copyright issues...help needed...
hermeneutika
download site....and would greatly appreciate any help you may be able
to give me....even if it is just pointing me in the right direction....
The site in question is
How may i find out if i am fullfilling my legal and financial and moral
obligations to musicians ( and the music industry) by downloading from
this site? Is the site legal? How may i find out? Thank you for your
help...
Michael Falconer
Mark Goodge
typed:
Looks like an AllOfMP3.com clone. In which case, the site is legal in
Russia (where it's based) but is of dubious legality within the EU
(where you are based).
From a moral perspective, given the mendacity, greed and manipulative
practices of the music industry, I would say that you are morally
obliged to buy downloads from such sources and boycott overpriced and
deliberately malfunctional suppliers such as iTunes until such time as
the industry either comes to its senses or is overtaken by technology.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating"
Gordon Hudson
news:877gl2tb0pnl2em1n...@news.markshouse.net...
> From a moral perspective, given the mendacity, greed and manipulative
> practices of the music industry, I would say that you are morally
> obliged to buy downloads from such sources and boycott overpriced and
> deliberately malfunctional suppliers such as iTunes until such time as
> the industry either comes to its senses or is overtaken by technology.
Thats an interesting moral postion.
Would you like me to raid your bank account and remove some of your salary
every month?
Its the same thing.
If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
hermeneutika
hmmm interesting yet the site claims to pay the muscicians royalties....
Kendall K. Down
"hermeneutika" <michael....@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
The country of origin is probably a good indication.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Gareth McCaughan
Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
music?
(I think a good case can be made that illegal copying of music
is morally wrong, but I don't think it starts that way.)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Trevor Jenkins
A few months ago the BBC reported on a survey of people who were very
active in (illegally) downloading music from the Internet. Despite the
protestations of ASCAP, BMI et al about how such illegal downloads harmed
music the survey concluded that these pirates were also very active in
buying the very CDs that they had previously downloaded. Something doesn't
add up there, it would seem. BMI/ASCAP's real issue is that they were
caught napping with P2P so they turn it round upon the customers. It's
rather like the way they were caught napping with CD-ROMs, and before that
napping over the audio cassette.
Shortly after that survey the BBC also reported on how Avril Lavine and
her management company had given a young teen age girl copies of Lavine's
CDs and paid out-of-court settlement against Lavine's record company who
were sueing the girl for downloading. Seems that the record companies
don't know the minds of the artistes whose material they distribute.
There are bigger issues her than just illegal copying of music. Take a
look at efforts by Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc to develop DRM (Digital
Rights Management) systems. Pretty much all these efforts have failed
because of customer pressure. Gates and the bunch in Redmond try to extend
this DRMish issue into software products by bad-mouthing open source
projects --- basically because open sources products that compete with
MS's stuff are better.
There needs to be a debate between producers (the artistes, the writers,
and others) and consumers about how the law should be updated to reflect
the current state of technology. But all the time the middle-men (the
music producers, publishers, software companies) are in the way that
debate isn't going to happen.
Perhaps u.r.c is the place where that debate can get started without the
middle-man vested interests obscuring things.
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
No, it isn;t anything like the same thing.
>If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
Quite often, they don't. That's one of the things wrong with the
current system. It screws both the suppliers (musicians) and the
consumers.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
"I know I can be afraid but I'm alive"
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>Shortly after that survey the BBC also reported on how Avril Lavine and
>her management company had given a young teen age girl copies of Lavine's
>CDs and paid out-of-court settlement against Lavine's record company who
>were sueing the girl for downloading. Seems that the record companies
>don't know the minds of the artistes whose material they distribute.
Indeed. See also http://p2pnet.net/story/6294 (and various other sites
covering the same story). Anyone who thinks that DRM and restrictive
copyright enforcement are for the benefit of the artist is living in
cloud-cuckoo land. It's simply a way of making more money for the
record company.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"
Simon Robinson
> On 13 Nov 2006 19:45:35 GMT, Trevor Jenkins put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>> Shortly after that survey the BBC also reported on how Avril Lavine and
>> her management company had given a young teen age girl copies of Lavine's
>> CDs and paid out-of-court settlement against Lavine's record company who
>> were sueing the girl for downloading. Seems that the record companies
>> don't know the minds of the artistes whose material they distribute.
>
> Indeed. See also http://p2pnet.net/story/6294 (and various other sites
> covering the same story). Anyone who thinks that DRM and restrictive
> copyright enforcement are for the benefit of the artist is living in
> cloud-cuckoo land. It's simply a way of making more money for the
That story that link takes you to appears to be about some minor
inconvenience DRM causes to consumers. It doesn't seem to have anything
to do with Avril Lavigne, and neither does it contain anything that
would appear to back up your claim that DM is "simply a way of making
more money for the record company"
Alasdair
Jenkins) wrote:
>There are bigger issues her than just illegal copying of music. Take a
>look at efforts by Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc to develop DRM (Digital
>Rights Management) systems. Pretty much all these efforts have failed
>because of customer pressure. Gates and the bunch in Redmond try to extend
>this DRMish issue into software products by bad-mouthing open source
>projects --- basically because open sources products that compete with
>MS's stuff are better.
I'm not into recorded music so am not really affected but I find
copyright law totally silly in other matters.
I wanted a copy made of an old school photo taken in the 1950s. No
professional photographic shop I tried would do it unless I got a
letter of permission from the original photographer. I tried to
contact him but was told he shut up shop in the UK and emigrated to
Canada about 1960 with no extant contact details.
Surely there should be some system (as happens with restrictive
covenants in land) where, if the copyright holder cannot be traced
with reasonable ease, someone desiring to copy something could take
out an indemnity to cover any future claims.
--
Alasdair.
Richard Dudley
> >> Shortly after that survey the BBC also reported on how Avril Lavine and
> >> her management company had given a young teen age girl copies of Lavine's
> >> CDs and paid out-of-court settlement against Lavine's record company who
> >> were sueing the girl for downloading. Seems that the record companies
> >> don't know the minds of the artistes whose material they distribute.
> >
> > Indeed. See also http://p2pnet.net/story/6294 (and various other sites
> > covering the same story). Anyone who thinks that DRM and restrictive
> > copyright enforcement are for the benefit of the artist is living in
> > cloud-cuckoo land. It's simply a way of making more money for the
>
> That story that link takes you to appears to be about some minor
> inconvenience DRM causes to consumers. It doesn't seem to have anything
> to do with Avril Lavigne, and neither does it contain anything that
> would appear to back up your claim that DM is "simply a way of making
> more money for the record company"
It supports quite well Mark's claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of
the musicians, since the musicians in that story clearly don't like it.
His claim that its simply a way of making more money follows once
that's been accepted. What else could it be for once we've ruled out
that its not for the benefit of the musicians themselves ?
In my understanding, its the record companies who are claiming that DRM
is for the benefit of artists - in such a claim its obvious they're
bullshitting. They also claim, if I recall correctly, that copying
music is in reality stealing from musicians - equally bollocks. The
record companies don't have the interests of musicians at heart - their
interests are in making money, as much as possible. Artists to them are
means to that end.
Richard
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>> That story that link takes you to appears to be about some minor
>> inconvenience DRM causes to consumers. It doesn't seem to have anything
>> to do with Avril Lavigne, and neither does it contain anything that
>> would appear to back up your claim that DM is "simply a way of making
>> more money for the record company"
>
> It supports quite well Mark's claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of
> the musicians, since the musicians in that story clearly don't like it.
> His claim that its simply a way of making more money follows once
> that's been accepted. What else could it be for once we've ruled out
> that its not for the benefit of the musicians themselves ?
It's very common that people don't like things that are intended for
their benefit, so the fact that the musicians quoted don't like it
doesn't really prove anything. It doesn't seem implausible that it could
be intended to prevent illegal copying, and hence prevent loss of
earnings to both record companies and musicians (and so be partially for
the benefit of musicians) yet some musicians don't like it because of
the impact on customers. There may be some other reason for believing
that DRM is not at all intended for the benefit of musicians, but
there's nothing in the article that lets you deduce that.
> In my understanding, its the record companies who are claiming that DRM
> is for the benefit of artists - in such a claim its obvious they're
> bullshitting.
Why is it obvious? It's not obvious to me. (It'd be obvious they were if
they were claiming it's *solely* for the benefit of the artists, as it's
obvious that the record companies are likely to benefit too).
> They also claim, if I recall correctly, that copying
> music is in reality stealing from musicians - equally bollocks.
Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing (though
strictly speaking, it's stealing from the copyright/right-to-distribute
owners, which presumably isn't necessarily the artists?)
Kendall K. Down
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
Perhaps you can clarify something for me: recently it hit the news that
Michael Jackson had purchased all the rights to the Beetles' records. Then
Sony encouraged Jackson to get into debt and has now purchased the rights
from him. So if I buy a "legal" Beetles' track, who exactly is it that gets
the money?
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
It backs up the claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of the artists.
For a different perspective on the issue, see this interview:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"L'amore giunger, l'amore"
Richard Corfield
>
> Indeed. See also http://p2pnet.net/story/6294 (and various other sites
> covering the same story). Anyone who thinks that DRM and restrictive
> copyright enforcement are for the benefit of the artist is living in
> cloud-cuckoo land. It's simply a way of making more money for the
> record company.
Not so much the record company but the software vendors that want to
lock you into their software and hardware platforms. If you use a Windows
Media based system, how much will it cost you to move away from Windows
now? Even if Windows really does become so expensive and buggy that you
move to alternatives, that extra cost of losing your music collection
will make such a move harder.
Still doesn't warrant illegal downloads as that is just taking. I buy
CDs and rip them to my computer in the more open Vorbis format. I also
have much more convenience with my collection freely usable on my media
player, across my home network and even on a CD player.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, .
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone 3^
Trevor Jenkins
> In message <455855a2$0$632$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
> "Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
>
> Perhaps you can clarify something for me: recently it hit the news that
> Michael Jackson had purchased all the rights to the Beetles' records. Then
> Sony encouraged Jackson to get into debt and has now purchased the rights
> from him. So if I buy a "legal" Beetles' track, who exactly is it that gets
> the money?
Think the news was that Jackson would have to sell his publishing rights
to the Beatles (sic) songs, bought in 1985, after his trial on charges of
child abuse. I don't think Jackson owns/owned the rights to the Beatles
recordings; isn't that still vested in Apple --- the one that lost a court
case against Apple, the other one with the trendy white portable
music/video players. The ownership of the publishing rights of Beatles
stuff is similar to Elton John and Bernie Taupin who didn't own the rights
to their songs until they won a recent court case against their original
management company.
Thankfully for me the genre of music I listen to doesn't entail payments
to the composer or their family and anyway who amongst the numerous Bach
descendants would get that money. Not that that means more money for the
performers. The "rights" to Bach's works were probably owned by whomever
he worked for as Capelmeister. Didn't stop him re-using a good tune in
other works though. ;-)
One of the minority record labels (Hyperion) lost a case against them over
who should get royalities on a recording of 17th century music. Seems our
High Court believes that the music editor has the same rights as the
original composer! And since the orignial composer(s) is dead the music
editor receives all the royalities while at the same time effectively
bankrupting the record company.
While most record companies claim the moral high ground over the rights to
the recordings and seeks to prosecute those who download copies from
the Internet the whole business appears to be a cess pit. None of the
protagonists being squeaky clean.
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Gareth McCaughan
> Perhaps you can clarify something for me: recently it hit the news that
> Michael Jackson had purchased all the rights to the Beetles' records.
Sounds like he got scammed. Who has the rights to the Beatles' records?
Gareth McCaughan
[about illegal music-copying:]
> Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing
What do you mean by "equivalent to"? It seems to me that there's
an obvious big difference, namely that if you steal my CDs then
I don't have them any more, whereas if you copy my music[1] then
I do still have it. So how have I suffered if you copy my music?
Only in the following rather dodgy sense: that you *might have*
bought my music if you hadn't copied it, and then I'd have got
some money. It's hard for me to see how that's "equivalent to
stealing".
[1] Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that there's
some music out there I'd get royalties on if you bought it.
As it happens, there isn't.
Gordon Hudson
news:c8874b854...@diggingsonline.com...
> In message <455855a2$0$632$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
> "Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
>
> Perhaps you can clarify something for me: recently it hit the news that
> Michael Jackson had purchased all the rights to the Beetles' records. Then
> Sony encouraged Jackson to get into debt and has now purchased the rights
> from him. So if I buy a "legal" Beetles' track, who exactly is it that
> gets
> the money?
Jackson owned the publishing rights.
There are two sets of royalties:
1. The mechanical royalties go to the record company and then onto the
performer if they have a contract to receive money freom it (obviously not
all do - session musicians are paid quite high fees to buy out their future
rights - oh yes indeedy I once got paid £1000 to sit and do nothing all
day!).
2. The publishers royalties go to the music publisher and if they have a
contract to pass any of that to the composer then the composer will get
paid.
Obviously in pop music its often the same person getting both but not
always.
This also covers public performance (not from records) and playing of
records on the radio.
Perfomers like orchestras and even brass bands have to keep logs of what
they have performed and submit this to comply with their licences.
Just owning the sheet music doe snot give you the rights to perform a piece
of music.
Gordon Hudson
news:87zmav1...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
> each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
> music?
Maybe not much for some but for others a small amount can mean a lot.
I remember when the Avengers single Kinky Boots was re released and became a
hit a few of the musicians on it (who were retired by that time) got
royalties worth a thousand pounds or so from the record sales.
The Musicians Union had to track them down so they got paid.
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87zmav1...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>
>> Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
>> each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
>> music?
>
> Maybe not much for some but for others a small amount can mean a lot.
Is the amount more than zero, or not?
Richard Dudley
> >> That story that link takes you to appears to be about some minor
> >> inconvenience DRM causes to consumers. It doesn't seem to have anything
> >> to do with Avril Lavigne, and neither does it contain anything that
> >> would appear to back up your claim that DM is "simply a way of making
> >> more money for the record company"
> >
> > It supports quite well Mark's claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of
> > the musicians, since the musicians in that story clearly don't like it.
> > His claim that its simply a way of making more money follows once
> > that's been accepted. What else could it be for once we've ruled out
> > that its not for the benefit of the musicians themselves ?
>
> It's very common that people don't like things that are intended for
> their benefit, so the fact that the musicians quoted don't like it
> doesn't really prove anything.
A couple of points. Firstly, I wasn't addressing what the intentions of
the record companies were when I claimed that DRM wasn't for the
benefit of musicians. Its quite possible that the record companies have
the intention to benefit musicians. It would be a weak intention
though, considerably weaker than their intention to benefit themselves
financially. Secondly, I'm not proving anything here, just offering
something which is beyond reasonable doubt.
> It doesn't seem implausible that it could
> be intended to prevent illegal copying, and hence prevent loss of
> earnings to both record companies and musicians (and so be partially for
> the benefit of musicians) yet some musicians don't like it because of
> the impact on customers.
Well sure, that's certainly a significant reason the musicians don't
like it - it pisses off their customers. At least it means that the
musicians have the customers' interests at heart, even though the
record companies don't. What you haven't shown here is that illegal
copying does indeed result in losses for the record companies. I know
its what they claim, but I've yet to be pointed to research which shows
this. Are you aware of the proportion of record company earnings which
actually goes to benefit musicians ?
> There may be some other reason for believing
> that DRM is not at all intended for the benefit of musicians, but
> there's nothing in the article that lets you deduce that.
That would be the royalties that record companies pay musicians, for
instance. You're dealing with intentions again, I'm not, I'm dealing
with results.
> > In my understanding, its the record companies who are claiming that DRM
> > is for the benefit of artists - in such a claim its obvious they're
> > bullshitting.
