Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
from the more-than-just-a-semantic-argument dept
Jon Healy, whose writing for the LA Times I admire quite a bit, has written up a very balanced discussion concerning whether or not file sharing equals theft. He links to some of my writings on the subject, as well as pointing to the views of two Nobel Prize winning economists, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who both point out that copyright is not property, and treating it as such causes problems. He then presents the entertainment industry's view, which (of course) is that copyright is no different than traditional property. Then he brings in legal scholar Mark Lemley (of whose work I'm also a fan) who tries to bridge the gap by noting that copyright isn't property, but that infringing it "is wrong, and should be punished." However, Lemley also points out that most people recognize copyright isn't traditional property, and the entertainment industry's insistence that they're the same works against the industry, as most people recognize immediately that this argument is false, taking away credibility.Healy comes out on the balanced side himself, suggesting that infringement is close enough to theft. He does so by comparing it to "theft of service" for cable companies, and noting that "you're still acquiring something of value without paying for it, and you're doing it without the seller's permission." This is a commonly used argument, and seems reasonable at a first pass, but I'd like to address why it's incorrect. Just because you acquire something of value for free (and without the original seller's permission) it doesn't automatically make it "theft." Let's run through some examples:
- I go to the pizza shop and they offer me a free soda with two slices. The soda has value, but I just got it for free, and did so without Coca-Cola granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim this is stealing or even wrong or immoral.
- My friend lets me borrow a book, which I read. The book has value. I got it for free, without the permission of the book author or publisher.
- I get on a train and pick up the newspaper that a passenger left behind. The newspaper has value. I got it for free, without the newspaper company granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim that's stealing.
- I go to the beach. The people sitting next to me are playing music on their stereo, that I can hear. The music has value, but I just got it for free, without the permission of the record label.
- I go see "Shakespeare in the Park." I get to see something of great value for free, without permission of William Shakespeare.
- Verizon sees that Sprint is going to announce an "all you can eat plan" and decides to introduce its own similar plan. Verizon got that idea for a bundle from Sprint for "free" and certainly without Sprint's permission. Yet, we call that competition, not stealing.
In fact, each "but, this is different because" explanation for the examples above can easily be turned around to prove the point that copyright is different than real property -- because it applies the same rules differently and deals with fundamentally different types of goods or services. What it really comes down to, yet again, is that this is a business model problem. For years, an industry that relied on artificial scarcity is discovering that it's hard to keep that artificial barrier in place. It can't pretend something is scarce when it's really infinite -- and trying to limit it will only backfire in the long run. What you need to do, instead, is figure out new business models that embrace the infinite nature of the goods, and focus on selling additional scarce goods, preferably additional scarce goods that are made even more valuable by freeing up the infinite good.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, property, theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Look at it this way
Copyright holders need to recognize that intellectual property is a different beast than physical property. And as such it must be treated differently. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that you like of different systems (claim it is stealing like physical property, yet expect the rights to the goods to persist past the point of sale). It must be one or the other, and by trying to take the best of both worlds, copyright holders are clearly showing their distaste for the rights of the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at it this way
IOW, I can't take a bunch of songs written by someone else, claim to have written them, and then sell my services as a song writer based on the merits of songs I didn't write.
THAT is what copyright law is intended to protect against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look at it this way
Actually, that's not true at all. Copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism. It was intended solely as incentive for creation.
THAT is what copyright law is intended to protect against.
No. That's simply false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look at it this way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perception
The rise of 'rights of the individual' also conflicts with the original purpose of copyright as an incentive for innovation, as people see it as an intrinsic right of ownership for what they've created for all time (ie, the musicans lobbying groups in the UK right now).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is stealing
Michael, if your position was air-tight, where would non-monetized innovation come from?
Two words: open source.
Clearly, the model to bring innovation to market is more complex than comparing TV shows or software to pizza.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
Yes, being able to make money on things does, sometimes, help move things along. It can also hinder progress, though, when buggy-whip makers feel challenged by new technologies. Even in the absence of monetary incentives, though, some progress will happen. And a savvy businessman will find a way to make money, regardless of the environment and materials he has to work with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
You reiterate my point: you do things which are not your job. You choose to add content, your comments here, with no monetary incentive. Presumably, you feel passionate about this, and that leads to action. I argue similar passions will lead to similar actions which will produce software, music, stories, movies, and so on. The argument that innovation and content end in the face of removing copyright fails.
"it was not commercial quality. That is why the industry never complained about that, because you could not get a very good copy"
You argue that the reason the *AAs are upset is that now the technology threatens their business model. If filesharing is wrong, then mixtapes were wrong; or else, their is something else behind these allegations other than the rights they claim they have. I submit that it is the latter.
You quote your judge and call him wise; I quote him and call him a buffoon. Such judgment calls may be acceptable in private life between individuals, or in philosophical discussions, but they ought have no place in law. If you can't define it, you ought not legislate it, lest enforcement become arbitrary and meaningless.
Finally, I submit that while everyone recognizes and admits that stealing is wrong, the same can not be said about copyright infringment. Some people plainly argue that this infringmrnt in itself is not wrong, rather it is decided to be wrong by the whim of self-interested parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
If that is so then you still have the same argument for downloading mp3s they are not studio quality listening side to side I can tell the quality differences between 190k and 320k and an original cd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
This is, of course, wholly-different from graduated income taxes supporting welfare social programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
This is, of course, wholly-different from graduated income taxes supporting welfare social programs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
Michael, I'm curious how you can say that getting rid of a centralized, planned subsidy (copyright/patents) and replacing it with a free market where price is set by the marketplace is more communist than what we have now. Perhaps you can explain?
You take away the ability of people to reap the just due rewards of their work, then they either quit doing it or do it a very low level.
There's a huge fallacy in this statement. You seem to incorrectly believe that the ONLY way to "reap the just due rewards of their work" is through copyright. That's easily proven false. There are many methods by which someone can make money without copyright -- and history has shown that to be the case. History has also shown that you claim that people only work at a "very low level" without copyright is simply false. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true. The case of Guisseppe Verdi is a good one. He lived in times both with copyright and without. When there was no copyright, he produced a lot more work, knowing he had to keep producing to get paid. Once copyright was in place, he slowed down, knowing he could rest on his laurels and get paid for his older works.
That would seem to show the opposite of what you claim. There are plenty of other examples along those lines as well, but if you are going to make claims so easily disprovable, it's hard to take what you say seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is stealing
Can you point out where in the law "shelf-life" has anything to do with theft?
where do you think we would be at technology wise today if the companies were not allowed to copyright their products and make money?
As has been pointed out, repeatedly, there are tons of examples of companies making plenty of money by not relying on copyright or patents. Historically, too, countries that removed patent laws tended to speed up their industrialization. This suggests your theory that without these things there's no way to make money is false.
They in turn invest in more R&D and come up with the technology that we are using to blog today.
Can you tell me what patent helped create blogs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
Which would be?
First the industrial revolution was a very long time ago
What does that have to do with anything? Do you believe the fundamental laws of economics have changes since then? Do you believe that the fundamental motivations of the marketplace have changed since then? If the lack of IP sped up innovation then, why would that not apply now?
Second I do know what specific patent enables to me to blog today, and I doubt there is just one that is resposible.
You were the one who suggested that it was patents that made it possible to blog. I'm asking for proof.
While I think most people hate Microsoft, I think they have done for the world economy in the last 20 years than anyone.
