Korean Job Discussion Forums

[The King of Kwangju]

[Demophobe]

You are saying that the reason we wouldn't steal a book from B&N is we are depriving other's of their chance to buy it? Sounds too ethical for any thief.

No, the reason one wouldn't steal it is they may be caught and punished. Pure and simple.

[Gord]

Downloading copyrighted material unlawfully off the Internet is copyright infringement, not theft. It's no more accurate to call it stealing than to call it speeding or battery. The RIAA says it's stealing, but they are lying.

Plus in North America the courts have never ruled that downloading music is in fact copyright infringement. In Canada they ruled that is was a very lawful activity. In the U.S., two of the judges involved with the Napster case voiced similiar opinions as the U.S. has a similiar law allowing for the non-commercial distribution of music (the Home Recording Act I believe). Despite the RIAA claiming they won the Napster case, the case never went to trial.

Though software enjoys much stronger copyright protections and downloading copyrighted software pretty much guarantees one is committing copyright infringement.

[Demophobe]

Always up for a debate about semantics, eh Gord? Sugar-coat it with whatever jargon you like....you are still getting something that you haven't the right to own.

[Gord]

The courts have clearly stated I have the right to download music. The law clearly states that so long as it's being duplicated by myself for free, it's legal. The very laws that state what qualifies as infringement clearly state that such an act is not.

At one time the book industry filed lawsuits over "lost book sales" against libraries and against people who dared to sit on street corners reading books to people who wanted to listen. Nintendo sued Blockbuster over renting games because of "lost game sales". The MPAA sued Sony over the recording tape player over "lost movie sales". The RIAA sued Philips over the first home-recording CD burner over "lost music sales". Copyright holders have sued both used book stores, used music stores, and used game stores over the sale of used products, all of which the courts have thrown out.

Imagine a horrible world where you could not share anything or resell what you have bought. Or where only those in power can dictate what can be duplicated. The printing press freed us from the Church, and this pattern of production continues today.

Though piracy (that being the unlawful selling of products duplicated) is uncool.

[Demophobe]

Yes, in Canada you have the right to download music through law. Morally it is up to you and elsewhere in the world, it is illegal.

Music is only one, albeit large, portion of the P2P issue. Piracy, which I think could extend to products not only sold, but given away, is more the issue here. In Korea, it all may as well be legal. There is nothing being done to stop the problem at all. One can buy copied game CDs over the counter in famous public markets or log on to huge websites controlled by large companies and get whatever one wants.

A long while back, hollywood was in a pickle over video rooms here, because for each viewing, only the proprietor of the business was getting any money. Living here, it's easy to slip into the great nothing when it comes to these issues. I can have any book I want professionally copied for a pittance, copyright page included in the binding. Copied DVDs are sold on the street, often outside of the stores that sell the real ones.

Anyways, yes, in Canada, one odd ruling created a legal hole for people there to slip through, but I wouldn't put any money on that ruling setting any world precident for the future decisions in this area.

Yes, I agreee that it would be an awful state where nothing can be lent, but that is in fact the world we already live in. Having friends over to enjoy the latest pay-per-view is illegal, copying a page in a book, lending a game CD to a buddy, jotting down a recipe for aunt Bea from your cook book......it's all illegal, though rarely enforced unless you start sharing your illegally-gotten materials all over the world to anyone who wants them, friend or unknown.....and everyone does it.

Anarchy. Cyber-anarchy, which will be dealt with using the same kind of strong-arm tactics as social anarchy would....martial law/dictatorial control. The powers-at-be are very serious about this, and although my parallel is not accurate to the letter, the future will see some pretty heavy strategies that will infringe on our rights (as if we haven't seen some pretty bold moves already)....like to have P2P software on our computers. If not that, then what will be in the public domain will be stripped to the fringe....the extremists, like it was before P2P. Now, anyone can copy a DVD or create an MP3, share a serial number for a product, create a CD image, zip up an installation folder....looking back when there was no P2P and most were left either paying or going to serial /crack/keygen sites through a chained proxy....not many were doing this, comparatively speaking. Then again, there were no .mp3 files, DVDs, e-books, .iso files.....

Who knows....gives one a headache. One thing is for sure.....there is something wrong about it all.

I have to go a help the in-laws with dinner.....rock on Chusok....