>
> Why is it obvious? It's not obvious to me.
Its obvious to me that its bullshit because they don't say:
~ we're doing this so we can make more money from you,
~ the customers. We don't trust you not to steal our music
~ so DRM is an expression of that mistrust. Some of the
~ money we hope to make from preventing stealing (but only a
~ small percentage) will be passed on to the musicians.
If they said that, it would be true. The fact they don't reveal the
true picture is what tells me they're hiding something. Note that for
the musicians to actually benefit at all, the savings from preventing
'stealing' would have to more than offset the costs of introducing DRM
and the consequent reductions in sales volumes (customers don't buy so
many DRM'd albums). I'm willing to bet that the record companies don't
tell musicians the figures for these, if they even have them.
> (It'd be obvious they were if
> they were claiming it's *solely* for the benefit of the artists, as it's
> obvious that the record companies are likely to benefit too).
Well its not at all obvious to me that the record companies do indeed
benefit from the introduction of DRM. They believe they'll benefit,
which is why they do it, but their perception is distorted.
> > They also claim, if I recall correctly, that copying
> > music is in reality stealing from musicians - equally bollocks.
>
> Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing (though
> strictly speaking, it's stealing from the copyright/right-to-distribute
> owners, which presumably isn't necessarily the artists?)
And what do you mean here by 'morally equivalent' ? I think your
argument is nonsense since obviously the copying of music (or for that
matter any other IP) isn't, in any reasonable sense of the word
'equivalent', "equivalent to stealing". Or is it that you have a
bizarre interpretation of the word 'stealing' ?
Richard
Kendall K. Down
Trevor....@suneidesis.com (Trevor Jenkins) wrote:
> A few months ago the BBC reported on a survey of people who were very
> active in (illegally) downloading music from the Internet. Despite the
> protestations of ASCAP, BMI et al about how such illegal downloads harmed
> music the survey concluded that these pirates were also very active in
> buying the very CDs that they had previously downloaded.
Quite so. I don't think I have ever bought a book I had not previously read
(or at least, read the author) elsewhere, either in a friend's library or in
the public library. Likewise I have never bought software I have not
previously tried out in working demo or pirated copy.
That does not mean that I have bought every book or every program I have
read or used; there are some things you read once or use once and then
discard.
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>Still doesn't warrant illegal downloads as that is just taking. I buy
>CDs and rip them to my computer in the more open Vorbis format.
That's just as illegal, in the UK. There is no automatic right to make
personal copies. Despite that, more than half the population admit to
having done so. Which rather makes the law look an ass.
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
"And when you play you feel all right"
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:87zmav1...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>
>> Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
>> each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
>> music?
>
>Maybe not much for some but for others a small amount can mean a lot.
I think Gareth's point is that the amount actually *removed* is zero.
There may, or course, be a reduction in the amount added to the
account, but that's a different matter. It is not theft to deprive
someone of something that they never had.
>I remember when the Avengers single Kinky Boots was re released and became a
>hit a few of the musicians on it (who were retired by that time) got
>royalties worth a thousand pounds or so from the record sales.
>The Musicians Union had to track them down so they got paid.
That, of course, is what the MU is for (or, at least, part of it) -
their role as a union is to ensure that their members receive what is
legally due to them. But that doesn't address the question of whether
those members might have been due more money had a different system of
paying for music been in operation. And it's interesting that it was
the MU who tracked them down - the record company was quite happy to
wait for them to claim their royalties rather than making an effort to
ensure that they were paid.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
"Don't hold on to your past"
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
>news:c8874b854...@diggingsonline.com...
>> In message <455855a2$0$632$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
>> "Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you buy from proper sources then the musicians get royalties.
>>
>> Perhaps you can clarify something for me: recently it hit the news that
>> Michael Jackson had purchased all the rights to the Beetles' records. Then
>> Sony encouraged Jackson to get into debt and has now purchased the rights
>> from him. So if I buy a "legal" Beetles' track, who exactly is it that
>> gets
>> the money?
>
>Jackson owned the publishing rights.
>
>There are two sets of royalties:
Three, actually. Although it's not that simnple, as different sets of
rights apply in different settings.
>1. The mechanical royalties go to the record company and then onto the
>performer if they have a contract to receive money freom it (obviously not
>all do - session musicians are paid quite high fees to buy out their future
>rights - oh yes indeedy I once got paid £1000 to sit and do nothing all
>day!).
Musicians don't get any of the mechanical royalties. That's all for
the record company.
>2. The publishers royalties go to the music publisher and if they have a
>contract to pass any of that to the composer then the composer will get
>paid.
There is also the performing rights, which goes to the musicians who
played on the recording.
>Obviously in pop music its often the same person getting both but not
>always.
The composers and musicians are often, but not always, the same
people. The record company is rarely the same as the composers and
musicians.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I'm gonna be there tomorrow"
Quasin
> Gordon Hudson put finger to
>
>>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>>Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
>>>each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
>>>music?
>>
>>Maybe not much for some but for others a small amount can mean a lot.
>
> I think Gareth's point is that the amount actually *removed* is zero.
> There may, or course, be a reduction in the amount added to the
> account, but that's a different matter. It is not theft to deprive
> someone of something that they never had.
>
I've never really thought of it - what is the word for NOT
paying someone what he is legally owed for his labor?
"Theft" seems an appropriate word.
But I agree that the music payment system has problems. A
friend formed a band, they won a prize, through that
attracted a recording contract, cut a CD of songs they had
written, contract standard language gives recording company
the sole right to record and market the song, recording
company went bankrupt, marketing ownership of the song went
to whomever ended up owning the bankruptcy estate, they
aren't interested in promoting the recording but won't give
the rights back, band cannot re-use it's own songs.
Something's wrong here.
(In addition to how common it is for artists to end up owing
the recording company money after a successful album, due to
the way accounting is handled.)
(Book publishing can be almost as sleazy in treatment of the
authors, if you don't get a pro to go over the contract and
change some of the boilerplate wording.)
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Gordon Hudson put finger to
>>
>>>"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
>>>>each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
>>>>music?
>>>
>>>Maybe not much for some but for others a small amount can mean a lot.
>>
>> I think Gareth's point is that the amount actually *removed* is zero.
>> There may, or course, be a reduction in the amount added to the
>> account, but that's a different matter. It is not theft to deprive
>> someone of something that they never had.
>>
>
>I've never really thought of it - what is the word for NOT
>paying someone what he is legally owed for his labor?
>"Theft" seems an appropriate word.
Possibly, but even this isn't the case here. No-one has any legal
obligation to buy music, so if you don't buy music then the sellers
won't earn anything. There's no sense in which they are owed anything
unless and until you make the purchase. It's not the same as hiring
someone to do a job and then not paying them (which is a form of
theft); the musicians have made a product and then want us to buy it -
and, like any other producer, it's not our fault if we don't buy
enough to make it worth their while.
If you obtain the music by means of copyright infringement, then they
won't get paid. But it's no different, as far as their bank accouint
is concerned, to not getting paid because you simply didn't want the
music at all. Morally, of course, they may well have the right to feel
aggrieved if people are listening to their music without buying it,
but the law isn't concerned primarily with people's feelings.
>But I agree that the music payment system has problems. A
>friend formed a band, they won a prize, through that
>attracted a recording contract, cut a CD of songs they had
>written, contract standard language gives recording company
>the sole right to record and market the song, recording
>company went bankrupt, marketing ownership of the song went
>to whomever ended up owning the bankruptcy estate, they
>aren't interested in promoting the recording but won't give
>the rights back, band cannot re-use it's own songs.
>
>Something's wrong here.
Indeed. The whole system sucks.
>(In addition to how common it is for artists to end up owing
>the recording company money after a successful album, due to
>the way accounting is handled.)
>
>(Book publishing can be almost as sleazy in treatment of the
>authors, if you don't get a pro to go over the contract and
>change some of the boilerplate wording.)
Book publishing is a bit better, because - despite the abuses of the
advance system and rake-offs by middle-men - authors retain their own
copyright and merely sell publishing rights to the publishers. So if
the initial publisher goes belly-up, the author can simply find
another publisher (or even give the book away for free on the net).
Musicains don't have that option, under a standard recording contract
- they are owed royalties by the record company, but if the record co
can't pay them then (eg, if the record co goes bankrupt) then not only
do they not get paid but they can't sell the songs to a different
record company or even give them away for free.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.ukcommunityradio.info - Community Radio in the UK
"I feel dangerous 'cos I hunger for the truth"
Richard Corfield
>
>>Still doesn't warrant illegal downloads as that is just taking. I buy
>>CDs and rip them to my computer in the more open Vorbis format.
>
> That's just as illegal, in the UK. There is no automatic right to make
> personal copies. Despite that, more than half the population admit to
> having done so. Which rather makes the law look an ass.
I wonder if it was implied by the tape levy. Do we have a CD-R levy too?
You can buy MP3 players, blank tapes (I think), CD-Rs. This one seems to
be generally ignored, though I can see that the music industry would
rather charge us everything they could.
We get into moral grounds here. While illegal downloading is not
stealing, I am taking that I have not 'earned' or 'payed for'. I don't
see that copyright holders have any moral right to prevent me format
shifting once the CD is in my possession.
Some of the arguments from the music industry are downright silly.
Apparently reading digital media into temporary memory, as is needed by
any digital player, is "making a copy", even though there may be only a
fraction of a second of music in this volatile memory at any one time.
There's a volatile copy of the sound waves in the air at any one time.
One second's worth for roughly every 340 meters the sound can be heard
for. Is this also a potentially illegal copy that must be controlled,
or may be charged for?
Copyright was originally about fair balance. Short term gain for the
producers, then long term gain for the public domain and the rest of
society. The original copyright was 15 years, and the original law makers
did that reluctantly.
Now we are being brainwashed into thinking that information is a form
of property, like something physical, that it is possible to own an
abstract idea, that it is somehow right that someone should earn money
for a piece of work for tens of years after doing it and that things like
suing someone for millions of dollars in damages because they used your
obvious idea of ... "selling goods over the Internet!" ... or shockingly
... "delivering an email to a device via radio waves!" or doing anything
that people have been doing for ages, but "using a computer", is normal
acceptable behaviour.
not...@ukonline.co.uk
moderator for uk.religion.christian
>this is seriously off-topic.
Actually, no. Chat between established UK based posters about a
topic other than Christianity in the UK is on-topic. See the charter
for explanation.
--
Moderator for uk.religion.christian
Debbie Herring, Sheffield
articles go to : uk-religio...@usenet.org.uk
moderator is at: uk-religion-ch...@usenet.org.uk
charter : http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
meta-FAQ : http://www.anweald.co.uk/uk.religion.christian.metaFAQ.html
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield.
Gareth McCaughan
> I've never really thought of it - what is the word for NOT paying
> someone what he is legally owed for his labor? "Theft" seems an
> appropriate word.
But that isn't the situation with someone who makes illegal
copies of music. Imagine: I compose or perform some music;
I enter into a business arrangement with a distributor,
whereby they undertake to give me 0.001 pence per copy
they sell; somehow, you get hold of a copy and make another
copy without paying anyone anything. Now, you never undertook
to give me anything for copying that music; I never asked you
to (indeed, I perhaps never had an inkling of your existence);
the distributor hasn't failed in their obligations towards me
either. What have I lost? An opportunity to sell you a copy,
perhaps; but that's the same as I lose (without any sort of
right to compensation) if you hear the music and decide you
don't like it, or if you hear that I've been taking music
copiers to court and decide in protest never to buy my music.
You're certainly doing something illegal in that situation,
namely copying something the law doesn't entitle you to
copy. But it's not much like theft.
> (Book publishing can be almost as sleazy in treatment of the authors,
> if you don't get a pro to go over the contract and change some of the
> boilerplate wording.)
It's not a bad rule of thumb never to sign any contract
without examining it very closely first. Getting a pro to
do the examination is usually a good idea.
Alasdair
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Musicains don't have that option, under a standard recording contract
>- they are owed royalties by the record company, but if the record co
>can't pay them then (eg, if the record co goes bankrupt) then not only
>do they not get paid but they can't sell the songs to a different
>record company or even give them away for free.
Surely, if the record company goes bust and no longer exists, who is
going to sue the musicians if they sell their songs to another company
or sell them without using a record company?
I cannot see the Official Receiver getting shirty.
--
Alasdair.
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>>> It supports quite well Mark's claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of
>>> the musicians, since the musicians in that story clearly don't like it.
>>> His claim that its simply a way of making more money follows once
>>> that's been accepted. What else could it be for once we've ruled out
>>> that its not for the benefit of the musicians themselves ?
>> It's very common that people don't like things that are intended for
>> their benefit, so the fact that the musicians quoted don't like it
>> doesn't really prove anything.
>
> A couple of points. Firstly, I wasn't addressing what the intentions of
> the record companies were when I claimed that DRM wasn't for the
> benefit of musicians.
Whose intentions are you addressing? ISTM that the statement '(thing) X
is for the benefit of (group of people) Y' is in common usage a
statement of the intention behind X rather than the actual effects of X,
if those turn out to be different from the intention.
>> It doesn't seem implausible that it could
>> be intended to prevent illegal copying, and hence prevent loss of
>> earnings to both record companies and musicians (and so be partially for
>> the benefit of musicians) yet some musicians don't like it because of
>> the impact on customers.
>
> Well sure, that's certainly a significant reason the musicians don't
> like it - it pisses off their customers. At least it means that the
> musicians have the customers' interests at heart, even though the
> record companies don't. What you haven't shown here is that illegal
> copying does indeed result in losses for the record companies. I know
> its what they claim, but I've yet to be pointed to research which shows
> this.
It looks a very plausible claim to me, and the converse claim looks
rather implausible.
1. The arrival of easily copied digital music did coincide with a sudden
fall in music sales in a number of countries (I'm fairly sure I recall
that from the news etc., but maybe someone has figures?)
2. There certainly are numerous people who, if they can get something
cheaper or free, will do so without much thought for the morals or
effects of what they are doing. It is highly implausible that none of
the millions of people who eg. download illegal music would've been
inclined to buy /any/ of the music. (I'd accept they probably wouldn't
have bought /all/ the music they downloaded, but that's different)
3. I know from my own days about 15 years ago when I was much less
ethically minded than I am today, that when I had the chance to copy
music on cassettes, I would do so, and some of the music was stuff that
I liked enough that I would have bought if I couldn't get it free. I
don't see any reason to think I'm a particularly unique person in that
regard.
> Are you aware of the proportion of record company earnings which
> actually goes to benefit musicians ?
No I'm not, and I'm dubious whether it's relevent anyway. Let's say for
the sake of argument that it's a silly low number like 1%. Then unless
there's something very strange about typical record contracts that I
don't know about, and if, say, using DRM increases sales by 5%,
presumably that still means artists/musicians get something like a 5%
increase in their earnings.
>> There may be some other reason for believing
>> that DRM is not at all intended for the benefit of musicians, but
>> there's nothing in the article that lets you deduce that.
>
> That would be the royalties that record companies pay musicians, for
> instance. You're dealing with intentions again, I'm not, I'm dealing
> with results.
If that is so then I suggest you shouldn't have used the phrase "RM
isn't for the benefit of the musicians" since that implies you are
considering the intentions.
>>> In my understanding, its the record companies who are claiming that DRM
>>> is for the benefit of artists - in such a claim its obvious they're
>>> bullshitting.
>> Why is it obvious? It's not obvious to me.
>
> Its obvious to me that its bullshit because they don't say:
>
> ~ we're doing this so we can make more money from you,
> ~ the customers. We don't trust you not to steal our music
> ~ so DRM is an expression of that mistrust. Some of the
> ~ money we hope to make from preventing stealing (but only a
> ~ small percentage) will be passed on to the musicians.
