A sociologic sort of question...

[Pedersen]

Your tv show example is not a particularly good one, as it was already paid for by ad revenue. Dvd sales are just extra revenue on top of that.

Have to disagree. It's a perfect example of flaws in the system.

Consider: Several copyright advocacy groups state that current copyright laws don't go far enough, and would actually make my recording this show illegal. The only way for me to have a long term copy of the show to watch later (rather than sitting down and watching when it's aired) would be to buy a copy of the DVDs.

However, Food Network does not distribute Good Eats by season, only by subject matter. This means that it is not possible to buy the entire series.

No matter how I look at it, I'm stuck. On the one hand, I've got a group who wants to make it illegal for me to record tv shows, since the producers can sell DVDs of it later, and make money from those sales. And on the other hand I've got an absolute inability to buy the DVDs that they're talking about.

Highly relevant to the discussion, I think.

[Sylvia727]

Well, part of stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something.

That's part of the definition. Another part is "taking without permission". Let's use me as an example. I am a writer and an aspiring author. If someone copies one of my stories off my computer and reads it, they are stealing from me. They have not deprived me of that story, true; I still have a copy on my computer. But they have deprived me of control of my possessions.

To claim that no harm is done to me by someone else wrongfully reading my story or listening to my music is to ignore my right to own the art (or crap) that I produce. You're saying that I have no rights to control my intangible creations. I disagree with that. I should be able to make something beautiful, and sell that to other people, without worrying that someone else will leech from my efforts by using this beauty without right.

Let's check your list of things that have been stolen:
<snip>

The values of time, effort, work, and creative energy are all based on similiar concepts. What it boils down to is this: the artist put something worthwhile into this, and the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile in order to obtain this. If the pirate doesn't think the artist put anything worthwhile into the song, then he doesn't think the song is worthwhile, and has no reason to steal. The fact that this is a song he wants to listen means that he admits this is a worthwhile product. The artist expended all of the above in order to produce this song, and he has every right to expect compensation for his work. If one doesn't want to compensate him, then one shouldn't expect to use the product.

Creative energy. Now this one is interesting. I'm not even sure how this could be defined in a way that could allow theft to occur. It's almost like saying "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could make another. But that Pedersen, he made an unauthorized copy of it, and now I don't have the desire to make another song."

If that's what you mean, I can see your point. Somehow, though, I don't think you were talking about future creative energy. Please clarify.

Almost. More like, "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could sell another. But so many people are making unauthorized copies of it that it's just not worth my time. I guess I'll get a job doing something else and only make music for my own pleasure."

In particular, with music, are you aware that, as far as the US is concerned, copyright law states that every song that can be written has been written? <snip>

chances are very good that everything you've ever written is copyrighted. Congratulations, you've just stolen the creative energies of millions of other musicians.

Wasn't aware, and quite frankly don't care. That's just asinine. The courts can define three notes as copyrighted if they want, but the rest of the world will go on thinking of music as substantially different.

Wow. That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. So, let me get this straight: I don't ask for radio. It's broadcast every where I go, whether I want it or not. If I decide to record it, I'm guilty of "stealing"?

You're sitting in a restaurant, eating a nice dinner, with beautiful music on the radio. Four minutes of your time has been enhanced by a song. The radio station compensated the artist for the act of broadcasting the music. So those four minutes are free and clear. Enjoy them with a clean conscience. However, recording the song, and playing it over and over, has not been compensated for. You are depriving the artist of the compensation due to them for their work. Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want. You could loop that song 24/7 and hear it one billion times without harming anyone else, because the artist feels that 99 cents is a fair price for his work.

Refusal to give any ground, calling everybody a thief.

I didn't call "everyone" a thief, I just said that pirating is stealing from the artists. I agree that ground needs to be given, or more specifically that some companies have been infringing on the rights of the consumer in efforts to prevent piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Once a consumer has bought (the limited rights to) a song, he should be able to listen to it wherever and whenever he likes. The companies do not have the right to prevent him from ripping his cd to his computer or uploading it to his mp3 player.

Artist: Adds restrictions (in the form of technological add-ons) that prevent the consumer from format shifting the music. <snip>

Suddenly, the artist is performing an evil act, as the artist is actively removing time from the other people in the equation. Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

If the artist was selling the entire rights to the song in question, this would be an evil act. However, he is only selling the rights to listen to it. The consumer knows this when he purchases the song. He is not "in possession" of the song itself, just a copy for which he owns listening rights. Nobody is forcing anybody to enter this contract if they don't want to.

The artist has either allowed things to progress as they will, or has actively spent time on selfish (and even evil) desires.

I'm evil, or at least selfish, for wishing to retain control of my property? Control I have not sold or surrendered the rights to? That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. Artists are evil for wanting to be compensated for their work? For refusing to let people use their work and profit from their energy without payment?

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

Compensation for my work. I think the right to listen to my song freely is worth a dollar (or five dollars, or one cent, or whatever). If you don't pay, then you don't get the goods. It's simple.

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively.

Agreed. But that doesn't justify piracy, and I see from the rest of this post that you do make an effort to pay the creators of the work you use.

Actually, TV shows are a special case in their own right: I record my shows to start. I have my own PVR. I record them, and watch when it's convenient for me. I don't distribute my recordings, though.

TiVo and similiar programs opened the door on this one, by giving private viewers the right to record tv programs. However, the cable companies are compensating the owners of the tv shows and movies, and those owners know that the consumers have the right to record, so in essense, you have been sold the right to record the tv shows. It's very similiar, and I think the line is only going to get more blurred as technology advances, but for right now consumers have the right to record tv shows but not the radio, nor do consumers have the right to pirate music.

And a lot of the stuff that the RIAA call stealign is not steal but them greedily wanting to suck as much money out of people as possible.

Yup. I'm referring to straight up person to person copies, though.

Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up?

