quote: Is it immoral to not share your knowledge with humanity?
You are free to share YOUR knowledge. You are not free to share the copyrighted works of another. That decision is up to them and for you to violate their desires is immoral.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legally copyright and trademark infringement are nothing like theft. While there's some colloquial usage surrounding both issues, the use of the term theft generally serves little except to confuse the issue, because "small amounts of copyright infringement" are perfectly okay -- fair use determines exact conditions -- but "small amounts of theft" are never okay.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I'm willing to accept that I might not be using the right legal terminology. However, that does not affect the ethics of the issue.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Selling that work is how they make their livelihood. By taking the work but not paying for it, you are stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood.
Do you ever hear about news stories on Hatrack, or elsewhere, rather than in the printed sources those stories originally appear? If so, you are taking the work of those journalists (the news they report) and not paying for it - thus "stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood" by that same logic. Is that also immoral?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you ever hear about news stories on Hatrack, or elsewhere, rather than in the printed sources those stories originally appear? If so, you are taking the work of those journalists (the news they report) and not paying for it - thus "stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood" by that same logic. Is that also immoral?
I don't agree that the two are the same. On hatrack, people link to websites that have these articles. They are put up there to be read and every time I go to them, they make money from advertising. That is how they make their livelihood.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: No it isn't stealing.
Stealing refers directly to material goods. If you take papers from somewhere copy them and return the papers, you stole the papers momentarily, but 'theft' isn't the charge.
Actually, it is. You can be charged with stealing information from your competitors as well.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, thievery, thieving, stealing]
Notice it says noting about depriving anyone else of the use of it. Even if you return the goods or services so that it is availible for other theft has still occured.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've taken their right to control their own property and that is no small loss. You've also taken away the potential income they would have made had you legally purchased the material.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Yes. You have accessed something that wasn't yours, and stolen from them whatever advantage they could have gained from knowing it.
There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though. And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Furthermore, it is definitely possible that in that definition "taking something" implies depriving them of it, at least for the time being. Have you really taken something from someone if they still have it?
Yes. You have accessed something that wasn't yours, and stolen from them whatever advantage they could have gained from knowing it.
There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
We were discussing legal definitions, and can assure you that the only people who care less about your "redefinition" of stealing than me are those in law enforcment.
Why do I feel like I am discussing a speeding ticket again? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There you go trying to redefine terms again, in the middle of a thread...
I'm fairly certain YOU were the one who brought in a dictionary definition to try and redefine the terms, not me.
quote:You've taken their right to control their own property and that is no small loss. You've also taken away the potential income they would have made had you legally purchased the material.
1. I've only taken that right if they really had that right in the first place. Given that it has always been ethical for people to play their CDs for their friends (thus sharing the music), whether or not the original artist wants them to, it seems that that artist never really had the right to control the sharing of their music.
2. By reading this post, you have taken away the potential income I would have made had you paid me to read it. That fact does not mean you stole from me. It just means I should not expect you to pay me to read my posts once I put them on this forum, just as artists should expect their music to be shared once they release it to the public.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is such a thing as intellectual property theft.
When you buy a CD you're basically buying a limited license to songs on said disc. Typicaly through an unspoken contract, said license allows you to listen to the disc whenever you want and to play it wherever you want. Whoever has possesion of the disc has control of the license.
When you download music without buying the CD it's theft because you didn't buy the license. You can let your friends borrow or listen to a Cd you bought because it is still in your possesion. When a friend borrows a CD and makes a copy of it, it's like they duplicated a license except that they did so without paying the author for their work.
So, saying that it's ok to copy a CD just because it's ok to play it in public is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrics are clearly creative works. They are clearly valuable creative works. Control over who can distribute those creative works is clearly valuable. They fall soundly under copyright, and the distribution of lyrics from a whole cloth falls soundly under copyright infringement and isn't even remotely fair use.
