A different way of looking at copyright infringement

[izanbardprince]

Now in my last post, which just pointed out the shady tactics the RIAA is willing to use in it's frivolous litigation against P2P users, and wasn't intented to be a debate on the ethics of file sharing, a lot of people likened file sharing to going into a supermarket and stealing an apple.

Here's another way to look at it, the way that files get onto P2P networks in the first place is:

User A goes and buys a CD, takes it home and encodes it into a digital format, makes a torrent out of it or throws it into a share folder for his P2P app.

User B comes along, copies the file off User A's system, then it's in his share folder.

The file spreads exponentially (if it's popular) and you soon have hundreds of sources.

Now from an ethics viewpoint:

What if I went into a supermarket, bought an apple, and went home and planted the seeds, assume that each seed made an apple tree and I tended the tree, and when the fruit was ripe, I let everyone come and take an apple, the supermarket manager is coming home from work one day, sees all the apple trees I have growing in my yard, and decides to sue me.

Would he get very far in court? Probably not, because I didn't steal anything from him, I did not cause him a material loss, and I used my own resources to duplicate all the apples.

Thats why you have large companies like Monsanto selling genetically modified seeds that produce sterile offspring, the farmers can't use the seeds from the harvest, people can't use the seeds out of the food they buy to grow a garden, in the end the seed company only stays in business because they found out a way to make sure that they circumvented the natural order and now have a monopoly, if you want seeds, you have to buy them from the seed companies.


Think of computer programs, music, and video content as the apples in the grocery store, and think of copy-protection as the genetically modified seeds, of course in the computer world there are clever hackers that will figure out how to strip off the crippled copy restriction code and pass the files around in spite of whatever efforts the industry made, so the industry goes behind the backs of the American people, and over our heads (no democracy at work here folks), and essentially BUYS the DMCA law which makes it illegal to circumvent copy restriction for any purpose, including fair use.

Theoretically, thanks to ridiculous laws passed for the sake of being against the common good, I could download a music CD's worth of songs, and get a prison sentence harsher than Charles Manson.

Is this right? Did we agree to any of this? Wasn't the internet made to be a repository and a forum to openly exchange ideas and information?

And now worst of all, to exercise your rights, which are at the same time illegal, you have to hide yourself with utilities like TOR and GNUNET.

[Incense]

If I put all the work into growing my own apples and choosing to give them away, then it is my choice. No one can sue me becuase it is my work that I am choosing to give away. If I create my own songs, and choose to give them away, then that is fine.

The fact is the artist on that CD that you bought, chose to use a record label to sell the music. They are not giving the music away, so it is different. I do not agree with the RIAA and MPAA fines and sue happy methods, but you are giving away something that is not yours to give. If the artist wants to give away their stuff, then that's cool, let them do it. When you make that choice for then, then that's were the laws (like them of not) come into play.

[tgm4883]

Now in my last post, which just pointed out the shady tactics the RIAA is willing to use in it's frivolous litigation against P2P users, and wasn't intented to be a debate on the ethics of file sharing, a lot of people likened file sharing to going into a supermarket and stealing an apple.

Here's another way to look at it, the way that files get onto P2P networks in the first place is:

User A goes and buys a CD, takes it home and encodes it into a digital format, makes a torrent out of it or throws it into a share folder for his P2P app.

User B comes along, copies the file off User A's system, then it's in his share folder.

The file spreads exponentially (if it's popular) and you soon have hundreds of sources.

Now from an ethics viewpoint:

What if I went into a supermarket, bought an apple, and went home and planted the seeds, assume that each seed made an apple tree and I tended the tree, and when the fruit was ripe, I let everyone come and take an apple, the supermarket manager is coming home from work one day, sees all the apple trees I have growing in my yard, and decides to sue me.

Would he get very far in court? Probably not, because I didn't steal anything from him, I did not cause him a material loss, and I used my own resources to duplicate all the apples.

Thats why you have large companies like Monsanto selling genetically modified seeds that produce sterile offspring, the farmers can't use the seeds from the harvest, people can't use the seeds out of the food they buy to grow a garden, in the end the seed company only stays in business because they found out a way to make sure that they circumvented the natural order and now have a monopoly, if you want seeds, you have to buy them from the seed companies.