I had not heard that before. I hope all consumers affected got the value of their computers or relevant damages, though I rather doubt it. Sony had no right to do that, and should have been severely punished for public vandalism.

So the only way people are to get music is to buy an overpriced cd that may only have 1 or 2 songs on it that are any good or do without? No other options whatsoever? Maybe if more companies or artists would let you do an alacarte option on the web (some do I know but its not as common as it could/should be) piracy would go down.

Those are the options presented to you by many artists. If the Dunkin Donuts was only selling boxes of a dozen donuts, and you really just wanted one, would you feel justified in shoplifting a donut? If the Starbucks was only selling coffee by the pot, and you really just wanted one cup, would you feel justified in shoplifting a cup of coffee? Companies and owners can offer their products in whatever packages or formats they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[ebonyknight]

*Originally Posted by rahmota
Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up?*

I had not heard that before. I hope all consumers affected got the value of their computers or relevant damages, though I rather doubt it. Sony had no right to do that, and should have been severely punished for public vandalism.

Actually, not quite true. They were called Sony Root kits. It was Sony copy right protection (XCP, IIRC) that was installed on the user's computer without their knowledge. It installed itself when you put a sony CD into your machine. While the root kit itself was harmless, the software made the "infected" computers vulnerable to hackers.

The flak initially was because of the "invasion of privacy" by not disclosing this (essentially) Trojan virus (actually spyware) was being installed. The flak became much, much worse when hackers took advantage of this knowledge to exploit the Sony software for their own means.

Final result. Sony maintained it was protecting it's intellectual property and refused to remove it. They released software allowing you to stop it from hiding, but allowed it to remain functional. Most anti-virus/spyware programs retooled to detect and remove it, and it is considered a computer security risk.

Interesting tidbits for you guys to digest and particularly relevant to the debate. Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

Carry on.

[Pedersen]

That's part of the definition. Another part is "taking without permission". Let's use me as an example. I am a writer and an aspiring author. If someone copies one of my stories off my computer and reads it, they are stealing from me. They have not deprived me of that story, true; I still have a copy on my computer. But they have deprived me of control of my possessions.

They have deprived you of control of your possessions? How so? Unless you mean that every single copy in existence is also your possession? If so, then make very certain that none of your possessions find themselves on my hard drives or in my house, as I'm going to have to charge you rent for that space.

Either that copy is mine, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I get to charge you rent for the space. If it is, then whatever may happen with it is no longer depriving you of control of your possessions, since it is no longer your possession.

Of course, there is another option, one that you solely allude to later: That the idea is yours. Copyright law has its own foibles and flaws, to be sure, but it comes from one basic tenet: The creation of art (in all its forms) is viewed as good thing. As such, the creators of said art need to be able to control the distribution of what they have created.

It does not grant them ownership of the ideas, nor even ownership of the specific form of the expression of their ideas. It grants them the right to determine how and when that specific expression of an idea is copied from one person to another.

As it is, you are asserting something that is not in existence in any form in the law: Ownership over the expression of an idea. The reason, of course, is simple: If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.

I'm an author (still working on first novel, actually), and a programmer. I don't own these ideas. What I do own is the right to determine how those ideas are distributed.

The values of time, effort, work, and creative energy are all based on similiar concepts. What it boils down to is this: the artist put something worthwhile into this, and the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile in order to obtain this. If the pirate doesn't think the artist put anything worthwhile into the song, then he doesn't think the song is worthwhile, and has no reason to steal. The fact that this is a song he wants to listen means that he admits this is a worthwhile product. The artist expended all of the above in order to produce this song, and he has every right to expect compensation for his work. If one doesn't want to compensate him, then one shouldn't expect to use the product.

Actually, the pirate did trade something worthwhile to obtain it: His time, his bandwidth (for a download), possibly money, possibly favors to friends. All of those have a value. What he did not do is give money to the creator. And that is where he was wrong: He should have supported the creator. I agree with that. But to say he traded nothing is misleading, and weakens your original position.

Almost. More like, "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could sell another. But so many people are making unauthorized copies of it that it's just not worth my time. I guess I'll get a job doing something else and only make music for my own pleasure."

That is a shame that any creator would feel that way. I know I won't. I have to create. I know it will be pirated. I will do my best to combat it by making the terms so simple to follow that piracy is pretty much an oxymoron. The only time it becomes any different for me is when I try to make a living from it. And even then I'm working to find ways to make the piracy worthless, by making things so that legitimate customers get things that pirates cannot. That, however, is straying too far off the topic at hand.

Wasn't aware, and quite frankly don't care. That's just asinine. The courts can define three notes as copyrighted if they want, but the rest of the world will go on thinking of music as substantially different.

The world can try to think of it that way, but here's a dose of reality for you: If the courts state that it only takes 3 notes to violate copyright, then a malicious individual could legally shut down all music in this country. All that person would have to do is find the earliest recordings of any of those three note combos, and buy the rights for the song. Once all of them are bought, that person can sue everybody in the country (and win!) who dares to have a song at least three notes long.

Music dies right then. That's part of the world that we're headed to with this mad rush to strengthen copyright laws.

You're sitting in a restaurant, eating a nice dinner, with beautiful music on the radio. Four minutes of your time has been enhanced by a song. The radio station compensated the artist for the act of broadcasting the music. So those four minutes are free and clear. Enjoy them with a clean conscience. However, recording the song, and playing it over and over, has not been compensated for. You are depriving the artist of the compensation due to them for their work. Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want. You could loop that song 24/7 and hear it one billion times without harming anyone else, because the artist feels that 99 cents is a fair price for his work.

Actually, you are wrong in your description there of the restaurant. Or are you not aware that the restaurant has to pay additional fees to put radio over speakers in their dining area? That includes broadcast radio. Same if a bar puts a TV in. Additional fees have to be paid just to show a TV show, or football game.