I agree that Microsoft has done the world economy tremendous good. I'm not sure what that has to do with the point.
They take the money they make and inevest in R&D as well as put money in their own bank accounts and their workers bank accounts.
Yes. But you could say the same thing for lots of companies. You could say it for the mercantilists of old Europe who believed that monopolies were best for the economy.
What if they had quit with Windows 95? Of even DOS?
But why would they have done that? Especially if they could make more money by continuing to innovate?
If some companies want to give their products away that is their choice, but that does not make it everyones choice.
Nor have I said it was everyone's choice to make. I am merely pointing out that theft and infringement are different -- and that if you understand how economics works, you can do better by *choosing* to give away products. I am not saying it's ok to take anyone else's product.
People hate the big drug companies, but it is the 10 ten thousand Viagra commericals that we have to endure that help to pay for cancer and alzheimer medication and research.
This is simply false, but it's a good myth. Read some Merrill Goozner's research to get an idea of why this is a lie told by the pharma companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrighting != make money
Copyrighting content and then making money from is is an opportunity and a business model both together and apart.
Just becuase the content industry copyrights content and makes money from it does not mean they get to enforce their business model by law. Of course, if they have money to make this law, then we have a fight on our hands: corporations vs. consumers.
People are willing to pay for content, others are not. The ones that are not will get it for free, and these are simply lost business opportunities, not criminals. Just because a consumer can get something for free does not mean that all of them will go for the free alternative. You, as a content producer selling content, need to compete with free to win these customers, or just give up, save money on lawyers, and be happier that you as a content creator no longer need to worry about this. Copyright law will prosecute pirates when it is feasible (plagiarism, aka hijacking attribution, and pirating knock-off physical goods that are of lower quality that violate trademark).
Ideas are worthless unless you can execute on them (make something or make something happen), and they cannot be owned.
All content is automatically has copyright (like this comment) unless the author gives up specific rights under license such as Creative Commons, and it does not mean I make money from it. You are reading my opinion for free? Why? Because they are so ubiquitous, everybody has them. It cost me only 10 min of my time, and becuase I want you to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is stealing
You just pointed out a difference between IP and TP (Tangible Property) and try to use it as a reason why IP and TP are the same thing. The fact that, unlike TP, IP is not limited in terms of quantity or duration is the reason why they can't be treated in the same way - they aren't the same things!
That was the author's entire point. He also warned that all of these arguments can be turned around in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurdly weak examples.
Now, to your examples, as illuminated by Section 106:
1. The soda, the book, and the paper. According to the Copyright Act, copyright exhausts in any single copy. Therefore, one who owns a copy of a copyrighted work may do must about anything with that copy...including give it away, sell it, or abandon it. What one may not do is give away a copy of the work while retaining the original.
2. The music at the beach. Very technically, those people are violating the performance right of the copyright holder. So your example fails because there is a violation...just one that nobody is going to complain about.
3. Shakespeare. In the public domain. If you see another type of performance that is not in the public domain, a performance license should have been paid.
4. Ideas are protectable, if at all, in patent. If there is insufficient novelty, then Verizon may copy all it wants. On the other hand, if there were sufficient novelty and Sprint protected the idea, Verizon would find itself in a lawsuit.
People who do not understand intellectual property law should just stop embarrassing themselves by posting nonsense like what you have posted. Seriously. Please stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdly weak examples.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent
"Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. "
/end
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdly weak examples.
Nobody is going to complain = nobody can complain (of course there are rare exceptions) . Take this further down the road = unenforceable, take that further down the road = not valid. Guess what that says about copyright if its determined not valid? Think the terms might be inappropriate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdly weak examples.
Intellectual property and copyright law - and most legislation - is not naturally apparent nor easily understood simply by reading the code. Were it so, we'd have no need for lawyers. However the 'discussion' by those who 'do not understand' is vital to the evolution of said code. Do not scoff at those who are attempting understand these nebulous concepts. Socrates frowns on you, sir.
While your examples seem to be inline with section 106, you must concede that the law is not perfect. That is why we are able to change it. The core of the article is the attempt to illustrate the irony entertainment industry's claims based on real property law - a good starting point - while expanding that illustration to include the infinite nature and simple reproduction of intellectual property. Your comment and argument show that you did not understand the purpose of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absurdly weak examples.
These posts are almost always very juvenile and oriented around how the writer wants the world to exist to make the writer's life happier. Very me-oriented and quite selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Absurdly weak examples.
Which is very unlike the *AAs, who are thoughtful, caring, and only want the best for all involved.
The fact stands that what the law does say and what the law ought to say may very well be quite different. Mike often refers to the original intent of Copyright and Patent -- to encourage the production of new content and innovation -- and then proceeds to point out how the current codes violate that intent; thus, what is law says is not what it OUGHT to say. Thus, it must change. Pointing out what the law DOES say when the discussion is about what it SHOULD say is... tangential at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Absurdly weak examples.
You are continuing to ignore the point. You are stating that infringement is the same thing as theft with no reasoning or evidence. You posted examples of possible infringement as if that somehow proved your point. It doesn't.
Where is your rational for equivalency of intellectual property and physical property? You are assuming that since I don't think they're the same that somehow that means I believe IP doesn't exist. Wrong again.
If you don't understand what's being discussed, then maybe you shouldn't post.
"'Idea' is simply a holder term"
You're mucking up terminology in a discussion concerning intellectual property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdly weak examples.
You can't patent an idea. You can patent an implementation or expression of that idea. So you assertion that ideas are "protectable" is false.
Your picking apart of the examples and showing infringement possibilities simply shows that you either ignored or misread the rest of the article. Where is your evidence that equates infringement with theft? You haven't provided any.
"People who do not understand intellectual property law should just stop embarrassing themselves by posting nonsense like what you have posted. Seriously. Please stop."
This is simply laughable. You haven't actually countered any of Mike's points, and completely ignored the premise of the article. Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absurdly weak examples.
>>You can't patent an idea. You can patent an implementation
>>or expression of that idea. So you assertion that ideas are
>>"protectable" is false.
>>
The example cited is a business method (ie, not a tangible product). "Idea" is simply a holder term. If you like, substitute "business methods" where ever I put idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdly weak examples.
Those 3 prongs: (1) you got it for free (2) it had value (3) you didn't have permission of the original owner.
So, yes, there were additional factors in each example, but that wasn't the point.
Before I take my turn picking apart your absurd examples,
Heh. It appears you made it to the examples, but missed the following paragraphs. Yes, you can pick apart each example, in the same way you can pick apart the claim that copyright is property. But each time you pick apart the example, you show how property and copyright are different. So thank you for proving my point.
let me first state that one little thing you leave out of your post, though an important thing, is 17 USC Section 106, or Section 106 of the Copyright Act. You should read it.
I've read it. Plenty of times.
1. The soda, the book, and the paper. According to the Copyright Act, copyright exhausts in any single copy. Therefore, one who owns a copy of a copyrighted work may do must about anything with that copy...including give it away, sell it, or abandon it. What one may not do is give away a copy of the work while retaining the original.
However, it does still prove that the 3 prongs of Jon's argument are incorrect, and also shows a difference between copyright and property. So, it does prove my point, aided by you. Thanks.
2. The music at the beach. Very technically, those people are violating the performance right of the copyright holder. So your example fails because there is a violation...just one that nobody is going to complain about.
Again, proves my point on the difference between copyright and property, and while it is a violation of performance rights -- people do not consider that theft. Thanks.
