A Thief Is A Thief Is A Thief
Do you steal CDs from a store? Do you or have you engaged in illegal downloading? Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America, lays it out:
When we do or say something that might not square with our image of ourselves as 'good people,' we quickly adopt some form of the belief that our victim "had it coming." The operant concept behind this phenomenon is "cognitive dissonance," which is defined as, "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously."...Once people adjust their thinking to justify their behavior, it is practically impossible to change that behavior. It is just too painful to admit when you have knowingly been doing something inexcusable. It is much easier to continue making excuses.
For example, Carnes' top 10 rationalizations to avoid:
1. Artists aren't getting paid anyway.
2. Artists and songwriters are all rich, and don't need the money.
3. Record labels need a new business model.
4. Stolen music promotes live shows.
5. Stolen songs don't displace a sale, (the perp wouldn't buy it anyway.)
6. I want it all my way, and I want it now (convenience).
7. Destroy the 'gatekeepers' and the little guy wins.
8. Information wants to be free!
9. Illegal downloading is 'sticking it to the man!'
10. The copyright term of protection is too long.
A song or piece of writing or cartoon is somebody else's property, same as a TV. If you wouldn't steal a TV, why do you think it's okay to steal somebody's intellectual property?
I downloaded free songs during my freshman year in college, back before the crackdown. I didn't even really justify it, it was just "someone is choosing to share a song, so I'll download it." I never even thought about it. When Lars Ulrich started making a fuss about Napster, I started thinking and was appalled at myself.
I think a lot of people my age that were illegally downloading weren't even really thinking about it. In 2001, downloading songs was still pretty new and we were excited that we could get it for free. Unfortunately, most of my contemporaries went on to start justifying their behavior in the ways listed above. I can't tell you how man times I heard #2, #5, and #9 from people at my college.
We've talked about buying knockoff fashion on here before, and it's the same concept. I have, on two separate occasions, bought shoes that I later found out were designer knockoffs (one for me, one as a gift). Like exact knockoffs minus the designer logo. Designs are intellectual property, too, so it's stealing to use them, even if you change just enough so you won't get sued.
My old store used to sell bags and accessories that were Coach knockoffs, with the logo and everything. One day we had to send everything back because of a "print issue." The next time we got them back in, the prints and logos had changed slightly. Corporate was obviously either sued or under the threat of suit. Several of us wrote in to the corporate office to ask them to stop buying those bags and things. Nothing ever came of it, but we did express our displeasure.
Funny sidebar: whenever I hear "intellectual property" now, I think of Mitchell from "Modern Family" stealing the intellectual property of a toddler.
NumberSix at June 9, 2010 1:42 AM
This is actually consistent across public opinions!
"6. I want it all my way, and I want it now (convenience)."
That sums up the position of drug users nicely. Screw the law - gimme that hit!
Radwaste at June 9, 2010 2:34 AM
... on the other hand, copyright law has always been careful to anchor rights to a concrete (sometimes physical) embodiment of creative work.
There's a fine line here - after you release your handbag design/song/novel to the world, it's part of a larger zeitgeist that others (are free to) react and respond to.
Frank Gehry can't sue another architect who designs a building inspired by his stylistic and technological innovations. Yet his "expressive medium" is more permanent than music - which until rather recently was one of the most ephemeral expressions around.
The idea that a specific performance of music or dance can be copyrighted is very new. And digital technology has made the "concrete manifestation" of these recorded performances less concrete/unique.
We are just now working out how copyright law extends into the digital realm without choking the free exchange of ideas.
Ben David at June 9, 2010 4:55 AM
I don't download illegal music but there is a plausible case to be made that Napster et al. dragged the music industry kicking and screaming into providing what their customers wanted. There was an entertaining article in the Atlantic a few years ago comparing the controversy over Napster to the leg-breaking attempts by sheet music printers to prevent illegal copying at the turn of the 20th century:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/09/mann.htm
Astra at June 9, 2010 5:46 AM
You are absolutely correct. From a personal stand point, when I go to internet debate sights, I typically post articles along with a link to the author. The other day I ran into a situation where I was not able to link. So instead I just used information created by others. Since I was not able to use my traditional means of attribution - a link - I did not mention where the information originated.
Later I felt badly about that. I know I would not want others to copy my writings. So in the future if something similar occurs, I'll handle the situation better and mention the authors name. Doing so might be helpful to me in more ways than one!
If there is any consolation, the information used went over like a lead ballon in the debate. As I joked to myself, instead of seeing the wisdom of my views and information copied, others in the debate dug in their heals and became angrier. It probably was for the best that I was not able to link!
Rodeo at June 9, 2010 6:04 AM
When I was a kid we used to "double tape" songs. I even had a special ghetto blaster to do that. We also used to tape songs off of the radio.
Karen at June 9, 2010 6:06 AM
Good point Astra - without Napster, the music industry might still be hawking $15-$20 CDs with one hit song and nine pieces of crap. Yes, it's illegal, but it also forced the industry to embrace a new, much more consumer-friendly means of legal distribution sooner than it would have voluntarily.
I downloaded many "free" songs in college, justifying it to myself with the argument that I had dropped tons of money on CDs previously, paying for songs I didn't want, just to get the one or two I did. But ever since iTunes I've paid for every song I have.
Tom at June 9, 2010 6:13 AM
I don't, didn't and won't. Too bad for the music industry that they produce almost nothing I want to buy.
Since my music collection is now almost entirely on CDs, I expect it to outlast me.
MarkD at June 9, 2010 6:26 AM
I assume when I download from iTunes that the appropriate royalties are collected.
My problem is when RIAA and ASCAP sues and fines owners of nightclubs where bands perform covers of other bands' songs. I suppose ASCAP should also sue Harry Connick, Jr. and Michael Buble for copying Frank Sinatra's phrasing and style.
SicSemperTyrannus at June 9, 2010 6:31 AM
I have downloaded songs for free. I hated making MP
3s and converting them with the CDs I owned.. Facts are when the shitstorm hit with Napster they didn't care if you already had the cd or not.. There were cases just like mine too. Downloading is not always theft and sometimes an easier way to get a digital copy of something you already have on tape or CD.. Anybody ever tried making a music file from a tape. I can honestly say I would rather tear my own arm off than try again.
My children are dyslexic and I have bought them all music players so we can download books that are being read by other people. It is actually perfectly legal and many of the books are new. Some people download them to get the book for free but my goal is to have the kids reading along-book in hand. Yes if you haven't paid for what you are taking it is theft. The problem is the system of prosecution does not differentiate between me and a thief.. I am not a thief. I am a person utilizing technology to improve mine and my children's lives. I pay for what I take but even if I am waving the CD in their face they would still prosecute me.. So screw them. IF I have to help the thieves by being opposed to all the stuff the music industry is doing then so be it.
