P2P Crackdown... aka: Moderator on the loose!

[P0l1m0rph1c]

Back to the original analogy.

What about if the old lady whose been stolen some flowers claimed to the police that the guy pointed a gun to her head, and stole her MUCH more than just some flowers? And she'd actually make him spend 3 years instead of 15 days in jail (just comparation). Would that be legal too? That would be as bad or worse than actually stealing flowers.

That's what the RIAA is doing...

[stephanV]

Originally posted by neo75903
I don't agree with this one. P2P has a more PR function for the artist.

This is not true, only if the artist himself releases the material on P2P it would have a PR function. But how many artists out there do this? P2P *could* have a PR function though, it is extremely well equiped for that. :)

Originally posted by Neo Neko
This is how things went for the majority of human history.
You cannot use "tradition" as argument. That it for the majority of human history was OK to have slaves, does it mean it should be OK now?

Copyright came into being to serve the intrests of publishers.
Not entirely, you could see the earliest form of copyright when painters started to sign their work. Copyright is first of all (or should be) a claim of originality, which is the true goal of artists.

Thing is copyright is not supposed to give total control to any one group.
It should give total control to the artist, though. Only they should have the right to determine what happens with their work. Not the consumer, not the RIAA, not the publishers.

Most will tell you copyright is broken.
It is severly broken yes.

Further copyright is not recognised everywhere. And even where it is recognised it is not uniform.
Thats just how the world works. :)

Copyright is at best an imperfect. Hardly worth our reverence or moral support. There is no moral value tied to copyright.
Not in is present form no... however, i do think artists need a way to protects their creations. And in its current form, I don't see P2P helping artists doing that. I know plenty of people who download music and movies without having the intend of buying them (so it is used not as PR function).

[Doobie]

Originally posted by geffroman
[B]You would be right if this was a filming of a Play or an illegal recording of a Rock concert... But in fact the Movie is the product... Not the performance...

I was talking about music in my previous post. But, the same applies to movies. P2P are just copies, not theft that deprives anyone of something that was theirs. Nor is copyright law built of the concept of theft.

In the case of movies, the performance is in the theater and this is where the studios should count on making their money - in their own venue.

Just find quality excuses to save P2P and let these weak arguments go... They only work when singing to the choir... and they HURT the cause when making them to anyone not vested with an interest...

It's an ironclad argument that copyright violations are not theft. And, I don't see how it's helpful to help the RIAA say "Even P2P users call it theft."

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Doobie
In the case of movies, the performance is in the theater and this is where the studios should count on making their money - in their own venue.

yet another false argument. how does this in any way justify violating copyright? where studios decide to make their money is their choice. Movies are not explicitly to be shown in theaters.

[Mug Funky]

hmmm. flowers. love 'em.

this has been done to death, but i'll correct the flower analogy for you.

your mum has a flower shop.

there is a meadow in the park across the road from the flower shop. by a strange physical anomaly, it backs onto the backyards of every resident in town. also, there are signs up freely inviting people to come and pick these flowers, which for the most part are as good quality as those that your mum sells.

is it theft to pick some flowers instead of buying them in the shop? or should your mum give up and move somewhere there aren't any free flowers?


semantics aside, we've all got to remember why copyright came about.

people wanted to be able to make a living off their art, and that would be compromised if some git goes out and copies your stuff, or steals your ideas and profits from them. copyright basically provides a means to prevent this happening, and thus enhance culture by encouraging more art to be produced.

if copyright is pushed too far however, it will stifle cultural advancement.

here's where the problems for RIAA's credibility come. if they can't prove they're losing money as a result of p2p use, then they can't put the case that artists aren't being compensated fairly for their work because of piracy.

so therefore, they can't justify increasing copyright restrictions in the hope that it will encourage cultural advancement, and at this point, any increase in copyright restrictions will most probably hurt culture rather than help it.

there's a fine balance that needs to be struck, but nobody with vested interests (either way) will want balance. it's all or nothing in most cases. the MPAA and the RIAA childishly want absolute control over their IP (which they didn't even create you understand), and hardcore p2p users want these organisations to reserve no rights whatsoever.

so long as people on both sides are motivated by greed, p2p will never be what it could be, and copyright law will get worse and worse until nobody can move freely or creatively. we'll all suffer from that.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
This is not true, only if the artist himself releases the material on P2P it would have a PR function. But how many artists out there do this? P2P *could* have a PR function though, it is extremely well equiped for that. :)

The artist does not have to be involved for something to be PR. PR is simply how they are represented to the public. I could go out on a street corner and shout out my love for something. That is technically PR for it. Unofficial as it may be. It is still a form of PR.


Originally posted by stephanV
You cannot use "tradition" as argument. That it for the majority of human history was OK to have slaves, does it mean it should be OK now?

No because there is a moral issue at the heart of that discussion. There is no moral issue at the heart of copyright. Further you talk about slavery as if it is always a bad thing. Frankly in the context of history there have been beneficial instances of slavery. A recent example would be those that went into indentured sevitude to pay their way to the americas. And while the life of a slave or servant might not appeal to us today in the past being a servant or a slave could mean a stable, simple, and relatively comfortable life as opposed the day to day hardships trying to make a life on the streets. Frankly though like copyright, slavery has been abused more than it was used in recent history. This however does not negate using tradition as an argument as you claim. Tradition is a powerfull argument. Especially when you don't ignore the context as you have done.

Originally posted by stephanV
Not entirely, you could see the earliest form of copyright when painters started to sign their work.

Copyright? Hardly. It was in no way legaly enforceable. And provided none of the benefits commonly associated with copyright. Putting a name on something is hardly a credible mark of ownership either. This is part of the reason copyright or owner recognition scheems were created. So that you had something more than a single persons word to go on. It still does not eliminate the possibility of hijacking of creative works. But it does reduce it unlike signing a name to something.

Originally posted by stephanV
Copyright is first of all (or should be) a claim of originality, which is the true goal of artists.

Don't you find it odd then that those who hold most of the copyrights did nothing to originate any of those works?

Originally posted by stephanV
It should give total control to the artist, though. Only they should have the right to determine what happens with their work. Not the consumer, not the RIAA, not the publishers.

Pattently false. No one should nor will ever be able to have total control. Copyright is an agreement between the consumer and the creator for mutual benefit. If one party should have total control the benefit of the other would surely suffer. In fact if any one group should have "more" control it should be the consumer. Because without the consumer the creator would have no market and no rights. Remember consumers don't need to buy a creators creations. A creator does however need to sell his creations to make a living. Consumers are not slaves to the creators.

Originally posted by stephanV
Not in is present form no... however, i do think artists need a way to protects their creations. And in its current form, I don't see P2P helping artists doing that. I know plenty of people who download music and movies without having the intend of buying them (so it is used not as PR function).

False. It is imperfect true. But most of the things I have downloaded and kept I went out an purchased. For instance Hell Boy. I missed it in theaters. I only make it to the theaters one or two times a year at best on average. I downloaded someones crappy handicam version of the film. I liked the film so much that I was there the day it was released to purchase it. Had it not been for that downloaded version I would have likely forgotten about it and quite possibly never purchased it.

Remember that copyright is not absolute. Consumers have rights as well.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmmm. flowers. love 'em.
this has been done to death, but i'll correct the flower analogy for you.