Bullshit. If you credit the lyrics writer then there is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing and if it falls under copyright infringement then copyright infringement is seriously f-ed up (which we already knew). Its like quoting from a text in a paper. Not even, since you don't see people selling books of just plain lyrics. Often the only place to find em is these lyrics sites, which are made by people just listening to the music and trying to figure out what the lyrics are.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you happen to know that reproducing an excessive amount of someone's text in your paper can also be copyright infringement? Of course, excessive is quite a bit more than most people put in.
And you do see people selling books of plain lyrics. They're often called poems.
edit: oh, and you can certainly put good-sized chunks of lyrics up, its just the wholesale publication of lyrics that's an issue. That nobody's making these available otherwise isn't really an issue; if you wrote a book and decided not to publish it, but someone else surreptitiously copied it and started handing copies out to people, there'd be a big problem.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly, if they want a contract, they should make people sign a contract before buying music. Then I'd be more sympathetic - although file sharing would then be violating a contract, not stealing. I bet fewer people would buy CDs if they were so limited, though.
Secondly, it would be the person copying the music who was violating the contract, not the person downloading.
And thirdly, if what you say is true, the only reason we can't share music we buy is because we agree to an unspoken contract when we do so. The solution to this is to simply stop agreeing to this contract or expect different terms. I don't know of any musician who is going out of business due to file sharing, so I think it makes sense to drop that provision from the unspoken contract, and stop buying music from those artists who refuse to do so.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have nothing to add to Rico's commentary on your first point.
quote:2. By reading this post, you have taken away the potential income I would have made had you paid me to read it. That fact does not mean you stole from me. It just means I should not expect you to pay me to read my posts once I put them on this forum, just as artists should expect their music to be shared once they release it to the public.
Except that you are not selling this post. You are willingly posting this information for free with the knowledge that others will read it. That is your choice to make. That is not in any way equivalent to somebody choosing to sell their product, then having other people disregard that choice and obtain the product for free. If the artist releases their product for free to the general public, then obtaining that property for free is not unethical. If the artist releases the product to be sold, obtaining the product for free without the express permission of the artist is indeed unethical.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And thirdly, if what you say is true, the only reason we can't share music we buy is because we agree to an unspoken contract when we do so. The solution to this is to simply stop agreeing to this contract or expect different terms. I don't know of any musician who is going out of business due to file sharing, so I think it makes sense to drop that provision from the unspoken contract, and stop buying music from those artists who refuse to do so.
Why do you have this sense of entitlement to other people's work? They don't owe it to you to create this music. They have created a product and they want compensation from those who obtain their product. That is a very reasonable right to demand. The only reason that musician's don't go out of business due to file sharing is because many people still purchase their music. People steal from Walmart and they still survive because most people actually buy their products. Does Walmart's survival impact the ethics of stealing from them? No. The act is still wrong. And if most people stole from Walmart, then they would go out of business.
It's their work and they have the rights over it. You don't. You can continue to try and justify how it's ok for you to ignore these basic facts, but it's getting a little tiring. It seems like all you are saying is "I don't want to pay for it and I don't have to so why should I care about the artists' rights?"
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
How am I supposed to try and sell my posts when you people keep stealing them from me? Why do you have this sense of entitlement to my posts? I don't owe it to you to write them. Why is it not very reasonable for me to expect compensation from anyone who obtains my product? You'll note that you never asked me if I would prefer to be paid for it. You never asked if I was releasing it for free. You just took it and read it. Why?
Because you know that I know that by posting it here, people are going to read it without paying me a cent, and thus by posting it here I have implicitly consented to allowing you to read my posts for free. It is expected, to the point where if I were to claim I was expecting payment, you'd say I was simply being foolish to expect that.
Why is this expectation not there for music? Because they sell music rather than give it away? The only reason they can sell music as they do is because that expectation does not exist, so it'd be a circular explanation.