My husband, a lifelong fan of Metallica, still can't bring himself to listen to their music never mind download it for free. As a teenager they encouraged people to bring recorders and let them record stuff. And then they went all anal about it. That is what had most metal heads pissed off. It was the hypocrisy and the sudden "We are above you" attitudes..
josephineMO7 at June 9, 2010 6:40 AM
http://www.cracked.com/funny-2153-riaa/
Tyler at June 9, 2010 7:14 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_17198_5-great-men-who-built-their-careers-on-plagiarism.html
Tyler at June 9, 2010 7:20 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_16072_5-famous-inventors-who-stole-their-big-idea.html
Tyler at June 9, 2010 7:21 AM
I hate the way our system is set up now, and Apple is one of the worst with this. When I bought my first tape back in the 80s (a New Kids on the Block album, BTW), I could do whatever I wanted with the music within the limits of personal use. When I tried the same thing with my music from iTunes, it was like trying to break the DaVinci code. I have music on my iPod (which was formatted for Mac when I had an iBook), music on my computer (a PC) and music on our server, which we play through a home sound system. I shouldn't have to pay for those songs three times. Amazon is better about this.
The same goes for eBooks. I should have the right to sell the book or give it away when I'm done with it, but the current setup would force me and my husband to buy individual copies of the same book or newspaper subscription. That's crazy. If I had a paper copy, I could just hand it to him when I was done.
And when I was playing Sims 2, the DRM was such that if you had to install the game more than 3 times, you had to deal with the company's customer service to get the passsword reset. I blew threw all three installs on the first try because something was making my computer crash, and I'd have to reboot. Besides, if I had 8 computers in my house and wanted to install the software on all 8 computers, I should be able to do that. I bought it!
I completely understand why people resort to stealing this stuff. I bought a legitimate copy and eventually wished I HAD stolen it.
MonicaP at June 9, 2010 7:26 AM
Something to keep in mind is that this phenomenon affects not only music but film, television, print, and graphics. It's a primary driver behind the decline in TV and film budgets, by both reducing the return on new releases and eroding catalog values. In this sense the trend is somewhat self limiting, because the more prone to theft the public becomes, the less investment there will be in TV and film production, which will reduce the quality and variety of properties, until there's not much that anyone even wants to steal.
The advocates of open sourcing creative works really haven't come up with a persuasive solution to this problem. They tend to be Utopians, and frankly don't put much value in creative efforts. Underlying their arguments is the belief that creative work is almost solely motivated by the desire for self expression, and that artists will continue to produce the same quality of work regardless of the compensation they receive. This is why they tend to focus on music, where the production costs are typically lower, especially for popular music w/ small ensembles. But a single episode of a moderately expensive TV show may cost more than several fully produced albums. There's just no way that you've going to assemble an entire production team, w/ crew, creative and talent, for an entire season without paying them. It's just not going to happen.
Jack at June 9, 2010 7:39 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_18500_the-5-most-famous-musicians-who-are-thieving-bastards.html
Tyler at June 9, 2010 7:49 AM
The only pirating that I've ever been tempted to do is video games. It's not because I think I deserve the game for free or I want to stick it to the man or that kind of BS. But there are some ridiculous DRM protections some publishers use; it's kind of a special case.
I'm not saying that game publishers don't have the right to protect their IP, quite the contrary. But where non-pirated music is not functionally different to pirated music (pop it in your player and enjoy!) non-pirated games can have DRM so severe that it effectively breaks the game. Ubisoft's DRM for Assassin's Creed 2 requires a constant internet connection. If your connection goes down, so does the game. Spore only (initially) allowed three installs per CD-key, at which point you'd have to repurchase the game. DRM protected games are intentionally broken, you essentially have to pirate the game to get an unbroken game.
Of course, once again, this is software so it's a little special. Very rarely do you *own* a piece of software. Technically you just get a license to use it and they can set whatever terms they want for using it. Only plays on Windows ME on the second full moon in April? That's just the terms.
But, much as I'd like unbroken copies of games, I do the mature thing and just don't buy them. I'm not entitled to play AC2 however much I'd like to. I'll buy them for the console or just skip to the next game on my to-play list. And as much as the DRM (and anti-theft messages on my properly purchased DVDs) pisses me off so much that I want to steal for the spite of it. That's hardly adult either.
And of course I support publishers I think have struck a good balance between DRM, gameplay, and respecting their players. Blizzard has a pretty healthy attitude about it, no extreme DRM but they aren't afraid to hand out permabans to IP addresses.
Elle at June 9, 2010 7:54 AM
The concept of Intellectual Property is designed to be misleading. It conflates several very different concepts: copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets, none of which was originally intended under US law to take the form of a property right.
Copyrights and patents grant creators a monopoly over their works for a limited time in exchange for relinquishinging those rights to the public domain at the end of the copyright or patent term. Disney's biggest films from Snow White through The Little Mermaid and beyond are based on characters from works by other authors for which the copyright term has expired.
Unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works may be illegal and unethical under many circumstances, but it is not property in the same way a TV is. If Amy steals my TV, I no longer have it and can't watch it any more (not that I watch it much now). If I download a PDF of one of Amy's books from a filesharing site, a copy of the book doesn't disappear off her shelf. Note: this is not to say that she is unaffected by the download, just that theft is a poor description.
Some other countries, primarily in Europe, do grant authors a "moral" right over their creative works which is in some ways closer to a perpetual property right, but these rights are not recognized in the US.
Our models of creating, sharing and enjoying creative works and the methods of compensating the people who make them are changing rapidly and I don't think anyone can predict the details of how they will work in the future. We can assume that nearly all people will continue to enjoy creative works and some talented individuals will want to make them (and some will want to be paid for doing so). As we blindly grope our ways towards these new models, shouting "thief" is non-productive, as are the top ten rationalizations.
It always comes up in the context of these discussions, but I really like this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"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 in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Accuracy, please at June 9, 2010 8:15 AM
Intellectual Property is a term of art, it arises from the convention of utilizing the term property in association w/ intellectual works. It's not 'designed' to mislead anyone.
get it right at June 9, 2010 8:20 AM
1. Artists aren't getting paid anyway.
For the most part, they aren't. Amusing that the biggest thief on the block is lecturing the rest of us on the evils of theft.
As far as "intellectual property" being a term of art, it is the art of obsfucation, as that term covers patents, copyright and trade secrets. Which of these things are not like the others? answer: all of them.
Of course, then there's the various Disney Copyright Extension Acts. We're almost to the point of copyright being perpetual and never ending. This is directly in contradiction to the US Constitution, which states To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
It used to be that such "useful Arts" would lose protection at some point and enter into the public domain to be used - and usable - by anyone. Where would Disney be if the Brothers Grimm had a perpetual and never ending copyright on their stories?
