Why online piracy isn't theft

[mfunnell]

I am actually going to the scenario where I download the digital copy when all the oldforms are unreadable. While I agree with you, I'm betting the music industrywould call me a thief...

Of course they would. To the extent the music industry has a business model these days, it's largely reliant on selling people re-packaged versions of content they already own. This saves them from having to be smart, or from doing risky things like encouraging new talent.

Here's a sort-of-sideways perspective from Bill Wyman (yes: that Bill Wyman; a man with more skin in the copyright game than most):

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/groundhog_decade.single.html

...Mike

 

[andersju]

No **** Sherlock. But you can't get paid for great works without a copyright. Get that? That leaves only those who don't need to get paid to create, because creating takes time and if you don't have any money time is precious. Time needs to be spent making money. Get that?

Why the hostility?

I see your point, but I can't agree with such a broad statement. There are many ways to get paid without copyright. You are for example ignoring the whole ancient patronage system, which the likes of Kickstarter is some kind of modern mass version of.

Also... many would consider the following to be a great work:

Obviously Dorothea Lange took it while working for the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s. She got paid. No copyright, ever (because US gov't works are public domain by default).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Why the hostility?

I see your point, but I can't agree with such a broad statement. There are many ways to get paid without copyright. You are for example ignoring the whole ancient patronage system, which the likes of Kickstarter is some kind of modern mass version of.

Also... many would consider the following to be a great work:

Obviously Dorothea Lange took it while working for the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s. She got paid. No copyright, ever (because US gov't works are public domain by default).

The patronage system is DEAD. Kickstarter cannot provide a continuous income for an artist, in fact it prohibits people from asking for money for day to day living expenses. For that, you need either a job, or control of copyright. Dorothea Lange had a job. A job that no longer exists. Dredging up old history that is not applicable to the modern world makes you look like a snarky idiot who think he can fool people who are, quite frankly, better educated and too smart to fool with glib snarkiness. That's why we're hostile. Dealing with fools gets tiresome. Really.

 

[Jack Conrad]

I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.

Yeah, one might suggest that the revered public libraries are being destroyed by intellectual property rights and copyright infringement litigation.

 

[Spyro]

People must get paid for work, there's no doubt about that.
And often they dont.

When a corporation can find cheaper labour elsewhere, they'll take it. When they can push wages down, they'll do it. When they can put a talking head on TV or the parliament to brainwash people that they're not competitive enough and they should get paid less because of some obscure economic theory, they will put it. When they can find a free photo somewhere like flickr instead of paying a pj to go and shoot it, they will take the free photo.

All that is perfectly legal, and we've been trained to think that it's a good thing, we must call it free market, competition, productivity.

Well guess what, the market just got a hell of a lot freer, and the law this time cant stop it. Sucks huh?

 

[andersju]

The patronage system is DEAD. Kickstarter cannot provide a continuous income for an artist, in fact it prohibits people from asking for money for day to day living expenses. For that, you need either a job, or control of copyright. Dorothea Lange had a job. A job that no longer exists. Dredging up old history that is not applicable to the modern world makes you look like a snarky idiot who think he can fool people who are, quite frankly, better educated and too smart to fool with glib snarkiness. That's why we're hostile. Dealing with fools gets tiresome. Really.

Relax, man. All I did was point out that copyright is not some prerequisite set in stone and linked to creative output for all eternity. Just being pedantic. I'm not saying patronage is the solution, or that copyright must die.

Yeah, the situation for artists has changed through history. It is very much changing as we speak, with outdated copyright laws no longer applicable to the modern world being systematically ignored by a whole new generation of people. What effect will that have? How will the situation for artists change? What do you think? What would your ideal solution be?

You don't know anything about my education. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Just trying to have a civil discussion.

 

[FrankS]

Please gentlemen (including Chris), let's argue the ideas without resorting to calling folks fools or other personal insults. This violates rangefinder forum terms of service.

 

[dbarnes]

@andersju -- I also would like to have a civil discussion. We come to this issue from different perspectives but I'm not pointing fingers. I register that you don't consider music sharing via torrents to be a problem. You've suggested that artists benefit from their music getting wider known via torrents, even if the artists never receive any payment from the torrent users. Is that correct?

You've also published your own photos using a Creative Commons free-noncommerical-use-with-attribution license. That says to me that you believe it's important for your wishes about your photo work to be respected. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered with the attribution requirement or the noncommercial requirement. How is it that musicians' wishes about their work's distribution and use don't need to be respected, but your wishes do? I truly am not trying to be accusatory. I just am wondering how you arrive at those two positions.

 

[JohnTF]

When you put "global warming" in quotes, I assume because you disagree it is real, correct? Do you disagree it is happening, or that it is human driven? (or neither)?

