Is File Sharing Theft?

[BarryDonegan]

http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/1225/21418/Is-File-Sharing-Theft

"It is my argument that file sharing is not theft. When labels sell a song or compact disc to the consumer, that person does not view that as a licensing agreement. They don't sign a contract to license the song for personal use per se during any aspect of the process of purchasing a compact disc."

IDK how many music fans we have here, but I figured our community would want to be involved in this discussion.

I was asked to guest blog on this to give the artist's perspective on the issue as thegauntlet.com and Sumerian Records' founder Ash Avildsen got into a bit of a feud over file sharing.

What does everyone think? Is it theft?

The above blog was my contention, which is that it is not.

[dannno]

I agree.

Joe Rogan was a guest on Adam Carolla's podcast recently, and they were talking about podcasting in general. Both of them put out 4-6 hours per week of podcasting in, and they essentially get nothing for it, directly. The ads provide about enough money to keep them up and running and not much more. They provide it for free, and in fact Joe Rogan provides it in as many formats as possible including ustream (video), podcast (itunes), stitcher, zune and an mp3 on his website. The difference they both see in their careers is that when they tour on the road doing their comedy routines, they get bigger venues, those venues sell out, and 90% of the people that attend are podcast listeners so they enjoy the show more.

So giving yourself exposure, even if you don't make money, is a great thing for an artist. In fact, it's probably the most important thing. Record labels tried to create a monopoly on that by promoting artists via radio and record sales, but they have recently found that their services can be done more cheaply, often pretty much for free over the internet and all of their old techniques and infrastructure are pretty much useless.

[BarryDonegan]

Record labels tried to create a monopoly on that by promoting artists via radio and record sales, but they have recently found that their services can be done more cheaply, often pretty much for free over the internet and all of their old techniques and infrastructure are pretty much useless.

EXACTLY! The internet has reduced the costs associated with promoting an artist to the end-consumer. The key is for musicians to borrow less money and build a more workable business model using various revenue streams, but these labels are struggling to deal with this given the old 30-page contracts they have that pertain in no way to the modern industry, so the bands are eating all the other revenue streams without giving them a piece meaning labels put money into artists, and nothing comes out the other end.

There is no need for so much centralized capital investment in music anymore, especially with more and more people doing microfinance through things like Kickstarter.

[DamianTV]

The cases they try to make against file sharing are as stupid as trying to prohibit someone from playing music they bought in a bar, like if they were a bartender. The NFL did this, prohibiting the size of the TV's that bars can display a football game on. Yeah, that worked out real well. What else? You bought a song for license to play only in this particular vehicle? Now you have a passenger in that vehicle? Now they want you to pay more?

I am sick of the record companies telling me what music I should like and that I should have to go buy it even if it is utter crap.

[BarryDonegan]

The NFL did this, prohibiting the size of the TV's that bars can display a football game on. Yeah, that worked out real well. What else? You bought a song for license to play only in this particular vehicle? Now you have a passenger in that vehicle? Now they want you to pay more?

Yeah, this is something that works maybe in the case of software but just simply can't be applied to the music industry. For play in a movie soundtrack or video game licensing has obvious value, but restricted-use licenses for music are wholly uninforcible, and no matter how many LimeWire's are shut down, a million micro-blogs will grow up in its shadow afterward. A completely different revenue model is necessary, which, luckily, is something I'm working on via a new company we started called Gazzmic (http://www.gazzmic.com). :)

I can't go into too many details yet though as I'm still bound to a non-disclosure which I consented to sign.

[VIDEODROME]

I saw a band called Big Gigantic that seems to post all their music for free on their website but they do have a Donations Button you can click. So sure the music is out there but think if you like them you should support them so they can keep making albums.

A German band Einsturzende Neubauten has done both approaches. They have sold albums the traditional way on CD but they also started a Fan paid subscription service. If you subscribe you get exclusive content including Albums shaped by input from the supporters.

Also E-N got burned by a publisher on one of their albums and they told their fans to steal it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thread needs a poll. I say file sharing is not theft.

[newbitech]

No file sharing is not theft, its sharing. I think the problem comes in when that file is reproduced via copying which is what you do when you download something. This creates another problem. If you download something without permission, the remedy is to simply destroy the copy. Now the burden is back on the original "owner" to prove that the copying and deleting caused harm/damages. If the file is copied and then made available for others to copy, then you have distribution. Once something is distributed, it is out of the sources control, and damages can be proven. However, this creates yet another problem, what right does the original owner have over distribution if the original was paid for in full with no implicit or explicit definition of who owns the copy after it was paid for? I paid for my copy, now I am the new owner of that copy. As long as I am not trying to make the claim that I produced the original work, or as long as I am not reselling an original work, then there is no damage since I am the owner of that copy and as the owner, I am allowing free distribution of "MY" copy.

To me its circular. If the original owner does not want to give up his/her rights to distribution of copies, they should probably have some way of tracking that distribution, OR increase the price, OR find a way to distribute single sourced "copies". I don't think laws fix this problem, because the technology to create these copies is open source and freely distributed. So in essence, by embedding an original work inside of these technologies, the original source is agreeing to allow distribution via the open source channel. The solution is to embed copies of the original work in closed technology.

[Lucille]

Secrets of the Most Successful Touring Band of All Time (http://mises.org/daily/4662)


Did this taping hurt album sales? No. It served as free marketing for the band. And as David Meerman Scott and Brian Halligan point out in their new book, Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead: What Every Business Can Learn From the Most Iconic Band in History, the band went as far as to set up special sections for tapers in 1984. These sections were behind the band's mixing board and would form a "forest of professional-grade microphones rising to the sky."

So if there were all these bootleg tapes floating around, has anyone been buying Dead albums? I guess so: the band has had 19 gold albums, 6 platinum albums, and 4 albums that have gone multiplatinum.

Doing business The Grateful Dead way (http://blog.mises.org/11689/doing-business-the-grateful-dead-way/)

[ClayTrainor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

[VIDEODROME]

The attempts at blocking music or information seem futile.

I mean right now I'm taking a Welding class. After I finish and I tell another person what I've learned am I stealing from the teacher?

[specsaregood]

..

[Matt Collins]

Copyright infringement is not theft. And downloading is not unlawful, uploading is.

But it should be copy privilege, not copyright. Government can't grant rights, it can only grant privileges.

[DamianTV]

If I walk into a store and shoplift a CD, that CD took materials to create, produce, and distribute. The reseller had to purchase a physical media storage and expects to sell that product to the consumer. So if I stole a CD, it is theft. It doesnt even matter if there is nothing on the CD, it is theft.

However, if I download a song, there really isnt a victim. No one lost revenue for their distribution or physical product or media. There isnt really a victim. That is a point that will probably be debated heavily. The assumption of there being a victim is based on the idea that if I had not downloaded said song that I would have paid full price for it. Guess what, I wouldnt. If I couldnt download it or listen to it over the radio or on someone elses CD, I probably would not buy it for myself.

Someone else made a post in the Off Topic forum a while ago showing how the music company sales fell off a cliff after CD's which pertained somehow to piracy, and I dont remember well enough and cant find the thread...

[specsaregood]

However, if I download a song, there really isnt a victim. No one lost revenue for their distribution or physical product or media. There isnt really a victim. That is a point that will probably be debated heavily. The assumption of there being a victim is based on the idea that if I had not downloaded said song that I would have paid full price for it. Guess what, I wouldnt. If I couldnt download it or listen to it over the radio or on someone elses CD, I probably would not buy it for myself.


The disagreement is that some of us don't think you have the right to the product of somebody elses labor, just because you can take it. It is their work product and should own the right to decide who gets to have it in their posession and under what conditions.

Just because you weren't gonna buy it anyways matters not. If you weren't gonna buy it, then you shouldn't have it.

[Aldanga]

Everything you need to know (http://mises.org/books/against.pdf).

[Wesker1982]

http://mises.org/media/category/226/Against-Intellectual-Property

imo

[dannno]

The disagreement is that some of us don't think you have the right to the product of somebody elses labor, just because you can take it. It is their work product and should own the right to decide who gets to have it in their posession and under what conditions.

Just because you weren't gonna buy it anyways matters not. If you weren't gonna buy it, then you shouldn't have it.

That's an interesting theory, one that I completely disagree with, but you have to realize that whether you are "right" or not, that method is going to lose anyway. You can't stop people from sharing music. I disagree with you because I don't think YOU have the right to tell me what I can do with my property. People don't sign contracts at the record store, and if they did and those contracts were strictly enforced, too many people would just stop buying music like that. Way too much of a hassle.

Are you reading anything we are writing about the benefits that artists receive from letting people share their work? If I were a musician, I would rather a potential fan download my music for free than not have it all. Can you justify why a musician would prefer that a potential fan not have their music at all than download it for free? That doesn't make any sense from an artists' standpoint to restrict their work like that. You seem to be stuck in the old paradigm.

