Copyright Infringement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 12:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 12:26 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  I wish people would stop calling copyright infringement theft. Theft is taking something without permission, depriving the owner of it in the process. When you download music you aren't depriving anyone of the item, you are making a replica. The original remains intact. It's copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is reproducing something without the right-holder's permission. It is a very different issue.

It is not very different at all. You are stealing the fruits of their labor, depriving them of income.

It is the same as stiffing an employee of wages earned.

If I don't give the movie/song to anybody else, and if I never would have bought it, how is that depriving them of income. They wouldn't have my money even if I hadn't found the movie/song for free.

There ARE songs and movies that I buy, even after freely downloading them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement



my stance, I can't justify it no one can. Whoever thinks they can is only deluding themselves.
However many companies look the other way when they see it as free publicity. Take fanart for instance, under the law its all illegal since its creating derivative works. However it could also fall under fair use. Now when it comes down to games, software and music everyone loses their shit. Satire and parodies work and also covers of actual songs are legal. Still its a little difficult to understand where the line is drawn in fair use. I don't know if all the clips on youtube are fair use, from movies and such. Think there is so leeway when its not the full film. Then again its really up to the copyright holders to take them down or not and youtube isn't the only one under fire, just the most popular. So..call your lawyerTongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
I do have one question to ask, you see many movies and cds are available at my library. I can borrow those for free of course, but could I rip those cds for just personal use? lol see this trap I'm making for myself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:23 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Absurd. "It's easy to steal this, so I will."

If those are your ethics, we will never be doing business.

You sound like those anti piracy videos "you wouldn't download a car"... Hell yeah I would, and everybody should if it were possible. Like downloading food, and clothes, and houses and everything anyone could need. That'd be ideal, in that scenario, even the designer wouldn't have a claim for profit.

But alas, things are not ideal, and until they are, how the hell do we make people prefer to pay for your product instead of copying it without paying? Higher penalties won't do it, it's a lousy solution and eventually it brings more problems than anything else.

That's why I insist we need a different business model, one that makes me want to pay. 99% (out of my ass, but pretty good estimate) of all transactions in the world are made voluntarily, there's no need for anyone to threat you with jail if you don't pay for that candy, even when it would be the easiest thing to steal them. For some reason that doesn't happen with IP stuff, clearly we're doing something wrong, the sensible approach is to ask how can we make it work, not how should we punish

That's actually a different discussion from what I have been trying to have. I haven't talked about punishment at all, or the details of the laws, or the solutions.

I've only addressed (1) the ethics and (2) the fact that providers have contributed to their own problems by their naive use of the technology.

My concerns are mainly ethical. The feeling among so many people that if they can find a way to get it for free, then it's OK to do so; especially the idea that they have a right to someone else's artistic/intellectual property.

I understand fair use and personal use provisions in copyright, and they are sensible. If the providers understood those, maybe the problem would largely vanish. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-10-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:23 PM)nach_in Wrote:  You sound like those anti piracy videos "you wouldn't download a car"... Hell yeah I would, and everybody should if it were possible. Like downloading food, and clothes, and houses and everything anyone could need. That'd be ideal, in that scenario, even the designer wouldn't have a claim for profit.

Alas, infinite energy and resources are not exactly in the near future.

(09-10-2013 01:23 PM)nach_in Wrote:  But alas, things are not ideal, and until they are, how the hell do we make people prefer to pay for your product instead of copying it without paying? Higher penalties won't do it, it's a lousy solution and eventually it brings more problems than anything else.

That's why I insist we need a different business model, one that makes me want to pay. 99% (out of my ass, but pretty good estimate) of all transactions in the world are made voluntarily, there's no need for anyone to threat you with jail if you don't pay for that candy, even when it would be the easiest thing to steal them. For some reason that doesn't happen with IP stuff, clearly we're doing something wrong, the sensible approach is to ask how can we make it work, not how should we punish

A business model such as ... ? Also I think you'll find stealing candy is indeed a criminal offense. Wink

It is necessarily contingent on the compensation of the creator. If the creator did so without wishing for or expecting direct compensation, fair enough (ex open-source software). If the creator is expecting or depending on compensation through traditional channels (ex just about every professional artist), well now. Not so much.

(09-10-2013 01:32 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  If I don't give the movie/song to anybody else, and if I never would have bought it, how is that depriving them of income. They wouldn't have my money even if I hadn't found the movie/song for free.

Which is reasonably valid so far as it goes, provided one keeps in mind that one's willingness to buy is - consciously or not! - informed by one's knowledge as to the possibility of not buying...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's actually a different discussion from what I have been trying to have. I haven't talked about punishment at all, or the details of the laws, or the solutions.

Yes, that's what I was getting at upthread.

(09-10-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  My concerns are mainly ethical. The feeling among so many people that if they can find a way to get it for free, then it's OK to do so; especially the idea that they have a right to someone else's artistic/intellectual property.

I understand fair use and personal use provisions in copyright, and they are sensible. If the providers understood those, maybe the problem would largely vanish. Consider

Indeed. We recognise the right to fair use. But that's only meaningful if we also recognise the right to control of intellectual property in the first place!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 01:23 PM)nach_in Wrote:  You sound like those anti piracy videos "you wouldn't download a car"... Hell yeah I would, and everybody should if it were possible. Like downloading food, and clothes, and houses and everything anyone could need. That'd be ideal, in that scenario, even the designer wouldn't have a claim for profit.