Think of computer programs, music, and video content as the apples in the grocery store, and think of copy-protection as the genetically modified seeds, of course in the computer world there are clever hackers that will figure out how to strip off the crippled copy restriction code and pass the files around in spite of whatever efforts the industry made, so the industry goes behind the backs of the American people, and over our heads (no democracy at work here folks), and essentially BUYS the DMCA law which makes it illegal to circumvent copy restriction for any purpose, including fair use.

Theoretically, thanks to ridiculous laws passed for the sake of being against the common good, I could download a music CD's worth of songs, and get a prison sentence harsher than Charles Manson.

Is this right? Did we agree to any of this? Wasn't the internet made to be a repository and a forum to openly exchange ideas and information?

And now worst of all, to exercise your rights, which are at the same time illegal, you have to hide yourself with utilities like TOR and GNUNET.


First, if you haven't written your congressman you can't complain. Don't blame them for not knowing much about technology. The only people that tell them about it IS the RIAA/MPAA/**AA.

Second, it's vaguely like the apple analogy, but not really. They want to make money on something they put effort into (ok, not the full story, but lets not get into artists getting paid, RIAA, actors, MPAA, joe camera guy, etc). The key here is that they didn't put any effort into making the copy.

*/ Insert argument 1 about people who wouldn't have bought it anyway so they aren't loosing money /*

*/ Insert argument 2 about people who wouldn't buy a BMW so should they take one from the Lot /*

The reason that you can't use the apple analogy is that NOTHING compares to this. You're not really buying the CD. You're buying the enjoyment, the CD is just the plastic dish that the enjoyment is served on. The best analogy I can come up with is jumping over the fence at Disneyland, but it barely doesn't work either.

[smoker]

this argument has raged since the advent of the cassette recorder. the fact is many of the people who copy music, will then go on and buy it. another fact is, the drop in cd sales is nothing to do with the abundance of pirated music, it is because not so many people are willing to fork out £20 for a cd when they can just buy the two songs on that cd that they want - why pay for 10 crap songs when you only want 2?

and for music companies et al, who spend millions developing drm and such, and suing people left, right, and centre, because their so-called industry and profits are threatened - where are they getting all the money from to pursue these suits, develop this drm - why don't they stop the crap, save themselves millions, and put an honest price on the music from the artists they are supposed to represent. they will sell more music, and the consumer will be less p**ssed off!

[proalan]

Legal is NOT the same as ethical.

The RIAA primary interest is not to protect the artist's work but to leach money off them.

The RIAA have claim ownership / rights to work that doesn't belong to them.

The RIAA is making more revenue through threatening lawsuits through the legal system which impose an unlimited fines.

In short the RIAA make their living with their hands deep down other peoples pockets.

And by the way I still think that piracy is unethical its just that I think the RIAA pimping / lawsuits practices are MORE unethical.

[tgm4883]

Legal is NOT the same as ethical.

The RIAA primary interest is not to protect the artist's work but to leach money off them.

The RIAA have claim ownership / rights to work that doesn't belong to them.

The RIAA is making more revenue through threatening lawsuits through the legal system which impose an unlimited fines.

In short the RIAA make their living with their hands deep down other peoples pockets.

And by the way I still think that piracy is unethical its just that I think the RIAA pimping / lawsuits practices are MORE unethical.

The real question is "is illegal the same as unethical"

[proalan]

ethical = morally right as in what we are taught don't lie, don't kill, 10 commandments etc...

legal = lawfully right as in laws passed to invade countries, repossess houses, etc...

notice how the RIAA or any similar agencies never use the term 'unethical' but use 'illegal' as it involves money.

[reyfer]

By the way, did you know that if after you buy a CD, you put it in your car's player, and there is somebody else within hearing distance, you're infringing copyright? You are doing a public performance of that music without written consent from the copyright owners :lolflag:

[phrostbyte]

Copyright encourages anti-social behavior.

[raijinsetsu]

The purpose of corporations is to make money. They use every legal means to do so, and when there is no legal means, they buy a "change law" card. This applies to everything, not just copyright infringement.
I think, we, as American citizens, need to stand up and tell our Statesmen that we will no longer let money rule our government.

Not that it will help any... <always the cynic>

[koenn]

the "ethical" viewpoint / apple analogy in the OP is wrong.
(As pointed out before : ) what is sold (and then shared/given away) is not the medium, but the content. There's no copyright on CD's, but there is on the lyrics and the music. Someone created that and decided NOT to give it away. You can think of it what you want, but it's his/her choice.

How ethical is it to not respect that choice ?

