killer b's
25+ Posts
Post deleted by killer b's
What else can I use besides Kazaa? *DELETED*
- Thread starter killer b's
- Start date
TheSheriffIsNEAR
250+ Posts
LazyEngineer
500+ Posts
TexasOwnzYou
500+ Posts
msg me if you live on campus/have wireless access on campus.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
Linux,
Your "explanation" made no sense to me.
Your "explanation" made no sense to me.
Linux is right (did I just say that!?).
He's not saying that there is nothing wrong with piracy, but that there isn't the direct loss resulting from copyright infringement as with theft.
To translate his example to non-geek speak:
If I grow an apple tree, and you take my apples, I have no apples.
However, if I take a picture and you publish my picture without my consent, I still have my picture. I can still sell my picture. I can still license out its use. I still own the copyright to my picture. Nothing was stolen.
To steal something, the thing being stolen has to be considered property. A CD at a walmart is Wal-Mart's property. The property associated with a digital work is the copyright. You see, with IP, its value is in the copyright and a copyright is an abstract concept. Copyrights cannot be stolen. They can be infringed upon. So theft is an inaccurate and incorrect term to use when describing unauthorized music downloads.
Of course, if copyright laws are not enforceable, copyrights hold no commercial value and that will surely hurt the commercial value of digital works and thus damage the incentive to create such works.
There is a very real difference between theft and violating a copyright. You may think that even though there is a difference, there is no moral difference and the punishment for both crimes should be the exact same. Fine. But that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Because of that difference, it isn't proper to call downloading "stealing" or "theft."
When the music industry calls these downloads "theft" it is in an attempt to provide the emotional kick that "copyright infringement" doesn't provide.
He's not saying that there is nothing wrong with piracy, but that there isn't the direct loss resulting from copyright infringement as with theft.
To translate his example to non-geek speak:
If I grow an apple tree, and you take my apples, I have no apples.
However, if I take a picture and you publish my picture without my consent, I still have my picture. I can still sell my picture. I can still license out its use. I still own the copyright to my picture. Nothing was stolen.
To steal something, the thing being stolen has to be considered property. A CD at a walmart is Wal-Mart's property. The property associated with a digital work is the copyright. You see, with IP, its value is in the copyright and a copyright is an abstract concept. Copyrights cannot be stolen. They can be infringed upon. So theft is an inaccurate and incorrect term to use when describing unauthorized music downloads.
Of course, if copyright laws are not enforceable, copyrights hold no commercial value and that will surely hurt the commercial value of digital works and thus damage the incentive to create such works.
There is a very real difference between theft and violating a copyright. You may think that even though there is a difference, there is no moral difference and the punishment for both crimes should be the exact same. Fine. But that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Because of that difference, it isn't proper to call downloading "stealing" or "theft."
When the music industry calls these downloads "theft" it is in an attempt to provide the emotional kick that "copyright infringement" doesn't provide.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
You read that into ""wlamart--you++" ? wtf?
TexasOwnzYou
500+ Posts
walmart-- means walmart loses 1 item.
so, walmart is left with one less than they originally had after u stole.
u++, so u're left with one more than u had.
so, walmart is left with one less than they originally had after u stole.
u++, so u're left with one more than u had.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
It isn't stealing from Walmart, it's stealing from the artist and the record company who owns the artist's work.
C
Campus Loop(y)
Guest
Well, if she has a patent on her vagina and you sell it or make money off of it w/out her permission, you comitted a crime. See people, the label owns that song and is to decide what becomes of it. When you steal it and don't pay for it, you are wrong. Regardless of whether or not you would have bought it or not.
i hate the RIAA much more than any of you I am pretty sure. I have been at battle w/ them for over 15 years. But don't forget it is the dream of being a rock star that caused the artist to willingly sign that ****** contract. They could have kept it real and had the "love for music" and stayed underground. The artists get the pittance they agreed to and then deserve. How can you feel sorry for the volunatary artist?
