How Many More Ways Can Axl Rose Piss Off Fans?
from the keep-trying dept
Axl Rose of Guns N' Roses has a funny way of trying to sell his album: his strategy seems to basically revolve around pissing off fans who want to interact with the music. There's been plenty of coverage over the arrest and subsequent guilty plea of a blogger who was actually doing a fantastic job of promoting the new album by leaking it online. Since then, Rose has apparently been unwilling to do much to actually promote the album, other than putting angry rants on various websites. The latest is that he's apparently threatening legal action against Activision for including some GNR songs in Guitar Hero. Apparently no one pointed out to Rose that having songs in Guitar Hero tends to help sell more albums. And, that would be useful for Rose right now, as reports are that his long-awaited album has been a tremendous flop. So, once again, it's worth pointing out that the last thing any musician wants to do these days is appear to be anti-fan.
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: axl rose, fans, guitar hero, guns n' roses
Companies: activision
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Was that the criminal blogger...?
Did his illegal activities, which are federal crimes (the government really gets peeved when people illegally hack computers, even if they are doing someone a "favor") and may or may not have anything to do with GNR, promote the album, even though it was unreleased when he performed his criminal acts? It appears it may have. It also appears that downloads of his illegally obtained songs increased after his arrest.
However, regardless of the promotion value, etc., the guy hacked into someone's computer illegally. Everything after that is noise to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
1. Because they do not like competition
2. Is there such a thing as legal hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
So after he stole them did GNR ever get them back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
Yay Streissand Effect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was that the criminal blogger...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there objective data available that is in consonance with the above? Just curious if this has some sort of a factual basis or is more anectodal in nature.
Common sense does suggest that more people may become interested in the music contained in the program, but is there data to actually back up more albums being sold as a result?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy stole from GNR and then made their product available for free on the internet. Even if 50% of the people who downloaded it went out and bought the album after that, but that still leaves 50% of people who got something for nothing.
And at the same time, while Axle is being kind of pissy, you really dont know the whole scoop about what activision did with their songs in guitar hero. If they haven't been compensated properly, or at all, then he has every right to complain, even if it translated into 200k song sales.
If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in, even if i benefited from it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, if you live in San Francisco. They'll probably dust and rearrange the furniture, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You forgot burnishing the parquet floor, along with the ska tickets that they'll leave next to the fishtank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, if you live in San Francisco. They'll probably dust and rearrange the furniture, too.
And if you accidentally walk in on the SF house painters in the middle of their dastardly act, they'll style your hair and do your nails too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.
Even if 50% of the people who downloaded it went out and bought the album after that, but that still leaves 50% of people who got something for nothing.
Okay, but that's a net gain - higher sales, and you didn't lose anything to the people that didn't pay.
And at the same time, while Axle is being kind of pissy, you really dont know the whole scoop about what activision did with their songs in guitar hero. If they haven't been compensated properly, or at all, then he has every right to complain, even if it translated into 200k song sales
You can complain about anything - but it doesn't make sense to complain about something that's beneficial.
If someone breaks into my house and paints my walls and it looks great, does that mean they shouldnt be arrested for breaking in
That's an argument against breaking into a computer system, not against leveraging non-scarce resources like digital music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.
This statement is your opinion, and not law. At least 34 states and several European countries define the illegal acquisition of data from a computer as "data theft." The U.S. has yet to have a national law dealing with data theft, but I suspect that it will come eventually.
I got into this argument with someone over at againstmonopoly.org, who then proceeded to explain to me how a digitally saved song is not data. Oh well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This statement is based on the definition of the word "theft", which involves the taking of property and thereby depriving the rightful owner.
I got into this argument with someone over at againstmonopoly.org, who then proceeded to explain to me how a digitally saved song is not data. Oh well...
Um, ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement is based on the definition of the word "theft", which involves the taking of property and thereby depriving the rightful owner.
Well, apparently a bunch of states and countries have decided that the legal definition of the word "theft" includes hacking into someone's computer, making a copy of the data, and taking the copy with you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is an inaccurate description of the offense, because it doesn't meet the actual definition of theft. Legal definitions have the luxury of not having to conform to the normal rules of the language, nor of being accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, "theft" is also subject to change in definition by legislative act.
It is through legislation that many states have expanded the traditional definition "theft" to also include what is sometimes also referred to as "computer theft".
It can be quite confusing I will admit. Under federal copyright law unauthorized acts in both civil and criminal actions are characterized as "infringments". Unfortunately, this is clouded to some degree by other federal laws that use the word "theft" versus "infringement". Under state laws there are some that have expanded their definitions to unclude unauthorized copying under their "theft" statutes.