As for me, if I like a song, I'll buy it. Preferably on a CD, so that I can create an audio file for my use. Most of the time, that consists making a duplicate copy of the CD and putting that in my car. If it is damaged or destroyed, I can make another one. No biggie.
Oh, wait, except the record labels consider that to be theft, too. Hey, there's an idea: call your customers thieves! How is that working for ya? oh, yea, not so good.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 9, 2010 8:41 AM
Darth you obviously don't have any background in IP, so please don't lecture. What you're conveying here isn't accurate.
get it right at June 9, 2010 8:59 AM
I too am always surprised by the rationalization of people to stealing.
But that being said we do need to rework our pattent and copywright laws.
Patents last a little too short a time. You have to prove you created it, that it works, that it is unique. And that it is not obvious.
Copywrights last WAY too long a time. Especially with the giving of copywrights to non-living things like companies. And freely given as soon as created. If I write down a grocery list, it technically is copywrighted, for approximately the next 90 yrs.
Joe at June 9, 2010 9:47 AM
get it right, you make a fair point. It was probably too strong for me to say that the term intellectual property was "designed" to be misleading. I think it would be more accurate to say that the use of the term in the press and public discourse (as opposed to a legal term of art) at times intentionally conflates the differences between copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret protections.
We have seen some of this confusion in the discussion here today. Fashion designs are not (so far as I know) subject to copyright, but a designer's logo can certainly be a trademark and knockoffs use fake logos to intentionally misrepresent their products as those of the trademark holder.
Accuracy, please at June 9, 2010 9:48 AM
Just to get this out of the way: I'm not in favor of downloading illegal copies of music, movies, games or any other licensed content. Doing that is clearly wrong.
That said, the point Ben-David made above is correct: we need to determine how to manage intellectual property in the digital age in such a way as to avoid choking off free expression. Current laws are clearly not up to the task.
Videos of kids dancing on YouTube are removed because a Prince song incidental to the video is playing the background. People are sued into bankruptcy because their kids downloaded some music (the statutory penalties are far in excess of the actual damages the record companies suffered from those acts). Artists who make mash-ups that create new art from existing art are subject to heavy penalties. It is against the law to copy a DVD you bought to the hard drive of your computer. The RIAA considers it making an illegal copy when you take a CD you have purchased and rip it to play on your computer or MP3 player. There is no good way to share an eBook you purchased with a friend, short of handing over your reader. DRM makes it problematic to buy a track from the iTunes store and load it on to anything that isn't an iPod (this isn't impossible, but does require technical skills beyond the average person, and creating a software program to help the less-technically inclined is also illegal).
Much of the law and technology surrounding IP harms lawful users more than it protects the rights of creators. Intelligent and flexible licensing seems a better solution for keeping people paying for content than the ever more draconian laws favored by the MPAA and RIAA.
This piece is a good read on some of the issues in this post:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html
Christopher at June 9, 2010 10:45 AM
The problem here is that Intellectual Property is a confusing idea, as the arguments above can attest to. This needs to be explained in a very concrete and NOT legal-eze way.
Do I own a CD or not? Do I own it's contents? what can I use them for? Can I re-sell this CD? Can I buy a Used CD?
If there is no physical CD, and I get a song from iTunes... what do I OWN? What is the limit I can use it for? Can I share it, the way I share my CD's? Can I re-sell it?
This applies to books, this applies to other types of art... If you own a Picasso painting, and you sell it, do you owe money to his estate? The work, the ideas, the style are all his.
If I build a house identical to Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water, do I have to pay his estate? What if I significantly upgrade it to modern construction?
This is NOWHERE near as straight-foreward as people argue.
An Idea is not a TV set. If it was, then we would have to pay the inventor of the TV set everytime we bought or sold one.
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Meh, I can't feel sorry for the music industry. They've done it to themselves (via price collusion on discs in the 90s), same with software pubs and DRM. They're all just shitting on their legit customers which often drives said customers to pirate. I actually bought a CD last month, first one in 2-3 years, mostly because it had a dvd with it of the band's various live performances. I don't listen to much music anymore.
Sio at June 9, 2010 10:57 AM
"Oh, wait, except the record labels consider that to be theft, too. Hey, there's an idea: call your customers thieves! How is that working for ya? oh, yea, not so good."
Darth has it right. If you are going to accuse me of stealing for utilizing something that I have paid for differently than you intended then when someone actually does steal and it upsets you it will make me less sympathetic to your loss..
It also makes me not believe you. Kinda like when woman make fake rape accusations and it makes the real ones less believable..
They claim to be prosecuting theft but if they consider what I do theft then how can I know the person they are charging actually stole, as in gained benefit while depriving them of profit, anything..
Elle,
My husband just bought the new sims game. He was hoping his character and mine could interact. I don't think they could even if we bought another copy. It is really difficult for us to find games to play together.. We have Borderlands for the 360 that does a really good job at multi-player but not many more than that..
josephineMO7 at June 9, 2010 11:14 AM
Oh, come on. Theft and infringement are not the same thing. When you steal something, you deprive the owner of its use -- if I steal your car, you can't drive it. Making an illegal copy doesn't affect anyone else's ability to use it. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's not theft. Assault is bad, but it isn't murder. Don't adopt the industry's self-serving rhetoric on this.
brett at June 9, 2010 11:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1721957">comment from brettTaking something that is for sale, that doesn't belong to you, is theft.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 11:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1721958">comment from Amy AlkonI discovered that a paper had been stealing my column for two years and publishing it in their paper. They got it via e-mail until they stopped paying for it, then they just stole it. I found out, and I have been making them pay for every column they ran.
I earn my livelihood with my writing, and if people take it, it's stealing and depriving me of my rightfully earned dollars.
PS You can not like what a record company charges, and if you don't, don't buy the item -- you don't get to steal it.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 11:31 AM
so, Amy, if I buy your book and read it... and then sell it to a used bookstore? What then?
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 11:44 AM
Amy:
Taking something that is for sale, that doesn't belong to you, is theft
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
... and as many other comments point out, digital distribution has forced the issue of just what it is that's for sale in a virtual/digital product, and what usage rights you have bought when you pay for it - and which usage is considered theft.
The law is in flux - and general assumptions and behavior of the population shape legal standards such as "reasonable use".
The law is also shaped by what is practically enforceable - another area where digital distribution has blown open a big hole.
Ben-David at June 9, 2010 11:47 AM
You're missing the point, Swiss Army D. If you bought the book from Amy, she made her money. She got paid for that copy of her work. And you wouldn't make any real money off the resale of her book---you wouldn't get back what you paid because a used book isn't worth as much as a new one.
The newspaper that stole her columns MADE money off Amy's work. Somebody bought the papers to read Amy's brand new column, not something published a year ago, and Amy didn't make her fair share of the paper's sale.
