BEL: The record industry Gets Theirs 08-04-2003

[way 2 go]

1. Knock offs are not immoral .Lexus looking like Mercedes is not immoral
it's just supply & demand

2 .dead people . Once your dead we're free to copy your stuff?
We were free to copy your stuff before you died
We are allowed to take your ideas and make them our own (its called learning)

eg :someone was the inventor of the glazed doughnut . say someone came along started making the doughnut with chocolate on it .YOU STOLE MY IDEA they cry that's not fair .FREE market economy they improved the doughnut
Soon as they put the doughnut out there its out of thier control what happens to it . Someone makes it poorly someone makes it better
That’s FREEDOM

3. Recording from the radio. Poor Quality. so if i download 96kb mp3
its ok . if i record from satellite radio ( CD quality ) is that ok ?
You helped my argument .
(Quality doesn’t matter in the stupid copyright law tho)

4. Ideas can't be protected. Because they're out there floating around
They’re free. Except for the arbitrary copyright law
Someone GIVES someone an idea they make millions from that idea. They cry that’s not FAIR because they didn't make the millions. Someone else comes along makes that idea obsolete. They no longer make millions ........ That’s life they have to overcome adapt not cry that’s not FAIR (recording industry)

5 FAIR. Jesus wasn't fair when he paid the last guy a day’s wages for 1
Hours work. Fair in the first guys mind would be to be paid a day’s wages hourly. What the last guy received for an hour (he was being generous to the last guy. its a different spin on the prodigal son)
copyright isn't about right or wrong (GODS law) its mans law trying to make things fair witch are not fair .it's an arbitrary law
The point is here: it's an illustration of GOD not being fair God said don’t steal . He didn't say don't copy.

This section of scripture does not apply to this topic. Would someone be right to accuse you of being a child-molester? That wouldn't be "fair." Would that person be just in pointing to this section of scripture you quoted as his justification? You keep comparing apples to oranges. Please think clearly

5a. if someone calls someone a child molester & he is he should be punished . if he's not then the accuser should get the punishment the child molester would have received .
Answer: no he would be WRONG

We are talking about copying music is it wrong , is it unfair ,is it immoral
i am saying it's not fair . but its not wrong

6 . Keeping the bible to themselves. Catholic church was keeping the bible from the masses by leaving it in Latin.
therefore keeping people under their control .Two guys translated into English and were burned at the stake as heretics
point : their "copyright" protection of the day was Latin . People of the day DIED to violate the copy protection so you could have a readable bible today

Just some thoughts
Musicians used to make their money from performing . Now the internet is
forcing them to change how the get rich. their the greedy ones if you define greed as wanting to attain excessive wealth: greedy:
The dmca is just the record companies stayiing in business & not going back to the age before electricity
where if some one played Chopin
he didn’t get paid for it & no body stole from him when they did it

what about libraries you check out the books for free .the authors not getting paid when you do that. you enjoyed while you had it & returned it because of its kind of media. legalized sharing
(i know you don’t own a copy in the end) but you remember it. You can check it out again if you forget

What could possibly stop you from making a copy of what you own and doing with it what you want?

nothing i would guess

If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are?

no . cause property is physical

 

[Jason Thomas]

Jesus recording

Jesus recording

If you posters who are taking the pro-stealing stand claim to be believers in Salvation in and through Jesus Christ you should be ashamed of yourselves. If Jesus created a recording and the proceeds were going to pay for His Earthly ministry would you still download the recording for free if you could? You could expect Jesus’ Father to tear your lives to shreds if you tried to steal from His son. You are risking the wrath of the All-mighty by stealing in any manner.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by way 2 go
1. Knock offs are not immoral .Lexus looking like Mercedes is not immoral
it's just supply & demand

I have to admit I have lost my interest in this debate since its much like arguing.... "should marijuana be legalized" with someone you know is probably arguing that position because they smoke it themselves. There is no talking sense into these people because they have justified this position to themselves because they have an investment in the argument.

Not a single argument has been made on this thread yet that demonstrates piracy is not theft. To date... all the arguments that have been made so far are attempts to justify the theft.

But I do want to address this silly notion that I highlighted above written by way 2 go. The idea that a knock off is not theft but competition. And of course that is the case! Buying a Lexus is NOT like stealing a Mercedes. If we cannot make the distinction between SIMILAR PRODUCTS and ACTUAL COPIES this debate will never progress.

Again... a digital copy of a song IS the song! Its not a knock off, its not even a covered version by another artist - ITS AN ACTUAL COPY! In this case the copy IS the product!

And when you take an ACTUAL product from the owner of the product against their will a theft has occurred.

 

[BillyBob]

I haven't been following this thread but songwriting is a job like any other. The only way a writer gets paid is if he sells his song, the artist that records it makes money with the song and the only way that happens is if people buy the CD or it gets radio play.

