Carlos

This "tax" is a way for the industry to recoup some of the losses they will have from pirates. The RIAA is kind enough to tell us about it on their own web site. The first paragraph of that states:

Mageth

Originally posted by LordSnooty:

Copyright is an intense irritation. Obviously, in theory copyright law is good and fair. But in reality, it's abused by corporate bullies.

One thing those that make this argument tend to miss is that Intellectual Property (IP) Laws (patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights) are of extreme importance to small entities in protecting themselves from, and competing against, big corporation "bullies." If it weren't for IP laws, small entities (e.g. individuals, startup firms, small businesses) would have little or no chance to compete against big corporations. So while it may be true that corporate "bullies" often use IP laws to their advantage, the opposite is also true; IP laws are used to keep them in check, to keep them from running roughshod over small entities.

Mageth

Originally posted by Kind Bud:

No, I bought a shiny silver disk, a physical object. I signed no contract when I purchased it, there was no license agreement, not even a silly end user "I Agree" click-through. First sale doctrine rules here: the disk is mine. I acquired the disk, and I agreed to no restrictions at the time of purchase, or before it, or after it.

It seems obvious that you bought more than the disk. The disk itself only costs a few pennies to produce; I'm sure you paid several dollars for the disk retail. What did you pay that extra money for? The content of the disk, obviously.

And I'm sure the disk had one or more copyright marks on it. By purchasing the disk with the explicit copyrighted material, you are agreeing to abide by the copyright, and thus you have agreed to restrictions at the time of purchase. You have "ownership" of that copy of the content; you're free to use that content as you see fit for your personal use, which includes making copies for your personal use, but which doesn't include providing copies to others. Under First Use, however, you're free to lend, give, or sell your copy of the original disk to anyone you wish.

Mageth

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
The only use of copyright that i find justified is too enforce who may use such in a business context. Everything else doesn't feel right to me.

Well, "business conxext" is the intended use of copyright protection.

Take music file swapping for example, I honestly do not see a crime in reproducing a file and sharing it. Its not like you are destroying the original copy when doing so.

You are diluting the value of the orginal work to the copyright owner. That's "business."

What if you were to memorize a copyrighted short story and share it with others who were interested and they in turn memorized it and shared with others? Where is the crime?

There is none in this case; you can't violate a copyright by storing the copyrighted material in your memory, or by orally reciting it from memory to someone else. So memorize away.

I realize the issues of lost revenue etc, but I refuse to believe that the free exchange of information is a crime.

The "free exchange of information" is not a crime. "Information" is not copyrightable. A particular expression of "information" is copyrightable. "Exchange" of that expression without compensation to or the consent of the copyright holder is a crime.

Mageth

Originally posted by Kind Bud:

Currently, you pay a royalty to the RIAA on all blank digital media: CD-R, DVD-R, DAT, all of it. This royalty is collected even if you put your own works on the media. In effect, you must pay a royalty to the RIAA for works that you have copyrighted. Is this theft?

I don't consider it technically "theft", but I think it raises serious ethical questions. I shouldn't be forced to pay for the (potential) crimes of others, after all. A rough parallel is the insurance industry; for example, one is forced to pay higher premiums for the bad driving habits of others, particularly if you're male and between the ages of 18-25 or so.

jofo

I don't think it's worth discussing the actual workings of the copyright laws here, but whether they should work as they do. Sure you're limited by copyright law when you buy information today, but that is not really the issue here is it?

Even if copyrigth law wasn't around, it's possible that you might pay more than just the price of media for software, it's entirely up to the seller. If you know it's the person behind the software you're buying it from, maybe you're prepared to reward him in this way?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with charging someone for providing information. Saying that abolishing copyright laws would make that impossible is like saying that nobody would pay a higher price for being able to shop at the small store on the corner, instead of driving to the large mall every single time. It's a matter of convenience, and community spirit. Sure some small stores may have to close because a new mega-mall opens, but then that's what people choose. You can't legislate about such things, because people don't like to be forced to make a certain choice if there's no strong moral argument behind it.

I'm not questioning whether copyright laws make it easier to make money from producing information, that much is obvious. I am questioning society's gain from this. It's probably good for some individuals, but it's definitely bad for others. I think the total sum is bad, especially considering the increased complexity of a life more and more filled with and depending on different kinds of restricted information.

Openness is the key - if it's open, you don't even need a key!

Mageth

I don't think it's worth discussing the actual workings of the copyright laws here, but whether they should work as they do.

I don't see how one could discuss the latter without discussing the former.