3. Shakespeare. In the public domain. If you see another type of performance that is not in the public domain, a performance license should have been paid.
Again, shows the 3 prongs are not sufficient, and shows the difference between copyright and real property.
4. Ideas are protectable, if at all, in patent. If there is insufficient novelty, then Verizon may copy all it wants. On the other hand, if there were sufficient novelty and Sprint protected the idea, Verizon would find itself in a lawsuit.
Once again, shows the 3 prongs are not sufficient as a rule for "theft" and also shows the difference (novelty is necessary) between IP and real property.
Again, you have proven my point. Thanks.
People who do not understand intellectual property law should just stop embarrassing themselves by posting nonsense like what you have posted. Seriously. Please stop.
People who do not understand how to read what is actually being talked about and assume I'm saying something I'm not are free to say whatever they want -- but I will point out where they are wrong. As you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, one basic error that runs through the examples can be summarized very concisely: the difference between selling what you have and, well, reproducing it.
The pizza, the book, the newspaper are physical things. You bought them. You have them. You can lend them or give them or resell them or whatever else you like. (Cyrus: that's why this isn't about "extra" protection.)
As for playing music for the public at the beach, being part of the audience for actors' performance of a director's staging of one of Shakespeare's scripts, and using an idea that a competitor has expressed ... I guess that acting as the beach DJ, selling videos of the performance, or reprinting the competitor's brochures might not work so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Fable
This outraged the rich man. His creations belonged to him and only him, he decided. If someone else wanted to whistle them, they would have to pay him a fee. When confronted with this demand, the shopkeeper merely laughed and kept on whistling. And so the rich man ordered his bodyguards to beat the shopkeeper, smashing his face until his lips were so bruised and torn that whistling was impossible.
As it turned out, this shopkeeper was not the only person in town who liked whistling tunes that the rich man had composed. Whenever the rich man heard other people engaging in such unauthorized whistling, he would send his bodyguards after them. But of course there were too many people in this town for such a strategy to be widely effective. The offensive whistling continued more or less unabated.
But being a clever fellow, the rich man realized there were better ways to go about enforcing his will. He went to the town council and suggested that tunes created by any individual should be legally protected. If someone was caught whistling someone else's tune, the town constable and his deputies should force that person to pay the tune's originator a fee.
When the town council wondered, quite reasonably, why they should spend public time, money, and manpower on such a trivial matter, the rich man had a very reasonable answer. He invited the entire town council to a lavish banquet at his mansion, plied them with fine foods and rare wines, and then explained his thoughts:
Didn't they like listening to whistled tunes? Didn't they want to encourage the creation of as many tunes as possible? Further, didn't they want town trade to prosper from the legal sales of a new items, such as whistled tunes?
Well, of course the town council wanted all of these things. And the rich man's arguments seemed all the more reasonable for having been presented after a splendid meal and excellent drink. The council members immediately held an impromptu meeting and voted in a new law exactly as the rich man had proposed.
And while the rich man would've preferred that everyone lived happily ever after at this point (and always told the story that way), this was not the case. Every time someone was beaten and fined by the constable's deputies for whistling an unauthorized tune, town citizens began to dislike both whistling and the rich man just a bit more. Everyone became very aware of what they were whistling and who was listening to them, and so whistling -- all whistling, authorized and unauthorized -- occurred more rarely, only quietly, and usually in private.
When the rich man noticed the relative lack of whistling in the town's streets, he began to suspect something dishonest. He sent his bodyguards out in disguise to spy on citizens, and discovered the covert unauthorized whistling, both of his tunes and possibly other people's tunes. Clearly this was a serious problem, and so he persuaded the town council to work even harder to enforce the laws that they had created. New deputies were hired and sent out in disguise to punish unauthorized whistling.
Eventually, townspeople stopped whistling altogether. Instead, they started to hum tunes. The rich man heard this newfangled music-making and was outraged.
And the whole story happened again, and again, and again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Fable
There are clearly some people who think the most important thing is to protect, by any means necessary, the "rights" of content creators to keep other people from using their creations unless the users first give them money. Other people think that it's more important to allow, and even encourage, users to find ways to distribute as widely as possible, and even expand on, the original content, especially if such distribution can be done easily and cheaply.
Those in the first camp seem convinced that if their intellectual property "rights" aren't enforced in much the same way as they've been enforced in the recent past (at least in the US), then content creators will stop creating content (and not only that, but that "it just wouldn't be fair"). Those in the second camp seem equally convinced that while the world will certainly look different under their model, artists and others will continue to create content, and that in fact the world will be a much nicer place for all of us to live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the only flaw I see with equating 'files' to real property is that, real property is a 'one-time' use thing. Pizza or Soda once it is ate or drank it is gone. A television set once you give it to some one, you can no longer benifit from it. With files, you can retain the file and copy it to your hearts content. Imagine if that were true with other stuff. You go to your local convience store and purchase a single bottle of soda, and then walk outside and duplicate it into a six pack to share with your friends, boy that would realy piss off the soda manufacture. Essientially if this was true with tangible goods, you would only ever need to purchase one bottle of soda your entire life.
I guess what they are trying to do is have thier infinite non-tangible goods have the same rights as a finite tangible good.
And yes, it would be absolutely silly if I got fined for letting my friend have a sip of my soda, or taking a bite of my slice of pizza.
The whole matter really boils down to the fact that we as a people can not be trusted to buy a digital copy of anything without the temptation of wanting to share it with others.
There is no simple solution to this, other then we as a society just need to be more trustworthy. If I buy a digital copy of something, I just need to keep it to myself.
But so many problems exist, If a person really wanted to, they could get all thier songs for free. Just by recording them all of the radio. Time consuming it would be, but according to how the laws are set up, it would be legally free.
This battle will not have any clear winners ever, and many, many people will suffer in the mean time.
just my ramblings.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, simply because a car is a physical object that can be owned, doesn't mean that someone else can't hop in and drive it away. There is nothing special about the car being a physical object owned by a person that prevents its theft. Rather, there are rights associated with ownership of the car and those rights are enforceable against any other person. The same holds true with intangible property. The nature of the rights may be different, but they are still enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right. In terms of ownership, it doesn't matter. When a thief steals your car, you still own the car, you just don't have possession of it anymore. Therefore, the car has been stolen.
When someone pirates a copy of software, the owner of the software retains both ownership and possession. In this case, the software has not been stolen, since the owner retains possession. Infringement, however, did occur, because the owner's rights were violated.
Stop assuming that everyone arguing against you believes the owner of IP suddenly has no rights. It's unfounded and foolish on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "difference" with copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "difference" with copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
In theory, we live in a "Free Market" system. There is no guarantee that you as a creator of content can derive revenue from your product. If technology makes reproduction essentially a zero cost operation that's the way it goes. Welcome to capitalism.
While the creator of content may assert property ownership, we are also missing a critical point in this copyright analysis. That is that the copyright owner has an alleged right to "protect" his/her content by increasingly depriving the consumer of his/her right to fair use. This is a violation of due process. The copyright holder does not have the right to deprive the consumer of fair use. This theft of the Consumers property rights.
The examples posted by Mike point to how "slippery slope" this discussion has become. When we have these slippery slope discussions it is a clear reflection that the concepts of patents and copyright are opaque and broken and are in need of revision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
In an easier to understand example, Self Defense is an allowed violation of Murder. That doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to kill people, it just means that if you commit murder, but it was in self defense, you are allowed to go free.