[goumples]

I believe that when you buy something... you own it. Big companies may think differently, but they don't matter to me. I'll copy software or music for a friend if he wants a copy, and to hell with that copyright logo.

[Artemis3]

Over the course of a century or more, corporations turned upside down the intent of copyright and ended brainwashing the masses (with their corporate media) into thinking of them the way corporations wanted.

The original intent of copyrights was not to prevent people to copy, it was to preserve the right to do so.

This is "american" (USA) history, so who knows how much of it remains told there...

Before copyrights, the English guilds essentially kept publishing rights forever. The copyright came to put a limit into that, to 5 years or so and after this period the work went into the public domain. This ensured a steady and prompt access to education, culture and entertainment for all.

Fast forward to the present and you see the present monster. They "extended" the period many years, even after the author's death. When an author transfers all his "property" to a middleman it loses every right to it (sometimes even authorship...). Of course the corporations made sure to control everything first so to force them into selling all their rights to them if they had any hope of ever wanting anything published at all.

That leave us no choice but to oppose completely to the system, if we hope to regain a little bit if of our rights back. Corporations control the country that wants to control the world; and they want to force their ways into us.

With software something pretty similar happened. Sharing used to be the norm, not the exception. A richly boy by the name of Gates started in the 70ies to push for egoism which later became defacto in the 80ies and current generations now take for granted.

The purpose of free software is to defend the right to keep things the original way. If things were like they used to, all the software would be free and no need for a free software movement (not even the licenses) would be needed.

Laws are not always right. There was a time, in that very same country where it was illegal to set free slaves; and attempting against the slavery system would endanger private economic interests...

[MickS]

By the way, did you know that if after you buy a CD, you put it in your car's player, and there is somebody else within hearing distance, you're infringing copyright? You are doing a public performance of that music without written consent from the copyright owners :lolflag:

Could you use the same reasoning to get at noisy neighbours?

Mick

[juxtaposed]

Is this right? Did we agree to any of this?

That's been my opinion for awhile.


I do not agree with the RIAA and MPAA fines and sue happy methods, but you are giving away something that is not yours to give.

If I buy a CD, why isn't it mine? Sure, someone else made it, but it is in my posession and therefore mine.


When you make that choice for then, then that's were the laws (like them of not) come into play.

No, the laws don't come into play when someone wants to make the choice for the artist. The laws come into play when someone wants to make the choice for themselves and what they do with their posession.


*/ Insert argument 2 about people who wouldn't buy a BMW so should they take one from the Lot /*

Copying a the digital contents of a CD and stealing an actual physical CD are two very different things.


You're not really buying the CD. You're buying the enjoyment, the CD is just the plastic dish that the enjoyment is served on.

No. You're buying a CD with a digital representation of music on it that can be reproduced at a later time to sound like music. That digital representation of music might happen to bring you enjoyment, you might buy it because of the enjoyment, but you are ultimatly buying the CD. It's like buying a football and saying you are buying enjoyment. You arn't, you're buying a football. The odds are you are buying it for enjoyment, otherwise there arn't many reasons to buy it, but it is still the football you are buying. You would also have the right to use the football any way you want, whether it be personal use or a football team using it for their collective enjoyment, or copying it (which of course is harder because it is an actual football and not a digital representation of one which would be easy to copy).


The fact is the artist on that CD that you bought, chose to use a record label to sell the music. They are not giving the music away, so it is different. I do not agree with the RIAA and MPAA fines and sue happy methods, but you are giving away something that is not yours to give. If the artist wants to give away their stuff, then that's cool, let them do it. When you make that choice for then, then that's were the laws (like them of not) come into play.

If you don't want people to use your music in a way you don't like, don't sell it to them, because when it is in their posession it is theirs, not yours.


I believe that when you buy something... you own it.

Exactly.

If you don't want me to do what I want with it, don't sell it to me. Record companies expect to enjoy the benefits of selling it to me (money) and the benefits of not selling it to me (their control over it).

[Dimitriid]

If I put all the work into growing my own apples and choosing to give them away, then it is my choice. No one can sue me becuase it is my work that I am choosing to give away. If I create my own songs, and choose to give them away, then that is fine.

The fact is the artist on that CD that you bought, chose to use a record label to sell the music. They are not giving the music away, so it is different. I do not agree with the RIAA and MPAA fines and sue happy methods, but you are giving away something that is not yours to give. If the artist wants to give away their stuff, then that's cool, let them do it. When you make that choice for then, then that's were the laws (like them of not) come into play.