I didn't call "everyone" a thief, I just said that pirating is stealing from the artists. I agree that ground needs to be given, or more specifically that some companies have been infringing on the rights of the consumer in efforts to prevent piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Once a consumer has bought (the limited rights to) a song, he should be able to listen to it wherever and whenever he likes. The companies do not have the right to prevent him from ripping his cd to his computer or uploading it to his mp3 player.

You're right, you didn't call "everyone" a thief, just everyone who uses a recorder to record the radio. Which, BTW, according to the federal copyright law, is perfectly legal. People are allowed to time shift broadcasts and re-listen to them.

I'm evil, or at least selfish, for wishing to retain control of my property? Control I have not sold or surrendered the rights to? That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. Artists are evil for wanting to be compensated for their work? For refusing to let people use their work and profit from their energy without payment?

I left this part in to specifically re-inforce something I said earlier: The specific expression of the ideas you've had are not owned by you. You only have the ownership of the right to specify how it is copied.

And yes, if you are placing in technological restrictions to prevent people from using that media themselves, privately, in the manner which best suits them (after you've been compensated), you are then acting in an evil and selfish fashion.

For example, Sony's root kit fiasco: Sony installed software on your PC without your permission (even if you explicityly said no) to prevent people ripping the CDs to MP3. This means that people are unable to use (for example) their iPods to listen to the music on the CD they legally bought. In addition, that software from Sony made their computers more vulnerable to viruses and other malware. Sony was evil and selfish.

Compensation for my work. I think the right to listen to my song freely is worth a dollar (or five dollars, or one cent, or whatever). If you don't pay, then you don't get the goods. It's simple.

Unless I record it legally from the radio. In which case, I don't pay, and I do get to listen. BTW, if you want to argue specific legalities, look up the Audio Home Recording Act and Title 17 of the US Code. Those cover what I'm talking about.

TiVo and similiar programs opened the door on this one, by giving private viewers the right to record tv programs. However, the cable companies are compensating the owners of the tv shows and movies, and those owners know that the consumers have the right to record, so in essense, you have been sold the right to record the tv shows. It's very similiar, and I think the line is only going to get more blurred as technology advances, but for right now consumers have the right to record tv shows but not the radio, nor do consumers have the right to pirate music.

The sarcastic side of me has a perfect retort for that, but I'm shutting him up for now. However, Tivo did not open that door: VCR's did. It's not as decidedly convenient, but I could easily use a VCR and a stack of tapes to capture my favorite TV shows. Furthermore, Tivo did not "give private viewers the right to record tv programs". That was decided in the 1980's by the Supreme Court of the United States in a decision of Sony v. Betamax. That decision is what specifically affirmed the right to time shift a broadcast to benefit the prospective viewer. Note: a broadcast may be time shifted, not just a television broadcast.

Consumers do not have the right to copy expressions of ideas against the wishes of their creator, though. That much you are right about.

Those are the options presented to you by many artists. If the Dunkin Donuts was only selling boxes of a dozen donuts, and you really just wanted one, would you feel justified in shoplifting a donut? If the Starbucks was only selling coffee by the pot, and you really just wanted one cup, would you feel justified in shoplifting a cup of coffee? Companies and owners can offer their products in whatever packages or formats they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Of course, these are specious arguments: I would be depriving Dunkin Donuts of a specific material possession. Same for Starbucks.

I happen to agree with you for the most part. But your arguments weaken your position. I'd like to agree with you unreservedly, but I can't. Show me why I'm wrong.

[Seshat]

I'm a writer and programmer, and have provided things to the Free Software community (usually under Creative Commons or Open Publication licences). Here's my take on the idea.


I'm a creator. Just as a person who makes a chair is a creator. I produce stuff. The fact that my stuff is intangible doesn't make it any less stuff.

At the time of its creation, the stuff I make is MINE, by virtue of my purchase of the raw materials and tools with which to create it, and by virtue of the time, skill and effort that went into its creation.

I may choose to make my creation publically available. If I make a chair, sure, I only have one copy of the stuff to make publically available. If I make an article, a story, a program, or a reference manual, I can make multiple copies available to the public.

But I believe that it's MY right to determine how many copies I make public, and under what conditions I make them public.

In actuality, I tend to make two categories of written stuff.

I make some things with the intent to make a living from them, and I sell the right to generate copies of the stuff to a publisher. That publisher then owns the right to generate copies - and someone else generating a copy of it is stealing that right that I have sold.

If too many copies are made without the publisher's okay, the publisher is likely to blame me, and likely to decide not to work with me in the future. So in a roundabout way, people making copies without the publisher's okay are stealing my future ability to earn.

The other things I make, I put under Creative Commons or some other copyleft*. Those, I'm happy to see people take freely and spread around. It means I did good work.

* Copyleft: a type of 'copyright' licence which asserts some variation of 'hey, I made this, go ahead and make as many copies as you like, but don't change it without marking your changes, and don't claim that it's your work cause it's not'. Many also include 'don't make a profit from it, cause it wasn't you who put the effort in'.



There's one more consideration. I feel stolen from, when I see (or find out about) unapproved copies of things from my 'make a living' work.

I produce plenty of work that's free for use - can't people respect my wishes regarding which of my work is free and which is paid? Do they have so little respect for the creator?

That lack of simple courtesy doesn't sap my creative urge - but it does discourage me from making my work public. If the general public doesn't respect me, why the hell should I give them anything? It especially reduces the incentive to produce copylefted work.

So I guess - the people who make unauthorised copies are stealing from themselves.

[Sylvia727]

I'm going to insert this disclaimer here, though I should have at the start. I don't know much about the current copyright laws. What I'm arguing is a combination of my understanding of the principles of laws (i.e. stealing is wrong, artists have rights to their works) and my idealism of what "should be".

Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

This is a toughie. Companies do not have the right to protect their property at the expense of honest consumers. Did Sony have the right to install spyware on private computers, in efforts to catch pirates? No. Do music companies have the right to prosecute pirates? Yes. Do music companies have the right to take from people in the act of pirating? Maaaaaybe. For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Either that copy is mine, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I get to charge you rent for the space. If it is, then whatever may happen with it is no longer depriving you of control of your possessions, since it is no longer your possession.