None of that is inconsistent with wanting to benefit the artists. If you
wish to demonstrate that the record companies are talking 'bullshit'
when they say that DRM has that intention, then you need to show that it
is inconsistent with the claim.
> If they said that, it would be true.
Well not necessarily. They only need to not trust *some* potential
customers not to steal music, rather than 'all' as implied by the way
you put it, to justify using DRM.
> The fact they don't reveal the
> true picture is what tells me they're hiding something.
Or that they are not saying something that they consider is sufficiently
obvious that it's not worth saying. By the logic you are using,
presumably every shop in the town centre that employs security guards is
hiding something because they don't put a notice up that explicitly says
'We don't trust you not to steal what's in the shop'. (FWIW I can't
recall ever seeing any company in any industry say that directly)
> Note that for
> the musicians to actually benefit at all, the savings from preventing
> 'stealing' would have to more than offset the costs of introducing DRM
> and the consequent reductions in sales volumes (customers don't buy so
> many DRM'd albums). I'm willing to bet that the record companies don't
> tell musicians the figures for these, if they even have them.
My own personal experience is that when copy-protection stuff makes it
slightly harder for me to use something legitimately, I feel irritated
but it doesn't stop me buying it.
Also there's all sorts of secondary effects, and they don't all go one
way. Another secondary effect is the future cost if, in the absence of
DRM, a culture of copying illegally instead of buying grows to the point
where it is a social norm (in many circles it arguably already is) which
means the effect on future sales multiplies.
>> Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing (though
>> strictly speaking, it's stealing from the copyright/right-to-distribute
>> owners, which presumably isn't necessarily the artists?)
>
> And what do you mean here by 'morally equivalent' ? I think your
> argument is nonsense since obviously the copying of music (or for that
> matter any other IP) isn't, in any reasonable sense of the word
> 'equivalent', "equivalent to stealing". Or is it that you have a
> bizarre interpretation of the word 'stealing' ?
(See my reply to Gareth)
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>On 2006-11-14, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Still doesn't warrant illegal downloads as that is just taking. I buy
>>>CDs and rip them to my computer in the more open Vorbis format.
>>
>> That's just as illegal, in the UK. There is no automatic right to make
>> personal copies. Despite that, more than half the population admit to
>> having done so. Which rather makes the law look an ass.
>
>I wonder if it was implied by the tape levy. Do we have a CD-R levy too?
No, we don't. We never actually had a tape levy either - one was
proposed, but there was too much opposition.
>You can buy MP3 players, blank tapes (I think), CD-Rs. This one seems to
>be generally ignored, though I can see that the music industry would
>rather charge us everything they could.
>
>We get into moral grounds here. While illegal downloading is not
>stealing, I am taking that I have not 'earned' or 'payed for'. I don't
>see that copyright holders have any moral right to prevent me format
>shifting once the CD is in my possession.
That's a fair argument, and illustrates one of the main problems with
copyright law as it stands. There are two basic principles involved in
the concept of copyright: the first being the question of authorship
and the second being the issue of what the law calls "exploitation".
Authorship isn't really in question here - no-one is trying to pretend
that a song by, say, Abba is really by some other group - so what
really matters is the degree to which copyright holders have the right
to control the way in which their works are used. Historially, making
a copy of a work of literature or music was actually quite difficult -
you needed a printing press, or an LP duplication system, to be able
to do it commercially. Copyright, therefore, protected the interests
of those who had legitimately obtained the rights to duplicate and
paid for the mechanism with which to do so properly over those who
turned out cheaper and inferior copies on "garden shed" equipment.
But that doesn't apply to digital copies, which are simple and
virtually free to create - and can be created at home with equal (or
better) quality than those "manufactured" by the authorised
distributors. Music on physical media (such as a CD) needs to be
manufactured in order to exist, and therefore benefits from copyright
in order to protect the legitimate interests of those who manufacture
it. Releasing a new album on CD means an investment in production
systems that the company can legitimately seek to recoup. But pure
digital music doesn't need to be manufactured in any meaningful sense
of the term. If P2P was legal, then we wouldn't need iTunes or any of
the other online music shops - we'd just download it, an we could get
it at any quality we wanted. To release a new song, the record
companies would just need to make a few "seed" copies available for
sharing and then just watch it spread.
So the concept of copyright, as applied to digital copies, is back to
front. With physical media, the manufacturing stage is necessary and
copyright acts to protect that stage - we aren't allowed unrestricted
copying because the manufacturers need to exist and deserve to be
protected. With digital copies, it's the other way around -
"manufacturers" only exist because we aren't allowed to make our own
copies.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"We dream our dreams alone with no resistance"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:39:11 +0000, Mark Goodge
The CPS, possibly. That level of copyright infringement would be a
criminal, not merely civil, offence.
>I cannot see the Official Receiver getting shirty.
If the copyright is of any value, then the receiver *must* protect it
and ensure that it is counted as an asset which can be sold to pay the
debts of the failed company. So the receiver would almost certainly
get very shirty indeed.
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
"If I'm asking for help it's only because being with you has opened my eyes"
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> [about illegal music-copying:]
>> Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing
>
> What do you mean by "equivalent to"?
What I really meant was that, to me, it /is/ stealing). I was trying to
avoid too much argument by using the slightly less strong phrase,
'equivalent to', since I knew some people, including yourself, don't
think it is, and I didn't want to get sidetracked by an argument about
the semantics of what is covered by the word 'stealing'.
> It seems to me that there's
> an obvious big difference, namely that if you steal my CDs then
> I don't have them any more, whereas if you copy my music[1] then
> I do still have it. So how have I suffered if you copy my music?
> Only in the following rather dodgy sense: that you *might have*
> bought my music if you hadn't copied it, and then I'd have got
> some money. It's hard for me to see how that's "equivalent to
> stealing".
You've suffered by being deprived of your right to control distribution
and thereby benefit from something you've created.
ISTM someone who illegally copies music (or other intellectual property) is
(a) Taking something to which he is not entitled
(b) In the process, depriving someone else of something to which he is
entitled (in this case, the right to control distribution of
intellectual property of data which he has invested time and effort in
creating).
And also
(c) The thing being deprived of in (b) is closely related to the thing
taken in (a), in such a way that (b) is an inevitable consequence of (a).
That looks like stealing to me.
Simon Robinson
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:25:03 +0000, Simon Robinson put finger to
>> That story that link takes you to appears to be about some minor
>> inconvenience DRM causes to consumers. It doesn't seem to have anything
>> to do with Avril Lavigne, and neither does it contain anything that
>> would appear to back up your claim that DM is "simply a way of making
>> more money for the record company"
>
> It backs up the claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of the artists.
Perhaps it would help if you explained precisely how you think it backs
up the claim, since I certainly can't see how it does.
Revd. Eric Potts
> On 14 Nov 2006 02:02:43 -0800, not...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>
> >this is seriously off-topic.
>
> Actually, no. Chat between established UK based posters about a
> topic other than Christianity in the UK is on-topic. See the charter
> for explanation.
>
And, of course, the issue has been mainly about Christian use of
copyright material, and is therefore even more obviously on topic
anyway.
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Simon Robinson wrote:
>> [about illegal music-copying:]
>>> Personally I think that morally it is equivalent to stealing
>> What do you mean by "equivalent to"?
>
> What I really meant was that, to me, it /is/ stealing. I was trying
> to avoid too much argument by using the slightly less strong phrase,
> 'equivalent to', since I knew some people, including yourself, don't
> think it is, and I didn't want to get sidetracked by an argument about
> the semantics of what is covered by the word 'stealing'.
Ah. :-)
>> It seems to me that there's
>> an obvious big difference, namely that if you steal my CDs then
>> I don't have them any more, whereas if you copy my music[1] then
>> I do still have it. So how have I suffered if you copy my music?
>> Only in the following rather dodgy sense: that you *might have*
>> bought my music if you hadn't copied it, and then I'd have got
>> some money. It's hard for me to see how that's "equivalent to
>> stealing".
>
> You've suffered by being deprived of your right to control
> distribution
Yup.
> and thereby benefit from something you've created.
Unless your copying of my music somehow makes legal purchase
of it impossible, I'm still benefiting. Your point, then, is
that I'm not benefiting *as much* as the law says I should
given the number of copies that there are.
But none of this is *theft*. You've explained how it's *illegal*
and (assuming, plausibly but not entirely obviously, that the
creators of music have a natural right to control what happens
to copies of it) *bad* for you to copy "my" music, but you
haven't explained why it's more like theft than it's like,
say, fraud or illegal parking.
> ISTM someone who illegally copies music (or other intellectual property) is
>
> (a) Taking something to which he is not entitled
There is no thing that they've taken, and no one they've taken it
from. This is an abstract notion of "taking", just like that in
which illegal parking involves "taking" a parking space you're
not allowed to use. In fact, even less theft-like than that,
because when you park illegally you're making that space unavailable
for other purposes, whereas when you copy a piece of music you
don't make it any less available for other people.
> (b) In the process, depriving someone else of something to which
> he is entitled (in this case, the right to control distribution of
> intellectual property of data which he has invested time and effort
> in creating).
Again, that's not a thing; you're using an abstract notion of
"depriving" according to which (for instance) if I lie to you
then I've deprived you of the truth. Or if I park in front of
your driveway I've deprived you of the ability to bring your
car in and out of your property.
> And also
> (c) The thing being deprived of in (b) is closely related to the thing
> taken in (a), in such a way that (b) is an inevitable consequence of
> (a).
>
> That looks like stealing to me.
It looks like illegal parking to me.
Richard Corfield
>
> But that doesn't apply to digital copies, which are simple and
> virtually free to create - and can be created at home with equal (or
> better) quality than those "manufactured" by the authorised
> distributors. Music on physical media (such as a CD) needs to be
> manufactured in order to exist, and therefore benefits from copyright
> in order to protect the legitimate interests of those who manufacture
> it. Releasing a new album on CD means an investment in production
> systems that the company can legitimately seek to recoup. But pure
> digital music doesn't need to be manufactured in any meaningful sense
> of the term. If P2P was legal, then we wouldn't need iTunes or any of
> the other online music shops - we'd just download it, an we could get
> it at any quality we wanted. To release a new song, the record
> companies would just need to make a few "seed" copies available for
> sharing and then just watch it spread.
Though there's still recording,production time and cost.
Digital should gives us cheaper music as the major cost component,
the physical manufacture and distribution, is reduced. It won't be
free though.
I can see the idea of using seed copies as great for independent bands
who'd use it as a publicity tool for their performances and physical
merchanise. This becomes a whole new system where their work actually
starts to more resemble our work. You get paid for the physical goods
you sell (copyright and trademark helps here) and the physical work
you do on stage. You stop getting paid when you stop doing work, not 50
(they're campaigning to increase that) years later. You have the same
issues of health insurance and pension cover as the rest of us.
The trade dynamics would completely change though. Would concert ticket
prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album sales? Where
would the new balances be?
Either way, we do see a case now of corporate greed dictating public
policy. Not very Christian, or any of the other major religions really.
Alasdair
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>If the copyright is of any value, then the receiver *must* protect it
>and ensure that it is counted as an asset which can be sold to pay the
>debts of the failed company. So the receiver would almost certainly
>get very shirty indeed.
Equally, the OR has a duty to convert the assets into cash to
distribute to the creditors. He would not want to hold on to the
copyright ad infinitum and would sell to the highest bidder if there
were any bidders. The musicians could probably buy it for a nominal
sum.
--
Alasdair.
Alasdair
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>The CPS, possibly. That level of copyright infringement would be a
>criminal, not merely civil, offence.
Why should it become criminal? Infringement is normally a civil
matter.
--
Alasdair.
Richard Dudley
> >>> It supports quite well Mark's claim that DRM isn't for the benefit of
> >>> the musicians, since the musicians in that story clearly don't like it.
> >>> His claim that its simply a way of making more money follows once
> >>> that's been accepted. What else could it be for once we've ruled out
> >>> that its not for the benefit of the musicians themselves ?
> >> It's very common that people don't like things that are intended for
> >> their benefit, so the fact that the musicians quoted don't like it
> >> doesn't really prove anything.
> >
> > A couple of points. Firstly, I wasn't addressing what the intentions of
> > the record companies were when I claimed that DRM wasn't for the
> > benefit of musicians.
>
> Whose intentions are you addressing?
I wasn't addressing intentions. I was looking at results. If speaking
of their intentions, clearly they intend to make money and DRM is one
outworking of that intention.
> ISTM that the statement '(thing) X
> is for the benefit of (group of people) Y' is in common usage a
> statement of the intention behind X rather than the actual effects of X,
> if those turn out to be different from the intention.
OK, if that's your usage, I'm not using it in quite the same way. As
I've said in the bit you snipped, I'm happy to accept that record
companies have a weak intention to benefit musicians, but that's really
a side effect of their intention to benefit themselves.
> >> It doesn't seem implausible that it could
> >> be intended to prevent illegal copying, and hence prevent loss of
> >> earnings to both record companies and musicians (and so be partially for
> >> the benefit of musicians) yet some musicians don't like it because of
> >> the impact on customers.
> >
> > Well sure, that's certainly a significant reason the musicians don't
> > like it - it pisses off their customers. At least it means that the
> > musicians have the customers' interests at heart, even though the
> > record companies don't. What you haven't shown here is that illegal
> > copying does indeed result in losses for the record companies. I know
> > its what they claim, but I've yet to be pointed to research which shows
> > this.
>
> It looks a very plausible claim to me, and the converse claim looks
> rather implausible.
Why would there be no middle ground, only A or not-A ?
> 1. The arrival of easily copied digital music did coincide with a sudden
> fall in music sales in a number of countries (I'm fairly sure I recall
> that from the news etc., but maybe someone has figures?)
Well what do you mean here by 'easily copied digital music' ? As far as
I recall, CDs were the first consumer digital format and they arrived
in 1982. They weren't easy to copy until a recording format became
available which was digitally compatible with them - which I'd take to
be DAT. I got a DAT deck around 1990, but they were widely available
before then, albeit quite highly priced. Is your claim that music sales
on CD suddenly fell around that time ?
> 2. There certainly are numerous people who, if they can get something
> cheaper or free, will do so without much thought for the morals or
> effects of what they are doing. It is highly implausible that none of
> the millions of people who eg. download illegal music would've been
> inclined to buy /any/ of the music. (I'd accept they probably wouldn't
> have bought /all/ the music they downloaded, but that's different)
I agree with some of your claims here. They would probably have bought
*some* of the music they'd downloaded illegally, but certainly not all.
I'm not convinced that people will do it without much thought, though
it might be the case they do.
> 3. I know from my own days about 15 years ago when I was much less
> ethically minded than I am today, that when I had the chance to copy
> music on cassettes, I would do so, and some of the music was stuff that
> I liked enough that I would have bought if I couldn't get it free. I
> don't see any reason to think I'm a particularly unique person in that
> regard.
As I recall at that time, there was the claim from record companies
that 'home taping is killing music'. Music isn't dead yet despite such
home taping. When I was a student over 20 years ago, I mostly used my
tape deck to record my own records (which I think was strictly speaking
illegal) and very very rarely would I tape someone else's LP. Maybe I
was above averagely ethically minded.
So your arguments show that there's a non-zero loss to the record
companies through people copying music. Then what about the upside -
that wider distribution of music by this means results in increased
sales ? Are you going to say that doesn't happen ? If you are, then
you'll be in stark disagreement with people like Ross Anderson who has
quite recently put his book on the internet where it can be downloaded
for free. He's convinced that having a free online version of the book
will actually boost sales, not the converse. Or do you think that books
are totally different from music ?
> > Are you aware of the proportion of record company earnings which
> > actually goes to benefit musicians ?