I think the real reason is because of tradition - there has always been this expectation that certain artists get paid per copy of their work (although poets and certain other sorts do not!) and thus people think it MUST be so. But tradition can be changed, especially when technology makes it far easier to do so. Consider when television allowed for movies to be taken out of the theaters and into eveyone's homes where folks no longer had to pay ticket prices - Hollywood was outraged and attempted to fight it, but in the end tradition changed for the better. I'm sure Hollywood producers would still prefer that everyone go to the theaters to pay box office prices for their viewing pleasure, but it's simply not a "fact" that consumers owe it to producers to pay the producers as much as the producers think they deserve. Instead we get TV for free, more or less, and don't really owe anyone anything for it. Radio is the same way. I predict file sharing via the internet will eventually end up free too, because its efficient, better for the consumer, and I suspect will result in a better, broader array of music.
You can say I want free music, which is true. But don't try to claim it is a "fact" that music producers have natural rights to their works. If these rights exist, they are a matter of tradition and agreement - because both consumer and producer have mutually decided it is best to follow those rules. It does not have to be that way, though - and I think eventually it will not be.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I actually used the common description of the word, and linked to prove it. You are trying to redenie it so you can have access to things you aren't paying for, lets be completely clear.
As far as your posts, you put them on th web on your own, in a forum that is in the public domain, and agreed to s user contract when creating a login name that told you it was a public forum.
Artists aren't usually the people who put their works ut on a p2p network, are they?
posted
Kwea: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2119&bold=|||| "theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments."
I can't rob you of IP. You will however not gain money at my gain of your IP.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right...but it doesn't say all theft is robbery. As a matter of fact it destinguishes between the two, saying that theft isn't robbery.
Read it again, it actually supports my point.
You can't "rob" me of it, but you can steal it..."intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)"...
Doesn't say you have to sell it for it to be theft either.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The taker's use, where Take refers to physical objects or the deprivation of such objects.
Only having one of the items taken from you.
Where IP you can't in anyway deprive the originator the right of IP. You can just copy it.
With market goods it is clear cut, because you cause a deprivation of the item to be sold. With IP, That person no longer will pay you for the IP because they already have it.
It's based on something completely different.
I can copy it, but I can't steal the IP, I can use it without permission, but that isn't stealing.
I can copy a Van Gogh by hand, and I won't be charged with theft. However if I steal an original (or duplicate) from a store I deprive that store of the item to be sold.
I can also copy a Van Gogh, and not get in trouble, because I'm doing it to better my skills, and trying to learn from a master.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, completely, and so far most of the laws and courts agree with me on this one...by a heavy margin.
If there was no right to IP then there would be no right for copyright infringement at all, and there clearly is as the law stands today.
Also, while bittorent and other p2p systems CAN be used for legal purposes, the majority of torrents at any public site is overwhelmingly illegal material, and that is allowed to be a factor in these cases as well.
I make something, and you...having nothing to do with either the process of creating it, or the business of marketing and selling it....take the product I have made for sale and distribute it without my permission, that is a clear violation of the law. You are reproducing the songs in their entirety, and preventing me from the proceeds I am legally entitled to, and are doing so my using my work without permission.
posted
I'm not saying it's ok to do, I'm simply stating you are using the wrong terminology.
You can't Take IP therefore you can't steal it. However yes, you can copy it, and deprive them of the possible gain that you would have paid for it (IF you had bought it anyways)
With take there is a first hand loss on the part of the owner. With IP there is no loss, just no longer a possible gain.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, I actually used the common description of the word, and linked to prove it.
But again, your "proof" was just a dictionary, which isn't proof of anything but what certain dictionary writers think is a good definition. And your attempt to use that definition is still redefining the word in order to suit your argument. So don't complain when others try to give their own differing definitions that they think are correct, if you are going to do the exact same thing. The fact of the matter is, if people are using the wrong definition for critical concepts, it makes no sense to continue a discussion without defining it correctly - because wrong definitions will lead to wrong conclusions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where IP you can't in anyway deprive the originator the right of IP. You can just copy it.