[raiha]

Government can't grant rights, it can only grant privileges.
I wish. Look at what's happening here: :mad:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9192903/internet-copyright-bill-passed-under-urgency/


Parliament has passed under urgency a controversial bill designed to prevent illegal file sharing by internet users.

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill allows copyright owners to send evidence of alleged infringements to internet service providers (ISPs), who will then send up to three infringement notices to the account holder.

If the warnings are ignored, the copyright owner can take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal and the tribunal can make awards of up to $15,000 against the account holder.

There is provision in the bill which would allow a copyright holder to apply through a court for suspension of service, but it won't come into force unless the Government considered the warning system wasn't effective.

"This will enable the Government to work with stakeholders to monitor and review the situation and determine when a further deterrent may be needed," Commerce Minister Simon Power said.

The new regime would take effect on September 1. The notice regime would not apply to mobile networks until October 2013.

"Online copyright infringement has been damaging for the creative industry, which has experienced significant declines in revenue as file sharing has become more prevalent.

"This legislation will discourage illegal file sharing and provide more effective measures to help our creative industries enforce their copyright."

The need to protect copyright material was recognised in 2008, when the previous Labour government introduced legislation which would have allowed internet users to be disconnected for repeat infringements.

That caused an outcry from user groups, and the current government put it on hold while it worked out a compromise.

The compromise, the latest bill, was introduced in February last year and went through a long and contentious select committee process.

"This issue has a long and chequered history and I would like to thank all submitters for their help in shaping for their help in shaping the Government's online copyright regime," Mr Power said.

Labour's Clare Curran last night acknowledged that the legislation introduced by the previous government had caused "a grand stoush".

"In coming years, the internet will become increasingly more essential in our lives," she said.

"Disconnection is a disproportionate remedy for file sharing...this bill represents a better law, although I know it won't satisfy everyone."

The bill was being debated last night and today under urgency, called mainly to pass the Canterbury earthquake legislation.

The Government put several other bills on the urgency list which have been on the order paper for a long time, including the copyright legislation.

The bill went through its second reading, committee and most of its third reading debates last night, and passed its third reading today by 111 votes to 11.

The Green Party, independent MPs Chris Carter and former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira voted against the bill.

Internet users protested against the legislation on Twitter and Facebook by blacking out their image boxes and using the hashtag #blackout.

[low preference guy]

I wouldn't call it theft, but if you agreed in a contract to not share the songs, then it is a violation of the contract.

[specsaregood]

That's an interesting theory, one that I completely disagree with, but you have to realize that whether you are "right" or not, that method is going to lose anyway. You can't stop people from sharing music. I disagree with you because I don't think YOU have the right to tell me what I can do with my property. People don't sign contracts at the record store, and if they did and those contracts were strictly enforced, too many people would just stop buying music like that. Way too much of a hassle.

In which case I would think the marketplace would force them to change their business model and it would be voluntary.



Are you reading anything we are writing about the benefits that artists receive from letting people share their work? If I were a musician, I would rather a potential fan download my music for free than not have it all. Can you justify why a musician would prefer that a potential fan not have their music at all than download it for free? That doesn't make any sense from an artists' standpoint to restrict their work like that. You seem to be stuck in the old paradigm.
Sure and If I was in that business I would consider it. But I think it should be their choice. If you disapprove of their terms or price THEN GO WITHOUT. You have no right to the result of their work.

[trey4sports]

I believe it is theft.

[jack555]

i believe it is theft, it is borderline but it feels (morally) wrong to me

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure and If I was in that business I would consider it. But I think it should be their choice. If you disapprove of their terms or price THEN GO WITHOUT. You have no right to the result of their work.

The problem with this argument is that once a person buys a song (or whatever) it becomes their property, just like any tangible item. By virtue of this ownership, the owner has every natural right to do with it as he pleases. Laws that run contrary to that are made in denial of human nature, economics, and how the creative process and society naturally work.

[low preference guy]

The problem with this argument is that once a person buys a song (or whatever) it becomes their property, just like any tangible item. By virtue of this ownership, the owner has every natural right to do with it as he pleases.

It seems to me that you want to impose the particular kind of contract you like on them. They should be free to set the conditions of the sell, including the condition that the buyer is not to share the song.

[specsaregood]

The problem with this argument is that once a person buys a song (or whatever) it becomes their property, just like any tangible item. By virtue of this ownership, the owner has every natural right to do with it as he pleases. Laws that run contrary to that are made in denial of human nature, economics, and how the creative process and society naturally work.

But are you buying a song or whatever? Or licensing it? I don't sell my software, I license its use. I'm pretty sure you are licensing it, not purchasing it. Purchasing the music would be a bit more expensive because yes, then you would be the owner.

[Kludge]

Sure and If I was in that business I would consider it. But I think it should be their choice. If you disapprove of their terms or price THEN GO WITHOUT. You have no right to the result of their work.
No right exists to their work, but why should anyone be without when their having of the IP would not be detrimental to anyone?

Let's take For Liberty as an example. It initially was not released for free, but widely pirated. Those who did not pay for the information presented probably would not have seen it otherwise, but they obviously did not respect the IP creator enough to agree to his terms. However, has there been anything but positive when the information is distributed, even when the creator does not see the return he demands for it?

Even considering something utilitarian like an operating system - what are the negatives of that IP being distributed without authorization at no charge? Simply by increasing their market share, the company which produces the OSes has benefited. It is disrespectful, but has harm come of it?

There is no right to pirated software. Pirating often takes a lot of very clever work, and for many titles, there is no cracked release. When a cracked release is made available, what suffering comes when people indulge in the privilege of having the cracked software available? I'd argue it's generally beneficial to have the information available. If I did not have access to pirated software, I would be unable to fully evaluate it, and would not buy it. I have not purchased IP I haven't first pirated in a long time -- when I do find something I like, I make multiple purchases of it directly from the devs if possible. That wouldn't happen if I couldn't use the software, first.

[heavenlyboy34]

It seems to me that you want to impose the particular kind of contract you like on them. They should be free to set the conditions of the sell, including the condition that the buyer is not to share the song.

No, I am saying that I DON'T want a contract imposed. By virtue of owning the item, I can do whatever I want with it (providing I don't hurt others, of course), just like I can with "tangible" property, like the computer I'm typing on now-break it, copy it, use it, tweak it, etc, etc.

[low preference guy]

No, I am saying that I DON'T want a contract imposed. By virtue of owning the item, I can do whatever I want with it (providing I don't hurt others, of course), just like I can with "tangible" property, like the computer I'm typing on now-break it, copy it, use it, tweak it, etc, etc.

But you're restricting their ability to engage in a contract. If I want to engage in a contract with specs, and part of the contract is that I transfer to him a copy of one of my songs, and another part of the contract says that he can't share it online, why can't we have that contract?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

It should always be the content creators position that is respected. If they don't allow you to share their creation, then don't. I don't think there's a rule for all works.

[nayjevin]

Reminds me of this:

Are Jimmy Page and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin Plagiarists? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287612-Are-Jimmy-Page-and-Robert-Plant-of-Led-Zeppelin-Plagiarists)

[heavenlyboy34]

But you're restricting their ability to engage in a contract. If I want to engage in a contract with specs, and part of the contract is that I transfer to him a copy of one of my songs, and another part of the contract says that he can't share it online, why can't we have that contract?

Contract and purchase are different things. I've never signed a contract to buy a CD, book, etc. Have you? If you tried to make such a contract, I doubt many people would buy your work. Imagine all the people who would enjoy your work without paying you if someone donated it to a library! The HORROR! :eek:

[LibertyRevolution]

I own the HDD. I pay for the bandwidth.
If I download a torrent that tells my hdd to write strings of 1's and 0's together on my hdd in some specific order, and that order happens to make a video or a song, I have stolen nothing.
Its my hdd...I can make the 1's and 0's how ever I want.

The first play of your song on the radio should end your copyright, if you broadcast your work openly on the air, then i say you lost your right to it.

[low preference guy]

Contract and purchase are different things. I've never signed a contract to buy a CD, book, etc. Have you? If you tried to make such a contract, I doubt many people would buy your work. Imagine all the people who would enjoy your work without paying you if someone donated it to a library! The HORROR! :eek:

Of course you haven't because today we have copyright laws. In the absence of copyright laws, at least some of those transactions would be made with a contract. That's the point I think specs was making.

[jclay2]

Is File Sharing Theft?

Havn't we beat this dead horse multiple times over?

[BenIsForRon]

It depends on whether you're selling the content or not. If you're selling another person's work without their permission, you should be punished by the legal system.

[TrentEmberson]

Not theft, progress.

The market will force their business models to change. Not all digital content can be shared/pirated - ask Blizzard or Rhapsody. The name of the game is keep your product behind a firewall and charge a monthly fee for access. It's just a question of how many torrents need to be downloaded before the producers of digital content figure out why they're leaking profits on a product with a marginal cost of zero.

[nayjevin]

if you broadcast your work openly on the air, then i say you lost your right to it.