In the final analysis it is really much ado about nothing, because no matter what the act is called it is still potentially subject to criminal and civil liability. Importantly, in a civil matter a plaintiff and defendant are typically fighting over money damages. In a criminal matter it is the sovereign (state or federal) that is involved in an action against an alleged wrongdoer. Money damages are not involved since the sovereign is not the rights holder. What is, of course, involved is enforcement of duly enacted law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly the point. Since they're both illegal, why not use a description that actually describes the offense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Likewise, someplace could pass a law against spitting on the sidewalk and title the offense "baby rape". But just because they called it that would not make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have data that is unavailable to the public, therefore it is secret.
You copy my data and take the data with you (I still maintain that if you leave with something that you did not have before you arrived that you stole it, but that is a separate issue).
You have taken the secrecy that I had before you came and criminally stole my data.
I like the word theft. It seems appropriate to the nature of the crime. When you go to prison for data theft, I hope they put you in a cell with Bubba Johnson...he likes fresh meat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't, but I'll leave well enough alone I suppose.
You have taken the secrecy that I had before you came and criminally stole my data.
So the data was copied, and the secrecy was stolen....yeah, sure - subbing one "stolen" intangible for another. As I've said before, saying that such an offense isn't theft doesn't make it right, excuse it, or any of the other myriad reasons people throw up whenever the distinction is made. It means it's different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well Lonnie, you're leaving here with information you didn't have before. Therefore, by your own argument, you are a thief.
When you go to prison for data theft, I hope they put you in a cell with Bubba Johnson...he likes fresh meat.
He's waiting just for you, Lonnie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I missed on detail, and that is the explicit or implicit invitation or permission to take said data, which exists in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not the copying that makes it data theft, it's the transition of the data from being private to public that makes it data theft. (But even then, that's probably just a laymen's term, not the actual offense.)
Breaking into GNR's network and downloading unreleased songs = data theft
Downloading GNR's old albums from the web = copyright infringment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. Hopefully I said this somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It may be that copyright infringement is not theft. But going into a computer that you do not own, making a copy of the data on that computer, and leaving with the copy is stealing no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. You arrived with hands empty, you leave with hands full...stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every action has differences and each difference changes the nature of the action. It is illegal to kill, unless you do so in defense of your own life and the lives of your family. You have to look at what was done, why it was done, and how it was done. The one size fits all laws that the governments tout about these days are unjust in the extreme. Making more specific laws will help little, if at all, as the system is far to complex for the average citizen to understand as it is.
Not only that, but different social groups have different mores regarding the same actions. When a person is raised to think a certain way, simply telling that person that they must change or pay you money will only make them angry. You must sit down, look at things from their perspective, get them to see yours, and work from there.
Nothing is as simple as right and wrong, and in attempting to make it so, you actually make it even more complex than it is. Because you then wander into the territory of violating the accused, either through wrongful pursuit or unjust punishment.
It is all a balance, and in this, the U.S. fails miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I missed one teensy detail, and that is the aspect of permission or invitation. If the taking is unauthorized, either explicitly or implicitly, therein lies the crime. Such crime is amplified by hacking into a protected computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a mischaracterization. It may be only a "teensy detail" in your mind but it seems to me to make a huge difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TITLE 11. CRIMINAL LAW
CHAPTER 46. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
ARTICLE 1. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Alaska Stat. @ 11.46.200
SECTION 11.46.200. Theft of services.
(a) A person commits theft of services if
(1) the person obtains services, known by that person to be
available only for compensation, by deception, force, threat, or
other means to avoid payment for the services;
(2) having control over the disposition of services of others to
which the person is not entitled, the person knowingly diverts
those services to the person's own benefit or to the benefit of
another not entitled to them; or
(3) the person obtains the use of computer time, a computer
system, a computer program, a computer network, or any part of a
computer system or network, with reckless disregard that the use by
that person is unauthorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a pretty lame argument. Other nations also have laws making practicing religions other than Islam a criminal offense. Do you think that means the US should too? And as to "moves in Congress", well, your buddies in the copyright industry have been trying that for a long time.
Lonnie, do you own Techdirt's servers? If not, then you've just described yourself as a thief. Talk about spin, I think you just spun out there. What a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ohhh, can I play too?
Here's another way of looking at it. NONE of the 50 states have laws granting copyrights or patents. In fact, such laws only exist at the federal level and there have been "moves" to have those repealed. That has yet to happen, but I suspect that it will come eventually.
See how easy it is to play that game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of those states have laws granting copyrights and patents because that is a right reserved to the Federal Government. However, the states can grant rights to all other things not covered by the federal government, and those 34 states have decided to cover data in various forms.
Copyrights and patents are extremely unlikely to be repealed because virtually every country has them. Until all countries agree to repeal them (like that will ever happen in the next several hundred years), they will likely all have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's soft business. You can complain about something that's beneficial if you deserve more than you got.
