated requirement for buying it. It would be easy for me to go ahead and share the sandwich anyway, the chef would never know... but that would undermine my own ideals of honestly towards others.
You'll have to forgive my picking and choosing which parts of your post I respond to, but I feel that in many instances you are presenting your views from either what the laws actually say about the matter, or are presenting justifications for music piracy in light of corporate corruption.
For the prior I am not so much interested in what the law actually says so much as the more core issue of what our morality says. Many have said, for example, that if you examine the US constitution closely and really boil out all the laws you will see that income taxes are not a requirement for US citizens. Yet I pay my taxes regardless because on a more core and fundamental level I feel it is what is "right" to do. (also not interested in jail time, of course
) So what I mean to say by this is that even if you boil down all the Copyright laws and find that you are the one who is correct, I will just change the focus again and ask you to evaluate my example in post #62. What are your thoughts on that scenario by the way?
For the former, I am all about justification and think it has a real value. As I've mentioned before it could well be that music piracy is a totally justified thing to do. It may be bringing about the change the music industry needs, liberating the repressed musicians, etc. etc. However my fundamental argument is that it is still stealing.
Another example of justification may be in the case of speeding on the road. Here in Los Angeles people drive at least 10 mph over the limit on the freeways at all times. As a result I have justified that I may do the same thing, because to drive at a slower rate then the rest of traffic would actually increase the danger to myself and others on the road. I feel justified in my act- but I wouldn't dream of arguing that I am not breaking the laws of traffic in doing so. Sort of complies with the old saying, do two wrongs make a right?
If you support music piracy, then wear it like a badge of honor. Stand behind it unflinchingly. "I am steaing music, because..." and what follows may make all the moral difference. I am reminded of a website, The Pirate Bay. I do not agree with the premise of the website, but I have a profound respect for those who operate it for their fearlessness to stand behind what they believe in. Giving their website that very name is in itself amazing. Now I do not know if they themselves will admit that what they are facilitating is stealing, but surely it is.
On those lines, would you please provide a link to the girl scouts lawsuit? The RIAA never ceases to amaze me...
I need to update my profile it seems. Just got back to the USA at the end of May after spending a year working in Sydney. It was beautiful down there, but we're glad to be back home. Mexican food is way better in LA.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:The item is clearly not being stolen, but copyright law is clearly being violated. ... What is arguably being stolen is potential profits. So let's explore that...
I feel this way of thinking is a bit of a slippery slope, because you could apply the same thinking to a music CD and come to the same conclusion. I.e. if I shoplift a Metallica CD from bestbuy... you get the idea. However for the sake of our discussion lets explore it further indeed.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:I'm not saying that at all. I don't care for labels because they can be misinterpreted. I'd rather explore the essence of what's happening than stick a convenient label on it. Technically, the music itself is not being stolen (see previous post) but potential profits are being stolen. However, even that is not so simple.
I have to draw the line at this point, because if we cannot say in any definitive way that the person B in my example did or did not steal something, what's the point of examining anything more abstractly? We could debate the topic endlessly in abstract ways, but why?
Furthermore, shouldn't the problem that your methodology cannot find a conclusive answer to my example be proof enough that either it is wrong, or needs more work to produce one?
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Let's say I had planned to buy the new Harry Potter book. I fully intended for JK Rowling (and her publisher, the book store, and all the middlemen) to earn a profit from my purchase, and I was ok with that. Let's say JK Rowling's net profit from that single book was $2. (I have no idea how much she gets, but this is just for illustration purposes.) But then you offered to loan me your copy. Now I don't need to buy the book. (Well I could if I wanted to display it on my bookshelf, but let's say I just wanted to know what happened to Lord Voldemort and didn't really care about owning the book.) Did the action of you loaning the book to me rob JKR of $2? as well as $$ that would have gone to her publisher, Barnes&Noble, etc.? Indeed it did!
Correct, effectively monies were denied to JKR & company from that act. However that is not stealing- it is a fair use action on my part to make the loan as the rightful owner of the purchased books (not owning the content therein, of course). Essentially, once again, permission for this action is given.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:How is this any different in the final result from you copying the latest Metallica cd for me, which I had planned to purchase but now no longer need to?
The difference is permission was not given!
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:In terms of what I have in my possession, in the case of the cd, I have the music to enjoy over and over again, whereas in the case of the book, I only read it once. True enough. BUT, in terms of profits being denied the artist, they are exactly the same!
So do you feel that one validates the other? Is the profit being denied in both cases what makes them equal? I do not agree with this.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Now let's look at another scenario. Let's say my son shares...
(cut to conserve forum pixels)
...and many obscure bands who might never get signed to a major label are getting exposure in this illicit underworld.