That's the thing though, the song isn't broadcast - a copy of the song is. And any other copy would require labor mixed with material. The owner of the new product is the person who provided the labor.

I kind of feel like I owe a few artists for my having enjoyed their work without transferring any of my wealth to them. And if I see Bobby McFerrin or Imogen Heap struggling for a meal by God I'll be there. But if I were ever lucky enough to make a living with art, and I found out that art was downloaded, I'd first be honored, second would marvel that it could be appreciated at all among the billions of people of the world, third remind myself I'm blessed, and fourth thank the person, as it would be inspiration to keep producing art.

[Humanae Libertas]

Not theft for sure. Should we be really throwing people in jail for downloading 5 songs or fining them millions?

[Bman]

Contract and purchase are different things. I've never signed a contract to buy a CD, book, etc. Have you? If you tried to make such a contract, I doubt many people would buy your work. Imagine all the people who would enjoy your work without paying you if someone donated it to a library! The HORROR! :eek:

I don't like this argument because I contend that you have. I imagine all of those things have law binding marks on them. As such when you hand over cash you are agreeing to the terms. Regardless if you physically pen your name or not. The transaction is the contract. If it wasn't why bother marking the material as such?

[Ninja Homer]

By definition, it is copyright infringement, not theft. Whether it is right or wrong to do is another issue altogether.

The way I personally feel that copyright law should work is that only the owner should be allowed to profit from their idea, unless they grant copy rights to somebody else to do the same.

[low preference guy]

Havn't we beat this dead horse multiple times over?

does the federal reserve counterfeit?

haven't we beat this dead horse multiple times over?

maybe we should stop talking about it.

[specsaregood]

Of course you haven't because today we have copyright laws. In the absence of copyright laws, at least some of those transactions would be made with a contract. That's the point I think specs was making.

Exactly. Although I think the argument that "I didn't agree to a contract" is silly because I don't believe for a second that those taking part in copyright violations don't know the law or aren't aware of "copyright" when they purchase or "steal" the products. But hey, want to make that argument that is fine. I have no problem with requiring those content providers to put the terms and conditions in the packaging of their product, or requiring vendors to make the customer aware of the terms before purchsae. Then we should be able to agree that they agreed to the contract and treat violations as a breach of contract. Just like most software vendors require nowadays.

[eOs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

To be clear, I am for copying floppies.

[Sentient Void]

Information, ideas, and 'arrangements' of property - are not finite, scarce resources. They are inherently non-rivalrous, non-scarce. The concept of property and by extension 'the market' was created in order to own, control, coordinate, and manage scarce resources. Thus, information, ideas, and 'arrangements' of property, do not constitute legitimate property.

Artificial scarcity created by the State is immoral, destroys wealth creation, and makes the market less efficient.

In a truly free market, IP would not exist (as it is only a State-granted privilege).

If physical resources/goods were somehow made non-scarce (like the replicators in Star Trek), there would be no need for a free market, nor the need for Lockean sticky property rights in those resources / goods.

It's also interesting to note that in Star Trek, due to the replicators making a post-scarce society, they don't need the free market nor the price system for goods / resources any longer. I know Star Trek is fiction, but they are accurate in that regard - though there would probably still be a market for collectibles, certain services, and certain luxuries (such as original works of art, etc)... but I digress.

[specsaregood]

No right exists to their work, but why should anyone be without when their having of the IP would not be detrimental to anyone?




Let's take For Liberty as an example. It initially was not released for free, but widely pirated. Those who did not pay for the information presented probably would not have seen it otherwise, but they obviously did not respect the IP creator enough to agree to his terms. However, has there been anything but positive when the information is distributed, even when the creator does not see the return he demands for it?

Did you just make a "the ends justify the means" argument? Well, hell I'l just steal some of your income to feed hungry children in mongolia.



Even considering something utilitarian like an operating system - what are the negatives of that IP being distributed without authorization at no charge? Simply by increasing their market share, the company which produces the OSes has benefited. It is disrespectful, but has harm come of it?

You make an argument, that if convincing I might choose to be charitable and let you use it. You want to tell me what is best for my business of producing an OS? That is a bit arrogant.
Downsides? support? or a bad reputation from people using an unsupported version?



There is no right to pirated software. Pirating often takes a lot of very clever work, and for many titles, there is no cracked release. When a cracked release is made available, what suffering comes when people indulge in the privilege of having the cracked software available? I'd argue it's generally beneficial to have the information available. If I did not have access to pirated software, I would be unable to fully evaluate it, and would not buy it. I have not purchased IP I haven't first pirated in a long time -- when I do find something I like, I make multiple purchases of it directly from the devs if possible. That wouldn't happen if I couldn't use the software, first.
A lot of time cracks also have trojan/virus hidden in them. Or they are buggy and/or don't get bugfixes. Leads to a bad reputation and can hurt future sales.

You guys sure seem to want to make the argument that just because it doesn't directly "hurt" the content producer then its all good. Well bullshit. You don't have a right to the product, plain and simple. If you don't like the terms of the producer, then GO WITHOUT. You are making silly excuses for profiting off the hard work of others.

[Sentient Void]

You guys sure seem to want to make the argument that just because it doesn't directly "hurt" the content producer then its all good. Well bullshit. You don't have a right to the product, plain and simple. If you don't like the terms of the producer, then GO WITHOUT.

No, the point is that they, nor anyone can own an idea or information. IP is theft, through and through. It is anti-free market, and it is anti-property. It is telling me what I can or cannot do with my justly owned property. This implies that either the 'originator', or the State, owns my property - and not me.

It's State-granted and protected artificial scarcity, when there inherently is none.

[specsaregood]

No, the point is that they, nor anyone can own an idea or information. IP is theft, through and through. It is anti-free market, and it is anti-property. It is telling me what I can or cannot do with my justly owned property. This implies that either the 'originator', or the State, owns my property - and not me.

It's State-granted and protected artificial scarcity, when there inherently is none.

This is already been covered, you don't OWN it. You have a license to use it according to the given terms and conditions. If you want to OWN, then contact the content producer and work out those conditions.

[pcosmar]

By definition, it is copyright infringement, not theft. .

No, it is only Copyright infringement if you are reproducing it and selling it as your own.

Sharing a file is sharing a file.
If I download something that is freely available to my files it is my file. If I share my file with another it is no one elses business.
It is my file. If I record a broadcast signal, the recording is mine.
If I say "hey Bubba, listen to this" that is my right.

If I buy a record and share it with someone, it is my property and mine to do with as I please.
If I reproduce it for sale, and claim it as my own it is a copyright infringement.

Once I buy a copy it is my copy to do with as I please.
Don't like it... Don't sell copies. Don't play it on open airwaves.

[Sentient Void]

This is already been covered, you don't OWN it. You have a license to use it according to the given terms and conditions. If you want to OWN, then contact the content producer and work out those conditions.

No. You don't seem to get it. If I have the information necessary to arrange my property in a certain fashion - I don't have to contact anybody. It's *my* justly owned property, I can do what I want with it without having to contact anybody.

It's their job to get me to pay for their specific product or service, by granting me access to something I would not be able to have access to on my own at all or conveniently. That's how the market works.

Once again, in a free market, IP would not exist. It is State granted monopoly to create artificial scarcity where there is none.

[specsaregood]

No. You don't seem to get it. If I have the information necessary to arrange my property in a certain fashion - I don't have to contact anybody. It's *my* justly owned property, I can do what I want with it without having to contact anybody.

It's their job to get me to pay for their specific product or service, by granting me access to something I would not be able to have access to on my own at all or conveniently. That's how the market works.

Once again, in a free market, IP would not exist. It is State granted monopoly to create artificial scarcity where there is none.

I already stated earlier in the thread that I would be find with making sure consumers were aware of the contract and terms and conditions. Or do contracts between parties not exist in your free market?

[BarryDonegan]

Exactly. Although I think the argument that "I didn't agree to a contract" is silly because I don't believe for a second that those taking part in copyright violations don't know the law or aren't aware of "copyright" when they purchase or "steal" the products. But hey, want to make that argument that is fine. I have no problem with requiring those content providers to put the terms and conditions in the packaging of their product, or requiring vendors to make the customer aware of the terms before purchsae. Then we should be able to agree that they agreed to the contract and treat violations as a breach of contract. Just like most software vendors require nowadays.

The issue I have with this argument is that the vast majority of music content providers these days do not mind if their music is torrented. For the most part, it benefits the vast majority of artists. The only people who don't benefit from it are those artists on major labels who borrow so much money the whole world has to buy a CD in order to profit. So, in that sense, it is pretty confusing for the consumer.

I also would be fine with an artist providing a licensing agreement for fans which would be enforceable, but good luck getting the consumer to jump on board with that. If Madonna stopped selling CDs and started selling single person use licenses for her CDs with some kind of enforcement mechanism, I have a feeling we would see a new artist rise up to take her place who would be willing to provide music without a single person license. Selling recorded music is not a required part of the music business model; it is just the way it was done back in the day because it was so expensive to record tracks before the digital era. Why didn't labels mind spending $100,000 on a music video and not monetizing it? It's a promotional loss leader.

