|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ontheway wrote: |
People who do not want to pay for the music they listen to or the books they read, and who then steal the material without paying the writer or author are thieves.
If you download one song and do not pay, you have stolen the purchase price of that song from the owners. |
No, you haven't. This is one of the biggest lies the corporate P.R. machine has impressed upon the general public, and I'm shocked to find you supporting it.
If you download a song, you are doing nothing more than configuring your computer in a certain fashion. No transfer of goods is taking place. No one is losing anything they previously had, and in many cases, no one is losing anything they even might have possibly had, and certainly not depriving them of something they had a right to possess.
This simply isn't theft by any reasonable definition of the word. In fact, calling it theft is -- by your definition of the word, not the real definition -- Socialism. It's the government saying, "You do not have the right to configure your own property however you wish." You're essentially saying, "Your right to your own hard drive is not absolute; there are things you cannot do with it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
People who do not want to pay for the music they listen to or the books they read, and who then steal the material without paying the writer or author are thieves.
If you download one song and do not pay, you have stolen the purchase price of that song from the owners. |
No, you haven't. This is one of the biggest lies the corporate P.R. machine has impressed upon the general public, and I'm shocked to find you supporting it.
If you download a song, you are doing nothing more than configuring your computer in a certain fashion. No transfer of goods is taking place. No one is losing anything they previously had, and in many cases, no one is losing anything they even might have possibly had, and certainly not depriving them of something they had a right to possess.
This simply isn't theft by any reasonable definition of the word. In fact, calling it theft is -- by your definition of the word, not the real definition -- Socialism. It's the government saying, "You do not have the right to configure your own property however you wish." You're essentially saying, "Your right to your own hard drive is not absolute; there are things you cannot do with it." |
I agree with you Fox that we are talking about copyright infringement, not theft.
Not really sure about your analogy though. You could not use the "hard drive rights" as a defense for other things, could you? For example,child porn. So I don't think you could use it to skirt copyright laws either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Not really sure about your analogy though. You could not use the "hard drive rights" as a defense for other things, could you? For example,child porn. So I don't think you could use it to skirt copyright laws either. |
If there is a problem with child pornography, it's because it's linked to the actual abuse of children, not because you "stole" it. That said, if you look at the other thread, I don't feel simply having child pornography on your hard drive should be a crime. Only it's production -- the actual act of abuse -- should. Paying for it could be construed as funding production, but people who downloaded it for free should not be charged with a crime, so long as they're willing to provide information about where they got it to assist in apprehending the actual abusers. My position on this is completely consistent: if it's your hard drive, you should be able to configure it however you want.
Copyright laws should be the exclusive right to profit from your work, nothing more. That seems totally fair to me; it ensures no one else is going to get rich off of an idea you came up with, but it also avoids criminalizing the common citizen for using their own actual property in the fashion they wish via this crazy war-on-drugs-style idea. Go ahead and sue the guy who plagiarizes your book in his own for-profit book. Sue the company that incorporates your tech copyright in their new smart phone. Sue the web site that's distributing your MP3s in order to lure people in and earn advertising revenue. That's all fine. But private citizens should be able to do what they want with their own computers, and that includes configuring them to emit your song. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Not really sure about your analogy though. You could not use the "hard drive rights" as a defense for other things, could you? For example,child porn. So I don't think you could use it to skirt copyright laws either. |
If there is a problem with child pornography, it's because it's linked to the actual abuse of children, not because you "stole" it. That said, if you look at the other thread, I don't feel simply having child pornography on your hard drive should be a crime. Only it's production -- the actual act of abuse -- should. Paying for it could be construed as funding production, but people who downloaded it for free should not be charged with a crime, so long as they're willing to provide information about where they got it to assist in apprehending the actual abusers. My position on this is completely consistent: if it's your hard drive, you should be able to configure it however you want.
Copyright laws should be the exclusive right to profit from your work, nothing more. That seems totally fair to me; it ensures no one else is going to get rich off of an idea you came up with, but it also avoids criminalizing the common citizen for using their own actual property in the fashion they wish via this crazy war-on-drugs-style idea. Go ahead and sue the guy who plagiarizes your book in his own for-profit book. Sue the company that incorporates your tech copyright in their new smart phone. Sue the web site that's distributing your MP3s in order to lure people in and earn advertising revenue. That's all fine. But private citizens should be able to do what they want with their own computers, and that includes configuring them to emit your song. |
You're right, the problem with child porn on a hard drive is not that someone "stole" it, but that both distribution and possession of it are now criminal offenses in almost all Western countries. As is copyright infringement that takes place when one downloads something without paying for it.
I realize you know this, and that you are only stating your opinion on whether this "should or should not be" the case.
The thread on child porn was interesting, especially the fact that in some cases the penalties for possession are actually more severe than the penalty for the abuse itself. That is definitely out of whack. I still think it should be illegal to knowingly possess it however.
