Your point is taken but I think the difference is more semantic in nature than anything else, as I replied to Mike in my above comment. He says like you that because one would copy something, that it is a + and not a - therefore its not theft. Help me see why it's entirely different. I feel like its theft in a sense that one obtains something in a manner that's not authorized.
I can't say that aren't justifying anything. You point to Pogue's assessment of what happened in the article, and then say his point is clear, and proceed to say why you think it is, and that WE'VE been arguing this for awhile. In my mind, it appears you agree with him, maybe you don't, however your points of contention with my post would suggest you do.
If copying something as you say is not taking anything anyway, and only adding, and therefore not stealing, then why don't you use file sharing sites? Why only acquire intellectual property from sources that provide it freely? You would be simply promoting it as this article suggests by the young woman obtaining the sheet music. ( I did read the entire article about the communication between the composer and the aspiring musician.)
Intellectual property is impossible to steal in the sense that reproducing a copyrighted work never takes the work from the author, it simply adds another copy. That's inherent in the nature of what we are discussing. I agree with that, but the unauthorized reproduction is what is considered the crime here.
Copyright laws allow for the copying of intellectual property for personal use, and preservation if the copy was legally obtained, so copying in and of itself is not the issue.
While unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works may have beneficial side affects to the author, does not negate the illegality of the initial action. As you state, anyone can create anything and distribute it freely if they choose.
This is why my main point is that I feel we should be arguing whether or not copyrighting a song, the music, for instance should at all be allowed. If we can prove that unauthorized copy and distribution of I.P. has no negative effects on the author, the end result would be the same with or without it, then what is the point of copyright to begin with?
The counterpoints that you make in your reply seem to be semantic in nature, taking away as opposed to adding.
So if someone has something tangible or intangible that they didn't incur cost to obtain, than the concept of theft of that property disappears because no value was lost?
"It's really a question of whether you're looking at what the law says or what the technology allows. Those who stick by the law are missing out on why the law is outdated, and purposely shutting yourself off from the wonderful things technology can do makes very little sense."
Technology allows me to pick the lock on your front door and disable your alarm. So it's alright for me to enter your home and steal your shit? Also I feel that the value of the possessions you own may be lost if I don't take them, so I am doing you, myself and the world a favor?
Come on.
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should, or that it's inherently right because we can.
The notion that we should take something that isn't ours, because it would be otherwise lost to future generations, while sounding noble, is still wrong. The motives may be pure, but to say by any means necessary really isn't.
Why can't the authors of this intellectual property preserve their work for future generations in the same way the article describes the millions of monkeys uploading sheet music to an online repository do. For the smart ass that will state that Bach had nowhere to upload his work to, of course he would have had to do it by other means, but I hope you all get my point there. After all the author should have more reason to save his or her work for posterity than anyone else.
It's not like we're even debating stealing for the sake of survival, or necessity. I steal some bread and milk, so that my family doesn't go hungry. I still think it's wrong, but more so understandable. To me, this is more of a gray area than obtaining copyrighted material, however still wrong.
Maybe the debate should be whether or not its justified for someone to want to have there intellectual property noted somewhere to be original to them, therefore allowing them to use it exclusively, while holding someone accountable for using it, or merely possessing it without their permission. This seems more to the point.
The argument I feel here is wrong.
I liken it to the debate over this Arizona immigration law. The current administration wants to sue the state on the grounds that the law amounts to racial profiling, which is totally disingenuous given the fact that it mirrors to an extent the federal law, and also falls short because in the federal law, the gov't needs no cause to question your citizenship. they can do it as they see fit.
The argument should be whether or not the state has the rights to enforce immigration law. Whether or not it is constitutionally allowed for a state to pass such a law.
On these grounds the law may be illegal, not because it promotes profiling, or questioning without cause.
We need to make the right argument.
As far I am concerned, and I realized to some people right and wrong is subjective, right and wrong do not change with time and technology, people change, and therefore try to move the line in the sand so they always remain on the side of right.
Full disclosure, I have obtained copyrighted material by means which I consider wrong, but I don't try to justify it simply because I could do it, or did do it.
I tend to agree with you.
I'm not so informed on wireless data transmissions or software dev to form my own decisive opinion on what Google did here but my logic led me to believe this: http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100622/0340389918#c1447
Just from reading your perspective, I felt your knowledgeable enough to say what you have said so I want to ask you do you agree with my assessment. Its from a logical general standpoint. I do have experience in IT, PC Tech support and general networking, but like I said not so much with programming and wireless data trans. I have seen what I felt were knowledgeable opinions defending Google, but still feel they were aware of what they were doing.
I tend to agree with you.
I'm not so informed on wireless data transmissions or software dev to form my own decisive opinion on what Google did here but my logic led me to believe this:
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100622/0340389918#c1447
Just from reading your perspective, I felt your knowledgeable enough to say what you have said so I want to ask you do you agree with my assessment. Its from a logical general standpoint. I do have experience in IT, PC Tech support and general networking, but like I said not so much with programming and wireless data trans. I have seen what I felt were knowledgeable opinions defending Google, but still feel they were aware of what they were doing.
I don't understand wireless data transmissions and software development thoroughly enough to formulate my own opinion whether capturing these payloads packets was intentional or not but I still have a question maybe someone can answer.
From what I understand or from what this article states, Google only needed MAC addresses and signal strength data from these unsecured wifi networks. This was sufficient for what it wanted to do, but because they were using some code originally designed for another project, in this instance it ended up capturing more data than it needed, and stored it.
Google continued to do this for 3 years. Its the length of time they were doing it which gets me because as soon as it was "brought to their attention", they apologized, said it was accidental and not only agreed to stop sniffing payload packets, they decided to stop sniffing altogether.