Besides, there are other ways to monetize the music industry. I have a binder full of them inspired by the Mises movement, and they are about to get implemented. ;)

But still, it is much easier to pull this off when you are talking about software than a compact disc. Software can be licensed to a single computer which recognizes hardware, for example. Doing this with music would make for a completely miserable user experience, and that is why it won't be possible in a pragmatic way.

[Sentient Void]

I already stated earlier in the thread that I would be find with making sure consumers were aware of the contract and terms and conditions. Or do contracts between parties not exist in your free market?

Of course contracts between parties exist in a free market. But this is irrelevant to the issue of coming across information (or someone sharing with you), or ideas, or plans, or blueprints, or code, or having data directly shared with me, absent a contract - regardless of where the data originated.

The contract is only valid between the originator of the contract, and the person who agreed to the contract. If the person who agreed to it violates that contract, and shares said information/data with hundreds or millions of people, those hundreds or millions of people *who did not agree* can't be held liable. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in.

Such is the problem with non-scarce resources.

Ultimately, such contracts are unenforcable.

[mport1]

Nope, it is not theft. Intellectual property does not exist.

[specsaregood]

The contract is only valid between the originator of the contract, and the person who agreed to the contract. If the person who agreed to it violates that contract, and shares said information/data with hundreds or millions of people, those hundreds or millions of people *who did not agree* can't be held liable. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in.


So you have no problem with somebody who purchases stolen goods keeping them after they are caught or discover they were stolen?

[Sentient Void]

So you have no problem with somebody who purchases stolen goods keeping them after they are caught or discover they were stolen?

Once again, physical goods and resources are *scarce* resources. Information/data/ideas, are not. That's the difference. There is no deprivation when non-scarce things (information, ideas, data, etc) are copied. There is deprivation when physical, scarce goods/resources are *stolen*.

Copying is not theft.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded

[pcosmar]

So you have no problem with somebody who purchases stolen goods keeping them after they are caught or discover they were stolen?
A product that is sold or given away (broadcast) is not "stolen".
Claiming ownership of a product after it is sold or broadcast is fraud.

[specsaregood]

Once again, physical goods and resources are *scarce* resources. Information/data/ideas, are not. That's the difference. There is no deprivation when non-scarce things (information, ideas, data, etc) are copied. There is deprivation when physical, scarce goods/resources are *stolen*.


That has nothing to do with what I asked. I thought it was a simple question, did you not understand it?

[Sentient Void]

That has nothing to do with what I asked. I thought it was a simple question, did you not understand it?

It has everything to do with it. Arbitrary assertions does not an argument make.

You're begging the question by calling such things 'stolen' in your question. We've been over this.

Le sigh.

[specsaregood]

It has everything to do with it. Arbitrary assertions does not an argument make.
You're begging the question by calling such things 'stolen' in your question. We've been over this.
Le sigh.

So why don't you answer it already?

[Sentient Void]

So why don't you answer it already?

Stop being so obtuse.

Let's try this another way.

"Why do you like raping children so much, specsaregood?"

[specsaregood]

Stop being so obtuse.
Let's try this another way.
"Why do you like raping children so much, specsaregood?"

You refuse to answer it because you know you are wrong. You simply want to be another parasite feeding off the producers in this country. You can come up with all the excuses and intellectual hoops you wish to jump through, but in the end all you want to do is profit off of other people's work without any regard to their rights or demands.

[Ninja Homer]

No, it is only Copyright infringement if you are reproducing it and selling it as your own.

Sharing a file is sharing a file.
If I download something that is freely available to my files it is my file. If I share my file with another it is no one elses business.
It is my file. If I record a broadcast signal, the recording is mine.
If I say "hey Bubba, listen to this" that is my right.

If I buy a record and share it with someone, it is my property and mine to do with as I please.
If I reproduce it for sale, and claim it as my own it is a copyright infringement.

Once I buy a copy it is my copy to do with as I please.
Don't like it... Don't sell copies. Don't play it on open airwaves.

100% agreed... I was oversimplifying the copyright infringement vs theft argument.

Laws restricting free exchange of creative works or ideas go against nature. If ideas weren't meant to be shared, God wouldn't have given us memories. If musicians really owned all copies of their music, they'd be able to delete the copy playing within the big jukebox in my mind.

[Ninja Homer]

You refuse to answer it because you know you are wrong. You simply want to be another parasite feeding off the producers in this country. You can come up with all the excuses and intellectual hoops you wish to jump through, but in the end all you want to do is profit off of other people's work without any regard to their rights or demands.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AW3hXHKGfRE/TVQ0oX1Cm0I/AAAAAAAAD40/jw0ATxbVNCo/s1600/exposestraw.jpg

[cindy25]

in the UK selling a used paperback book is not allowed; in Japan you can't refill an ink cartridge; this copyright overreach has become insane. in the 80s everyone taped (VHS) TV and shared these; file sharing is no different. I am surprised the copyright nazis don't attempt to close libraries, or force car repairs to be a a dealer.

[Sentient Void]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AW3hXHKGfRE/TVQ0oX1Cm0I/AAAAAAAAD40/jw0ATxbVNCo/s1600/exposestraw.jpg

Hahahah... indeed!

He's having a lot of trouble with the part where I'm exposing his begging the question fallacy (which he thinks is some legitimate question/argument). Then he responds with a strawman.

Sophists nod. Aristotle weeps.

It's too bad that on the side of the box it doesn't also say 'IP Statists' as well.

[Mini-Me]

I'd offer my own rights-based arguments, but everyone else against "IP" and "copyrights" has already stated them pretty eloquently. To me, there is no question that the abolitionists win the property rights argument.

However, I want to offer this food for thought: I don't believe in "copyright" laws, but I do believe in paying for music/movies/software you enjoy, in some way, as common courtesy and compensation for the investment the author put into your enjoyment. If this concept sounds foreign, or if you believe very few people would actually pay if they weren't forced by the law to do so, let me ask two things:
First, why do people tip waiters and waitresses, if they can legally get away with leaving them a "screw you, lollercoaster" note?"
Second, considering that downloading music for free is both cheaper and more convenient, why do people still buy it on iTunes? When using Netflix and ripping all of your movies is so much cheaper, why do people still buy copies of movies? It may be copyright infringement, but it's so unenforceable that in practice it's extremely similar to the "leaving tips" case. A lot of it has to do with the "real thing" being more attractive to own than a bootleg, but a lot has to do with something much more basic: Most people are good, and they feel compelled to give back to the people who have given to them. This attitude is extremely prevalent in the sharing community (SEED!), and I don't think it stops at seeding either.

I think a lot of people can see the property rights arguments against copyright, and they can see that copyright contradicts physical property rights, but they fear the utilitarian consequences of abolishing those laws.
Won't artists go hungry? (No; even if they didn't make any money off of selling music, artists make the vast majority of money off of live performances and merchandise anyway. In a big way, the album is just advertising to them. If you're worried about the publishers, they're going to die off anyway, because the Internet has made them redundant...this in fact is the real reason why they target entire technologies for criminalization. Over the past few years - the same few years that have seen an enormous amount of filesharing - indie artists have really started to thrive both financially and in terms of popularity.)
Won't people stop seeing movies in theaters? (No; who honestly has a setup that good in their home? Who wants to miss the midnight showing of the final Harry Potter? NOT ME, THAT'S FOR SURE! :D)
Won't people stop buying Windows? (LOL!)
Won't people stop buying other proprietary computer software? (It's on the way out anyway...seriously. A few decades from now, it'll be niche, unless open source is somehow outlawed.)
Won't progress in the arts and sciences stagnate? (Not any more than the complete perversion of copyrights and patents have resulted in today. This is the subject of more than one book, so I can't get into it, but today's system has stifled innovation far more than complete abolition would.)

Here's the best argument for copyright though: Won't people stop buying game software, which often costs tens of millions of dollars to make? This last one is actually the most difficult one, because sales are often the sole source of revenue (it's hard to place ads in a medieval era game ;)), and the development costs are extremely high. Note that I have a personal stake here, so I'm not just lacking empathy. The reason this argument thankfully fails is this: The idea of "lost sales" is not only nebulous (does a bad review count as a lost sale?), but it disregards the reciprocal concept of gained sales.

I'll copy/paste a slightly edited version of a post I made on another forum:
[You can separate] pirates into three groups:
Pirates ("YARRR!!!") who were not going to buy the book/game anyway. This is not a lost sale or a gained sale.
Pirates ("YARRR!!!") who would have bought the book/game, but who decided not to because they already have access to free copies. This is a lost sale.
Pirates ("YARRR!!!") who were introduced to new material and decided to buy it, either because of an ethical belief in fair play to the author/developer/publisher/etc., or because they feel more "complete" having the "real thing" to hold and cherish. This is a gained sale.

