The Monster USCC Off-Topic Thread

[BigE]

As PhoenixGeek said, intellectual property and physical property are different because intellectual property can be replicated over and over, without damage or loss to the original. I'm not saying that makes intellectual property piracy right, I'm just saying the car analogy doesn't apply properly.

The opposing theory is that by making the the illegal copies, even though it is an intangible object, you are devaluing the original. It's not a perfect argument but there it is.

The "trial" argument is pretty weak too. "I pirated a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS5 to see if I really wanted to buy it." No you didn't. You didn't want to spend $700 on photo editing software that you couldn't afford in the first place so you pirated. It is also pretty crappy when it comes to music since there are tons of sites on the internet where you can listen to 30 second snippets or even full songs for free and legally.

[BigE]

Plain and simple the notion that the intellectual property embodied in something intangible is worth less then something tangible is a fallacy.

[ilvla2]

I remember back in the 70's,80's and into the 90's we used to tape stuff all the time, music, tv, radio, make copies of our tapes, records or cd's, sometimes just for us, sometimes for a friend or family member, but we never had any intention of pirating or making any profit from it. I think it should be okay as long as you're just making a copy of something you already own for backup, or, say, put together some music for a friend or relative, when you start doing it in mass and trying to profit from it or handing them out by the boxcarload is when it becomes wrong.

[BigE]

I remember back in the 70's,80's and into the 90's we used to tape stuff all the time, music, tv, radio, make copies of our tapes, records or cd's, sometimes just for us, sometimes for a friend or family member, but we never had any intention of pirating or making any profit from it. I think it should be okay as long as you're just making a copy of something you already own for backup, or, say, put together some music for a friend or relative, when you start doing it in mass and trying to profit from it or handing them out by the boxcarload is when it becomes wrong.

Generally speaking you are allowed to have backups and/or digital copies of your physical media. For instance, take NES roms, it is perfectly legal to play an NES rom on an emulator if you own the actual physical NES cart. Technically, copying a CD for a friend or family member is copyright infringement. The law makes no distinction regarding the nature of the relationship of the parties. Nor is making a profit from the unauthorized distribution.

EDIT: Also, it's interesting you mention the 70's and 80's because a major debate in this area was when folks were using their VCRs and Betamax machines to record TV shows so they could watch them later, a practice that came to be known as "time-shifting." The studios obviously didn't like the practice but thankfully (and rightfully IMO) the Supreme Court ruled that time-shifting was Fair Use.

[ilvla2]

. Technically, copying a CD for a friend or family member is copyright infringement.

Yeah, I suppose, but the law can be taken too literally I think sometimes. I just don't see anything wrong in making a copy of some music for your family member or a friend, people have been doing it for decades and with no ill intent.

[0siris]

Ugghhh, come on, not you too?

Anyways, yeah, this is an interesting subject

When I heard that Obama has supported (or, at least, not spoken out against) a 50% tax on soda, then yeah, me too. On the other hand, that's not to say Republicans have been any better when we turn over to them.

[0siris]

Companies' claims of losses to piracy are interesting, because they think if the pirated product wasn't available that people would buy it. My opinion is that a large percentage of people who pirate intellectual property would not actually purchase the product if that was their only choice. From that perspective, that can't truly be counted as a loss, because the companies never had and never will have that sale.

On the flip side I've read a few articles that say piracy can actually increase sales for certain artists because it gets their music/media out to a wider audience, which in turn creates a larger fan base, which in turn can generate sales whether media, merchandise, concert tickets, etc. There are several artists who have given the green light to pirating their music, and more artists (talking more about musicians and bands) are giving away songs as free downloads on their websites.

It would be awesome if we had a true study on the effects of intellectual property piracy. But I don't think we will ever get the hard facts in black and white.

NONE of which, by they way, deny music/media companies the right to control distribution of their property. I'm with you on the facts you present, candor, but it's still their property. Piracy is wrong, period. IMO, of course. And that of the law, as well.