Lets throw away analogies... we don't really need them anyway.

Say you are an artist and make music for a living. Do you think it is fair that people copy your CDs and then distribute them for free?

Originally posted by Neo Neko
The artist does not have to be involved for something to be PR. PR is simply how they are represented to the public. I could go out on a street corner and shout out my love for something. That is technically PR for it. Unofficial as it may be. It is still a form of PR.
This is completely false, if anyone should be involved in the PR of his products it is the artist himself. There is such a thing as unwanted publicity. That you think it is ok to bypass the artists like this only shows your disrepect for them.


No because there is a moral issue at the heart of that discussion. There is no moral issue at the heart of copyright. Further you talk about slavery as if it is always a bad thing. Frankly in the context of history there have been beneficial instances of slavery. A recent example would be those that went into indentured sevitude to pay their way to the americas. And while the life of a slave or servant might not appeal to us today in the past being a servant or a slave could mean a stable, simple, and relatively comfortable life as opposed the day to day hardships trying to make a life on the streets.

First of all, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. But i wont go deeper into that.

But of course there is a "moral" issue at the heart of copyright. The issue is if an act of creativity is something that should be protected OR that it can be (ab)used by everyone. The answer to that cannot be given by logic or reason, therefor it is already moralistic. In its current form copyright might still be prone to abuse, but that there is no "moral" heart... i think there is.

Copyright? Hardly. It was in no way legaly enforceable. And provided none of the benefits commonly associated with copyright. Putting a name on something is hardly a credible mark of ownership either. This is part of the reason copyright or owner recognition scheems were created. So that you had something more than a single persons word to go on. It still does not eliminate the possibility of hijacking of creative works. But it does reduce it unlike signing a name to something.
I called it the *earliest* form. You almost made it look like claims on ownership of art didnt excist before "copyright" came into being. This is completely false. You called it an artifical and unnatural right. Every single right we have is artificial and unnatural (which is the same)... If I wanted to kill someone, why would that be wrong? Not because of my natural rights; nature actually puts me in a position that allows me to do so. It are in fact artificial laws that forbids me to do it. They may have excisted for a whole lot longer than copyright, but they are artificial no doubt. Morals are artificial too BTW. Arms and legs, those are natural things (for most humans anyway).


Don't you find it odd then that those who hold most of the copyrights did nothing to originate any of those works?
So the true issue lies there, and not in copyright itself.

Pattently false. No one should nor will ever be able to have total control. Copyright is an agreement between the consumer and the creator for mutual benefit. If one party should have total control the benefit of the other would surely suffer. In fact if any one group should have "more" control it should be the consumer. Because without the consumer the creator would have no market and no rights. Remember consumers don't need to buy a creators creations. A creator does however need to sell his creations to make a living. Consumers are not slaves to the creators.
And this is where you go wrong. The only group that should have control over what happens with their content ARE the artists. The consumer can then decide if they agree with those terms or not. It is not a right to watch movies or to listen to music: it is a privilege for which you, in most cases, have to pay. Of course that doesnt mean that the consumers are slaves to the creators. The terms on which the works will be sold are indirectly determined by consumers, because they can always choose not to buy. But choosing not to buy is also choosing not to see/listen. And this is where P2P in many cases breaks the rules.

False. It is imperfect true. But most of the things I have downloaded and kept I went out an purchased. For instance Hell Boy. I missed it in theaters. I only make it to the theaters one or two times a year at best on average. I downloaded someones crappy handicam version of the film. I liked the film so much that I was there the day it was released to purchase it. Had it not been for that downloaded version I would have likely forgotten about it and quite possibly never purchased it.
Ah... yet another "succes"-story of P2P as an instrument of PR. But how many people decided to keep the content and *not* purchased it? In fact, you are even admitting there you kept stuff and didnt purchase it afterwards. I don't know how many more there are, you don't know. Are they there? Most certainly yes. That *you* decided to do the "right" thing (in most cases) doesn't mean everybody else does. That P2P can be used for promotional activities, no doubt. But if it is, it should be with permission of the copyright holder, and not by some totally uncontrolled way, which is very sensitive to abuse.

Originally posted by Mug Funky
there's a fine balance that needs to be struck, but nobody with vested interests (either way) will want balance. it's all or nothing in most cases. the MPAA and the RIAA childishly want absolute control over their IP (which they didn't even create you understand), and hardcore p2p users want these organisations to reserve no rights whatsoever.
A balance... that sounds good :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
Say you are an artist and make music for a living. Do you think it is fair that people copy your CDs and then distribute them for free?

Within reason yes. Indeed as a creative person I would have no problem with that by and large. I am even contemplating a way of doing just that myself. Giving it away "for free" but deriving a profit from it equal to or greater than what traditional methods would allow. I already have the whole system worked out. I am at this point simply talking with developers and looking for developers to help me construct the system. Once it is done I plan to pitch the system to the bottleneck of IP the traditional publishers and offer my services for a fee. In the coming world current copyright dogma has little relevance.


Originally posted by stephanV
This is completely false, if anyone should be involved in the PR of his products it is the artist himself. There is such a thing as unwanted publicity. That you think it is ok to bypass the artists like this only shows your disrepect for them.

That you think that only shows you misunderstand. No one is implying that artist should not involve themselves in their PR. But it is highly naieve for you to think that they can totally controll or involve themselves in every aspect of their PR. That is a task that not even the gigantic mega publishers can not accomplish and yet you ascribe that a single person can? To live in your world and see such wonders as you. Truly the real is a pale reflection of fantasy at best.

Originally posted by stephanV
First of all, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. But i wont go deeper into that.

Actually it is. But there is a matter of degree. That there is a matter of degree does not mean it is inaplicable or irrelevant.

Originally posted by stephanV
But of course there is a "moral" issue at the heart of copyright. The issue is if an act of creativity is something that should be protected OR that it can be (ab)used by everyone.

That is your moral oppinion and not some fact. Did morals similar to yours give rise to copyright or are your morals derived from copyright? Not to say that they are bad etc. But perhaps short sighted. Why is it that most cultures do not share some construct rudimentary as it may be of copyright? It may be common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures. But when did might ever make right?

Originally posted by stephanV
The answer to that cannot be given by logic or reason, therefor it is already moralistic. In its current form copyright might still be prone to abuse, but that there is no "moral" heart... i think there is.

Inability to see or understand the logic does not preclude existance. Similarly technology would seem like magic to primitive people. That does not mean it has no logical explanation complex though it may be. Morals liken more to magic or superstition. Laws gravitate more to the scientific. In the scientific there is always some logic.

Originally posted by stephanV
I called it the *earliest* form. You almost made it look like claims on ownership of art didnt excist before "copyright" came into being. This is completely false.

Hardly. Before copyright or similar systems a claim of ownership was no solid proof. Even in the age of copyright it is still not iron clad. Copyright seeks to aleviate the he said she said issue and provide witnesses who can verrify the verrasity of a claim. This however does not deny false witness. But it is better than nothing. If a name is all it took I would but to have put my name to the world. Then creation would be mine regardless.

Originally posted by stephanV
You called it an artifical and unnatural right. Every single right we have is artificial and unnatural (which is the same)...

