interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[tompe]

Originally Posted by hogleg

That's ludicrous. Maybe I should take what you said, post it to every message board I know, claim its mine, and if I get famous and make a lot, take all the credit. It's not stealing after all, there wouldn't be anything wrong.

Yes, because you know, only stealing is wrong. Other crimes like copyright infringement is of course not wrong. Or? Your argument is ludicrous.

It is irrelevant what made intellectual property rights come about, because this discussion is an ethical one. Maybe all the laws are totally wrong. Maybe the laws don't reach all the way to the intent. Should I steal a program you wrote? Its just 1 and 0's. It's not "real", and the majority of thieving pirates I know would agree with me.

Do you?

If I have published a program in any form you cannot steal it. You can only copy if and commit some other crime than stealing. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Yes it is. It is the stealing of ideas.

Was anyone deprived of the idea? If not, then how could it be stolen?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Was anyone deprived of the idea? If not, then how could it be stolen?

Just because the ideas are not tangible doesn't mean they don't exist. They exist as much as you or I. And yes they can be stolen. Take plagurizing for example.. That is the stealing of ideas for another's gain.

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, because you know, only stealing is wrong. Other crimes like copyright infringement is of course not wrong. Or? Your argument is ludicrous.



If I have published a program in any form you cannot steal it. You can only copy if and commit some other crime than stealing. Why is this so hard to understand?

You don't get it.

what do you think copyright infringement is? You're trying to make a legal argument out of an ethical one. Do you think there is any difference in you stealing my book and me stealing your post? You must, since you're arguing that you stealing my book is fine, and that me stealing your post is somehow different.

If you take a program without paying, its stealing. Just because its not a chair or a paper book or something physical doesn't make it less so. Someone had to write that program, and you're not paying for it. How do you see that as ok? Are they somehow less than human? What is your job? If I come in and steal information on customers is that suddenly not theft? What if that is infomation you get paid for, and I've just taken it and not paid you for it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Just because the ideas are not tangible doesn't mean they don't exist. They exist as much as you or I. And yes they can be stolen. Take plagurizing for example.. That is the stealing of ideas for another's gain.

I thought it was unauthorized usage of a text. Can really a limited set of ideas be pagurized?

I found that the Wikipedia article about intellectual property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

discuses in a good way some of the points that have been made in this thread. Maybe everybody should read it so we can agree that there is different opinions so to pretend or assume that one view is the obbvious one is a strange thing to do.

For example:

Furthermore, due to the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual property, comparing the unauthorized use of intellectual property to the crime of theft presents its own unique problems. In common law, theft requires deprivation of the rightful owner of his or her rights to possess, use, or destroy property. Example: When Joe steals Jane's bicycle, Jane cannot use or have access to it. Since intellectual property (for example, ideas and various transcriptions into written words, audible sounds, or electronic media) are so easily reproduced, no such deprivation to the owner occurs. Example: When Joe makes a copy of the music Jane recorded, Jane is not denied access to her original copy. In this sense, many forms of intellectual property meet the non-rival test for public goods: the use of the good by one individual does not reduce the use of that good by others.

A contrary view is that the deprivation of possession occurs at the outset - when an inventor, author, composer, etc. has a new idea, he or she has the choice of keeping that idea private and using it solely for personal benefit, or sharing that idea with the public in the form of a new invention, book, song, etc. In this context, the grant of limited rights is a "bargain" that the public uses to induce the creator to give up possession at the time the rights are granted, and in this sense, there is a voluntary and irretrievable surrender of possession of the property of the creator. The unauthorized use of intellectual property is then seen as a violation of the fundamental bargain (in the foregoing example, Joe buys Jane's bicycle but pays with a bad check), making the original deprivation of possession wrongful and requiring the public to act to make the good on the bargain by enforcing the rights it originally granted.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by hogleg

You don't get it.

what do you think copyright infringement is? You're trying to make a legal argument out of an ethical one. Do you think there is any difference in you stealing my book and me stealing your post? You must, since you're arguing that you stealing my book is fine, and that me stealing your post is somehow different.

Could you please define the ethical/moral concept of stealing that you are using. I do not recognize it from my studies in philosophy.

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by tompe

Could you please define the ethical/moral concept of stealing that you are using. I do not recognize it from my studies in philosophy.

have your studies brought to Kant? The universal maxim is very much what I am arguing.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay: So what you're saying is that the first copy you get, in whatever format, has full value to you, but any supplemental copies you get, in any format, do not have the same value to you by virtue of the fact that you already have the first one?

Sorry for the delay. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And if you think about it, it's because I do believe in the idea of intellectual property that I feel that way. I've paid for the intellectual property (as well as the formatting effort, which also has value) and I may have paid for some physical production as well (if I bought a p-book), but that's separate. The point is, by buying the book in any format, I feel I've bought a license to use that IP. Not to re-distribute it, but to use it myself.

Now, if I paid for an ebook, and I want to have a nice hardcover version made, I would naturally expect to have to pay a printer/bookbinder to make a copy. That might also involve some nice typesetting, which I'd also have to pay for. If I wanted illustrations, I'd have to pay the illustrator, etc. But I've already paid for the IP of the book content itself, so I don't think I should have to pay that again, so long as I'm not distributing the copy.