I beg to differ.
I work on game mods. Let's say that you decide you have the right to download the latest mod I'm working on which you found on a p2p service. The mod hasn't been released yet but somehow let's say it got leaked out incomplete and without my authorization. Those are the key words.
Now, I expect people to download my mods free of charge as soon as I release them. By releasing them I am implicitly and explicitly authorizing people to play them for free and distribute them as they see fit so long as they don't violate the original game EULA. However, that would not be the case in this example because someone took something that was mine, copied it, and distributed it without my consent. Are you saying I have no right to be angry because someone stole my mod and released it without my consent? I didn't lose anything physical, I still have the original copy in my hard drive, so by your logic, you claim I never really took a loss.
Your argument is flawed, there is no way I would be ok with someone releasing something I've put hard work on without my permission. This can be said to be true about music as well. The artists don't give you the right to just distribute their work as you see fit, that's why they pay publishers to print their CDs.
I really don't see how you can argue that it isn't stealing.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to throw something else out there... What about the fact that so many movies and albums are really, really bad? I swear that the record companies have a conspiracy to take a few good songs from their artists for an album, and then have them fill in the rest of the album with junk. So, they take a good 10-12 songs that are awesome, and stretch them out into about 4 CDs or more.
And how about the fact that some movies are just teeeeeeeeeeeeerrible? Why don't they offer refunds?
Personally, when I like a movie, I like to have a real copy of the DVD with the DVD case and the special features. You don't usually get the special features with a downloaded copy of the movie, and you certainly don't get the pretty case. If the movie is good, it's worth it to buy the movie for the extras and the case.
I wish that the movie industry would offer their movies for download (maybe a month or so after it's available for rental, if they want to wait--although there are advantages to offering them earlier). Offer a GOOD download for a reasonable price, at a place with wonderful bandwidth, and the convenience of that will outweigh getting the movie from other places.
We get the blockbuster movie pass. It allows us to rent as many movies as we can for one price all month. After 6 movies, it's paid for itself--and we watch a lot more than that. We don't want to wait on the mail, so we prefer going to the store. (Instant gratification.) It would be very worth it for us to have a similar deal with the movie companies for downloads.
Whether downloads are ethical or not, I really think the record and movie industries are going about this all wrong. At least it is now possible to download music legally. I still think they charge too much per song, though. This download culture can be embraced and molded into something that makes money for the industries.
And dangit, I want refunds on sucky movies!! That's time I'll never get back!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK: amusingly enough, the Supreme Court said no such thing. They said that file sharing services could be liable for copyright infringement when people on those services engage in such activities, under certain circumstances.
The author of the article decided to call that theft.
On the subject of infringement vs theft, I think its bad to call it theft because, despite any superficial similarities, the differences make such comparisons lead to faulty suppositions and the like.
It is calling it theft which lets companies convince people they don't have fair use rights.
It is calling it theft which leads to congress setting severe criminal penalties on people who did nothing but write software that lets people exercise their fair use rights.
It is calling it theft which leads to congress setting criminal penalties of any sort on people engaging in thoughtless, illegal, but relatively benign and common activities easily remedied through civil protections.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Really? What if I note in my post that I reserve all rights to what I have posted? I don't remember seeing anything in the terms of use of this board that constitutes any agreement on my part to forfeit my rights to what I have written.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, Well, they kind of did by citing previous precedent... Link
quote: In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the useful Arts. Art. I, §8, cl. 8. No one disputes that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961
quote:Originally posted by twinky: To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
Really? What if I note in my post that I reserve all rights to what I have posted? I don't remember seeing anything in the terms of use of this board that constitutes any agreement on my part to forfeit my rights to what I have written.
That's why I said "I think." The owners of the board certainly make no claim to the material posted here, but -- for instance -- you give up the exclusive right to edit your posts when you make them, since both Papa Janitor and kacard can edit or delete posts and/or threads unilaterally. They almost never do it, and KHJ didn't do it much either when she was mod, but they do have that power.