Laws agains killing people and stealing property seem to exist in almost every culture. They would seem very basic and natural laws for the formation of any society. Copyright is an artificial construct that arrises out of society that is not basic to it's continued existance. The world as we know it would not end on the abolishment of copyright. Not like if we all kill and stole from eachother.

Originally posted by stephanV
If I wanted to kill someone, why would that be wrong? Not because of my natural rights; nature actually puts me in a position that allows me to do so. It are in fact artificial laws that forbids me to do it. They may have excisted for a whole lot longer than copyright, but they are artificial no doubt. Morals are artificial too BTW. Arms and legs, those are natural things (for most humans anyway).

In communities murder and theft have always been taboo. It is the basis for building sucessful communities. This can even be seen in nature. Violence is not removed. But you don't often see packs of wolves killing their own. There is a natural strength in numbers. And though animals do not share our sense of property and ownership they have such concepts none the less. They often have territory. And if stolen they is often conflict over it. However they don't create anything and don't protect creation. Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental.

Originally posted by stephanV
And this is where you go wrong. The only group that should have control over what happens with their content ARE the artists. The consumer can then decide if they agree with those terms or not.

This is to ritch! LOL. And just who do you think gives the artist rights? Artists are nothing without us. And I as an artist am nothing without my audience. I am having trouble finding a cogent euphamism to describe the situation you propose.

Originally posted by stephanV
It is not a right to watch movies or to listen to music:

Yes it is. It is an unspoken right. Even prisoners in federal pound you in the arse prison still get to watch movies and listen to music. There is no law on the books that takes away someones ability and right to listen or watch.

Originally posted by stephanV
it is a privilege for which you, in most cases, have to pay.

I don't directly pay for TV and radio so what you talkin' bout willis? I use those more than I buy CDs or DVDs. And for the things TV and radio will not expose me to (since some bigwig deems it unproffitable) I use the internet and related technologies.

Originally posted by stephanV
Of course that doesnt mean that the consumers are slaves to the creators.

Well if as you claim that creators/publishers should have total controll one of two things would happen. The industry as we know it would collapse or we would end up with a topsy turvy slave class subject to the whims of publishers. Remember "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". And yet you would have them obtain it anyway.

Originally posted by stephanV
The terms on which the works will be sold are indirectly determined by consumers, because they can always choose not to buy. But choosing not to buy is also choosing not to see/listen. And this is where P2P in many cases breaks the rules.

First of all the consumer has very little controll over pricing terms. Evidence of this can be seen at any retail outlet. Price any one album at all local stores and see how much it varries from place to place. Then find the average album price at each store and see how much it varries. Next take those album prices and try to cattegorise them into one of 4 or 5 groups based on exact price. And if that does not convince you then simply look in the major news outlets in the past several years to look at all the suits leveled against the big publishers for price fixing/price gouging/collusion. Once you have read all those then read about their most recent settlement and how they have behaved totally in bad faith doing exactly what they were not supposed to do dumping the stock they see as unprofitable on the general public as payment for their wrongs. They just can't loose.

Originally posted by stephanV
Ah... yet another "succes"-story of P2P as an instrument of PR. But how many people decided to keep the content and *not* purchased it? I don't know, you don't know. Are they there? Most certainly yes. That *you* decided to do the "right" thing doesn't mean everybody else does. That P2P can be used for promotional activities, it can. But if it is, it should be with permission of the copyright holder. And not by some totally uncontrolled way, which is very sensitive to abuse.

I almost completely agree with you on those subjects. But I think it is important to mention that studdies that ignore that group, say any study ever done or funded by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/MICROSOFT is utter propaganda with no factual context or basis worth catching anyones interest. Frankly I have more faith in the average joe to do the right thing than I do the major publishers. And since changing the majority of peoples behavior is never going to happen we are going to have to legalize alot of this behavior or find a way to jail larger portions of society.

[int 21h]

Few points, then I'll let you two get back at it..

Indentured servitude is actually a precursor to slavery. If you look at colonial America's history, indentured servitude was introduced when England had little work, and the colonies had great need for agricultural labor. Indentured servitude is not slavery for several key reasons. The first reason is that indentured servants generally could work off their debt and be freed. Not only that but most colonies granted the servant a healthy portion of land and a gun upon completing their debt (white man or black man). Slaves very rarely were freed, and more often than not spent their entire lives enslaved. Very, very few servants spent their entire life indentured. Another reason indentured servitude is different than slavery is the fact that nobody was ever born into being an indentured servant. However, any child born to a woman in slavery was automatically a slave as well. Finally, most indentured servants entered into the agreement willingly. In the 1700s however, all servants imported into the colonies, not Christians in their native country, were automatically considered slaves.



Originally posted by Neo Neko
...However they don't create anything and don't protect creation. Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental....
There are several examples in nature of animals protecting that which they create: their offspring. The North American grizzly bear for instance has been known to kill a man that came between it and its cub.



The original purpose of copyright is quite clear. In fact if you flip open a copy of the American constitution, and scan down Article I, until you get to Section 8 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html), you can find out what that purpose is....

"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

There you have it... the most interesting thing about this clause that most educated people will point out is that this clause is the only clause that specifically lays out the purpose of the powers. All of the other powers, military, money, declaring war, none of their clauses specify to what end these powers should be used. But the clause that established copyright in the United States, specifically states that the power should be used to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'.

To truly find the purpose, we need to look back into history, specifically European history. Shortly after Gutenberg invented the printing press, it was introduced in England. The king of England had a big problem with the printing press and specifically books, he couldn't control them. Fortunately, the booksellers' guild had a great interest in controlling what books were published. So, in 1557, the king and the booksellers' guild teamed up... the king agreed that all books must be registered with the guild, and that any book not published in accordance with this was 'unlawful'. The law even went so far as to assign extra policemen to search out and destroy these 'unlawful' books. This effectively created both the first censorship in print and a monopoly.

The founding fathers hated nothing more than monopolies. The entire idea of being independent was getting away from the monarchy of England which in itself was a monopoly of power. However, the founding fathers also hated censorship. So, like many other checks and balances of America, copyright was born. Its two fold purpose is to guarantee artists a secure place to share their creation, and at the same time guaranteeing that the security does not go so far as to create a monopolistic situation.



For many years copyright was functioning correctly, then Congress and President Clinton decided to break it in the 1990s. First, in 1997, the NET (No Electronic Theft) act was passed. This changed what was considered criminal copyright infringement. Before this act, criminal infringement was considered the distribution of copyrighted materials with the intent of making a profit, after this act, criminal infringement is simply the distribution of copyrighted materials whose value is $1000 or more. On October 21st, 1998, Bill Clinton signed into law the Copyright Term Extension act. This greatly affected the amount of material in the public domain. Now copyright of materials no longer lasts the original life of author + 50, but life of author + 75, with + 95 years in the case of corporate works. Then a week later, perhaps the straw that broke the Copyright camel's back: Bill Clinton signed into law the DMCA. The DMCA makes the circumvention of ANY protection of copyright illegal, regardless of the intent of the circumvention. And so now, the scale has tipped, effectively creating the IP monopoly that the founding fathers were seeking to prevent.

