There's a lot of stupidity in state legislatures, and the responsibility for that stupidity rests squarely with the people who voted for these morons. Take Tennessee. Please.
Combating music piracy at Tennessee's public university system is more important than hiring teachers and keeping down tuition costs.Just-signed legislation requires the 222,000-student system to spend an estimated $9.5 million for file sharing "monitoring software," "monitoring hardware" and an additional "recurring cost of $1,575,000 for 21 staff positions and benefits (@75,000 each) to monitor network traffic" of its students.
Tennessee's measure, approved Wednesday by Gov. Phil Bredesen, was the nation's first in a bid to combat online file sharing within state-funded universities. The law, similar versions of which the Recording Industry Association of America wants throughout the United States, comes as the Tennessee public university system is increasing tuition, laying off teachers and leaving unfilled vacant instructor positions to battle a $43.7 million shortfall. (Wired)
Tennessee, like Florida and California, has an active music industry lobby. Their trade association, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), is happier than a pig in shit that their lobbyists were able to buy Tennessee lawmakers to get the policy of their most vivid wet dreams:
"This bill, the first of its kind in the nation, addressed the issue of campus music theft in a state where the impact is felt more harshly than most," said Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's chairman and CEO.
So instead of this "harsh" negative impact, Tennessee will get second prize: the competitive disadvantage of lesser prepared graduates. And maybe that's the only thing the state will get out of this reckless expenditure of the public purse will be new techniques as students devise new way to evade the pricey software, such as sharing with file encryption.
Waste of money, waste of brain potential, no sense of priorities. Tennessee. A state I wouldn't volunteer to save from their own stupidity.
- Log in to post comments
When you raise tuition students have less money to spend on music. I see a lot of laws this way sadly.
Anyway, Kentucky is worse.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-kentucky-tries-to-seize-g…
the RIAA, music copyright enforcement arm of the US federal government.
The simple solution, of course, is to outsource the connectivity for campus housing to a private firm and keep the campus network isolated.
Probably a good idea anyway from a security POV; there have been quite a few campus networks afflicted by recurrent infection from student computers. (At one point the UofArizona dictated requirements for student operating systems and antivirus software; they hadn't a clue what to make of $DAUGHTER's Linux box and wanted her to run Norton or some such!)
Well Gee Revere, Phil who I know is a Democrat and the bill was put together by the Democrat legislature. But, it was finished by the newly elected Republican majority by one vote.
Phil is a centrist Democrat and he might be heading up HHS and this guy doesnt scare me because he gets it and that is that you cant spend more than you make. Unlike most states who will just raise taxes during a recession, he is cutting heads in government for a change. It lets them know that there is accountability for the peoples money.
But, there is that Republican majority that is headed by my next door neighbor...Senator Mark Norris. That majority and the governor worked together to make sure that due to the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley that the institutions of Tennessee and not just the schools have and are in compliance with the law. Failure to ensure that you have not complied means that the schools and institutions are liable for any downloading. That includes every grade school. You missed that part or didnt get it.
It WAS hotly contested in the library system because like you they feel that everything should be free and open. I guess you didnt hear about the school library in one small town being used to download porn films AND music. The school system got a bill from the porn site and thats one of the reasons this is being done.
Bit myopic of you not to see the big picture and the effects and reasons for it. You were complaining last summer about someone getting a bill for copying a bit of Transformers. And it came up then about the like 150G bill that some kids mom had to pay AFTER she was dumb enough to go to court with it.
Its the law Revere and its no longer an innocuous thing. Downloading is costing everything that you can do digitally and while I think its funny that they were getting porn and then making multiple copies, it still violates the law. Those laws were put together by the Congress of the United States and in this case, the Legislature of the State of Tennessee. Revere wasnt elected to either at last roster check so you are in the minority.
That might upset you that the people who are very aware of this issue here in Tennessee would want it this way. But OTOH but you also probably dont know that this employs thousands of people just right down here at Technicolor on Winchester. They press off software, DVD's and proprietary data reproduction and its one of the largest shipping points in the US for this stuff. One copy doesnt sound like much.. What if every guy in China had one?
Oh, I almost forgot Revere. Its not 43 million.... its 849 million in the red due to the economy overall. The 43 million is going to be made up by no hire policies, early retirements and then when it improves they will up or out the Phd's. This is from the Democrat Board of Regents.
Randy: It's all about priorities. And it's stupid. The rest are just RIAA talking points. The RIAA is the biggest practitioner of frivolous lawsuits in the world. Yes, it's the law. In Tennessee. Dumb and dumber. Too bad for the students.
Not really Revere. The schools could be sued for allowing downloads on their servers. Its pretty simple and those copyright laws have been in place for just about everything including books since I think about 1765. Its not news. Its people thinking that the law doesnt apply to them. I mean lets look at it for what it is. I have a product, you want it. Does that make it right to steal?
I have a load of groceries, you want it so you load up a cart and leave with it.
Its the same thing.
As for the sorry students who wont pony up the money for a product I have no sympathy especially when warned.
ESPECIALLY STUDENTS! They dont have any rules anymore so its just a oh well, okay to steal and get out of jail free card if it went your way. Its also a tearing at the fabric of society. This is nothing new, just people trying to bend it in their direction when they dont like it.
I mean Hell, I hate Bill Gates but I wouldnt steal his software because its illegal and they do prosecute. I think its on the front of every software package too. So why would anyone be surprised when they copy a DVD or a software package and get their asses kicked?
No, Randy, those laws have not been in effect since 1785. There was no internet and no music sharing in 1785. I don't live in TN so it's up to you if you want to spend money on that rather than educating your young people. That's your choice. My choice is to call it what it is. BTW, I deal with college students daily. They are a lot better folks than in our day. But maybe not in Tennessee. I'll let you judge them.
As someone living in Memphis TN, I have to say that this sort of spending is stupid. The U of M has been known as Tiger High since the early 80's, and speding funds on this won't help get them a better science and math department. While local corporations here have donated to expend the business department there, the math department is far from stellar. As Revere stated, the priorities are screwed.
