Support Piracy!

[Guest]

Some people say that pirating movies and music is like stealing a CD:

You wouldn't steal a Car.
You wouldn't steal a Handbag.
You wouldn't steal a Mobile Phone.
You wouldn't steal a Movie.
Movie Piracy is Stealing.
Stealing is Against the Law.
Piracy. It's A Crime.

But that's crap! When you steal a physical item you deprive someone else of it, which is why it's illegal. When you download something you merely make a copy of it. Another argument is that artists are being deprived of money. How can they be deprived if they never got it in the first place?

The US Supreme Court has recognized that online piracy is not stealing but just copyright infringement. Intellectual property is just a nice way of saying "I OWN this idea/information and you can't use it!" How does that work? You can't own an idea, it is common to all people. If a person spends years trying to invent something then goes to get it patented, what happens if they find that it has already been patented! Whose idea is it, the "original inventor" or the other person? How can the patent system be fair if both "discover" it. In the 1600s both Isaac Newton and Gottfired Leibniz "discovered" calculus at nearly the same time.

Other's claim a pragmatic point of view. They say that intellectual property is good for business and promotes ingenuity. I say to them, did Leonardo da Vinci need copyright? How about the ancient philosophers and artists?

That's why I say SUPPORT PIRACY! Freedom for ideas!

[Freak]

Even MORE wisdom from Kirby. :applause:
:raiseshand: I SECOND THIS STATEMENT!

[Doc Johnson]

Arrrrhg!

[Guest]

Doc Johnson Wrote:Arrrrhg!

I'm assuming you mean that in the sense of, "Arrrrhg, matey!" Not "Arrrrhg, you're an idiot."

[Freak]

[Doc Johnson]

Yes, like a pirate. Arrrgh!

Copyright infringement is your best entertainment value!

[Abandoning Ship]

I've got maybe...77-100 tracks of music I did'nt pay a dime for.

[Guest]

I've got about 7.5 gigs of music I didn't pay for.

And no, I'm not against intellectual property just so that I can get free stuff.

[cheesenomore]

Toucanman Wrote:I've got maybe...77-100 tracks of music I did'nt pay a dime for.

noob! i got something like 5500...but that was before the napster lawsuits and stuff, so idk if it counts

[Doc Johnson]

Cheesey! WTF you been?

[Alucard483]

ya havnt seen u since crimson joined

[R00t]

Yawn.
I get too bored some times.

So, let's take this down, one by one.

Quote:Did Leonardo da Vinci need copyright?

No, and there's actually a non-legal reason why. You see, very few people in the Renissance (High or Low, take your pick), had the time or resources to allure patrons of the art. Those who actually were funded, were not only skilled in the arts, but very selectively paid by the nobility. Anyone else, didn't have the time, resources, or ability to care about recreating the Last Supper or Mona Lisa.

Quote:How about the ancient philosophers and artists?

No, and there's another non-legal reason. You see, the had ideas, sure. But they didn't provide a general means for the public to access it. It was only avaliable to the nobility of the time.

Quote:How can they be deprived if they never got it in the first place?

If I take a CD, rip the music out of it, and then give it to someone else, I am depriving the artist of funds from the sales of the CD, which if I had purchased through normal means, would be income to the artist.

Quote:You can't own an idea, it is common to all people.

While this may be true, it doesn't take into account the fact that this is the medium on which it is presented. You can't own an idea, but you can own the medium through which it is presented. I.E. A Program, an Album, etc.

Besides, on a personal note, nothing will replace the coolness of owning a CD.

[Guest]

The examples I gave about the people not needing copyright was just me ranting. I agree with the points you gave.

Quote:If I take a CD, rip the music out of it, and then give it to someone else, I am depriving the artist of funds from the sales of the CD, which if I had purchased through normal means, would be income to the artist.

You may be depriving the artist of funds but that's not stealing.

Quote:While this may be true, it doesn't take into account the fact that this is the medium on which it is presented. You can't own an idea, but you can own the medium through which it is presented. I.E. A Program, an Album, etc.

By 'idea' I also meant information. I own a hard drive but I don't own the specific configuration of magnetism on it. A computer program is still information, not a physical object. A CD is an object which is why it can be stolen.

