File-Sharing Software Ruled Legal

[jayfish]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5762021/

<SNIP>
SAN FRANCISCO - Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. are not liable for the swapping of copyright content through their file-sharing software, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to movie studios and record labels.

Among other things, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the suppliers of the free peer-to-peer software, unlike Napster, were not liable for illegally swapped music and movies online because they don't have central servers where computer users can access copyrighted material.
</SNIP>

Jay

[DUreader]

1. WOO_HOO!

I don't do music downloading but these programs seem like they are

about much more than just copyright related issues

[fdr_hst_fan]

2. They are-

they're about the GREED of the record and movie industries! The two industries want to GOUGE the American consumer with their EXORBITANTLY HIGH PRICES!

[DaveSZ]

3. 9th circuit

is about the only court left with any sanity.

Unfortunately a dude who wrote one of the torture memos is now on the court thanks to Chimp.

[mountainvue]

47. His appointment

is not permanent.

[jayfish]

4. I Agree About Music...

but I think the cost of a new-release DVD is pretty reasonable.

Jay

[Halliburton]

5. Great News...

When will the RIAA just let it go?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Doubtful.

They won't let it go because their lawyers and the people calling the shots don't know how. They are desperate and flailing and looking for an external reason for their systemic problems.

They WILL be back.

[Halliburton]

7. They'll file more lawsuits against innocent people...

Who don't feel like buying a CD with only one or two good songs on it, so they save their money by downloading the songs.

[WillyT]

9. The Funny Thing Is...

Sometimes I'd download a song or two from an artist, and then like them so much, I'd go buy the entire CD, or even a couple of them.

They never talk about people sampling music by file-sharing, and then deciding to buy CDs based on those songs!!!

:shrug:

[Jazzgirl]

14. I used to download sample songs so I could see if I wanted the CD.

I got tired of hearing 1-2 songs on a CD and buying it and then finding out there were only 1-2 more songs worth listening to. If I could download at least 1/2 the CD and listen I could pretty well figure if I wanted to buy it. This was back in the day where I was buying 5-8 CD's a month. I'm lucky to buy 5-6 a year now and its pretty much been since I quit downloading.

[trogdor]

18. My bookshelf is chock full of LP's...

...from the classic rock era, and most of them are listenable from beginning to end. The difference is, there used to be this thing called a 45 RPM "single" which people would buy for 79 cents at K-Mart. I bet some of you who are under 30 have never SEEN a 45 before. A few of you probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

When the single died, around 1988, albums started to suck. You see, as long as people could get the 45 and leave the album on the shelf, it was preferable for the entire album to be of at least listenable quality. Now, if you don't like the other 14 tracks of junk on the CD you just bought, tough shit. It is no wonder that people are looking to P2P as a means of getting their hands on the singles the industry no longer provides.

[tabasco]

48. Interesting post! So many albums do suck in their entirety.

It does make you feel old to think there are younger folks who have never seen a 45. I suppose the bands should take their time on the albums, rather than rushing to make more money.

[Khephra]

24. That's what I do with anime

If I couldn't sample anime series to find out what a show is like, I doubt I'd ever buy (and I DO buy series) any show. If they were a bit more reasonable with anime (say 2 hours of programing for the same cost of a movie) then it wouldn't be so bad. But I'm supposed to drop down $25-35 bucks for a show I've never even seen and then only have 80 minutes worth of programing? Sometimes even less than that. (Eg. FLCL which is two episodes for the cost of a regular movie DVD) If you music fans think you're being ripped off, just take a look at animation dvds at get back to me. ;-)

[Mokito]

15. They WILL be back indeed

To shove even more Brittney's, Christina's and R'n'B crap down our throat. x(

[bleedingedge]

57. Yes, because they force you to buy that stuff, don't they?

[RhodaGrits]

8. I stopped buying CDs for about 15 yrs - started buying lots again

after I started downloading from Kazaa. It got me listening to music and interested again. When the RIAA started the lawsuits and harassment, I stopped buying RIAA music and have limited my purchases to indies. Greedy scum.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Non-Commercial, Open Source, Legal Peer To Peer

Thought I would plug these guys. Great place, especially if you're into jambands-- but it's all live music from bands with taper-friendly policies. They're very anal about making sure no copyright violating material goes out on the network.

http://furthurnet.org

[Chovexani]

11. This is a victory for the people

No matter what the RIAA thinks, p2p is the future. Big Music can either embrace it or get the hell out of its way.

The RIAA can go Cheney itself as far as I'm concerned.

[Scro]

12. This was a no-brainer. The entertainment industry is obviously desperate.

[BadGimp]

13. long live the best way to acquire great Porn

:P :evilgrin: :party: :toast: :bounce: :thumbsup:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals :yourock:

[Citizen Daryl]

16. I thought that was Usenet. n/t

[bleedingedge]

17. File Sharing Sucks Ass

**The Following Is NOT Neceissarily Directed At The Original Poster**

Anybody who "shares" music is a thief, plain and simple. Rationalize it any way you want, you're stealing.

Maybe I have a different spin on this because I'm involved in an artistic industry in which stealing of material is rampant (stand-up comedy). I don't know, but it's disheartening to hear anybody justify theft of intellectual property solely because, well, they want to and it's easier than paying for it.

The bands that want to let their stuff go, that's their right and I support them if it helps them get their name out. But anything else is theft. Period.

Yeah, the records are expensive, and a lot of the artists are overpaid and obscenely wealthy. And a lot of them suck. So the fuck what. It's their intellectual property and it's how they make money. How would you feel if your ideas were worth money, but somebody found a way to take them from you without paying? You'd be pissed.

If we're going to say "Well, it's OK to facilitate theft as long as you don't actively participate in it" then how can we have laws against aiding and abetting, etc? It's the same damn thing.

Would you support the same type of file "sharing" if it were books we were talking about? Say there's a book on the current NYT best seller list (IOW, it's not in the "public domain"). You, being industrious, decide to transcibe it onto the web for others to read, free-of-charge. Is this OK? If not, why? What makes this any different from music or movie file sharing? If it is OK, then where do we draw the line on service "sharing"? What sorts of service or good sharing is acceptable and not acceptable? Is it OK for me to make prints of a painting and then sell those at a profit? How, in the name of Christ in a sidecar, can you justify making a profit (whether monetary or simply in gaining a good or service) for yourself while ignoring the person/people who originated that good/service in the first place.

And don't give me the Well what makes a library any different" argument, because that can be skewered so easily that it demonstrates more about the (lack of) thought process by the person making the argument than it does about the person who destroys the argument.