Jenny Had A Chance at June 9, 2010 11:51 AM
I volunteer at my public library and often there are folks sitting next to the CD or DVD racks pulling off CDs and burning them on to their computers (it's an assembly line--one of them perusing the shelves, pulling the stuff and handing it off to the 2 or 3 people sitting there with lap tops at the ready). The staff will ask them not to do it if they see it but they're usually short handed and just trying to keep up with the normal stuff. Usually the same folks. One day I saw our police chief come in with his kids and I hustled over to the children's department and bitched my little lungs out. 10 minutes later in walks our lovely downtown uniformed officer (who's retiring this month, I'll really miss her!) who proceeded to lurk behind the on duty library manager while the downloading folks are told they need to check out the materials before watching as it makes extra work for the staff to reshelve so many things at the end of the day.
I'm sure they just checked out the max and took them home and proceeded to steal that way but at least they aren't doing it in the library any more.
Nanc in Ashland at June 9, 2010 12:39 PM
I think Amy's completely wrong about this.
The price of recorded music for the past hundred years was tied to the price of the media upon which it was delivered them... Vinyl records had a cost no matter what was on them.
That price was a happenstance, ok? It was an accident. Those prices never reflected what stuff meant to people, or how they'd have preferred to consume the music.
Jagger recently talked about this: There was only a short period of time when people got rich making music. For most of the life of the record industry, the only ones who made money were the ones who forged the vinyl.
I have some sympathy with jazz and serious music people, but I don't think they were ever treated that well by the music business anyway.... I doubt Pat Metheny can tell the difference since the internet came along. He still tours, he stills sells a few records.
If people get Britney's records for free nowadays, it's because that's what it's worth to them. If her "intellectual property" is so fucking precious, she can fucking well keep it to herself. (Wouldn't that be great?)
For my entire childhood, assholes were able to rake in millions by exploiting a wrinkle of industry and physics, a wrinkle the internet has smoothed away.
Fuck 'em.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 12:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722006">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]If the recording isn't worth it to you to pay for, don't pay for it, but don't steal it.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 1:20 PM
Cluck if you want--- See what it gets you. That's just not how it works. These items are historically mispriced. Aren't you the one who routinely rails against the drug war?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 1:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722009">comment from SwissArmyDYou buy a physical object and you own that physical object, SwissArmy. You can resell the physical object, but you sure cannot, by virtue of buying my book, reprint it and sell the reprint. Those words are not yours to sell.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 1:22 PM
Try to understand what we're talking about. Music is a quintessentially human and vital thing. Technology has allowed it to be distributed as a dead article of craftsmanship, an item with an endless shelf life and no ongoing costs, maintenance or connection to its creator.
And you're saying the creator should be allowed to cast and endless number of perfect copies out into the world to lurk forever...
But when discovered, these impersonal articles engender in the discoverer the responsibility to pay a fee, without negotiation.
Good luck! Let us know how that works out!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 1:28 PM
I think the situation is MOST EXCELLENT. More people have more access to more kinds of music and more tools for music making and more HISTORY of music than ever before.
That's worth a few rock stars jonseing because they can't pay their drug dealers any more.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 1:30 PM
Hilarious and ironic that we are all reading this on a downloaded file.
I don't download illegal music, but copyrights meant for 1800's will not work in the age of digital reproduction. The internet is sharing... opening a webpage is downloading a file. I am not saying be illegal, but copyright's days are numbered.
Zen at June 9, 2010 2:33 PM
Yes, Amy but then that isn't what the problem with your original paragraph is then...
Downloading is buying OR selling, it's Sharing. If I create a mix tape for you with my favorite polkas on it, what have I done? I'm sharing with you something I have already paid for, actually a number of them. Similarly, but not usually a mix, if I loan your book out, I already own it.
How is it different when I put that mix tape on a network, and share it with 1000 of my close friends? How different is it, if instead of a mix tape, it's a CD full of MP3's?
If your book was fully on line, could I loan it to someone the way I loan a dog-eared copy? And WHY?
This is, I think, where our analogies are breaking, and we are arguing past each other. Your thoughts and ideas are yours, and my amusement at them is value add, but happens after you share them with me? Is it ok for me to share with 2 frineds directly, and why not 10 friends via network?
Do the words go through some kind of change depending?
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 3:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722027">comment from SwissArmyDSharing ideas is fine. Sharing the execution of those ideas is theft.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 3:29 PM
Copyright infringement is wrong, but really, it's not theft. By insisting it is, you weaken the argument against it by misstating it, the way the movie "Reefer Madness" undermined any valid arguments against marijuana use, the way you automatically lose an argument by invoking Hitler.
"Taking something that is for sale, that doesn't belong to you, is theft."
The word "Taking" implies removing. Copying illegally does not remove the original.
Copyright infringement is wrong because it breaks the social contract that makes it possible for artists, writers and musicians to be compensated for their work. It's illegal, and just like with immigration, even if you don't think the law is just, you should follow it and try to have it changed.
Rather than calling it stealing, we should compare it to someone moving into your house uninvited while you're on vacation. I wouldn't want that, it's a violation, even though they might claim that they left it in the same condition. "But we watered the plants!"
Anyway, it's the kind of semantic argument that distracts from what should be a discussion of how to fairly protect copyright and at the same time take advantage of technology.
clinky at June 9, 2010 4:35 PM
> how to fairly protect copyright and at the
> same time take advantage of technology.
Why protect copyright? Commenter Zen may be onto something. Protecting "copies" maybe be like protecting blacksmiths... Culture has moved on: horseshoes aren't a market we should have to spend a lot of effort defending anymore.
Listen, if you have a really good idea, and you want to keep it to yourself, do so. If you think hearing Britney sing the chorus of her #1 hit "He Had Me From Behind" is an experience for which she should be paid $2,000,000.00, well, that's OK with me. Go ahead— pay her fee, listen to a private performance, and I hope the transaction is a grand blessing to the both of you.
But she's packaged her work into some of the slipperiest ether humanity has ever devised: Binary data. Digital signals have been getting cheaper every day for my entire life, and there's no end in sight. She packaged it into that form because she wants lots of people to hear it.
Apparently she's not being compensated for her work at a rate she finds attractive. (The editors of the New York Times feel the same way.)
And that's a darned shame.
But it's not like she's doing anything special for anyone. Especially in the songwriting realm... People will do that for free! They enjoy it. There's no reason to pretend that some precious person deserves money for it if nobody wants to pay.
If you're reading this words, take this quiz (choose one):
[_] I have written a song.
[_] I have NOT written a song.
____________________________________
Personally —
[✔] I have NOT written a song.
— But I've made some interesting recordings, and I could amuse you with a guitar for two and a half minutes, if the mood was right. I wouldn't expect to be paid....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 5:01 PM
Creating and sharing a mix tape was still piracy. But it was limited...