As for downloading without paying, we just have a difference of opinion, that's all. You draw the line at profiting without paying. I would draw the line at benefiting without paying. You seem to think a private hard drive is sacrosanct. I tend to feel that way about exclusive rights to intellectual property. However, as I stated before, I think some of the penalties for violating said rights are too severe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't support the government creating and enforcing intellectual property laws. I certainly don't support individuals being sued for downloading a movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I certainly don't support individuals being sued for downloading a movie. |
Downloading and in turn distributing a movie for further download. The U.S. Copyright Group is savvy. They are only suing those who took part in BitTorrent downloads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| I certainly don't support individuals being sued for downloading a movie. |
Downloading and in turn distributing a movie for further download. The U.S. Copyright Group is savvy. They are only suing those who took part in BitTorrent downloads. |
Right, because when one uses torrents one downloads and uploads at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These companies had 10 years to change their ways and figure out a way to make a profit. Actually they had more like 30 years since recordable media became widely available and affordable. The government even changed laws for them.
If they haven't figured it out since the wild west Napster days in the late-90's, then they just don't have innovative enough people at the helm and deserve to go bust. Look at Apple, the last 10 years they've had an uncanny like ability to read the market and have delivered what consumers want, and even have an extra 40 billion in cash just sitting around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
These companies had 10 years to change their ways and figure out a way to make a profit. Actually they had more like 30 years since recordable media became widely available and affordable. The government even changed laws for them.
If they haven't figured it out since the wild west Napster days in the late-90's, then they just don't have innovative enough people at the helm and deserve to go bust. Look at Apple, the last 10 years they've had an uncanny like ability to read the market and have delivered what consumers want, and even have an extra 40 billion in cash just sitting around. |
Just so. Various companies have figured out how to create profitable business models without needing the government to tyrannically restrict how individual people can use their computers. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and so forth have found a lot of success by designing programs specifically for use on their own devices. Stardock and Steam have found a lot of success by offering innovative services which make customers want to pay them despite their customer base being savvy enough to pirate if they wish. Musicians turn more and more towards live concerts rather than distributed music for their profits.
We simply don't need these ridiculous laws for our market place to not only function, but function well. Draconian copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare, ensuring companies don't have to innovate to succeed. Even the companies that are engaging in this kind of anti-consumer behavior aren't actually at financial risk; they aren't fighting for their survival, they're just maximizing their profit margins down to the penny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
We simply don't need these ridiculous laws for our market place to not only function, but function well. Draconian copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare, ensuring companies don't have to innovate to succeed. |
Hurt Locker is an award-winning film. You're saying its creators are not innovators? This is not your best argument on this board, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
We simply don't need these ridiculous laws for our market place to not only function, but function well. Draconian copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare, ensuring companies don't have to innovate to succeed. |
Hurt Locker is an award-winning film. You're saying its creators are not innovators? This is not your best argument on this board, Fox. |
I'm saying the distributors are not innovators (and given copyright laws are ultimately applicable to distribution, I felt that the target of my statement was obvious). The distributors are also the ones ultimately responsible for the leak of a DVD quality rip of their movie; most movie producers manage to avoid such leaks. Their utilization of the legal system is just an attempt to use government intervention to compensate for that failure on their behalf.
Common citizens are going to have their financial wellbeing crushed over this, all because they downloaded a movie and watched it. I don't think that's okay, and I don't see how it benefits our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
We simply don't need these ridiculous laws for our market place to not only function, but function well. Draconian copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare, ensuring companies don't have to innovate to succeed. |
Hurt Locker is an award-winning film. You're saying its creators are not innovators? This is not your best argument on this board, Fox. |
I'm saying the distributors are not innovators (and given copyright laws are ultimately applicable to distribution, I felt that the target of my statement was obvious). The distributors are also the ones ultimately responsible for the leak of a DVD quality rip of their movie; most movie producers manage to avoid such leaks. Their utilization of the legal system is just an attempt to use government intervention to compensate for that failure on their behalf.
Common citizens are going to have their financial wellbeing crushed over this, all because they downloaded a movie and watched it. I don't think that's okay, and I don't see how it benefits our society. |
I don't know anything about the distributors, and for me, their responsibility depends a lot on the facts. But your description of the situation in your second-to-last sentence is inaccurate:
1) Their crime WAS NOT merely downloading and watching a movie. It was downloading and then distributing the movie. Please read the actual case complaint I linked to above if you doubt that is the gravamen of the plaintiff's allegations.
Many people have been confused on this issue. To what extent are end-users liable for d/ling and streaming unpurchased content they found on the web? Its not clear.
| Quote: |
| Sherwin Siy, an attorney with Public Knowledge, told me that my YouTube fears might be overblown. Siy points to a difference between downloading a video, and streaming it. He told me that "arguing that a buffer copy (for a streaming view) is a duplication, that's even more of an uphill (battle), and the potential awards might not be worth the attorneys fees." He added that "merely watching a video on your screen, authorized or not, isn't going to be an infringement if you're not publicly performing or copying it." |
2) Their potential financial loss is $150,000, but that's the maximum statutory award. Meanwhile, any defendant has been offered settlement for $1,500. Suffering a $1,500 loss is a costly mistake, but hardly a 'crushing' blow to a 'common citizen's financial well-being.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
These companies had 10 years to change their ways and figure out a way to make a profit. Actually they had more like 30 years since recordable media became widely available and affordable. The government even changed laws for them.