Do you at least see where I'm coming from on this?

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright law allows you to do the same, albeit only for 70 years after your death.

If we were talking US law, I'd say you were wrong. It's indefinate. Every time the 1923 copyrights come up for expiration, they are extended.

Copyrights in the US will always be for the time it's been since 1923, plus a decade or so.

Andy

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If you come up with an idea for a machine that will solve the world's energy problems, and by the way make you rich... you blab about it to me at a bar... and I build it first, making the money that you won't... I've just stolen your intellectual property.

That's the bottom line...IP is the ability to prevent someone else from going home and writing, composing, or building something. It's the ability to control another person's life.

You can not draw this symbol, because I say so. (The symbol can be any corporate logo.)

The only reason we tolerate any IP is to encourage innovation, by rewarding the authors & inventors.

Today's IP ensures that big corporations that do not innovate are ensured a monopoly and indefinite profits. That's why the RIAA can (against my will) collect royalties under a "mandatory license" on the music I wrote, performed, and mixed. That's a 7.5% royalty from online radio stations. If I want my cut, I have to pay an up front fee of $100,000.00 US. (sure...ha ha ha...the bomb is in the mail.)

The big corporations are tired of "wasting" money on R&D, so current IP law discourages innovation. Why do you think the copyright on Windows 95 will not ever expire? (It's currently set to 2090, but that's going to be extended ex-post-facto.)

Andy

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by tsgreer

This is where the disagreement stems from. I think that stealing a physical book and downloading it from the internet illegally is exactly the same thing. So does the law in most countries.

Stealing a physical book is theft.

Making a copy of a digital file is NOT.

This is why there are separate laws to cover these two distinct things.

You can cry in your ice cream all you want, but it does NOT CHANGE the LAW and the reality.

Show me, good wise sirs, how if I copy a file, you no longer have it, and I will show you theft.

You cannot, it is not, and all "argument" to the contrary is disingenuous and should be summarily ignored as ignorance by choice.

It's like a sick form of the sickness known as "Political Correctness"...

Tell me...if I say I'm going to punch you in the face, but don't...is such a thing equivalent to smashing in the front of your face with a brick?

Any idiot on the street can clearly see the difference between these two things, both conceptually and logically.

So why is it that some here keep dragging out this weary, tired notion that a copy of a poorly proofread book on some website or whatever somewhere is the same as a book sitting on a shelf in a store?

So a potato is the same as a Volkswagon is it?

I mean, good lord...my 7 year old daughter can see this difference...a bunch of learned adults seem to be...hindered in understanding this?

It's like crazy in a can. Seriously.

You are almost begging to be pointed at and laughed at, loudly and cruelly for continuing to make this absurd assertion at this point.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by hogleg

You don't get it.

No. You don't.

Originally Posted by hogleg

what do you think copyright infringement is? You're trying to make a legal argument out of an ethical one.

Copyright, and the infringement thereof, are legal principles. Making a legal arguement would then make sense.

Originally Posted by hogleg

If you take a program without paying, its stealing.

If it is in a box, in physical form, then taking that copy without paying for it is stealing. From the retailer that bought it. Not from the publisher, or anyone else.

Originally Posted by hogleg

Just because its not a chair or a paper book or something physical doesn't make it less so.

Then I would suggest to you that you learn the difference between property theft and copyright violation.

Originally Posted by hogleg

Someone had to write that program, and you're not paying for it. How do you see that as ok?

As I write software for a living, I'll put it this way:

Its not "OK" but it is not theft. If I sell a copy of the software to a retailer...I've already been paid...a fraction of the MSRP.

If someone aquires a copy of my app, say a copy, from someone else that paid for it, they have NOT STOLEN ANYTHING FROM ME. I have everything I had BEFORE they got it.

What I don't have, is their money. Notice I said "their money"...until they give it to me, it is still their money. When they give that money to me, they no longer have that money anymore.

If someone is running a copy of my app that they got from wherever...they didn't get it from my stockpile. I have lost noting I did not have.

Originally Posted by hogleg

Are they somehow less than human? What is your job? If I come in and steal information on customers is that suddenly not theft? What if that is infomation you get paid for, and I've just taken it and not paid you for it?

All of the above is emotionalism, and pure fallacy.

1. What does humanity have to do with it?

2. No one selling anything on the open market has a "right" to customers. People buy the product if they wish. Anything else is communism.

3. If you enter someone' property and remove anything from their property, yes, that is theft. If you do a "cyber break-in" it is defined similar to a "B & E" because you gained access to a physical system belonging to the victim w/o permission.

4. What if it is info for sale? Do they still have it to sell? Not. Theft. Info. Still. There. What Part. Do. You. Not. Understand?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Tell me...if I say I'm going to punch you in the face, but don't...is such a thing equivalent to smashing in the front of your face with a brick?

Any idiot on the street can clearly see the difference between these two things, both conceptually and logically.