So in a that sense, you've given up exclusive control over your posts. Even putting a note as you describe in the post doesn't change the fact that Pop or KAC can still edit or delete them. In a broader sense, though, I think that while you have "more" rights over content you post than a random member, the posts and threads belong to the community. That's why I take a dim view of things like unlabeled edits; I'd prefer a ten-minute labelled edit window, with no edits allowed after that (except to the first post in a thread in case the title needs to be amended, but in those rare cases you can always ask a mod to do it).
If I start a thread and it goes in a direction that makes me unhappy, I won't delete the thread even though as thread starter I have that ability, because I don't think it's appropriate for me to delete all of those other posts that other people put their time and effort into along with my own.
Also, if I took a paper, essay, poem, or work of fiction that I'd posted here in its entirety and submitted it to a publisher, I'd expect it to be rejected on account of its extant availability. So by posting something like that here I may also be giving up the right to sell it later.
[Edit: Fixed a typo.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To touch on a tangentially-related issue, I think posts you make on this forum cease to be solely yours when you post them.
I agree - but in the same way music ceases to be solely the author's the instant it leaves the authors head and enters the public realm. You can't own a song, or a post, or a story, or any piece of information - that is contrary to the nature of information. The closest you can come is keeping it in your head and never letting it out, which is within any person's powers.
You CAN have certain rights in regards to information, although that does not constitute owning that information, and what rights those are is very much in question. I certainly have some special rights to my posts here - such as the right to not be plagiarized, or have my words credited to another.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Rico: To deprive would mean you no longer had it in any means.
In other words, They removed it from your possesion, meaning you can't release your next version of the mod because you no longer have it to work on.
This isn't that hard of a concept to understand.
Again, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying that you are wrong by calling it stealing.
So you're saying that by someone taking my mod out of my computer and releasing it as if it were their own work, I am not being deprived of the credit for my hard work? Let's not forget I'd also suffer a psychological loss (which is also untangible so therefore "ok") and it would quite likely push me to stop working on mods altogether for good.
I think those are losses and just because you can't put them on a scale it doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd certainly be unhappy if someone did that to me, so wouldn't I be losing happiness? I'd also lose the rights to my mod, I'd say that would definitely be a loss for me.
*shrug* This argument seems sort of pointless. I'm all for filesharing but it's sort of annoying to see people take something that doesn't belong to them and rationalize it so that they don't feel bad about it. Call it what you want to call it, there ARE losses for the other party.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have used filesharing for less than stellar causes, but at least I don't pretend it is completely moral. I uderstand it is not completely reasonable for me to be able to do that, but I also realize that to me it is on par with speeding or any other minor offence....
I had files downloading on this computer last night as I was writing up my posts in this thread...how's that for irony?
But most of mine were songs that were released by a band for this type of sharing, or freeware.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main problem with filesharing is that the people complaining the loudest, aka musicians, actually make the least from record sales. Record stores, distributors, and record companies all make more money off of album sales than the actual artists do. So when I hear a musician complain about how pirating takes money out of their pocket, it's counterproductive. It actually makes me want to buy their CDs a lot less.
I never bought a Metallica album after all their Napster whining.
On the other hand, I've tried out a lot of artists by downloading whatever songs come up most frequently in a search of their name (figuring those would be the best). And if I like them, I go buy their CD. It's much better quality, and I like the liner notes, and if they're good I want to support them. If I don't like them, I delete the songs, so as not to clutter up my machine with crappiness.
I can't really speak for software and movie ethics, because I don't trust either of those on a p2p server. But I don't feel at all bad about downloading music.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A dictionary definition proves nothing other than the dictionary authors' opinion on what the most correct definition is, though.
That's not how lexicography works. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Even usage notes in dictionaries do not typically reflect the dictionary's opinion on the matter, but rather reflect the opinion of commentators and other usage experts.
quote:And if a wrong definition of a given concept is popular, then the dictionary will typically have that wrong definition.