Actually God could sue you, failing that somebody like the Pope perhaps since you're reproducing their copyright DNA of an apple without paying em :popcorn:

On a more serious note, you can do whatever you want with a product you buy, the trick is that the RIAA is trying to change the legal system to not sell you a product but instead a service which is being able to access the music contained in that plastic cd you just borrow to access the music inside.

In reality all their studies are highly biased, they mix the results of ACTUAL piracy ( as in a guy reproducing a cd and selling the physical copies on the streets for actual cash ) and they try to pass em as "profit loss" from downloading. They refuse to accept a very simple fact: Just because a person downloads an mp3 automatically equates into a lost sale, not by a long shot. That asumes that merely looking or asking information about a product means you WILL buy it and if you decide against it then its a lost sale.

Thats why they've never been able to present actual proof of all their claims about downloading hurting their profits. Its like me claiming "ok each time a person thinks about smoking then thats a sale and if somebody distracts the person and does not lets him think about smoking then they are hurting my profits"

[KiwiNZ]

When you purchase a CD with nothing on it , you own a blank CD.

When you purchase a pre recorded CD you purchase the right to play the music on it under the licence to which the artist has distributed that right.

You have NOT purchased the music.

You can erase the disc if it were possible as you do own the physical disc. You cannot redistribute the Music unless the rights you have purchased allows you to do same.

[Dimitriid]

When you purchase a CD with nothing on it , you own a blank CD.

When you purchase a pre recorded CD you purchase the right to play the music on it under the licence to which the artist has distributed that right.

That might be true for your country* but not all legislations are like that.


*Even that is up for debate AFAIK and looking at other post but I wont pretend to be an expert on other countries.

[KiwiNZ]

Sorry, but not true.

You own rights to the music that go far beyond the license. Fair use rights.

Now, how far reaching these rights are is a political decision, as is the whole concept of copyright, as it isn't a property inherent to the good.

So:
1. You are wrong.
2. You didn't add very much to the debate.


I stated this

When you purchase a pre recorded CD you purchase the right to play the music on it under the licence to which the artist has distributed that right.

That right of distribution includes the laws and statutes of the country distributed. I did not say otherwise.

And as a foot note cool it with the attitude.:mad:

[KiwiNZ]

No, it does not. The laws are external to the license. That was my point. That's why licenses or part of a license can be void.


While we are at foot notes, I don't think I have an attitude to cool, but if I had I'd still think that someone who abuses his position as an admin to give warnings to people who disagree with him in a discussion via private messages needs a lot more cooling then I do.

That is what I said :confused:

The license to distribute includes the laws of the country as a license cannot exclude the laws.

[phrostbyte]

That is what I said :confused:

The license to distribute includes the laws of the country as a license cannot exclude the laws.

I think most people here are aware of the legality around copyright.

[PriceChild]

While we are at foot notes, I don't think I have an attitude to cool, but if I had I'd still think that someone who abuses his position as an admin to give warnings to people who disagree with him in a discussion via private messages needs a lot more cooling then I do.From the Forums CoC:

2. Respect the forum staff. We provide a service in our free time to keep the forums running efficiently. We will occasionally ask for input, but in some cases we will not, please respect our decisions. Also, we do edit for content, if you have an issue with our moderation, please open a request in the forum resolution center.Your attitude in a thread will not help you. I would ask that this offtopic chatter ends, and if after half an hour when you have calmed down you still have a problem with a member of staff's conduct, that you follow the proper procedures and post in the RC.

[KiwiNZ]

I'm sorry, that's not what you said. Of course a license can exclude the laws, that's why there can be licenses or parts of licenses that can be void.

Also, while it should, to be valid, be within the confines of the law, the laws are still external.

As I said in my first post, I think that's really the interesting point here. Copyright is a political decision, it is not an inherent property of the good.


OK

If licence excludes the local law then it has acted altravires and as such those sections of the licence are illegal and as such are not part of the licence.

Therefore the licence must include the local laws as I stated . Therefore when the CD is purchased it is purchased with the mutual acceptance of said licence.

As I originally stated ...

When you purchase a pre recorded CD you purchase the right to play the music on it under the licence to which the artist has distributed that right.