Would you rather have $x,000 in increased sales, or $x,000 plus the licensing fees for having your song in Guitar Hero? Remember, if GH is using their song, it means there is a demand for it. Demand GnR did not get compensated for, except as auxiliary profits.
We can go back and forth all day with analogies between physical object theft and digital media / idea theft, but at the end of the day it's really simple:
GnR put time and effort into creating a thing. Somebody else is using that thing to profit off GnR's demand. A lawsuit is in order, that's why we have them.
Anything else (Look at all the sales it's giving them!) is extraneous details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Deserve" is entirely subjective - while there's certainly a legal requirement for them to be paid for each copy, it's an entirely different argument to claim that they deserve to be compensated for each copy.
Would you rather have $x,000 in increased sales, or $x,000 plus the licensing fees for having your song in Guitar Hero? Remember, if GH is using their song, it means there is a demand for it.
And it also means that including their song in Guitar Hero can increase demand for that song. So GNR should be paying the makers of Guitar Hero in turn for the publicity.
Anything else (Look at all the sales it's giving them!) is extraneous details.
So basically, you just want to pretend the benefits don't really exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Deserve" is entirely subjective - while there's certainly a legal requirement for them to be paid for each copy, it's an entirely different argument to claim that they deserve to be compensated for each copy.
Agree on all counts. I'm not talking about copies of their music, I'm referring to Guitar Hero. Sorry for being vague here.
And it also means that including their song in Guitar Hero can increase demand for that song. So GNR should be paying the makers of Guitar Hero in turn for the publicity.
Yes, if that is what GH and GnR agreed upon. But instead, as I understand it (my argument fails if I'm wrong here :P) GH used GnR's music without consulting them. It's actually frequent in B2B, especially in marketing, that it's not clear which side should be paying whom.
So yeah -- I'm not a GnR fan, to me they seem to be a bit worn out. They are probably going to benefit more from GH since it can introduce a young crowd to their music.
The key here is that (again, my argument fails if this is wrong) GnR wasn't consulted. Their music was just taken and used because GH recognized that it was valuable. Value was taken from GnR's creation and GH profits from that.
So basically, you just want to pretend the benefits don't really exist.
Of course not. They exist, but that doesn't justify taking something GnR created without their permission. No amount of benefits justify it. My logic is simple: what if GnR doesn't want to sell more albums? What if their goal instead is to release a quiet little album for their old fans? Nevermind that this is highly unlikely. But what if that were the case? Taking it a step further, what if the members of GnR really hate Guitar Hero? By saying "The benefits make it okay", you're undermining their right to say "I hate Guitar Hero, I think it's ruining the music culture, and I don't want them to profit off my music".
To be perfectly clear, nobody is entitled to control how their PUBLISHED content is enjoyed by individuals, etc. But they should by all means retain full control over how other entities PROFIT off of their created content.
But then, perhaps I'm on the wrong website to make that assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Slash appeared in the game, it's more along the lines that Axl wasn't consulted. I know Axl owns the name, but since Geffen was able to release an album with their hits without his permission, I'm not sure if Axl actually has any say in the matter or if he's just posturing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be unfamiliar with copyright law. Copyright infringement applies to noncommercial situations as well. Profit is not a requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>available for free on the internet.
>>Copying, even illegal copying, isn't theft.
I believe that there is a significant difference when the product/item/property in question was not actually released. The "stealing" was the result of the dude breaking into a system to steal the tracks. So the actual act of how he did it makes it stealing via Breaking and Entering/trespassing/or however else you want to label it.
The "stealing" was not created by person "A" purchasing a copy of the music then letting persons "B-Z" copy it off their hard drive because they're a nice guy. That's Copying.
ALSO:
I've seen studies done showing how music in Video games increases sales. Not everyone wants to put a Playstation in their car and play it for 45 minutes while they get to that one part of the game where that one song was played so that they can hear it while they start their road trip. Consequently we go out to purchase the music.
Can someone show me an actual study that shows how "pirating/copying" (depending which side of the coin you're on) music leads to further record sales? By my account, if we did not have this massively easy way to share music via internet or even CD copy, the only way that I could get the actual music would be to a)steal it from a store. b)purchase the cd for myself. c)make a sh!tty copy from FM radio playback.
Taking away the "pirating/copying" methods of duplication in question out there by big music companies the only way I see each and every one of us getting our hands on the music is if we go and purchase the CD. That would seem to be 100% of interested & capable people purchasing the music in that scenario.