Here's ball-on proof that these "file sharing" companies are nothing more than hypocritical, money-grubbing shills: call Grockster, or any of these other fucking theft-helping companies and tell them you want to distribute their source code on your own site, under a different name/label. They'll slap a lawsuit so far up your ass you'll be crapping legalese for a month.

This is yet another way that society devalues art and artists. We are increasingly living in an age where we are told that the ONLY things of value are tangible and quantifiable. File sharing is merely another affirmation of the fact that artists are second-class citizens in the consumer matrix.

Every rationalization I've ever heard on this subject - and I've heard tons - is a ludicrous, bald-faced attempt to justify getting something for free that shouldn't be. Do it if you want, but don't try to tell me it's got anything to do with economic protest, etc. It's you being a cheap ass crook.

[Occulus]

19. I doubt you really know

wtf you're talking about after reading this little gem:

"call Grockster, or any of these other fucking theft-helping companies and tell them you want to distribute their source code on your own site, under a different name/label. They'll slap a lawsuit so far up your ass you'll be crapping legalese for a month."

Many of these applications are open-source, meaning yes, you CAN do pretty much exactly what you mentioned free of legal obligations.

That's the thing that just makes me chuckle: usually, it's the people who don't actually use the software who cry the hardest over it. Face something, will you? The cat is out of the bag. No matter how much you might hate what's really nothing more nor less than a method for two PCs to communicate and share information over the internet- the exact purpose of the internet, IIRC- you can't, and won't, successfully uninvent or legislatively control this technology.

Methinks you're refusing to recognise that the old model of "we decide how much our music is worth" is quickly being replaced by the new model of "we won't pay you for tripe". Artists, musicians, composers, and writers do not deserve a dime if their work is generally known as crap.

[bleedingedge]

20. You've got your own little gem, my brother.

> it's the people who don't actually use the software who cry the hardest over it<

That's kind of like saying "The people who are so up in arms about prison abuse at Abu Ghraib are always the ones who've never tortured people". I don't have to try it to know it goes against my belief in the artist's right to earn a living for their work.

> Artists, musicians, composers, and writers do not deserve a dime if their work is generally known as crap.<

You're completely right- if they churn out crap, they shouldn't be able to make money on it. But my question had nothing to do with drumming out bad artists. I asked, specifically, why it would be OK for someone to transcribe a best-selling book. If it's best-selling, this implies that some measure of the public perception is that this is a *good* artist who does deserve payment for their work. And yet the action of posting the book electronically for mass, free consumption, robs the artist of that money. Your argument assumes that only bad artists are having their music downloaded - that these are the dregs of music production when, in fact, a large number of the downloaded songs come from albums that are being purchased in mass quantity. This summarily disproves your concept that the downloads are an effective means to ensure artistic credibility.

And that's not even what you're arguing.

What you are endorsing, by downloading pirated music, is that it's OK to steal the product that you do want. By downloading any song, you're inherently saying "this is something I want". If aservice pays on a per-song basis, so you could compile your own music catalog (a la iTunes), that's one thing. But what you're doing (and anybody else who "shares" music) is saying "I know I DO WANT this and this so I'll take those but I'm not going to provide any compensation for them". Your argument is akin to saying it is OK to steal as long as you don't steal everything. "Here are eight pieces of silverware. I have no use for all of them, therefore I shall not purchase the set. However, because I do want three of them, it is perfectly acceptable for me to steal them."

Let's say you go to a restaurant 5 times. The first three times are bad. By virtue of your argument, I shouldn't have to pay for last two because oh, well, this restaurant has a reputation for being bad. Nevermind the complete illogic of continuing to patronize a restaurant (or artist) you've decided isn't worth it in the first place. The principled thing to do is to boycott the restaurant entirely, not act like a self-righteous prick who thinks he has a moral/ethical justifcation to dine and dash.

If you don't want the whole CD, don't fucking buy it. But at least have the fucking spine to also not steal those parts of it that you do want.

And by the way, Napster's software, back in the days before they got spanked, was copyright protected.

[Solon]

21. Couple of holes in your argument...

I just want to point out that music sharing isn't a new thing at all, it can be traced at least to the 80s when I used to, as a kid, borrow tapes or CDs and record them on my own tapes and my friends would do the same. All we do now is moved onto a new medium, and the RIAA only has a stick up its butt this time because of the massive amount of file sharing occuring. They are blaming their own failed business model on File Sharing. They have been steadily losing out on market share because of their resistance to change and they fail to adapt to new conditions. It is outragious to pay almost the same amount for a CD that you could pay for a DVD. They promised years ago that they would lower the prices of CDs when costs were reduced, but they broke that promise, now they are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[bleedingedge]

26. Those aren't holes.

Tape duping was/is illegal too (making mix tapes for yourself from tapes you own is not illegal. Making dupes from one tape to another so you can give to someone else is). The reason I don't address it is because
a)it wasn't a part of the thread's overall topic
and
b)it is so uncommon anymore that it barely rates a mention.

But you can go back to newspaper archives of the eighties and you'll see that there were attempts back then to try to keep it to a minimum (at one point, the RIAA or some such organization tried to get blank tapes outlawed, a ridiculous measure that went down in flames, and rightly so). And before tapes, you had reel-to-reels copying; that too illegal.

The internet has gotten so much more publicity re: this line of argument because it is much more ubiquitous. Back in the tape-to-tape days, you at least had to get off your ass, buy a blak and record it while you sat there waiting to flip over the tape. With file sharing, it's so easy to do that there is NO deterent - any lazy sack of crap with a low-end computer and dial-up can do it. You as much as admit this point: "the RIAA only has a stick up its butt this time because of the massive amount of file sharing occuring". So basically you're saying there's a huge market, in which somebody else's goods are being sold for the benefit not of the original maker, but to a third party with no right the good in the first place. And you're upset about the fact that the industry in question is trying to fight back?

>They have been steadily losing out on market share because of their resistance to change and they fail to adapt to new conditions.<

One again, you make my point for me. Yeah, they are losing the market share. But they're not losing it to a superior product or record label of higher quality. They are losing it to themselves. Their own product is being "resold" (i.e. offered for the enrichment of consumers) by people who have no license to do so.

What's the recording industry's alternative: give the music away? That business model don't fly.

Look, I'm not arguing in favor of high priced CD's, crappy boy bands and so on. And I'm certainly not shedding any tears for the music industry in general. My position is one based solely on the attempt to legitimize an immoral/unethical practice. My point is that it's theft, regardless of how you frame the argument.