Since you obtained that copy illegally, good luck taking me to court. But as you reference later, it's the idea I own, not the physical copy on your hard drive.

If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.

I don't understand how you're interpreting my argument here. You think that if my argument were expressed in reality, it would mean that all creations would be categorized as plagerism? Is this because the author owns the components of the story? George Lucas can sue anybody who writes about an orphan farmboy taken under the wing of a wise and mysterious mentor? Will Shakespeare can sue anybody who writes about young lovers from feuding families?

If this is what you mean, then either you're misinterpreting me or I'm using the wrong terminology. I'm trying to say that creators own their works, as specific expressions of ideas. Shakespeare shouldn't own the word "love", nor should he own the "young lovers from feuding families" idea. But he should own the specific expressions of these components as he put them together in Romeo and Juliet.

I'm an author (still working on first novel, actually), and a programmer. I don't own these ideas. What I do own is the right to determine how those ideas are distributed.

The specific expression of the ideas you've had are not owned by you. You only have the ownership of the right to specify how it is copied.

I don't understand. You don't own it, you can just keep other people from seeing it and can charge them for seeing it. How is this substantially different from owning the idea? Perhaps that ideas are intangible, while rights are not?

Actually, the pirate did trade something worthwhile to obtain it: His time, his bandwidth (for a download), possibly money, possibly favors to friends. All of those have a value. What he did not do is give money to the creator.

You're correct. I hereby rephrase it as "the pirate did not trade anything worthwhile to the creator."

That is a shame that any creator would feel that way. I know I won't. I have to create. I know it will be pirated.

I have to write, but I don't bother sharing it with anyone because I know it's likely to be pirated. I'm not willing to let anyone else steal from me. Unless and until I get published, my work will not available anywhere besides the hard drives of myself and the folks in my critique group. I know from chatting with these folks that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Several of them used to publish their work on internet sites, only to find people who copy-and-pasted the stories onto different sites. That sort of blatant theft can be very disheartening to aspiring authors.

The world can try to think of it that way, but here's a dose of reality for you: If the courts state that it only takes 3 notes to violate copyright, then a malicious individual could legally shut down all music in this country.

I agree that the courts are smoking something out back. Also, I rather think that legal professionals deciding the definition of music is the height of hubris.

Music dies right then. That's part of the world that we're headed to with this mad rush to strengthen copyright laws.

Are you including my position in this statement? I don't equate "creators have the rights to their own works" with "creators have the right to sue anybody whose work even remotely resembles theirs".

Or are you not aware that the restaurant has to pay additional fees to put radio over speakers in their dining area?

Alright, you're enjoying this meal in your own home. Either way, the creator has been fairly compensated.

<lots of details on broadcasts and legal rights>

I know next to nothing about broadcasting, so I shall defer to the positions of people who actually have a clue about this subject.

And yes, if you are placing in technological restrictions to prevent people from using that media themselves, privately, in the manner which best suits them (after you've been compensated), you are then acting in an evil and selfish fashion.

Agreed, provided that the creators are inconveniencing their customers and not just pirates. If I buy a cd, I have the right to rip it to my iPod. Et cetera, et cetera.

Of course, these are specious arguments: I would be depriving Dunkin Donuts of a specific material possession. Same for Starbucks.

I was replying strictly to the argument that one is allowed to pirate if one does not like the package deal of a cd album. However the company, be it a restaurant or a music label, chooses to offer their products is up to them.

your arguments weaken your position.

That could well be. You're delving into some specific laws and terminology I'm not familiar with. I think I've addressed everything here, point out anything you want clarification or explication on.

[BlackIronCrown]

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P? The only difference that I can find is that there's only a few sources for digital radio, as opposed to many more for P2P.

Well, from being a supporter of IPM Radio, I do know that digital radio stations do pay a very tiny licensing fee for playing the song, much like regulaar radio stations do. In 2001, it was proposed to raise this from the current .5 cents to 16 cents per song played over digital radio, but that got dropped.

Thus, in the eyes of the FCC, recording digital radio for personal usage is no different than recording regular radio for personal usage, unless done for commercial purposes. The licensing fee is paid and that's all she wrote.

Now, how many digital radio stations pay that fee is a good question.

Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

For the first - what is morally wrong about an artist wishing to do something for enitrely selfish reasons? If I am the Creator, is it not mine to have distributed in accordance with my dictates?

As for what has been stolen, beyond a legal definition, I would say my permission. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours and never the twain shall mix without binding ingredients. To steal fire from the cave...very well, be Prometheus if you wish, but do not be surprised at the volcanic eruption.

So, by Sylvia727's logic, I'm a thief for recording one of my favorite shows so that I can refer to it again later.

I could argue that you are not, as recording from TV to VCR or similar device is not illegal and falls under Fair Use...so long as you are not distributing. That's really the key there - distribution. The TV station has paid their licensing fees, so that's all cool and the gang.

I do need to ask - what about Boozy's point? Considering the base selfishness of humanity (which isn't enlightened self-interest), why would the average Joe pay for what he can get for free? It's really not logical.

As it is, you are asserting something that is not in existence in any form in the law: Ownership over the expression of an idea. The reason, of course, is simple: If you absolutely own an idea, then that idea (and variations on that idea) are incapable of being used elsewhere. This would, immediately, shut down any and all new creations. You couldn't even quote Shakespeare, since somebody would own the quotes in those plays.

Actually, that's incorrect. Ownership over the expression of an idea is absolutely possible...so long as that idea is very strictly defined. In fact, I assert that this is what copyright is all about. I will provide examples thereof, which also relate to why your Shakespeare assertion is invalid.