Let's say it was accidental because of the code borrowing (if I can say it like that), and they didn't re-review the already functioning code. Wouldn't they have reviewed the data they captured and noticed the unwanted, or unneeded data long before it was brought to their attention by another party?
If yes, then weren't they just leaving themselves open to being looked at as invading privacy by not modifying the code to not do this? If they were doing nothing illegal by simply storing that data, then shouldn't they just stand behind their practice? I could see the argument to stop it all just because its not worth the bad pr, and users may still perceive it as an invasion of privacy and move away from Google, but by apologizing for it, and then stopping altogether, seems to me like an admission of wrongdoing of somekind in itself, making the apology warranted, but then leaving the question was it intentional or not.
If no, and there are people out there who think or know that Google could have done this for 3 years without realizing it was capturing data that might either get them in trouble or was legal but would still cause them a headache, then alright. I really don't know enough about it to say otherwise. This would also most likely be their defense if it was illegal.
In my limited opinion, its hard for me to believe they simply never noticed they were collecting this data during the 3 years, but this is why I ask?
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the true debate here?
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re: Re: What is the true debate here?
If copying something as you say is not taking anything anyway, and only adding, and therefore not stealing, then why don't you use file sharing sites? Why only acquire intellectual property from sources that provide it freely? You would be simply promoting it as this article suggests by the young woman obtaining the sheet music. ( I did read the entire article about the communication between the composer and the aspiring musician.)
Intellectual property is impossible to steal in the sense that reproducing a copyrighted work never takes the work from the author, it simply adds another copy. That's inherent in the nature of what we are discussing. I agree with that, but the unauthorized reproduction is what is considered the crime here.
Copyright laws allow for the copying of intellectual property for personal use, and preservation if the copy was legally obtained, so copying in and of itself is not the issue.
While unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works may have beneficial side affects to the author, does not negate the illegality of the initial action. As you state, anyone can create anything and distribute it freely if they choose.
This is why my main point is that I feel we should be arguing whether or not copyrighting a song, the music, for instance should at all be allowed. If we can prove that unauthorized copy and distribution of I.P. has no negative effects on the author, the end result would be the same with or without it, then what is the point of copyright to begin with?
The counterpoints that you make in your reply seem to be semantic in nature, taking away as opposed to adding.
Mike, is this article copyrighted?
Thanks for the reply, I welcome the conversation.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
The argument of no loss no foul.......
Come on
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
What is the true debate here?
Technology allows me to pick the lock on your front door and disable your alarm. So it's alright for me to enter your home and steal your shit? Also I feel that the value of the possessions you own may be lost if I don't take them, so I am doing you, myself and the world a favor?
Come on.
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should, or that it's inherently right because we can.
The notion that we should take something that isn't ours, because it would be otherwise lost to future generations, while sounding noble, is still wrong. The motives may be pure, but to say by any means necessary really isn't.
Why can't the authors of this intellectual property preserve their work for future generations in the same way the article describes the millions of monkeys uploading sheet music to an online repository do. For the smart ass that will state that Bach had nowhere to upload his work to, of course he would have had to do it by other means, but I hope you all get my point there. After all the author should have more reason to save his or her work for posterity than anyone else.
It's not like we're even debating stealing for the sake of survival, or necessity. I steal some bread and milk, so that my family doesn't go hungry. I still think it's wrong, but more so understandable. To me, this is more of a gray area than obtaining copyrighted material, however still wrong.
Maybe the debate should be whether or not its justified for someone to want to have there intellectual property noted somewhere to be original to them, therefore allowing them to use it exclusively, while holding someone accountable for using it, or merely possessing it without their permission. This seems more to the point.
The argument I feel here is wrong.
I liken it to the debate over this Arizona immigration law. The current administration wants to sue the state on the grounds that the law amounts to racial profiling, which is totally disingenuous given the fact that it mirrors to an extent the federal law, and also falls short because in the federal law, the gov't needs no cause to question your citizenship. they can do it as they see fit.
The argument should be whether or not the state has the rights to enforce immigration law. Whether or not it is constitutionally allowed for a state to pass such a law.
On these grounds the law may be illegal, not because it promotes profiling, or questioning without cause.
We need to make the right argument.
As far I am concerned, and I realized to some people right and wrong is subjective, right and wrong do not change with time and technology, people change, and therefore try to move the line in the sand so they always remain on the side of right.
Full disclosure, I have obtained copyrighted material by means which I consider wrong, but I don't try to justify it simply because I could do it, or did do it.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
your insights on this
I'm not so informed on wireless data transmissions or software dev to form my own decisive opinion on what Google did here but my logic led me to believe this:
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100622/0340389918#c1447
Just from reading your perspective, I felt your knowledgeable enough to say what you have said so I want to ask you do you agree with my assessment. Its from a logical general standpoint. I do have experience in IT, PC Tech support and general networking, but like I said not so much with programming and wireless data trans. I have seen what I felt were knowledgeable opinions defending Google, but still feel they were aware of what they were doing.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
your insights on this
I'm not so informed on wireless data transmissions or software dev to form my own decisive opinion on what Google did here but my logic led me to believe this:
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100622/0340389918#c1447
Just from reading your perspective, I felt your knowledgeable enough to say what you have said so I want to ask you do you agree with my assessment. Its from a logical general standpoint. I do have experience in IT, PC Tech support and general networking, but like I said not so much with programming and wireless data trans. I have seen what I felt were knowledgeable opinions defending Google, but still feel they were aware of what they were doing.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
General question regarding this issue....
Next >>