>They promised years ago that they would lower the prices of CDs when costs were reduced, but they broke that promise, now they are fair game as far as I'm concerned.<

So by this logic, any broken promise is a right to steal or commit other crimes against the promiser? That's a version of American market system that is wholly counter to the ideals of our legal system. I don't know that I can stand behind a system of "vigilante consumerism" in which I can decid, on an ad hoc basis what I will and won't pay for. "I'm short on cash right now but no worries - I just won't bother to pay the guy who repaired my car."

The problem is this: the recording industry plays by the rules. They DO NOT force you to buy a CD. True, they do try to convince you with marketing, etc. But they never put a gun in your hand and say "Buy our overpriced crap". On the other hand, you do not play by the rules because you essentially justify the theft of their product by saying "I'm not stealing all of it therefore I won't pay for any of it".

The real argument comes down to this: Is the song you are downloading of value? By virtue of your downloading it, you signify that you believe it is.
Are you providing compensation for the cost of that item to its producer/originator?
No.
Is that item of value something you could get for free in some manner that would be approved by the producer?
No.

That's the recipe for theft, plain and simple. Apply the same questions to anything tangible, like a dishwasher, and nobody of reasonable mind would say you're doing anything other than stealing.

I said it before: I support pay-as-you go services like iTunes where you download what you want and only pay for what you want. I think a prior post about the lack of a 45-style option is the real culprit. By not giving consumers the option to get their music cafeteria style, the industry has fostered a clusterfrick of a situation. (this is probably another reason why tape-to-taping wasn't nearly as big as P2P. You could get a 45 for like 2 bucks and with about 20 dollars you have the makings of a decent mix tape (legally, by the way) and you got B sides that were sometimes even better than the A). But to use that as a justification for stealing something, well, that irritates me.

I think a lot of the bands, artists and CDs that are out right now are absulute crap, sprinkled with a gem here or there. You know what I do? I don't buy the CDs and choose to live with the fact that I'm never going to own a copy of "Are You Gonna Go My Way" because Lenny Kravitz otherwise sucks monkey balls.

If you choose to download songs from some file-thieving service, at least admit that you're stealing something of value. I'd be content if people would simply stop acting like their petty rationale for theft is somehow a spiritual rebellion against mediocrty. Own your bastard nature, don't deny it. At least that way you're being honest with all involved. Notice that when Lars Ulrich went after Napster and it's clients, he didn't get on some high horse and claim artistic infringement, etc. He said "we want our money". There's nothing wrong with that, especially considering the fact that thousands of people (if not millions) had agreed that his music was good enough to download in the first place.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. Do I have to teach you the same thing again? See post #32. (nt)

[Occulus]

70. ah, here's the rub though

"That's the recipe for theft, plain and simple. Apply the same questions to anything tangible, like a dishwasher, and nobody of reasonable mind would say you're doing anything other than stealing."

The thing is, digital media isn't tangible. And it's telling, isn't it, that when I buy a CD, I have the legal right to do whatever I wish with the media itself. Surprise! When I buy a CD or, say, a proprietary operating system, I'm buying two separate and distinct things: license to use the media on the disc, and physical ownership of the disc itself. The disc is my personal property, the fact that the disc and the license are inseparable notwithstanding.

Since we're talking tangibles vs. intangibles related to copyright issues, let's suppose someone makes a car in which the engine uses a new, exotic technology which could be maintained by the owner of the car. However, the owner can't service their vehicle and must turn to a third party because there is no hood or seam of any kind. If they do take the car in for service, the company prohibits access to the vehicle while it's in the shop. Occasionally the company issues safety warnings associated with the engine, but their shops are equipped, by God, so there's no worry. Cars sometimes crash as a result of their safety warnings either not being fixed or going undiscovered in the first place, and sometimes drivers figure out ways to steer other cars on the road, but those things get fixed, so there's no worry, right?

Wow, it's a good thing Micro$oft doesn't charge for security fixes. I hope I'm not giving them ideas.

The above should illustrate why the comparison you're trying to make is a bit absurd: digital media is unique in its ability to be flawlessly copied in seconds or less for the intangible cost of time and CPU cycles (and possibly media).

Do RIAA artists have a reasonable expectation of profit from their works? That depends on their contracts. Do the companies selling the "official" recordings have the right to soak the consumer based upon the ease of production? They themselves said that would not happen; they themselves claimed the prices would drop. That has not happened. Sharing of their music over this new network is the result.

Have you ever tried to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube? It's a fascinating project. The RIAA et al needs to modify their business model to accommodate filesharing. It's not going to go away, especially because now the tools to share files in general are legal.

As far as filesharing goes philosophically, I'm all for it. It's the birth of a new type of network that isn't dependent upon a "gatekeeper" to exist. You could as easily call it "viral networking". I'd also like to point out that wherever I go that sells music the shelves are full and their are customers in the store. What was the complaint again? I see no grounds for complaint; they're doing just fine.

By the way: if I have a party and ask a cover charge, and I play CDs I've purchased, does that count as a "public broadcast"?

[joeunderdog]

22. The "Cheap Ass Crooks" are the recording industry companies

who FIXED prices and took away the normal framework for capitalism. The Big Six record companies made CD's more expensive than albums (which cost more to produce) and would not even allow record stores lower prices beyond their stipulated minimum. Where's the free enterprise and natural market conditions? That's not fair and that's not America (well, maybe it is...) But that's what always pissed me off. They bought off the pols and were allowed to FIX prices!

Payback's a bitch. I've heavily patronized the music industry over the years, and right now, I'm just stealing my money back. I'm honest, except in this practice, but they are the ones who established the rules that might makes right. Right now, we have the technological advantage.

Record industry giants are all millionaires who have not played it straight with their patrons. They juiced us for decades. They all drive big cars and have several houses and they have the starving artists yelling at the teenagers. Sound familiar?

These theives are the ones you should bitch to. They also changed a word in legislation that took away key rights of artists. It was passed before anyone could notice that the change occurred. The one who made the "mistake" now works for the RIAA, wouldn't you know.

Make CD's $9 and it wont be worth it to burn your own.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bleedingedge]

61. What a weak delete.

I agreed with the guy for his own acknowledgement that he is actually stealing music. Are we THAT afraid of debate that when somebody says "I'm a thief" and another person says "At least you admit it", that the message has to be taken away. **GASP** Somebody might be exposed to ideas that are counter to their self-image.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. Perhaps it was you saying "your bastard nature" that did the trick.