>
> No I'm not, and I'm dubious whether it's relevent anyway.
Its relevant to the claim that the beneficiaries of DRM are the
musicians, wouldn't you say?
> Let's say for
> the sake of argument that it's a silly low number like 1%. Then unless
> there's something very strange about typical record contracts that I
> don't know about, and if, say, using DRM increases sales by 5%,
> presumably that still means artists/musicians get something like a 5%
> increase in their earnings.
What about the consequent loss of sales by people who are put off by
DRM'd albums ? What of the costs of introducing DRM ? What of the costs
of remedying DRM problems - customers returning DRM-infected discs ?
What of the Sony 'rootkit' fiasco not so long ago ?
> >> There may be some other reason for believing
> >> that DRM is not at all intended for the benefit of musicians, but
> >> there's nothing in the article that lets you deduce that.
> >
> > That would be the royalties that record companies pay musicians, for
> > instance. You're dealing with intentions again, I'm not, I'm dealing
> > with results.
>
> If that is so then I suggest you shouldn't have used the phrase "RM
> isn't for the benefit of the musicians" since that implies you are
> considering the intentions.
What would you suggest I should have said ?
> >>> In my understanding, its the record companies who are claiming that DRM
> >>> is for the benefit of artists - in such a claim its obvious they're
> >>> bullshitting.
> >> Why is it obvious? It's not obvious to me.
> >
> > Its obvious to me that its bullshit because they don't say:
> >
> > ~ we're doing this so we can make more money from you,
> > ~ the customers. We don't trust you not to steal our music
> > ~ so DRM is an expression of that mistrust. Some of the
> > ~ money we hope to make from preventing stealing (but only a
> > ~ small percentage) will be passed on to the musicians.
>
> None of that is inconsistent with wanting to benefit the artists.
I have admitted the possibility that they want to benefit the artists.
You snipped that part - is that because you agree with it ? My claim is
that the benefit to the artists is incidental to the benefits to
themselves.
> If you
> wish to demonstrate that the record companies are talking 'bullshit'
> when they say that DRM has that intention, then you need to show that it
> is inconsistent with the claim.
DRM's intention is to increase record company profits is what I'm
claiming. That's my best guess. Do you disagree ?
> > If they said that, it would be true.
>
> Well not necessarily. They only need to not trust *some* potential
> customers not to steal music, rather than 'all' as implied by the way
> you put it, to justify using DRM.
They put DRM on all discs, no ? So what about the customers who buy
DRM-infected discs but have no intention to copy them ? You're saying
they trust those customers ? What happens is that some customers who
would otherwise have had no intention of copying the music will be more
inclined to do so because of the use of DRM. Or do you dispute that ?
> > The fact they don't reveal the
> > true picture is what tells me they're hiding something.
>
> Or that they are not saying something that they consider is sufficiently
> obvious that it's not worth saying. By the logic you are using,
> presumably every shop in the town centre that employs security guards is
> hiding something because they don't put a notice up that explicitly says
> 'We don't trust you not to steal what's in the shop'. (FWIW I can't
> recall ever seeing any company in any industry say that directly)
Nope. Shops aren't claiming that the security guards are there for the
benefit of musicians. That's a huge difference - were they to claim
that, I think people would laugh their heads off. The notion that shops
don't want people to shoplift because it hurts musicians is utterly
ludicrous yet its analogous to what record companies are claiming for
DRM.
> > Note that for
> > the musicians to actually benefit at all, the savings from preventing
> > 'stealing' would have to more than offset the costs of introducing DRM
> > and the consequent reductions in sales volumes (customers don't buy so
> > many DRM'd albums). I'm willing to bet that the record companies don't
> > tell musicians the figures for these, if they even have them.
>
> My own personal experience is that when copy-protection stuff makes it
> slightly harder for me to use something legitimately, I feel irritated
> but it doesn't stop me buying it.
Mine's quite different. I won't buy DRM infected product that I don't
know I can circumvent and without installing proprietary DRM software
on my PC. I read quite a lot of comments on Amazon from people who have
a similar view to me.
> Also there's all sorts of secondary effects, and they don't all go one
> way. Another secondary effect is the future cost if, in the absence of
> DRM, a culture of copying illegally instead of buying grows to the point
> where it is a social norm (in many circles it arguably already is) which
> means the effect on future sales multiplies.
The fact that the law is being broken so widely is a good sign that the
law is ripe for changing. As the article which Mark cites on el Reg
makes plain. The record companies have been slow to adapt their
business models, but adapt they will or die.
Richard
Mark Goodge
It provides an illustration of at least one artist that doesn't feel
they are benefiting from it.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Mark Goodge
If they could aford it, they could buy it. But it wouldn't be a nominal
sum , it would have to be the market rate for the rights. Which can be
quite a lot.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Mark Goodge
It would be criminal if they infringed copyright in order to make a
profit by selling the material commercially. And, since there wouldn't
be a lot of point doing it if they didn't want to make a profit, then it
would be hard to do it legally.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Mark Goodge
>
> On 2006-11-15, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > But that doesn't apply to digital copies, which are simple and
> > virtually free to create - and can be created at home with equal (or
> > better) quality than those "manufactured" by the authorised
> > distributors. Music on physical media (such as a CD) needs to be
> > manufactured in order to exist, and therefore benefits from copyright
> > in order to protect the legitimate interests of those who manufacture
> > it. Releasing a new album on CD means an investment in production
> > systems that the company can legitimately seek to recoup. But pure
> > digital music doesn't need to be manufactured in any meaningful sense
> > of the term. If P2P was legal, then we wouldn't need iTunes or any of
> > the other online music shops - we'd just download it, an we could get
> > it at any quality we wanted. To release a new song, the record
> > companies would just need to make a few "seed" copies available for
> > sharing and then just watch it spread.
>
> Though there's still recording,production time and cost.
Those are pretty small, compared to the cost of tooling up a CD factory.
> Digital should gives us cheaper music as the major cost component,
> the physical manufacture and distribution, is reduced. It won't be
> free though.
No, I'm not suggesting that it should be. What I am suggesting is that
the distribution and purchase model for music on physical media doesn't
easily map onto electronic media.
> I can see the idea of using seed copies as great for independent bands
> who'd use it as a publicity tool for their performances and physical
> merchanise. This becomes a whole new system where their work actually
> starts to more resemble our work. You get paid for the physical goods
> you sell (copyright and trademark helps here) and the physical work
> you do on stage. You stop getting paid when you stop doing work, not 50
> (they're campaigning to increase that) years later. You have the same
> issues of health insurance and pension cover as the rest of us.
I can foresee a time when a "record company" is no longer a necessary
part of the system at all. At the moment, bands can't arrange
manufacture and distribution of physical CDs very easily, as that's a
specialised task that is best carried out by large companies. But making
music available electronically is a lot simpler, especially if you're
not too concerned to control how it's used. The real question is how
best a band can make money out of electronic distribution. It's easy to
work out how to make physical sales profitable - it's exactly the same
type of calculation as with any other manufactured goods. But selling
something that can be reproduced for free is a lot harder - you need to
find a way to sell some aspect of it that isn't freely reproducible. The
problem with DRM is that it's trying to create an artificial
irreproducibility about electronic music - trying to take something that
is inherently easy to copy and make it hard to copy. As such, it's
vulnerable to technological advance as well as consumer resistance.
> The trade dynamics would completely change though. Would concert ticket
> prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album sales? Where
> would the new balances be?
Concerts are self-supporting, in the most part - the promoters will be
aiming to make a profit, and the band will want to be paid for
performing.
> Either way, we do see a case now of corporate greed dictating public
> policy. Not very Christian, or any of the other major religions really.
Indeed.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Simon Robinson
> I can see the idea of using seed copies as great for independent bands
> who'd use it as a publicity tool for their performances and physical
> merchanise. This becomes a whole new system where their work actually
> starts to more resemble our work. You get paid for the physical goods
> you sell (copyright and trademark helps here) and the physical work
> you do on stage. You stop getting paid when you stop doing work, not 50
> (they're campaigning to increase that) years later.
So someone who releases a single that flops at first then 10 years later
(after he's given up and gone into car sales or something) suddenly
becomes really popular, is basically stuffed. :-(
Kendall K. Down
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The mechanical royalties go to the record company and then onto the
> performer if they have a contract to receive money freom it (obviously not
> all do - session musicians are paid quite high fees to buy out their future
> rights - oh yes indeedy I once got paid £1000 to sit and do nothing all
> day!).
Hey! Do you have the address? I can play the guitar to *that* standard, no
problems.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Stuart
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
> each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
> music?
Not a great deal because not a lot goes into it in the first place. Most
of the profit goes into the pockets of the record company executves
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
> OK, if that's your usage, I'm not using it in quite the same way. As
> I've said in the bit you snipped, I'm happy to accept that record
> companies have a weak intention to benefit musicians, but that's really
> a side effect of their intention to benefit themselves.
We don't really disagree there then.
> Well what do you mean here by 'easily copied digital music' ? As far as
> I recall, CDs were the first consumer digital format and they arrived
> in 1982. They weren't easy to copy until a recording format became
> available which was digitally compatible with them - which I'd take to
> be DAT. I got a DAT deck around 1990, but they were widely available
> before then, albeit quite highly priced. Is your claim that music sales
> on CD suddenly fell around that time ?
No I'm thinking of around the 2000-2004 era when it became possible to
download music so easily. IIRC sales of *singles* (but not albums) fell
considerably during the late 80s/early 90s but with hindsight that was
probably due to the decline in popularity of the 7" single, the main
format that was then available. When cd singles became readily
available, singles sales recovered to some extent, until the competition
from downloading arrived.
> So your arguments show that there's a non-zero loss to the record
> companies through people copying music. Then what about the upside -
> that wider distribution of music by this means results in increased
> sales ? Are you going to say that doesn't happen ? If you are, then
> you'll be in stark disagreement with people like Ross Anderson who has
> quite recently put his book on the internet where it can be downloaded
> for free. He's convinced that having a free online version of the book
> will actually boost sales, not the converse. Or do you think that books
> are totally different from music ?
I think there is a difference. In the case of downloads, what I think,
from observation of a number of acquaintances, tends to happen, is that
because of the ease of obtaining illegal downloads/copies, many people
start to view them as the normal way of obtaining music. And, perhaps
because like-minded people tend to preferentially become friends, the
people they tend to share their illegal recordings with are also to a
large extent people who likewise tend to view illegal copies as the
normal way to get their music/whatever. That means that the people who
come into contact with some artist/song as a result of illegal downloads
etc. are on the whole people who aren't as likely to buy any of the
music anyway (But they would probably have been buying music if culture
of copying/downloading illegally hadn't developed). Certainly I can't
recall a single instance when someone has said to me something like
'listen to [my illegal download]. You might want to buy it'. I can
recall many occasions when I've turned down people who've said to me 'do
you want me to copy [my illegal download] for you' or 'can I take a copy
of your cd for myself'.
That issue doesn't affect the kind of example you're citing as much, as
if you make [some of] your work legitimately available free as a
marketing effort, the people who will be exposed to it are much more
likely to be the same people who would be prepared to pay to get more of
your work (or even to get the same work in a different format, such as
people liking an ebook and then deciding it's worth paying to get a
paper copy).
>>> Are you aware of the proportion of record company earnings which
>>> actually goes to benefit musicians ?
>> No I'm not, and I'm dubious whether it's relevent anyway.
>
> Its relevant to the claim that the beneficiaries of DRM are the
> musicians, wouldn't you say?
It has some marginal relevence, but doesn't really amount to much
evidence either way, since it's not hard to come up with examples where
individuals benefit from actions of other individuals, while
simultaneously being opposed to those actions.
> What about the consequent loss of sales by people who are put off by
> DRM'd albums ? What of the costs of introducing DRM ? What of the costs
> of remedying DRM problems - customers returning DRM-infected discs ?
> What of the Sony 'rootkit' fiasco not so long ago ?
Well I thought initially we were arguing about intentions. If we are
arguing about results, then I simply don't know. I strongly think that
protecting against illegal copying is a good thing. I understand that
it's very hard to use technology to prevent illegal copying (or at
least: make it sufficiently difficult that people are strongly
discouraged from doing it) without also affecting genuine customers. I
have no strong opinions either way about whether DRM gets the balance
right, since I don't know enough about DRM, so I don't particularly
intend to argue about that.
>>> You're dealing with intentions again, I'm not, I'm dealing
>>> with results.
>> If that is so then I suggest you shouldn't have used the phrase "RM
>> isn't for the benefit of the musicians" since that implies you are
>> considering the intentions.
>
> What would you suggest I should have said ?
"DRM doesn't benefit the musicians" would I think convey the correct
meaning ;-)
To me:
'is/isn't for the benefit of' implies you're talking about intention
'does/doesn't benefit' implies you're talking about results
> I have admitted the possibility that they want to benefit the artists.
> You snipped that part - is that because you agree with it ? My claim is
> that the benefit to the artists is incidental to the benefits to
> themselves.
Yes. I have a strong aversion to very long posts, and this one is
becoming *extremely* long. In that situation, I tend to snip bits of the
argument where there is little disagreement or which I think are less
interesting than other bits of the post. (As I've done again quite a bit
in this post. of course if what I've snipped something you think is a
key point, you're welcome to remind me of it <g>)
>> Well not necessarily. They only need to not trust *some* potential
>> customers not to steal music, rather than 'all' as implied by the way
>> you put it, to justify using DRM.
>
> They put DRM on all discs, no ?
Well presumably. If there was a surefire way to tell who was going to do
illegal copying so you could sell DRM-protected disks to those people,
and non-protected disks to the honest customers, then I guess they could
do that. But in the absence of any reliable mind-reading machines.... ;-)
>>> The fact they don't reveal the
>>> true picture is what tells me they're hiding something.
>> Or that they are not saying something that they consider is sufficiently
>> obvious that it's not worth saying. By the logic you are using,
>> presumably every shop in the town centre that employs security guards is
>> hiding something because they don't put a notice up that explicitly says
>> 'We don't trust you not to steal what's in the shop'. (FWIW I can't
>> recall ever seeing any company in any industry say that directly)
>
> Nope. Shops aren't claiming that the security guards are there for the
> benefit of musicians. That's a huge difference - were they to claim
> that, I think people would laugh their heads off. The notion that shops
> don't want people to shoplift because it hurts musicians is utterly
> ludicrous yet its analogous to what record companies are claiming for
> DRM.
I think you misunderstand the analogy. You appeared to be suggesting
that, in order to avoid bullshitting, the record companies should
explain exactly why they are putting DRM on disks, in terms that are
somewhat uncomplimentary to the customers (we don't trust you). The
analogy was that shops have security guards because they also
(correctly) don't trust customers not to just walk in and start
shoplifting. But I don't think you'd accuse shops of bullshitting
because they don't have prominent notices saying 'the reason we have
security guards is because we don't trust you customers not to
shoplift'. Of course, we all know that's the reason, but it'd be kinda
rude for the shops to rub it in in the way you are suggesting record
companies should do in order to avoid you claiming that they are
bullshitting. I'm suggesting that likewise, the reason record companies
don't explicitly say 'we don't trust you' is because that'd be rude and
rubbing in something that we know anyway.
Clearer?
not...@ukonline.co.uk
> copyright material, and is therefore even more obviously on topic
> anyway.
err, I tried to get people to download a 3d game (me being a Christian)
I had written.
The thread was rejected by the moderator as it was off-topic.
Although if we had let it continue it probably would have ended up
being as this thread is - a conversation amongst Christians except
regarding the ethics of pc games.
In fact, I might try this - I'm going to start a thread off about my pc
games and see if it's allowed to start.