Turning a blind eye to the legislative reasons copyright was broken, the American judicial system also helped break copyright with several key rulings. The Kinkos case in 1991 (New York City federal court ruled Kinkos infringed copyright by not securing permission to photocopy course packets for the local university) & the 1994 Texaco case (copies of journals and articles were made for Texaco researchers, purely interested in moving forward with scientific principles, the owners of the journals sued Texaco, the court, all the way to the federal appeal level, sided with the owners, saying that copying was not fair use, Texaco later settled out of court with the owners), these rulings were both key findings that allowed publishers to more narrowly define fair use.

[edit: grammatical issues repaired. return 0;]

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by int 21h
There are several examples in nature of animals protecting that which they create: their offspring. The North American grizzly bear for instance has been known to kill a man that came between it and its cub.

That has nothing to do with copyright. At least not yet. A child or offspring is not considered a creative or artistic work. But if biomedical companies are continually allowed to pattent or copyright their discoveries. Well then it is not inconcievable that at some point in the future you will have to pay royalties to have a child. But for now that is not even close to creation in the same sense that copyright would protect. Now if you had proposed a polarbear doodling in the permafrost with it's urine that would be much closer. But AFAIK not something that has ever happened. :D

Originally posted by int 21h
The original purpose of copyright is quite clear....


The rest of you post does not tell me anything I was not already aware of. But you did an excelent job of simply and succinctly summarising it for those who were not. You did have some awful long sentances there towards the end though. ;) :p

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
That has nothing to do with copyright. At least not yet. A child or offspring is not considered a creative or artistic work. But if biomedical companies are continually allowed to pattent or copyright their discoveries. Well then it is not inconcievable that at some point in the future you will have to pay royalties to have a child. But for now that is not even close to creation in the same sense that copyright would protect. Now if you had proposed a polarbear doodling in the permafrost with it's urine that would be much closer. But AFAIK not something that has ever happened. :D

The fees in China for having a second child are very close... You are in essence paying the government for the right to use your reproductive organs (its almost as if the government has patented reproductive sex, pleasure sex is still free as in beer) but this is getting way OT :p


Originally posted by Neo Neko
The rest of you post does not tell me anything I was not already aware of. But you did an excelent job of simply and succinctly summarising it for those who were not. You did have some awful long sentances there towards the end though. ;) :p

Little bit unclear in my direction, I was directing that to the entire audience, especially anyone who doesn't grasp the original intent behind the idea (not specifically you).

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Within reason yes. Indeed as a creative person I would have no problem with that by and large. I am even contemplating a way of doing just that myself. Giving it away "for free" but deriving a profit from it equal to or greater than what traditional methods would allow. I already have the whole system worked out. I am at this point simply talking with developers and looking for developers to help me construct the system. Once it is done I plan to pitch the system to the bottleneck of IP the traditional publishers and offer my services for a fee. In the coming world current copyright dogma has little relevance.

Bla, bla, bla... seriously...


That you think that only shows you misunderstand. No one is implying that artist should not involve themselves in their PR. But it is highly naieve for you to think that they can totally controll or involve themselves in every aspect of their PR. That is a task that not even the gigantic mega publishers can not accomplish and yet you ascribe that a single person can? To live in your world and see such wonders as you. Truly the real is a pale reflection of fantasy at best.
Where did i say the artists should do all the advertising by themselves. I DID say he should have control over what should happen with his creations. How many people he wants to involve in advertising those is then totally up to him. YOU are bypassing the artist and are fine with that. That is something different.


That is your moral oppinion and not some fact. Did morals similar to yours give rise to copyright or are your morals derived from copyright? Not to say that they are bad etc. But perhaps short sighted.

These comments mean actually nothing. Give real points and don't try to provoke people. Perhaps', maybes what do they all really mean? An opinion is never a fact. All you do is spitting out yours, should i ignore it for that?

Why is it that most cultures do not share some construct rudimentary as it may be of copyright? It may be common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures. But when did might ever make right?
It doesn't, but it doesn't make it wrong either. You were bringing up tradition as a point against copyright, now you're suggesting that the wide-spreadness could ALSO be against it. I find that at least a bit strange. But then again, this is no point at all.

Inability to see or understand the logic does not preclude existance.
LOL Neko, dont give me a lesson in logic. Logic only exist by the shear existance of the above sentence (which is also its biggest flaw, as it leads to some sort of obscure form of circular reasoning). But since you have it all figured out, give me a logical explanation. If you fail to do so (which you have), you cannot say there is no "moral" heart. You do not understand the logic yourself, so how can you claim that there is one?

Laws gravitate more to the scientific.
Completely false, laws are mainly based on morals. Natural laws dont need to be enforced. Its not like we were all floating around before Newton was there.


In the scientific there is always some logic.

Well, yes. In the scientific there is... that's true.


Hardly. Before copyright or similar systems a claim of ownership was no solid proof. Even in the age of copyright it is still not iron clad. Copyright seeks to aleviate the he said she said issue and provide witnesses who can verrify the verrasity of a claim. This however does not deny false witness. But it is better than nothing. If a name is all it took I would but to have put my name to the world. Then creation would be mine regardless.
You fail to see the point. It is not neglectable because it could not be used as solid proof or enforced by law. Heck, one sentense later you even admit copyright is not hard solid proof. So how do they differ really?


Laws agains killing people and stealing property seem to exist in almost every culture. They would seem very basic and natural laws for the formation of any society.

There are several cultures where violence was/is adorated. The Roman empire was one for example.


Copyright is an artificial construct that arrises out of society that is not basic to it's continued existance. The world as we know it would not end on the abolishment of copyright. Not like if we all kill and stole from eachother.
That would not end the world as we know it either. All humanity is responsible for is (mass-)murder and stealing. Truely, those are our "greatest" contributions to this world, and to each other.


This can even be seen in nature. Violence is not removed. But you don't often see packs of wolves killing their own.

Actually you do. Only the alpha male and female are allowed to have offspring, all others get "removed". Lions kill all offspring too when they take over a pride or even kill offsping of other big cats.

Creation is secondary to society and not fundimental.
uhm... society could not even have existed without creation... society is even a creation itself. There is no basic form of society, although there might be some common characteristics each society has.


This is to ritch! LOL. And just who do you think gives the artist rights? Artists are nothing without us. And I as an artist am nothing without my audience. I am having trouble finding a cogent euphamism to describe the situation you propose.

That's because you are misunderstanding it again.


Yes it is. It is an unspoken right. Even prisoners in federal pound you in the arse prison still get to watch movies and listen to music. There is no law on the books that takes away someones ability and right to listen or watch.
No, but there are laws against sneeking into theatres and the like. You chose not to pay, so you chose not to watch... its a very simple concept. And BTW - you dont think prisoners get to see movies, because it is their "right", right?


I don't directly pay for TV and radio so what you talkin' bout willis? I use those more than I buy CDs or DVDs.

It's funny seeing you use media of which you have absolutlely no control on what is broadcasted... and then that you are actually paying for it (be it indirectly).


Well if as you claim that creators/publishers should have total controll one of two things would happen. The industry as we know it would collapse or we would end up with a topsy turvy slave class subject to the whims of publishers. Remember "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". And yet you would have them obtain it anyway.
No power is absolute, thats nonsense. Both above scenarios seem very unlikely to me. Don't feed me silly quotes.


They just can't loose.

If they lost we wouldnt have anything watch right (at least not for a while). This should not be a "them against us" discussion. Listen to Mug Funky: balance.