What the aforementioned ilk are trying to do is remove Fair Use (slowly but surely) which is, in my opinion, bad-- but not a violation of anyone's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
Here is my counter slippery slope example:
If I buy a book I can read it at anytime, I can read it anywhere assuming that I have light and when I am done, I can sell/give it away.
Copyright owners are now asserting that I do not have a right to view content at any time, they assert that time shifting is illegal. Content owners say that I can't watch a DVD bought in the US in Europe. Content owners now claim that I don't have a right a sell/give away my legally acquired content. These are all a diminution of my historic rights to use the product as I wish.
Copyright used to be limited to a limited period of time and to limited content when originally established as long. Now it has expanded in time and scope before it falls into the public domain. While this isn't technically theft by the content producer, it does represent a aggrandizement by the content owners to claim rights that they did not posses and to further increase draconian restrictions on the consumer.
Also how do you address the fact that content producers now claim that they have a "right" to trespass onto your computer to make a unilateral declaration on whether you are violation of their draconian restriction. Remember the Sony rootkit debacle???
These are all deprivations of the consumers fair use, hence theft of the consumers property. Theft can be a two way street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft of the Consumers Property Rights
1.) Plaintiff having to assert and prove a fair use violation. (innocent until proven guilty)
and
2.) Defendant having to assert and prove a fair use exception. (guilty until proven innocent)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful with use of the term "real property"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property
Perhaps a better term would be "actual property", or the other legal term "personal property".
I don't mean to be pedantic, but in the discussion of legal rights, I think we need to agree on meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Absurdly weak examples. by Cygnus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Absurdly weak examples. by Cygnus
>>
>> why should I not, for example leave that original copy in a
>> safe, and play the music on my IPOD?
>>
You can. That is fair use.
>>
>>And when I am done with the music "AS LONG AS I DELETE ALL
>>COPIES" can I not sell the original to someone else.
>>
Who says? The copyright is exhausted in that one copy. You can resell it so long as you don't retain a copy. That should be evident by the existence of CD re-sale shops.
>>
>> M$ for example restricts how many times I can completely
>>upgrade to new hardware, without checking with them.
>>
Software is special. If you read your EULA, you're not buying a copy of the software but, rather, you are buying a license to use the software. The license is a contract between you and the owner and will have varying terms.
>>
>> The NFL restricts...
>>
That is their right as the copyright owner; they are free to license their rights on their terms. The commercials are irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>> ...that at the rate copyright is expanding...
>>
Agreed. The copyright term is ridiculously long. Thank Disney and Congress' inability to say no to that company for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what has been stolen
Mike i totally agree with you as to section 10-6 (whatever that is ) is in US law not all over the world. so next time at least link to where the rest of us world citizens can find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For instance, the audio home recording act allows you to make copies of audio recordings (and hand them out to others, like friends and family) so long as it is non-commercial activity. It just doesn't apply to some digital devices such as computers. Some standalone burners are compliant with the law, and you don't need to "keep it to yourself". It was the law for years that you could copy a tape or cassette (or whatever) and give it to a friend. You still can! How is it stealing to copy a CD with a computer, but perfectly legal if you use a samsung cd/dvd recorder? And how is it stealing to copy an Mp3 to a computer, but ok to copy the same Mp3 to tape and hand it out to your hundred closest friends?
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is file-sharing stealing?
I remember that my friends and I always used to joke about getting busted for recording songs off the radio. Technically it was illegal, but lot's of kids my age did it when we were young. No one was going to bust us for it. Similarly, when Napster made the big time in the late 90's, I was fresh out of college and getting all the music I wanted for free off the internet was great. However, the lawsuits started, Napster was shut down, people were prosecuted. It forced me to really look at what music sharing on the internet was.
I evaluated the whole situation and hence forth I no longer download music off the internet. There are all kinds of debates about what the law says or what "technically" violates a copyright and what loop holes you can find. In the end, all these are there to make one feel better about what they are doing, or, in the rare event avoid prosecution. I came to the conclusion that what I was doing was wrong.
If I was the artist that spent my time and intellectual creativity to come up with a form of entertainment that I could make a living off, I would not want people taking my idea and giving it away. Granted, there are artists who don't care. Ask a band who is barely getting by about what they think. Tell them that they may not be able to travel to the next gig if they don't sell more albums. Of course when big bands like Korn, Green Day, or Dave Matthews Band say that they don't care, there are already sitting on a pile of money. Furthermore, what if you were a producer at the company that spent millions of dollars recording an artist only to see all your work being given away by poor college students. Your job may be on the line.
With all that said, I agree that there is a lot greed in the recording industry. It is by the big record companies that are the problem. It's too bad that the band itself can't have more control over their art and what becomes of it. I think that CD's are expensive and too much money is put into the wrong pockets. I think that with the dawn of the internet and file sharing, a more economical approach will come into force. iTunes is on the right track. A small fee for just the music you want. Bands are still able to offer their own stuff for free on their own sites.
Lastly, I don't have the answer for everything. This whole thing is just my .02. I just think it's both silly that the the recording industry and it's lawyers are trying to make the past laws work for this new technology. At the same time, I think it's sad that so many people don't see that getting all and any music they want for free is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but, seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I OWN IT!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your pizza shop example is a good example. You claim that the pizza shop gives the coke for free and did so without Coca-Cola's permission. While Coca-Cola is the creator of the coke being given they are not the seller. Coca-Cola has "sold" their "rights" to that specific drink when they sold or gave it to the pizza shop. At this point it belongs to the pizza shop, not Coke, and they are allowed to do most anything they want with it. This applies to several of your examples.
Despite what the entertainment industry wants it to be, the question of copyright becomes a matter of not whether you can use/dispose of the original that you obtained the rights too (glass of coke, newspaper, book, DVD, CD, etc) but whether you have the rights to duplicate that original and then give away or sell that duplicate.
There is a difference between right of first sale and duplication. Your examples cover right of first sale but not duplication.
The last example (Sprint/Verizon) comes closest but still does not demonstrate your point. If Sprint were to successfully have copyrighted a phrase for the all-you-can-eat and then Verizon copied that phrase then Verizon would have problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really Bad Examples
I am sure that if technology existed to create a copy of a physical object like a car or something, we wouldnt even be having this discussion. If I could walk by a car dealer and create a physical copy of a car rather than buy one, did I still do something illegal? If that were even remotely possible in reality, you bet I did. Sooner or later the law will catch up but until then the theifs that just want to be greedy and get something they want for free will keep trying to justify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really Bad Examples
So what do I do instead? I buy the occasional .99 cent song from Itunes, and I buy $1 used music CDs from thrift stores and garage sales. I also check out CDs from the library, copy them to my hard drive for listening on my IPOD at some later date and time, and then I return the CDs to the library.
This last action of mine likely violates some aspect of the copyright laws. I do not share this music with anyone, no file sharing or burning CDs for friends, but I am storing a large number of music files (archiving, in the archaic terms of the copyright laws) on my hard drives, music that I did not pay for, since I borrowed the CDs from the library.
Either way, except for the minimal amount of music buying that I do on Itunes, the music companies and recording artists see no profit from me. So where do I fit into the grand scheme of lawbreakers? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really Bad Examples
I love this. At $0.99 a song.. tell me how much would it cost to legally fill a, oh-- I dunno, 60gig iPod? Assuming 150 songs per 1 gig, that's 9000 songs, so, roughly $9000? Does that seem reasonable to you?