Richard Corfield
> So someone who releases a single that flops at first then 10 years later
> (after he's given up and gone into car sales or something) suddenly
> becomes really popular, is basically stuffed. :-(
Someone who manufactures a widget that doesn't sell, even if it would
become popular 10 years later, is basically stuffed.
If your work contract is on delivery of the finished goods and you fail
to deliver, or your costs overrun your estimate, then you're stuffed.
There are risks in any venture.
Richard Dudley
> > And, of course, the issue has been mainly about Christian use of
> > copyright material, and is therefore even more obviously on topic
> > anyway.
>
> err, I tried to get people to download a 3d game (me being a Christian)
> I had written.
> The thread was rejected by the moderator as it was off-topic.
Obviously. Its not a topic at all if your intention is to influence
people's *behaviour*. The mod was perfectly correct in rejecting such
blatant marketeering :-)
> Although if we had let it continue it probably would have ended up
> being as this thread is - a conversation amongst Christians except
> regarding the ethics of pc games.
It would have I think turned into a discussion about the ethics of
using uk.r.c as a means of promoting a *particular* pc game - yours.
> In fact, I might try this - I'm going to start a thread off about my pc
> games and see if it's allowed to start.
Why would anyone want to discuss your pc games as a topic ? Is there
something special about them when compared to all others ?
Richard
Richard Dudley
> > Well what do you mean here by 'easily copied digital music' ? As far as
> > I recall, CDs were the first consumer digital format and they arrived
> > in 1982. They weren't easy to copy until a recording format became
> > available which was digitally compatible with them - which I'd take to
> > be DAT. I got a DAT deck around 1990, but they were widely available
> > before then, albeit quite highly priced. Is your claim that music sales
> > on CD suddenly fell around that time ?
>
> No I'm thinking of around the 2000-2004 era when it became possible to
> download music so easily. IIRC sales of *singles* (but not albums) fell
> considerably during the late 80s/early 90s but with hindsight that was
> probably due to the decline in popularity of the 7" single, the main
> format that was then available. When cd singles became readily
> available, singles sales recovered to some extent, until the competition
> from downloading arrived.
So your argument isn't so much based on the *ability* to copy music.
But that's how you originally stated it. OK, so now you're talking
about downloads. I don't know enough history of how singles fell, but
I'd expect singles to be much much more vulnerable to competition from
downloads than albums. They're much more ephemeral, so the download
format suits them well.
I don't dispute your own experience here. I don't move in similar
circles to you though :-) It is a big 'probably' though to claim that
they would be buying music if the download culture had not developed,
not one I subscribe to, since there are just too many variables.
Download culture goes along with mp3 players, so you'd need to rule
those out too. My friends almost exclusively get their music online -
I'm practically unique as a buyer of CDs in my social circle. The
reasons I buy CDs are:
a) because the buying process itself is something I enjoy
b) I like to have something tangible and long-lasting
c) I want the best quality sound
> That issue doesn't affect the kind of example you're citing as much, as
> if you make [some of] your work legitimately available free as a
> marketing effort, the people who will be exposed to it are much more
> likely to be the same people who would be prepared to pay to get more of
> your work (or even to get the same work in a different format, such as
> people liking an ebook and then deciding it's worth paying to get a
> paper copy).
I think you're assuming too much here. I don't find that in the case of
Ross Anderson, he's made his book available 'as a marketing effort',
nor to my knowledge does he have more than one book available. Authors
themselves generally aren't directly responsible for a book's marketing
- that's down to publishers. It wasn't the publisher that suggested his
book was put online. Ross had to convince them it was sound business to
do so. There are though differences in book downloads from music
downloads, but you haven't picked up on them so far :-)
< snippage >
> > What about the consequent loss of sales by people who are put off by
> > DRM'd albums ? What of the costs of introducing DRM ? What of the costs
> > of remedying DRM problems - customers returning DRM-infected discs ?
> > What of the Sony 'rootkit' fiasco not so long ago ?
>
> Well I thought initially we were arguing about intentions.
Well you were, but I explained that wasn't quite where I was coming
from :-)
> If we are
> arguing about results, then I simply don't know.
Well you could work out some figures :-) Your argument was (if I
correctly understood it) that if DRM manages to improve sales by a few
percentage points then musicians, wno get royalties based on those
sales, would benefit. That argument though assumes rather a lot - that
adding DRM doesn't affect overall sales margins, and that it does in
fact improve sales volumes compared with not having it. In other words
I think you need to argue that by adding DRM there will be people
buying who otherwise would not have bought without it. And you also
need to argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. Since you say you
don't know, I think your arguments don't stand up :-)
> I strongly think that
> protecting against illegal copying is a good thing.
OK, so it might be interesting for you to set out your reasons why you
do think it is a 'good thing'. To me its a restrictive practice, and
its not what customers, nor in many cases what musicians, want.
> I understand that
> it's very hard to use technology to prevent illegal copying (or at
> least: make it sufficiently difficult that people are strongly
> discouraged from doing it) without also affecting genuine customers.
Already, you've introduced a false dichotomy - between 'genuine' and
'non-genuine' customers. The point here is that even people who don't
'steal' music (such as myself) want to repurpose what they buy
according to their own needs. So they might want a backup copy of the
music they've bought to protect the original (perhaps they listen in
the car and don't want the risk of the original being stolen) or they
want to listen on their mp3. All of these possibilities are restricted
by the introduction of DRM.
So in your estimation are people who are breaking the law by
repurposing what they've bought 'non-genuine' customers ?
> I
> have no strong opinions either way about whether DRM gets the balance
> right, since I don't know enough about DRM, so I don't particularly
> intend to argue about that.
Its clear to me that DRM doesn't get the balance right, but we've no
need to go there.
> >>> You're dealing with intentions again, I'm not, I'm dealing
> >>> with results.
> >> If that is so then I suggest you shouldn't have used the phrase "RM
> >> isn't for the benefit of the musicians" since that implies you are
> >> considering the intentions.
> >
> > What would you suggest I should have said ?
>
> "DRM doesn't benefit the musicians" would I think convey the correct
> meaning ;-)
But I wouldn't say that as I am not sure that its completely true :-)
As I've admitted, there might be some benefit to the musicians, but
that's incidental to the benefit to the record companies (as they
perceive it).
> > I have admitted the possibility that they want to benefit the artists.
> > You snipped that part - is that because you agree with it ? My claim is
> > that the benefit to the artists is incidental to the benefits to
> > themselves.
>
> Yes. I have a strong aversion to very long posts, and this one is
> becoming *extremely* long.
As you'll probably have noticed, I don't share your aversion :-)
> In that situation, I tend to snip bits of the
> argument where there is little disagreement or which I think are less
> interesting than other bits of the post. (As I've done again quite a bit
> in this post. of course if what I've snipped something you think is a
> key point, you're welcome to remind me of it <g>)
Sure, so far I think we're still addressing the key points.
> >> Well not necessarily. They only need to not trust *some* potential
> >> customers not to steal music, rather than 'all' as implied by the way
> >> you put it, to justify using DRM.
> >
> > They put DRM on all discs, no ?
>
> Well presumably. If there was a surefire way to tell who was going to do
> illegal copying so you could sell DRM-protected disks to those people,
> and non-protected disks to the honest customers, then I guess they could
> do that. But in the absence of any reliable mind-reading machines.... ;-)
Yep, but having two SKUs in the distribution would be a considerable
additional cost, so I think that might be a more compelling reason :-)
> >>> The fact they don't reveal the
> >>> true picture is what tells me they're hiding something.
> >> Or that they are not saying something that they consider is sufficiently
> >> obvious that it's not worth saying. By the logic you are using,
> >> presumably every shop in the town centre that employs security guards is
> >> hiding something because they don't put a notice up that explicitly says
> >> 'We don't trust you not to steal what's in the shop'. (FWIW I can't
> >> recall ever seeing any company in any industry say that directly)
> >
> > Nope. Shops aren't claiming that the security guards are there for the
> > benefit of musicians. That's a huge difference - were they to claim
> > that, I think people would laugh their heads off. The notion that shops
> > don't want people to shoplift because it hurts musicians is utterly
> > ludicrous yet its analogous to what record companies are claiming for
> > DRM.
>
> I think you misunderstand the analogy.
And I think you've misunderstood my argument.
> You appeared to be suggesting
> that, in order to avoid bullshitting, the record companies should
> explain exactly why they are putting DRM on disks, in terms that are
> somewhat uncomplimentary to the customers (we don't trust you).
That's where you've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting record companies
'should' do anything, I merely noted an example of what they didn't do.
They're not being totally honest with their customrs is what I'm
noting, and I'm noting that from what they don't tell customers, not
from what I (would misguidedly) think they should be telling them. The
truth is that they've introduced DRM to protect their own business from
a perceived threat. The threat they've perceived is 'stealing' of their
music. Its only secondarily to do with musicians, the primary rationale
for DRM is the record companies' business models. After all, the
musicians will still be around once the record companies have gone out
of business - they're not the ones being threatened.
> The
> analogy was that shops have security guards because they also
> (correctly) don't trust customers not to just walk in and start
> shoplifting.
You're assuming that mistrust is the primary reason. But also,
deterrence is a reason for having visible security. Its entirely
reasonable to discourage people from stealing, whether or not you trust
them. However copying music is self-evidently not stealing - Gareth has
argued that point very clearly so I don't propose to reiterate.
> But I don't think you'd accuse shops of bullshitting
> because they don't have prominent notices saying 'the reason we have
> security guards is because we don't trust you customers not to
> shoplift'.
Sure, because having security guards isn't actually *saying* anything,
hence can't be bullshitting. What's bullshit would be saying 'we've
posted the guards on our music shop because we don't want musicians to
suffer if you shoplift'. And that's what the record companies in effect
are saying in their claims about DRM.
> Of course, we all know that's the reason, but it'd be kinda
> rude for the shops to rub it in in the way you are suggesting record
> companies should do in order to avoid you claiming that they are
> bullshitting.
You've focussed on an entirely incidental aspect of my point, and
missed the main thrust :-) Its not germane to my argument for record
companies to explicitly state 'we don't trust our customers'.
> I'm suggesting that likewise, the reason record companies
> don't explicitly say 'we don't trust you' is because that'd be rude and
> rubbing in something that we know anyway.
>
> Clearer?
Yep, but it doesn't impact my claim that the record companies are
bullshitting.
Richard
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <87zmav1...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>,
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Approximately how much is removed from a musician's bank account
>> each time someone illegally copies or downloads a piece of their
>> music?
>
> Not a great deal because not a lot goes into it in the first place. Most
> of the profit goes into the pockets of the record company executves
Quite right, but (as Mark noted) what I was getting at is that
the actual answer is zero.
Kendall K. Down
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The trade dynamics would completely change though. Would concert ticket
> prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album sales? Where
> would the new balances be?
With a bit of luck it would spell the end of mega-stars and we'd be back to
everyone making their own music - two guitars and a washboard and you're
away.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> You're certainly doing something illegal in that situation,
> namely copying something the law doesn't entitle you to
> copy. But it's not much like theft.
It may not be a real loss but it is a potential loss; it is the loss of the
profit or royalty that the artist would have received if you had bought his
CD. You can only justify copying if you adhere to some sort of "property is
theft" ideology.
Having said that, I believe very strongly in a "fair use" analogous to
borrowing a book from a friend and reading it. There again the author has
suffered a potential loss, but I would reply that if I like the book/CD/DVD
enough, I will buy it; if I don't like it, I won't buy it; so the fact that
I have read/watched/listened to an illegal copy is irrelevant.
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> My own personal experience is that when copy-protection stuff makes it
> slightly harder for me to use something legitimately, I feel irritated
> but it doesn't stop me buying it.
Each to his own, of course, but if I could by any means avoid it, I would
certainly refuse to buy something with copy protection on it or, if I had to
buy it, I would do my best to get round it. I took great pleasure in
circumventing the copy protection on both !Ovation and !HolyBible, both of
which I had purchased.
Tony Gillam
> In message
>
> <slrnelm26h.i3f....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>
> Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The trade dynamics would completely change though. Would concert
>> ticket prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album
>> sales? Where would the new balances be?
>
> With a bit of luck it would spell the end of mega-stars and we'd be
> back to everyone making their own music - two guitars and a washboard
> and you're
> away.
>
specific tracks that you require. Buying CDs, in my case of classical
music, generally means that you have certain pieces duplicated on
several CDs.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <4rvvdbF...@mid.individual.net>
> Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
>
>> My own personal experience is that when copy-protection stuff makes it
>> slightly harder for me to use something legitimately, I feel irritated
>> but it doesn't stop me buying it.
>
> Each to his own, of course, but if I could by any means avoid it, I would
> certainly refuse to buy something with copy protection on it or, if I had to
> buy it, I would do my best to get round it. I took great pleasure in
> circumventing the copy protection on both !Ovation and !HolyBible, both of
> which I had purchased.
And why, according to the arguments you've deployed elsewhere
in the thread, was that not "theft"? (I am assuming that you
made some use of your circumvention by making copies where
otherwise you'd have had no option but to buy a spare copy
of the software.)
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <87zmatv...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> You're certainly doing something illegal in that situation,
>> namely copying something the law doesn't entitle you to
>> copy. But it's not much like theft.
>
> It may not be a real loss but it is a potential loss; it is the loss of the
> profit or royalty that the artist would have received if you had bought his
> CD. You can only justify copying if you adhere to some sort of "property is
> theft" ideology.
It's likewise a "potential loss" if I walk past a music shop
and don't buy something.
I am not aiming to justify illegal copying of music; I don't
believe that "property is theft"; but I see absolutely no
reason why anyone need believe the latter if they do the
former. (I'd place a biggish bet that Mark Goodge doesn't
believe that property is theft, but he *does* seek to justify
illegal copying of at least some music. So maybe you should
be trying to convince him that his position is incoherent.
It doesn't look incoherent to me, for what it's worth.)
> Having said that, I believe very strongly in a "fair use" analogous to
> borrowing a book from a friend and reading it. There again the author has
> suffered a potential loss, but I would reply that if I like the book/CD/DVD
> enough, I will buy it; if I don't like it, I won't buy it; so the fact that
> I have read/watched/listened to an illegal copy is irrelevant.
So you agree that inflicting a "potential loss" on someone
doesn't amount to theft. Good.
(And it's not just a potential delay in their getting "their"
money; sometimes it will happen that you'd have bought something
if you hadn't tried it and found it disappointing. If you're
going to respond that those cases are balanced by the ones
where you wouldn't have bought something until you found that
it was unexpectedly good, then I respond: who do you think
you are, Robin Hood? If you're serious about reckoning permanent
potential losses "theft", then that "balancing" consists of
stealing from some people to give to others.)
Alasdair
The market rate is what someone will pay for it, not what the OR
thinks it's worth!
--
Alasdair.
Sam Wilson
"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> In message
> <slrnelm26h.i3f....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>
> Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The trade dynamics would completely change though. Would concert ticket
> > prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album sales? Where
> > would the new balances be?
>
> With a bit of luck it would spell the end of mega-stars and we'd be back to
> everyone making their own music - two guitars and a washboard and you're
> away.
Or in my son's case guitar, keyboard, sax and computer - his band (a two
piece) has just produced its first album. Would it be OK to mention his
web site here? I'm not sure what the charter says. The music is
definitely Christian in character and made in the UK.
Sam
Simon Robinson
> But none of this is *theft*. You've explained how it's *illegal*
> and (assuming, plausibly but not entirely obviously, that the
> creators of music have a natural right to control what happens
> to copies of it) *bad* for you to copy "my" music, but you
> haven't explained why it's more like theft than it's like,
> say, fraud or illegal parking.