You are right Revere it wasnt 1785, it was 1790. They started talking about it in 85. What was the deal? Plagiarism. It was penned by Jefferson and Adams, and a few others. The guy that signed it was Washington. But they likely carry no weight with the left at all.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/
BGT you are also right, it wont improve your math department or any other. Why did we have to get here? Because someone thought it was a good idea to steal from someone else. Used to be hacking was a fun deal too. Now you get about 30 years as someones named Luthers bitch in a federal penitentiary. Of course none of this was necessary until someone started taking something that by the laws of every country said was illegal. Laws that are not enforced or speciously are not laws, they are something to keep you under the thumb.
The violators just started screwing around until they finally tipped the bucket over on themselves is all. 9.5 is a lot of money. Could have been used a lot better but it was necessary to protect an industry and not the right to hack, copy or steal something that clearly didnt belong to them.
Graduate soon... Get out into the real world and make some cash and then donate it back to the school. Shirley Raines is a good administrator and she cant be happy about having to spend it just to protect the school either. Every college in America is having to do something like this. Its just something that got out of control and started causing an economic effect is all.
Randy,
I graduated from CBU in the 90's, and I have enough cash. I have been in 'teh Real World' for a considerable time. While I agree that the creator of a work should hold it's copyright, and control how it is used to their own benefit, let's face reality and agree that the record and movie companies are the one who screw over the artists to a much larger degree than the students doing the downloading. Holding the universities responsible for the actions of their students is far too draconian a response. Once again, the funding of this program (and even the need to have to consider this type of funding) is wasteful and does nothing to help the mission of an instituion of learning.
as a professional IT person, it annoys me greatly when people confuse copyright infringement with theft.
they're both criminal, and they're both unethical, but they are otherwise nothing alike. if you infringe a copyright, you do a wrong thing, but your wrong act has none of the essential qualities or features of theft. i realize it's a hopeless thing to ask folks, at this late stage, not to conflate the two, but nevertheless the conflation is unjustified and misleading.
(oh, and FWIW, on that list of industries that actually need protecting? the record and movie businesses are not anywhere near the top, no.)
Nomen, could you elaborate a little bit more on this distinction between copyright infringement and theft, being that your a professional IT person, and all. I am curious as how this is not a distinction without a difference.
What's the difference between shoplifting a CD from a brick and mortar music store, and downloading it from the Internet without paying those who offer it for sale. How does the latter "wrong act (have) none of the essential qualities or features of theft." I'm truly bewildered by this assertion.
Another thing: though these students who think it OK to steal intellectual property should have learned that it's not - either at home or in grades K-12, what's wrong with our universities teaching morality (i.e.,civic and secular, not theological), a little late to its students, who are most likely to become part of the meritocratic upper echelons of our deteriorating society.
There was a time when most universities (aside from West Point and Annapolis) had honor codes. But of course, that was before the Enlightenment of politically correct moral relativity, where there no longer is an accepted, clearly demarcated code of right and wrong. Stupid me, I'd almost forgotten.
Paul.
Paul: I don't know what you know about universities today but most I know about have strict codes about plagiarism, cheating, etc., things they didn't have when I was a student. You make some very glib statements (typical of old fogies who think today's youth are feckless) but I don't know what actual experience you have of these things. I have worked in universities all my adult life -- that's close to half a century -- and you are quite wrong. You also don't know the history of copyright or the ways it has been deformed in the last half century. You just assert things. Most of what RIAA has done has not been tested in court. To date they have not won a single case (the one jury award they got has been vacated, as I understand it). Let me ask you, suppose I copy a CD for my own use. Is that against the law? Suppose I buy it and share it with a friend. We both listen to it. My friend didn't pay a cent to hear it. Is that theft? Why not? What about loaning the CD to my friend so he or she can listen to it? Theft? What if I loan a book. Theft? What if I borrow the CD from the library? What's the difference between these things and theft. In each case the CD company didn't get a cent. But you want to call it theft. You and you alone. Suppose the law is changed so that it's OK to share copied music with others as long as you don't charge money for it. Is it still theft? Now I am bewildered by your assertion.
certainly. theft takes something tangible, or at least scarce, away from a legitimate owner who already holds possession of it. copyright infringement in the most literal sense is the making of a copy you were not given permission to make. it takes nothing away from anyone, more usually it adds a new copy.
theft deprives you of something you've already got. copyright infringement theoretically deprives you of a future income you may or may not have received but-for the infringement, but had not in fact ever held possession of and might not have ever actually received or even wanted.
e.g., there are reel upon reel of old movies in vaults in hollywood and elsewhere, some of them of real interest to filmographers or historians, that cannot be distributed for purely legal reasons. often enough, nobody really knows who holds the copyright anymore, decades after the original producers have gone out of business, and whoever it is is certainly not offering the material for commercial distribution at any price, nor would they be likely to take your money if you tracked them down and offered it.
releasing those movies on DVDs or over BitTorrent would be copyright infringement. taking physical possession of the film reels in order to digitize them first would be theft. the latter would be a deprivation of property or its use, but the former would not.
downloading a Metallica album from piratebay or somesuch website is copyright infringement. it is not theft, however, unless you would have otherwise been willing to pay for a copy of it, in which case it still isn't theft, but rather illegal deprivation of income which Metallica could have reasonably expected to enjoy.
but if you, like me, are never willing to pay a red cent for another Metallica song as long as you live, and would have simply gone without if it hadn't been for the illegal download, who have you deprived of what? noone and nothing, so although you are a criminal (copyright infringement) you nevertheless are not a thief.
or, shorter: theft is a crime that does harm because of the comparative scarcity of the thing stolen; copyright infringement is a crime that would be pointless or impossible unless the thing copied was, in fact, comparatively abundant. this alone should be reason enough not to conflate the two.
Dr. Revere: the fact that you have been working and associated with univserities and their students for many years does not give you a monopoly on knowledge and observation, that is also available to anyone with children who have recently been through college, or just keeps abreast of news and current events. In fact, your position could very well bias your observations toward defending those with whom you work or are associated.