I assume you know about the work "Jane Eyre", written by Charlotte Bronte. Famous book. Beloved by fans of literature across the world. Standard work of college/AP/high school English or Lit.
Miss Bronte lived before the advent of copyright law. Her works are public domain.

One Lucia Logan wrote a book called "A Hidden Passion". The book is very simply, Jane Eyre. She has admitted to just taking the book "Jane Eyre", changing the names of the characters, updating it to modern times, and making it a homosexual romance. No slick retelling. Just Cut And Paste, Find And Replace.

Ms. Logan's book is, by all criteria, considered to be plagiarized. Her punishment? Zilch. It's public domain, so there's no penalty for plagiarism of Jane Eyre.

Now, let's say someone tried to do the same thing with Harry Potter. This WOULD be considered theft of an idea....so long as there was a 75%+ correlation of ideas, terms, dialogue, etc. And by correlation, I mean EXACT correlation. To where 95% of an average paragraph was the exact same read.

(There are experts who do this for a living. Go figure.)

So, as I stated above, an idea IS owned by the author...so long as it is correspondingly detailed. Therefore, Shakespeare's ideas could not be copyrighted, but his idea of R&J could...if Shakespeare was alive today. Copyright cannot be retroactively applied.

Link for a side-by-side comparison of passages from Jane Eyre and A Hidden Passion: http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/20...e-for-comfort/
(Oh, and I think the 3-note case you are talking about is Vanilla Ice v. Queen & David Bowie for using the hook of "Under Pressure" without permission. However, that one was settled out of court and so you may be speaking of a different one.)

[Pedersen]

At the time of its creation, the stuff I make is MINE, by virtue of my purchase of the raw materials and tools with which to create it, and by virtue of the time, skill and effort that went into its creation.

The only issue that I have with the way this statement is made is because of derivation. Yes, the stuff you make is yours. But, with the writing bit, you made that stuff because of the contributions of others, and the stuff they made is theirs.

To help explain, I'm going to use a bit of information you revealed to me to be specific, but without revealing that here.

I know you've written a book (actually, probably more than one, but I'm only mentioning the one I know), and had that book published. I know that book, though I don't think I've read it. The only thing I will reveal about it at all is that the book was written about a technical topic, one that very likely required extensive research on the internet. This research could well have included participating in forums, IRC chat, and documentation. Possibly more, but I'm trying to keep it somewhat vague.

Without that research, your book would not have been possible. You might well have written it without doing such research during the writing, but that would simply indicate the research was complete before the book was started. You had to do it in order to write that book.

Without the ideas expressed by others that you found and read during your research, your book would have been impossible.

In stating that you own that stuff, you are taking partial ownership (possibly total ownership, depending on how strict you are) of the ideas given to you by others. Furthermore, (and I admit to possibly being wrong about this), there is no legal basis for stating you own the idea. What you have ownership of is the right to govern how copies of your work are made and distributed. Not the specific expression of the idea.

But I believe that it's MY right to determine how many copies I make public, and under what conditions I make them public.

Agreed. That's the point and purpose of copyright.

I make some things with the intent to make a living from them, and I sell the right to generate copies of the stuff to a publisher. That publisher then owns the right to generate copies - and someone else generating a copy of it is stealing that right that I have sold.

Finally! Someone who has specified what is being stolen! Thank you thank you thank you!

I can unreservedly agree with this. The right to govern the reproduction of the creative work is being stolen.

If too many copies are made without the publisher's okay, the publisher is likely to blame me, and likely to decide not to work with me in the future. So in a roundabout way, people making copies without the publisher's okay are stealing my future ability to earn.

This is an aspect I wasn't aware of. The publisher would actually put a backlash against the author? That rather sucks. I hope that hasn't happened, but I worry that I'm hearing the voice of experience.

I produce plenty of work that's free for use - can't people respect my wishes regarding which of my work is free and which is paid? Do they have so little respect for the creator?

Honestly, they do. They look at the finished product, and do not realize the amount of time that it takes for them to appreciate it is several orders of magnitude smaller than it takes for the product to be produced.

I know they're wrong, but that isn't something you can persuade people of very easily.

I'm going to insert this disclaimer here, though I should have at the start. I don't know much about the current copyright laws. What I'm arguing is a combination of my understanding of the principles of laws (i.e. stealing is wrong, artists have rights to their works) and my idealism of what "should be".

What should be rarely is what is. When arguing about what should be, you should definitely learn what is as thoroughly as possible. It helps prevent your making arguments that don't need to be made.

This is a toughie. Companies do not have the right to protect their property at the expense of honest consumers. Did Sony have the right to install spyware on private computers, in efforts to catch pirates? No. Do music companies have the right to prosecute pirates? Yes. Do music companies have the right to take from people in the act of pirating? Maaaaaybe. For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Actually, your argument has a fatal flaw in it, one that comes about due to the new digital restrictions management software that's being used lately. Itr's especially true when you add in another post of yours, where you state:

Right now, for 99 cents, you could purchase limited rights to a song, i.e. the right to listen to it as much as you want.

If I'm buying that right, then I should be able to listen to that song on any device I own as well. With the digitial restrictions management that is being pushed lately, that is not possible. For instance, suppose my iPod dies. I have the right to listen to any song I've purchased from the iTunes store. The only digital music player I have does not understand AAC (the native format for iPod and iTunes).

I go online, and find an MP3, and download it. By your own statements, I'm within my rights. And yet, I could be infected with a virus that could do anything. I could lose everything on my computer. And, judging by what you've said above, I'm likely to deserve it, since:

Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Since you obtained that copy illegally, good luck taking me to court. But as you reference later, it's the idea I own, not the physical copy on your hard drive.

You are assuming obtained illegally. What if I bought one of your books? It's now taking up space in my library. What if I scanned the book into my computer, and destroyed the paper copy (but did not distribute it)? It's now taking up space on my hard drive. I've done nothing illegal.