[Demonic Pyro]

Ok I agree Piracy shouldn't be illegal, the artists are already rich!
plus No one has NEVER burned a CD, copyed a movie, gotten a burned CD, taped a show, or downloaded a song for free...and if you haven't you don't own a Computer...
So if everyone did it, then everyone should be in jail.....(or be fined w/e)

I bet even the presedent has burned a CD! Well actually, not really, he's to dumb to turn on the computer!

[Doc Johnson]

The thing is, most artists get like 10% of their income from selling music. The rest come from other merchandise, touring, and so forth. That's why I support bands who give away their music for free:

http://www.cancerslug.net

Yes, yes, I'm pimpin' these guys again. So sue me. I love them. In fact, I think I'll listen to them right now. So can you. Here's something just for you:

http://www.cancerslug.net/mp3s/yoprob.mp3

[SoulRiser]

amen, Kirby. i've been saying that for years but hardly anyone gets it

and while it's nice to support artists you love, like Doc said, they get very little from CD sales anyway, their label gets the most money off it. which is why you see more labels bitching about piracy than artists

i don't have hard facts here, but i'm guessing it's a similar percentage for movie and game makers as well. i'd support THEM, but not their publishers. at least, nowhere near that much as far as percentages go.

[R00t]

Quote:You may be depriving the artist of funds but that's not stealing.

Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent. In law, it is usually the broadest term for a crime against property. It is a general term that encompasses offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception), and sometimes criminal conversion. Legally, theft is generally considered to be synonymous with larceny.

Wikipedia.

Quote:By 'idea' I also meant information. I own a hard drive but I don't own the specific configuration of magnetism on it. A computer program is still information, not a physical object. A CD is an object which is why it can be stolen.

You see, here's the problem.
If I write a book, and then have it put onto paper, and you make a copy of it, it is stealing.
How you're stealing my intellectual property. As in, something I have made. Unless I have put it into public domain, or released it under GNU or Creative Commons, you're essentially taking my personal ideas, without any comphensation.

[Doc Johnson]

But if you weren't a filthy capitalist, it wouldn't matter now, would it?

[R00t]

Quote:and while it's nice to support artists you love, like Doc said, they get very little from CD sales anyway, their label gets the most money off it. which is why you see more labels bitching about piracy than artists

Then you steal from the label.
Which means it's still stealing from the label.
Which means it's still stealing. Period.

[Guest]

Quote:Then you steal from the label.
Which means it's still stealing from the label.
Which means it's still stealing. Period.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO STEAL INFORMATION!

1) Stealing is depriving another of something they own without their permission.
2) Ideas and information are copyed without depriving others or the creator of it.
3) Therefore if you copy information it isn't stealing.

When you copy a song you breach copyright, you do not steal anything. You also cannot own information.

The idea-expression divide is totally false. The expression is also an idea!

[R00t]

Incorrect. Otherwise, you better be prepared to destroy all forms of privacy.

Information is the product of it's creator(s). This logically follows the writing of a book, the creating of a song, or the making of a video. Each element is the product of it's creator(s). When they provide a medium for which you can use it is, it is their product, and they have licensed as such. Their song, their video, and their story, is their individual product. You can not, without certainity, guarantee that the song, or even something comparably, would have come out. This seperates Ideas in the form of philosphical or conceptual, such as the study of Physics and Geometry, or Biology, or Neoplatonism, or Nhilism, from Expressions, such as those in the artistic community.

Then, as the artist provides the medium, they own the expression, and the concept, and the information therefore. It is their creation, and it should be their right. Otherwise, it must be legal to take all of someone elses creations (I.E. Credit card reciepts, personal information, information on a hard disc, etc.), because they are also information, and therefore should be logical to steal that, under your assumation of logic.

So, as the artist, I have said before, provides the medium and the creation, they must logically then, own this creation, for their own private use. It is then up those, who license it, and the artist themselves, as to who can use it. The artist has sole permission, along with anyone they delegate the power to, as to who may use the information. Therefore, piracy is stealing, by the following set of logic.

1. The artist owns the information, or their creation.
2. Stealing is depriving another of something they own without their permission.
3. You are depriving another of something they own, without their permission.

Therefore, I conclude, it must be stealing.

[Guest]

ChaosSplintered Wrote:Their song, their video, and their story, is their individual product. You can not, without certainity, guarantee that the song, or even something comparably, would have come out. This seperates Ideas in the form of philosphical or conceptual [..] from Expressions, such as those in the artistic community.