Your assertion that anything I have stated is "glib" is an unsupported labeling of views that are not unique to me, alone. "Old fogie," is ad hominem and irrelevant. You say I, and I, alone, believe the unauthorized or unpurchased use of something of value to those who produced it consider that theft, is not only incorrect and absurd on its face, but where are your statistics to validate such an absolute assertion. Your statement that "(I)just assert things," is a meaningless attempt to discount statements you don't agree with. Why are my assertions so invalid, just because I state them without apology or doubt. You "just asserted" what I just easily demonstrated to be unsupported by any statistics other than your own subjective judgment.
First, I'm going to disregard your references to court decisions; our judicial system has demonstrated distortions of many common law, common sense, and constitutional principles so frequently, that anyone outside the legal profession has lost much faith in its seemingly random determinations. Before you counter that statement, I don't imagine you believe our justice system treats all citizens equitably, wether rich enough to hire the best resources, or the wretchedly poor and even middle class, who haven't those resources - do you? Your theorizing whether the acts under discussion would still be considered theft by myself or others if the laws were changed, is not only unlikely, but rather illogical. I would suspect the laws would already have been changed in favor of intellectual property theft if it were deemed to be legal; and the answer is, "No, of course not, since the changed law has just made such action legal, and by definition, no longer a theft." But the law hasn't changed, and is very unlikely to, since stealing something (virtually or materially), is wrong, period. Someone has created something using the usual raw materials of time, effort and expense, and sees enough value in their product to put it up for sale. If it's clearly for sale, and you take it without paying for it, you are stealing it, unless you live is some Alice in Wonderland. Of course, since you have spent so much time in our Ivory Towers, you may have been influenced by the ubiquitous Marxist miasma that saturates many of our universities, such that the concept of private property may have somewhat alien to you.
Now to answer your theoreticals: And before I do, I have a question for you and Nomen. If you replaced the situation of virtually taking product without paying for it, with doing the same thing in a music store, would all those who do the former without a thought or pang of guilt, do the same in the latter situation. I think not. So what have we got here, then. Referring back to our Sunday Sermon fiasco, I would have thought there'd be universal agreement that having character means doing the right thing whether anyone sees or knows it, or not. And conversely, only a coward will take something without paying for it when they know no one can immediately see or know what they're doing. All that other fogging in your reply is rationalizing a wrong action.
If you *copy* a CD without having paid for it? You're damned right it's theft. See all of the above. If you *buy* the CD and have a friend over to listen to it, no problem. There still exists only one copy of an item properly purchased. Even if you, or a library loan it to someone, still one purchased copy - no problem. If you knowingly lend it to someone you know will make another copy of it, they're stealing property, and you're a knowing accessory to the theft. And if you think I'm being too theoretical here, I've often had friends ask to borrow my CDs to make a copy and I've refused and told them why - no apologies, no hesitation, no shame (on my part).
If you remain bewildered by my assertion, the problem is yours, not mine.
Nomen: it's hard to know where to start, you make so many distinctions that are transparently invalid. What does the scarcity of something have to do with ownership and transactions in the market place. Ice cream is hardly a scarcity, as is true of nails, paper, and everything else available in a productive free market economy based on the division of labor, which began somewhere back when hunter-gatherers left other family behind to process what they hunted and gathered. When agricultural societies came along, division of labor progressed further and never looked back. Scarcity may make something more valuable and therefore command a higher price in the market, but has nothing to do with property rights or theft. If a take an ice cream cone from the Good Humor man when he's not looking, I've stolen his property by not paying him for it. Your statement about making unauthorized copies only making an additional copy and therefore not depriving someone of anything, is indistinguishable from counterfitting currency - just making more copies of something - so what, other than causing the value of legitimate currency to decrease by diluting with worthless paper. Better yet, when Mr. Kruger's not looking, I take some of his live ammo and replace it with blanks. What's the big deal, other than that he's lost something of value, and upon which he depends for (let's say) his livelihood.
The best I can make of your tortuous second paragraph has something to do with items not yet sold and therefore representing "only" future income, and therefore having "only" potential, as yet unrealized and therefore more questionable value, not having been sold in the present moment. Do I have that right? I think most folks more familiar with property and legitimate behavior in the market place would call such items that might represent future income, *INVENTORY.* And yes, it has not only inherent currehnt value, but might even represent greater value when sold at a future time, were it to become more *scarce!*
Old movies are likely owned within someone's estate, and if they're not, that doesn't make them eligible for some free-for-all give-away. Yes, they might remain in a vault and unavailable for current display - such is life in a society of laws, and life isn't always "fair," Nomen.
Finally, the most effective rebuttal to your following paragraph is to merely cut and paste it here verbatim. Perhaps by having you re-read it, and aside from its legalistic affectation, you'll also recognize it as a self-contradicting and counterintuitive attempt at rationalizing theft: "downloading a Metallica album from piratebay or somesuch website is copyright infringement. it is not theft, however, unless you would have otherwise been willing to pay for a copy of it, in which case it still isn't theft, but rather illegal deprivation of income which Metallica could have reasonably expected to enjoy."
All I can ask is did you seriously proof read what you wrote? You are saying, that if one is not *willing* to pay for something that is for sale (i.e., not for free), and you take it without paying for it, that your "illegal deprivation of income which (the seller) could have reasonably expected to enjoy," is not *theft?* Come again?!
geez...
I couldn't make it past Pauls second paragraph, so someone please correct me if I am wrong (except Paul, you have proven in those two paragraphs that you aren't that exceptional when it comes to global thinking)
Paul = RIAA plant
Paul = Libertarian plant (although I happen to be somewhat libertarian myself)
Paul = SIWOTI
Paul = MRK (OK, this is the least likely, as MRK can make some reasonable arguments, from a rather protectionist/uber conservative standpoint)
BGT: I don't believe Dr. Revere gave you censorship rights, so I'll be happy to give a commensurately short response to yours: aside from your list of paranoid and baseless ad hominems, what exactly are you saying. Please define your concept of global thinking, other than using it as vague pejorative of my thought processes. Whatever your impression of my thought processes, your inability to get past my second paragraph doesn't reflect very positively upon yours.