I don't work for free, you don't work for free, why should a songwriter work for free?

 

[Yorzhik]

I have to admit I have lost my interest in this debate since its much like arguing.... "should marijuana be legalized" with someone you know is probably arguing that position because they smoke it themselves.

So do you think I have violated copyright law?

Is that the only reason you've lost interest in the debate? If so, you are quitting for the wrong reason. You've really hurt me with this accusation that I'm a hypocrite.

There is no talking sense into these people because they have justified this position to themselves because they have an investment in the argument.

You don't have to respond to my every comment, but could you just let me know this; Do you read the responses to your posts? Here is the truth of my investment in the argument that I posted long before you made the above comment:

*****
Well, actually, I used to have a lot invested in the promote-copyrights world because I thought that was capitalism. It has taken quite some time and soul searching to finally let go of copyrights and patents. So, no, if you want to weigh what I have invested in either position over my lifetime then copyrights/patents would have the greater weight.
*****

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that it's a little disconcerting that you think you cannot talk sense with me.

Not a single argument has been made on this thread yet that demonstrates piracy is not theft. To date... all the arguments that have been made so far are attempts to justify the theft.

No, all the attempts I've made so far is to show you that you have nothing to stand on morally to justify calling "copyright violations" "theft". I haven't tried to say we should break the law. When I've asked you to quantify the theft, you cannot. And you accuse me of trying to justify theft.

Buying a Lexus is NOT like stealing a Mercedes. If we cannot make the distinction between SIMILAR PRODUCTS and ACTUAL COPIES this debate will never progress.

I answered your claim that physical products that compete in the marketplace cannot be actual copies. They can be. Your argument begins to crumble. Not because I just like to scream what my position is over and over, but because I've demonstrated that one of the foundations of your argument is wrong.

Secondly, it is not because I haven't answered your questions that this debate won't progress, but because I've demonstrated that the principle *you* claim is behind copyright's moral stand does not work.

Again... a digital copy of a song IS the song! Its not a knock off, its not even a covered version by another artist - ITS AN ACTUAL COPY! In this case the copy IS the product!

Your problem here is that you don't understand why God put property laws into place. You have missing information to use to judge the situation. Why did God put property laws into place? It's okay to say, "I don't know."

And when you take an ACTUAL product from the owner of the product against their will a theft has occurred.

Here, again, the vast gulf between physical property and ideas is so great, that before you can justify treating ideas as physical property you have to explain how the gulf is bridged. You will admit you haven't even tried, won't you?

And this isn't just a request to change the subject or muddy the waters. This is an integral part of the discussion at hand.

 

[Yorzhik]

If you posters who are taking the pro-stealing stand claim to be believers in Salvation in and through Jesus Christ you should be ashamed of yourselves. If Jesus created a recording and the proceeds were going to pay for His Earthly ministry would you still download the recording for free if you could? You could expect Jesus’ Father to tear your lives to shreds if you tried to steal from His son. You are risking the wrath of the All-mighty by stealing in any manner.

Jason, I don't download illegally, it is against the law (a bad law I don't benefit enough from to risk breaking it).

Jesus knows the difference between ideas and physical property, so He would say that copyright laws are wrong. He would, however, probably be copyrighting everything He recorded today because there is no economy to support someone who sells ideas.

 

[Yorzhik]

way 2 go, I had never seen the argument of 'life aint fair'. But you are right... the example of the landowner shows he was not fair!

Now, it actually was fair, but it shows that "fair" isn't always the way you want things to be.

 

[way 2 go]

Your problem here is that you don't understand why God put property laws into place. You have missing information to use to judge the situation. Why did God put property laws into place?

care to enlighten us all .please

I'm not syaing you should steal either or download music it is against the law & God says obey the laws of the land unless it goes against his law
is copyright law good or bad ?

I taped bob enyart 's show when he was on tv did i steal ?
I do remember him talking to people doing the same thing and he didn't have a problem with it .
was I stealing ?

 

[Yorzhik]

way 2 go. You wouldn't happen to have a Russian accent, would you? I'm only asking because my wife is Russian and she has a similar style (assuming you are writing conversationally).

care to enlighten us all .please

Well, no. I'm waiting for Knight to try and answer first. If one does not put thought into a subject, they tend to forget it, or not understand it. Anyone can peruse an answer, but to come up with an answer on your own requires thought.

is copyright law good or bad ?

Embedded in the law… it's BAD.

By individual contract; go ahead, if one thinks they can pull it off. But then that would be contract law, not copyright law.

I taped bob enyart 's show when he was on tv did i steal ?
I do remember him talking to people doing the same thing and he didn't have a problem with it .
was I stealing ?