And since changing the majority of peoples behavior is never going to happen we are going to have to legalize alot of this behavior or find a way to jail larger portions of society.
So we should just legalise it because it is already happening? Then there are a whole lot more things that could be legalised. The form has to change a lot before it is acceptable to legalise.

Ow, wait a sec... remember the wide-spreadness you were talking about earlier? You used it in the exact opposite way, thats rather... funny. Tradition, wide-spreadness... those are never arguments, but still you succeed in contradiciting yourself with them.

This is BTW my last contribution to this thread. Unless someone has something original and coherent to say.

O wait, i just heard geffroman was threatened with suspension, maybe ill continue anyway. if you can be insulting, we can be too

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
Bla, bla, bla... seriously...

I am 100% serious on that.


Originally posted by stephanV
Where did i say the artists should do all the advertising by themselves. I DID say he should have control over what should happen with his creations. How many people he wants to involve in advertising those is then totally up to him. YOU are bypassing the artist and are fine with that. That is something different.

Every time I mention that the artist can never have complete control you somehow get offended. Face it. It's a fact. The can't control everything. Not advertising. Not copying. And yes I am ok with that.


Originally posted by stephanV
These comments mean actually nothing. Give real points and don't try to provoke people. Perhaps', maybes what do they all really mean? An opinion is never a fact. All you do is spitting out yours, should i ignore it for that?

Well I was hoping you could come to it on your own. To much I guess. Your moral views on the subject and even mine are derived from todays concept of copyright. They are not the basis of copyright. Your concept that the creator should have full control would not have flown before those that created copyright. Your concept as int21h pointed out was exactly what the founding fathers here desired to avoid.

Originally posted by stephanV
It doesn't, but it doesn't make it wrong either. You were bringing up tradition as a point against copyright, now you're suggesting that the wide-spreadness could ALSO be against it. I find that at least a bit strange. But then again, this is no point at all.

Actually it is a point. Again you simply miss it. Copyright concepts are extremely rare throughout human history. Further they are still rare today amongst most societies. Even those societies create artisticly. Apparently the concept of copyright is not crucial, usefull, or natural to human societies.

Originally posted by stephanV
LOL Neko, dont give me a lesson in logic. Logic only exist by the shear existance of the above sentence (which is also its biggest flaw, as it leads to some sort of obscure form of circular reasoning). But since you have it all figured out, give me a logical explanation. If you fail to do so (which you have), you cannot say there is no "moral" heart. You do not understand the logic yourself, so how can you claim that there is one?

I think int21h already quoted it for you
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

There is definatly logic in that for everyone. Unfortunatly copyright today is only logical for the publishers. The only way consumers can understand and live with the perversion of copyright today is to say that it is their moral duty.

Originally posted by stephanV
Completely false, laws are mainly based on morals. Natural laws dont need to be enforced. Its not like we were all floating around before Newton was there.

That's just silly. Now you are confusing laws of physics and nature with human laws. Almost all human laws have a basis in logic. That does not preclude coinciding with morals as well. There are even a few odd laws that have no logical basis. For instance in Kansas City Mo. area where I live having a bathtub with feet shaped like animal paws is technically "illegal". That could only at best be an example of a pure moral law like you describe. There is no other way to make good sense of that. But because there is little or no logic to that law it is basically impossible to enforce. The world would actually be a bad place if all laws and rules were based on morals alone.

Originally posted by stephanV
You fail to see the point. It is not neglectable because it could not be used as solid proof or enforced by law. Heck, one sentense later you even admit copyright is not hard solid proof. So how do they differ really?

One is me saying "it's mine" and you just have to take my word. The other is someone you trust who has done some rudamentary research on the subject and can say with some certainty that it is mine. They are similar concepts. Basic proof of ownership if you will. But still quite different in both what they show and what they provide.

Originally posted by stephanV
There are several cultures where violence was/is adorated. The Roman empire was one for example.

Hardly. Roman violence as you call it equates to football ot hockey matches of today. They were of course more violent. But it was not neighbor killing neighbor. In fact I am quite certain that was abhored by them. And indeed if caught and found guilty would earn you a spot on deck for the lions den.

Originally posted by stephanV
Actually you do. Only the alpha male and female are allowed to have offspring, all others get "removed". Lions kill all offspring too when they take over a pride or even kill offsping of other big cats.

Not a proper example. In chalangeing the alpha male of any species it is actually rather rare that anyone dies. In fact there is such a conflict going on over in our society right now. "Will Bush the current alpha male retain his position or will Kerry or another challenger take over as top dog.".

Originally posted by stephanV
uhm... society could not even have existed without creation... society is even a creation itself. There is no basic form of society, although there might be some common characteristics each society has.

And copyright is not one of them. That is the point you seem to be missing. I am not saying creation is unnecessary. Just that copyright is not necessary.

Originally posted by stephanV
That's because you are misunderstanding it again.

In what way. You say the creator/copyright holder should have total control. Not only is that wrong it is ludicrous. Without an audience willing to consume copyright has no value. This is the situation we are rapidly approaching. Many people are increasingly unwilling to consume under the current conditions copyright holders are imposing. It is the consumers that give copyright it's true power.

Originally posted by stephanV
No, but there are laws against sneeking into theatres and the like.

Yes but (and now this is key) they paid to get in. They did not sneak in. And in fact there are no laws against taking a camera, camcorder, or even a laptop into a theater. Further there are no laws against taking them in and using them. That is not what they are nabbing people on. They are nabbing them on the premise that they are doing this to later distribute it free over the internet and that this somehow hurts them. And while I agree that most people currently do this to distribute over P2P the jury is still out over whether or not anyone is actually getting hurt. They are however at the very least violating copyright. And that is the best to date that has been shown.

Originally posted by stephanV
You chose not to pay, so you chose not to watch... its a very simple concept.

There are so many instances in life where this does not apply. Just a simple fact that you can never have total control. And that things like that are going to happen. You just have to live with it.

Originally posted by stephanV
And BTW - you dont think prisoners get to see movies, because it is their "right", right?

To a large extent yes. Some of them even get the privelage to have their own TV or radio. Like I said it is rather unspoken. And there is no absolute guideline. But it is there. Something to do with humane treatment. Kinda like allowing muslim fundamentalists to have a copy of the koran etc.


Originally posted by stephanV
It's funny seeing you use media of which you have absolutlely no control on what is broadcasted... and then that you are actually paying for it (be it indirectly).

Not funny at all. Like I said I don't pay for it directly. But I find the indirect terms of payment generably more agreeable that those for direct payment to CD or DVD publishers. That is more what this is about. People are getting less and less willing to subject themselves to the terms copyright holders are trying to extract. And there are new metods avalible that are capable to serve the consumers in the fashion they wish. Save for the fact that the publishers don't want to change. Conflict ensues. Customers want new products and services at reasonable prices and publishers want the consumers to submint to the status quo.

Originally posted by stephanV
No power is absolute, thats nonsense. Both above scenarios seem very unlikely to me. Don't feed me silly quotes.

They are no sillier than anything you have put forth. I say that the copyright holder can't control everything and then you say they should. And then when I allude to what that would lead to you change your mind and say they should not. So what is it to be. Should they have absolute control, reasonable control, or no control? If only reasonable control how much is reasonable between the artist and the consumer who gives the artist his power?