Sometimes when people concentrate a little harder, and take a little more time with a difficult passage (or one not even that complex) they're able, in the end, to better process and assimilate written material. The non-specific brevity of your post indicates this might be a helpful approach for you; no harm in trying, you might actually learn something.
Paul,
Revere did not give me censorship rights.
And yes, ad hominems can be amusing.
I still haven't bothered to read all of your previous postings, but let us put the equation in a simple manner. What percent of the revenue from CD/radio airtime goes to the artist?
That is simple eqaution, but don't forget, you will need to break out the costs for below gross margin items.
Paul,
I have finally read through you rather verbose post. The summary seems to be whether or not copying protected material is "just".
In general, I would say it is not. However, it seems that the groups making the largest fuss over illegally copied files would be the entertainment industry.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the true justice of the DMCA.
Bemusedly awaiting your reply. :)
To help me assuage my worries, what is the difference between the percentage of revenue on average that goes back to a band and the percentage that goes back to the label? I can understand a large variance between a band like, say AC/DC and Husker Du, but how do those variances really measure out? If you can point me to an RIAA source, I will gladly peruse them.
BGT: You seem to agree with me in principle that taking something meant for sale, without paying for it, is wrong. My more precise label for this activity is "Theft." You employ the term, "Just." "Just," is a more inexact term, more open to definitional modifications, depending on situational context, and ironically, is related to the term "to justify," and often associated with the concept of "fairness." "Just" is more susceptible to the slippery slope of subjective perspective.
What's even more objectionably irrelevant are your requests for calculations of who gets what percentage of sales receipts, the implication of your query being that the current mechanism for distribution of sales profits may not be "just."
(1) If you are neither the artist, nor any of the other agents involved in the production of an item put forth for sale on the market, then you have no standing in determining the "justice" (however you might personally define it) of the contractual agreements of the parties that are involved. In simpler (less verbose terms) it's absolutely *NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!" The beauty of our democratic free market system is that we have no slaves or forced labor involved. The market place determines how much an item for sale is worth, and if worth nothing, no or few sales are made. The market place also determines the value (and therefore, the negotiating position of various artists) as to their final receipts for their products, vs. those who helped in the production. If the artist is unhappy with the contractual arrangements, he can refuse to engage in production of the product. If you as a customer refuse to buy a product because you believe the parties involved in its production are treating one another unjustly, you needn't buy the item.
Which brings us to the more important point of your questions: (2) Whatever your impression of the justice involved in the music production industry, if you think any of those answers you request somehow "justify" your stealing the product, outright, then such queries are a bullshit attempt to obfuscate the simple definition and straightforward situation of your stealing (if you're the the "customer," i.e., thief in question) who cynically takes the merchandise leaving zero return for all who were inovlved in the item's production.
Your questions all represent a decoy presenting your theft as some twisted application of retributive justice to a market arrangement that did not require your consent nor input. And your apparent obssesion with the questions you pose with their implications that "justice" is found wanting in the music industry, are an obvious mechanism with which you attempt to mollify a guilty conscience for engaging in theft (and if a guilty conscience is not applicable in your case), then the questions represent a duplicitous and sociopathic "justification" for your acts of theft.
Nomen, if you are a professional IT person you know they are one and the same.
BGT-Again, the Congress of the United States and the State of Tennessee disagree with your interpretation and especially Nomens. Musicians, actors, companies, all sign legally binding contracts that prevent them from selling their product once its bound. Screw them over? Shit, I think its more of a case of read the contract.
This is a bit different though because in particular software and DVD reproduction is rife in SE Asia and now Mexico. Its just another industry that has to protect itself and they are asserting that right under the law. The software people would be happy to prosecute Nomen in a heartbeat if he was copying. You live here BG, you remember the guy they caught up in Fraser with the repro machines and the 30,000 disks? He was copying brand new DVD's and even had a machine to fake out the disk lables to look identical. The only diff was the package but I dont think anyone was too worried about that.
The bottom line here is that its theft. It is designated as such by both Tennessee and Congress. It is the law. It has been the law and will remain the law. Anyone caught violating it will be prosecuted as the 17 year old in Transformers found out last year. In PARTICULAR the kids are going to get it in the shorts because their mommies just didnt educate them enough about the law and I have heard it on more than one occasion that the law is all out of whack. Really? How come they keep raising the fines and penalties. RIAA isnt an enforcement branch it has clout with Senators/Congressmen who agree with them. The movie industry agrees with them. In fact the only people that disagree are those who want to illegally download movies and software. Its not common use stuff and its the old well the law is just too hard on us for doing something illegal. Sorry, try Saudi Arabia or Iran where they will take a hand for having an illegal disc.
Paul, I aint the only neo-conservative here. There are plenty of them. I am one of the loudest and I like Revere dont back down for what I believe is right in my God and my country. We both hold a high admiration for Martin Sheen. I cant stand the guys politics. But I would stomp on down to pay his bail if he was arrested for a sit in because he is always first respectful and second he is willing like me to go to jail for what he believes in. Shouldnt jump Revere too hard for just going for what he and others think is right. We lost this election by 6 percentage points. They offered up change...We got the Clinton White House back into place. Richardson is going to Commerce so we have to watch and make sure HE doesnt ship anything to the Chinese. We got to watch Hillary at State to make sure SHE doesnt pay her campaign debt with our foreign secrets. Keep that in mind and lay off of BGT. He is all of 30 something now and is going to get hit with the new tax bill because he isnt stupid having come from CBC and it means that once he gets a family, a mortgage, and a huge income tax bill that he will be as deeply concerned as we are about what may happen.
No more save the people... Save the United States of America from those who would bring it down from within with everything that this country WASNT founded on.
In defense of the original post...
Copyright was never meant to be some sort of permanent ownership of created material, so that record companies could be the sole profit-machines in the music industries. Copyright was supposed to give artists and authors some incentive to keep creating, by giving those creators a short period of time where they hold the sole rights to distribute their works. AND THEN THE WORK IS INTENDED TO ENTER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Initial copyrights lasted between 15 and 25 years. Which is plenty of time for an author to profit from his work, and fair in that it allows the work to enter the public domain while it's still somewhat relevant.