If enough flat out kept it underground and people got off their asses and truly supported local scenes and touring acts, it would affect the RIAA. If people flat out stopped buying music retail, again, they would suffer and have to change their practices. Fact is people never had a problem w/ this until the devices to steal were created.
Now you get the wannabe saviors for what is right tagging the line of them fighting the devil RIAA (an acronym they did not even know existed until recently). Yeah, right.
i hate the RIAA much more than any of you I am pretty sure. I have been at battle w/ them for over 15 years. But don't forget it is the dream of being a rock star that caused the artist to willingly sign that ****** contract. They could have kept it real and had the "love for music" and stayed underground. The artists get the pittance they agreed to and then deserve. How can you feel sorry for the volunatary artist?
If enough flat out kept it underground and people got off their asses and truly supported local scenes and touring acts, it would affect the RIAA. If people flat out stopped buying music retail, again, they would suffer and have to change their practices. Fact is people never had a problem w/ this until the devices to steal were created.
Now you get the wannabe saviors for what is right tagging the line of them fighting the devil RIAA (an acronym they did not even know existed until recently). Yeah, right.
zzzz
2,500+ Posts
I get it. Most of those people who donated their time to developing linux had paying jobs. Those jobs wouldn't have paid them as much if their companies had to compete with countless others that could freely duplicate their source code. So the individuals involved would have been less inclined to give away their services or may have chosen a different career altogether -- resulting in a linux with more bugs, less features and less security that corporate america would be slow to, if ever, adopt. Thus dimming the likelihood of success for companies like Red Hat.
C
Campus Loop(y)
Guest
Songs are not information. They may be informative of an issue or episode in history but c'mon. Many contradictions. Change the laws and run for office.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
I think it would be better stated as run for office and change the laws, but don't break the laws just because you think they favor people you don't like.
If you want something then it has value for you. If you want to have something of value, you almost always have to give value in exchange for it. Ideally, you give equal value. Otherwise you paid paid too little or too much. If you take something that has value and you don't give anything in exchange for it, and it is not given to you as a gift, then that is stealing. I doubt seriously that anyone other than linux can argue to the contrary with a straight face.
Where the difficulty comes in is that people say: "Well, it WAS given to me". The problem is that it was given to you by someone who did not have the right to give it to you. The song that you value and that you give value in exchange for does not belong to you. What you are given is a license to listen to the song. In the law it is almost exactly the same thing as a ticket to a UT football game. It's a license. You can't buy a ticket to the game, enter the stadium to watch the game and then give the ticket to someone else to watch the game. Even though it is a stadium with an unlimited number of seats, you can't come in without paying.
If you want something then it has value for you. If you want to have something of value, you almost always have to give value in exchange for it. Ideally, you give equal value. Otherwise you paid paid too little or too much. If you take something that has value and you don't give anything in exchange for it, and it is not given to you as a gift, then that is stealing. I doubt seriously that anyone other than linux can argue to the contrary with a straight face.
Where the difficulty comes in is that people say: "Well, it WAS given to me". The problem is that it was given to you by someone who did not have the right to give it to you. The song that you value and that you give value in exchange for does not belong to you. What you are given is a license to listen to the song. In the law it is almost exactly the same thing as a ticket to a UT football game. It's a license. You can't buy a ticket to the game, enter the stadium to watch the game and then give the ticket to someone else to watch the game. Even though it is a stadium with an unlimited number of seats, you can't come in without paying.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
Um, yes it is. You get something for free. You got it by taking it without permission. The person who did the work got nothing. You are a criminal.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
It's pretty apparent that you come here to HornFans and plop psychotic delusional turds all over the place as some sort of weird amusement to see what kind of reaction you can get (and, by the way, you are the only one who stands a chance of being amused by you), but the scary thing is that your generation actually believes moronic drivel like this.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Thoughts on Fidium Fiber?
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 10
- Horn Depot
Prediction Results Threads