No, not even pro-copyright people say you were stealing because Bob is able to dictate the terms of distribution of his own show. However, if Bob had said, "do not tape this show… if you aren't seeing it live, you are stealing." Then the pro-copyright people would have to say you are stealing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
So do you think I have violated copyright law?

Huh?

You continue...

Is that the only reason you've lost interest in the debate? If so, you are quitting for the wrong reason. You've really hurt me with this accusation that I'm a hypocrite.

How in the world did you come up with that?

A hypocrite would be someone who stated its stealing to download and distribute music from the internet without paying for it yet engaged in that practice themselves. It is my understanding you do NOT think it wrong to download and distribute music from the internet therefore it certainly wouldn't make you a hypocrite if you engaged in this practice.

I think you pretty much missed my point. But thats OK, it might have not been that good a point in the first place.

You continue...

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that it's a little disconcerting that you think you cannot talk sense with me.

I am sorry but that comment was only partially aimed at you and mostly aimed at the silly analogy that "way 2 go" posted which is what my post was in response to.

You continue...

No, all the attempts I've made so far is to show you that you have nothing to stand on morally to justify calling "copyright violations" "theft". I haven't tried to say we should break the law. When I've asked you to quantify the theft, you cannot. And you accuse me of trying to justify theft.

I have quantified theft in three ways already.

 

[way 2 go]

im canadian & slightly dsylexic . that might explain it

knight how come you dont answer the main question?

" If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are? "

 

[Yorzhik]

This line will come up in this post, please watch for its context because it is probably the most important part: "Now… If you want to say that BY VIOLATING A CONTRACT the copy-er owes the artist the retail price of the product THEN you can say that none of the other reasons matter."


Now on to the actual post.

How in the world did you come up with that?

Ah… 'cause I flew off the handle. I apologize

I was upset that you would compare me to those drugs-should-be-legal wackos. Hmmm, they aren't hypocrites so why do I dislike them so?

I have quantified theft in three ways already.

Yes, more than 3 ways. You mean this.

IF.... I have to buy the CD of my favorite artist at the record store my $17.99 goes to the record store, record producer and artist (in various sized portions).

IF... someone else copies that CD digitally and gives me a digital copy for free, then my $17.99 stays in my pocket.

Therefore the copy-er has just stole $17.99 from the record store, record producer and artist.

Your first attempt fails because you don't *have* to buy the CD. The future may not contain you buying the CD whether you got a copy or not. Here is your quote, "I have to buy the CD…" and it is wrong. Thus, you are a potential customer. Here is the definition of Potential:

-Capable of being but not yet in existence
-Having possibility
-Anything that may be possible

and the definition of Quantify:

- To determine or express the quantity of

If something is only a possibility, then it can't be counted (quantified). Can you admit that the saying, "don't count your chickens before they hatch." is based in some truth? What does that saying mean?

Therefore; if you only have possible customers, you can't count them as actual customers and charge them accordingly.

And this.

Lets say there are 10 people that are your potential customers and you have a music CD to sell them for $15 a piece.

Your potential profit is $150 assuming all your potential customers only buy one copy of the CD (it could be more assuming your customers buy more CD's as gifts or talk others into buying your CD).

Now lets say the first customer that buys your CD makes copies and gives them out to the remaining 9 potential customers.

That pirate has just stole $135 dollars from you.

You quantify $135, but it "could be more"! And the judge can't add that "could be more" potential because… why? Isn't it just as *potential* as the potential customers in the preceding line?!? You call that quantifying? Let Palto answer for you - "the exact amount of loss is not quantifiable" (I assume you agree with the rest of Palto's post, right?).

And this

If the person took the copy from the pirate, then to some extent that person desired the product..... and had the pirate not been available they would have most likely bought the product. We can't be positive they would have bought the product but we can be certain that they were a potential customer. Therefore at very least there is a quantified loss of a potential customer.

"quantified loss of a potential customer."… agreed 100%, but so what - I can't collect (justly) from a potential customer.

But you do notice that you say "to some extent" … to what extent?
But you do notice that you say "most likely" … how likely?
But you do notice that you say "We can't be positive" … how positive can we be?

What I hear you advocating is charging customers that would NOT have bought the CD even if they were given a ripped copy. That is unjust to a great degree.

I realize you have said the copy-er is the one that is charged. But it is only the copy-er paying the bill of the copy-ee, which is the potential customer. My point is to get to the principle of why you quantify the numbers you do.

And this

A theft has occurred. The product worth "x" has been given to a potential customer for free instead of "x" amount of dollars. the record company has just lost a portion of their investment.