[BigE]

Yeah, I suppose, but the law can be taken too literally I think sometimes. I just don't see anything wrong in making a copy of some music for your family member or a friend, people have been doing it for decades and with no ill intent.

Which is exactly why "intent" has no part in copyright law either. It doesn't matter what your intent was...merely that the copy was made.

EDIT: I take that back, intent isn't required to infringe, however if you are found to be a "willful" infringer then you can be subject to treble damages.

[ilvla2]

When I heard that Obama has supported (or, at least, not spoken out against) a 50% tax on soda, then yeah, me too. On the other hand, that's not to say Republicans have been any better when we turn over to them.

I think (If you can prove me wrong, I will gladly admit it) the intention of that tax is to get people to stop killing themselves with sugar, and to help reduce/prevent the coming healthcare crisis that will be caused by American's obesity, unfortunately, you have to prod people sometimes to get them to move forward I'm hoping it doesn't get turned over to the other side, but I'm just one voter.

[ilvla2]

Which is exactly why "intent" has no part in copyright law either. It doesn't matter what your intent was...merely that the copy was made.

EDIT: I take that back, intent isn't required to infringe, however if you are found to be a "willful" infringer then you can be subject to treble damages.

That's getting on the verge of taking the law too literally, I mean, are you going to go out and arrest all the people who do that? You will need a jail the size of China, and end up jailing a lot of people who committed no real crime.

[0siris]

As PhoenixGeek said, intellectual property and physical property are different because intellectual property can be replicated over and over, without damage or loss to the original. I'm not saying that makes intellectual property piracy right, I'm just saying the car analogy doesn't apply properly.

I disagree. It doesn't apply *perfectly*, but it applies *properly.* Analogies are almost NEVER an exact fit. They are supposed to illustrate a broad idea, not replicate the exact topic of discussion. I think the Internet has lost sight of that.

It belongs to someone, and that someone is not the downloader. It's not right to then take it. That's what the analogy says, and that's proper to this discussion.

[BigE]

That's getting on the verge of taking the law too literally, I mean, are you going to go out and arrest all the people who do that? You will need a jail the size of China, and end up jailing a lot of people who committed no real crime.

People who commit copyright infringement don't go to jail, it's a civil action, not criminal.

The law reads:

§ 501. Infringement of copyright
How Current is This?
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
How Current is This?
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

There's nothing gray there my friend, and it's not taking it too literally. That is what the law says.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...sup_01_17.html

[ilvla2]

Okay, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I stil don't see anything wrong with making a copy of a cd or video for, say, your mom or dad or a close friend. When I do see it being wrong is when you start making multiple copies and handing them out, or making a profit from your copies.

[0siris]

The opposing theory is that by making the the illegal copies, even though it is an intangible object, you are devaluing the original. It's not a perfect argument but there it is.

E, I think this argument is harder to dismiss than you say. The barrier to ownership is sometimes the means towards measuring the value. the fact that you have to pay $14.99 for a whole CD to get that one song means that song is worth $14.99. If it gets out for free download, you harm that value. I may not literally be accurate, but I think the pasic point stands true. Saying that, however, calling it a weak argument is, I think, fair.

The "trial" argument is pretty weak too. "I pirated a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS5 to see if I really wanted to buy it." No you didn't. You didn't want to spend $700 on photo editing software that you couldn't afford in the first place so you pirated. It is also pretty crappy when it comes to music since there are tons of sites on the internet where you can listen to 30 second snippets or even full songs for free and legally.

IMO, the trial argument is completely and utterly fabricated. Virtually every major piece of software comes with a trial period. Some PC utilities only let you "look, but not act" and I think that's a terrible trial model. "Here's all these files we COULD restore for you, and we promise, we'll do it once you buy!" Malarkey. But that trial argument is just terrible, a flat-out lie almost every time.

[BigE]

Okay, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I stil don't see anything wrong with making a copy of a cd or video for, say, your mom or dad or a close friend.

It's making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. Do you stand by the same argument if it's a piece of software?