I don't understand. You don't own it, you can just keep other people from seeing it and can charge them for seeing it. How is this substantially different from owning the idea? Perhaps that ideas are intangible, while rights are not?

The difference is, possibly, overly subtle, but it is a difference, and an important one. For instance, if you have children, you can move into a compound and keep people from seeing them. You can charge people for admission to the compaound (and, by extension, charge to allow people to see them). However, you don't own your children.

It is much the same with creative works. You are legally allowed to make a number of decisions that other will disagree with. However, you do not own them.

I have to write, but I don't bother sharing it with anyone because I know it's likely to be pirated.

I'm sorry to hear that. I would hope that you and your friends are aware that you can nail the people who violated your copyrights pretty savagely. Statutory damages can be as high as 150,000USD per violation. You likely won't get that much, but getting a few thousand per violation is very possible. And getting the legwork done to find the right person should be fairly simple. Believe me, without taking some extreme measures, the internet is not very anonymous.

I agree that the courts are smoking something out back. Also, I rather think that legal professionals deciding the definition of music is the height of hubris.

Actually, it wasn't the legal profession that started that. It was one musician feeling like he had been copied without permission that started the suit. The legal profession just made the decision that was asked of them.

Are you including my position in this statement? I don't equate "creators have the rights to their own works" with "creators have the right to sue anybody whose work even remotely resembles theirs".

Honestly, your position is irrelevant to that statement. I am simply showing what could happen from one malicious individual. I have even been tempted to be that individual, just to force a change to the system.

Alright, you're enjoying this meal in your own home. Either way, the creator has been fairly compensated.

Okay, now what happens if I walk down the street whistling the tune? Other people are hearing it, and nobody was compensated. Hmm, you'll tell me it's too different. Okay, so I buy a large radio, buy the CD, and walk down the street blaring the song. Is copyright infringement happening? If so, how?

I know next to nothing about broadcasting, so I shall defer to the positions of people who actually have a clue about this subject.

Learn it then. If you're arguing out a position on copyright, then this question will come up. Sorry, that's a bit harsh in my phrasing, but it is true.

Agreed, provided that the creators are inconveniencing their customers and not just pirates. If I buy a cd, I have the right to rip it to my iPod. Et cetera, et cetera.

Here's where things break down, though: The pirates are inconvenienced for an extremely short time. The regular customers, though, are inconvenienced all the time. Microsoft had a music store. Said store was selling protected WMA files. That store didn't make enough money. Microsoft is closing it, and turning off the servers. If you bought files from them, and something happens to your system that tells Windows Media Player to re-validate the license, you're screwed. That music is gone. The people who illegally broke the protections, though, are completely unaffected.

Google had a video store. Same deal.

Sony installed root kits on people's computers without their permission (and, in fact, against their specific denial of said permission).

Two new games are coming out for the PC (Spore and Mass Effect) which will have to check every 10 days to make sure that your serial number wasn't stolen by someone else.

Personally, I have an ebook reader that handles PDFs beautifully. I like reading on this device. So, I buy some PDFs from computer book publishers. They are encrypted, the one thing my device doesn't handle well. Even if it did, I have to enter the password every time I open the file. I bought a program to remove the encryption. I'm not distributing the files. I just read them and use them.

Also personally, I've seen information online that would allow me to pirate Dish Network satellite signals. Difficulty? Very low. On the other hand, my struggles with Comcast and ordinary cable took me two weeks of concerted effort to resolve.

I can continue, if you wish. My point is this: The pirates simply change a small chunk of code, and they are no longer inconvenienced. The regular customers who can't/don't do that? Screwed over.

--more in another post--

[Pedersen]

For the first - what is morally wrong about an artist wishing to do something for enitrely selfish reasons? If I am the Creator, is it not mine to have distributed in accordance with my dictates?

The issue comes about when those selfish things are being done and will only inconvenience the legitimate customer. The pirates are rarely inconvenienced, while those who struggle to remain legal are thoroughly inconvenienced. When the selfish actions drive your money away, and force people to become pirates just to not feel like you think of them as a crook just for wanting to see your creation (that you are publishing!), that's when it's wrong.

I do need to ask - what about Boozy's point? Considering the base selfishness of humanity (which isn't enlightened self-interest), why would the average Joe pay for what he can get for free? It's really not logical.

The point is to provide something for pay that cannot be gotten for free. I'm not sure what that is for music, I really am not. For books, though: Provide multiple format sizes to accomodate different readers. Same for multiple formats. Easy permission to re-download the material at a later date, in case of hard drive failure (or the equivalent). Access to private forums for registered book owners. Access to errata for registered book owners.

Similar can be done for movies. Those things can provide incentive to regular joes to buy, since they cannot download that content easily (or, in some parts, at all).

Actually, that's incorrect. Ownership over the expression of an idea is absolutely possible...so long as that idea is very strictly defined. In fact, I assert that this is what copyright is all about. I will provide examples thereof, which also relate to why your Shakespeare assertion is invalid.

--SNIP--

Now, let's say someone tried to do the same thing with Harry Potter. This WOULD be considered theft of an idea....so long as there was a 75%+ correlation of ideas, terms, dialogue, etc. And by correlation, I mean EXACT correlation. To where 95% of an average paragraph was the exact same read.

All that has been shown here is that, by luck, one person lived in a time when copyrights were allowed to expire, while another was not. This does not demonstrate ownership over an idea, just that time changes things.

So, as I stated above, an idea IS owned by the author...so long as it is correspondingly detailed. Therefore, Shakespeare's ideas could not be copyrighted, but his idea of R&J could...if Shakespeare was alive today. Copyright cannot be retroactively applied.

Heh. Wow, just as I was thinking the debate could almost be closed for me (thanks to Seshat), this statement comes out.

First: His "idea" of R&J? Nope, couldn't be copyrighted today, either. Only the specific expression (i.e.: A copy of the manuscript for the play).