Sure you're limited by copyright law when you buy information today, but that is not really the issue here is it?

Well, if not, what is?

Even if copyrigth law wasn't around, it's possible that you might pay more than just the price of media for software, it's entirely up to the seller. If you know it's the person behind the software you're buying it from, maybe you're prepared to reward him in this way?

Sure, things might work that way, but then again, maybe not. You're talking about rolling back IP law several hundred years, you know.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with charging someone for providing information. Saying that abolishing copyright laws would make that impossible...

Which I haven't said, and I don't think anyone else has, either.

...is like saying that nobody would pay a higher price for being able to shop at the small store on the corner, instead of driving to the large mall every single time. It's a matter of convenience, and community spirit. Sure some small stores may have to close because a new mega-mall opens, but then that's what people choose. You can't legislate about such things, because people don't like to be forced to make a certain choice if there's no strong moral argument behind it.

The moral argument for copyright protection is that the creator owns the right to an expression of an idea, has a right to profit from the work performed in creating that expression, and copyright laws protect that owner's right to profit from his or her work. In so doing, copyright laws encourage the creation and dissemination of expressions of ideas.

I'm not questioning whether copyright laws make it easier to make money from producing information, that much is obvious. I am questioning society's gain from this. It's probably good for some individuals, but it's definitely bad for others. I think the total sum is bad, especially considering the increased complexity of a life more and more filled with and depending on different kinds of restricted information.

I haven't seen anyone give a good explanation of the "bad" caused to society by copyright protection. What is this "bad?" To me it pretty much boils down to some don't want to have to pay for CDs (and thus compensate the creator) when they can get a free copy. Is there any other "bad" that goes into the equation? If not, it's a weak moral argument, at best.

Openness is the key - if it's open, you don't even need a key!

If people didn't lock their houses, stuff would be easier to steal!

tronvillain

I may be violating copyright when I download a song, but am I actually stealing? If we use the defintion "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully", I do not think that I am. After all, I am not taking or appropriating anything. One might arguing that I am depriving artists and companies of potential revenue, but as has been pointed out, if I would not purchase the song in the absence of the ability to download it, they are not being deprived of potential revenue. When there is an easy way to download and pay for individual songs I will probably feel differently, but for the time being I feel no guilt.

jofo

Well, certainly, if there were different interpretations as to how copyright laws work, it would be worth investigating, but I think we're all pretty much agreeing on how they work, technically. I'm much more interested in discussing *why* we should have those laws.

If the discussion is about whether or not we have copyright laws, then my answer is simply "yes". But that is hardly a topic worthy of discussion, imho.

Well, I see the whole concept of IP as very problematic, so I wouldn't mind terribly if we were to abolish all of the IP laws. "Rolling them back" would only be bad if they were a good thing to begin with, right?

Sorry if I implied that. Guess I was going outside the scope of the post I was quoting.

I fail to see how that is an argument. To argue against something by saying that it's "wrong" sounds weak to me. I need arguments showing that it leads to bad consequences in some way, reduced happiness, freedom, etc. It always sounds good to talk about "rights" for the individual, but one must always remember that a right is empty unless there are corresponding obligations on the part of someone else. Rights are "good", obligations are "bad". If the total sum does not end up on the "good" side, I think there may be reason to question the validity of the particular right.

Maybe copyright laws do encourage creation of expressions of ideas (although I don't believe that they encourage actual quality), but how does it help their dissemination? The whole job of copyright law is to prevent certain information from spreading freely, right? I think you need to elaborate on this if you're going to base an argument on it.

If I can download all the music I want for next to nothing, is that not good for me? Would I do it unless I thought it was good somehow? What are your arguments for saying that it's not bad for me to be restricted from getting certain information for free when it's abundantly available? I am not accepting the argument that it is "wrong"

This is out of context. The discussion is about information and I don't agree that you can make valid comparisons between ownership och information and ownership of "things". They are fundamentally different. Copyright law tries to remove these differences from the point of view of the producer, but I think that is generally a bad idea.

Mageth

jofo:

Well, certainly, if there were different interpretations as to how copyright laws work, it would be worth investigating, but I think we're all pretty much agreeing on how they work, technically. I'm much more interested in discussing *why* we should have those laws.
Why we have the laws is a different discussion than “whether they should work as they do”, which is what I was responding to. And you’d have a hard time discussing the “why” without discussing the laws, anyway.

If the discussion is about whether or not we have copyright laws, then my answer is simply "yes". But that is hardly a topic worthy of discussion, imho.