[aysiu]

I don't think I have an attitude to cool, but if I had I'd still think that someone who abuses his position as an admin to give warnings to people who disagree with him in a discussion via private messages needs a lot more cooling then I do. Here is where you show attitude:

So:
1. You are wrong.
2. You didn't add very much to the debate. Funnily enough, I thought KiwiNZ's post added a lot to the debate and was the most sensible and succinct post so far. And KiwiNZ and I do not often see eye to eye on things.

[Lord Illidan]

Before the admins totally hijack this thread, let me post my share :P

Regarding the apple analogy, I don't think it really fits, for many reasons.

Who is the author of the apple? No one. Unless it's been genetically modified, or a specific strain.

Also, who am I robbing? An apple is an apple is an apple. It's not a rare product. I can get an apple from anywhere, not just a specific supermarket/grocer.

Let's look at a text analogy.

I go to the shop. I buy a book. I photocopy it, and distribute it to my friends who then distribute it to other people, and so on. An exponential increase in suppliers. However...the original supplier - the author has not benefited in any way, except for

1. I bought 1 book.
2. Free publicity.
3. People MIGHT buy copies of the book. BUT, it's a big might. Some people will just make use of their free copy. Others will fork out some money. Who knows?

What has he lost?

1. Potentially, he has lost money. There is no way of saying exactly how much money he lost. But if plenty of people don't give the author his dues, even if they could have paid for the book then the author has lost money.

The middleman is another thing. Let's now make use of the publisher, not the retailer.

The publisher hasn't gained much. He might have raked in some sales from people who have forked out after they liked their free "preview" so to speak. However, he has not gained any publicity, and he has also lost money.

I think the same techniques apply to music cds...Now, I am ANAL, so..if anyone cares to elaborate..feel free!

[Dimitriid]

On a bigger picture, the copyright system does not work because within a capitalist economy is more important for a very small group of people ( often less than 1% of the population ) to make as much money as possible by exploiting others.

If on the other hand, the free market was not the most sacred principle above all, everyone would be entitled to things that enrich his mind and the authors would be compensated according to their efforts and contributions, not according to how good of a salesmen are the persons who exploit his intellectual property to become rich.

So there, you might all dislike how I sum up all arguments as failures of the free market but it really goes that deep into the consumerist society.

[proalan]

Laws are never black and white, it is a matter of interpretation and hence exploitation. The whole corporate law societies depend on this to litigate their actions to get rich.

You should read some of the ridiculous and often humorous middle ages laws in existence in the UK that still apply. The one that makes me laugh and I'm serious

"It is illegal to be drunk in a field with a cow"

heres a whole list of obscure laws that have been passed

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/united-kingdom/ (http://community.fastcar.co.uk/forums/thread/341945.aspx)

[jcconnor]

To the OP - when you plant the seeds and nurture them and grow a tree and it grows apples you are not copying the original apple. Your apples are unique creations that you (with a little help from above) produced. You have a choice to keep, sell or give away the "fruits" of your labor. So do musicians and the companies that produce those products.

To the footballer - the key difference is that you cannot (using current technologies) create a duplicate football with the materials of the original. So while you have the ability to play with the football you purchased if you were to give your football away you would no longer have the use of your football. That's the advantage of a physical item - car, football, apple, etc. You are free to use the item that you purchased how you wish but if you choose to resell it or give it away or whatever, you no longer have the item any longer.

Because software or music or audiobooks (basically any material in electronic format) is fairly easily destroyed or damaged, the US allows for backups of that material to be made to protect the purchaser from the loss of use of the material. That's "fair use". Making a copy of that material and then giving it away isn't fair use. It's illegal and unethical.

You may not agree that someone should charge you for the use of that material and that you have the right to copy it and give it away. But you probably wouldn't like someone stealing your apples off your tree either.

John

[KiwiNZ]

.......And KiwiNZ and I do not often see eye to eye on things.

And that is why aysiu is such a valued staff member , balance is provided.
And that is why I will always do what ever I can to retain aysiu on staff.

[juxtaposed]

When you purchase a pre recorded CD you purchase the right to play the music on it under the licence to which the artist has distributed that right.

It's just people trying to create a new form of posession, where (like I said) they get the best of both worlds (you having posession of it and you not having posession of it).

Selling something to someone and retaining control over it is absurd. Copyright is just an odd artificial concept pushed forward by record and movie execs and the artists who are in it for the money and not for the love of music or film.


What has he lost?