You cannot guarantee that science or philosophy would been created either without the personal contributions of certain individuals. A person depends more on previous concepts when creating an idea than just mental labour. A scientist who furthers biology can't take all the credit because of all the knowledge previously created by others.

Quote:they are also information, and therefore should be logical to steal

Say I have a journal and in that is written personal and sensitive things. I would not have ownership over the information but I would have ownership of the book. So if you copy the information from my personal journal without my permission it would be theft. You would have to take the book without my permission to get it. Privacy is protected by hiding information not copyrighting it.

[R00t]

So then, by that logic, if I put my data on a CD, you can't take the data off my CD. And If I let you see my CD, what rights do you have to copy or reproduce it then?

And no, I cannot guarantee that science or philosphy would have been created without certain individuals. But they were, and we pay tribute and recognition those who did it. With that said, these are also natural discoveries of nature, and were there before. Such as biology. It was always there, and it didn't magically appear because one day someone decided to name it that. On the other hand, "Aces High", by Iron Maiden, was discovered soley by Iron Maiden, and could not, within most probability, have been created without Iron Maiden.

[Guest]

ChaosSplintered Wrote:So then, by that logic, if I put my data on a CD, you can't take the data off my CD. And If I let you see my CD, what rights do you have to copy or reproduce it then?

If you give me a CD with your personal info on it I wouldn't copy it, being a nice person, but I would be able to if I wanted. The biggest crime committed against a person using personal information is impersonation to steal money. It would be illegal as it is fraud.

ChaosSplintered Wrote:Such as biology. It was always there, and it didn't magically appear because one day someone decided to name it that.

Biology didn't exist before we thought of it. That doesn't mean that physical laws didn't, only our approximations of it. There is no guarantee that we would have the same scientific laws if history took a different path. For example, if Einstein was killed would Relativity still be discovered?

[R00t]

Er.
No.

You see, the physical laws, are physical laws. They do not change, relative to the user. For it to be generally considered scientific, it must have either:
A. An overwhelming amount of fact.
B. Reproduceability.

So, no. They would have remained the same, even if Einstein, or Pasteur, or whoever, was randomly murdered. Same with physics, geometry, etc.

And somewhat the same with philosophical laws. I mean, how many of us have thought like Voltaire, Descartes, or Plato, before reading about them?

As for the CD analogy. Once again, what rights do you have to copy or reproduce the CD? I didn't say you could, and it's my personal property. So, what rights do you have?

Once again, this can even become null with DRM. They have made an effort to control it, and it's distrobution, and you have violated their terms of agreement.

[Guest]

ChaosSplintered Wrote:You see, the physical laws, are physical laws. They do not change, relative to the user.

I was differentiating between physical and scientific. Physical being the actual way things works and scientific our current understanding of how it works. We cannot be absolutely sure that our scientific laws are true descriptions of the universe.

Quote:As for the CD analogy. Once again, what rights do you have to copy or reproduce the CD? I didn't say you could, and it's my personal property. So, what rights do you have?

I would have the right to do whatever I want to the information. If I don't have permission then touching your CD would be theft. I wouldn't have the right to mess around with the content on your CD because you own the it and changing the info would also change the the physical CD.

[R00t]

There is very little difference between physical and scientific in actualization. You see, theories, and the laws that are derived from theories, represent qualities that can be repeatedly tested in the tangible world. This is to say that once can not claim ownership over it, because they are universally applicable ideas. If they do not fall under this (This is to say that they are not applicable within the confines of the rules), then it is thrown out, and is useless at that state. Otherwise, it is considered a universal property, and is scientific data.

Music on the other hand, or videos, or the like, are like the laws that are thrown out. They are works of fiction, and are results of their creator. They are not universal properties, and are relative to the user. And like works of fiction, they have no basis in repeatable fact, save for the snippets of inspiration they are acclaimed from.

Quote:I would have the right to do whatever I want to the information. If I don't have permission then touching your CD would be theft. I wouldn't have the right to mess around with the content on your CD because you own the it and changing the info would also change the the physical CD.

Actually, no.
You see, I can't make a copy of a CD I own, and then pass it to someone else. Why? Because I'm depriving the artist, of funds that should have rightfully come from their work.