[the saint]

[The King of Kwangju]

Saint - I already answered your question, and so did Gord. The difference between stealing a book from a store and downloading a file is that downloading is not stealing.

Some organizations would have you believe otherwise, but the law - at least here in Canada - backs it up.

[the saint]

Weird... I have no idea why my post ended up BEFORE yours King...

[Demophobe]

Semantically, it's not stealing; it's "copyright infringement". I would like someone to outline the difference, as I can't seem to see it outside of the spelling. Kind of reminds me of an "opinion" expressed by some Korean students...

Teacher: "What do you think about...?"
Student: "In Korea, we think...."
T: "Yes, but what do YOU think?"
S: "Well, Koreans believe...."

The Canadian ruling says that placing a copy of a song in a shared directory doesn't amout to uploading and that the lack of "advertising" of that song and directory renders the computer owner not liabel for the actions of the others on a P2P network. Basically, no one is "uploading". I personally wouldn't expect such a ruling or it's loose definition of "uploading" and "advertising" for long.

Maybe it's just that Canada doesn't care because all of our talent has gone south for fame and fortune anyways, and Canadian artists aren't really losing much in terms of anything that would come back to Canada..

I guess you must support the RIAA suing people then, as they are just using the laws of their country to enforce what is seen as "stealing", opps....I mean "copyright infringement", in the US. I mean, we can't only uphold or even believe in the laws we like, can we? There's no Heaven without Hell....

If you are going to use the reasoning behind the Canadian ruling as your pillow, then you must also be willing to accept any and all other rulings that will flow down the pipe in the future with as much faith and knowing that it's "right".

Personally, I will continue to think of the Canadian ruling as "odd" and don't believe it will hold water for long. Besides, a court ruling making our activity "legal" doesn't make it "right". I think of this in the same way that I think what some laws say also doesn't make some things "wrong".

Actually, you didn't answer the question. You answered the question as far as going to prison or other legal repercussions from your actions, but do you think that downloading someone's work for free is "right"? If you wrote a book or song and soon saw people downloading it with nothing coming back to you, how would you feel? Would you go to work for free? Or could you go to work for free? I don't know your financial situation, but most people have to work for money, and if people start making it so you aren't getting paid for the job you are doing, how long would you continue?

Thank goodness for the "art" and "creative need" of people to continue writing and producing music in these times. For the big, already-rich writers and artists, the sting is less painful, but for younger, less-established artists, it must hurt.

Then again, don't listen to me...I'm a hypocrite right now....not doing as I say. Just looking at all sides, I guess.

[Swiss James]

[Gord]

[the saint]

Gord... all sounds very noble and very utopian. I wish the world were a fairer place to be sure. I write music. If I had time, all of it would be available for download on the web. As it is, only a handful of songs are. But then I don't need to feed my wife and my cat via my music. I teach English so I can. I know someone though who doesn't:

My friend, who I used to front a band with, has resigned from a top management position at a high level company in the UK because he wants to make a go of music full time. He used his golden handshake to produce a CD and to fund himself for the best part of a year. He has three kids a wife and a mortgage to support on top of that.

I have all the music he ever produced in digital form. Were I to even make a CD rip copy (let alone enable P2P) to pass on to a friend, I would never be able to look him in the eye. Personally, I am very glad of that. Instead, if I think someone would benefit from his music, I buy a copy to pass on to them. Why? Because he needs the money (it's his own label) - every penny of it.

I'm not pointing a finger here. This is another example of why P2P is not cut and dried OK for me. I have made some moral choices and these have nothing to do with the legality of it all really. I hear your talk of legality but I don't hear much talk of ethics or morality. Are these irrelevant?

Oh, and by the way, I don't recall you answering my question either

[Bulsajo]

Have you asked your friend what his stance on it is? I would have thought that any band struggling to 'break out' would be happy to get as much exposure as possible. (Unless the name of your friend's band is "Metallica").

[Demophobe]

Gord....you see it your way, I see it mine. For you, it's all so easy and you hide behind the ruling, which is your legal right. That's cool...this thread wasn't started for an argument, but you always seem up for one.

I stand behind what I posted, and in light of your reply, I would post it again. You seem to be as caught up in the semantic lunacy as much as everyone else is.

I am not on one side or the other, just trying to look at this from all sides.

We are different and will remain so.

Enjoy your legal downloads.