Only the latter two groups actually have an impact on a company's bottom line. I would argue that the third group is much larger than the second, meaning freely available copies actually leads to a net increase in sales. Why? Two reasons:
The most rampant filesharers are college students who have small wallets but an unquenchable appetite for content. They would pay for it...if they could afford it. Years from now, most of them WILL pay for their favorites, completely voluntarily...but if not for their filesharing, they may not have discovered their favorites at all. You can bitch and moan about the moral argument, but I defer to everyone else here who made excellent property rights arguments against both copyright and patents.
If you need a second reason, think about it the next time you tip your waitress. :p

The truth is, we are already living in a world where copyright is barely enforceable, and the biggest consumers of content can and do freely share tons of content with near impunity. Abolishing copyright would hardly change the sales figures, which, by the way, are excellent. Despite (or because of? hrm!) rampant filesharing, the entertainment industry continues break sales records! How could this be? The reason is because copyright is irrelevant to the price people are willing to pay for "the real thing" and simply out of moral obligation.

[low preference guy]

I agree that it's good to compensate authors, but I will state some possible reasons might want to not get unauthorized copies.


When using Netflix and ripping all of your movies is so much cheaper, why do people still buy copies of movies?

Why do people use netflix?

Livestream lets you save the time required to download.
Not all movies are in torrent.


Why do people still buy copies of movies?

They want to watch it many times
Higher quality
Wanting to see director's comments
Some feel that somehow they "own" the movie if they have physical copy

[Mini-Me]

I agree that it's good to compensate authors, but I will state some possible reasons might want to not get unauthorized copies.



Why do people use netflix?

Livestream lets you save the time required to download.
Not all movies are in torrent.


Why do people still buy copies of movies?

They want to watch it many times
Higher quality
Wanting to see director's comments
Some feel that somehow they "own" the movie if they have physical copy

Exactly! Aside from the fact that most people feel a sense of moral obligation (to a degree their conscience demands), the "real thing" is just much more attractive to own than a bootleg. When I buy a game, I refuse to buy from Gamestop (Target's my next stop) unless they have a shrink wrapped copy...because if I'm buying new, I want to open the damn thing myself, not rely on someone else's word that it's never been played before. I want to tear off the shrink wrap, and I want to smell the inside of the instruction booklet before I sit down and read the whole thing (minus legal bs ;)), and I want to feel the excitement of putting in the shiny new disc.

[Mini-Me]

in the UK selling a used paperback book is not allowed; in Japan you can't refill an ink cartridge; this copyright overreach has become insane. in the 80s everyone taped (VHS) TV and shared these; file sharing is no different. I am surprised the copyright nazis don't attempt to close libraries, or force car repairs to be a a dealer.

You're not far from the mark. Some of the more authoritarian game publishers are attacking the used games market and trying to shut it down, because they don't feel it's fair to them for a secondhand market to exist at all.

[Sentient Void]

For video games and other software - Used game sales are a massive market - and developers and publishers lose a lot of money from such sales. For a long time, they fought this - and of course they lost.

But they found a way to encourage orIginal purchases. They included one-time use game codes for special items, maps, features and other content that new game buyers got that preowned ones would not get. There is also DLC, which is a way to maximize revenue from both new and used game customers. Not to mention, that the market has responded by allowing direct-to-download games (on xbox live and PS network) that ensure everyone buying it from there contributes revenue and thus profits. It's cheaper for the developer, the customer, it's gOt low overhead, and it's more convenient for everyone.

Also, software is increasingly moving into the cloud. One day - it will *all* (or at least the vast majority of it all) will be prOcessed and accessed in the cloud - requiring individual legitimate usernames/passwords/licenses to access.

Then we've got the open source movement for software.

The point it, IP isn't needed, is unenforceable and the market will find ways to utilize technology that might initially seem against it in order to turn a prOfit - usually moreso and more conveniently than with older technology.

It comes down to giving customers what they want. If people are pirating the shit out of stuff online, it's because consumers are demanding more convenience, while feeling the product you're offering in its current form isn't worth the cost compared to how they are getting it. So find a way to deliver the content they want cheaply, quickly, and conveniently, with good quality - and they will pay for it.

This is economically valid - and as we've seen, historically accurate.

Businesses and individuals shouldn't be fighting the market (which is *always* a losing battle) - they should be embracing it.

[Mini-Me]

Also, software is increasingly moving into the cloud. One day - it will *all* (or at least the vast majority of it all) will be prOcessed and accessed in the cloud - requiring individual legitimate usernames/passwords/licenses to access.

Good post...but I have to quibble about this point. I really don't think most software will move into the cloud, for this reason: You can encrypt data in the cloud, but only if it's just sitting there. If the cloud computers are performing actual computations, they need access to the unencrypted information. This is an unacceptable security and business threat to any major company, and it's an unacceptable privacy threat to a growing number of people, who are becoming gradually creeped out by things like Google and Facebook. Plus, there's something to be said for being self-reliant, and for having your own computing resources that you don't have to rent out like a serf. ;) All of that was irrelevant to the topic and a total derail, but I just had to get it out. ;)

[Sentient Void]

Good post...but I have to quibble about this point. I really don't think most software will move into the cloud, for this reason: You can encrypt data in the cloud, but only if it's just sitting there. If the cloud computers are performing actual computations, they need access to the unencrypted information. This is an unacceptable security and business threat to any major company, and it's an unacceptable privacy threat to a growing number of people, who are becoming gradually creeped out by things like Google and Facebook. Plus, there's something to be said for having your own computing resources that you don't have to rent out like a serf. ;) All of that was irrelevant to the topic and a total derail, but I just had to get it out. ;)

Fair enough, but while cloud computing is in it's infancy, should we be surprised if technology solves this problem in the future (it is merely a current technological limitation after all)?

[Mini-Me]

Fair enough, but while cloud computing is in it's infancy, should we be surprised if technology solves this problem in the future (it is merely a current technological limitation after all)?

I guess I can't say it's impossible unless it's been mathematically proven to be so, but I'd be very surprised indeed if anyone ever discovered an encryption algorithm that allowed operations to be performed on ciphertext with consistent and reliable results in the plaintext domain, for any ciphertext...without actually knowing any characteristics of the plaintext in advance, and without this ability itself unacceptably weakening the strength of encryption. The cloud serfdom/dependency problem is pretty inherent though, so I can just fall back on that one. ;)

[Rosenzweig]

Copying isn't theft, but it's still a crime. When you create something and get a patent on your invention or work, you have all rights to it. It is yours, and nobody can use it without your permission. It is your property, and when someone copies it, he is using your property which isn't theft, but it's still against the law. It's against the law, but it's not practicable. We're transitioning philosophy for digital content at the moment. As Gabe Newell said:

"Once you create service value for customers, ongoing service value, piracy seems to disappear, right? It’s like 'Oh, you’re still doing something for me? I don’t mind the fact that I paid for this.' Once you actually localise your product in Russia and ship it on the same day that you ship your English language versions, this theoretical hotbed of piracy becomes your second largest- third largest after Germany in continental Europe? Or third after UK?"

He was referring to video games in this quote, but this can be said for all digital content including ebooks, music, movies, and anything you can imagine that is on the internet. Companies are currently switching their business model to where people buy the service, and not the product itself. For example Netflix and other movie streaming websites is the future of movies. Instead of selling in on DVD, the producers might find it cheaper and more profitable to put it on a high retail site like Netflix where they have very high bandwith and they'd get a cut out of allowing this website to host their content. In this scenario, they'd abandon DVD sales and even possibly cinema viewing sales for this new model.

One good example of business marketing a product as a service is with the way NFL shows its videos to its viewers. They take statistics of which videos and highlights are seen the most and they put them on the front page. What they're doing is they are analyzing what the customers wan't, and they're streamlining this want into their website with an easy UI.

What I'm saying is; sure file sharing is illegal, but it's not theft. Nor, is it something companies should pursue to enforce, because they're fighting a losing battle here. You can't win this, because why buy a product if it's free with a torrent? This problem disappears though when you offer your product as a service though, because your service is unique.

[dannno]

I don't like this argument because I contend that you have. I imagine all of those things have law binding marks on them. As such when you hand over cash you are agreeing to the terms. Regardless if you physically pen your name or not. The transaction is the contract. If it wasn't why bother marking the material as such?

Pretend I sold apples that said:


Prime Produce Apples - (c) Only use these apples for apple pie, never use them in cobblers.


Then I would be selling this with a transaction-implied contract, just like a cd.

Do you contend that I should persuade law enforcement to go around checking to make sure that the Prime Produce brand apples were only used in pie and never cobblers? Should I be able to invade people's privacy to inform law enforcement that people are using them in cobblers?