...to how many tapes you could afford to buy and give away.
...to how many times you could record the music to make the tapes.
...to a much smaller scale than Napster.
...to a quality lower than an original since even a direct recording suffered some loss in tonal quality. That meant, to get the original, you had to buy it.
So, even though it was piracy, was mostly ignored.
However, a copy of a digital file suffers no loss in quality from the original. Even a copy of the copy suffers no loss of quality.
To put it in perspective, let's imagine you've created an analytical Excel model at work to project and analyze the profitabilty of a proposed product introduction. The model uses sales data, links to other data tabs, and complex formulas to calculate expected results. Imagine a coworker takes the model and, without giving you credit, uses different data and your model (your intellectual work) for an analysis of a different product introduction for which he receives recognition, a bonus, and a promotion. The analytical methodologies (NPV, IRR, Multiple Regression, etc.) used in the model are not yours (just as musical notes do not belong to the musician). The underlying operating software (Excel) is not yours (just like the concept of the musical instrument is not owned by the musician). But the time and effort it took to learn to write VBA, SQL, and code functions in Excel are yours. The method of combining all those things together into that particular analytical model are yours. No one else in the company could have done it but you. By using your work for himself without giving you credit, your coworker got your promotion and your raise. You've been robbed.
I don't have to imagine it. I've lived it.
So, while I despise record companies (where the hell is the $5 CD I was promised!) and while I find the "artistic" pretensions of bubble gum pop singers ludicrous, I sympathize with musicians who depend upon sales of their creative work for their livelihood.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2010 5:11 PM
No. Because when you loan the dog-eared copy, you don't have the copy anymore. When you "loan" an electronic file, you still have your copy.
Conan the Grammarian at June 9, 2010 5:15 PM
*and Crid's guitar solo brings down the house...*
"Sharing ideas is fine. Sharing the execution of those ideas is theft." Amy
That's my point Amy, you book IS the execution of your ideas into a physical and or digital medium. By that standard I can't sell OR share them.
If you use 1000 words to tell me something, the power is in the combination of words, arguably no one owns the words on their own. You execute a pattern on them, making the idea real.
This is the reason that people attribute and link idea, so that the original thinker is appropriately mentioned. But I don't owe them money for mentioning it, though they might try and sue me.
Even in other IP questions, like photography, the language is a bit difficult to understand. I stopped putting my portfolio online after a friend found out a company took an image and removed the watermark and used it unattributed. I fully understand the concept of owning the idea, the image, the memory, sound, etc.
but once you sell it to somebody, we come into a grey area, because what are you selling? 1001001SOS? As Crid mentioned it's especially ethereal when it's digital.
The above are just my thoughts, but why is it that I own them, now that they are out here? Arguments can be made both ways.
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 5:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722040">comment from SwissArmyDYou can make the argument that things should be different, just as I do with the laws against pot use, but the law is on the side of protecting people's creative work they choose to sell, which means I can afford to write books and my column.
Amy Alkon at June 9, 2010 5:28 PM
Well, I have two points for you.
It's market communication that makes your big dollars as a performer in the media. Where would you be if not for the Internet, television or radio? You'd still be as talented, but you be performing for family and friends, and farming, or working in a factory, for your livelihood. I know of four commercial-grade musicians where I work who simply can't make $$ playing music.
So, big question: why do you think you're entitled to a performance as your property?
If the importance of your intellectual property does not diminish, why is an older recording worth less?
We spend a lot of time pretending some things are important. Yes, I know it takes time and talent to build an album. And Auto-tune.
Now, for the second point: Sony is an important member of the RIAA. They actually sell disc duplicators. Gee, the irony.
Radwaste at June 9, 2010 5:32 PM
1001001SOS?
Fine Rush reference!
Radwaste at June 9, 2010 5:34 PM
There is a lot of misinformation masquerading as fact within these comments. The confusion is understandable because this is a very complicated area, even for IP lawyers (speaking as a lawyer who has worked in this area for 28 years). That makes it is inherently difficult to have a discussion about the topic among non-lawyers (or even with lawyers who don't work in this field).
It's hard to understand the concept of "theft" when you're not dealing with physical copies, and perhaps the semantics confuse the discussion. It may be helpful to understand that one of the principal aims of copyright law is to reward a creator by letting them control their work. That control includes the ability to profit economically, but it's not limited to that aspect.
So if you are a songwriter, you have the right to decide whether or not you want your song used in a particular film, and you can refuse to allow it whether it's because the film offends your sensibilities, or because the producer can't afford your rates - and this applies to someone who wants to lip-synch your song on YouTube, as well as a major studio release.
In other words, under copyright law, it's the creator's perogative to allow the use of his work or not - not the consumers', even if they can easily defeat any pragmatic limits with technology.
Interesting article from today's LA Times on a related topic - http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20100609,0,7911613.column
Melissa at June 9, 2010 6:01 PM
heh, Radwaste I started thinking binary, and the song started up in my head...
I'm not necessarily stating that the law should change because it's wrong, my point is that it's application is often tortured, because copyright law predates electronics. The law is understood to apply to things, and not ether. For example, I have MP3's on my computer. If I open that computer to the network without protecting them, the RIAA can sue me and win without proving that any of them were used by anyone else.
It's the presumption that they could be, because there is no easy way to figure it out. In this way, theory wise, capturing a STREAM, rather than downloading is also infringement, even though you could also do that with radio.
The thing was, they couldn't prove you had a tape recorder pressed up against the radio speaker to tape Love is Like Oxygen by Sweet in 1976. Oops.
Now, the RIAA pings networks all the time looking for places that are open to downloading.
When you accept the terms of use for most software, you are saying that you are paying to use it, you don't actually own it. Same with e-books. You don't own 'em like you own a print book, MERELY because Amazon has the ability to remove it from your kindle at will. Not because yu didn't pay for it, but because you don't actually own anything.
The idea of ownership is based on the idea of prosecuting that ownership, defending it, if you like. So, how is it that you own an idea? Or an electron? If you keep it in the castle of your brain, nobody can get it. Once out? it depends on if it's wanted or not, and how you prove it's yours.
It's easy to choose sides currently because the law is still applied as if it's the olden days. When everything is electronic, though, that isn't going to work. For one thing, a corporation will be able to appropriate an idea, and essentially make it appear as if it's theirs, and no one will be able to tell the difference. Importantly the individual will not be able to fight them, because they won't have the money to. How will they prove it's their original idea?
This is likely to get far worse before it gets better.
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 6:02 PM
> the law is on the side of protecting people's
> creative work they choose to sell
It ought not protect every market to every degree. If you took all the bills in your purse, Scotch™-taped them to the fence of your house, and came back an hour later to find them gone, would you expect the law to chase the "thieves"? (Sure, lady... We'll get right on it.) Digital media distribution is much slicker and more accessible than the fence of your house.