1. Potentially, he has lost money. There is no way of saying exactly how much money he lost. But if plenty of people don't give the author his dues, even if they could have paid for the book then the author has lost money.

If someone doesn't think they can make the ammount of profit they want then they can simply not do it anymore.

This is plain and simply using the law to enforce profits, and therefore is valueing profit and money over freedom. Sadly a common occurance.


It's illegal and unethical.

Illegal in many countries, but not unethical.


But you probably wouldn't like someone stealing your apples off your tree either.

Right, but stealing an apple from my tree (even though you are probably using it as a metaphor) is equal to stealing CDs from my store.

If I sold or gave someone an apple they would now be physically in posession of that apple and it would therefore be theirs and not mine.

[Hallvor]

The case for intellectual property
Intellectual property is about the author/artist having sole rights to duplicate his work in order to make money from creating culture/art. Imagine if an artist made an album, only to be copied and sold by everyone who wanted to. This would destroy the economic incentive for the author/artist, and the number of works would probably be greatly reduced.

The case against intellectual property
In a society with no copyright laws, people would still be creative, though probably less so; but as such works would enter the public domain at once, it would mean a cultural benifit for the people as a whole.

Why the law is immoral
Intellectual property is in my opinion about finding a good balance between preserving the economic incentive to create art/culture, and spreading art/culture to the people. In Norway, the law regulating intellectual property - Åndsverkloven, §§ 40-41 - states that a work of intellectual property does not fall into the public domain until 70 years after the author/artist died! What kind of artist needs sole rights of duplication when he has been dead for decades? Secondly, the creation of new works of art does not increase if one increases the number of years a dead artist has sole rights of duplication. Thirdly, the ridicilous 70 years (in Norway) make sure that works of art and culture are forgotten once they fall into public domain: The law is therefore immoral since it does not serve the interests of the people. And since i consider the law to be immoral, I feel a moral obligation to break it: Artist deceased = I share it. Book out of print = I share it.

An alternative
What if the creators of intellectual property gets something like 20 years of making as much money as possible from their works of art. After that, the work falls into public domain, where the artists loses the sole right to duplicate the work, but keeps the ideal rights, meaning that anyone publishing the work have to give credit to the originator. The artists would still make money, and they would have an incentive to make more works of art/culture. The increased number of works of art available in the public domain would stimulate the creation of new works of art and make sure that economically poor does not equal culturally poor.

Just my 2 cents.

[juxtaposed]

This would destroy the economic incentive for the author/artist, and the number of works would probably be greatly reduced.

Getting rid of copyright would get rid of most of the artists in it for the money (pop music people) but the true artists would stay. Sure, they might not make tens of millions of dollars, but I am sure they could manage a normal income... The thing is, not many people could get rich off their work, like record execs.

[Hex_Mandos]

First: If purchasing a CD meant buying the right to listen music, it would be logical to have a way to replace it if the media gets stolen, damaged, etc (like I believe DRMed online stores like iTunes do). So, while you don't own the copyright of the works contained by the media you buy, you're buying FAR more than the right to listen to those works.

Second: when it comes to legality - illegallity, the logical way to frame the debate would be "Will I get fined, imprisoned or otherwise fined if I act in this way?". In most of the world, I'd say that you WON'T suffer any legal consequences for unauthorized copying of coprighted works for personal use. Commercial use, on the other hand, IS criminalized in most of the world.

In any case, most laws require interpretation. Even when a law says spefically "If you do this you'll spend x years in prison", it doesn't mean that it will apply in every case. IANAL yet, but I'm a law student.

[aysiu]

First: If purchasing a CD meant buying the right to listen music, it would be logical to have a way to replace it if the media gets stolen, damaged, etc (like I believe DRMed online stores like iTunes do). So, while you don't own the copyright of the works contained by the media you buy, you're buying FAR more than the right to listen to those works. Actually, you're buying far less. You're buying the right to listen to the music as long as you have the physical CD or a backup copy of the CD. Nothing licensed to you means you get physical media replaced if you lose it. You buy a book to have a right to read the material. If you lose the book, the book publisher doesn't replace it for you. You buy a license from Microsoft to use Microsoft Office. If you lose the installation CDs, Microsoft doesn't replace them for you.

Some people seem to think, "Well, as long as it makes sense to me, then it's legal." Legal and right are not the same thing. If you choose to be civilly disobedient then just be honest about it. Don't pretend the law backs you up on you owning music just because you purchased the CD that has a recorded version of that music. Hell, even the Beatles don't own their own music--Michael Jackson does.