But alas, things are not ideal, and until they are, how the hell do we make people prefer to pay for your product instead of copying it without paying? Higher penalties won't do it, it's a lousy solution and eventually it brings more problems than anything else.

That's why I insist we need a different business model, one that makes me want to pay. 99% (out of my ass, but pretty good estimate) of all transactions in the world are made voluntarily, there's no need for anyone to threat you with jail if you don't pay for that candy, even when it would be the easiest thing to steal them. For some reason that doesn't happen with IP stuff, clearly we're doing something wrong, the sensible approach is to ask how can we make it work, not how should we punish

That's actually a different discussion from what I have been trying to have. I haven't talked about punishment at all, or the details of the laws, or the solutions.

I've only addressed (1) the ethics and (2) the fact that providers have contributed to their own problems by their naive use of the technology.

My concerns are mainly ethical. The feeling among so many people that if they can find a way to get it for free, then it's OK to do so; especially the idea that they have a right to someone else's artistic/intellectual property.

I understand fair use and personal use provisions in copyright, and they are sensible. If the providers understood those, maybe the problem would largely vanish. Consider

I think people do have a right, in the end everything is derivative from something else, and those ideas are of public domain. Now, I have a right to eat, that doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for my food.

Free can be a loose concept, many sites rely only on our time and attention as means of payment (ads). So there's a nice point to consider about how we pay for our cultural goods.

And about the ethics... that's tricky, it's not always as clear as it seems. Many artists barely get paid if you buy a cd, the middle man takes all the money, and a lot of different situations: poverty, globalization and country-specific restrictions, language (you'd be surprised how hard it can be to find and buy some things with subtitles), over-prizing... All of those have ethical implications and saying "piracy is always wrong" doesn't acknowledges all the situations.

I make a leap of faith and believe there is some way to make things work, there is some balance somehow. We do need to work to find it though, a good solution is not obvious in this case.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:33 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Satire and parodies work and also covers of actual songs are legal. Still its a little difficult to understand where the line is drawn in fair use.

This is a good point. You can create not for profit covers of songs.

Lets say the song being covered was an instrumental track. It was completely composed with the default synths found in program "X". The artist bought the software, and now having created a song, sells the song on "marketplace".

Cover artist creates a piano version of the song, same time signature and pitch. Puts it up on youtube without making money off of it... Thats okay, right?

Cover artist creates a synth version of the song, same time signature and pitch... with the same default synths from program "X", which they also purchased. This cover is audibly indistinguishable from the original. Puts it up on youtube without making money off of it... Thats.. Okay... RIGHT?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:56 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I think people do have a right, in the end everything is derivative from something else, and those ideas are of public domain.

Public domain? How so?

If I record a song, and want to get paid for you downloading it, I put it on a site that makes this possible. A person pays to download it once, then shares a copy with everyone else for free. How is this fair to me and my intellectual property? I never once said it can be public domain for free, that is the purpose of a copyright.

(09-10-2013 01:56 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Many artists barely get paid if you buy a cd, the middle man takes all the money

This is true, but compensation for an artist is met in other ways by the middleman, not solely bases on a percentage of money made from sales. However, this compensation is derived from the number of sales, so legitimate purchasing of it is important.

(09-10-2013 01:56 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I make a leap of faith and believe there is some way to make things work, there is some balance somehow. We do need to work to find it though, a good solution is not obvious in this case.

Agreed.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 01:56 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 01:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's actually a different discussion from what I have been trying to have. I haven't talked about punishment at all, or the details of the laws, or the solutions.

I've only addressed (1) the ethics and (2) the fact that providers have contributed to their own problems by their naive use of the technology.

My concerns are mainly ethical. The feeling among so many people that if they can find a way to get it for free, then it's OK to do so; especially the idea that they have a right to someone else's artistic/intellectual property.

I understand fair use and personal use provisions in copyright, and they are sensible. If the providers understood those, maybe the problem would largely vanish. Consider

I think people do have a right, in the end everything is derivative from something else, and those ideas are of public domain. Now, I have a right to eat, that doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for my food.

We severely part ways on your first statement. Not everything is derivative, each work has some original content.

Quote:Free can be a loose concept, many sites rely only on our time and attention as means of payment (ads). So there's a nice point to consider about how we pay for our cultural goods.

The business model is the provider's choice - its success is the consumer's.

Quote:And about the ethics... that's tricky, it's not always as clear as it seems. Many artists barely get paid if you buy a cd, the middle man takes all the money, and a lot of different situations: poverty, globalization and country-specific restrictions, language (you'd be surprised how hard it can be to find and buy some things with subtitles), over-prizing... All of those have ethical implications and saying "piracy is always wrong" doesn't acknowledges all the situations.

I daresay you'll make a good lawyer - there is some pretty slippery logic in there. Consider

Quote:I make a leap of faith and believe there is some way to make things work, there is some balance somehow. We do need to work to find it though, a good solution is not obvious in this case.

Technology can likely make it work.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: