Common misconceptions

General General Discussion
41

Just wanted to throw in my two cents on the intellectual property issue.

In the context of downloading music, It don’t believe its stealing. When you steal from someone, you cause them to have less in some way. Here’s the problem: I don’t buy music and I never will. I’ve never felt the need to spend money on CDs/records/songs. I will listen to the radio as long as its free before I buy an album/record or song. Therefore, if I download music for my own personal enjoyment I have not caused the artist/record company to have less by taking potential profits. They would have never gotten any of my money anyway.

42

if there is such a thing as “intellectual property” then someone explain how places like Gamestop are still in business… or how you can purchase second hand movies or books… that’s all stealing because the original maker did not receive funds for every single person that used it, only the first… and each subsequent transaction was a private sale with the “intellectual property owner” receiving nothing

that’s like claiming you own a verbal statement, and every person that says it, is indebted to you

its like claiming you still own a fart after its left your ass cheeks and entered the nose of the pedestrian behind you… and then claiming they stole your fart…

once that property leaves your “intellect” and is in the actual physical outside world, that shit is up for grabs… if the radio is free, and a certain song is being played on the radio, then there is no difference if you listen to it there or if you download it…

lets pretend you own a movie, but you want a version to put on your computer, you already own the intellectual property so therefore if you download it there is no “theft” involved…

its simply the flow of information, there is no way to stop that, and there is no comparison between stealing a physical object and intangible things like spoken word or songs… it is data, and once it is copied, that copied data is no longer the owners property

if I lend you a movie to watch, or I lend you a book, or you come over and watch a cable tv show on my tv and you don’t have cable, then you are stealing by your rationalizations…

this is all just an attempt to squeeze every bit of the money they can out of something, regardless if it is an asinine attempt at an unrealistic standard

once I pay for something, I own it, and therefore I can do whatever I want with it and that includes selling it or giving it away to who ever I want… if not… then every single used upper for sale on this website, fuck, every single thing for sale period on this site, is basically just fencing stolen property… because the original “intellectual property owner” is receiving no funds or reimbursement for any additional parties using their property…

theory and the real world are 2 different things… if you don’t like the fact that people enjoy your music or movies enough to download them, then maybe you should just find an artistic medium that can’t be “pirated”…

43

Outstanding - spoken like a true progressive who believes in communal ownership of property. Are you sure that your name isn’t Obama’s Rascals? Now, I’m staring to better understand you opinions on the welfare state.

There are 2 separate issues that we are discussing when it comes to intellectual property. The first which I brought up was the payment for professional intellectual services rendered as typified by a doctor being compensated for treating a patient or a musician charging admission to a concert. People who receive services from a doctor without paying their bill are stealing, as are people who sneak into a concert, use counterfeit tickets to gain access to movies, etc. This type of intellectual property theft is really nothing more than coerced uncompensated labor.

You are now transitioning the discussion to a different topic which is duplication of intellectual property. Yes, you own a single movie or CD when you buy it from Blockbuster. You can play it as many times as you like for your personal enjoyment, engage in limited common use with friends, and sometimes make back-up copies for security. You can also sell that single copy that you own and make a profit. However, you cannot duplicate that movie or game in an attempt to make a profit in competition with the original producer. You also can’t use that single copy for commercial purposes in competition with licensed distributors (i.e. charging admission to a neighborhood viewing of the movie that you purchased for private consumption). Do these things takes you outside the realm of common use and into illegal duplication - unless you believe in communal ownership of property.

44

I never stated anything about “duplication” in efforts to compete with the original commercial party. You specifically stated that recording a song from the radio for personal enjoyment is stealing.

We are not talking about specifically receiving a service and then not paying, of course going to the doctor and not paying is stealing, because you actually received a service, but when there is no consented contract of service between the parties, as with the radio, then no in fact it is not stealing.

When you go to the doctor, it specifically states payment is expected at the time services are rendered, or you are at least presented with a bill and you were made fully aware that you were receiving a service in return for compensation, however who or what presents you with a bill when you listen to the radio? There is no implied contract, with terms and conditions to which you must agree to, and thus, there is no “theft” involved by willfully refusing to pay.

You specifically stated the original creator owns the rights to the "intellectual property, and as such any use not authorized and granted by them is then to be considered stealing, that is not true.

If I can watch a movie, and then give a copy of that movie to my “friend” without receiving compensation in any commercial profit seeking fashion, and that is not considered theft, then downloading is more than legal, because someone originally paid for it, and has simply made it available for their “friends” to view or hear in a non-commercial profit seeking fashion…

but I guess now you’re going to say its not legal because they just make it available to anyone and everyone right? not just their friends right? who are you or anyone else for that matter to judge what “limited common use among friends” is to be considered?

if no money is changing hands, and no one is seeking funds in a commercial manner for someone else’s work, then I fail to see how this is an enforceable issue

its funny how patent laws are only applicable if I attempt to sell someone else’s idea for money, however if I just simply liked the idea and made it for personal use, then I’m in the clear… how are movies/music/etc. different…

45

Ever read an EULA on items you purchase like software? You basically don’t own shit if they say so.

@ the rest of it.

Personally, I think the intellectual property rights are a means of thwarting “for profit” distribution of someones products. Like burning six copies of your new CD and selling it to your friends for $4 a pop. You’ve removed 6 potential customers from the buying pool because they don’t have to go out and buy it now AND you profited from this action.

Sony went bonkers a bit when they started tracking down individuals who were “filesharing” to make a point. A point that, in a nicer world, wouldn’t have to be made. If you didn’t work for it, pay for it, earn it… it ain’t yours!

Physical property is a FAR stretch in comparison to “licensed material”. Essentially, you aren’t buying the physical CD, you’re buying the license to keep it under their agreement, which you legally entered when you bought it. There is a difference, however slight.

46

Then, I guess it is OK for me to tap into my neighbor’s TV cable to get free HBO without paying Time Warner. After all, I normally watch movies only when they come on basic cable (USA, TNT, etc.) and would not pay for HBO if I could not get it “for free.” So, by your logic Time Warner Cable is really not losing anything since I would never pay their high prices…:rolleyes:

47

do you have the consent of the person who is paying for it, i.e. your neighbors?

if so then yes… you can more than gladly tap into their cable, however if you do so without their knowledge that is stealing

the problem is… with “illegal downloading”… you have the consent of the original party that paid for it…because they are the ones that posted it… so thus, I am not stealing from them, I am simply “borrowing from a friend”

you are trying to ad homenim and change the point of the argument to an indefensible position by bringing up things like tapping into your neighbors cable or internet without their consent when they are paying for it… if they pay for it and say you can then there’s not shit the cable company can say

48

I think this may be where the disconnect is located.

Music falls under licensing agreements, like software (99% certain). See post above.

Oh, and DAMN you guys type fast!!!

49

and the license agreement is between the original purchaser and the manufacturer…

that does not carry over to third parties… if that person chooses to post an album online and thus circumvent the license agreement that they personally agreed to, then that is on them, not on me… I never agreed to any licensing terms and thus I am in no breach of any contractual obligations whatsoever by downloading it

if they choose to break the rules by posting it, that is on them, but it stops with them because the agreement was between them personally and the manufacturer, not between everyone in the world…

my agreement is between the person posting it and myself, thus the “poster” vicariously becomes the “manufacturer” in this agreement… if that makes any sense which I am sure you’ll say it wont

basically the burden lies on the original purchaser, the person who agreed to the terms an conditions, not the third party

if that person puts the file online for download then that person is in breach and that is where it needs to be thwarted, they need to grab the people “selling the crack” so to speak… not the people “buying the crack”… the people making it available… not the ones who simply consume it

50

So sure you are. Absolutism leads to the dark side… Hmmmm. /Yoda

I’m not saying, nor ever have said that I “like” it, but when you’re fighting, in a court of law, someone who has billions of dollars and top drawer lawyers on their side vs. Joe Shmo music lover… well, David beat Goliath once I guess, but I’d bet the Goliath’s of the world have made a few “improvements”.

You didn’t answer my question… have you ever read an EULA?

That question wasn’t meant to be snarky. It’s pretty damn amazing they level of “legal” control they impart on themselves simply by you purchasing the license. Read one or two, it’s pretty interesting.

51

Oh, and as a side note… if you knowingly purchase or receive(read borrow) stolen goods… well, you’re just as culpable as the thief who stole it. Why would it be any different in this situation? You know it’s a violation of the agreement.

The license agreement doesn’t just disappear because it isn’t streaming off the disk. It’s an exact duplication of the works on the CD regulated BY the license.

This is bordering on jumping the gap to a “Fair Use” discussion. Sorry about that.:smiley:

52

key phrase there… they have no legal control over you if you never purchased a license… thus… like I said… the fault lies with the person that did indeed purchase one and chose to make that file available for download…

they cannot hold me accountable to an EULA if I never purchased a license and agreed to their EULA…

53

Hence DRM. Everyone’s favorite technology. AKA, smarter Goliath.:smiley:

54

and I agree with you… if you obtain a DRM file, and you strip the DRM… that is theft because you knowingly violated the EULA that is attached to that file

however, if you obtain a file that is already free of DRM… then… who’s to tell you where it came from or whats “legally attached” to it…

55

While I appreciate your vigor on this issue, I’ll just say this… with a clarification that it is not my strict belief, but most likely the belief of the record companies… and they’re probably right.

The record companies aren’t going to go broke fighting you, can you say the same?

56

and I commend your fighting spirit as well… let us put this issue to bed and just say… fuck’em all

57

Fuck’em’s all around. :smiley:

58

my agreement is between the person posting it and myself, thus the “poster” vicariously becomes the “manufacturer” in this agreement… if that makes any sense which I am sure you’ll say it wont

So are you saying the first guy is actually stealing extra copies of the CD by allowing it to be downloaded to you and others like you? … and you simply have an agreement with him that is basically a friendly share. He’s just giving you a copy to hold and use with no strings attached?

59

bingo… he purchased it, he is in violation if he shares it in a way that is not in keeping with the EULA he’s agreed to…

If my friend gives me a vhs copy of a tv show that he recorded from his own tv… but then it comes out that he has been stealing cable… am I responsible for having “stolen merchandise”?

that is on him not me…

either way… this is all academic and in no way will change the minds of those who are seeking to further the intellectual property profit making agenda, so its best to just end this now, and lets get back to the discussion at hand… common misconceptions

60

If my friend gives me a vhs copy of a tv show that he recorded from his own tv… but then it comes out that he has been stealing cable… am I responsible for having “stolen merchandise”?

That’s why they go after the storage facility. The person serving them up. But no… you would be responsible for possession of intellectual property for which you had no license. You would probably be asked to stop using/get rid of it.

But… to stay musical and on topic…

– That you will sound like Jimi Hendrix if you buy a Strat and a Marshall.