> By using your work for himself without giving
> you credit, your coworker got your promotion
> and your raise. You've been robbed.
>
> I don't have to imagine it. I've lived it.
You must, must read this book. While it may be too late in this case, it is possible to protect one's self from such cheats. (The sense of clarity you've gained from this episode already has no doubt helped.)
> I sympathize with musicians who depend
> upon sales of their creative work for
> their livelihood.
Who among us insists that they make a their livelihood that way? (Did you ever tell me I had to make a living as a video editor?) What's in it for me? If I hate their music and wish they'd become plumbers, can I save the communal cost of enforcing their 'rights'?
In LA we used to hear this from actors all the time. 'Hey man, how am I supposed to feed a family doing just extra work and two deodorant commercials a year?!??'
You're not, dude... You're a waiter because you're supposed to be a waiter. So how 'bout a warmup on this coffee, prompta-mundo?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 6:06 PM
Now that I see Mellissa's comment I have 2 things.
Once the creator sells the work, why do they still control it?
and
If laws are so complex that only an IP lawyer would ever be able to understand them, how is the average person supposed to figure it out?
SwissArmyD at June 9, 2010 6:09 PM
> under copyright law, it's the creator's perogative
> to allow the use of his work or not - not
> the consumers', even if they can easily defeat
> any pragmatic limits with technology.
Great. See you in Hell. Write if you find work....
(Seriously, I've never seen the word "pragmatic" so deeply belittled....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 6:10 PM
> Once the creator sells the work, why do
> they still control it?
Does Amy control those twenties taped to her fence?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 6:11 PM
Accuracy, Jefferson was refering to knowledge, not copies of preformences by people.
You know what I never understood, how the music industry cracks down on individuals but doesnt do a thing about radio.
By the end of any given week I've heard the same damn song so many fucking times I'd acctually pay never to hear it again, let alone doenload a copy of free or even pay for it
lujlp at June 9, 2010 6:16 PM
(Retraction for Clarity)
That "write if you find work" is for the creators, not the lawyers. It's blindingly obvious that law is going to have to adjust to people's new powers and behaviors more than people are going to have to adjust to law.
Music is cheap & easy now... And the quality has in no way deteriorated since the days when Jagger was buying French estates for cash.
This is over. Next!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 9, 2010 6:50 PM
You know what I never understood, how the music industry cracks down on individuals but doesnt do a thing about radio.
Google ASCAP for the answer. Technically, if a bar (public operation) has a radio station playing for background music they are in violation of copyright.
But here is my question on copyright:
I had a friend who was a fan of Boston -- he has bought the vinyl, tape and CD versions of the first album. But to have it loaded on his MP3 player does he have to pay again?
----------------------------------
I go to see the movie Top Gun for $3 dollars when it comes out. Enjoy it and have a good time.
Then it comes out on VCR tape. I pay the $25 to buy it new.
Then X number of years it comes out on DVD. VCR's are dead, so I have to buy it on DVD at $10.
Now DVDs are dying and the Super-Ray is the new format. It will no longer play DVDs -- when can I stop paying for the same IP?
Or do I have to pay NetFlix for it too?
-------------------------------------------
I know I don't own the IP, but at the same time giving no upgrade path just doesn't encourage honesty.
When it comes to the point that RIAA is saying that Apple can't sell iTunes for less than $0.99 and the MPAA is saying it is illegal to make a copy of a kids DVD so that you don't have to buy it 15 times after your four year old trashes the DVD with teething marks.
I don't download, but see why others do. When you charge $20 for a CD of 1-2 pop hits and the rest is crap why would you want to pay. A good example of what the market will bear is Garth Brooks.
Jim P. at June 9, 2010 9:04 PM
But just because it's understandable, Jim, doesn't mean it should be done. I don't want to pay for a CD when I just want the one good song. I also just make myself do without actually owning that one good song. I used to do this all the time in high school before the major advent of digital media. After I bought one CD and hated all but one song on it, I stopped buying them unless I knew and liked at least four or five songs. This usually meant I didn't have the CD when it first came out.
Guess what? No one owes me that one song I love, even if I really, really want it. And no one is forcing me to obtain it. In the same vein, I won't buy a whole cake if I'm only going to eat one piece. Like buying your CD, I'd be paying twenty bucks for one piece of cake, which is absurd. Even if I desperately want that one piece of cake, no one is holding a gun to my head telling me I have to get it. I am able to do without, just like I'm able to just enjoy that one song I like when I hear it on the radio. I don't own every song I've ever liked.
It's not an either/or situation: either paying the record company or downloading illegally. The third option is not having the song at all, which has become a problem with the convenience of and ease of access to all sorts of digital content. The issue isn't that we'll have the song one way or another, the problem being in the best, least expensive way for us. The issue is that we don't want to do without having the song.
I do agree with all the posters who say how slippery the issue of digital content is. Like you all said, it's harder to monitor and control that actual, physical products. It's not as easily defined as theft of a television set. But I like Amy's reason that the law errs on the side of the creator/owner of the content. People can charge whatever they want for their products. Consumers don't have to pay that price. As long as there's no price gouging or broken antitrust laws, them's the breaks. I listen to a lot of audio commentaries on my DVDs, and I have heard numerous directors saying that they wished they could have gotten a particular piece of music, but the fees were too high, to the tune of fifty grand in some cases. Like Melissa said, artists/labels/companies have control of the music to do with as they please. We don't like it, but we don't have to like it. I don't like the price of the shoes I saw on the internet the other day and fell in love with, but it makes no difference to the designer if I like it or not as long as I pay it. I won't, but others will.
Hopefully some really smart people will find a way to bridge the gap at least a little more.
NumberSix at June 9, 2010 10:27 PM
I dislike theft, but I've always said that once you sell an item, you lose your right to decide its use.
The problem with electronic media is the ease with which we can abuse that power of the purchase.
I buy a song, I like it, I'd like to share it with a few friends, I can give them all copies of the song...but then I still have what I bought, and so do a hundred other people who didn't pay anything. The producing company may have now lost 100 sales. That is significant harm.
Nobody has come up with a GOOD way to protect electronic media yet. In the end the only way to go will be to provide free downloads of it off a site and make money advertising on that. I don't know where this will all lead, but treating customers like thieves will do no good at all.
Robert at June 9, 2010 10:30 PM
BUSTED! I used the peer to peer program Napster back in 2002 to download about 50 songs. I have some illegal "classical" music.
This article about the TV show Glee was interesting:
Jason S. at June 10, 2010 12:38 AM
Wow, with all the money the club would owe, you'd almost think this show was fiction.