I think the try before you buy paradigm and referral system is absolutely terrific and I hope it becomes the standard for the music industry. But again, unless the band / record company / etc. promoted the record in that way (making available for download) themselves, it is not what was intended and therefore permission was not given.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Do we do that with every band we happen to learn about from someone who has downloaded their music? No. Some artists' works are indeed being enjoyed by us with no compensation. But since we never knew about them before anyway, who is being harmed?
Perhaps you are right, and no one is being harmed. But you cannot consequently say that downloading those artists' albums from the internet is not stealing. It may be justified stealing, but it is still stealing, which is my main theme here.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:In a perfect world, I would gladly reciprocate for every bit of pleasure I ever experience. But I'm just not really set up to send a check to every single artist whose song I happen to hear at a friend's house or on a youtube video. (What about youtube videos, By the way? You can listen to the entire album that way...quality isn't as good of course, so I'm not happy with that since I'm picky about sound quality, but some people aren't so picky and might just listen to stuff on youtube...which isn't paying any royalties to the artist like radio & cable tv do.)
I do not feel that hearing music at a friends house is stealing if you do not pay the artist for it. That falls under fair use...
Youtube, indeed very interesting! I remember reading a while back that Vicom (I think) made Google remove all of their music video content. Yet many other record companies have not done this, perhaps because they feel advertising is more valuable to them. Sort of like the radio, I guess? I do not know the ins and outs of it though.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:I do try to support the artists I like the best whenever possible. And if a friend is depressed, I might put together a sampler cd of music to help her feel better. Is that a violation of copyright laws? You betcha
Sampler CDs and mix tapes must be a tricky area for record labels. I do not know where they draw the line on this, but my feeling is that it falls under fair use. I only suppose this because I've never heard of record labels getting upset and filing law suits over them, and they've been around since cassette tapes or earlier. I will assume then for our discussion that permission is given, and thusly it is not stealing. If you apply the 'permission' standard to any junction point or question in this area you can usually find what I feel is the correct answer.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:I'm sorry if I seem evasive. I just don't think this issue can be reduced to a simple yes or no regarding the question of whether it's stealing.
I must disagree. I think that if one can not find a yes or no answer to this type of question, and especially in the overly simplified example that I presented in post #62, then we're in for a whole lot more trouble when we encounter anything remotely more complicated or morally challenging.
Ali Quadir Wrote:If I sell you a sandwich but tell you that under no circumstances you're allowed to share it. Would you accept that as lawful behavior on my part? Of course not. Yet the law in this regard is very shallow it is a handful of "adjustments to law" that actually undermine and make irrelevant laws that have stood for centuries.
I may sound the fool for saying so, but I would indeed not share the sandwich. Why? Because that was the stated requirement for buying it. It would be easy for me to go ahead and share the sandwich anyway, the chef would never know... but that would undermine my own ideals of honestly towards others.
You'll have to forgive my picking and choosing which parts of your post I respond to, but I feel that in many instances you are presenting your views from either what the laws actually say about the matter, or are presenting justifications for music piracy in light of corporate corruption.
For the prior I am not so much interested in what the law actually says so much as the more core issue of what our morality says. Many have said, for example, that if you examine the US constitution closely and really boil out all the laws you will see that income taxes are not a requirement for US citizens. Yet I pay my taxes regardless because on a more core and fundamental level I feel it is what is "right" to do. (also not interested in jail time, of course
) So what I mean to say by this is that even if you boil down all the Copyright laws and find that you are the one who is correct, I will just change the focus again and ask you to evaluate my example in post #62. What are your thoughts on that scenario by the way?For the former, I am all about justification and think it has a real value. As I've mentioned before it could well be that music piracy is a totally justified thing to do. It may be bringing about the change the music industry needs, liberating the repressed musicians, etc. etc. However my fundamental argument is that it is still stealing.
Another example of justification may be in the case of speeding on the road. Here in Los Angeles people drive at least 10 mph over the limit on the freeways at all times. As a result I have justified that I may do the same thing, because to drive at a slower rate then the rest of traffic would actually increase the danger to myself and others on the road. I feel justified in my act- but I wouldn't dream of arguing that I am not breaking the laws of traffic in doing so. Sort of complies with the old saying, do two wrongs make a right?
If you support music piracy, then wear it like a badge of honor. Stand behind it unflinchingly. "I am steaing music, because..." and what follows may make all the moral difference. I am reminded of a website, The Pirate Bay. I do not agree with the premise of the website, but I have a profound respect for those who operate it for their fearlessness to stand behind what they believe in. Giving their website that very name is in itself amazing. Now I do not know if they themselves will admit that what they are facilitating is stealing, but surely it is.
On those lines, would you please provide a link to the girl scouts lawsuit? The RIAA never ceases to amaze me...
(07-22-2009, 02:42 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: (I'm sure a similar site exists for Australia, Lavazza)
I need to update my profile it seems. Just got back to the USA at the end of May after spending a year working in Sydney. It was beautiful down there, but we're glad to be back home. Mexican food is way better in LA.