Now, Why do the used CDs cost $1? Could you sell it to a CD store for the $20 they ask? They'd laugh at you... now, let's say you copied the used $1 CD onto a brand new CD (then destroyed the original, of course), and replicated the CD label and stuck it on the burned copy.. then put the copied (yet unused) CD back into the original jewel case, complete with booklet and art, and tried to sell to a CD store for $20. They'd still laugh at you.
What we are being sold is not worth what they are selling it for, but because they artificially make it scarce, they can charge more than the market would allow if let to it's own devices.
I don't think there is legally anything wrong with that-- since you aren't "making available". The library better prepare for a big fat lawsuit by the MPAA though. Go warn them. (It's your fault, after all):P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really Bad Examples
Dear RIAA and MPAA goons:
I live in Manhattan. Come find me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really Bad Examples
Since the **AAs aren'rt giving away their content (except, maybe, as screener DVDs), someone who put it on the P2P network must have bought it, right? So, how does your argument stand in light that someone has already bought this music?
Aside from that, as Mike notes above, he's disproving the "3 prongs of theft" and making the point that copyright and property rights are not equivalent and, thus, infringment is not theft (even if you maintain that infringment is wrong).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really Bad Examples by A Broke Musician
If I pick up a newspaper that is left behind and, regardless of what day/month/year it is, read the articles - I did not pay to read those articles. Should have I not paid for a copy of that newspaper?
The newspaper, to me, is very synonymous with music.
With regard to your second paragraph about copying physical objects if it were possible and the example of walking past a car dealership and making a copy of a car in there (if the technology existed) - personally I wouldn't view this as stealing. That is: IF the technology to do this existed.
The original is still sitting in the car dealership, they have not had anything stolen - but I have the technology to make a copy of whatever physical object it is. Obviously I would have had to pay for that technology to do that and it is to my advantage after paying for it.
The second example in your post, I think, strongly shows that the industries trying to eradicate file sharing are going about it the wrong way. If I could create a copy of, for example, a car in a dealership - what would the dealership owner do? Of course they will complain. Say that I "stole" the car - even though the original is sitting right there in their possession.
What should be seen in such a scenario is that the price of the car in the dealership should be reasonable enough that I wouldn't need to, or have the desire to, create a copy.
Because, let's face it, if I can create a copy for next to nothing as an individual the dealership can create a copy for a fraction of a percent of what I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really Bad Examples by A Broke Musician
But can't I go to a library and bring up old newspapers and make copies? How does this help the authors and publishers of those articles?
In any case, newpapers are probably not subject to copyright laws like music is. Or are they? I don't really know. It's just interesting to compare it to music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello again, Techdirt.
That being said, I can't help myself on this one.
1. It's not stealing. It never will be stealing. Just like "Assault" is attempting to cause harm to someone and actually succeeding in said attack is "Battery". They're legal terms, which may (incorrectly) be swapped willy-nilly in everyday speech, but for serious discussions to be had, the correct legal terms must be adhered to, or communication breaks down and no one get anywhere. So, to clear the waters (again):
Stealing != Copyright Infringement
However, both *are* illegal. No one ever disputes that.
2. The point of Copyrights were to spark innovation by allowing the creator first rights (or, a lawful monopoly) to his/her creation. Note: "To Spark Innovation".
Now, someone explain to me how innovation is sparked when you can create something and then live off of it for the of your natural life, and then your children can live off of it for most of their natural lives?? Or, how about when one company hordes many (questionable) patents, and then uses them to cripple businesses that are already up and running-- when the hording company has no intent of actually creating the product? It looks to me as if copyright and IP laws are being used OPPOSITE the way they were designed.
Since we are in the habit of telling fables it seems, I've one to help you understand:
A man long ago discovers a tree that grows apples. He grows apples and sells them to his village, and becomes very wealthy. One day, a enterprising young boy figures out that if you plant a seed of an apple, it will grow into a tree and make many apples. So, he goes out and buys an apple from the farm, takes the seeds and grows his won tree. He tells the entire village, gives them an apple from his tree, and everyone makes their own apple trees...
Should the farmer, using his wealth, persuade the village council to make growing apples illegal? Did the boy steal from the man when he made an exact replica of the apple buy growing his own at home? Did he steal from the farmer when he passed out the apples he grew to the village, and told them how to make their own?
Food for thought.
Lunch is over. It's been fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Cygnus
See, he's showing real life examples of physical property and how copyright laws doesn't apply...just as his argument states that intellectual property shouldn't be treated like physical property.
Why have you posted like 8 times in this thread, called Mike self-centered and his views weak at best, yet you've spent the entire time validating what he said?
I know, we're not perfect...but this is a really big goof on your part. And do us all a favor, don't argue with my post if your plan on agreeing with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So their rights have been stolen, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I *could* steal your rights (for example, free speech), when I was done I'd have *two* rights of free speech. Does that make *any* sense? Let's stop being silly, please?
Note: If there was supposed to be a "/sarcasm" in your post-- sorry for treating it as a serious comment. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why is this such a big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why is this such a big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why is this such a big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why is this such a big deal?
Some might argue this is close to truth, particularly in the vast sea of fiction novels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you fail to prove your point
None of your examples hold water in an argument of why file sharing music is not theft.
* I go to the pizza shop and they offer me a free soda with two slices. The soda has value, but I just got it for free, and did so without Coca-Cola granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim this is stealing or even wrong or immoral.
1) The Soda is already paid for. If the payee wishes to take a loss on a product they bought, then they have the right to make that choice. I don't know about you, but I've received free (to me) music in the past. That in and of itself doesn't mean it was free to the provider.
2) Once the Soda is consumed, it can't be redistributed. Unless, Mike, you'd like for me to regurgitate it so you can drink it. This example fails to prove your point.
* My friend lets me borrow a book, which I read. The book has value. I got it for free, without the permission of the book author or publisher.
1) This is the best, and probably the only example you have that comes close to supporting your arguments of why consuming a product of another without remuneration and/or permission, is permissible. However in this example, you don't get to keep the books you borrow and re-use them, neither are you allowed to make copies and distribute or keep them for your self. If you give permission to someone else to copy the book while it is under your control, then you are liable for their crime. For those reasons alone, the example fails to prove your point.
* I get on a train and pick up the newspaper that a passenger left behind. The newspaper has value. I got it for free, without the newspaper company granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim that's stealing.
1) The newspaper contains advertising which helps pay for such usage, or for the event that one no longer finds it useful and gives it way. This same scenario occurs when I buy an album, listen to it a number of times, and then give the album to a friend as a present. As such a point, I give up my discretionary rights to use the contents of the album or newspaper. This example does not prove your point.
* I go to the beach. The people sitting next to me are playing music on their stereo, that I can hear. The music has value, but I just got it for free, without the permission of the record label.
1) In this scenario, you don't get to keep the music you heard it and use it again. And if you do manage to use a recording device, you would be benefiting from discretionary usage of a product that you did not pay for, and hence, stealing. Furthermore, the nature of music is that it must be heard, and for any one to assume that I must pay for music that just happens to be playing is absurd. To also assume that I can record such information and use it at my discretion just because it's available, is also absurd. Dish Network content falling on my property does not give me the right to receive and use it without permission or payment. Again, the example fails.
* I go see "Shakespeare in the Park." I get to see something of great value for free, without permission of William Shakespeare.
1) William Shakespeare's work is in the public domain.