Okay, on a serious note, I'm not sure why the article makes this out to be such a big deal. I guess it would be to people who don't get that film and television skew reality for the sake of drama and performance. Exciting is sometimes more important than absolute accuracy.
It's definitely worth noting, however, that real life glee clubs couldn't afford to do major pop songs every week. But real glee clubs also don't do the number of songs they do on the show. Four or five performances every week is great on television, but would be absolute hell on a real group. I read that Glee featured over seventy songs in the first thirteen episodes. The club at my school worked on about a dozen per school year, culminating in a CD that put money back into the club.
I think it is worth telling the audience that the difference between a major network television show and life is budget. They can do the songs because they're able to pay tens of thousands of dollars a pop (although some artists gave them the songs for just the legal fees), and it would be bad for real clubs to think they could start doing those kinds of songs every week. It'd only lead to disappointment. The musical theater tunes are easier to come by, which is one reason they're so popular with glee clubs. A real club could buy the rights to "Rose's Turn" (Chris Colfer absolutely killed this one, by the way) because theater songs are easier to obtain than regular pop songs. Schools all over the world are able to buy the rights to perform musicals. I wonder if songs written for films ("To Sir, with Love," for example) are easier to get, or if they're more like the pop songs. I guess it would depend on the era: older tunes might be cheaper than something from a recent film).
P.S. I'm an unapologetic Gleek and am still sort of reeling from the epic finale.
NumberSix at June 10, 2010 1:22 AM
Hey, "get it right", what did I say that was wrong or misleading?
Proof by assertion is not proof. It is merely an assertion.
And no, I don't have an in-depth study of "IP", but I have studied the issues and am familiar with the bovine scatology put forth by those who want to obsfucate between copyright, patents and trade secrets.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 10, 2010 8:20 AM
Again, it's not stealing. It's copying without permission.
If they bought your articles, they STILL wouldn't own them. If they did, they would be able to sell it to other newspapers and you'd get nothing.
You're applying a paradigm that almost seems applicable to your situation, because it shares many of the same aspects. But it's not the same.
And trying to hammer the square peg into the round hole is causing more problems and confusion.
ErikZ at June 10, 2010 8:53 AM
Because radio was their advertising medium. You played a song on the radio to sell an album. That's what payola was all about. With digital content, all of that is changing. Thanks to iTunes and mp3s, I haven't listened to musical radio in years.
Which is why musicians and record companies are "selling out," allowing songs to be used in commercials, movies, and tv shows to popularize the song.
Actors seem to insist that they get paid very well for what amounts to playing dress up professionally.
The rest of us are getting tired of paying $10 per ticket and $20 per CD to provide a lifestyle we'll never achieve for self-absorbed egocentrics who, in a fair world, would be working somewhere that requires a hairnet and the frequent use of the phrase, "Would you like fries with that?"
Obama and other liberals rail against high-paid CEOs without once turning their ire on ridiculously paid movie stars, pop stars, and professional athletes. For the next A-Rod or Lindsey Lohan capitalism is okay, but for the next Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch it's not?
Only if you think you can defend your own "rights" without assistance. Free speech means even Illinois Nazis get society's aegis to have a rally. Copyright protection means even Metallica gets society's help to protect the fruits of their labor.
Take heart, though. Digital media are changing the way movies, music, photographs, and books are produced and distributed. Some day, movies will be made without actors and music will be made without musicians (although one could argue in today's pop music scene, that has already come to pass). Books may even be produced without authors (ala James Patterson). Which means our age-old concepts of copyrights are being tested and will need to adapt to a new paradigm while battling the entrenched guardians of the old paradigm.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2010 9:05 AM
It has. Experience is a hard, but effective, teacher...to those who pay attention to the lesson.
I just started Lewis' The Big Short. Liar's Poker is on my list.
Conan the Grammarian at June 10, 2010 9:11 AM
I agree with numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10. I don't download stuff I haven't paid for and agree that it's wrong, but I also think that copyright as it currently stands is broken. Originally copyright and patents were designed to encourage people to be creative and to use those creations for the public good. It wasn't intended as a free source of income for Disney from Mickey Mouse forever. We do need to figure out a way to reward people for being creative in the digital age.
Crid does have a point about musicians - until a way of recording it was invented, professional musicians didn't get rich - they either played in a orchestra for a modest fee and traveled from place to place and tried to make enough to survive. I really think with digital distribution, the ability for many talented musicians to reach an audience has skyrocketed. The only excuse for existence for the record companies now is marketing. If people start using word of mouth more and paid less attention to radio airplay (the reason the record companies allow it) and other marketing, then music will revert to what it used to be - something done by those with a desire to make music instead of greed.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at June 10, 2010 10:59 AM
Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.
:D
oh, wait. Do I owe somebody for using that?
SwissArmyD at June 10, 2010 11:07 AM
> just started Lewis' The Big Short
Post a review. The published excerpts have been typically excellent
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 10, 2010 1:21 PM
I will continue to download things that are out of print.
For that matter, I'll continue to try-before-I-buy, because paying $15 (or even $10) for something that sucks just makes me want to not pay for any of it.
None of the 1-10 rationalizations there, and sure thing, one is morally wrong to download it and keep listening to it without paying.
I'm not going to let anyone, artist or not, try and tell me that seeing if it's any good first is wrong - even if it's illegal.
(Just like they can go shove it if they want to tell me I'm a Bad Bad Boy for downloading something they're unwilling/unable to sell me because they only pressed 300 of them* and it sold out before I ever heard of it.
Reissue it and I'll buy it. Until then, my choice is "download it or not have it", since nobody's selling their expensive vinyl and it was never released in any other format. No TV-stealing involved, by any plausible metaphor.
*For people who like normal popular music this is never a problem. For people who like experimental music, extreme metal, noise, or the like, that's a common publishing method, and utterly irksome.)
MonicaP: Uh... Apple hasn't had DRM on any music they sell for, what, about two years now? Ever since the labels involved let them stop using it. And any old music you have in a DRM'd AAC format can be upgraded to a higher quality non-DRM version for $.29.
Or, since you did pay, download a non-locked version somewhere else. You paid, after all.
Sigivald at June 10, 2010 1:56 PM
Hey, guys, I want to see musicians afford their craft. Cruxshadows, for instance, has their own label, and they're upbeat, enthusiastic and wonderful to their fans (Thanks, Rogue!).
But along with the copying, how close is too close a copy? Melissa? I know a local band that does killer covers of Ronnie James Dio. You can use GarageBand (you really need to see it) to whip up covers of a bunch of other bands.
This is only an issue when big money is involved, and I would like to see it based on principles, instead. You know bad law where deep pockets get a break. This is one case I'm sure could use better definition.
Radwaste at June 10, 2010 3:08 PM
It's not an either/or situation: either paying the record company or downloading illegally. The third option is not having the song at all, which has become a problem with the convenience of and ease of access to all sorts of digital content.