OK. I'll try explaining better ;-)
Consider what is happening when someone steals something (eg.
shoplifting). In most cases, ISTM that what is happening is that the
person is seeing something that they want for themselves. They might
know that there are legitimate means to obtain the thing (eg. buying
it), but doesn't factor in their decision. They are motivated by they
want the thing, and they don't care (or at least, don't care enough)
about the fact that the way our society and our economic system works is
that the shop (or whoever the victim is) has some rights to the thing
they want. So they just take it, without thought for who might be hurt
by their taking it. Those are the things that to my mind characterize
theft. Now in my description I've highlighted not only the action but
some of the reasons why we regard theft as undesirable and wrong
(another reason, highly relevent to illegal copying, is that it runs
against established principles of how our economic system works etc., in
a way that makes it slightly harder for society to function).
I've had quite a number of acquaintances who routinely do illegal
copying, and in every case, insofaras I've been able to establish from
talking to them, the motivation is pretty much exactly what I've just
described for shoplifting. Sometimes they say something like 'but
music's too expensive if you buy it', which looks to me like a very poor
attempt to rationalize 'I want it so I'm going to take it'. ISTM the
*only* difference between what they are doing and - say - shoplifting -
is that what the victim is being deprived of is rights over the
intellectual property, rather than exclusive use of a physical object.
But that doesn't look like a substantive difference to me, it looks like
hair-splitting.
>> ISTM someone who illegally copies music (or other intellectual property) is
>>
>> (a) Taking something to which he is not entitled
>
> There is no thing that they've taken, and no one they've taken it
> from. This is an abstract notion of "taking", just like that in
> which illegal parking involves "taking" a parking space you're
> not allowed to use.
ISTM that if, as you seem to be implying, you want to restrict the use
of theft to concrete, material, objects that can only be in the
possession of one entity, then that is making the word a lot less
useful. That restriction also runs against at least some instances of
common usage, for example in the sense when you say that person A has
stolen B's ideas, when A has used something B thought of before B had a
chance to and without giving credit to B.
> In fact, even less theft-like than that,
> because when you park illegally you're making that space unavailable
> for other purposes,
That brings up an interesting linguistic question of why we don't refer
to that as theft (and I agree, I ordinarily wouldn't do so, even though
I regard most illegal parking as wrong). I think the reason is a
combination of that theft tends to imply some degree of permanence of
the thing you've taken, whereas taking a parking space is very temporary
- more like borrowing [1]. Also, in the case of a parking space, there
usually isn't any individual or organization that owns the parking
space, and it's harder to talk about theft when it's not clear that
there is an entity that you're stealing from. I think those are as much
linguistic as substantive issues though.
[1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or as
wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision is. I
think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
permanently as an alternative to buying it.
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> One advantage of downloading seems to be that you can select the
> specific tracks that you require. Buying CDs, in my case of classical
> music, generally means that you have certain pieces duplicated on
> several CDs.
Yes. I collect individual tracks - it's a legacy from when I were a nipper,
when I used to buy singles by the shed-load. Nowadays I'm trying to replace
my old favourites on CD, and many of them are not available at all - in
which case I'll try and find a download - or they turn up on compilations,
so I've ended up with lots of compilation CDs with a great many tracks
duplicated.
Worse than that, as an example: there are 3 tracks by Led Zeppelin which
appeared on a 4-CD box set and nowhere else - so if I want these tracks I
need to buy this very expensive set when I already have all the other
tracks.
Well, I'm sorry, but given that CDs are already ludicrously expensive
compared with the cost of production, and that the record companies are
ripping me off in this way, and that I've already paid for much of my music
on vinyl anyway, I'm afraid I'm going to copy and download.
I spend plenty of money on music anyway. The record companies have certainly
had value for money from me.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> In fact, even less theft-like than that,
>> because when you park illegally you're making that space unavailable
>> for other purposes,
>
>That brings up an interesting linguistic question of why we don't refer
>to that as theft (and I agree, I ordinarily wouldn't do so, even though
>I regard most illegal parking as wrong). I think the reason is a
>combination of that theft tends to imply some degree of permanence of
>the thing you've taken, whereas taking a parking space is very temporary
>- more like borrowing [1].
And you'd be spot on from a legal perspective: the definition of
"theft", in law, requires an intent to permanently deprive the lawful
owner of the thing you are stealing. Borrowing something, even without
permission, is not theft. (There are situations where borrowing
without permission is an offence of a different kind, but it's a
different offence to theft).
>[1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or as
>wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
>listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
>want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision is. I
>think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
>permanently as an alternative to buying it.
However, copyright law makes no provision for temporary copies in this
way[2]. Copyright is infringed even if you make a copy that you have
no intent to keep. Which is another reason why copyright is a very
different thing, both morally and legally, to theft.
[1] NMF
[2] It does allow for some temporary copies in certain specific
circumstances[3], but evaluation purposes isn't one of them.
[3] Mostly the type of transient copies that are necessary when
transmitting data electronically[4]
[4] Such as the copies that are made on a Usenet server, or a web
cache.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"If you never know truth then you never know love"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:03:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
Ye, but that's always going to be more than a "nominal" sum.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
"Advertising lies that are whiter than yours"
Quasin
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:09:05 +0000, Alasdair put finger to keyboard
>
>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:03:34 +0000, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>If they could aford it, they could buy it. But it wouldn't be a nominal
>>>sum , it would have to be the market rate for the rights. Which can be
>>>quite a lot.
>>>
>>
>>The market rate is what someone will pay for it, not what the OR
>>thinks it's worth!
>
>
> Ye, but that's always going to be more than a "nominal" sum.
>
There's also the problem of finding put who ended up with
the rights, whether who bought them from the bankruptcy
estate or who ended up technical owner of the residual
property. That can be a major hurdle, costing money to hire
an investigator.
Quasin
> Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Would concert ticket
>>prices have to go up? Are they much subsidised by the album sales?
>
> With a bit of luck it would spell the end of mega-stars and we'd be back to
> everyone making their own music - two guitars and a washboard and you're
> away.
>
I played washboard once, briefly. Also was pretty good
playing spoons but I don't remember anymore how to hold them. :(
But as to current finances, what I've read is that (in USA
anyway) recording artists normally earn something between
zero and negative on album sales, they make their money from
the concert tours.
This page gives a breakdown of how a 3 million in sales can
end up with the band owing money to the recording/producer
company. http://negativland.com/albini.html
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>I am not aiming to justify illegal copying of music; I don't
>believe that "property is theft"; but I see absolutely no
>reason why anyone need believe the latter if they do the
>former. (I'd place a biggish bet that Mark Goodge doesn't
>believe that property is theft, but he *does* seek to justify
>illegal copying of at least some music. So maybe you should
>be trying to convince him that his position is incoherent.
>It doesn't look incoherent to me, for what it's worth.)
You'd certainly win your bet.
Maybe I should clarify my position: I'm certainly not asserting that
creators of intellectual property (eg, music or books) should not be
able to sell it for a fair price[1] to consumers. I'm all in favour of
musicians being able to make money by making music, just as much as
I'm in favour of people being able to listen to the music of their
choice. I do not want to get rid of the concept of copyright, or even
make fundamental changes to its basic principles.
What I *am* asserting, though, is that the current system for
enforcing copyright is outdated, anti-competitive and unfair to both
producers and consumers. At the moment, at least in as far as music is
concerned, nearly all the power is in the hands of the distributors -
the record companies - who maintain an effective oligopoly of the
availability of music to consumers. And, not coincidentally, that's
also where the majority of the money goes.
I am aware that when I copy music illegally, I am contributing to a
small short-term reduction in potential income[2] for the musicians
who made it. And I agree that this is a Bad Thing. However, when I
copy music illegally, I am increasing my own pleasure (and those of
other eople I pass the music on to) considerably. This is a Good
Thing. I have also been know to make music available for others to
download that they could not otherwise obtain at all (as it's out of
production and there are no plans to make more CDs). This is also a
Good Thing. And I am also aware that by copying music illegally I am
contributing slightly to a small potential loss in income[2] for the
record company. And, crucially, I also consider this to be a Good
Thing. If it were just a case of my pleasure against the artist's
income, then morally that would tip the balance in the artist's
favour. But, in the long term, both my and the artist's interests are
best served by a change to the current system in order to distribute
power more equitably between producers and consumers. And damaging the
interests of the record companies will (I hope) help to achieve that.
The musicians may not necessarily thank me for this now[3], but they
will, in the long run :-)
[1] And, as a believer in free and fair trade, what I mean by a "fair
price" is "a price that people are willing to pay, based on their
perception of the value to them of what they are purchasing". Which
may, of course, be zero, but probably won't be.
[2] Although it is very small, since if I can't copy it I would be
extremely unlikely to buy it instead, and when I really want something
I do buy it.
[3] Although some, possibly, quite a lot, would probably agree with me
even now. Some interesting material on the subject can be found at
these locations:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
"Take me or leave me, don't have to believe me"
Gareth McCaughan
> Consider what is happening when someone steals something
> (eg. shoplifting). In most cases, ISTM that what is happening is that
> the person is seeing something that they want for themselves. They
> might know that there are legitimate means to obtain the thing
> (eg. buying it), but doesn't factor in their decision. They are
> motivated by they want the thing, and they don't care (or at least,
> don't care enough) about the fact that the way our society and our
> economic system works is that the shop (or whoever the victim is) has
> some rights to the thing they want. So they just take it, without
> thought for who might be hurt by their taking it. Those are the things
> that to my mind characterize theft.
And that's where we disagree; I think another feature
is importantly characteristic of theft, which is that
someone gets deprived of something they had before.
To me, this is a more important feature of theft than
the thief's wish to have whatever-it-is for themselves;
after all, if I take something of yours out of pure
malice, having no desire at all to own or use it myself,
that's still theft, no?
Consider some other things that your criteria would
classify as "theft", at least if the "something" is
as abstract as it needs to be to apply in the case
of copying digitally encoded music:
- illegal parking (as discussed in the grandparent
of this article)
- trespassing in order to enjoy a fine view
- raping someone for the sake of sexual pleasure
Those things are probably all wrong; at least one of
them is very wrong indeed; but I don't see what's
gained by assimilating them all to the single crime
of theft.
(Another thing that's characteristic of ordinary
theft is that the thing X is deprived of is the same
thing that Y illegally gains the benefit of. That
isn't the case for illegal music copying or rape,
but perhaps it is for illegal parking and -- to a
lesser extent -- trespassing.)
> Now in my description I've
> highlighted not only the action but some of the reasons why we regard
> theft as undesirable and wrong (another reason, highly relevent to
> illegal copying, is that it runs against established principles of how
> our economic system works etc., in a way that makes it slightly harder
> for society to function).
Just out of interest, do you actually, seriously, believe
that illegal music copying makes it harder for society to
function?
> I've had quite a number of acquaintances who routinely do illegal
> copying, and in every case, insofaras I've been able to establish from
> talking to them, the motivation is pretty much exactly what I've just
> described for shoplifting. Sometimes they say something like 'but
> music's too expensive if you buy it', which looks to me like a very
> poor attempt to rationalize 'I want it so I'm going to take it'. ISTM
> the *only* difference between what they are doing and - say -
> shoplifting -
> is that what the victim is being deprived of is rights over the
> intellectual property, rather than exclusive use of a physical
> object. But that doesn't look like a substantive difference to me, it
> looks like hair-splitting.
And, likewise, the only difference between theft and illegal
parking is that what the victim is being deprived of is the
right to control who parks in a given place; the only difference
between theft and trespassing is that what the victim is being
deprived of is the right to control who uses their land; the
only difference between theft and rape is that what the victim
is being deprived of is the right not to be sexually molested
(and, in some cases, their future psychological welfare, which
of course is a large part of why it's such an awful crime).
If you're prepared to call anything "theft" as long as it can
be described as depriving someone of something, and if you're
prepared for that something to be as abstract as their right
to control others' behaviour in a particular way, then almost
every crime becomes an instance of "theft". Murder (depriving
someone of their life), libel (depriving someone of their good
reputation), breach of contract (depriving someone of their
right to have you do what you undertook to do), you name it.
Objecting to this isn't hair-splitting; it's an attempt to
allow words to have actual meanings, rather than being used
to project a vague fog of disapproval :-).
>>> ISTM someone who illegally copies music (or other intellectual property) is
>>>
>>> (a) Taking something to which he is not entitled
>>
>> There is no thing that they've taken, and no one they've taken it
>> from. This is an abstract notion of "taking", just like that in
>> which illegal parking involves "taking" a parking space you're
>> not allowed to use.
>
> ISTM that if, as you seem to be implying, you want to restrict the use
> of theft to concrete, material, objects that can only be in the
> possession of one entity, then that is making the word a lot less
> useful. That restriction also runs against at least some instances of
> common usage, for example in the sense when you say that person A has
> stolen B's ideas, when A has used something B thought of before B had
> a chance to and without giving credit to B.
I think it's just as sloppy and unhelpful to assimilate plagiarism
to theft as it is to assimilate illegal music copying to theft.
(I'm aware that the terminology of theft is commonplace in that
context; but then, so is the use of "piracy" to describe illegal
copying of music and software, and I hope you aren't so crazy as
to suggest that there's actually much resemblance between making
a copy of an MP3 file and boarding ships, killing their occupants
and plundering their cargo.)
I don't think the "concrete, material" bit is terribly important;
but one key feature of concrete material objects -- namely, that
if I take them from you you can't use them any more -- is central
to what theft is. (Because it's central to what property is, and
although "property is theft" is untrue, the notion of theft is
clearly derivative of the notion of property.) I'm happy to use
the word "theft" to describe what happens when I gain some
immaterial or abstract thing by depriving you of your legally
guaranteed exclusive right to it. For instance: you have an
account on some computer; I break into it, gain control of
your account, change the passwords, and thus deprive you of
its facilities while getting them myself. I think it would be
reasonable (though in fact it isn't terribly common) to say
that in that situation I've stolen your access to that computer.
>> In fact, even less theft-like than that,
>> because when you park illegally you're making that space unavailable
>> for other purposes,
>
> That brings up an interesting linguistic question of why we don't
> refer to that as theft (and I agree, I ordinarily wouldn't do so, even
> though I regard most illegal parking as wrong). I think the reason is
> a combination of that theft tends to imply some degree of permanence
> of the thing you've taken, whereas taking a parking space is very
> temporary - more like borrowing [1]. Also, in the case of a parking
> space, there usually isn't any individual or organization that owns
> the parking space, and it's harder to talk about theft when it's not
> clear that there is an entity that you're stealing from. I think
> those are as much linguistic as substantive issues though.
Well, trespassing generally does have a specific victim and
doesn't seem any more theft-like than illegal parking. The
issue of permanent deprivation (or is it permanent benefit
that's the issue for you?) is an interesting one.
Actually, let's look at that parenthetical point. What you've
deprived the copyright-holder of (you say above) is (their
exercise of) the right to control who copies their music.
I don't see any good way to regard that deprivation as
permanent; it's a one-off thing (you copied the music
*once*), and it's just the same as in the case you describe
below where you erase your copy soon afterwards (which you
don't regard as theft, or even as wrong, despite the fact
that it involves violating someone's legal entitlement
for the sake of your own gain). So it must be the lasting
*benefit* that's relevant to you, I think. But isn't that
silly? I mean, if I break into your house and take away
your priceless Ming vase then it's no less theft just
because on the way out I drop it and it smashes into
tiny pieces.
> [1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or
> as wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
> listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
> want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision
> is. I think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
> permanently as an alternative to buying it.
I would be interested to know whether that's something you actually
do, and whether your opinion that it isn't theft predates or postdates
your practice of doing it if so. :-)
*
Gedankenexperiment: Imagine that you have prodigious powers
of musical memory and imagination, such that if you listen
to a piece of music a couple of times and try really hard
then you can memorize every detail of it well enough that
later on you can hear it (in your mind's ear, as it were,
but just as satisfyingly-to-you as if you were hearing it
physically) whenever you want to. If you do this, are you
stealing?