2) The manuscript printer was paid for his services of providing a copy of the play, regardless of where the content came from. Again, you fail to prove your point.
* Verizon sees that Sprint is going to announce an "all you can eat plan" and decides to introduce its own similar plan. Verizon got that idea for a bundle from Sprint for "free" and certainly without Sprint's permission. Yet, we call that competition, not stealing.
1) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but ideas are neither patentable nor copyrightable.
2) Songs are not ideas, they are sometimes the product of hours of tireless effort by highly skilled individuals, who deserve to be paid for their efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, you fail to prove your point
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080219/014250290#c579
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once I buy it ... it's mine.
If someone else buys a copy, it's theirs to do with whatever they want including giving me the original or a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cygnus, I think one of us is misunderstanding the other, an I am honestly not sure which of us that is.
"
>>
>>And when I am done with the music "AS LONG AS I DELETE ALL
>>COPIES" can I not sell the original to someone else.
>>
Who says? The copyright is exhausted in that one copy. You can resell it so long as you don't retain a copy. That should be evident by the existence of CD re-sale shops."
I think that was my point, I should be able to resell the CD, as long as any copy (on my IPOD for example) is destroyed. I believe, on occasion, I have heard of record companies/performers blocking resales on ebay/used record shops.
My point here, is that I purchased a copy. It is mine to use, however I choose, in public or private (I mean in public, not FOR PUBLIC, if you see the distinction I am trying to make), until I no longer wish to own that one copy. At which point I should be free to resell it. I am not sure how the laws are written/were intended, I can only comment on what seems fair and reasonable to me.
An example from previous TECH DIRT postings, If I were playing music in my house with the windows open, I should not be required to charge admission from any friends in the house, and forward that money to the **IA. Nor should I be required to collect money from my neighbors, who happen to hear the music. It is still played for myself, and my friends. Any accidental public reception "should" not be a problem, even if my neighbor happens to run a shop, and their customers hear the music. The same "should" be true for playing music on a public beach. (Not that I would do this, out of courtesy to others who might be disturbed, but that is me).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a poll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #70
Those who understand the law "It is copyright infringement", those who do not understand the law "It is theft / stealing", and those who DGAF "I do what I want" (imagine the Cartman voice for that last one from South Park).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hornets nest
To me the key is the differences between the fact that some goods are scarce and some goods are infinite. Content, such as music, video, and text. Are infinite.
Before the dawn of the digital age content creators and providers were the only ones who could reliably get their hands on equipment capable of making high-quality reproductions. Analog media degrades with each copy. Digital does not (perceptibly). Now any soccer mom with a computer at home can churn out a dozen copies of whatever content she wants and hand them out to every on that shows up to the soccer game. This costs the content industry money. Each person who receives the content in this fashion now has no reason what so ever to go out and pay for it.
THIS, is where opinions on the issue divide. The content industries say that their loss of profit is due to the theft of their content. The file sharers tend to say the content industries loss of profit is because they haven't adjusted to a change in the capabilities of the average consumer.
This is the problem the content industries are wrestling with. While I CAN'T copy a 20 ounce bottle of coke. I CAN copy a Metalica album. One is scarce. The other is not only not scarce but is literally infinite. They are DIFFERENT.
Is this difference enough to determine whether or not one is stealing and the other is not? Really that just depends. Stealing means what we want it to mean. Even at a conceptual level it's meaning can change. The real question, in my mind, is not whether or not it IS stealing but rather whether or not it SHOULD be stealing.
If a steal the coke from the pizza joint when the staff isn't looking they lose money EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GIVING IT AWAY FREE. After all they were only giving them away free to entice people to come in an buy something. Perhaps the end lose is small but that is still one less coke they have on hand to offer that special with. Thus taking scarce goods without permission of the current owner will, without exception, result in loss of profits for SOME ONE.
If a friend of mine gives me a copy of the latest White Stripes album the recording industry also loses profits. However, they don't HAVE to. The newspaper is the key because in each news paper, as some one above pointed out, has advertisements in it and the advertisements are worth more with every pair of eyeballs that sees them. The music and movie industry could switch to a business model such as this. They could make money even when the music is shared. Hell they could make more money when it is shared than when it isn't.
This, IMO, is the fine line that separates theft and content sharing. With a theft money WILL BE lost and there is really no way around that. You could put advertisements on coke bottles but how many people would see each coke bottle. With content sharing money doesn't have to be lost.
They don't even have to develop and deploy such a distribution system. There are people out there that would love to try it (myself for example). But the RIAA and MPAA are focused on trying to make people buy CDs. They assess extremely high and completely unreasonable royalties from any service that doesn't involve straight sales of the songs.
If they would just realize that the reason Napster, Kazaa, and others were so successful is not because of them being free, but rather because they are convenient. If the service would be convenient enough people wouldn't want to share the music they wouldn't need or even want to make copies for each of their devices. They could carry around a cellphone/ipod sized wifi/gsm/G3 based player that would play their music over any set of speakers/headphones they own. Let them play whatever song they want as many times as they want, setup play lists, etc etc. Just pop in with an advertisement every now and then at the beginning of a song. You don't have the problem of trying to play the most popular songs before and after a commercial break like with radio because the songs being played are EXACTLY the ones the user wanted to hear. the content takes up no space on the users hard drive, leaves them with no need to convert between formats, can not be lost as long as they remember their user name and password, will work on any of the transceivers they own as long as the sim number or whatever is added to their account, and wouldn't need DRM because there would be no reason to make copies of the music to begin with (which opens up the option of interoperability in the player market).
*shrug*
And here I am, an outsider, coming up with this. I just can't feel sympathy for a group of companies hell bent on digging their own graves... especially when people are falling over themselves to get the content industry to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hornets nest
Nice to see an intelligent comment so late in this discussion, especially from one who seems to have actually read the full article and doesn't resort to ridiculous "communist" arguments.
However, there's a few good points you raised that I have to refute:
"If a friend of mine gives me a copy of the latest White Stripes album the recording industry also loses profits."
This is one of the most contentious points that tends to get raised, and it's a very grey area. I'm glad you brought up The White Stripes actually as it's a great example from my own life.
I'm not a huge rock fan, being more into underground hip-hop and electronic music, but I do enjoy a bit of rock and metal. I have, however, given up on much of the junk sold on TV and radio. Just before the White Stripes' Elephant was released, a friend gave me a copy, which I listened to several times and liked. The same friend also gave me a copy of their next album, which again I liked.
So far, 2 free albums, a few hours of entertainment and I've not paid anything. Why? I do some DJ work and was concentrating on buying music that fit into my sets. I was also boycotting the major labels (a boycott which continues to this day), and I was under the impression that the White Stripes were major label (they're actually on V2 in the UK, technically an independent).
What happened next? I joined eMusic, whose selection and prices are just right for me. I have now bought all of The White Stripes' albums including those I had copied previously, along with a DVD and several remixes.
In other words, while for some time I had "stolen" their work, as soon as there was the opportunity to legally buy for a reasonable price, V" and The White Stripes made at least 5x the money they'd have made if I had just bought "Elephant" when it came out. In fact, thanks to pricing and my own buying habits, I may never have bought Elephant and started listening to the band in the first place.
This is the biggest thing the music industry seems to miss - music is its own advertisement and people will always buy if the offer is right (in my case, less than £5 / album, DRM free).
"If a steal the coke from the pizza joint when the staff isn't looking they lose money EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GIVING IT AWAY FREE."