Over the history of copyright law, the duration of copyright has been extended over and over again, mostly because certain companies stand to benefit immensely when they control the rights to certain branded images (a certain large-eared mouse comes to mind). It has nothing to do with the ethics of allowing unlicensed people to reproduce a creative work. That has ALWAYS been an expected eventual outcome.
I'd say it's more of a crime that it takes 100+ years for a creation to enter the public domain than it is a crime that someone downloads old Disney films to show their kids.
Oh, and "it's the law" is a terrible justification for following a course of action. Yeah it's the law. But is it just? Maybe it'd be better to change the damn law back to its original intent.
I wanted to keep this commentary separate from the others, in case foul language isn't appreciated on this blog and Revere wants to spare some innocent eyes. ;)
Krueger: You are batshit insane. That's a hell of a Gish gallop you have going on in that last post. You go from the assertion that copyright law is just (because at least we won't cut of your hand!) into a rant about God and country, the election, and Martin Sheen (wtf??). Reminds me a little of Happy Noodle Boy.
Revere: I am terribly sorry you have to deal with such craziness on your blog. ;)
geez, here i was worried that my first explanation of the relative economic impacts of theft and copyright infringement would be too long for people to bother reading; that's why i posted the shorter summary.
paul, sorry, but TL:DR. i'll go by other folks' summaries of your points.
just to spell it out for those too blinkered to read for comprehension: copyright infringement is a crime for some very good reasons. we need to have copyright laws, they serve a useful purpose in society. but they do not create, out of thin air, any crime of theft where there would otherwise have been none.
theft is one of those almost primordial crimes, that have been recognized as wrong and criminal probably since before there were formalized laws. the principle of personal property, as applied to items that are economically scarce (meaning that you can't just pop another item into existence with minimal effort and expense, effectively without limit on their number) is the sociological analog of a law of nature; it's part of how humans live.
but the things copyright laws concern themselves with are not "scarce" in that sense. downloading an mp3 song from somewhere does not deprive anybody else of their copy of it. theft is wrong because it does deprive people of things that way; copyright infringement is wrong for far more subtle and nuanced reasons.
copyright laws serve to create an artificial scarcity of "things" that could otherwise be duplicated at nominal real-world cost. sheet music "costs" very little to make, just some paper, ink, and time on an offset press. sheet music is made artificially scarce, and much costlier, thanks to enforcement of the copyrights on the "music" --- which, you'll note, is not inherently any part of the sheet music itself. we do this deliberately, for reasons that amount to social engineering, and that engineering really is a good idea.
but, all that said, there is a legitimate debate over what kind of artificial scarcity it makes sense to create with these laws. there are good arguments that our current set of copyright laws are too restrictive, mainly because the scarcity they set up lasts too long. there is no argument for doing away with them completely, that would be social-engineering insanity, just for tweaking them back down to what they used to be --- say --- fifty years ago, or somesuch. call it copyright conservatism, if you please...
@Randy said:
You'd just as well steal his software, he did. MSDOS was repackaged CP/M. Windows was a reverse engineered version of the XPARK GUI, after it was re-worked by Apple for the LISA. Microshaft reverse engineered Visicalc and called it Excel. The list goes on. In later years, it was just easier to buy somebody else's company than reverse engineer their software, (i.e. Windows Defender started life as Giant Antivirus, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that Yahoo will end up as MSN search.)
old home movies of random children's birthday parties, you mean. feature films that were released for theatrical distribution? no, most certainly they are not. those were always corporate property, and almost certainly will remain so forever.
at this point, i need you to define the word "theft".
to me, the crime of "theft" is taking something away from its lafwul owner, without legal right to take it. the thing taken has to be something the victim has already got, and after the crime is committed, they no longer have it.
deprivation of future income is not theft. it's unlawful and harmful, but "future income" is not something you've already got, so you can't have it taken away from you.
making a new, separate, individual copy of something that already exists is not "theft", unless you have to take the original away from its lawful owner first. how can creating a new thing in addition to the first thing be stealing? it can be criminal, thanks to copyright laws, but the crime involved is a different one from the crime of theft.
And if someone else "copies" it and lets you listen? Ever hear of putting a CD on an iPod or a Walkman? That's copying. If someone else listens, then it's theft? I copy science papers all the time. I didn't pay for them. The library did. I give them to students. Yes, there are "fair use" provisions that might or might not allow this, but isn't it still theft by your definition? Or is your definition just related to a particular law. In which case the law doesn't define it as theft, now, does it. What about stealing ideas? Theft? What if you take the idea and make money off of it and don't pay the person who got the idea in the first place? Theft? What if the owner doesn't care? Or the owner is unknown. Or the owner is dead and has no estate? Theft? Didn't you read these ideas somewhere? Are you a thief?
BTW, Paul (and Randy and Victoria and Lea): This is The Intertubes. Don't be too sensitive about being called names. You folks do it all the time and so do I. If it gets out of hand and is just mean spirited and offensive I'll probably do something about it, but making an argument and also calling someone a dumb ass (or a lib or a socialist, for that matter, when it's meant to be derogatory) is allowed here. We're grown-ups. If you can't stand the heat, well . . . . But I really would like comments to be focussed, coherent and make points or an argument related to the posts. I've always allowed a certain amount of ranting but it isn't a substitute for thinking, nor is just agreeing with someone else with no other point being made or value added. I'll say here what I say to my students: writing means re-writing. Try to read what you've written and edit it for clarity if you can. Bad writing usually means bad thinking. We're all guilty at times. It just shouldn't be all the time.
Generally speaking, one of the prime motivations of a creative artist is to share their art with others. They want to give to others something that they have made. Monetary compensation does count, but may or may not be a serious consideration for any given artist.
One of the prime motivations of middle-men who peddle the wares of the artist is to make as much profit as possible. They are not interested in sharing or giving, they are interested in taking.
Any reasonable copyright law would take this into consideration and provide a amenable compromise between the widest possible distribution of works for the benefit of the artist and fair profit for the middle-men.
But is there not a difference between a digital copy and a disk in a jewel case? The first costs only the price of a few electrons while the second is only made possible by a deeply entrenched manufacturing process that reaches from mining ores to stocking stores.