You know, no personal attacks and all. Them rules.

Oh, and before I forget:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Repeat with me:

Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.
Copyright violation is one thing, theft is another.

[bleedingedge]

27. How so? <eom>

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. Just like underage drinking, rape, speeding, or assault aren't theft.

Theft is the subtraction of property that deprives its owner from its use. If someone copies your Toby Keith CD that hardly prevents you from hearing it.

[wuushew]

35. I would have just given the person the original Toby Keith CD

On account of it lacking any inherent value.

Your point is extremely valid, I don't see how you can "steal" non-tangible things.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. You can't. The law SAYS so.

This calling copyright violation "theft" is nothing more than Pravda-ish hyperbolic propaganda from the media monopolies.

[bleedingedge]

53. Yeah, and those bastard artists who want to make a living. <eom>

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. If they say that they don't know the difference either.

Or they DO know the difference and are dishonestly enhancing their argument by means of hyperbole. I don't read minds, so I wouldn't know which is true.

[bleedingedge]

54. Re: Stealing the intangible.

Create anything of value - a story, a song, a joke, a painting, etc.
Now see what you think about having that stolen.

See how you feel when somebody palgarzies the story and then sells it. They haven't stolen anything from you - all they did was to take your words, write it out (on their own paper, we'll assume) and submit it for publication. Nothing tangible in transit, therefore no theft.

I say again, I am not arguing in favor of the RIAA's practices. I'm arguing in favor of a more general respect for an artist's right to create without fear of having their ideas, style or creations stolen. Sometimes when you have a principle, you have to stand by it even when you're helping someboidy you don't like.

Do you really think the ACLU likes the KKK? Not any more than I like the big corporations that control music and churn out wave after wave of crap but that's not going to make me change my opinion that this is ultimately a slippery slope toward artist devaluation.

[Occulus]

71. now now

You're still talking about apples and oranges here:

"See how you feel when somebody plagiarizes the story and then sells it. They haven't stolen anything from you - all they did was to take your words, write it out (on their own paper, we'll assume) and submit it for publication. Nothing tangible in transit, therefore no theft."

That's not what's happening at all. The works are being represented as the author's. There's also no profit involved. As a composer, if someone wants to distribute my works while fully representing them as mine, fine, so long as they're not making a profit on that. It's free exposure for me and, contrary to what you're trying to argue, there's no devaluation of my work, but rather value added, when someone shares it with others. As long as it's an identical copy, right down to my name, shoot, I'd appreciate it!

Slapping their name on my music and then selling it for a profit is an entirely different matter. You better believe I'd want every penny of that, especially if I myself haven't yet sold it.

[bleedingedge]

78. You'd appreciate it right up to a point.

And that point would be when it started to cut into your ability to make money from it.

If we extend the file sharing debate to its logical conclusion, why don't we basically have only X number of CDs printed and distribute those as normal and then encourage people to make copies for free.

The reason is because this caps the level of income you, as the artist, can ever make from a work that may have massive, widespread appeal. Why should an artist's work have an income earning limit when the result of their effort can have a theoretically unlimited profit potential. In a round about way, you're arguing FOR a system that benefits corporations and retail marketers at the expense of the artist.

This is why Metallica went apeshit. They had labored under the aupices of the egregious record company contracts FOR YEARS. These contracts basically made it impossible for them to make any money through record sales. So they had to tour constantly, because that's where the money was.

After years of that, the finally got a contract that earned them a decent royalty so they wouldn't have to rely so much on touring. But then they learn that a lot of the royalty opportunities are being cut into through the free propagation of their work.

And it's not apples and oranges as a comparison. The act of plagiarizing your story would summarily weaken (if not entirely destroy) your ability to make money on that piece of work. So you'd then have to write something else, which could then be stolen again and once again you'd get screwed.

Whether somebody puts your name on it or not is entirely irrelevant - they are enriching themselves (monetarily in this specific example) while giving you no similar enrichment for your work.

So here's my challenge to you: write something publishable. Now send it to a publisher and tell them they can publish it for free. Now watch them make gobs of money on your idea and see how much you really think it's just cool that your name is attached to it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

85. People do it all the time

"So here's my challenge to you: write something publishable. Now send it to a publisher and tell them they can publish it for free."

Happens more with software than with books, but it's copyrighted/copyrightable work nonetheless.

One word: LINUX.

Two words: RED HAT.

I don't see Linus Torvalds (or the other unknown thousands who contribute their code to Linux application, me included) demanding a percentage of Red Hat's income.

[bleedingedge]

52. A semantic argument at best.

You're depriving the artist or the producer of the music of profit from their labor/effort/talent. The theft isn't from your friend, it's from the company that produces the good.

Your logic makes it legal for a criminal enterprise to hijack shipments of goods while in transit from producer to retail outlet. After all, no consumer is being deprived of that good (because, by definition, the goods had never been offered for sale before) and the only entity being harmed is the producer, who sees no profit for their production or effert. Additionally, the hijackers are performing a "Robin Hood" service, as they'll probably sell the goods at a price lower than the retail outlet would have. Are you a mob sympathizer (seeing as how I get to be a corporate stooge in this scenario, I thought it would be fun to unfairly label you too)?.

By your argument, it is perfectly acceptable to steal someone's idea for an invention and then make it yourself. Patent law is then useless and the law of the land would completely discourage invention and instead value theft, subterfuge and the ability to make a product before someone else. And I hate to break it to you, but that's a perfect model for rampaging capitalism because no single inventor has the resources of production enjoyed by a corporation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. Oh, my, where do I begin?

1) Most law violations "deprive" somebody of something. That's no reason to call them all theft.

2) From me arguing that copyright violation is not theft, you're talking as if I said it should be all legal, when all I said is they're two DIFFERENT violations, and calling one the other is hyperbole.

3) Your hijacking situation IS theft. The material goods belong to either the factory or to the retail outlet. The hijackers are stealing them from one or the other. Weak, weak analogy.

4) Don't mix patent and copyright. They're two very different kind of "intellectual property" protections (trademark is yet another). If you think it's the same thing, you have to study a lot.

5) I never called you a corporate stooge. You, on the other hand, called me a mob sympathizer (personal attack and completely wrong, as per item #$2 above.)

Edit: more typos.

[Khephra]

25. Anime

Lots of it isn't even available in the states.

Lots of it you don't even have the chance to know what it's like before you see it.

They price a 40 minute dvd at the price of a normal top-of-the-line dvd mainstream release. Tell me that you think a 30-40 minute show is worth the same rate as a film? Can you say "Gouging the consumers?" (Probably not....)