Language users are the ones who decide which definitions are right or wrong. If the majority of speakers say that a particular word means a particular thing, then it's not a wrong definition.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled intellectual property discussion.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only does that argument not stand up to logic, it runs counter to the definition itself....service are specifically mentioned, but a service is not a physical object.
Theft can be of non-physical things as well, clearly.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Language users are the ones who decide which definitions are right or wrong. If the majority of speakers say that a particular word means a particular thing, then it's not a wrong definition.
This is correct when talking about words, but not correct when talking about concepts. "Stealing" is a word that points to a concept, and when asking "Is file sharing stealing?" we are asking if it falls under the concept of stealing. This is very different from asking something like "What does 'metaphor' mean?" which is asking for the definition of the word, rather than the concept.
Language users are NOT the ones who decide what fits the definition of a concept. A concept is what it is, regardless of what the majority thinks. For instance, the concept of "stealing" would still be the same even if we managed to get the majority of English speakers to use the word "stealing" to refer to "dancing in a conga line." In that case, it would be the same concept but under a different name - or no name at all.
If you want proof of the definition of a concept, you can only achieve it through rational analysis - by testing against various situations. Falling back on an authority doesn't cut it, because at best the dictionary just deals with certain experts' opinions on the popular usage of labels, rather than the concepts those labels refer to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with people who say they use filesharing to discover new artists...well, you may think you do it that way, but how much of an album has to be good in order for you to feel the need to buy it? Four songs? Five? If you only like three of the songs, do you feel that no one should be compensated for those three you illegally downloaded just because the rest didn't meet your standards?
Very, VERY few people buy every album they download.
On top of that, musicians do have a right to complain about illegal downloads, even though they only receive a small portion of sales. Keep in mind also that a record company will make decisions on how/whether to promote a follow-up album based on current sales. If you download the album of an artist you really like and never actually spend money on it, you're sending a message to the record label that you aren't a fan of the music. They'll respond accordingly.
That said, if you really want to make sure your money goes to the artist, go to concerts. And try to buy CDs there. Artists often make WAY more money on CDs sold at concerts (depending on the contract, of course).
posted
Tresopax: I bet that most philosophers and linguists would disagree with you. There is no external, unchangeable concept of stealing. How do you prove that something is stealing except by appealing to speakers' definition of what stealing is?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Artists don't receive even a small part of their sales. Their contracts are typically structured in such a way as to insure that they never even recoup their advances (on paper, of course) and until their portion of the record sales can repay the advance, they get nothing for sales. That's why any successful musician tours year around. Touring is how rock stars get rich. It's also common knowledge in the industry that you bargain your way to as big an advance as you can get, because you know you won't see another dime until merchandising and touring starts. Of course they also make money on advertisements and publishing (which is totally different).
As an example, Michael Jackson's Thriller sold 50 million copies worldwide and he never made any royalties off of it. So I'd rethink your stance on how much downloading is robbing musicians.
And for new artists, some of their follow up albums are based on sales, but since record companies well know how much downloading goes on, and which are the most downloaded artists/songs they don't just blindly follow the numbers. Record sales is one indicator of success. Nowadays, it's not the most important one. It's a lot more important to stay on TRL and on Leno than it is to sell 5 million records out of the gate (and don't get me started on the overreporting of record sales by the labels). In the age of protools, marketability is the most important attribute of any major label act.
And as for me, personally, it doesn't matter how many songs are good. I don't have the patience to download entire albums. I can hear part of a couple songs and tell if I like the artist or not. Musicians go to such lengths now, anyway, that it's more of a pain than it's worth to download new albums. They release them weeks in advance, they put out fake tracks for download (filled with white noise), or they just give away free downloads. I like music, and if I hear something I like, then I'll buy something and give it a shot. I did this recently with Jeff Buckley and Buddy Guy (not together, of course).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