If they haven't figured it out since the wild west Napster days in the late-90's, then they just don't have innovative enough people at the helm and deserve to go bust. Look at Apple, the last 10 years they've had an uncanny like ability to read the market and have delivered what consumers want, and even have an extra 40 billion in cash just sitting around. |
Just so. Various companies have figured out how to create profitable business models without needing the government to tyrannically restrict how individual people can use their computers. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and so forth have found a lot of success by designing programs specifically for use on their own devices. Stardock and Steam have found a lot of success by offering innovative services which make customers want to pay them despite their customer base being savvy enough to pirate if they wish. Musicians turn more and more towards live concerts rather than distributed music for their profits.
We simply don't need these ridiculous laws for our market place to not only function, but function well. Draconian copyright laws are just another form of corporate welfare, ensuring companies don't have to innovate to succeed. Even the companies that are engaging in this kind of anti-consumer behavior aren't actually at financial risk; they aren't fighting for their survival, they're just maximizing their profit margins down to the penny. |
I think we are talking about two different things here. I think everyone on the board agrees that the penalties for the little guy caught illegally downloading are too severe. There really is no argument there.
But just because a company is realistic enough to know they need to be innovative in overcoming the challenges of collecting everything that is due them, does not mean they are not trying to. Not one of them is willingly giving its property away. Each and every company cited above as an example of an innovative company is shooting for 100% compliance with the exclusive rights of their property, even if they know that goal is unattainable. I don't think any one of them is any more or less anti-consumer than the others, but not one of them is altruistic - they are all trying to maximize their profit margins. And I could be wrong but I doubt any of them has a policy of not going after people caught pirating their property.
You guys are rightfully applauding companies like Apple for building a better mousetrap, but they expect to get paid for each and every mousetrap. And rightfully so.
I thought that is what we were talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| 1) Their crime WAS NOT merely downloading and watching a movie. It was downloading and then distributing the movie. Please read the actual case complaint I linked to above if you doubt that is the gravamen of the plaintiff's allegations. |
I understand that you seem to be coming at this primarily from a legal technicality perspective rather than an ethical one. To that extent, I understand why you're emphasizing that so strongly. I'll even admit that in total fairness to the legal case in question, yes, I should have written it the way you describe. However, from an ethical perspective (which is my primary concern; what the law is and what the law should be are very different things) I see utilizing bittorrent as no more offensive or wrong than making a mix CD for your friend, or lending him a movie, or one of another thousand potential every day activities that corporate America is -- through the agency of purchased politicians -- pushing towards the category of serious, prosecutable crime.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| 2) Their potential financial loss is $150,000, but that's the maximum statutory award. Meanwhile, any defendant has been offered settlement for $1,500. Suffering a $1,500 loss is a costly mistake, but hardly a 'crushing' blow to a 'common citizen's financial well-being.' |
Even $1500 dollars can be a severe economic blow to people who simply can't afford it (people who live month to month, of which there are many, particularly in the current economic environment), and it only scales upwards from there. I don't think this should be trivialized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| I think we are talking about two different things here. I think everyone on the board agrees that the penalties for the little guy caught illegally downloading are too severe. There really is no argument there. |
I'm arguing they should be non-existent, and that both downloading and profit-free sharing files of any variety should not be a legal offense. Copyright laws should protect others from using your work for profit, not from downloading it for personal use or sharing it with others.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Not one of them is willingly giving its property away. |
From my perspective, files on the internet are not theirs to give, and the government supporting them in insisting otherwise is an example of government over-reach.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Each and every company cited above as an example of an innovative company is shooting for 100% compliance with the exclusive rights of their property, even if they know that goal is unattainable. |
My point was rather that they've found various solutions to incentivize people to pay them for services. More such solutions exists, and corporate America should be forced to rely on those solutions, rather than litigating against common citizens in hopes of scaring people into compliance.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| I don't think any one of them is any more or less anti-consumer than the others, but not one of them is altruistic |
I agree, and I don't expect altrusim. That's why it's important that the law be changed, so that their lack of altruism doesn't lead to the legal harassment of common citizens. These companies have proven that companies can look after themselves without over-zealous copyright law, and that fact should inform legislation on the matter.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| You guys are rightfully applauding companies like Apple for building a better mousetrap, but they expect to get paid for each and every mousetrap. And rightfully so. |
And that's good. The problem is when companies -- instead of innovating new and better "mousetraps" to lure in customers -- resort to essentially bribing politicians to write the law in their favor, then start using that law to bully customers in hopes of scaring them. That's what I oppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