Someone prove me wrong here with someone actual facts (minus the hypotheticals) or studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am still wondering what laws the guy was charged under. I have been presuming either anti-hacker laws or trade secret laws (you, know, the ones covering theft of secret data), but I do not know for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
legally, sure. but you'd be a complete dick for doing so, just like axl rose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comment 3 By Cryix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2008-02-14-guitar-hero-effect_N.htm
and while i don't claim to know the legal details of what licensing rights were and were not acquired, i would point out that Axl Rose lent his single Shackler's Revenge off his new album to Rock Band 2, the direct competitor of Guitar Hero. It would seem he would have a business reason in slamming the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dunno, maybe he smashes 'pooters nowadays. Stomp on that bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll never work with him again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never work with him again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slash! Whassup Man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he could try...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't agree
I've heard you make this argument time and time again. If free music really induces people to buy more music, then why have we been seeing declining record sales ever since music could be freely downloaded online?
You note that the album has been freely available online. You note that it did not sell as well as hoped. Is it not at least plausible to say that the album is selling poorly, at least in part, because by the time it came out everyone already had it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't agree
Xenu would approve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes Yenta go hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes Yenta go hmmmm
Hail Xenu!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes Yenta go hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pre Released DL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pre Released DL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'M GONNA BRING YOU DOWN... HUH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys remember when I had that crutch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't WANT anyone to hear it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GNR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of music these days is made to separate teenagers from their parents' money. Adults hardly listen to music anymore (lack of time, lack of interest), and when they do, it's something old, proven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a tax payer, I do not think my monetary contribution to society should be wasted in the pursuit of those who infringe upon copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I was a child, I was taught that taking something that did not belong to me was stealing. I think that standard remains a good one, even when applied to digital data.
You can spray air freshener on a turd, but it will still be a turd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I was a child I was never taught that copying was stealing.
"You can spray air freshener on a turd, but it will still be a turd."
That's just your own BS that you're smelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You keeping saying that 34 states define unauthorized data access as theft. Please provide specific citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you serious? An article from some health industry association basically saying that 34 states have data breach notification laws? Nowhere does it say that any of them have amended their criminal theft statutes to include data breaches. But I guess you couldn't cite any specific laws if those laws don't exist, could you?
What, you thought no one would check? Think again. You completely misrepresented what the article was about and I'm afraid your dishonesty has now pretty much wiped out any credibility you may have had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
o If you go out and look at some of the court cases that have been prosecuted under these laws (I would have been happy to provide references, but since you wish to be an ass, I am about done with you), you will note that the judges in such cases refer to the taking or copying of data as data theft.
o Beyond Data Theft laws, when prosecuting theft of trade secrets it is also common for courts to refer to theft of trade secrets, regardless of whether it was written or in a computer, as theft of trade secret data.
Have a good day, insulting jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some references for you to help you in your education:
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/d/datathef.htm
Oh my, here is a man charged in California with data theft...I guess those bogus data theft laws that are killing my credibility must be really fictional...
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleI d=9115385&intsrc=hm_list
I guess the English are helping participate in my lack of credibility by calling for tougher data theft laws...
http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8069
Here is a lovely discussion about adding the theft of data in India as a crime, which would be a good move.
http://www.articlesbase.com/cyber-law-articles/data-theft-in-cyber-space-issues-and-laws-56 1270.html
Incidentally, the reporting requirement that many states have refers to data breaches, which is defined as, among other things, the unlawful acquisition of data; i.e., data theft. Hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/statelaws.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for the link. Here is a short section from California's laws:
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the
following acts is guilty of a public offense:
(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of
any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or
copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or
external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
Do I see that it is an offense under California law to access and take without permission data? Is that data theft? Seems like it to me.
The next time you (pardon me while I puke at your use of the word) check my "credibility," perhaps you should really check rather than just skimming a few words in an article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you're turning to a straw man argument to try save your credibility. Well, it won't work: no one claimed that unauthorized computer access wasn't illegal. But you've been claiming that it was covered under the theft statutes of "34 states". Now we see that it apparently isn't and you've been caught telling a big one. It's kind of funny watching you resort to name calling and vulgar language while trying to squirm out of it. Have a good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the links provided above to the summary of computer statutes is quite an excellent resource.
So, to the anonymous coward who was gleefully pointing out whatever, who neglected to dig just a little further, and who is clearly wrong, data theft is illegal in a lot of places.
Can I help you with any of your other misunderstandings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, I could go through the laws of all the other states and see how many of them refer to the illegal taking of data, but why bother? Data theft is illegal in a bunch of states and a bunch of foreign countries. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CODE OF ALABAMA 1975
Copyright (c) 1977-1989 by State of Alabama. All rights reserved.
TITLE 13A. CRIMINAL CODE.
CHAPTER 8. OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT.
ARTICLE 1. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES.
s 13A-8-102. Acts constituting offenses against intellectual property;
punishment.
(c) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization or without
reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization, discloses, uses,
or takes data, COMPUTER programs, or supporting documentation residing or
existing internal or external to a COMPUTER, COMPUTER system, or COMPUTER
network commits an offense against intellectual property.
Okay, let us see what a strawman we have here:
o Theft Statute
o Theft statute covers data.