Originally posted by stephanV
If they lost we wouldnt have anything watch right (at least not for a while). This should not be a "them against us" discussion. Listen to Mug Funky: balance.

If they lost we would have plenty to watch and listen to. In fact we and the entire public domain would all be enriched and benefited by the release of works long since locked away because they were deemed unprofitable. And this would benefit artists and creators as well. Allowing them to finally build on the culture that came before which had always previously been their right. You would not have to worry about things like the recent jibjab case where Woody Guthrey himself the original copyright holder back in the early 1900's said that anyone was free to use his works as they wished even though he held the copyright for the next 28 years or so. That is till it entered the public domain. And here we are well over 60 years since his death at least and some uninvolved company with no vested interest comes out and claims copyright infringement in conflict with the wishes of the origianl author. I am all for balance. But they seek to unbalance things. And as such it is an us or them thing till they wise up to the "we" thing.


Originally posted by stephanV
So we should just legalise it because it is already happening?

In some form yes.

Originally posted by stephanV
Then there are a whole lot more things that could be legalised.

And indeed they should be.

Originally posted by stephanV
The form has to change a lot before it is acceptable to legalise.

Agreed. And the consumer would be more than happy to make such acceptable changes. It is the copyright holders/publishers we have to drag kicking and screaming to the change just like we did with tape recorders and VCRs. We know what is good for us and them. We know what is good for us because of who we are. And we know what is good for them to a large extent because they rely on us.

Originally posted by stephanV
Ow, wait a sec... remember the wide-spreadness you were talking about earlier? You used it in the exact opposite way, thats rather... funny.

No I use it in the exact same manner. If many widespread cultures throughout history have had no use for such concepts then they must not be essential. Just as if the majority of society and other cultures approve, condone, accept, or embrace such behavior there is no point fighting it. They are both propper examples of tradition and widespreddedness ans you would call it. Not in any way contradicting.

Originally posted by stephanV
Tradition, wide-spreadness... those are never arguments, but still you succeed in contradiciting yourself with them.

See above as to the shortcomings of your previous statement. ;)

Originally posted by stephanV
O wait, i just heard geffroman was threatened with suspension, maybe ill continue anyway.

News to me. I have no real issue with him.

Originally posted by stephanV
if you can be insulting, we can be too

If anyone is feeling insulted here then you are taking yourself to seriously. If someone disagrees with you or thinks you are wrong that is not an insult. Honestly I have not felt insulted by anyone and it has not been my intention to insult anyone. I admit I patronise these issues quite a bit. It is one of those issues I feel strongly about. And I enjoy a good discussion. But at this point we "are" going in circles. ;)

[stephanV]

I will not comment anymore on your pschycological analysis on how laws are natural and which ones are crucial for societies. We will never agree on that. And it would only result more circles and does not bring us closer to the real issue.

Some last few other comments, though.


In what way.
You confuse the artists total control over the content with total control over the consumer. The consumer can decide not to agree with the terms of the artist, but that does automatically mean not to watch the content. It does not mean: "Fine, then ill get it from the internet." It is that thought that is wrong. Such thoughts by-pass all forms of (legal) protection. Of course, the artist has the responsibility to comply to the law too with his terms. Perhaps both are at fault right now.


Yes but (and now this is key) they paid to get in. They did not sneak in. And in fact there are no laws against taking a camera, camcorder, or even a laptop into a theater. Further there are no laws against taking them in and using them. That is not what they are nabbing people on. They are nabbing them on the premise that they are doing this to later distribute it free over the internet and that this somehow hurts them. And while I agree that most people currently do this to distribute over P2P the jury is still out over whether or not anyone is actually getting hurt. They are however at the very least violating copyright. And that is the best to date that has been shown.
People who download did most likely not pay. Thats is what is the bigger issue. But since a man with a video camera in theater is a more easier "pray" they go for the uploader. And since P2P is the means with with which the material gets distributed they go after P2P. It appears fairly logical. However, and on this we agree, it is not right. There are two people at fault here: the copier/uploader (for sure) and the downloader (which is legally a more difficult issue). P2P can stay, no doubt.


No I use it in the exact same manner. If many widespread cultures throughout history have had no use for such concepts then they must not be essential. Just as if the majority of society and other cultures approve, condone, accept, or embrace such behavior there is no point fighting it. They are both propper examples of tradition and widespreddedness ans you would call it. Not in any way contradicting.

It is, you called copyright "common among the mightiest and most wide spread cultures". Then you went all rhetorical and asked:"But when did might ever make right?" I think you should re-read. (or re-phrase)

{OFFTOPIC]

And on your last remarks i must comment too:


If anyone is feeling insulted here then you are taking yourself to seriously.If someone disagrees with you or thinks you are wrong that is not an insult. Honestly I have not felt insulted by anyone and it has not been my intention to insult anyone. I admit I patronize these issues quite a bit. It is one of those issues I feel strongly about.
Some moderators are taking themselves very serious then. You called me more or less short sighted, I have been striked for less. I can understand why threats are seen as insults. For me, I don't really care about strikes, i can happily live on if i get banned from this board. I do not need it in anyway more then for my amusement. Also, I have found that appeals don't really work anyway so i feel no need to follow all rules of this board either. I try to answer posts and help people when i can and throw in my opinion when i feel like it. I do not usually need insults for that, so i guess i am mostly on the safe side.

However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something. Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays.

[/OFFTOPIC]

[int 21h]

Originally posted by stephanV
....However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something. Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays....


Be mindful of the volunteers that make this place possible, just as the volunteers are mindful of the members of this community. You may disagree with a particular aspect of how things are done, but there is a proper way to confront that situation.

On this forum there are two paths to travel: The first is to blanket accusations and personal attacks against what you percieve is a violation of your own self-imposed moral system. Along this path you show total disrespect to the volunteers and community members of this forum. The second path is an intellectual debate providing fact with the aim of clarifying your stance on an issue. One member took the first road and was rewarded by finding the end very quickly. A few other members decided on exploring the second road and they are still enjoying their journey.

I hope most of you will agree that there is no better forum than Doom9 to take a journey such as this.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
Some moderators are taking themselves very serious then. You called me more or less short sighted, I have been striked for less......However, there are actually those who are taking this serious, who are being careful when around mods. And thats something you might not realize. They think they have to be careful around you, wheigh their words or even just nod yes whenever you say something.

Hmm I don't find being called short sighted an insult personally. I suppose though I do see where you are coming from and how perplexing it could be from varriance in tollerance. Point taken.

Originally posted by stephanV
Basically there are people who will shut up, people who leave because of threats and people who just don't care. So be happy with you patronizing self, but please realize some people think they are on thin ice here. Strikes seem to come out of nowhere nowadays.[/OFFTOPIC]

I don't like and have not made any threats myself. I often preffer to discuss when possible rather than strike first. I don't think the strikes I have handed out require more than one hand to count and I don't beleive any have ever been contested. But then again I may be more patient and forgiving than others at times. Bit of a double edged sword at times.

I do however understand where you are coming from now if I may not have given it a full measure of thought before. ;)

[b0b0b0b]

The RIAA has filed a bunch of "John Doe" lawsuits where presumably the defendant is just an IP address. Where could we see the list of addresses that haven't been resolved to actual people?