Quasin
>
> I think another feature
> is importantly characteristic of theft, which is that
> someone gets deprived of something they had before.
Wikipedia agrees with you, at least as to British law (not
quite clear when discussing other countries' laws).
Which suggests "identity theft" is misnamed. What should it
be called?
Kendall K. Down
Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Or in my son's case guitar, keyboard, sax and computer - his band (a two
> piece) has just produced its first album. Would it be OK to mention his
> web site here? I'm not sure what the charter says. The music is
> definitely Christian in character and made in the UK.
No, no. Definitely not OK to mention his website: that's advertising.
However if I ask you, very nicely, to please tell me his website, no one can
complain: you're merely responding to a request.
What's your son's website, Sam?
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> And why, according to the arguments you've deployed elsewhere
> in the thread, was that not "theft"? (I am assuming that you
> made some use of your circumvention by making copies where
> otherwise you'd have had no option but to buy a spare copy
> of the software.)
I made personal back-up copies, but no other use. It's not theft, because
personal back-ups are a right. It is theft if the author/producer tries to
deprive you of that right.
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> So you agree that inflicting a "potential loss" on someone
> doesn't amount to theft. Good.
Oh, I've no problem with mp3s; in fact, I spent half an hour over the
weekend persuading a friend that it is a religious duty to rip off M$.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
"Infringement of identity copyright"? :-)
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
"Save me from the nothing I致e become"
Gareth McCaughan
Impersonation, or fraud.
Sam Wilson
"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> In message <Sam.Wilson-9F27A...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
> Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Or in my son's case guitar, keyboard, sax and computer - his band (a two
> > piece) has just produced its first album. Would it be OK to mention his
> > web site here? I'm not sure what the charter says. The music is
> > definitely Christian in character and made in the UK.
>
> No, no. Definitely not OK to mention his website: that's advertising.
> However if I ask you, very nicely, to please tell me his website, no one can
> complain: you're merely responding to a request.
>
> What's your son's website, Sam?
<http://www.dldown.co.uk/>. Thanks for asking. :-)
Sam
Tony Gillam
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In message <87lkmbo...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> And why, according to the arguments you've deployed elsewhere
>> in the thread, was that not "theft"? (I am assuming that you
>> made some use of your circumvention by making copies where
>> otherwise you'd have had no option but to buy a spare copy
>> of the software.)
>
>I made personal back-up copies, but no other use. It's not theft, because
>personal back-ups are a right.
Not under UK law. US law has a clause allowing for personal backup
copies, and, since the web is dominated by US-sourced material, a lot
of UK residents mistakenly think they have the same right as that's
what they tend to read. But they do not.
Some software licences explicitly allow personal backups, but that's
another matter.
> It is theft if the author/producer tries to
>deprive you of that right.
Not theft, but morally as bad. Just as it's morally as bad as theft to
attempt to prevent a legitimate purchaser of music from playing it on
the system of their choice.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"A singing bird in an open cage who will only fly, only fly for freedom"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <004bca864...@diggingsonline.com>,
And remind them to send a copy to Cross Rhythms for review.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"
Stuart
Sam Wilson <Sam.W...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Or in my son's case guitar, keyboard, sax and computer - his band (a two
> piece) has just produced its first album. Would it be OK to mention his
> web site here? I'm not sure what the charter says. The music is
> definitely Christian in character and made in the UK.
My band's web address in my sig and no one has objected yet!
It's way out of date but our webmaster/bass guitarist is currently doing a
theological degree at Oxford and hasn't the time.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Stuart
<slrnelkeos.i3f....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>,
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if it was implied by the tape levy. Do we have a CD-R levy too?
I believe there was one on the audio CDs intented for use in audio CD
recorders. They will not work with standard data CDs intended for computer
use.
Stuart
> [snip]
> > One advantage of downloading seems to be that you can select the
> > specific tracks that you require. Buying CDs, in my case of classical
> > music, generally means that you have certain pieces duplicated on
> > several CDs.
> Yes. I collect individual tracks - it's a legacy from when I were a
> nipper, when I used to buy singles by the shed-load. Nowadays I'm
> trying to replace my old favourites on CD, and many of them are not
> available at all
I do think that if the original copyright holder isn't interested in
making something available that I want, be it music, recorded or sheet,
book, computer software or whatever then it should be legal to obtain it
by whatever means are available.
> Well, I'm sorry, but given that CDs are already ludicrously expensive
> compared with the cost of production, and that the record companies are
> ripping me off in this way
They certainly are
> and that I've already paid for much of my music on vinyl anyway, I'm
> afraid I'm going to copy and download.
I intend to copy my vinyl to CD myself. At least it will be the same
mix/sound that I have come to love over the years.
Adam Funk
> Copyright was originally about fair balance. Short term gain for the
> producers, then long term gain for the public domain and the rest of
> society. The original copyright was 15 years, and the original law makers
> did that reluctantly.
Copyright, despite the misleading name, is *not* a right but a
privilege that the state may (but does not have to) grant to artists
in order to promote the public good by encouraging them to create more
work that will in the long term enrich the public domain. In the USA
this is explicit in the Constitution, but in the UK it is clear in the
writings of philosophers, economists and legislators (particularly
Macaulay) from the 17th to the 19th centuries.
The legitimate purpose of copyright was to give artists privileged
protection from publishers without significantly reducing the rights
of the public (printing used to require specialist skills and
equipment). Now the publishers abuse it by reducing the rights of the
public.
Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig are good sources of more detailed
information on this subject.
Simon Robinson
> Simon Robinson wrote:
(Snipped lots where I'd otherwise be repeating the same points to answer
multiple parts of your post)
> Just out of interest, do you actually, seriously, believe
> that illegal music copying makes it harder for society to
> function?
Yes. It damages businesses involved in creating and selling anything
that's easily copiable (music, films, software, books), putting an
additional burden on individuals/organizations that create such
material, and forcing diversion of resources into security. It is
associated with an attitude of selfishness and me-first on the part of
the general public (I'm not sure to what extent it merely reflects and
to what extent it reinforces that kind of attitude, but I strongly
suspect it does both). And of course it provides profits to organized
criminal groups (I notice police forces often warn that buying pirated
cds etc. often indirectly supports things like drug-dealing. I'm also
inclined to suspect that illegal copying provides an easy route into
crime in a way that's seen as socially acceptable, but gets people into
the idea of making money by breaking the law. It seems plausible to me
that that may ultimately result in those people committing more serious
crimes, though that is only a suspicion).
> And, likewise, the only difference between theft and illegal
> parking is that what the victim is being deprived of is the
> right to control who parks in a given place; the only difference
> between theft and trespassing is that what the victim is being
> deprived of is the right to control who uses their land; the
> only difference between theft and rape is that what the victim
> is being deprived of is the right not to be sexually molested
> (and, in some cases, their future psychological welfare, which
> of course is a large part of why it's such an awful crime).
I think you're understating the differences. A key component of theft is
the fact that you are *taking* something - ie. making something into
your own possession to keep (That may be my poor wording, not making
that clear in my last post). Rape may be an awful crime, but it's
stretching things to say that the perpetrator is taking anything, unless
you put a very metaphorical slant on 'taking'. Ditto trespass. Illegal
parking I think is more iffy, since you could argue you are taking a
section of road. One problem there though is that the road is there for
anyone - including yourself - to use anyway. What you're doing wrong is
rather that you're using that bit of road in a way that you're not
supposed to use it. ISTM that aspect makes illegal parking less
theft-like. And of course there's the temporary nature of parking too.
On balance, I'd say that calling illegal parking 'theft' sounds a bit
odd to me, but not nearly as odd as calling trespass or rape 'theft'.
OTOH it's pretty clear that in illegal copying, you *are* making
something that doesn't belong to you into your possession, as if it does.
> If you're prepared to call anything "theft" as long as it can
> be described as depriving someone of something, and if you're
> prepared for that something to be as abstract as their right
> to control others' behaviour in a particular way, then almost
> every crime becomes an instance of "theft".
That's going beyond what I meant (apart from the issue that you need to
be taking something, in a non-metaphorical sense of 'taking', for it to
be described as theft). I possibly worded it poorly. I don't think the
fundamental issue in illegal copying is the right of the creator of the
work to control others' behaviour. I think it's more to do with the
right to receive compensation from those who benefit from your work, in
just the same way that someone who manufactures and sells physical
objects does. I don't even think it's particularly a natural right, it's
more a right that's conferred by the particular economic/trade system
that we have, and is required for that system to work effectively (Just
as it's theoretically possible to imagine economic systems in which
there is no notion of property, which would imply no concept of theft,
though given human nature, it's hard to see how such systems could work
in practice).
> I think it's just as sloppy and unhelpful to assimilate plagiarism
> to theft as it is to assimilate illegal music copying to theft.
Noted. I disagree though.
> (I'm aware that the terminology of theft is commonplace in that
> context; but then, so is the use of "piracy" to describe illegal
> copying of music and software, and I hope you aren't so crazy as
> to suggest that there's actually much resemblance between making
> a copy of an MP3 file and boarding ships, killing their occupants
> and plundering their cargo.)
Well it is possible for words to have multiple distinct meanings ;-)
> Well, trespassing generally does have a specific victim and
> doesn't seem any more theft-like than illegal parking. The
> issue of permanent deprivation (or is it permanent benefit
> that's the issue for you?) is an interesting one.
I would say both are important contributory factors.
> Actually, let's look at that parenthetical point. What you've
> deprived the copyright-holder of (you say above) is (their
> exercise of) the right to control who copies their music.
> I don't see any good way to regard that deprivation as
> permanent; it's a one-off thing (you copied the music
> *once*),
But your copy exists permanently and you [1] continue to enjoy it
without recompensing the creator for your use of their work. In
addition, the way things tend to happen, there's a chance you'll allow
further people to make copies from your copy (since you've already
demonstrated a disregard for the copyright).
[1] You = hypothetical person, not you personally. But you [2] knew that.
[2] That one was a personal 'you'
> So it must be the lasting
> *benefit* that's relevant to you, I think. But isn't that
> silly? I mean, if I break into your house and take away
> your priceless Ming vase then it's no less theft just
> because on the way out I drop it and it smashes into
> tiny pieces.
I think the permanent deprivation to the previous owner of the vase is
significant, as is your original intention to keep the vase.
>> [1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or
>> as wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
>> listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
>> want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision
>> is. I think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
>> permanently as an alternative to buying it.
>
> I would be interested to know whether that's something you actually
> do, and whether your opinion that it isn't theft predates or postdates
> your practice of doing it if so. :-)
It's not something I actually do (Because listening to friends' cds is
not a way that I normally encounter new music etc. I do that from radio
and tv).
> Gedankenexperiment: Imagine that you have prodigious powers
> of musical memory and imagination, such that if you listen
> to a piece of music a couple of times and try really hard
> then you can memorize every detail of it well enough that
> later on you can hear it (in your mind's ear, as it were,
> but just as satisfyingly-to-you as if you were hearing it
> physically) whenever you want to. If you do this, are you
> stealing?
I would say not. However I would say that if a significant proportion of
the population acquired and used that ability, then that would
necessitate a rethink of the ethics of when copying is and isn't
legitimate (As I've hinted at, I think the ethics are bound to what
actually works in the context of society and our economic system).
Simon Robinson
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:46:47 +0000, Simon Robinson put finger to
>> [1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or as
>> wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
>> listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
>> want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision is. I
>> think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
>> permanently as an alternative to buying it.
>
> However, copyright law makes no provision for temporary copies in this
> way[2]. Copyright is infringed even if you make a copy that you have
> no intent to keep. Which is another reason why copyright is a very
> different thing, both morally and legally, to theft.
I agree with everything up to the last sentence. I'm arguing about the
morals, not the legal situation. I totally agree that the current
copyright laws are pretty silly, both from the POV that they are
unenforceable, and from the POV that they don't coincide with any
sensible ethical system that I can see.
btw to nitpick a bit, you've pointed out a few legal issues. I'm fairly
sure that moral values cannot normally be deduced from legalities, so
I'm fairly sure your linkage of 'which is another reason...' and 'both
morally' is not correct.
Richard Dudley
[ Gareth ]
> > Just out of interest, do you actually, seriously, believe
> > that illegal music copying makes it harder for society to
> > function?
>
> Yes. It damages businesses involved in creating and selling anything
> that's easily copiable (music, films, software, books)
In the case of books, I've already put forward the case of Ross
Anderson's book. This is being made available (the whole book, not just
some parts) in an easy-to-copy form online. Are you saying he (the
author) has done this in order to damage his sales ? Or that its
damaging his sales but he doesn't know this ? Or that it only damages
*some* sales (your disclaimers in your response to me don't apply -
since this isn't part of some marketing effort and as far as I know he
doesn't have other books on offer which this one might be a 'loss
leader' for).
In the case of software, why has Sun very recently made its Java freely
available under the GPL, if its going to damage their business ? Or are
they being stupid ?
> putting an
> additional burden on individuals/organizations that create such
> material
The basis of this claim is ? Some people are content to make their
material freely available - the contributors to wikipedia, as but one
example.
> and forcing diversion of resources into security.
Clearly it doesn't force people into this - they have the option of
remodelling their business. Businesses selling Linux for example, don't
seem to be bothered by security. Rather they make money from the
service they provide, not the product per se.
> It is
> associated with an attitude of selfishness and me-first on the part of
> the general public (I'm not sure to what extent it merely reflects and
> to what extent it reinforces that kind of attitude, but I strongly
> suspect it does both).
Are you saying that an entirely self-less person would never copy
another person's material ? That, for example, Jesus would never have
done it, had he had the opportunity ?
> And of course it provides profits to organized
> criminal groups (I notice police forces often warn that buying pirated
> cds etc. often indirectly supports things like drug-dealing. I'm also
> inclined to suspect that illegal copying provides an easy route into
> crime in a way that's seen as socially acceptable, but gets people into
> the idea of making money by breaking the law. It seems plausible to me
> that that may ultimately result in those people committing more serious
> crimes, though that is only a suspicion).
The same can be said of any situation where government legislation is
creating an uneven playing field. The sale of alcohol and tobacco, for
example is a means of criminal gangs to make money. Your argument
against illegal copying sounds a bit like the 'slippery slope' argument
against the use of cannabis for example. Its obviously a different
matter when someone's basing a money-making endeavour on copying, just
as taking drugs is different from dealing in them.
< snippage so as not to exceed Simon's post length threshold ;-) >
Richard
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
My point is that copyright can be infringed by an action which causes
no loss whatsoever to the copyright owner, either in actual cost or
even in terms of potential loss of future earnings. I find it
difficult to see how this can be considered morally wrong. Theft, on
the other hand, always inflicts at least some loss on the legitimate
owner, even if the loss is trivial or inconsequential. So it can be
argued that theft is morally wrong, even when trivial, because it's
wrong to inflict loss on another person without good cause. Putting
these two together, it seems clear to me that copyright infringement
is not the same, morally, as theft.
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Simon Robinson wrote:
>(Snipped lots where I'd otherwise be repeating the same points to answer
>multiple parts of your post)
>
>> Just out of interest, do you actually, seriously, believe
>> that illegal music copying makes it harder for society to
>> function?
>
>Yes. It damages businesses involved in creating and selling anything
>that's easily copiable (music, films, software, books), putting an
>additional burden on individuals/organizations that create such
>material, and forcing diversion of resources into security.
But businesses have no inherent right to exist. If technology changes
in such a way that something which previously required a major
investment in manufacturing and distribution mechanisms in order to be
sold no longer requires them, then the businesses which grew up to
create and support such mechanisms will go bust. That's capitalism in
action.