[Hex_Mandos]

Actually, every copyright law I've ever read permits at least one backup copy. So copying is a right you get with a book or a CD, which in turn means you're buying more than the right to read or play the content. It also makes me question the legality of DVD encryption (as it limits my legitimate right to a backup copy).

As for legality, I stand by my words. In my country, a suit against a person who copies media for personal uses wouldn't prosper. For a civil suit, you need damage (despite what I've read here, copying a file isn't stealing, as the original owner doesn't lose his or her copy). The behavior could also be considered exercising a legitimate right, as everybody has the right to learn and enjoy art (as long as they don't affect others... and so far, I haven't seen anybody prove that photocopying a book or burning a CD effectively makes the copyright owner poorer).

EDIT: as for MJ owning the Beatles' music... no. He might own certain rights to the music, but some rights are intrinsically tied to the creator. Michael Jackson doesn't have the right to say he wrote Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds, for example. Hamlet might be in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that anybody can do anything to it (like removing attribution, or modifying it without changing the name of the work). Intellectual Property has little to do with true Property, they're so far apart that I don't think the term IP should be used.

[aysiu]

And I mentioned a backup copy in my last post. I'm just saying you aren't buying a nebulous and binding right to listen to the music. If you lose all your backup copies, you can't take your receipt to the store and say, "Hey, I bought the right to listen to this music. Give me a replacement CD."

The debate about this issue usually doesn't go anywhere, because there are too many factors to consider:

* The law as written
* The interpretation of the law
* The enforcement of the law
* Variance in law (written, interpreted, enforced) from country to country
* Ethics v. legality
* Artist v. industry interests
* What constitutes "fair use"?

Since few people arguing about this issue can agree on common assumptions about the above factors, the "debates" go nowhere.

[HungryMan]

I am sorry for the necro, but this thread really tickled my thoughts.
I have read every post from Page 1 to 5, and really am intrigued by the utter confusion laws had made.

AFAIK, you do not buy anything but the right to use the software/music/video/etc. I have read Windows XP's EULA(because of the thread of which i forgot the name) and am really shocked of the limitations they enforce. I've also read Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Hobbyists" which really disappointed me. Writing software was once a hobby, and computers were really still more of luxuries and less of necessities. When it slowly became a need, businessmen found the interest to develop commercial software. As for the music and videos part that existed way before computers, I still believe that many artist have lost their soul and, mainly make music/movies to make money.

But really, having laws doesn't mean people won't break them (or obey them). Somehow, somewhere, someone is already leaking movie/song/album X or cracking game/software Y. And on the other side of the world someone is buying the original movie/song/album X or game/software Y

[saulgoode]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently published a nice conspectus (http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later) of the litigation that the RIAA has engaged in over the last five years.

[HungryMan]

Seriously, I think DRM and the like is a joke. I read somewhere that locks are only symbols to keep the honest honest. And as what I read in the EFF's consensus, the RIAA seems to be spending lots on trying to "protect" intellectual property, when they claim that they are losing billions of losses due to piracy.
Today, I am even more pissed at copyrights and licenses. But, alas, I can not really do anything. Even if I find the GPL, CC and various other copyleft licenses adding to the confusion, I'd rather not cause another war or movement as it will add more to the confusion.

By the way, do you think that years from now, would companies follow suit in selling licenses instead of products? Like will McDonalds stop selling food, but sell licenses to chew, swallow and digest them? Eventually will there be an OSI equivalent to such things? :lolflag:
haha if such things will exist, then opencola and openbeer are way ahead of their time! lol

[pp.]

Writing software was once a hobby, and computers were really still more of luxuries and less of necessities. When it slowly became a need, businessmen found the interest to develop commercial software. As for the music and videos part that existed way before computers, I still believe that many artist have lost their soul and, mainly make music/movies to make money.

Twaddle. False to fact.

Computers started as multimillion dollar installations. They were used for defence, research and business. Even the PC as we know it today cost as much as an automobile when it first entered the market. At that price point, you can bet that it did not primarily become a hobbyist's dream.

As for the music part that existed way before computers: For several centuries musicians (composers and performers alike) have been in pay by churches and the nobility. They did indeed make music in order to make money. They needed money in order to eat.

[K.Mandla]

Interesting thread, but let's start over from scratch, rather than dredge up an old one. ;)