If you plan to rob a bank, but you are caught before actually carrying out your crime, you will (at least in the UK) be charged with "conspiracy to commit armed robbery", which carries the same penalty as the act itself. The law makes no distinction between the "wrongness" of intending to do something, and actually doing it.

So yes, there is a legal difference between planning to punch me in the face, and actually doing it, but the legal penalties are the same in each case.

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by mrkai

No. You don't.


Copyright, and the infringement thereof, are legal principles. Making a legal arguement would then make sense.



If it is in a box, in physical form, then taking that copy without paying for it is stealing. From the retailer that bought it. Not from the publisher, or anyone else.



Then I would suggest to you that you learn the difference between property theft and copyright violation.



As I write software for a living, I'll put it this way:

Its not "OK" but it is not theft. If I sell a copy of the software to a retailer...I've already been paid...a fraction of the MSRP.

If someone aquires a copy of my app, say a copy, from someone else that paid for it, they have NOT STOLEN ANYTHING FROM ME. I have everything I had BEFORE they got it.

What I don't have, is their money. Notice I said "their money"...until they give it to me, it is still their money. When they give that money to me, they no longer have that money anymore.

If someone is running a copy of my app that they got from wherever...they didn't get it from my stockpile. I have lost noting I did not have.




All of the above is emotionalism, and pure fallacy.

1. What does humanity have to do with it?

2. No one selling anything on the open market has a "right" to customers. People buy the product if they wish. Anything else is communism.

3. If you enter someone' property and remove anything from their property, yes, that is theft. If you do a "cyber break-in" it is defined similar to a "B & E" because you gained access to a physical system belonging to the victim w/o permission.

4. What if it is info for sale? Do they still have it to sell? Not. Theft. Info. Still. There. What Part. Do. You. Not. Understand?

1. The title of this post is "interesting NY times on copyright morality." Legal arguments can not and should not be debated here. I have said that from the beginning. It's continuously ignored by you and these other yahoos who claim anything related to someone losing something real must happen before it's stolen. I suppose someone stealing your checkbook is legal if you catch them before they use it.
2. As a software developer, your company is probably a corporation, a legal entity. If I did want to argue the legality, which I don't, theft of a program stops profits to shareholders and makes a difference to them, just as it would to everyone in a publishing arena. Just because it may not be money directly taken from your pocket doesn't mean it's not theft. Where do you think the money that they pay you with comes from? Maybe from profits, which are impacted through piracy.? Try making that argument in court and see it takes more than 20 minutes to throw you in jail.
3. Something has to be unusable to me before its stolen from me? I'm sure victims of identity theft would glad to hear that. If some one stole my Identity would I cease to exist? When I write a book, and you get it without paying for it, that doesn't impact my royalties?

The rest of your arguments are absolutely stupid, and I suggest you look at the title of the thread and concern yourself with where is says "Legally, I'm not stealing, because...". Your involvement in this thread amounts to one big straw man argument. You've rebutted arguments concerning the morality of copyrights with the legal definitions and whether it's really stealing. A retarded monkey could see that it is, and you are just throwing out justifications for doing it.

Learn to argue.

[deviant]

I'd like to deviate from the topic a little, but I assure you, it's still very much related.

For one, the IP industry (excluding the actual authors in most cases), brought this on themselves. Their policies actually encourage people to steal from them because of the blatant way they try to hunt a small minority of people who don't want to pay for an author's product no matter the price. This I do not support, but in my eyes, even they are better than the publishers and retailers. In an attempt to prevent copyright theft, these publishers have developed asinine protection systems that hinder a greater majority. And thus that majority rebels against them.

Another issue here is the inflated pricing and low author percentages involved. This, put shortly means that authors do not receive their due pay not because someone is illegally copying their work in a digital format instead of buying it, but because their publishers are giving them too small a piece of the cake. Thus, when someone is stupid enough to buy an author's work, he's not really supporting the art, he's supporting a huge, greedy industry which cares for neither the author nor the customer but for its profits. Ebook piracy would collapse if all there was to pay for an ebook was the 8% authors receive.

Sure, some may argue that publishers add value to the author's work. However, I believe that neither is this value worth their 92% share nor is it always as flawless as it should be - how many times have you failed to get a book because it wasn't available where you live? Is the physical copy worth the trip to the store and the increase price? To those that it is, ebook piracy means nothing because it's rather hard to pirate a physical copy.

Traditionally, consumers were offered two choices on the market - buy or not buy. By not buying, they were forced (thus, it wasn't exactly their moral choice but a reality one) to go without. With the product available over the internet they no longer had to go without and indeed, should not because, the purpose of the market should be to make a price any buyer is willing to pay and any the seller is willing to receive, not an imposed "this costs so and so" concept where people are denied something because somebody's idea is that higher prices equal higher profit (which is not always true).


In the end, is it any wonder people download things off the internet?

EDIT:

If you plan to rob a bank, but you are caught before actually carrying out your crime, you will (at least in the UK) be charged with "conspiracy to commit armed robbery", which carries the same penalty as the act itself. The law makes no distinction between the "wrongness" of intending to do something, and actually doing it.

What if you're only thinking of it? I doubt any country in the world could charge you for thinking of robbing the bank.