Ergo: Law in the state of Alabama for data theft.
How many more states do you want me to go through? Every time you respond, I will pick another state. Then, after I have gone through the theft statutes of all 34 states, I will start with foreign countries. Hell of a straw man, if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only "real" definitions with regard to the individual that hacked into the computer mentioned in the article is the legal one, because that is how he was charged. Any other definition has no bearing in any conversation other than a philosophical one. Go have a beer with your buds and talk about philosophy. The legal definition is the only important one and the only one that interests me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Theft involves the deprivation of property. If the owner isn't deprived of it, it isn't actually theft, regardless of whatever legal definitions you trudge up. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between infringement and theft in the Dowling case - I fail to see the relevance of whether the data was publicly available or not.
The legal definition is the only important one and the only one that interests me.
Ok, and you'll find places where it's defined as theft, and others where it isn't. Congratulations, there isn't a clear-cut legal definition one way or the other. Flooding the comments with examples is a pointless exercise, and is quite honestly childish. But by all means, if you feel the need to "win" the last post on the article contest, keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I made my point...I have no need to continue.
As for "deprivation," that is merely one definition of theft. The other way to look at theft is whether the individual left with something in his hand. Arrive empty handed, leave with hands full, theft occurred. It is irrelevant whether the owner was deprived of his property. By that logic, if someone "borrowed" the owner's car, and returned it, gas tank full, without the owner ever knowing, then that is not theft. Makes no sense.
The thief is also depriving the owner of deciding what he wants to do with his property, thus reducing the owner's freedom. It is possible that the owner never wanted to reveal the property to the world (his right), and now that is no longer a choice, depriving the owner of his property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an anecdotal definition at best, but nonetheless - using that definition, you would have to consider all copyright infringement as theft. And, as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court drew a distinction that the two offenses were not synonymous.
It is irrelevant whether the owner was deprived of his property. By that logic, if someone "borrowed" the owner's car, and returned it, gas tank full, without the owner ever knowing, then that is not theft. Makes no sense.
Sorry, your example doesn't fly. The owner of the car was still temporarily deprived of ownership, whether he was aware of it or not.
It is possible that the owner never wanted to reveal the property to the world (his right), and now that is no longer a choice, depriving the owner of his property rights.
His rights have been violated, not removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I recall when I was a child that my parents taught me that taking something that did not belong to you (which had zero to do with depriving anyone of anything) was stealing. Someone stated earlier that there was a difference between a legal definition of stealing and a real definition of stealing. Taking something that is not yours is my real definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I recall when I was a child that the common refrain from a student whose test had been cheated from was "he copied my anwers".
Trying to force the restrictions and definitions inherent with physical property on intellectual property doesn't make sense - they are different. While you can certainly pass legislation to treat them similarly, that doesn't change how IP actually behaves. The concept of property, and therefore theft, exist without a legal structure - IP does not. A different offense is needed to accurately describe a violation of the rights associated with IP, hence infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I heard many refrains, one of which was "He/She stole my answers." Of course, the defense immediately raised by the wrongdoer was "Your test taking model is inapt, and all I did was demonstrate this. You should be grateful for the lesson I have taught you."
Just some food for thought concerning "infinite goods" versus "finite goods". In the final analysis all property, whatever its character and form may take, is defined and enforced through duly enacted laws and the judiciary. There is no property that is "self executing" absent government support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why anecdotal definitions are insufficient, which was my point in the first place.
Just some food for thought concerning "infinite goods" versus "finite goods". In the final analysis all property, whatever its character and form may take, is defined and enforced through duly enacted laws and the judiciary. There is no property that is "self executing" absent government support.
Disregarding the argument over whether intellectual works actually constitute property, I'm honestly confused by this assertion. While a government body can set the definitions on what can be owned and the punishments related to the violation of property rights, the simplistic idea of "this is mine" requires no government interference. In terms of physical property, the government simply refines the pre-existing concept.
This is not true for intellectual works, due to the fact that they are not diminished when shared. Copyrights and patents exist to restrict the natural state of intellectual work. Thus the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, intellectual works are diminished when shared. This is easily proven by Beanie Babies. When Beanies were scarce, they became highly valuable and collected. Once Ty began making Beanies in vast numbers, the value went down because the dolls were easily obtainable, and suddenly Beanie value dropped to the point where even Ty could not sell them profitably.
Intellectual property is the same way. Allowing unlimited copying of intellectual property diminishes its value.
Lastly, you are right that the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence, just as real property is. You can say that "this is mine" with respect to tangible property, until the guy with three friends comes along and throws you off the property, at which point the guy will say "this is mine," and it will eventually happen again. The rule of government has provided a formal definition of property rights and recognized that property transfers should be pieces of paper rather than a posse and a bunch of guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they aren't. Value is merely a property of the work, it is not the work itself.