[dannno]

I guess I can't say it's impossible unless it's been mathematically proven to be so, but I'd be very surprised indeed if anyone ever discovered an encryption algorithm that allowed operations to be performed on ciphertext with consistent and reliable results in the plaintext domain, for any ciphertext...without actually knowing any characteristics of the plaintext in advance, and without this ability itself unacceptably weakening the strength of encryption. The cloud serfdom/dependency problem is pretty inherent though, so I can just fall back on that one. ;)

Jesus Christ I never would have thought of that problem with encryption in these environments...

[Mini-Me]

Pretend I sold apples that said:




Then I would be selling this with a transaction-implied contract, just like a cd.

Do you contend that I should persuade law enforcement to go around checking to make sure that the Prime Produce brand apples were only used in pie and never cobblers? Should I be able to invade people's privacy to inform law enforcement that people are using them in cobblers?

This is a good point about the enforceability problems regarding filesharing. I'm all out of rep though. :(

I should add something that applies specifically to data: If dannno removes the contract from the data and gives the scrubbed data to someone, he may be in violation of the contract, but the receiver now has the data with no contract attached, on his own media. dannno could be in trouble (given a police state sniffing out his contract violation), but without actual copyright laws, nothing can be done about the recipient and all indirect recipients thereafter. From their perspective, they received data with no strings attached, and they now have a copy to manipulate and redistribute as they please. In that sense, private contracts cannot actually perform the same job as copyright laws, even if they were easily enforceable. In the context of filesharing, the role of copyright can only be accomplished via [expensively enforced] government legislation...and that should be a red flag around these parts. ;)

[Kludge]

Did you just make a "the ends justify the means" argument? Well, hell I'l just steal some of your income to feed hungry children in mongolia.
I made an... ends justify the means argument when the means don't significantly detriment anyone.


You make an argument, that if convincing I might choose to be charitable and let you use it. You want to tell me what is best for my business of producing an OS? That is a bit arrogant.

Downsides? support? or a bad reputation from people using an unsupported version? A lot of time cracks also have trojan/virus hidden in them. Or they are buggy and/or don't get bugfixes. Leads to a bad reputation and can hurt future sales.

I generally only experience this when the original IP producers put in many complex anti-piracy measures which bug the software - that obviously makes me irritated with the software producers. The argument of viruses being hidden in them just isn't true. I've had that problem once in at least 500+ instances and it was immediately removed from the website hosting the .torrent. The virus was actually so incredibly clever, I ended up even more impressed. I had to do a fresh install of Windows 7. It copied itself in registries, system folders, different program folders, and probably drivers. It was discrete and complex enough to never be fully detected by any of the major AV products, so obscure to not be noted by anyone else but a few on the Internet, and so penetrating I couldn't get rid of it from safe mode.

Lack of support is a legitimate complaint. Cracked software is much slower to be patched, especially since IP producers often implement additional anti-piracy measures. There are incentives made by IP producers which are positive, not negative, to entice people to purchase their licenses. I suspect a major reasons games have swung to primarily focusing on multiplayer content is because it's generally not possible to fool their server authentication, so it takes the resource-intense workaround of first emulating a server (which generally takes years), then hosting the unauthorized server and having all pirated games point to that server.


You guys sure seem to want to make the argument that just because it doesn't directly "hurt" the content producer then its all good. Well bullshit. You don't have a right to the product, plain and simple. If you don't like the terms of the producer, then GO WITHOUT. You are making silly excuses for profiting off the hard work of others.
Your argument would do much better with someone who believes in rights. I don't respect the IP producers until I respect their IP. It would be economically irrational for me to pay money for something available for free, not knowing the quality of the IP performs or if I enjoy it. If I can't respect their IP because it's inaccessible, I can't respect the producers enough to pay them upfront. There have been plenty of times before when I've purchased software to find it performs terribly -- rather, it's actually worth nothing to me and my time's been wasted. I don't accept that business model, and laws won't change it. If IP producers can find people willing to go along with their terms - good for them, but for many consumers, it takes respect for that to happen, not a black-and-white moral compass.

You can tell us to go without because we have no right to it as much as you please, but until there's incentive to, it'd just be irrational. Even when I do pay, it's not because I feel obligated to - it's because I want to see them produce more.

[dannno]

Bump for response from the pro-IP crowd on post #76

[Krugerrand]

Pretend I sold apples that said:




Then I would be selling this with a transaction-implied contract, just like a cd.

Do you contend that I should persuade law enforcement to go around checking to make sure that the Prime Produce brand apples were only used in pie and never cobblers? Should I be able to invade people's privacy to inform law enforcement that people are using them in cobblers?

That's a good example. The only way you should be allowed legal recourse is if I turned around and sold Apple Cobbler made with Dannno's apples. That links your reputation to something that you explicitly objected to in the terms of the sale.

[pcosmar]

That's a good example. The only way you should be allowed legal recourse is if I turned around and sold Apple Cobbler made with Dannno's apples. That links your reputation to something that you explicitly objected to in the terms of the sale.

and this tread has deviated far from they original question.
File Sharing.
Not selling, not cracking OS. Not Contracts.
Sharing files from one person to another.
MY OS is not owned by Micro$oft. My files are mine. They belong to ME.
I did not steal any of them. Regardless of how I may have gotten them the fact remains that they are my property to do with as I please. If I chose to share a music or video file with someone else it is between me and them. No one else.

I do have a MicroSoft OS and use it for a game (and only for that). I abide by the agreement for both the system and the game.
If I had a better computer I would run the game on Linux. I really don't like the Windozs system, the "agreement" or their business practices. I like the game. It is the only reason I use the crap software at all.
I sure wouldn't want to share it with anyone.

Music is different from an OS. It is broadcast on open airwaves. If I buy a CD it is mine. There is no agreement past the selling price.
If I record a broadcast there is no agreement. NO Contract. The recording is Mine. To do with as I please, as long as I do not make the false claim of creating it and selling it as my own product.
I can share that music with anyone I chose. I can blast it from my speakers for all to hear, or give it to a friend to listen to at their leisure.
I stole nothing, sold nothing and harm no one.

[dannno]

and this tread has deviated far from they original question.


I don't think it deviated as far as you think, checkout post #76 that he was responding to, it pretty much makes the argument that you were making. When you buy an object with a 'transaction implied contract' about how you can now use your own property, is it reasonable to expect this contract to be enforced?

[pcosmar]

I don't think it deviated as far as you think, checkout post #76 that he was responding to, it pretty much makes the argument that you were making. When you buy an object with a 'transaction implied contract' about how you can now use your own property, is it reasonable to expect this contract to be enforced?

"Transaction Implied Contract"
:confused:
Implied by who? accepted by who?

With some software there is a EULA that has to be agreed to for use. I understand that.
Somewhere this thread went from sharing files to cracking and circumventing license agreements. An agreement is a contract.
If I buy a music CD I have made NO Agreement beyond the Price for the CD.
It is mine to use. To play. To give away or sell. It belongs to me.
If I buy a Video, (Tape or Disc) it is mine. I can play it at home, I can play it at a friends home, I can mail it to my sister. I can give it away if I wish. It is mine to do with as I please.
There is no agreement past the selling price of the item.

[dannno]

"Transaction Implied Contract"
:confused:
Implied by who? accepted by who?


They are claiming that since it is written on the package, when you hand money over for the item you are agreeing to the contract.

My post #76 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287577-Is-File-Sharing-Theft&p=3207860&viewfull=1#post3207860) shows how ridiculous it is to make that assumption that any contract written on a product for sale ought to be enforced.

Since I made that post last night, no pro-IP people have been able to respond, so I think it's a pretty effective argument.

[pcosmar]

They are claiming


They can claim all they want. I made no such agreement.
And If I record a broadcast signal, I make no such agreement. The recording is mine. The file is mine.

Their greed and attempt to control others will shoot themselves in the foot in the long run.
In the mean time they are a visible nuisance. And they are pissing off the goose that lays the golden egg.

[specsaregood]

They are claiming that since it is written on the package, when you hand money over for the item you are agreeing to the contract.

My post #76 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287577-Is-File-Sharing-Theft&p=3207860&viewfull=1#post3207860) shows how ridiculous it is to make that assumption that any contract written on a product for sale ought to be enforced.
Since I made that post last night, no pro-IP people have been able to respond, so I think it's a pretty effective argument.

Huh? It isn't an effective argument.

Pretend I sold apples that said:
Then I would be selling this with a transaction-implied contract, just like a cd.

Do you contend that I should persuade law enforcement to go around checking to make sure that the Prime Produce brand apples were only used in pie and never cobblers? Should I be able to invade people's privacy to inform law enforcement that people are using them in cobblers?

I don't think law enforcement should, but the seller is within his right to pursue all legal methods of verifying that you are holding up your end of the bargain. Invade your privacy? Who is arguing for that? If you put something up on a filesharing network you have no expectation of privacy, you are making it public.


Music is different from an OS. It is broadcast on open airwaves.
I have no argument that once something is broadcast on open airwaves by the content producer it should be considered public and recordable. BUT ONLY the specific version broadcast. Just because song was broadcast on airwaves doesn't mean the producer gave up other versions (cd for example) up to the public.