Second: Copyright cannot be retroactively applied? Wow, are you in for some fun. Happy Birthday did exactly that. The various copyright extension acts that have occurred since Disney became big is another example. Basically, any time the copyright on Mickey Mouse expires, a new copyright extension bill gets pushed through Congress. Smart money says that by 2015 we'll see another extension get introduced to Congress to do just that, and that it will be in effect before 2019. Check out the latest Copyright Extension Act for information.

(Oh, and I think the 3-note case you are talking about is Vanilla Ice v. Queen & David Bowie for using the hook of "Under Pressure" without permission. However, that one was settled out of court and so you may be speaking of a different one.)

No, it wasn't that one. I did think of it, but I do remember that this was an actual court case, with an actual judgement filed.

[Seshat]

The only issue that I have with the way this statement is made is because of derivation. Yes, the stuff you make is yours. But, with the writing bit, you made that stuff because of the contributions of others, and the stuff they made is theirs.
<snip>
Without that research, your book would not have been possible. You might well have written it without doing such research during the writing, but that would simply indicate the research was complete before the book was started. You had to do it in order to write that book.
<snip>
In stating that you own that stuff, you are taking partial ownership (possibly total ownership, depending on how strict you are) of the ideas given to you by others. Furthermore, (and I admit to possibly being wrong about this), there is no legal basis for stating you own the idea. What you have ownership of is the right to govern how copies of your work are made and distributed. Not the specific expression of the idea.

I must have misstated somehow. So I'll explain.

I don't own the ideas. Never have, never will.

I don't own the information on which my book is based. Never have, never will.

What I DO own is the particular expression of those ideas and that information.

I own one particular tutorial/reference combined work for those particular ideas. I own how it's organised, I own the exact examples I have used, I own the very specific explanations I made.

The organisation, the examples, the analogies I've drawn, the patient explaining I've done - I own that. But I don't own the information or ideas on which the book is based. Just the expression of them that is the book.

Finally! Someone who has specified what is being stolen! Thank you thank you thank you!

I can unreservedly agree with this. The right to govern the reproduction of the creative work is being stolen.

You're welcome.

This is an aspect I wasn't aware of. The publisher would actually put a backlash against the author? That rather sucks. I hope that hasn't happened, but I worry that I'm hearing the voice of experience.

The particular publisher I prefer to work with, wouldn't do it. (One of the reasons I prefer to work with them.)

However, many publishers would. And if I wanted to write a book on a topic that Publisher-I-Work-With already covers, I'd have to seek a different publisher to sell rights-to-make-copies of my new book to.

Thus, even though Publisher-I-Work-With wouldn't have a backlash against me, unapproved copies of my work would still reduce my future earning potential.

Honestly, they do. They look at the finished product, and do not realize the amount of time that it takes for them to appreciate it is several orders of magnitude smaller than it takes for the product to be produced.

I know they're wrong, but that isn't something you can persuade people of very easily.

(sigh)

Thanks, though. It's so obvious to me that writing a book is a huge effort that I forget how 'easy' it looks to other people.



On a tangential topic:

When I sell my work to a publisher, what I'm selling is the right to make copies. In many cases, particularly for novels, authors sell 'first rights for the (blah) market'.

For instance, the Harry Potter novels have different covers (and in one case, a different name) in the UK and US markets. This would be because Rowling sold 'first publication rights to the UK market' to one publisher, and 'first publication rights to the US market' to another.

(Incidentally: if a work goes out onto the internet, it is deemed as published. This means that if the author has sold 'first publication rights' to a publisher, but it hits the net before it hits bookstores, the publisher can deem the contract broken - and can sue the author for damages. You can bankrupt an author that way.)

Anyway: the contract about markets is between the author and the publisher. This also applies to DVDs, videos, and software. This is why DVDs are region-coded, and some software is also region-coded.

I strongly disagree with region coding. (I also disagree with anything preventing an end user from keeping a personal-use copy, or ripping a song onto their personal-use MP3 player, etc.)

The 'markets' contract is between the content creator and the publisher. The end purchaser has nothing to do with that contract.

The end purchaser buys a copy of the content from the publisher. The implied contract at the store's register is the simple exchange of goods for money. One copy of the content, to be used for personal use (or at least, for use in the end purchaser's home).

If the end purchaser moves to a different region, they can take their chairs and tables and cupboards and beds with them and those things will work just fine. Why shouldn't they be able to take their DVDs and games with them to?

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

On the other hand .. you do have a copy, for personal use.

On that aspect - I'm a bit torn.

[Pedersen]

I own one particular tutorial/reference combined work for those particular ideas. I own how it's organised, I own the exact examples I have used, I own the very specific explanations I made.

Honestly, I'm not sure that even that much is owned. I know the copyrights are owned, but I'm not sure if the expression itself is. On this point, I could be wrong, though. I'd have to ask a lawyer who is much more familiar than I am with the law.

The particular publisher I prefer to work with, wouldn't do it. (One of the reasons I prefer to work with them.)

I do hope I didn't reveal anything you didn't want revealed. I apologize if I did.

However, many publishers would. And if I wanted to write a book on a topic that Publisher-I-Work-With already covers, I'd have to seek a different publisher to sell rights-to-make-copies of my new book to.

I've just learned some new bits about publishing. And am kind of annoyed with how publishers treat the authors now.

Thanks, though. It's so obvious to me that writing a book is a huge effort that I forget how 'easy' it looks to other people.

Unfortunately, it's a time thing: It only takes a few hours to read an average book. If it's really long, people might spend a couple days. And look at what people see: It's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper. They don't realize the planning that goes into it.

Even I didn't. As I said, I've got a book of my own that's struggling to be written. I'd heard about authors having story outlines, but never thought they were necessary. I've had so many false starts on this it's not funny. Now I know how necessary they are.

(Incidentally: if a work goes out onto the internet, it is deemed as published. This means that if the author has sold 'first publication rights' to a publisher, but it hits the net before it hits bookstores, the publisher can deem the contract broken - and can sue the author for damages. You can bankrupt an author that way.)