Lastly, you are right that the concept of intellectual property is entirely reliant on the government for its existence, just as real property is.
You say you disagree with me, and then provide an example that shows I'm right. I'm officially confused.
You can say that "this is mine" with respect to tangible property, until the guy with three friends comes along and throws you off the property, at which point the guy will say "this is mine," and it will eventually happen again. The rule of government has provided a formal definition
Exactly right, and what I stated in my previous post. The government provided formal definitions and rules in regards to physical property - but the basic concept existed before the government. The same is not true for intellectual property.
I will be honest, I haven't run into this line of discussion before. Most people who will insist that intellectual works are property will invariably resort to Locke's theory of property. I'm not sure if that's your support for the argument, but Locke establishes early on in his theory that property exists in the absence of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intellectual property is the same way. Allowing unlimited copying of intellectual property diminishes its value.
So, in your opinion, are works in the public domain are worth less than works currently under copyright? Many people still find the King James Bible valuable, yet they could copy the entire thing for free if they so desired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are works in the public domain worth less than works currently under copyright? Yes, for a variety of reasons. Fundamentally, an edition of "Robinson Crusoe," which deals with another era and is written in what we consider an archaic style, has minimal annual sales and its net economic worth is relatively insignificant. In fact, its value is truly marginal because several editions exist and each publisher competes to produce the lowest priced copy in an attempt to justify production of a couple of thousand books in an edition. Even so, it can take years to sell all the books in a single run of such a classic.
Furthermore, I doubt that Daniel Defoe is likely to write any more books, so royalties should be unexpected for a work that old.
On the other hand, a new book by Stephen King will undoubtedly sell several hundred thousand copies, and has a potential economic value in the millions in the first year of publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without law, all we have left is the right of force
There are, of course, economic distinctions that can be made concerning tangible and intangible goods created by people. We do not, however, reside in a world driven solely by economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. But if you're saying that the only reason tangible and intangible goods are treated differently is due to economics, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct regarding property. I have seen those over at AgainstMonopoly.org argue that property rights have existed longer than intellectual property rights, but they are wrong. Modern concepts of property rights (essentially, transfers of title and individual ownership) have only existed since about the 15th century, which is about the time that intellectual property's modern concepts came into being.
Without law, all we have left is the right of force, and intellectual property is just as amenable to the right of force (as we have seen) as tangible property is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I had to do a little digging, but the parentally implanted definition of stealing that I gave you is biblically oriented.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=155
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will give techdirt credit that it limits its comments to economics and does not approve of unauthorized copying. Unfortunately, some of its readers fail to see this important distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lonnie, it is legitimately a debatable point, but outside the scope of this discussion, which is why I only mentioned it in passing. That you seem to think it represents a slippery slope on my part simply means you don't understand my position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:
(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(3) Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen; or
(4) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over any donated item left on the property of a charitable organization or in a drop box or trailer, or within 30 feet of a drop box or trailer, belonging to a charitable organization.
Notice the "with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property" part. You didn't mention that part, did you? Mere access or copying apparently isn't enough.
Well, you're really not doing yourself and favors with examples like that. In fact, you're only digging yourself in deeper. But go ahead, post citations (actual links to laws this time, please) to support the notion that unauthorized data access is defined as theft in 34 states. You only have 34 to go.
Hey, something we agree on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are so funny AC. ALL of chapter 8, meaning anything with the numeral "8" in the middle part of the code, is OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT. Seems to me that both the sections you provided above are, therefore, OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT.
You also neglected 13A-8-101. Definitions, which are the definitions for the section I quoted.
If you are going to combat me with facts, and accuse me of "cherry picking" portions of the code, at least you could get your facts straight.
Incidentally, here is a link to the correct portions of the code, since you seem to have difficulty finding them.
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alabama.txt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is the code and the definitions that go with...
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE 13. CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 23. ORGANIZED CRIME AND FRAUD
s 13-2316. COMPUTER fraud; classification
A. A person commits COMPUTER fraud in the first degree by accessing, altering,
damaging or destroying without authorization any COMPUTER, COMPUTER system,
COMPUTER network, or any part of such COMPUTER, system or network, with the
intent to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, or
control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises.
B. A person commits COMPUTER fraud in the second degree by intentionally and
without authorization accessing, altering, damaging or destroying any COMPUTER,
COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network or any COMPUTER software, program or data
contained in such COMPUTER, COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network.
C. COMPUTER fraud in the first degree is a class 3 felony. COMPUTER fraud in
the second degree is a class 6 felony.
E. For the purposes of s 13-2316:
1. "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
retrieve data from or otherwise make use of any resources of a COMPUTER,
COMPUTER system or COMPUTER network.