Again, with music, there are some people who just give it away for the hell of it. However, the reality is that most people give their friends copies by saying "hey, check this out, you might like it!". The friend may go on to buy CDs or T-shirts or live gig tickets or DVDs or whatever. This is one of Mike's regular arguments - just as the Coke is being used as an incentive to buy pizza, music can be used as an incentive to buy other, less scarce goods. it's just happening now without the blessing of the music industry - figures show that while CD sales are going down, sales of everything else music related are going UP.
"If they would just realize that the reason Napster, Kazaa, and others were so successful is not because of them being free, but rather because they are convenient."
Exactly. if only they'd realised this a decade ago, the music industry may be more successful and vibrant. Thanks to Amazon and the like, it's only now that people are starting to get anywhere near the service they deserved from the beginning. The RIAA are losing money thanks to lawsuits, DRM, rootkits and horrible business management, not the fact that people have taken their tape trading online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in
literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding __ years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose..." --Thomas
Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450
He was of course against unlimited copyright (and patent) protection but he agreed that there should be some period where a monopoly was granted.
Now, about that brand new song you just downloaded.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same Thing or Different ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tug-of-War
I'm bored with this debate. At a certain point, the tug-of-war must end or both sides will be so far away from reality that there will be no saving them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tug of War
Just more of a general thought.
I just cannot see how anyone can hope to defeat the basic economic principles.
Infinitely available = Price of Zero.
It could still have value.
By all means.
It just has a price of Zero.
If somebody wants to disagree, they need to start paying me for the air they are breathing, because I value that air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One would imagine that a content creator would feel the same way. Some will indeed stop making their content if they are not paid. Would you stop creating air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your property in this case would be your knowledge of auto mechanics, and you essentially charge a licensing fee to your customers when you repair a vehicle.
You don't get to charge a fee for the continued use of the car because you do not have any ownership claim to the car whatsoever.
It's simple: If you own something, you are allowed to charge for it's use by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"sharing"
If I share a book with someone, I can't read it as long as they have it. If I share my pizza with someone, I no longer have the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "sharing"
"Sharing" as you describe it, is not stealing, but it is infringement. If music that was shared was stolen, then the original owner would no longer have the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that makes you a music thief! Don't believe me;
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13597
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12842
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if we come up with examples...
Which reminds me... Do parents have copyrights over the genes of their offspring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, if we come up with examples...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, if we come up with examples...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Ranting against the Music Industry.
I found some incredible tracks from Paul Van Dyk, I have to stand behind that ascertation... Have you heard him recently? Sounds like he hired Bono...
Paul VanDyk seems to be re-inventing himself and crossing over into href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO0PMclabt4"> alternative rock. Interesting crossover, nonetheless.
I wonder if he's crossing over to create the remixes... (Read: Is there no good music to do a remix of? So does he create an original to make a remix of..? That's a lot of extra work.)
Check out Paul Van Dyk Let Go (Single Edit) It's well engineered, and plays well on my $4,000 stereo system.
I also met him recently while on tour, which was real awesome. Why don't more artists pursue this?
I really hope his portfolio starts getting some airtime stateside.
If I was a US-based Label, I'd be worried if Europe started pushing their music stateside. I imported Westlife four years ago and really liked it. Maybe it comes down to the process of bringing the talent to market is broken. Starting with A&R, to production to retail.
So the German stuff is well engineered and doesn't make me want to hit my head against a wall every time I buy poorly produced US crap.
Next time, I plan to sue you guys for making me buy a good stereo system and providing me with shit content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re a couple of you
Nope, because it makes peoples lives better (or in this case livable).
But thats the difference, I like doing things and making people happy, where as some of you are .. well, too darn greedy to care.
There are plenty of business models that would allow musicians to make money from them giving away their music to everyone for free.
If you do not know any of these business models by now, you are obviously new here and I will simply direct you to look through a bit of the archives of TechDirt, as plenty have been suggested.
To post #85 washthesandout, are you suggesting that even though you are sharing your pizza with your friend, they are stealing it from you!?!?!?
God thats twisted. Why share at all if you are that greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re a couple of you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it weren't for Lawyers, we wouldn't need Lawyers!
"Also how do you address the fact that content producers now claim that they have a "right" to trespass onto your computer to make a unilateral declaration on whether you are violation of their draconian restriction. Remember the Sony rootkit debacle???"
Exactly! They violated my rights and made it possible for a virus to infect my, paid for by me, PC. A whole week-end to get it back to the way it was. I better start downloading movies and music just to make sure they weren't made by me.
After all, when you download a file, it isn't necessarily what it seems to say it is. Hence, the reason we do get infected with viruses and malware and such.
When sony et al pays for my PC, they may do/install what they want with it. They may even share what is on it if they like. After all, they would have paid for it making it theirs.
Sell me media that lasts. Why should I have to buy the same album again and again?
eg. Pink Floyd-The Wall
I purchased 3 LPs', 4 cassettes, 2 discs, I do not own a playable copy, on any media, today.
How much of that money went to Floyd? How much of that money went into research & development of the rootkit/drm? No, I will not purchase that album again, or any other for that matter. I don't need music or movies. Nor rock/movie stars.
If only James Dean had lived another 50 years, my life would be so different today. Yours too!
What is the original Mona Lisa worth? A copy? If everyone had a copy, what would the original be worth? Any less? Does the value come from limited viewing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem the *AAs are in complete denial of what the real issue is. The problem is not you "steal" a digital copy or I "steal" buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor. The real issue is that technology has advanced to the point that the content distributors are no longer able to stand in between the content creators and the content consumers, and make money on the "distribution" of the content.
This is an industry that was born within the last 70-80 years, as the result of a technological advancement. A technology (let's call it "recording", lets set aside the medium that allowed it, since it has continuously evolved) was invented that allowed a corporation to capture something that previously could not be duplicated without live performance.
Prior to this invention, musicians and actors around the world made a living traveling around from town to town performing the popular songs and plays of the day. These artists may not have been immensely wealthy, but they were able to make a reasonable living. The more talented and ambitious ones were able to develop a level of celebrity and wealth that comes from working hard in your chosen craft. But it was rare for any one musician or actor to become wealthy well in extreme excess of the general population and their peers.
Recording Technologies allowed corporations to capture one recording, pay one artist a "royalty", then distribute it to the public endlessly. What was the end result? 1 Artist became much wealthier at the expense of hundreds of others, (the public now wanted to hear Artist A, not the song or play) and a corporation that previously didn't exist controlled the content that the Artist previously controlled. (Please note, I'm not trying to make this a political system argument like the earlier "essence of communism" posts). Prior to the invention of recording, hundreds or thousands of artists might have been able to make a reasonable living performing a song or play for the enjoyment of the public. And many often did.
Now, if you aren't THAT artist, you starve. If you're fortunate enough to become THAT artist, you have wealth well in excess of any contribution that you've made to your profession.
We see it over and over again with Musical Groups. A good band works its way through the circuits, hones their craft, hungry and yearning for success. They have talent, make it big, and receive millions of dollars in a very short period of time. They're never able to recapture the essence of what made them successful in the first place (The "sellout" effect). Yet they continue to make millions while other acts are struggling to gain the public attention.
As I see it, the technological advances of the last 25 years have simply removed the *AAs from the equation. The control of content is back in the hands of the Artists. If it means you can no longer be Green Day or U2 and rest on your previous success, so be it. Thats the essence of being in business. If you stop producing, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you die.