Because the principle you rely on is "potential customers owe as if they were actual customers", you've just said that competition is stealing, too. You see, it doesn't matter if the potential customer does not become an actual customer because they

A) never were going to buy the CD anyway
B) saw something they preferred from the competition
C) intended to buy but extenuating circumstances prevented them

If you want to say that "the reason the artist didn't get their money was because the potential customer paid someone else for the work instead of the artist." you must also include all the other reasons why the artist didn't get paid by a potential customer.

Now… If you want to say that BY VIOLATING A CONTRACT the copy-er owes the artist the retail price of the product THEN you can say that none of the other reasons can be included.

And this

The money lost is the retail price of the item stolen. In this case $17.99 or whatever the CD was priced at times the amount it was distributed.

This is not a wise-crack, but to quantify the loss as a judge you have to answer these questions. To which store does the copy-er owe the money to? The store closest to the potential customer? Or the store the potential customer goes to the most? To be fair you most remove a copy of the CD from that store that got the money and give it to the copy-ee. Or is the copy-ee also punished?

And this

The value of the music CD is set by its manufacturers. The pirate does not pay the record company for distributing the music to the record companies potential customers - that is stealing!

Can't you get rid of that word "potential" and still make your point? Honestly, you must also say "potential stealing" if you leave it in the sentence where it is to be logical.

Let's recap: If you say the principle, the reason for copyright, is that the artist does not get paid for their work. Because if a copy-er gives away a copy then a copy-ee customer who would have paid the artist withholds their money.

The problem with this principle, this reason for copyright, is that it covers more than copy-ers; it covers also competition because there is no reason not to. I know you have another reason for saying that competition or other reasons are not included in the theft of a potential customer. I suspect it has something to do with contracts.

 

[Yorzhik]

Again... a digital copy of a song IS the song! Its not a knock off, its not even a covered version by another artist - ITS AN ACTUAL COPY! In this case the copy IS the product!

This needs to be addressed.

If an original and a copy exist (and it is an exact copy), then it as an *actual copy* by definition. This is not out of the realm of possibility for something like a shirt. Please use other words if you mean something else.

If the copy is also the actual product, then you are violating the laws of physics. A thing cannot be in 2 places at the same time. Unless physics does not apply, which is the case when we deal with the metaphysics of ideas.

So can you agree that the entire product consists of ideas, and not physical things?

 

[Jason Thomas]

Homina, Homina, Homina

Homina, Homina, Homina

:kookoo:

 

[way 2 go]

did search on God & property laws & listend to Bobs show 153 & talked to my brother

God is all for you owning your property
and for you to be in control of what you own .

buy a cd $20. copyright law says you bought the cd but you don't own the cd
the record company you bought it from still has control over your property their
property

what we have purchsed is a License

when did that happen to music ?
because I brought up Chopin. his music is free domain now . but was it not free domain then?

if i download music off the net i'm stealing.
but if i tape it off the radio thats stealing too because now I have a copy .right ?

still have a problem tho if you tape a hockey game to watch later that violates copyright law
PVR 's tivos etc disigned to do just that

X box video game . not allowed to mod them by law . why not ?

 

[way 2 go]

read a magazine in the doctors office
stealing?
share a news paper with co workers
stealing?
you would not have bought either one but its still stealing

i am not trying to justify it I am just amazed on conditioned I am to stealing

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by way 2 go
" If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are? "

That question is to bizarre for me to answer.

Sorry.

I like to stay somewhere NEAR reality.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Homina, Homina, Homina

Re: Homina, Homina, Homina

Originally posted by Jason Thomas
:kookoo:

 

[novice]

Yorzhik, please forgive me for barging in.

I am really trying to grasp your argument, and I must be honest and tell you I am having a difficult time with it.

Can I ask you a question(s)?

I create clip art. Its my livelihood. I draw images, scan them and then convert them to digital files for screenprinters and vinyl cutters to purchase. I sell my clip art on CD ROM. It takes me about a year to come up with a new product. A year is a huge investment for me.

My CD's sell for around $100 which is comparable to other CD's like mine. My CD's are somewhat popular because I have the artistic ability to create images that my customers really want.

I also have a few resellers which resell my products.

Recently I became aware that one of my resellers was selling my CD's without purchasing them from me first.

In other words, this reseller would buy 20 or so from me but when their supply ran out instead of buying more from me they were just creating their own copies of my CD's and selling them as if they were mine.

Are you saying that I should have no legal right to make resellers like that who are coping my products cease and desist?

Should I have no protection for my own products?

 

[way 2 go]

http://www.straightistheway.com/economics/privateproperty1.html
intresting reading

If physical property could be copied like ideas, would our property laws be the same? Would we even have property laws? Why are property laws the way they are? "

lets see what dose it take to copy an idea A. brian power and talent

now we copy a car just by thinking about it if we are talented enough

so yes we would have property laws the same because not everyone is equaly talented

and knight your attitude offends me