Under the current state of copyright law I should feel that to show pictures of my kids to someone ought to require some form of payment. I mean, I made the photos, and that makes them mine and therefore when someone looks at them I should profit in some fashion. And I won't except, "Wow! Nice picture."
The increasing length of copyright protection did not, to my knowledge, result from the demands of the copyright holders, it came from the accountants of the middle-men. And they will spend a million dollars to collect one hundred in royalties to protect the artists they fleece serve.
Tell you guys what, you tip right on down to Best Buy and walk over to any DVD, Software aisle and pick up a disc of anything. Then buy some blanks, walk over to the computer aisle and then start downloading for an upload.
Lets see how long you last before the cops show up. Better than that, lets see how big the fine and sentence are.
You guys simply dont get it and that is because you are libs, and feel that anytime the rules dont work for you then you'll try to change them, and then if you cant do that you'll try to get the courts to legislate from the bench. Nope, not on this one. Take that cell phone in and try recording the next Transformers and you are outta there and/or in jail.
Crude, yep you are right about that. Its because they are having to step up thelawsuits to protect their copyrights for software, chip designs, video's. Think of it this way, if there wasnt a market for it they wouldnt do it. If your kid was a nude Pamela Anderson then you might have a market Crude. Same applies for the Lady Di tapes. What is yours is yours and how you use it is up to you. You put it into the marketplace and you might not be able to protect your license without paying lawyers to sue.
Please do go into a Best Buy and let me know which one Nomen. I will make sure the camera crews are there. Their tape of course will be copyrighted.
Off with your hand in Saudi Arabia if you are caught.
MRK: where are you getting this crazy notion any of us think copyright infringement isn't illegal? or that copyright laws shouldn't be enforced? who here has said anything of that nature, and where?
Nomen you seem to be implying that there is some sort of wiggle room, an angle, a smoke and mirrors to allow this activity to go on. Why bother to even debate it? You wanted a definition, I gave you a direct avenue to find out what it meant.
Please, by all means go since this is a part of your education that seems to be lacking. Definition of theft.
"Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without color of right takes, or fraudulently and without color of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
* to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
* to pledge it or deposit it as security;
* to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
* to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
"A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.
"A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment."
You are bright Nomen, you can see that the first legal definition is just what we are talking about here.
which activity are you referring to, and where do you see any such implication in anything i've said?
As Dr. Revere observes, good writing takes thought, time, effort, review and editing. I believe I invested a considerable amount of effort (and sincerity) in my postings on this subject. As with most differences of opinion on concepts, if the firts few thorough attempts by either side of an issue fail to convince initial opponents, further efforts will fail as well.
I'll use this post to summarize some observations apparent to me from this train of postings.
1) Several posters begin their rebuttals by stating they didn't bother to finish the post which they're about to critique (either because they found it too offensive, or not worth their effort [which can be a reflection of either a condescending or even ignorant attitude]). Commenting on ideas you haven't even read or processed hardly contributes to a thoughtful debate. I think such disclaimers reflect more poorly on those making them than on those to whom they're directed and bode poorly for the quality of whatever follows in their comments.
2) Concerning this particular issue, many of those who favor just copying (rather than purchasing) material that is intended to be sold by those who underwent the effort and expense to produce it (call it by whatever legal term you wish), seem to presume the motives of those involved in the production and distribution of this sale item. Their presumptions, based upon their perception of the inherent injustice of the contractual relationships among the parties who created this item, inform their decision as to whether they will pay for it. Since they adjudge one of the parties (the artist) to have suffered exploitation (despite the fact that he has volunarily entered into contractual agreement with those whom the poster feels are too greedy), they apply what I earlier referred to as retributive justice - they just take the item without paying anyone for it.
3)There is this recurring theme of "scarcity" entering into the equation of whether something for sale should be purchased or just taken without paying for it (again, use whatever term you feel comfortable describing such behavior; I prefer calling it stealing or theft).
Observations (2) and (3) both have long been addressed in the operation of a phenomenon known as the "free market." The free market has a way of sorting out all these individual and subjective judgements, perceptions, etc. It resolves these issues very efficiently via what is known as the sale price of an item. If an artist doesn't enter what he considers an unfair contract, there will be no item produced for sale. If others involved in the line of production and distribution become too "greedy", the sale price will discourage *legitimate* prospective buyers (of course those who choose to pay no price are exempted from this market phenomenon). If an item becomes scarce (whether it be CDs or barrels of oil, or diamonds, the latter two of which are controlled by cartels), then the sale price will rise - it has something to do with a market phenomenon known as supply and demand.
What I am getting at here is that many in this forum presenting these personal criteria to establish the value of an item (whether or not it should merely be taken or actually purchased), have long, and otherwise been addressed by the final *price* of the item, which efficiently resolves all these potential conflicts that are of such concern to you.
When a merchant says, "You can either take it or leave," you need to understand he really doesn't mean that literally. He means you may choose to *purchase* it or not. If you fail to acquaint yourselves with this idea, as Mr. Kruger predicts, if caught and prosecuted, you could end up as Luther's bitch, in which there is a poetic justice, since Luther will most likely not pay you for what he considers your offereings.
Not to ignore Dr. Revere and his further list of theoretical situations:
-"And if someone else "copies" it and lets you listen?"
Depends on your knowledge of his thievery; if positive, you're an accessory to his crime.
-"Ever hear of putting a CD on an iPod or a Walkman?"
If you purchased the original, you can legally play it on any device of your choosing.
-"That's copying. If someone else listens, then it's theft?"
Already addressed this one, but since you re-pose the question - still one purchased copy with whom you are sharing your music - no problem.
-"I copy science papers all the time. I didn't pay for them. The library did. I give them to students. Yes, there are "fair use" provisions that might or might not allow this, but isn't it still theft by your definition?"
Totally different context and conventions. The researcher voluntarily publicizes his findings in the tradition of furthering scientific knowledge. Your printing copies for your students is part of that tradition. If you print many copies and try to sell them, you are theoretically violating the (copyright) *LAW*, but no one would be stupid enough to pay you for them, since they'd recognize it as an article available from its original sorce. If you try to sell copies posing as the author - that's plagiarsm which you, yourself earlier condemned.