The return of control of content to the Artist means that if you want to make a living as an artist, you are going to tour, you are going to perform night after night reproducing your works for the public. Your fans will want to hear your works, so they'll buy your CDs. Their friends will want to hear you, so they'll get a free copy of your "hit" song. If you're good, there is now one more person standing in line at your next show. If you're not talented, that person won't be in line. The Artist may not become obscenely wealthy, but more than likely, if they have any level of talent, they'll make a respectful living. Certainly more than they'd make as a waiter or bartender while waiting to attract the attention of an A&R rep under the "old" system.
The only "person" who loses in this equation is the Corporation who suddenly found themselves obsolete. The *AAs are simply the latest Buggy Whip, Camera Film, Typewriter, Betamax, HD-DVD company to find themselves on the wrong end of technologic advancement.
Its not that much different than the Buggy Whip manufacturers that tried to outlaw cars in major cities when they found themselves on the wrong end of advancement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technological Advancement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking like this will cause talented people decide that they will take their skills and do something else, causing less music to actually be created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone with true talent, drive, and ability will find a way to make a living and ultimately become successful at their chosen craft. Thats economics at its purest and most basic level.
By removing the middle layer that controls (or attempts to control) the distribution of their work, the artist is free to seek the opportunities that provide the most reward. In the case of musicians, I would assume that to mean touring and live performances as a primary means of building recognition. This will allow the recordings and merchandise to ultimately build up a reasonable revenue stream. (just as an example).
The benefit to all artists, however, is that their ultimate success will be based on their own determination and talent. Under the current system you not only need determination and talent, but you also have to be lucky enough to be "discovered" by some A&R rep who signs you to a label. They then control your content distribution.
More artists will benefit in the long run, since more artists would be able to make a reasonable/sustainable living as artists rather than waiters. The top 1% could potentially be negatively affected, since the concentration of wealth at the very top in a "winner takes all" economy that currently exists may no longer be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #96, 97
I like the write up.
I agree.
#97, Coward
Any proof? Or just a baseless claim?
Because I actually have a friend (ex-next door neighbor) who has a band. It is him and his brother. They are by no means large.
But you know what? He keeps making songs.
He has a small following in the area but never really made it big. He has a normal day job over in Wisconsin now. But he still makes songs (no longer with his brother).
Soooo, I think you are wrong and that is just a baseless claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at it another way...
The Grateful Dead are a prime example of a musical act that embraced music sharing and trading. Granted the technology was different 30 years ago, but they openly allowed amateur recorders to attend their concerts and record the performances. They demanded nothing more than the purchase of a ticket, and the assurance that if the tapes were distributed to fans, they would not be sold.
Did it affect their sales? I would argue no. Here is a band that it can be argued turned out no relevant studio recordings from 1975-1987, yet consistently remained one of the top grossing tours year in and year out for almost 30 years. I would submit this was due in large part to the constant stream of new fans they attracted from the sharing of their concert recordings by other fans.
I'm not saying this is a model that will work for all acts, but there are clearly lessons to be learned from this extremely successful example. Its one that the Dave Matthews Band has used as a Blueprint for their business model. Implemented a little differently, but with similar results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Way It Will Be..
After reading the 100+ comments I have my own 2/100ths of a dollar.
Fast forward to the year 2015 (hopefully much, much sooner) and we have a market where the Content Creator communicates DIRECTLY with the Consumer.
The only reason the *AAs existed in the first place was to 'protect the rights to copy', aka generate revenue for each copy of a copyrighted material distributed or iradicate it altogether.
Think back to the 50's 60's 70's where record labels were there, as the middle man, to HELP the talented artist. This meant, advertise, promote, produced copies of LPs (vinyls), and financial back a tour, furthering promotion all for monetary consent.
Going BACK to the future of the entertainment industry, and we no longer see the need for this 'middle man' aka, the record labels. Recording studios don't ask for royalties if I take my band into the studio, record an album, and copy and give it out or sell it. They could care less. The transaction was made, both parties have got what they wanted.
However, now we live in an age where the entire world is connected by the internet, and if not you know someone who knows someone, and that advertisement spread by word of mouth is equally as powerful. "Hey, checkout this new album by _______"
Many artists today, are creating their music, and distributing throughout the internet via, PureVolume, MySpace, etc. straight to the consumer. There is no more need for a physical medium.
Originally there where no LP recorders unless you had the money to own an LP manufacturing and duplicating factory.
Then, the medium switched to cassettes which were easier to obtain and record upon.
Then CDs which were better sound quality.
And, now today where you can directly download the music you want and put it on your portable digital device and plug it into your home stereo, car, or headphones. There are no reasons anymore to own the CD unless simple you like looking at a hard copy, because you can't even copy it without first putting it into a computer, then burning it, and if you have a computer; its much more convenient to just download what you want.
Legally or illegally.
More often than not, the hard choice is usually the right choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Healy's article "File ‘sharing’ or ‘stea
We seem to be overlooking two analytical points in this debate. 1) the public domain and 2) the evolution of the copyright.
1. There is a possibility that some of the content that is being shared is in the public domain. To share content in the public domain would be legal. However, this possibility seems to receive little press so we never hear of legal file sharing uses.
2. Copyright law has evolved to give enhanced "protection" to the content producers. Under the original 1790 copyright law the maximum period for copyright was 28 years. That means that everything before 1980 would now be in the public domain and could be shared if the law had not been changed. So we have a situation where something that was legal yesterday (in a sense) is now illegal.
It is now illegal because the content producers had congress pass a self serving law that protects their interests. So for me the question degenerates not to the issue of file sharing being illegal or legal, but to the fact that we have an unjust law that should be repealed to restore our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whose Business models ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best way to avert the catastrophic...
That's what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking out the trash
Legal and fair online digital distribution of media and entertainment has been around for years now and this whole issue now rests on whether a just society can allow the taking without paying of product that is intended for sale. The world's governments will see to it that the promise of online commerce and digital distribution is not lost to a band of online pirates and that, at the end of the day, is the point. Real fans of music, movies and books online put their money where their mouth is. The rest of you are rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define "Stealing"
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
If theft=stealing...
File sharing does not includes a "mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner (sic) of that property or its use" since the file sharer continues to retain possession of the property in question.
Just my CCY0.02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filesharing = Reality; Deal with it.
I don't think users will get scared out of filesharing anytime soon. Just as much as they weren't scared to use Compact Cassettes back in the day. I think if law wants to keep up with reality, it must somehow address the present change.
Just as much as there is no natural right to steal, there is no unalienable right to make money from a product...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A matter already decided
"The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_%281985%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[url]WWW.WAREZNEWS.INFO[/url] CLICK AND READ FORUM TOPIC!!!
I GIVE JUST 1 MINUTE!
[url=http://wareznews.info/earn-money-for-file-hosting]Earn Money | + Warez News! +[/url]
More:
New warez site but want more visitor and uploader,but who upload just free?nobody,and i have great idea!
Look link and read this!and register forum and earn money much much much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety THEFT.”
Justice Breyer,
Justices Stevens
Justice O’Connor
Foundation v. American Broadcasting Cos.,
“The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Beatles & other rock bands were only able to continue songwriting because recording sales freed them from the body -damaging & soul -killing rigors of constant touring. New models need solutions that work for the content-CREATORS, whose unique inventiveness make it all possible. Musicians unite, & fight for your right to profit on the internet, in clubs, everywhere ppl use, enjoy,or exploit your talents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]