Sample: Yes. Then buy. Until you come up with an alternative to me buying sight unseen then I'll sample, then buy.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jayfish]

30. It's Called A Return Policy.

All of the hard-goods you mention are sold with a return policy. If you don't like it you return it. When it comes to digital media however the policy suddenly changes to tough luck. Maybe if we were allowed to return intellectual property that sucks we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Jay

[bleedingedge]

34. I agree.

I think one thing that the RIAA could do is to enact (or otherwise encourage) a return policy that would allow a "no questions asked refund". However, this sort of policy for hard good is a relatively new thing - back in the day, if you were going to return something, you had better home you had a good excuse for doing so, fake or otherwise. Circuit City even had an ad campaign within the last five years that was predicated on the idea of the "bogus return excuse".

And here's the real problem: when you take a toaster home and then return it, there's very little chance that what you ultimately did was to take the toaster home and make a duplicate of it. So when you return it, the store (and manuafacturer) can be confident in the fact that your return is for some reasonably valid reason, even if the reason is simply "I changed my mind". Therefore, they know that you have gained no advantage from their product and they have received, in return, none of your money.

No such guarantee exists for digital media - you could take the CD home, burn a copy and return it the same day with the excuse "I didn't like it". Therefore, this a problem that is self-propagated by the very file downloaders you're defending.

And the RIAA's suggestions that they create some sort of anti-copying device for CDs are always met with cries of foul on the grounds of fair use. So basically, you're asking the RIAA to trust a massive group of people who, through their current actions, are already proving they are not trustworthy.

So how do we all feel about buying clothing and then returning it after the event for which it was purchased? Is this all well and good too? Those bastards in the garment industry - they have it coming, what with their demands for "profit"!

[wuushew]

36. The RIAA pegs fees on to blank CDs and tapes

They are attempting to have their cake and eat it too.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[bleedingedge]

55. You're the first person to have the right argument.

If you don't like the RIAA then DON'T BUY CDs and DON'T LEGITIMIZE THEIR PRODUCT by stealing it.

I can't argue against a legitimate boycott of a product. That's a great equalizing aspect of capitalism.

A boycott sends a message to the target industry or organization that there is less profit to be made if the current product/service is offered "as-is".But people who download music are not boycotting the industry - they are sending a signal to the industry that there is MORE profit to be made if the leaks can be sealed.

Therefore, I condede the superior point: boycott the RIAA.

[jayfish]

40. So They Have A Choice To Make.

They can allow a return policy and deal with whatever % of returns are due to copying or continue the current system where no one buys the material and guarantee it is being copied. In reality it's too late either way. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be returned to it.

Jay

[bleedingedge]

56. The whole "the cat's out of the bag" argument

Saying they should ignore or accept a practice because "now it's out there" just doesn't make sense.

By this logic, shouldn't we all just stoip our arguments against the war and say "Well, we can't unfight it?" Shouldn't we just let the Abu Ghraib situation slide because "Well, we can't untorture people".

If this was the gold standard of activity, we'd never bother to try to close loopholes in environmental regs (not that anybody now is actually trying), stop corporate misdeeds, etc.

[Dogmudgeon]

45. Bastards in the Clothing Industry

1. The bastards in the clothing industry enjoy few, or no, Special Privileges that have been written into law.

2. Sharing clothes is legal. At least the last time I checked.

3. The Entertainment Industry is still a form of Organized Crime. If the clothing merchants did 5% of what the MPAA/RIAA's patrons do, RICO would be immediately and vigorously applied.

--bkl

[bleedingedge]

58. My question had nothing to do with sharing clothes.

My question was "is it ethical/moral to buy a piece of clothing for the specific intent of wearing it once and then returning it?" I see no difference between this and file "sharing": you're taking something from which you will benefit (even if only for a short period) and providing no compensation to its producer.

[Selwynn]

64. That's exactly right.

[Khephra]

39. I don't download songs

I download anime that isn't even available on dvd here yet.

Songs I can sample by listening to the radio. SOME (but not even a fraction) of the anime out there I have to buy sight-unseen. I usually download the first few episodes of a show to see if I like it. Sometimes you get lucky and it's shown here on cable, but I'd like you to tell me how I'm going to know if I even want to see a show without even being able to see previews of it, like we get with American made TV and movies.

I always buy the shows that I like, and I get rid of anything else. And once a show is available in the states, then I get rid of the bootlegs. Animation deserves the higher quality that you get from originals.

Find me a way to know if I'm going to be even interested in a foreign show and I'll listen.

[Dogmudgeon]

44. More Robber-Baron Rationalizations

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are offended -- offended I say! -- when organized crime loses so much as a penny when the bagman's kid dips into the till to buy a gumball.

Hey, I have a capital idea -- let's BAN LIBRARIES! Think of all the book revenue that's being stolen by lawless kids illegally downloading (it's called "borrowing" by that particular ciminal element) and reading books. Let 'em get jobs field-testing cigarettes and beer and having sex with kinky businessmen so they can buy their own books without picking John Galt's fine Worsted pocket.

If you're looking for something that "sucks ass", maybe you should take a closer look at the MPAA and RIAA, which is currently the MPAA's rent-boy. These paragons of moral virtue make billions of dollars based on consumer demand, and then lobby for enronous tax breaks, legal loopholes, special intellectual property rights, and carefully-concealed taxes on products they don't directly control.

You do know that you can't legally sing Happy Birthday To You to your kids without ponying up to the Heirs, Assigns, and Entirely Public-Spitited Lawyers of Mildred Hill (dec.) and Patty Hill (dec.), don't you?

Why should any industry have more privileges at law than the people it fleeces?

Not content to buy and sell government officials, the MPAA/RIAA is now writing private moral codes that are being gleefully adopted as having Biblical importance. How much longer before "covet" in the Ten Commandments is re-written to be "share"?

"Thou shalt not share thy neighbor's music, nor thy neighbor's motion pictures, nor thy neighbor's wife, nor thy neighbor's kine, nor thy neighbor's raiment, nor thy neighbor's ass. But letest thou return to the little matter of thy neighbor's music and/or motion pictures: Thou shalt not share, for it is Socialism, and is most Foul in the sight of thy Lord, the Almighty Dollar."

Sorry, dude. If the entertainment industry wants to keep the riff-raff from enjoying its own culture without payment, let it find a way to lock it or put advertizing on it. It might be able to wheedle another Special Break out of Congress to compensate it for its heartbreaking decent into poverty.