Last credible scientist (who I studied under) changed his tune a few months ago (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870). Would love to see a credible scientist that has done a legitimate study and has concluded it isnt happening. It is pretty much the entire scientific community that has confirmed it is happening, you may though disagree humans are the cause...but i'd be curious to see what science you point to (That isn't directly sponsored by big oil). my 0.02

just wondering, though i know this isnt on point with OP



Science does not really work on consensus -- and it is not a "confirmation" thing, data either supports or fails to support a hypothesis. Climate is over a very long period of time and we really do not want to wait for the results of this experiment.

All the political values in the topic are irrelevant -- we have known for a very long time we are doing a real time experiment with atmospheric chemistry -- that we should not be doing.

No need to beat it to death with doomsday etc. arguments, or make a new slide show, we should not be significantly altering the atmosphere as it is not a reasonable course of action with known consequences.

It is certainly more complex than can be intelligently discussed by most doing so, and does not require consensus.

You need go no further than "we should not be doing it to begin with", now let's get on with trying to lower emissions.

Nor should we be destroying the oceans, it's where most of our oxygen comes from and where the CO2 is absorbed.


Regards, John

 

[FrankS]

If this threads evolves into a climate change discussion, it is destined for the off topic forum. Just saying.

 

[Rayt]

Here in San Francisco about 20% of the bus riders don't pay. But is that stealing? I mean the bus is going that way anyway right? But to be more in topic is sneaking into a movie theater stealing? They are showing the film anyway, right?

 

[jordanstarr]

Frank...throw it in the "deleted topics" forum. It's really not going anywhere and likely won't. Too much ego-centrism, lazy arguments and irrational logic at this point. There's no getting back on track at this point.

 

[seakayaker1]

I do believe most people know when they are taking something for free that another person has created or is selling then they are stealing.

Ethical behavior/standards are what most people and corporations want to practice. Then somehow, entitlement, power, greed, stupidity, fear, ego, you name it allows us to step out on that slippery slope and make compromises.

You can put any name on it you want, but using another person's creation, copyrighted/licensed work/product without agreement/payment is theft.

I do not believe it is that complicated.

JMHO

 

[Kiev Ilegalac]

The entire concept of owning an idea is something I find insulting. Intellectual property is a misnomer.

completly agree

 

[pakeha]

Relax, man. All I did was point out that copyright is not some prerequisite set in stone and linked to creative output for all eternity. Just being pedantic. I'm not saying patronage is the solution, or that copyright must die.

Yeah, the situation for artists has changed through history. It is very much changing as we speak, with outdated copyright laws no longer applicable to the modern world being systematically ignored by a whole new generation of people. What effect will that have? How will the situation for artists change? What do you think? What would your ideal solution be?

You don't know anything about my education. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Just trying to have a civil discussion.

Give up, you are Scandinavian and have a passport.This is a dotcom, which means the only opinion that counts is the North American one with SOME posters here.Looking forward to the megaupload outcome, got a feeling the bullies gonna lose this time.

 

[Jamie123]

Man this is really frustrating. I wonder what's worse, the thought that most have probably not read the article or that they have read it and just didn't get the point at all.

Let me repeat again. The article does not condone illegal dowloading. You can either think that illegal downloading is less serious than stealing, equally bad or even worse. Any of these positions would be perfectly consistent with the point being made in the article.

Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material. That both of these things are being subsumed under the same label shows exactly the lack of complexity that these issues are being approached with.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material. That both of these things are being subsumed under the same label shows exactly the lack of complexity that these issues are being approached with.

They are the same thing. Exactly. Downloading without paying IS by definition "unauthorized use of copyrighted material."

 

[user237428934]

Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material.

When "downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them" is NOT "unauthorized usage of copyrighted material" what is is?

Is there somebody who claims that entertainment content is not copyright material?

 

[Jamie123]

They are the same thing. Exactly. Downloading without paying IS by definition "unauthorized use of copyrighted material."

It's not the same thing at all. Downloading a movie or album is a more or less simple matter where somebody just consumes a good without paying for it. the movie or music is not used in any other way.
The unauthorized use of copyrighted material is a whole other affair. We start out with content that, in most cases, can already be consumed freely as in the case of photography you can look at almost any image online without paying. The problem here is how this image is then taken from its original source and used for other purposes, both commercial and non-commercial. And there it gets much more complicated with issues of fair use, etc. entering the picture.

 

[Jamie123]

When "downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them" is NOT "unauthorized usage of copyrighted material" what is is?

Is there somebody who claims that entertainment content is not copyright material?

Nobody claims that. Of course it's copyrighted material. But when I go to the movies and buy a ticket I'm not interested in buying a license to use the material I'm about to see. I just want to see it.