[geffroman]

When Neo made the ridiculous statement that some forms of Slavery might actually be beneficial, this thread was over...

How can you possibly have a discussion about right and wrong... legal and illegal... logical and illogical... moral and immoral with someone like that? (rhetorical)

[int 21h]

Originally posted by geffroman
When Neo made the ridiculous statement that some forms of Slavery might actually be beneficial, this thread was over...

How can you possibly have a discussion about right and wrong... legal and illegal... logical and illogical... moral and immoral with someone like that? (rhetorical)

If you consider indentured servitude a 'form' of slavery rather than a precursor to slavery, than I would agree that indentured servitude was indeed very useful.

While I would not agree that forms of slavery itself can be beneficial, I would say that some oppressions of cultures have been beneficial. For instance, in many areas of the world that are now 'free' today, there is constant internal strife and struggle from groups that have been enemies since the beginning of recorded history. Iraq is the latest example, Bosnia, Afghanistan, even Israel. These are places that have only known relative peace when they were conquered and subjugated by other cultures (the Romans, Babylonians, Soviet Union, etc.). Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate, its particularly interesting to note that these people will unite to face the one enemy until it is defeated... unfortunately most of these cultures then resort back to the group vs group, tribe vs tribe mentality, but its interesting nonetheless and offers hope that even bitter enemies can forgive their differences and unite under one banner.

[stephanV]

Owno... now its becoming a silly thread :)

Originally posted by int 21h
Unfortunately most of these cultures then resort back to the group vs group, tribe vs tribe mentality, but its interesting nonetheless and offers hope that even bitter enemies can forgive their differences and unite under one banner.

They did not forgive each other, they replaced their hate for each other with an even bigger hate for a common enemy. If they truely had forgiven each other fights would be over. Period. But no, common hate is gone, old hate comes back. It's not hopeful, it's very worrying.

[Mug Funky]

who wants coffee?

:P

btw, i like the new name for the thread.

oh, and StephanV: is that quote in your sig by Ford Prefect by any chance?

[Wilbert]

I see that the last dozen of posts having nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. Could you please continue discussing the original topic? Otherwise I will close this thread.

[Doom9]

I was on holidays during the entire time this thread was going on, having a lot more fun that some of the participants here ;) Let me offer a round of Red Stripe for everyone, to relax just a bit. I haven't read everything, and neither do I plan to, but I found a very interesting post on page two which I'll quote in its entire form now

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Dowling v. the United States:

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."

That should once and for all end the "copyright infringement = stealing" analogy. Being a Supreme Court decision, there's no overruling that, so this is it people! Of course, it doesn't really require a supreme court decision, it's actually quite apparent and dozens of reasons have been give why it's not the same.

int21's first post showed a great many threads where that subject has been discussed and where I have voiced my opinion. I do not think there's a need to repeat myself once more. But had the original poster bothered to read those thread, he'd have found that I agree with him that downloading copyrighted stuff off P2P networks without having a valid license for said content is wrong. But I do not agree with the rest and my reasons are stated in the threads int21h looked up for you.

[geffroman]

Dear Doom9:

This issue will come up again and again every time news posted on www.doom9.org that leans toward justifying illegal downloading with the "but they can't prove it hurts profits" argument... This is the only place WE THE PEOPLE can respond to that kind of thing...

I appreciate you putting such a fine point on the terminology... But INFRINGING is no less illegal, immoral, and flat out wrong as stealing... The parallels and analogies are dead on... It is ONLY different from theft in that a physical item is not taken from one person by another... so on a very technical level it is hard to define it as stealing or fraud but it is still very very wrong and therefore the courts have tried to DEFINE it with an accurate term that CAN BE PROSECUTED... The Supreme court must be very distinct in it's use of terminology but we do not...

People forget laws are created to force UNFAIR , UNETHICAL and IMMORAL people to behave properly... Unfortunately you cannot write perfect law because immoral and unethical people will needle their way around any loop hole they can find...

This thread has proved that theory very well... It's just disappointing that moderators that represent your site have chosen to so strongly defend the low road on the issue... Somehow even getting so far off topic as to try and justify some form of slavery... Cleary this person is looking for the Howard Stern SHOCK affect at your site's expense... but it is reckless and immature...

A couple of us have voiced objection... many are disgusted in silence... I took a stand and have removed myself as a supporting member of the doom9 community to which I have been threatened with suspension... It is a sad state in doom9 country...

[Doom9]

This issue will come up again and again every time news posted on www.doom9.org that leans toward justifying illegal downloading with the "but they can't prove it hurts profits" argument.That is flat out bullshit. You are seriously misreading any statements I've ever made with respect to P2P. I never have and never will defend copyright infringement. I merely point out that the loss statements by our friends from the RIAA/MPAA/BSA are grossly false and misrepresent actual facts. That is in no way defending illegal actions. You obviously have never heard of such a thing as my site disclaimer, the forum rules (r6 specifically) and our general policy towards downloaded files.. all of it is strongly anti-piracy.

[Pyscrow]

If your Mom owned a corner grocery and she grew flowers in the garden out back and sold them in the grocery and some guy walking by who had NO intention of ever buying his girl flowers decides to grab a bunch off the flower stand and took them home to his gal, YOU would call him a thief.

Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.

[fccHandler]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.
I don't think that makes you a thief. A real thief would replicate the flower's DNA and use it to engineer genetic duplicates, then post them on the Internet.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Pyscrow
Yes, but you are still calling me a thief if I give em a good sniff and look at em, but leave the original flowers in her garden.
No, you are misunderstanding it completely. Looking at the flowers in the store is not the same as looking at a movie you downloaded from the net. Looking at the flowers in the store would be the same as looking at the trailer of the movie.

But can we please get rid of the "thief"-analogy now? It is only abused to take the focus away from the real issue.


I don't think that makes you a thief. A real thief would replicate the flower's DNA and use it to engineer genetic duplicates, then post them on the Internet.
That's not a thief, that's more like Robin Hood. :p

[fccHandler]

Nope, because Robin Hood actually stole. My version is an analogy of P2P (with flowers) in which there is no physical loss to the original owner of the flowers. But does the owner suffer from this? Maybe people will no longer buy her overpriced flowers when they discover they can download copies of them for free.

[stephanV]

still "thief" wouldn't be the right word to use then as there is no physical loss. nothing gets stolen, it gets replicated/copied/whatever.

[fccHandler]

OK, how about "pirate"? :devil:

That seems to be the popular term.

[Mug Funky]

oh, this is OT, but no more than most of this thread:

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html

everybody have some fun on sept. the 19th for International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

drink some rum and go "arrrr" a lot, while singing ol' sea shanties!

...take some flowers if you like, too ;)

[stephanV]

ok... since apparantly to some people (you know who you are :p) i was not clear in one of my lasts posts, i will rectify some things.

Originally posted by int 21h
If you consider indentured servitude a 'form' of slavery rather than a precursor to slavery, than I would agree that indentured servitude was indeed very useful.
Well, only if you consider indentured servitude a form of slavery. Indentured servitude has a labor *agreement* as basis, whereas slavery has not. That anyone would call such a fundamental difference just "a difference in degree" is just completely ridiculous.