It's important to bear in mind that record companies and publishers
are not the creators of music and books. That's what musicians and
authors do. The record companies and publishers are merely the
intermediary, the providers of the method of distribution. If a better
method of distribution comes along, then the existing intermediaries
will need to adapt or die.
> It is
>associated with an attitude of selfishness and me-first on the part of
>the general public (I'm not sure to what extent it merely reflects and
>to what extent it reinforces that kind of attitude, but I strongly
>suspect it does both). And of course it provides profits to organized
>criminal groups (I notice police forces often warn that buying pirated
>cds etc. often indirectly supports things like drug-dealing.
It provides profit to criminals because it's an artificially created
crime. If copying wasn't illegal, then there wouldn't be any need to
buy dodgy DVDs from car boot sales.
[much snippo]
>> Gedankenexperiment: Imagine that you have prodigious powers
>> of musical memory and imagination, such that if you listen
>> to a piece of music a couple of times and try really hard
>> then you can memorize every detail of it well enough that
>> later on you can hear it (in your mind's ear, as it were,
>> but just as satisfyingly-to-you as if you were hearing it
>> physically) whenever you want to. If you do this, are you
>> stealing?
>
>I would say not.
Continuing the experiment a bit further, suppose such an ability was
able to be artificially created in someone, for example by means of
some kind of implant. Would that be an infringement of copyright?
> However I would say that if a significant proportion of
>the population acquired and used that ability, then that would
>necessitate a rethink of the ethics of when copying is and isn't
>legitimate (As I've hinted at, I think the ethics are bound to what
>actually works in the context of society and our economic system).
That's really my point, though - I think what actually works, as far
as our ability to copy and distribute music is concerned, is now so
different to what it was when existing copyright law was drawn up that
trying to impose an outdated concept of copyright onto contemporary
society only leads to absurdities.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Simon Robinson wrote:
> (Snipped lots where I'd otherwise be repeating the same points to
> answer multiple parts of your post)
If that's a tactful way of saying that I repeated myself
a lot, then I apologize :-).
>> Just out of interest, do you actually, seriously, believe
>> that illegal music copying makes it harder for society to
>> function?
>
> Yes. It damages businesses involved in creating and selling anything
> that's easily copiable (music, films, software, books), putting an
> additional burden on individuals/organizations that create such
> material, and forcing diversion of resources into security.
It's far from clear that it actually damages them. For instance,
there's some evidence that people who make more illegal copies
also tend to make more legal purchases, and some publishers have
found that making their books available for free download
*increases* sales. Neither of those is anything like proof
that illegal copying doesn't, on the whole, harm the people
who are notionally its victims, but it's suggestive.
> It is
> associated with an attitude of selfishness and me-first on the part of
> the general public (I'm not sure to what extent it merely reflects and
> to what extent it reinforces that kind of attitude, but I strongly
> suspect it does both).
You are welcome to your strong suspicions; I don't think I
share them. I think human selfishness comes first and doesn't
need any reinforcement. Would you, incidentally, say that
all negotiations over prices damage society because they're
driven by, and may reinforce, selfishness?
> And of course it provides profits to organized
> criminal groups (I notice police forces often warn that buying pirated
> cds etc. often indirectly supports things like drug-dealing. I'm also
> inclined to suspect that illegal copying provides an easy route into
> crime in a way that's seen as socially acceptable, but gets people
> into the idea of making money by breaking the law. It seems plausible
> to me that that may ultimately result in those people committing more
> serious crimes, though that is only a suspicion).
I'm afraid you're getting close to the uncharted shores
of Ken Down Land with your suspicions here :-). For all
I know, drug dealers may be making money from selling
illegal copies of CDs, but I thought we were discussing
activities like downloading MP3s for free, making illegal
copies of music you own, and so on. It's hard to see how
you can fund organized crime by not spending any money.
I don't think that's clear at all, and indeed that's a key part
of why I think illegal copying isn't enough like ordinary theft
for it to be sensible to call it theft.
Let's suppose that you download an MP3 version of a piece of
music that otherwise you'd have had to buy. What have you made
into your own possession? A bunch of bits. A large binary number.
The ability to listen to a particular piece of music when you
want to. How can calling this "taking" be any less of a stretch
than what you do when you park illegally? You say: "the road
is there for anyone to use anyway". No, because you aren't allowed
to park on it. (And who said it was a road? We could be talking
about an off-road car park, for instance.) The road's there
for people to make *some* use of, sure. And likewise, you're
free to listen to that music in a music shop, or in a friend's
house. It might be available in a "streaming" form with a
legal condition that you don't keep all the bits. Here, just
as with illegal parking, what you're doing illegally is to
use something in ways the laws don't allow you to.
With trespass and rape, you're "taking" something quite metaphorical,
yes. Why are these takings any *more* metaphorical than what you
do when you change the state of a bunch of bits on your computer's
hard disc? (In the case of rape, incidentally, the word "take" is
traditionally attached both to "pleasure" and -- odiously -- to
"women". Metaphorical it may be, but it's a metaphor of long
standing; I didn't just make it up. Consider also the notion
that virginity is something that one can "lose" -- also pretty
disagreeable, I think, but again I'm just pointing out that
the relevant metaphors are just as familiar as those that make
music-copying like "theft".)
>> If you're prepared to call anything "theft" as long as it can
>> be described as depriving someone of something, and if you're
>> prepared for that something to be as abstract as their right
>> to control others' behaviour in a particular way, then almost
>> every crime becomes an instance of "theft".
>
> That's going beyond what I meant (apart from the issue that you need
> to be taking something, in a non-metaphorical sense of 'taking', for
> it to be described as theft).
There is no non-metaphorical sense in which you are "taking"
something when you copy a piece of music in digital form.
You are neither literally depriving anyone of any thing,
nor acquiring any thing yourself.
> I possibly worded it poorly. I don't
> think the fundamental issue in illegal copying is the right of the
> creator of the work to control others' behaviour. I think it's more to
> do with the right to receive compensation from those who benefit from
> your work, in just the same way that someone who manufactures and
> sells physical objects does.
But that isn't the right that's enshrined in "the particular
economic/trade system that we have". The "right" that actually
exists in law is a right to control (partially) the copying
and performance of a work.
> I don't even think it's particularly a
> natural right, it's more a right that's conferred by the particular
> economic/trade system that we have, and is required for that system to
> work effectively (Just as it's theoretically possible to imagine
> economic systems in which there is no notion of property, which would
> imply no concept of theft, though given human nature, it's hard to see
> how such systems could work in practice).
Well, either you're suggesting it's a natural right, in which
case you get to decide what it is (and you can then choose, if
you want, to say that it's a right to be compensated when
others benefit rather than a right to control copying) but
I get to argue with you about whether it's sensible to regard
it as a natural right; or you're suggesting it's a right
conferred by the system we have, in which case you have to
work with the rights actually conferred by the system :-).
>> I think it's just as sloppy and unhelpful to assimilate plagiarism
>> to theft as it is to assimilate illegal music copying to theft.
>
> Noted. I disagree though.
Not a surprise, since the principles you've expressed seem
to justify calling just about every crime or wrongdoing "theft" :-).
>> (I'm aware that the terminology of theft is commonplace in that
>> context; but then, so is the use of "piracy" to describe illegal
>> copying of music and software, and I hope you aren't so crazy as
>> to suggest that there's actually much resemblance between making
>> a copy of an MP3 file and boarding ships, killing their occupants
>> and plundering their cargo.)
>
> Well it is possible for words to have multiple distinct meanings ;-)
Of course. I was just pointing out that the fact that "theft"
*is* already used to describe what happens when I claim your
ideas or creations as mine doesn't mean that anyone thinks
it's actually theft in the usual sense, any more than the
use of "piracy" to describe illegal copying means that anyone
thinks that's actually piracy in the usual sense.
(Actually, these days illegal copying probably *is* the
"usual sense" of "piracy", Captain Jack Sparrow notwithstanding.)
>> Actually, let's look at that parenthetical point. What you've
>> deprived the copyright-holder of (you say above) is (their
>> exercise of) the right to control who copies their music.
>> I don't see any good way to regard that deprivation as
>> permanent; it's a one-off thing (you copied the music
>> *once*),
>
> But your copy exists permanently and you [1] continue to enjoy it
> without recompensing the creator for your use of their work. In
> addition, the way things tend to happen, there's a chance you'll allow
> further people to make copies from your copy (since you've already
> demonstrated a disregard for the copyright).
Footnote 1 noted, but I'd like to mention that as it happens
there are a couple of cases in which I've copied things
possibly-illegally, and have not been willing to let others
copy them because I think the legal and ethical propriety
of doing that would be worse. So it isn't always true that
someone who makes an illegal copy will happily hand out
copies to others. But I'm far from being an average maker
of illegal copies; I do it extremely rarely because I think
it's generally wrong. It just isn't theft. Anyway, enough
about me :-).
Indeed, the benefit is a continuing one, as I went on to
say in the rest of that paragraph (which I see you even
quoted below). If you're saying that the *deprivation* is
permanent, then I must be misunderstanding something.
Copyright-holders don't have a right to be compensated
every time their music is listened to; if I illegally
copy your music then I'm not depriving you of anything
each time I listen to it, any more than I am if I've
bought your music. I putatively deprived you of something
when I made the copy; after that, what I do and what
happens to you are exactly the same in the two cases.
>> So it must be the lasting
>> *benefit* that's relevant to you, I think. But isn't that
>> silly? I mean, if I break into your house and take away
>> your priceless Ming vase then it's no less theft just
>> because on the way out I drop it and it smashes into
>> tiny pieces.
>
> I think the permanent deprivation to the previous owner of the vase is
> significant, as is your original intention to keep the vase.
OK; so you say it's the lasting deprivation, not the lasting
benefit, that's relevant; see above for why I don't see that
you've made any argument that the deprivation *is* lasting.
>>> [1] A point that might be relevent: I don't regard is either theft or
>>> as wrong if I, say, copy a friend's cd with the specific intention of
>>> listening to my copy once or twice in order to decide whether or not I
>>> want to buy it, and then to discard my copy, whatever my decision
>>> is. I think it becomes both theft and wrong if I then keep the copy
>>> permanently as an alternative to buying it.
>>
>> I would be interested to know whether that's something you actually
>> do, and whether your opinion that it isn't theft predates or postdates
>> your practice of doing it if so. :-)
>
> It's not something I actually do (Because listening to friends' cds is
> not a way that I normally encounter new music etc. I do that from
> radio and tv).
Fair enough. (In case you're curious, I don't either, but I do
borrow CDs from friends.)
>> Gedankenexperiment: Imagine that you have prodigious powers
>> of musical memory and imagination, such that if you listen
>> to a piece of music a couple of times and try really hard
>> then you can memorize every detail of it well enough that
>> later on you can hear it (in your mind's ear, as it were,
>> but just as satisfyingly-to-you as if you were hearing it
>> physically) whenever you want to. If you do this, are you
>> stealing?
>
> I would say not. However I would say that if a significant proportion
> of the population acquired and used that ability, then that would
> necessitate a rethink of the ethics of when copying is and isn't
> legitimate (As I've hinted at, I think the ethics are bound to what
> actually works in the context of society and our economic system).
For sure. But we seem to be agreed that you can do something
that gains you a benefit generally available only by paying
money to someone else, without paying that money, and not be
engaging in theft...
Kendall K. Down
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >I made personal back-up copies, but no other use. It's not theft, because
> >personal back-ups are a right.
> Not under UK law.
Which is merely more evidence in support of the assertion that the law is an
ass.
> Not theft, but morally as bad. Just as it's morally as bad as theft to
> attempt to prevent a legitimate purchaser of music from playing it on
> the system of their choice.
I completely agree.
Quasin
>
> No-one has any legal
> obligation to buy music, so if you don't buy music then the sellers
> won't earn anything. There's no sense in which they are owed anything
> unless and until you make the purchase. It's not the same as hiring
> someone to do a job and then not paying them (which is a form of
> theft); the musicians have made a product and then want us to buy it -
> and, like any other producer, it's not our fault if we don't buy
> enough to make it worth their while.
>
> If you obtain the music by means of copyright infringement, then they
> won't get paid. But it's no different, as far as their bank accouint
> is concerned, to not getting paid because you simply didn't want the
> music at all. Morally, of course, they may well have the right to feel
> aggrieved if people are listening to their music without buying it,
> but the law isn't concerned primarily with people's feelings.
>
>
Does this reasoning suggest if I sneak into a movie theatre
and take a seat that was not sold, the movie theater doesn't
have any reason to expect me to pay for that seat?
Quasin
>
> In the case of books, I've already put forward the case of Ross
> Anderson's book. This is being made available (the whole book, not just
> some parts) in an easy-to-copy form online. Are you saying he (the
> author) has done this in order to damage his sales ?
Books are a little different from music in that most people
don't want to read a book on the screen, and buying a copy
is usually half the price of printing it out at home. Most
people who download and sample the book have built-in
motivation to buy it if they like what they see - buying it
is the easiest way to get improved ease of use. So the free
download invites purchases from people who would otherwise
pass it up rather than risk money on an unknown item.
Music is commonly played on the computer or is easily burned
to a CD or transferred to an mp3 player, so there is no
built-in incentive for someone who samples the downloaded
music to buy it. The ease of use is not significantly
different. I guess the only real difference is the bought
copy has cover art and maybe some liner notes.
Jeremy P
news:jlqtl2h893i7ckt8j...@news.markshouse.net...
> My point is that copyright can be infringed by an action which causes
> no loss whatsoever to the copyright owner, either in actual cost or
> even in terms of potential loss of future earnings. I find it
> difficult to see how this can be considered morally wrong. Theft, on
> the other hand, always inflicts at least some loss on the legitimate
> owner, even if the loss is trivial or inconsequential. So it can be
> argued that theft is morally wrong, even when trivial, because it's
> wrong to inflict loss on another person without good cause. Putting
> these two together, it seems clear to me that copyright infringement
> is not the same, morally, as theft.
On your logic, wouldn't mail interception fit this 'not immoral' description
too, especially if the interceptor were scrupulous about re-sealing and
passing on anything obviously purchased?
--
Jeremy Parsons
Gone but not forgotten... Back yet rarely noticed...
Quasin
Back in Commodore 64 days, formatting a disk took 20
minutes. Someone spent the time and knowledge to write a
program that could do it in 4 minutes. As soon as he got it
right, a "friend" grabbed the disk and took it to his
Commodore 64 club and gave copies to everyone, and it
quickly spread through the Commodore 64 community.
The programmer had intended to sell the program, and it was
a much needed program and probably would have sold well.
But by the time the magazines reported that story,
"everyone" already had it, distributed as a free program. I
doubt many people sent the programmer any money in thanks.
Should programmers be expected to work for free?
If I write a song, it takes me about a week of full time
work. If I write a book, it takes me a year or two or
three. Wouldn't you protest if you worked hard and long to
create something and others assumed a right to have for free
what you worked to create?
I think copyright laws are way out of balance. I don't
understand the social benefit of anything beyond life, or
maybe the longer of life or 50 years, something like that.
But they theory that an artist is no worse off if people
take copies of their work instead of paying for it, is bogus.
If creators can't make a living from their creations, they
have to go take a job in a factory and do less creating,
which means we all lose.
Simon Robinson
> Does this reasoning suggest if I sneak into a movie theatre and take a
> seat that was not sold, the movie theater doesn't have any reason to
> expect me to pay for that seat?
Oooh you could never tell you're American could you :-)
(If you're wondering, the clue is in calling it a movie theatre, though
I'm intrigued by your using what I thought was the UK spelling of 'theatre')
I do think that was a good point btw ;-)