You also don't have the right to my personal information either. Even if I hand you the CD, as long as I don't tell you that you can have what's on the CD, it's illegal to take it.

This is even more true, with once again, DRM. you directly modifiy the CD, and post it on the internet. This is violating copyright, and you are downloading violated material. You also don't have the right to mess around, or crack the DRM.

[R00t]

Doc Johnson Wrote:But if you weren't a filthy capitalist, it wouldn't matter now, would it?

Fine.
I want access to all your personal files.
They're information too.

Now give it to me!

[Doc Johnson]

Which ones do you want? Tell me that first. Name the document. Describe the contents. Given that you can't really tell me what they are (outside of some vague description), then you could not possibly reproduce them yourself. You might do that with a piece of art. Moreover, I'm not selling them for a profit, which is a key issue here.

There's a difference between playing music for an audience and distributing what amounts to a performance/promotion (i.e., a CD). That's fairly new. Once you enter the age of mechanical reproduction, all of a sudden people get pissed about intellectual property. But most artists don't own the property you're bitching about. You seem to suggest that the legal framework in which you base your notion of intellectual property is transhistorical. Seems to me it is quite unique to the 20th and 21st centuries. Why should I care about what has happened to intellectual property in the last century or so? Also, what distinction do you make between the label and the artist(s)? Are they the same thing to you? Is there a difference between ethical and legal constraints on ownership? I ask, because you seem to conflate the two. You seem not to recognize the difference between production and distribution, for one thing. There are several market models that suggest that your schema of distribution is outdated since about, oh, 1970 (e.g., Grateful Dead, whom I loathe). Also, there are recent studies suggesting that artists who pursue multiple avenues of distribution end up better off than those who are owned solely by labels. In fact, labels tend to promote their most successful artists, and fans tend to promote their less successful ones. Where's my money for wearing a t-shirt, for example, or for ripping a few tracks that cause my friend to buy a particular CD? Your understanding of how intellectual property works is soooo last century. And your understanding of current trends in the music market might as well be from a set of RIAA talking points.

[R00t]

Quote:Let's ask a question though. You seem to suggest that the legal framework in which you base your notion of intellectual property is transhistorical.

I said that... Where?

Quote:Seems to me it is quite unique to the 20th and 21st centuries. Why should I care about what has happened to intellectual property in the last century or so?

Why should you care about current events?
Why should you care about the law of the country you are in?
Why should you care about if what you create, belongs to you or not, and how this changes?

Quote:Also, what distinction do you make between the label and the artist(s)?

It depends on what the situation is.
You'd have to be more direct in what you're asking.

If you're asking what distinction I make between the label and the artist, then I believe that the artist has full creation rights to their creations, until they delegate it away, with a label. Once they do that, it becomes property of the label.

If you're asking whether I would support a label over the artist, or vice versa, then it would also depend on which label. I'll support artists, regardless of what label they belong to, so far as they don't go as far as to harm things outside of their music, and as long as they have somewhat decent professionalism in their actions. If a label is acting destructive towards it's customers, such as those aligned with RIAA, and those who introduce heavy DRM, I will simply not purchase from the label, or listen to the music, purely based on how they mistreat the customers. But, if the label has generally been good to me (Such as Century Media and Nuclear Blast America), then I'll give them more consideration when buying, simply because I know I'll have an easier time enjoying my music. This applies to the same thing with movies, and books.

Quote:Are they the same thing to you?

Once again, this depends on the situation, and the actual scenario being posed.

Quote:Is there a difference between ethical and legal constraints on ownership?

These are not mutually exclusive, so, to answer no would be fallicious, and to answer yes would be fallicious in all the same.

Sometimes there is an ethical and legal conflict on who actually has ownership of a album, movie, or book. Sometimes there isn't, because it is flat out wrong, or flat out right to do either, in general terms.

Quote:You seem not to recognize the difference between production and distribution, for one thing.

Is not distrobution, part of the production?

To actually produce, and get to the customers, you must distrobute. Otherwise, the music never reaches the customers in the first place, and then the entire arguement is pointless.

Along with that, labels do pay artists. It may be a minute amount, sure, but they still pay the artists, and give them the means to produce and tour, if they so choose. Because of this, labels aid in the production of the muisc.