[dannno]

I don't think law enforcement should, but the seller is within his right to pursue all legal methods of verifying that you are holding up your end of the bargain. Invade your privacy? Who is arguing for that? If you put something up on a filesharing network you have no expectation of privacy, you are making it public.


Great, so what if you make an apple cobbler for your son's class, and my daughter notices that the apples taste awfully familiar and mentions to me that she had a cobbler and think it was from my apples. Then she tells me who made it and I recall you buying my apples. My daughter just happened to bring home a sample, and I'm able to verify these were from my crop.

The bottom line is, how is it reasonable for me to tell you how to use your property once you bought it from me?

Either you buy something, you lease something or you rent something. When you rent or lease something there's always going to be a contract because it doesn't belong to me, but when selling products it isn't really conceivable that you can make a person use the product the way you want. I'm not saying you can't make the contract, anybody can make a contract, I'm just saying it's not really enforceable in any reasonable way.

[low preference guy]

The bottom line is, how is it reasonable for me to tell you how to use your property once you bought it from me?

If you agreed to use the property only in a certain way at the moment you bought it, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to fulfill your contract.

[ChaosControl]

No, you aren't taking anything from them, you aren't causing them to have less. Any argument against file sharing is talking about "potential revenue". There is no guaranteeing that person would have purchased the item otherwise, in many cases file sharing even increases sales as it exposes a product to someone who was unsure about buying and it convinced them to.

If someone invented a device that could make a copy of physical objects and say made a copy of someone's car, would they be stealing that car from them? Would they be stealing it from a dealership since they aren't going to buy one now?

[dannno]

If you agreed to use the property only in a certain way at the moment you bought it, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to fulfill your contract.

The question is how do you reasonably enforce that? I can sign a contract with you that I won't beat off for the next month, but unless the contract stipulates that I come in every couple days for a medical test you can't enforce the contract.

They need to make an enforceable contract and have the buyer SIGN it if they want to pull this crap, otherwise it is just a stupid piece of writing on a product that doesn't have any meaning.

I honestly can't wrap my head around what type of contract would be enforceable for media distribution unless you own a movie theater and I am telling you how many public showings you are allowed to have or something. That would be enforceable.

[low preference guy]

The question is how do you reasonably enforce that?

It depends on what is in the contract. You can't predict that the contract won't be enforced. It's like saying "if I tell this really good lie, I will never be caught". But it often happens that things turn out unexpectedly and the liar gets caught. You can't predict the future completely and that fact alone encourages people to not do things that will cost them fines or jail time.

You could break the contract in the presence of a witness (for example, a friend). It turns out he wants for whatever reason that those contracts be respected. It might be that he sells products only under certain conditions as well, so he wants widespread respect of contracts (like many musicians who are against p2p). Then he can testify against you.

[Krugerrand]

It depends on what is in the contract. You can't predict that the contract won't be enforced. It's like saying "if I tell this really good lie, I will never be caught". But it often happens that things turn out unexpectedly and the liar gets caught. You can't predict the future completely and that fact alone encourages people to not do things that will cost them fines or jail time.

You could break the contract in the presence of a witness (for example, a friend). It turns out he wants for whatever reason that those contracts be respected, for example, because he sells products only under certain conditions as well. Then he can testify against you.

Why should a violation of a contract between two parties result in jail time? It seems to me, one should only ever be on the hook for AT MOST the damages caused.

[specsaregood]

I'm not saying you can't make the contract, anybody can make a contract, I'm just saying it's not really enforceable in any reasonable way.
And those are 2 completely seperate issues.

[low preference guy]

Why should a violation of a contract between two parties result in jail time? It seems to me, one should only ever be on the hook for AT MOST the damages caused.

The argument still holds even with that modification.

[dannno]

You could break the contract in the presence of a witness (for example, a friend). It turns out he wants for whatever reason that those contracts be respected. It might be that he sells products only under certain conditions as well, so want widespread respect of contracts (like many musicians who are against p2p). Then he can testify against you.

That doesn't sound very effective, first, secondly, I never signed anything. I don't care what the product says on the package, when you buy something, you own it. When you lease or rent something, you sign a contract. If you want a contract attached to a sale, both parties need to sign it. If they had contracts that you needed to sign every time you bought media, it would hurt the media business quite a bit, which is why they put their bullshit half assed contract on the package and expect it to be enforced. I disagree and think the whole thing is wrong and unenforceable, and it doesn't help the artists, just the record company who made all this crap up.

[low preference guy]

That doesn't sound very effective, first, secondly, I never signed anything.

You didn't sign anything because today there are copyright laws. If they didn't exist, they could just ask you verbally if you consent to the terms of the contract. An agreement like that from my point of view has the force of a contract.


think the whole thing is wrong and unenforceable, and it doesn't help the artists, just the record company who made all this crap up.

I think the artists should have the ability to put restrictions on their music through contracts if they want to, even if it hurts them. Whether I think it will be good for them is irrelevant.

[specsaregood]

That doesn't sound very effective, first, secondly, I never signed anything. I don't care what the product says on the package, when you buy something, you own it. When you lease or rent something, you sign a contract. If you want a contract attached to a sale, both parties need to sign it. If they had contracts that you needed to sign every time you bought media, it would hurt the media business quite a bit, which is why they put their bullshit half assed contract on the package and expect it to be enforced. I disagree and think the whole thing is wrong and unenforceable, and it doesn't help the artists, just the record company who made all this crap up.

You don't believe in verbal contracts then? No more "a man is only as good as his word"?

[Sentient Void]

No, you aren't taking anything from them, you aren't causing them to have less. Any argument against file sharing is talking about "potential revenue". There is no guaranteeing that person would have purchased the item otherwise, in many cases file sharing even increases sales as it exposes a product to someone who was unsure about buying and it convinced them to.

If someone invented a device that could make a copy of physical objects and say made a copy of someone's car, would they be stealing that car from them? Would they be stealing it from a dealership since they aren't going to buy one now?

Furthermore, the loss of 'potential revenue' or 'potential profits' to justify IP is a dangerous, slippery slope argument as well.

It could be said in the same logic here... let's say Company A is an established, high-revenue, profitable company. Company B comes along, and offers a competing (but different) product. Company B is successful with their competing product, and thus take significant market share, and thus revenue, and profits from Company A. Company A has lost significant 'potential revenue' or 'potential profit' from Company B.

It would logically follow then (according to the logic used above in regards to lost revenues from IP), that we should ban competition, and monopolize everything.

Reductio ad Absurdum FTW.

[dannno]

You don't believe in verbal contracts then? No more "a man is only as good as his word"?

I don't believe they are enforceable by law, no. You have a verbal contract with someone and if they didn't follow the contract then you don't do business with them anymore, or if you do, then you use written contracts that can be enforced.

If a music publisher or store decides they don't want to sell music to me anymore because I copy it and make it available to others, then they can stop selling me music.. They would have to ask everyone for their ID when they bought music and people would be again less inclined to do so. Doesn't sound like a successful business model in this day and age, but that would be their decision.

[specsaregood]

I don't believe they are enforceable by law, no. You have a verbal contract with someone and if they didn't follow the contract then you don't do business with them anymore, or if you do, then you use written contracts that can be enforced.

It would suck to live in your world then. Oral contracts are enforceable and should be.

[low preference guy]

They would have to ask everyone for their ID when they bought music and people would be again less inclined to do so. Doesn't sound like a successful business model in this day and age, but that would be their decision.

Here is where you're wrong. The fact that most contracts are done with signatures is just a convention. It could be changed to a verbal agreement in some cases without changing any principle. If a verbal agreement is not effective in some circumstances, an alternative method could be developed. But in a music store one could verbally ask: have you read and agreed to the conditions listed in the product you're buying? Saying yes would bind you to the contract.

[low preference guy]

It would suck to live in your world then. Oral contracts are enforceable and should be.

The problem is that he just wants everyone to do things the way he wants to regardless of any principle. The form of a valid contract is just a convention. There is nothing special about signatures that make them the only possible way to engage in contracts. So because dannno wants to prevent people from engaging into contracts he doesn't like, he pretends that only inconvenient forms of contract are valid. He should realize that he is acting like a dictator who wants to impose his will on other people and stop pretending to care about liberty.

[dannno]

It would suck to live in your world then. Oral contracts are enforceable and should be.

Since when?? Do you have to tape record them?

[low preference guy]

Since when?? Do you have to tape record them?

It's just like proving anything in court. You could have a tape, you could have a witness, etc. Technology today allows all those agreements to be recorded easily and at a low price.

[dannno]

The problem is that he just wants everyone to do things the way he wants to regardless of any principle. The form of a valid contract is just a convention. There is nothing special about signatures that make them the only possible way to engage in contracts. So because dannno wants to prevent people from engaging into contracts he doesn't like, he pretends that only inconvenient forms of contract are valid. He should realize that he is acting like a dictator who wants to impose his will on other people and stop pretending to care about liberty.