-"What about stealing ideas? Theft?"
Another separate convention: no one has a legal monopoly on ideas and the sharing thereof; and no one is charging for their ideas - there are other forms of compensation - fame, status. If someone recognizes you as putting forth another's idea as your own (before it becomes part of the body of general knowledge), they may or may not call you out on it - to your embarrassment, if you care. Patented ideas come within the venue of the law, and you may not steal these, i,e., copy, put them forth as your own, since patented ideas are considered potentially *SALEABLE.*
- "What if you take the idea and make money off of it and don't pay the person who got the idea in the first place? Theft?"
Please refer to the above discussion of ideas deemed worth selling (i.e., is there a market for them). If the originator never bothered to patent the idea, you could very well claim it as your own and profit by it. Not illegal, just immoral (personal opinion). It's been done all the time - comes under the "Life isn't fair" axiom.
-"What if the owner doesn't care?"
You could easily determine whether he cared based upon the existence of patent or copyright. If none exists, he presumably doesn't care. How are you to know otherwise?
-"Or the owner is unknown."
Then the idea has already become incorporated into the universal body of knowledge (ideas). Again, ideas are not products for sale, unless someone successfully lays claim to them via the available legal vehicles mentioned above.
-"Or the owner is dead and has no estate? Theft?"
Are we still discussing ideas here, or products. I've already stated the distinction above and how each has its own established conventions or laws dealing with them.
-"Didn't you read these ideas somewhere? Are you a thief?"
No. For reasons discussed above.
Dr. Revere: Your posing these disparate, non-analogies to the original discussion concerning theft of product (vs. the dissemination of ideas), strike me as a sophistic effort to obscure the original question. Because of my respect for your intelligence, I don't mistake the effort as reflecting your oblivion to their non-analogous nature. This leads me to believe that it represents a defensive posture in this debate, allowing me to correctly assume I've clearly made my case. And as my marketplace merchant would say, "You can take it or leave it."
BTW, does this written presentation meet your standard of quality?
For the record, my comments weren't targeting you.
You have a point but not a conclusive one. Very long comments, like very long blog posts, often do not get read. This is a medium of relatively short communications (the front page is a sometimes exception but I think my posts are too long; it is a blog style I have adopted and I am too busy to hone it. So if you go on and on and your first sentence or two is is judged both way off the mark and a tiresome talking point, it is likely to be ignored. People don't want to argue with people they believe have already made up their minds and the evidence this is the case often comes in the first sentence or two. You may not like it, but that's the way our busy world is.
I don't think you are giving a fair rendition of what is being said here. The original post deplored the stupid waste of resources and misplaced priorities of the TN law and/or implementation of it. No one said it's OK to copy whatever you want. We are saying that kids do copy stuff now, they always have, and presumably will always find a way to do it. They don't see the record companies as paragons of virtue so they don't mind doing it to people they see as greedy and grasping. I don't want to get into an argument about how much money is lost this way and to whom, as everybody seems to have their own set of figures. My view is that in the grand scheme of things it isn't the kind of legal infraction I would be spending precious resources on. Moreover I think the way the record companies are "defending" themselves is morally reprehensible and they lose a great deal of standing in my eyes and many others. I never pirate music and I have a big CD collection.
The distinction being made here is in what economists sometimes call rivalrous and non rivalrous resources. If you take a rivalrous resource you don't deplete it. We have given the record companies a legal monopoly which they have continually extended and abused. Many of us want to change the law to remedy this.
I know you aren't joking, but I consider your response a joke and a sick one at that. Look out your window.
All of this goes to your (simplistic) statement that copying music was a form of theft. All the examples are counterexamples.
Does this mean that if you are playing music and a friend comes over you have to turn it off because your friend didn't pay for it? That's ridiculous.
Why? It's copying, isn't it? And that's theft in your lexicon.
What's the principle here? How well you know the person? When students share music they are truly sharing it. They aren't making any money off of it.
You see, things are getting complicated. It isn't just copying and theft but now it's context and conventions. For your information, the publishers have tried to prevent this from happening.
Is it theft, however. Because copyright infringement isn't theft, legally, although you consider it theft morally. So this is also theft? You took an unpatented idea and made money off of it?
No, this is incorrect. A copyrighted book or movie is still undercopyright, even if you can't identify or locate the holder.
Again, you are incorrect.
Just immoral, then?
Minor point. Revere was not a doctor. Paul Revere was the first citizen member of the Board of Health in Boston, hence the 'nym. I am a doctor, licensed to practice medicine but not under the name Revere. As I say, minor. You can just call me revere.
Now about you accusations of sophistry. Other than the fact that the real sophists were a pretty smart group of philosophers, I was replying, or perhaps deconstructing, your claim that copying was theft. I think we have established that was simplistic, quite literally wrong and leads to a tangle of ideas. I was glad to discuss ideas, because, while I ordinarily don't have time to do this I like to do it and try to do it when I can.
Nice try.
Yes. But since my comment wasn't directed at you, don't take any comfort in it. I expect people to argue seriously here. I allow snark, within bounds. It's a fucking blog, not an academic journal. But clear thinking is still the standard.
Some *very* short comments (promise) then I, too, must move on.
> Most importantly: I insisted on calling you "Dr.," because from having followed your blog, this has become evident. Therefore, I wouldn't presume to address you without that well earned title; I would think it very disrespectful not to. But if you insist, I will call you by the name you prefer.
> I feel you evaded some of my cogent points by not thoroughly addressing them or by responding tangentially. However, I am grateful for the mostly respectful and comprehensive reply you've devoted the time to post. I appreciate that. Though I don't respect many of your ideas, I respect you personally for the honorable man you present on this blog.
>Finally, the "mostly respectful" comment above refers to your statement that I made some sort of sick joke, referring to a comment about the market place and supply and demand, while also adding that you know I wasn't joking. That would mean you consider my comment, and my ("simplistic") thinking somehow deranged (at best - perhaps you were implying even more evil motives - who knows). But your explanation for such an insult was that I should "look out my window." Sorry, but the brevity of your justification for such an accusation totally eludes me.