While I would not agree that forms of slavery itself can be beneficial
well, good.

I would say that some oppressions of cultures have been beneficial.
What??? Beneficial for whom exactly?

For instance, in many areas of the world that are now 'free' today, there is constant internal strife and struggle from groups that have been enemies since the beginning of recorded history. Iraq is the latest example, Bosnia, Afghanistan, even Israel.
Iraq, Bosnia? Could you elaborate more on that?
Afghanistan? Do you really think it was peaceful when the Sovjet-Union was there?
Israel? ...

Give me one good example of where oppression was actually beneficial.

With beneficial you actually mean to say: "They didn't bother us that much." Oppression, slavery... both are just as beneficial as stealing is to a thief.

Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate
This must be the understatement of the century (and its just 2004). Your comments are near to racism/discrimination.

@fcc: actually I am changing my mind. copyright infringement is just plain, simple stealing. They are all thiefs, all of 'm. Calling them pirates, is an insult to pirates. :p

(Now where did my parrot fly of to this time?)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
Well, only if you consider indentured servitude a form of slavery. Indentured servitude has a labor *agreement* as basis, whereas slavery has not. That anyone would call such a fundamental difference just "a difference in degree" is just completely ridiculous.

Not at all. There are noticable differences. That does not mean that we should ignore their similarities of which there are more than a few.


Originally posted by stephanV
This must be the understatement of the century (and its just 2004). Your comments are near to racism/discrimination.

Not at all. And you do int21h a great disservice with that statement. You will never derive any socially valuable and valid observations about history by ignoring the context in which it was made. Which I think is often how many peoples observations here seem to me. Lacking context. Upon viewing history with nothing but a modern moral compase you would come away with the perception that all previous cultures throughout history are at best degenerate with very little in redeming value. Which is of course wrong.

Originally posted by stephanV
@fcc: actually I am changing my mind. copyright infringement is just plain, simple stealing.

If copyright infringement is theft then why do they call it copyright infringement? Likewise if theft is copyright infringement then why call it theft? And in light of the fact that they are actually two seperate things shouldn't everyone be above confusing them at this point?

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Not at all.
And yet i find the difference between being hold captive for all your live and having to work for 5-10 years and then getting land a whole lot more distinctive than the difference between copyright infingement and stealing. Still, you think otherwise.

You will never derive any socially valuable and valid observations about history by ignoring the context in which it was made.
I did not have to create a context as he was giving recent examples of where oppression was "beneficial". I'm saying he is wrong there. His examples are completely false and misplaced, in any context. If you really think Sovjet-Union in Afghanistan was beneficial, just say so. But better give a good explanation for it too.

And you do int21h a great disservice with that statement.
He said this:
Obviously the deaths and injury that occured during the time these people were conquered were very unfortunate,
Unfortunate? How disrespectful can you be?

Int 21h did great disservice to himself by dealing with such a difficult issue in such a sloppy way. He spent at least a few paragraphs on copyright but only a few sentences on this one. He had done better not mentioning it at all. You cannot deal with such issues like this; it is not just a word game like the discussion about the difference between stealing and copyright infringement is. I stand by what i said.

Upon viewing history with nothing but a modern moral compase you would come away with the perception that all previous cultures throughout history are at best degenerate with very little in redeming value.
I think how i view history is hardly the problem here.


If copyright infringement is theft then why do they call it copyright infringement?
That was answered by geffroman. Surpreme court needs such distinctions, ordinary people don't. Yet most people like to deviate from the real discussion with these silly word games.

And in light of the fact that they are actually two seperate things shouldn't everyone be above confusing them at this point?
Fact, what fact? Because the surpreme court says so? Thats BS, I dont even live in the US. Copyright infringement is the stealing of income, period.

[unmei]

First off, i did not read the whole thread in one go right now. However i jumped in every odd day. I'm posive i read most, but it might be i missed one or the other post.

Just a few thoughts.
I think you should differenciate levels both in copyright infringment and in deprivation of income. Fair use also is a deprivation of income in that sense.

Should i buy a $80 (or euro or whatever) MPEG book to look up a single technical detail? Obviously it were the only correct way. But still you can get this info off webpages or PDFs.

The massive copying of excerpts at school and even inclusion of half books in (+/-) free scripts available from professors instead of telling everyone to buy 4 expensive books each covering 75% of the material. This seems to be legal, but still 4 authors get ripped off $30-80 each for one professor getting $10-20 (probably just covering the preproduction cost).

Fansubs. There probably are other identical cases, but the one i know are japanese animation. Enthusiasts take a copyrighted works and make it available in a "usable form" to people not understanding japanese. These works are copyrighted but not distributed worldwide. And interestingly you seldom hear the creators acting against fansubbing, only licesers once they obtain a license. While they of course have the right to defend their licensed material, they probably hold a license for a single region and still they affect fansubbing worldwide by attempting to eliminate these "concurrent products" for their area. I'm of course not talking about rips of their product, but actually rips of the original they derive their product from. I don't think the licensors are wrong, it is just a weird situation. Especially with all the stupid zone and NTSC/PAL things around it. Because once an american company licenses a anime, i should not be able to watch it any longer until it is licensed and released in switzerland as well. I am NOT allowed to import the american DVD by swiss and probably as well by american law. I also were not allowed to import the japanese original or the fansub, but neither swiss not japanese authorities seem to care about this - only once it is about a DVD coming from the united states everyone is caring very well.

My father has the entire collection or Pink Floyd albums up to "the wall" on vinyl and i myself bought one or two replacements a few years ago. Also i did a backup of all the LPs to mp3 once (around '99). As far as i can tell this is legal by terms of fair use. But unfortunately i lost these backups by moving, or accidentially threw the mp3 cds away. Today i live at some distance to my father, he doesn't have a computer at his home any longer and also i remember the backups not exactly being great quality due to static noise and the rather used state of the LPs. What about getting "backups" from P2P?
(Similar situation were all the CDs i lost, even though not exactly the same because there it could be they were found or stolen and thus now someone else, not in my "range of fair use", actually has the paid copy)

I don't exactly know what to think of these cases. But in my feeling, they are substatially different from downloading a copy of a movie or music album i have not bought, will not buy but were available in stores in my area.

Also, I admit this has nothing to do with P2P, but this thread doesn't seem to be about P2P but copyright...

[int 21h]

I am checking out of this thread. Its once again turning into something emotional instead of objective. When I post in a thread and am accused of being racist/discriminatory for making an objective observation about history, that is when I know I've done my job of ruffling some feathers.

Really who am I racist towards? Israelis? Afghans? Iraqis? Bosnians? Every culture throughout history that has one time or another been oppressed by someone else?

If you guessed any one of those choices, you would be wrong.

I hate everyone equally, take heart in that.

The fact that some of the most intellectual people in this community have been sitting in this thread trying to change each other's minds is both encouraging and mind boggling. The encouraging part is that this illustrates a key point: very few real members of this community are sheep. (Sheep: What is the best DVD backup solution? Shepherd: Use DVDBackup 6.0 Sheep: Thanks!) The mind boggling part is, we should all be intelligent enough to know that we'll never change the other side's stance (because we're not sheep).

Sincerely,
The Devil's Advocate

[Wilbert]

I think it's time to close the thread. It's getting nowhere, off topic, heated, etc.