Oof. So, even if you do nothing to cause it, you can still be held liable for it? I'm definitely less fond of book publishers now.

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

On the other hand .. you do have a copy, for personal use.

On that aspect - I'm a bit torn.

Allow me to muddy the waters for you still further.

I have some older computer books, but they still have some useful information in them.

I also have an eBook reader.

I would really like to have those older books in digital form for use on that reader. But they can not be purchased anywhere in digital form. Hell, some of them can not be purchased in paper form from a publisher (second hand, maybe). I would pay for them if I could, but they do not exist to be bought.

However, there are other methods. I can get a book guillotine for about $300. I can get an automated document feed scanner for about $400. That scanner comes with software to OCR the books as well. As a result, I can, for about $700, and a few weeks of my time, scan my entire library into digital form. I'd have to toss out the original pages, though, since they're no longer usable as a book.

The end result is that I have exactly one copy of the book. I have changed the format of the book, but I have exactly one copy. I'm not giving it out to anybody, as it is exclusively for my personal use and reference. So, no distribution is going on. As far as I can tell, no copyright violation of any form is occurring. So, now comes the question: Should I be in any trouble with anybody for what I have done? Legally, I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, especially if I keep the original covers around. Morally and ethically, I have no issue with it, as I have compensated the author for it already. As a result, this something I'm seriously considering doing.

Have I muddied things enough for you?

[Seshat]

Honestly, I'm not sure that even that much is owned. I know the copyrights are owned, but I'm not sure if the expression itself is. On this point, I could be wrong, though. I'd have to ask a lawyer who is much more familiar than I am with the law.

I'm familiar enough with copyright law: the creator of intellectual property can never own the idea, but does own the expression of the idea.

Thus, six different artists can paint a tribute to the colour blue; as can eight different poets, two authors, and five musical composers. None own the idea of the colour blue, nor the idea of a tribute to it. But each owns their particular expression of that idea.

I do hope I didn't reveal anything you didn't want revealed. I apologize if I did.

Several people here know I wrote a book. I haven't hidden that at all. Which book - yeah, that would give away my RL name pretty quickly. You concealed that - thank you.

I've just learned some new bits about publishing. And am kind of annoyed with how publishers treat the authors now.

Wait until you start shopping for contracts!

I had one publisher offer me an advance: but with a caveat. If I produced a perfectly acceptable book that fit the specifications, but they decided not to go ahead and publish it for whatever reason, I was to pay back the advance.

Even if the reason was something as ridiculous as the marketing director having a bad day.

Oh, but: while I had the contract with them, I couldn't look for someone else. Oh no. I would be contracted to produce the book for them.

Unfortunately, it's a time thing: It only takes a few hours to read an average book. If it's really long, people might spend a couple days. And look at what people see: It's just a bunch of words on a piece of paper. They don't realize the planning that goes into it.

Even I didn't. As I said, I've got a book of my own that's struggling to be written. I'd heard about authors having story outlines, but never thought they were necessary. I've had so many false starts on this it's not funny. Now I know how necessary they are.

Heh. For technical books, it's even worse. You REALLY need an outline, and it has to be one that makes sense both for novices and experts in the subject.

A LOT of thought went into the particular expression of ideas that is my book. Thought, trials with friends .. not easy or straightforward.

Oof. So, even if you do nothing to cause it, you can still be held liable for it? I'm definitely less fond of book publishers now.

Who has a copy of the work? The creator, the publisher's editor, perhaps the creator's agent, and perhaps a reviewer. If it got out, ONE of them would have to be the cause, right? And the publisher knows it wasn't HIM...

Allow me to muddy the waters for you still further.

<snip>

Should I be in any trouble with anybody for what I have done? Legally, I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, especially if I keep the original covers around.

Legally, I suspect you may actually have a problem. I'd need to check the exact wording of copyright law where you are, and probably need a lawyer's interpretation. However, it's such a small thing that I doubt anyone is ever going to chase you up for it.

Morally and ethically? Nah. I have no problem with it. You purchased one copy for your use, you're only planning to have one copy for your use. No big deal, IMO.

[Slytovhand]

I'm going to do something really strange here, and actually reply to the Original Post... and maybe make Mysty glad Yeah - we've discussed the whole copyright thing (which, incidentally, does have different legal technicalities depending on which country you happen to be in), and it seems that most of us are on the same page (pun intended )...or maybe song.... ie... pay the creator of the damn thing what they deserve.




Mysty, I would go with the 'bad' side of the argument...

Ok - you may not choose to do anything at all with the thing you've downloaded - you may not even bother to listen to it...but that doesn't mean that the next person to connect to your PC won't. I used to go network gaming with 'the guys', and before even playing, we'd do all the copying of stuff (ie - maps, jokes etc...should jokes get copyrighted?? ) , and at any time, one of those guys could have hooked up to that folder and gotten that file.. and then shared it with someone else, who then uploads it to the net elsewhere, and then someone who is interested in that work.

That, after all, isn't too much different to someone shoplifting from a store for stuff they'll never use, and then give it away (or sell) to someone else.

Does that answer your hypothetical?



Oh - Pedersen... your query about how to allow some form of the music to be available, but have to pay for the whole lot... that's the 30 second previews available online...

As for the 'only 2 songs on an entire album worth listening to' argument... change your style of music ... I rarely have that problem with my bands.


Slyt

[BlaqueKatt]

Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.

I'll second that-read the EULA-it's significantly less restrictive than itunes.
And amazon has NO DRM*


*I have never downloaded anything I didn't purchase-the reason I loke the no DRM is I had to backup to my new computer and had issues with my cd burner-took 7 tries to get a working copy to transfer-couldn't have done that with itunes.

[rahmota]

Originally Posted by AFPheonix
Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.

Okay thats good to know. Thank you.