I can't even get health insurance. I'll kiss the satanic buttocks of Moloch when Moloch can guarantee me a living wage and access to medical care above the level of DrKoop-dot-com. I've long guaranteed Moloch his own emoluments, and it's time I got a few crumbs in return.

--bkl
Britney is Virginal
Freedom is Slavery
Sharing is Theft
Big Brother Loves You

[NorthernSpy]

49. HELL yes!

What you said, and the way you said it!

:toast: :yourock: :toast:

[bleedingedge]

59. So let me get this straight...

You download music because health care is too expensive? Ever stop to wonder if that form of "protest" might be a tad, I don't know, circuitous?

[Selwynn]

65. Thank you.

[Selwynn]

62. I'm quite proud for you to label my civil disobedience thievery.

I refuse to accept that I should be screwed by ridiculous price gouging and the ridiculous excess of the RIAA - and I'm more than happy to practice civil disobedience, and couldn't care less whether you consider me a thief or not.

Many artists support file sharing, and oppose the exploits of the RIAA. If you care about supporting artists, buying a CD in which the bulk of the profit goes back in the label's pocket isn't doing that. Don't buy CDs and by doing so force the record industry to change its practices that ARE truly hurting artists. Then DO go the concerts and buy merchandise which is where musicians actually make their money.

By the way, if there was a single monopolistic company called "Book Industry of America" that gouged book prices, kept other authors from publishing, and took 90% of all royalties for themselves then I would absolutely support individuals doing whatever they can to subvert that system and get authors work to into the hands of readers.

I don't follow the law because its a law. I follow the law when I believe it is right. Copyright laws in this area are outdated and antiquated. Downloading music does not hurt sales - there is no clear evidence to support that, in fact for many people - like me, downloading music has actually caused me to become interested in artists I would never have known about otherwise, and start directly supporting those bands through concerts and merchandise. The RIAA is stifling innovation and progress, very often over the objection of many artists. I don't follow laws against downloading, because the laws are wrong. Plain and simple.

The cheap ass crook argument would only be true if my decisions had resulted in my spending less of my money in the area of music. It hasn't. It's actually caused me to spend more. But I spend that money on going to the concerts of the bands that I hear and like, buying their merchandise, and supporting them directly. Now, that's not true 100% of the time - some of the time I hear music I like so much, I just go straight out and buy the CD, cough up the money for the record label and do it. Then I feel irritated cause I feel like I'm contributing right back into a broken system, but I do it anyway.

The bottom line is very simple: downloading music means I spend more money on artists and yes, even record labels. In other words, downloading music means I buy more music. However, I will continue to download any time I want because I believe that laws against it and the approach of the recording industry is totally wrong. And like I said, I don't follow laws I think are wrong.

[bleedingedge]

80. Uh, well I've already said a lot of that.

Check my other posts. I've said over and over that:

1)If an artist wants to share their files, that's fine. But if artist A says "Yes" to it, that doesn't create some sort of blanket approval for artists B and C. So by relying on the "some artists support it", you're basically acknowledging that some do not, which summarily proves that you're piracy of their music goes against the wishes of the artists themselves.

2)Boycotting RIAA is the way to go. I agree with you: don't buy the CDs. I've said this in numerous posts. I don't buy CDs, just like I don't download music. But downloading songs is not boycotting. It sends a signal to the RIAA that their produst IS desirable and that there is more profit to be made IF they can seal the leaks. A valid boycott is one in which the organization being boycotted is starved of its livelihood, to the extent that they have to acquiesce to the demands of those boycotting.

>I don't follow laws I think are wrong<

So does that mean you steal those things you think are overpriced? Shoplifting, more often than not, is not a form of social protest.

[Selwynn]

82. I was going to be nasty, but that was a fair argument.

Despite the fact that I really don't feel the need to argue much more with someone who works in the entertainment industry (imagine my shock and surprise at the nature of your arguments considering your obvious bias) I figured I'd at least do this one, since your response was on the thoughtful side. So consider this a respectful (though stoic) nod to your civil and reasonable response:

1) I definitely acknowledge that some do not. Obviously Metallica made a huge stink about napster, as we all remember. Where we disagree is that in the fact that regardless of whether or not an individual artist agrees or not, or the RIAA agrees or not, I don't just believe things like file sharing are convenient - I believe that it is how it ought to be.

I don't support the industrialization of music, or art in any form. I support an society in which music and art was more freely distributed. I don't support a structure in which recording "artists" are in the game to get super rich, nor a structure in which record labels that own everything are guaranteed to get super rich. In short, I don't buy into the money game. As I said before, the music I listen to almost always compels me to support the artist in some way. The 10% of the time it doesn't, its because I think its bad, and I wouldn't want to support it in the first place. Furthermore the artists that I respect support freer avenues for the public to get to their music, file sharing being one of those. And artists that don't, I don't respect, and don't care about supporting.

2. It's not a boycott. I don't share your same laissez-faire attitude about the glories of balance in capitalism achievable through boycott. It's a personal decision. I believe music should be more freely accessible, I believe recording industry monopolies should be toppled, I believe artists should be independent and that art shouldn't be about becoming a millionaire. I won't deny myself the art that I value as a form of protest. What's more I don't agree with your theory of boycotting in the first place. The RIAA knows it has a problem, and the commitment of millions of people to freer more open music access and direct connection to artists is having far more of an effect that just not buying CDs would ever have. In short, I download music because I believe in a world where downloading music is free and legal. That's how it should be. And that's how I choose to operate, because I can.


>I don't follow laws I think are wrong<

So does that mean you steal those things you think are overpriced? Shoplifting, more often than not, is not a form of social protest.

It means I do whatever I think is right.

[kiahzero]

67. You don't even get one sentence before you lie

File sharing is not "stealing." It's copyright infringement.

One's a criminal matter. The other's a civil matter. That's an important distinction. Furthermore, the law on the books for dealing with copyright infringement is for large-scale abuses (hence why the suits seem so ridiculous - the RIAA was using a tort designed for ten thousand dollars or more of infringement against people who had only downloaded a few songs).

Yes, the culture of copyright infringement is a problem. But lying about the applicable law only hurts your case.

And another correction, this one more minor - there are P2P apps (mostly based off of GNUtella) that are open source, so no, they wouldn't "slap a lawsuit so far up your ass..."

[bleedingedge]

81. Agree some, disagree some.

I don't think you'll find me arguing anywhere that I agree with the RIAA's actual tactics (i.e. rounding up little girls who download Britney Spears songs). I agree with them in principle, but not in practice.