The OP of the thread asked “Is violating copyrights, stealing?”. If there were no copyright laws, this would be a moot question, no? So the topic of this thread is inextricably tied to copyright law. You can’t discuss copyright issues without discussing copyright law.

Well, I see the whole concept of IP as very problematic, so I wouldn't mind terribly if we were to abolish all of the IP laws. "Rolling them back" would only be bad if they were a good thing to begin with, right?

Expressions of ideas (e.g. songs, novels, paintings, inventions, etc.) are recognized as “things”, and are assigned value, in our society. Copyright and other IP laws were established to recognize that fact (which was established in society before the laws were in place) and to protect owner's rights. So rather than simply asserting IP laws as “problematic”, you need to establish why expressions of ideas are not things of value and/or why assigning value to expressions of ideas is “bad.”

I posted:

The moral argument for copyright protection is that the creator owns the right to an expression of an idea, has a right to profit from the work performed in creating that expression, and copyright laws protect that owner's right to profit from his or her work. In so doing, copyright laws encourage the creation and dissemination of expressions of ideas.

You replied:

I fail to see how that is an argument. To argue against something by saying that it's "wrong" sounds weak to me.

It is an argument, definitely says more than “it’s wrong”, and is more substantial than any contra-argument I’ve seen posted here. Your argument seems to consist of “IP laws are bad. Copyright laws are bad.” I haven’t seen you or anyone else post any persuasive arguments, moral or otherwise, to back up those assertions.

I need arguments showing that it leads to bad consequences in some way, reduced happiness, freedom, etc.

That’s exactly what my argument indicated; reduced “happiness and freedom” for the creators of original expressions. And reduced happiness and freedom for society in general, in that removing copyright laws would discourage creation and dissemination of expressions of ideas.

It always sounds good to talk about "rights" for the individual, but one must always remember that a right is empty unless there are corresponding obligations on the part of someone else.

Rights are "good", obligations are "bad". If the total sum does not end up on the "good" side, I think there may be reason to question the validity of the particular right.

Why are obligations “bad?” You have in no way established that. Why is it “bad” that one be required to pay for someone else’s creative work?

Maybe copyright laws do encourage creation of expressions of ideas (although I don't believe that they encourage actual quality), but how does it help their dissemination?

If works are not created, they won’t be disseminated, obviously. Further, if one will not profit from dissemination, or not profit as much, or at least not get compensation for the cost of dissemination, why disseminate?

The whole job of copyright law is to prevent certain information from spreading freely, right?

Wrong. It’s to insure creators are compensated for dissemination of created work, if they so desire.

I think you need to elaborate on this if you're going to base an argument on it.

I think my point in the above argument is perfectly clear – creators have a right to profit from their work. You need to elaborate on why IP laws in general, and in particular copyrights, are “bad”, which I have yet to see you do beyond:

If I can download all the music I want for next to nothing, is that not good for me? Would I do it unless I thought it was good somehow?

So it apparently does boil down to not wanting to have to pay for CDs (and thus compensate the creator) when you can get a free copy. Again, that’s a weak moral argument, at best. It’s “good” for you to be able to download music for “next to nothing”, when the downloading deprives the creator of his/her compensation for use of the music? You really don’t see a moral dilemma there?

What are your arguments for saying that it's not bad for me to be restricted from getting certain information for free when it's abundantly available? I am not accepting the argument that it is "wrong".

So to you, it’s not wrong to not compensate the creator for his/her work, when that is what the creator desires? And if so, why is it not wrong? I’m not accepting “it’s not wrong” or “gee, it’s available on the net for free!” for an answer.

This is out of context. The discussion is about information and I don't agree that you can make valid comparisons between ownership och information and ownership of "things". They are fundamentally different. Copyright law tries to remove these differences from the point of view of the producer, but I think that is generally a bad idea.

I’ll repeat: Expressions of ideas (e.g. songs, novels, paintings, inventions, etc.) are recognized as “things”, and are assigned value, in our society. Copyright and other IP laws were established to recognize that fact (which was established in society before the laws were in place).

You need to establish why copyrightable material is “fundamentally different” from other things, e.g. why an original song is not a “thing” to which value can be attached, contrary to society’s recognition and the law. Further, why is recognizing these expressions as things of value “generally a bad idea?” As you said earlier, “To argue against something by saying that it's "wrong" sounds weak to me.” That’s all I’ve seen you do here, with nothing more to back up that assertion than the weak “I want to download songs for free! It's bad for me to have to pay!”