Having finished with that, I'm now finished with this.
Later,
Revere.
only because the RIAA hasn't had things their way on that subject. large copyright holders' associations, RIAA and MPAA foremost among them, have long opposed that idea just as far and as strenuously as they thought they could get away with in courts and in lobbying.
since the courts and legislatures involved generally don't take their side of this argument (just about nobody in the general populace does, so the political pressures against them are insurmountable) they have worked long and hard to implement just such control by technological means instead. thus arose the field of "digital rights management", or as i like to call it, digital restrictions management. the entire point of which is to prevent you from playing a recording you've legally purchased on any device except that of the producer's choosing.
this is common knowledge among folks who've kept up with copyright issues. and IT people (such as myself) do tend to do that, since copyright impacts computer software so severely.
Ah, it appears that Paul has left us. That isn't such a bad thing. In his persistent protection of copyright laws, the thing that he avoided was how much of the revenues actually went to the artist. I have met a few of them, and generally, the artist generally gets the short end of the revenue stream. I am all for protections of the artist, the guys/gals who actually make the music. Given the disparity of the classic cut of revenue between the musician and the label, I honestly could not care less if the label gets hurt.
But, the spirit of revere's post was whether or not the money being spent to help enforce the RIAA's tirade was worthwhile. I sincerely doubt that anyone could honestly say that as a society we should condone that.
Randy, for your edification, I am about to pass into my 40's. I have the family, and am on my third house. I have one child, who I will not subject to what passes for public education in Shelby county. That leaves few options, but at least the non parochial schools here still have discipline in their classrooms, and teach science. CBC helped me on my way to a firm agnosticism. That is from a philosophical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, Dog doesn't enter into the equation.
If you wish to talk pure business, I can't care where the jobs go to. My function in the business world is to keep the senior management from making too many stupid decisions. I need a certain amount of net margin to keep our owners happy, and I honestly do know that the numbers in my excel spreadsheet equate to human beings. I do my best to keep the numbers where they need to be in order to to cause as little carnage in the workforce as possible. I have seen in my time a lot of short term thinking from senior management, and spend most of my time trying to reign that in.
I have very little in the way of nationalistic fervor. Nationalism in general is horribly short sighted. I am more concerned about humanity in general. And, for giggles, my daughter has a good portion of the logistics side of the PRC army wrapped around her little finger. Not bad for a child of six.
Well BG, CBC has converted a lot both ways. I had CBHS until I realigned Brother Damiens jaw for slapping me once. He felt, "threatened" for having me in the classroom. Good.
The artists I have little or no sympathy for. They are adults. Its kind of like subprime mortgage. Let the buyer beware. Agents take huge cuts, so do the record labels. All they have to do is produce a show and music, or software in this particular case. The labels have all of the overhead. Most of them start off in a basement band and well they are creative. But a movie for instance, even a low budget one wanks in at about 15 million now. Thats sizeable. Their revenues are down and even the new Transformers movie that is coming out soon had trouble getting financing and it was one of the most successful in 20 years. So any sort of revenue stream that is flowing out has to be plugged. Its already plugged and all they are doing is enforcement. Criminal liabilities I think should be increased and real pressure should be brought to bear on the Asian pirates of our stuff. I am very nationalistic too BG and well, we live in the same town. You very likely work for Fed and they are taking their hits too. Its all encompassing there BG from even their standpoint. For wont of a pallet of freight, the is no need for a guy to move it. The guy at the grocery store or gas station where he would have bought food and gas from has his pay or his job cut because their cash stream is cut. And on and on.
I personally DO care where the jobs go. You would too if it affected you as much as it does this transportation community. You try to keep them from making mistakes? Okay start with their compensation which has risen a whopping 325 % in the last 15 years on average for the professional positions and it accelerates towards the top when you hit VP levels in America. Below that and in the middle management? Only about 23%. Not much considering costs. Not even a full 1.5 % raise each year while costs were skyrocketing.
Then there are the artists. Well they can strum a guitar or blow a horn but they cant read a contract? Take it or leave it or find someone with another label.
Steal music, plagiarize, copy dvd's it all has an effect and the rich ALWAYS find a way to get richer. Anyone who thinks differently is not very aware of the situation in the real world. Under us neo-cons the acceleration is faster and its a real motivation to be productive AND successful. Its a gravy train world and the lib/socialists would have everyone on the same class level. Kind of like forced busing to achieve economic equality. You there at the RIAA, we pay you to enforce our laws by lawsuits. Well, if there wasnt a law we wouldnt have the lawsuits and the laws were promulgated by elected officials of the people. The people have stated emphatically that they desire this and demand enforcement. Seems to me all they are doing is asserting their rights.
Kind of like intermittent windshield wipers......
I think most of the commenters are not thinking clearly and precisely about what is or is not copyrighted and what constitutes making a "copy".
A cd is a pattern of 0's and 1's on a piece of plastic coated with metal. To be listened to as music, those 0's and 1's have to be converted into an analog audio signal.
First the pattern of metal spots and holes is converted into a signal of reflected light, those light signals are converted into electronic 0's and 1's, they are held in electronic memory for a period of time, either transistors or something else, maybe they are translated into magnetic spots on a hard drive for temporary storage.
Is the data stream that comes off the cd player a "copy"? Is the analog signal being transmitted to the speakers a "copy"? Is the sound as it is passing through the air a "copy"? Is the memory of the music a "copy"? How much change does a user have to put into the signal so it is no longer a "copy"? A transcription of the music and lyrics into musical notation is a "copy" if it is standard notation that any musician can read. If only the original transcriber can read it is it a "copy" or is it just a memory aid?
Posted by: revere | November 22, 2008 12:22 PM
BTW, Paul (and Randy and Victoria and Lea): This is The Intertubes. Don't be too sensitive about being called names. You folks do it all the time and so do I....
Interesting that I was included in this post and didn't even comment. Just got back from a four day road trip and this post has turned into a long one. Do I dare read past the above?