I agree with them that file sharing is a problem, that it constitutes a form of theft (sorry, I'm not willing to concede your point on that) and that it needs to be controlled. However, I tend to diverge from that at that point and think the solution is to:
1. Make it easier, somehow to legally judge the purchase-worthiness of an album.
2. Make it possible for consumers to "buffet purchase" their music( again, as iTunes is already doing).

Personally, I think the solution is for the RIAA to encourage and subsidize a system in all record stores where you could listen to an entire CD, in the store, before you bought it. This is on the way - Barnes and Noble is installing a version of it, but you can't listen to the entire CD.

Back in the day, there used to be a store around here that had true listening booths - you could actually ask them to let you listen to a tape (that's how long ago this was) in their store before you bought it. If you liked it, you could buy it, if not they would keep it on hand if someone else wanted to listen to it.

>Yes, the culture of copyright infringement is a problem<

So, acknowledging this, you think that file sharing is still OK? How does allowing file sharing in any way address the problems you yourself acknowledge? How can laws against copyright infringement be enforced if, at the same time, we're also willing to look the other way when it is happening on a massive scale? The whole concept of file-sharing is to devalue the idea of copyrights.

Notice that of all the messages in this thread, your is the very first to even acknowledge copyright infringement as an issue. Almost to a person, the other messages have been simply "you can't steal virtual products". And if that's the case, then we open up a while avenue of industry in which any company can duplicate CDs, movies, books, art, etc and, as long as they note who the artist was that created it, they have the right to keep all of the corresponding profits. The very idea and existence of copyright laws implies that some measure of theft is inherent to the duplication of artistic product - the semantics of "theft" versus "copyright infringement" don't really do much to dissuade my opinion.

>there are P2P apps (mostly based off of GNUtella) that are open source<

I'll admit I painted in too-broad strokes with that. But Napster's software was copyrighted and your own wording admits through omission that there are apps that are not open source.

[kiahzero]

87. I don't think that copyright infringement is OK

I think that P2P apps are fine - they can be a great way for people to distribute their work without a large investment in servers. Peercast and BitTorrent are two good examples of this.

The whole concept of file sharing is not "to devalue the idea of copyrights" - it's to share information. Some of that information is shared legitimately, and much of it is not.

The very idea and existence of copyright laws implies that some measure of theft is inherent to the duplication of artistic product - the semantics of "theft" versus "copyright infringement" don't really do much to dissuade my opinion.

It's a lot more than semantics - it's a key legal distinction. Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a tort for civil action. And, as I said above, current copyright infringement law is not suited for the issue at hand - it's written to address large-scale infringement by a single party, not wide but shallow infringement by lots of small parties.

[DubyaSux]

68. Several problems with your argument...

First, the big one...

If you are a true beleiver of the rant you just displayed, then you should be a firm beleiver in stopping the production of recording equipment - all of it. That would include CD recorders, VCR's, scanners' etc. After all, they could be used for "stealing" too.

Secondly, I didn't realize the RIAA was selling us MP3s. If a person does download an MP3, it's not even the same product in my opinion. MP3s are compressed and are of sub-standard quality.

Thirdly, P2P is not specifically design to steal. I play music and we post some of our MP3s around to GET attention. And there is nothing even remotely unique about that. Moreover, I download cover tunes and my band plays them in front of audiences. Many of those people will ask who does some of the music we play and they'll go out and buy the CD. How is that harming the industry? Should I get sued for that?

This same argument happened when cassette tapes came out. These same claims were being made and miraculously, the music industry discovered a way to survive. And they never had to sue one 80 year old grandma letting her kids play on the computer.

While your argument has merit, it's inconsistent with no reasonable solution for all. So, either the music industry needs to adapt and do better like any other corporation does, or get out of the way and make way for someone who can.

[chenGOD]

72. Errrrr....not all file-sharing is illegal.....

There are many legitmate reasons for file-sharing to exist.

Sharing music is not one of them.

But...Linux distributions? Software that people have written and want to share for free? Legitmately free-to-share music? These are all great reasons for p2p networks to exist.

[wuushew]

31. The whole concept of intellectual property is a farce

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


The point of most intellectual property right law is to recoup the losses spent developing inventions and medicines. Originally copyright law was solely for the benefit of attributing authorship and maintaining the integrity of written works and such. With the advent of the modern capitalism it has evolved into a system of forcing an artificial market structure on goods that could be had for free.

Opponents of file sharing are mostly either corporate stooges or the anything to make work crowd. Just remember this,in truly competitive markets it is impossible to earn anything higher than a nominal profit level. By creating artificial barriers where money regarding entertainment is concerned you are impeding the functioning of an efficient market. The money used to prop up this horse and buggy industry could be spent elsewhere employing other people in other sectors.


Fuck the shareholders.

[jayfish]

33. And "Limited Time" Has Been Extended to 99 Years.

Thanks to Disney's desire to milk a bunch of cartoon character that tell stories that have been public domain for decades.

Jay

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Now that's REAL theft.

Works that should be in the public domain are locked into being private property by endless copyright extensions. Hell, some works that HAD expired already were taken AWAY FROM the public domain when one of those extensions was passed.

Now THAT fits the definition of theft MUCH more closely than downloading songs and movies.

[jayfish]

42. Disney, In Particular, Is The Worst Offender...

because much of their material comes from the re-packaging of works that are already in the public domain. But it wants to lock up it's own IP material until the end of time.

Jay

[bleedingedge]

60. So by that logic...

We should recognize that corporations have largely taken control over artistic venues and basically say "Screw it, there are no rules, you can copy what you want. Bring your camcorders to the theater."

And while this does, in the the end, harm the artists, the better aspect is the way it harms the corporations. Poor artists - friendly fire, I suppose.

>Opponents of file sharing are mostly either corporate stooges or the anything to make work crowd<

And I contend that the proponents are largely self-righteous college idiots who believe in capitalism except where their own money is concerned. Wow, broad generalizations are fun!

In actuality, I'm a stand-up comic who has had loads of material "shared" into other people's acts, who then used my material, in part, to gain work.

So don't tell me I'm a "corporate stooge", jackass. I'm somebody on the other end of the debate, and if you're so afraid of the weakness of your own arguments that you have to resort to name-calling and labeling, well, let's just quit with the formalities and get right to physical violence as a means to "debate".

[Selwynn]

63. You blather on about name calling, then call him a jackass. :)

Awesome. :eyes:

[bleedingedge]

74. Exactly.

You're pissed because I called him a jackass. When in fact he's the one who started with the name calling first. Don't use the weapons on others if you're not willing to have them used on yourself.