Where did I say I want to own it illegally? If I take the time to copy it from VCR to DVD or mpg/avi, under the law I have now committed a crime.
But at the same time I have paid for my copy on a VCR tape that is no longer supported (or cassette for music).
And the same applies for books to Kindle or other E-readers. I have a physical copy of Atlus Shrugged. But I want to easily quote it to reply in blogs. So I have to now pay $x for the electronic copy.
I don't want to sell it, but I have to do the grudge work to copy a passage. When do I stop paying?
Jim P. at June 10, 2010 9:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722522">comment from Jim P.Jim P., it costs money to have the book formatted for Kindle, Nook, and iPad. Each, I suspect, has to be done somewhat differently, or my book would be available on Nook and in iTunes as well as on Kindle (it's only on Kindle). You don't have the right to have an easy time for free, to have a book's passages typed out for you, free of charge, in a form that you can dump them into e-mail, just because you bought another form of the book.
Want another format? Pay for it. If it means more to you to have the ease of an electronic copy than it does for you to have the dollars you'll trade for it, you'll trade those dollars. If not, you won't.
I've spent probably a year of my life retyping quotes from books. I don't expect free transcription services from publishers, nor do I expect free electronic copies. I plan to buy electronic copies of number of the books I use frequently so I don't have to carry them when I travel.
Amy Alkon at June 10, 2010 11:38 PM
I plan to buy electronic copies of number of the books I use frequently so I don't have to carry them when I travel.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
I dont, at least not until the price of an ebook is less than a quarter of a physical book.
Ive dropped more than 5 grand on book, I wont pay the same to just convert it
lujlp at June 11, 2010 4:59 AM
SwissArmy D asked: "Once the creator sells the work, why do they still control it?" ... it seems to me we need to think in terms of license rights, not ownership 9from teh consumer's persepctive). You're not buying the artist's work. The $10-$15 (is that right?) you spent for the CD of Buddy Guy's latest songs does not give you ownership of his songs (the "work"); it gives you a limited license to lisetn to your copy of his works. You don;t really think you "own" his songs? If you share your CD with 10 friends, you have 'stolen' from him his ability to earn $100-$150 from selling each of them a license. [The $1 it costs to press teh CD is inconsequential.] Same deal for any painting or photo still under copyright; if you wanted to sell T-shirts with the image, you'd have to pay a licensing fee to the artist. Same deal prevents you from legally selling merchandise with the Nike logo (and explains the $10 "Rotex" watch you can buy in Times Square).
Mr. Teflon at June 11, 2010 1:08 PM
my income is my personal property and the government doesnt seem to mind stealing that from me.
YERMOM at June 11, 2010 6:24 PM
It seems that almost any old song ever recorded is available on YouTube as a video, even if the video consists only of watching an old 45RPM record spinning around on a turntable, having been uploaded by some hobbyist. Presumably it is not illegal to watch such videos, even repeatedly unlimited times.
However, there exists free software on the web that can extract the audio from a YouTube video and download it as an MP3 file. I am wondering about the legal status of using that software in that way. Does the availability of those videos on YouTube for free unlimited viewing online make it legal to download them using free software?
MBM at June 12, 2010 12:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/09/a_thief_is_a_th.html#comment-1722788">comment from MBMBecause somebody hasn't caught a thief doesn't mean they aren't a thief. Under the law, if it doesn't belong to you (the words and music), you have no right to give it away or resell it. Applies to songs and stolen TV sets.
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2010 6:08 AM
I know I'm a little late then this but there's a difference in between STEALING an object and COPYING it.
In order for theft to occur I have to take an item away from someone, so that they no longer have access to that item and I do. An obvious example would be taking a physical thing such as a sweater. The digital equivalent would be to take a file from your computer [as opposed to making a copy of that file], so that you no longer have that data, and I do.
This is different from copyright infringement, which means to make an unauthorized copy of an item. A physical example of this would be to look at a sweater , and then buy my own yarn, and knit another sweater myself that looks just like it. Note that you still have access to the item you purchased, and I used my own labor & paid for the materials to make my sweater.
Industry interest groups purposely try to blur the line in between THEFT and COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT because people have lost all respect for copyright law. It's pretty well known by everyone the industry interest groups are in bed with politicians, and that current copyright law has been written and re-written repeatedly to benefit entertainment producers and not the public interest.
When consumers no longer have to worry about the practical consequences of breaking copyright law, and they don't have the moral incentive to obey the law because the legislators drafting the rules of the game are crooked, then they will simply copy whatever they want.
In response the entertainment industry has to try to make a moral argument that copyright infringement is wrong. Since movie and music execs are acting immorally themselves the only way they can try to guilt people into not downloading movies & music is to try and convince the public that they are committing an act that society at large is morally opposed to... theft.
But anyone who has thought about the subject for more then a few minutes should know that copying something is not the same as stealing it.
Mike Hunter at June 12, 2010 12:36 PM
You are right mike, its not the same thing.
But it has he same EFFECT.
I steal your tv and you have to buy a new one. The effect is you have less money.
I copy your intellectual property and the effect is you have less money.
lujlp at June 13, 2010 8:03 AM
lujlp:
That a pretty logically flawed argument. Taking property from someone else is not the same as causing their sales to decline by making substitute goods and services available for free. Are the producers of linux products the moral equivalent of thieves because they make operating system software, and give it away for free, causing Microsoft's sales to go down? They've taken an idea or two from Microsoft, most obviously the graphical user interface.
How about the tutoring center at the local community college that started providing free math and finance tutoring? After all they basically copied exactly what I was doing and offered it to people for free. They cut into my revenue, eventually driving me out of business. Are they the moral equivalent of thieves also because they were providing an identical product for free?
In any case piracy doesn't have the same effect as theft. You are assuming that everyone who pirates movies or music would have bought that intellectual property if it wasn't available for them to download. I can tell you from personal experience that this is untrue.
Also even if it did have the same effect, and it doesn't; don't expect me to feel sorry for special interest groups who are in bed with crooked politicians in order to rig the rules in their favor. If special interest groups like the RIAA and MPAA weren't constantly changing the law to favor their industry, instead of the public interest, then you might have a moral argument. But they do, so you don't.
MIke Hunter at June 13, 2010 11:05 AM
Mike you are the one making flawed arguments.
First off copies arent "substitue" products - they are the SAME product
Linux isnt selling microsofts windows, they are giving away an entirly differnt product. Therin lies the differnce.
As for the tutoring centers did you invent the math? or he concept of finance? Or are they making illegal photocopies of a book you wrote and giveing away those copies for free?
The argument about political machination in copyriht law on behalf of corperations is a seperate subject entierly - and one I agree with you on btw
lujlp at June 13, 2010 12:02 PM
Leave a comment