2. "COMPUTER" means an electronic device which performs logic, arithmetic or
memory functions by the manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and
includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or communication
facilities which are connected or related to such a device in a system or
network.
3. "COMPUTER network" means the interconnection of communication lines with a
COMPUTER through remote terminals or a complex consisting of two or more
interconnected COMPUTERS.
4. "COMPUTER program" means a series of instructions or statements, in a form
acceptable to a COMPUTER, which permits the functioning of a COMPUTER system in
a manner designed to provide appropriate products from such COMPUTER system.
5. "COMPUTER software" means a set of COMPUTER programs, procedures and
associated documentation concerned with the operation of a COMPUTER system.
6. "COMPUTER system" means a set of related, connected or unconnected COMPUTER
equipment, devices and softwares.
7. "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate of
deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card or marketable security
or any other written instrument, as defined by s 13-2001, paragraph 7, which is
transferable for value.
8. "Property" means financial instruments, information, including
electronically produced data, COMPUTER software and programs in either machine
or human readable form, and anything of value, tangible or intangible.
9. "Services" includes COMPUTER time, data processing and storage functions.
And a link...
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Arizona.txt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone that claims to only care about the legal definitions, you certainly seem more than willing to use your own custom ones when it suits your purposes. Fraud isn't theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except, despite what the article claims, he wasn't. After a little searching, I was able to locate what the actual charges were: 1 count of intentionally causing damage to a protected computer, and 4 counts of extortion. Not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Axel is on drugs
After coming 1½ hour late to their own concert, there was like 10 or 15 min. "breaks" several times during the concert where most of the band members, including Axel, was just standing and doing nothing, looking at thin air, and nobody had any idea about what was going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's All In The Game
2. Composer adds music.
3. Vocalist adds vocals.
4. Arranger hires additional musicians to provide orchestration.
5. Producer and Director and Manager add percentages for their expertise in coordinating above.
6. Studio adds hourly charges for allowing above activities using their equipment and facilities.
7. Technicians create "masters" and send to factory.
8. Factory produces CDs.
9. Distributors deliver CDs to retail stores.
10.Promoters send hype to radio station PMs and Variety and Billboard to create artificial demand for CD.
11.Retailers add markup and sell to customers.
12.If customer tells friend about songs, OK. If they make copy for friend, attorney will sue them for deprivation of profits or violations of usage restrictions.
Add more steps if DVD is also made, or if performer makes tour to promote sales of CDs or DVDs.
To perpetuate this expensive system, it is necessary to KEEP it intact. If it is possible to cut out the studio or the factory or the distributor, and allow a PROFIT to be made by increasing volume by selling the product for ten percent of the usual retail price, then more attorneys must be hired to squelch any such attempt.
Cash flow if more important than net profits, control of factories and contracts and tens of thousands of "essential" employees is more important than making a product available to MORE listeners at a CHEAPER price by cutting out all kinds of superfluous steps, processes, and stages.
I went to the store today and saw "previously viewed" DVDs for sale which were actually brand NEW COUNTERFEITS. The same Chinese manufacturers who are contacting with the "big boys" to make their CDs and DVDs are selling them out the back door for 25% of the retail price, yet the industry concentrates on harassing their customers (the fans and buyers of their products) instead of going after their so-called "partners" in crime.
I guess by the same logic, Universities, when they sell season football tickets in bulk, will restrict the seat they "own" to only the purchaser. They will not allow you to buy 12 tickets and let you and your co-worker take turns sitting in the seat during different games.
What is this world coming to? Screw the customer is apparently the modern way of doing business, since Capitalism has become so shareholder centered and so anti-customer.
Now might be a good time for EVERYBODY to stop buying CDs and DVDs from the big four. That should put them out of business, or make them more compliant and reasonable. We are witnessing "union-busting" going on at GMC right now. Maybe it's time for some "music industry busting" now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once, Twice,...
Twice now you've misrepresented citations. You know what they say: "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, I have no intention of there being a third time. As such, I'm through following your deceptive wild goose chases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once, Twice,...
Alabama:
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alabama.txt
Alaska:
http:// nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Alaska.txt
California:
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/comp uterlaw/Californ.txt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once, Twice,...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once, Twice,...
http://nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computerlaw/Colorado.txt
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 5.5. COMPUTER CRIME
C.R.S. 18-5.5-102 (1990)
18-5.5-102. Computer crime
(1) Any person who knowingly uses any computer, computer system,
computer network, or any part thereof for the purpose of devising
or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud; obtaining money,
property, or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises; using the property or services of
another without authorization; or committing theft commits computer
crime.
(2) Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses,
alters, damages, or destroys any computer, computer system, or
computer network described in section 18-5.5-101 or any computer
software, program, documentation, or data contained in such
computer, computer system, or computer network commits computer
crime.