[wuushew]

75. Please read my posts more carefully

I never called YOU anything. I made an opinionated observation to a group that you by choice put yourself in. By claiming insult you are pulling the DU equalivent of a Michelle Malkin.

Also was it not you who posted... let's just quit with the formalities and get right to physical violence as a means to "debate"?

[bleedingedge]

79. Well, I guess we're done then.

So if I say something like "All Democratic Underground posters are morons", well, that's jut me making an opinionated observation, right? Are you then going to say I didn't call you anything? (by the way, no offense to DU posters - clearly you're not all morons and I don't necessarily think any of you are morons even though I may disagree with you on certain points).

Additionally I never suggested we should use violence - the quote you used is out of context. I said if you're going to resort to name-calling, we might as well fight. Because once you start using that sort of tactic, you're not furthering or countering the debate in any way.

[Selwynn]

77. Waaa mommy he started it! Yes, I heard that argument when I was 3.

[wuushew]

73. I stand by my original comments

If we assume that governments try to act in the aggregate good of a society's interest we see that the United States falls short in many areas. Often in politics those with entrenched self-interest emerge victorious in policy debates (agricultural tarrifs, subsidees, etc.). If we look at recent threads regarding raising the minimum wage, the defenders of small business bitched and moaned about the deleterious effect it would have on their bottom line, even though numerous posters in that thread pointed out that the aggregate effect of such a measure would alleviate poverty and increase consumer spending. Similar arguments arose this week with defenders of U.S. Air. A combination of the economic factors and poor management have left the air carrier threatened by collapse. Should the government not allow this on the grounds the the employees will lose their jobs?

I believe that most people even non-socialists will realize that most value produced in any economy is through the value of labor. A police officer is paid according to the value of his skill, a brick layer or factory worker is paid in accordance to their contribution of overall product output. Now let us look at intellectual property. An artist may spend X hours in the studio. Once that is complete they contribute nothing more to the manufacture or distribution of their music. So in labor theory how are they entitled to monetary compensation?

The effect of taking the monopoly power away from the entertainment industry would undoubtedly lead to it's downsizing. Just because the competitor is a free service does not devalue the merits of the argument. I fail to see how this a problem. I have patronized both live music and comedy shows before and will continue to do so. No one is entitled to a job especially at the expense of the greater economy. Efficiency in economies is for the greater good, be it in failure of the power companies that existed pre-Tennessee valley Authority, the mandatory retention of of steam locomotive fireman on diesel locomotives, etc, etc. It is no different with the entertainment media demand which could be satiated for free by file sharing.

I neither work in the entertainment industry nor download songs to any great extent, therefore I at least should have a veneer of impartiality. As I would not ask a defendant to serve on his own jury I will not ask you to come to an independent view point on this matter. Just admit that you have entrenched self-interest.

[bleedingedge]

76. I think that's exactly what I did.

I never hid my "identity". I believe my very first post to this thread stated clearly and without equivocation that I was involved in the entertainment industry. By the way, how do people who are downloading music for free NOT have an entrenched self interest in the debate?

The concept that one should be paid what one is worth is not something I am debating. However, I think there are two problems with your argument:

1. A police officer's job is largely composed of learned skills. True, there is some measure of talent in the ability to discern facts from lies and so on, but by and large the tasks of the job can be learned. Artists, on the other hand, have innate, unlearnable talents. In other words, when an artists dies, his/her place in the world cannot be taken over by someone. Such is not the same for a police officer, day laborerm etc. These are fungible social building blocks. Artists are not. There will only be one Picasso, one Bruce Springsteen, one Ernest Hemingway. To me, your argument is essentially that artists should never be paid for anything other than their time, just as a day laborer is. This means artists would either be forced to constantly create (leading to more crap as creation, by the way) OR they would have to be artists second and laborers first. Essentially, you're arguing for an artless society.

If that's your political view, then I think you need to stand up and admit you're a far radical socialist, not just a run of the mill "work for the common good" socialist, who really doesn't have the ability to hold "an independent view" any more than I do, or anybody else does. The illusion of the "objective" debate is a fallacy - everybody has a view. Your point of view is that of universal loathing for corporations and it's therefore no coincidence that you have taken the side of the debate that discounts the validity of corporate interests.

2. A police officer's work, and its benefit to society is clock-limited, by which I mean that his/her work stops at a certain time of the day. Therefore, it makes sense that s/he is paid based on that clock. Now the argument can be made that a cop's work is not clock-limited by virtue of the fact that a criminal caught will not be able to perpetrate crimes even when the cop who caught the criminal is off the clock. That's an interesting argument and one I'd have to think about in mor detail.

On the other hand, let's say you're a fast food worker (and yes, I've been one). Here we have the perfect "clock limited" job. One in which the labor provided is of value only at the time it is undertaken. It makes perfect sense that such a job would pay only for the time during which it is undertaken.

Now compare this to an artist. True, a recording artist is in the studio only for a few hours (though this is a dramatic oversimplification of the length of time and effort it takes to record an album). However, once their work is done, they still provide value to memebrs of society by virtue of enriching the lives of those who listen to their albums. Therefore, it can be said, and I beleive rightly so, that an artist's work is more valuable than the corresponding time it takes to create that work. I beleive it can also be said that an artist's creation is, in fact, property in exactly the same way a carpenter's work is property until it is sold.

I don't know how many times I've said it now, but I'll say it again: if you disagree with the RIAA's pricing practices, then boycott them. Don't buy their CDs. Grow a spine and realize that protest is not easy - sometimes it requires that you sacrifice something. People who download music are basically saying "I want the industry to change, but not so much that I'm willing to take a stand".

If I try on a suit and don't like the pants, is it OK to steal the jacket?

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Tight_rope]

46. Does this mean we can start downloading music again...

[TroubleMan]

50. In celebration, I just downloaded over a gig of pirated music tonight

....AND I DIDN'T EVEN USE P2P SOFTWARE TO DO IT!!

However, it's the thought that counts.

[Tight_rope]

51. LOL.....

[Selwynn]

66. I downloaded "The corporation" because I was dying to see it...

...and its not coming to my area. If it was, I would go see it. When it comes out to buy, I will buy it.

But I have no problem with the fact that I downloaded it so I could watch it right away.

Ironically, watching the corporation made me see even more clearly why arguments of the type bleedingedge is making are such a farce.

[Jack_DeLeon]

69. that is good to hear.