(3) If the loss, damage, or thing of value taken in violation of
this section is less than fifty dollars, computer crime is a class
3 misdemeanor; if fifty dollars or more but less than three hundred
dollars, computer crime is a class 2 misdemeanor; if three hundred
dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, computer crime
is a class 5 felony; if ten thousand dollars or more, computer
crime is a class 3 felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once, Twice,...
Delaware calls obtaining data from a computer without authorization "theft of computer services." So, obtaining data illegally is theft. Hmmm...imagine that.
link:
http://mobile.delaware.gov/decode/title11/c005/sc03/page.php?sec=933
The law:
TITLE 11
Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Criminal Code
CHAPTER 5. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
Subchapter III. Offenses Involving Property
§ 933. Theft of computer services.
A person is guilty of the computer crime of theft of computer services when the person accesses or causes to be accessed or otherwise uses or causes to be used a computer system with the intent to obtain unauthorized computer services, computer software or data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to you to become such a turd in the last few days? Loose your job? Divorce? Dog run away? I feel like I'm watching an episode of "Retarded Policeman"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think I am getting tired of fighting nonsense. You have a point, you state facts, and people sit there and claim you have lost credibility, are a liar, and worse. *sigh* I enjoy a little intellectual discussion, but when it degrades the way this one has, it is depressing and annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GNR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking what is not yours...
I see. So it is not okay to take another child' bike, but it is okay to copy a story he wrote. I disagree. Regardless of whether it is tangible property or intellectual property, if the property is not yours, you should not take it. However, this restriction is only a legal one and a biblical one, so if you wish to flaunt laws and the bible, then I am unable to say much more to you.
I bet you are also a driver who thinks a stop sign means "slow down," turn signals are optional, and you finally turn your car lights on when it is so dark that even the owls are asleep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking what is not yours...
Since the topic doesn't really concern flaunting either, I'm not sure what the point is. The question was never whether what occurred was legal, it was whether it made sense (business or otherwise) for it to be illegal.
I bet you are also a driver who thinks a stop sign means "slow down," turn signals are optional, and you finally turn your car lights on when it is so dark that even the owls are asleep.
Gotta love meaningless and inaccurate conjecture based on an apparent misunderstanding of a person's viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking what is not yours...
So it is not okay to take another child' bike, but it is okay to copy a story he wrote. I disagree.
I particularly like the fact that you stuck with the example of a child to infer a moral dilemma with copying a story. It is not okay legally to copy the story, but there isn't really any moral issue.
While he should certainly receive credit for his authorship, saying that stories can be owned and should not be copied is contrary to common sense. Many folk tales, legends, tall tales, and other stories would not be in existence today without people copying, sharing, and embellishing them. To suggest that some grievous sin was committed by the copying and sharing of them is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
Even to this day authors embellish each others' stories and build on their realities. There have been an array of authors who have shared realities, and it works well. Certainly I think such possibilities should exist. However, copying the original stories on which these exist is morally wrong, particularly when, as in my example, one child copies another child's story, because the copying child will invariable claim the story was his or her own. Even if the child were to copy the original child's story and advise one and all that the story was someone else's, the child should get permission for the copying, or the child would still be morally wrong because he took a story that did not belong to him or her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
So passing along a story ad infinatum is acceptable if done by the simple telling of the story, and morally reprehensible if done by the copying of text? A story is still intangible, so I fail to see how a fixed medium allows for the inclusion of some morality clause against copying it.
the child should get permission for the copying, or the child would still be morally wrong because he took a story that did not belong to him or her.
I have no desire to re-argue the point on whether "intellectual property" constitutes real property at the moment. It leads to me constantly correcting the misunderstandings, inaccurate analogies, and poor examples thrown up to misrepresent my position by the opposing side. Additionally, such a discussion would be even further off topic than we already are, which is why I have tried to avoid it in my previous comments on this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
First, telling of stories has never been protected, by anyone, until such stories were recorded in a fixed media, including video, audio, print, or digital. So, yes, passing along a story ad infinitum in a verbal tradition is not only morally acceptable, in the morality of those societies with such traditions, it was a requirement of being the member of such a society.
However, society's rules changed with the fixing of print media, when society realized that uncontrolled copying of works led to undesired outcomes, the most dramatic being errors or inaccuracies between editions, and no one knew which edition was correct or at least "authorized."
Cultures evolve. Some societies still have oral traditions where "copying," or passing along of oral culture, is a requirement of the society. However, these societal norms are taught to the children of that society.
Other societies have societal norms that categorize certain behaviors as morally wrong, such as taking without permission what belongs to someone else. When you grow up into these societies those norms should be passed onto the next generation either by parental and educational teaching and by fixed laws.
Though you do not wish to get into a discussion on whether intellectual property is "real" property, I make only one comment. Legally, intellectual property is as "real" as any property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking what is not yours...
In that you can own a patent or a copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]