That's ridiculous.

I say precisely the opposite. The industry has made up a bunch of ways to enforce invalid contracts. I mean, look at the results. Some random person downloads 20 songs, they get shared because of the program they are using, they don't make any money, and suddenly they are being sued for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. They can't even prove any damages.

[specsaregood]

Since when?? Do you have to tape record them?

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


An oral contract is a contract the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication, in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract – for example where the parties write down what they have agreed – but the contract itself is not a written one.

In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed, or that a contract be evidenced in writing (though it may be oral). An example of the latter being the requirement that contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing that is found in the Statute of Frauds.

Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.

[low preference guy]

That's ridiculous.

I say precisely the opposite. The industry has made up a bunch of ways to enforce invalid contracts. I mean, look at the results. Some random person downloads 20 songs, they get shared because of the program they are using, they don't make any money, and suddenly they are being sued for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. They can't even prove any damages.

You're ridiculous for changing the topic.


I say precisely the opposite.

Yeah, you say precisely the opposite of what you say.

[dannno]

It's just like proving anything in court. You could have a tape, you could have a witness, etc. Technology today allows all those agreements to be recorded easily and at a low price.

So not all oral contracts are enforceable, but you think they should be?

It turns out that oral contracts are NOT enforceable for things like sale of land, but they are enforceable for things like ordering spaghetti at a restaurant. My question is, what if a patron comes in and orders the spaghetti dinner for $12, and the waiter writes down the truffle kobe beef burger which costs over $100 on the pad and tries to make them pay, calls the cops, etc.? How is that enforceable?

[specsaregood]

So not all oral contracts are enforceable, but you think they should be?

It turns out that oral contracts are NOT enforceable for things like sale of land, but they are enforceable for things like ordering spaghetti at a restaurant. My question is, what if a patron comes in and orders the spaghetti dinner for $12, and the waiter writes down the truffle mushroom burger which costs over $100 on the pad and tries to make them pay, calls the cops, etc.? How is that enforceable?

You keep wanting to make enforcement the issue, but it isn't. That's like saying I have no problem breaking contracts I agreed to if I think I can get away with it. It isnt an honest position and one I would hope you wouldn't support. if you don't like the terms of the contract, then do without the product or service being offered. or find a different vendor.

[dannno]

You're ridiculous for changing the topic.

I did not change the topic, I'm showing how ridiculous it is to be able to just make up contracts willey nilley and tell the government to enforce them because you're a big industry who donates to politicians campaigns.

[Mini-Me]

You didn't sign anything because today there are copyright laws. If they didn't exist, they could just ask you verbally if you consent to the terms of the contract. An agreement like that from my point of view has the force of a contract.



I think the artists should have the ability to put restrictions on their music through contracts if they want to, even if it hurts them. Whether I think it will be good for them is irrelevant.

Keep in mind what I wrote in post #78: Only the person who agreed to the contract is bound to it. If they violate the contract, copy the data sans contract, and give someone else the contract-free copy, they might be in trouble...but from then on, the recipient who is unbound by the contract will be able to do what they please with their property, including making as many copies as they like.

As a consequence, private contracts are grossly insufficient to perform the function of copyright. ONLY copyright laws will actually work as intended...and when difficult-to-enforce government legislation is the only way to circumvent physical property rights to create "intellectual" property rights, that should be a red flag for anyone around these parts. ;)

[dannno]

You keep wanting to make enforcement the issue, but it isn't. That's like saying I have no problem breaking contracts I agreed to if I think I can get away with it. It isnt an honest position and one I would hope you wouldn't support. if you don't like the terms of the contract, then do without the product or service being offered. or find a different vendor.

You don't get it. When I go buy a CD, I'm not agreeing to anything. I don't care what the fucking package says, I'm not agreeing to anything by exchanging money. That's why they have contracts, to make sure both parties agree. I might be OK with enforcing verbal contracts if they are taped, especially for things like wills like you see on TV, but I don't see why they wouldn't just make a written contract for most agreements.

[specsaregood]

Keep in mind what I wrote in post #78: Only the person who agreed to the contract is bound to it. If they violate the contract, copy the data sans contract, and give someone else the contract-free copy, they might be in trouble...but from then on, the recipient who is unbound by the contract will be able to do what they please with their property, including making as many copies as they like.


This is no different than saying that somebody that buys stolen goods unknowingly has a right to keep the goods.

[low preference guy]

Keep in mind what I wrote in post #78: Only the person who agreed to the contract is bound to it. If they violate the contract, copy the data sans contract, and give someone else the contract-free copy, they might be in trouble...but from then on, the recipient who is unbound by the contract will be able to do what they please with their property, including making as many copies as they like.

I know this. It's still better for the sellers to have a contract binding the persons to whom they sell it than not having anyone bound by any contract. It's not as good for them as copyright but it's the best they can do without violating other people's rights. The only way that protection will become better is that if becomes socially reprehensible to do what you're describing.

[specsaregood]

You don't get it. When I go buy a CD, I'm not agreeing to anything. I don't care what the fucking package says, I'm not agreeing to anything by exchanging money. That's why they have contracts, to make sure both parties agree. I might be OK with enforcing verbal contracts if they are taped, especially for things like wills like you see on TV, but I don't see why they wouldn't just make a written contract for most agreements.

And the contracts aren't required because of existing copyright law, in the absence of such law such contracts could be the norm. And most stores already have cameras and recording equipment, I don't see why it would be difficult to implement a recording of verbal agreement to the terms. And online sales could require a clickthrough acceptance. But we have been over this and are just going around in circles.

[Mini-Me]

This is no different than saying that somebody that buys stolen goods unknowingly has a right to keep the goods.

Yes, it is. Your post inherently assumes the concept of "intellectual property" as property, but my post was in response to [what I thought was] low preference guy's implied assertion that "intellectual property" laws are not necessary to enforce copyrights, because they can be enforced wholly by private contracts in the absence of the legal notion of "intellectual property." I was arguing that the legal notion of "intellectual property" or "copyright" is in fact necessary to enforce the concept, because physical property rights combined with private contracts just don't cut it.

In short, your post carries different assumptions than the ones framed by low preference guy, which I was responding to.



I know this. It's still better for the sellers to have a contract binding the persons to whom they sell it than not having anyone bound by any contract. It's not as good for them as copyright but it's the best they can do without violating other people's rights. The only way that protection will become better is that if becomes socially reprehensible to do what you're describing.

That's a fair enough response. :)

[dannno]

You guys also never addressed mini-me's post that explained another reason why this whole transaction implied contract is stupid.

If I buy the CD, the CD container has a written agreement on it and I take the agreement off and give or sell it to my friend or it gets stolen from me.. Now my friend or someone has the media with no agreement attached. There is nothing on the CD that says you can't transfer the property. He explained it better:

Edit: This is currently being addressed I guess.



I should add something that applies specifically to data: If dannno removes the contract from the data and gives the scrubbed data to someone, he may be in violation of the contract, but the receiver now has the data with no contract attached, on his own media. dannno could be in trouble (given a police state sniffing out his contract violation), but without actual copyright laws, nothing can be done about the recipient and all indirect recipients thereafter. From their perspective, they received data with no strings attached, and they now have a copy to manipulate and redistribute as they please. In that sense, private contracts cannot actually perform the same job as copyright laws, even if they were easily enforceable. In the context of filesharing, the role of copyright can only be accomplished via [expensively enforced] government legislation...and that should be a red flag around these parts. ;)

[specsaregood]

Yes, it is. Your post assumes the concept of "intellectual property" as property, but my post was in response to low preference guy's assertion that "intellectual property" laws are not necessary to enforce copyrights, and that they can be enforced wholly by private contracts in the absence of the legal notion of "intellectual property." I was arguing that the legal notion of "intellectual property" or "copyright" is in fact necessary to enforce the concept, because physical property rights combined with private contracts just don't cut it.

Fair enough. i for one believe that intellectual property does exist. We'll just have to agree to disagree. BUT I do agree that current IP laws need to be reformed. edit: misstated.

[Sentient Void]

This is no different than saying that somebody that buys stolen goods unknowingly has a right to keep the goods.

Oh, God... here we go again with the begging of the question...

[low preference guy]

Yes, it is. Your post assumes the concept of "intellectual property" as property, but my post was in response to low preference guy's assertion that "intellectual property" laws are not necessary to enforce copyrights, and that they can be enforced wholly by private contracts in the absence of the legal notion of "intellectual property."

Actually, I partly retract that I accept your point (which I up to now also believed in) because you can't predict what will happen in a completely free market. Maybe sellers of devices which copy data will be encouraged to develop mechanisms that copy only authorized data. Maybe it won't happen. Maybe it will happen only with some devices. But we can't predict how a completely free market will work, because we never had it, and it will be a very different world.

[Krugerrand]

This is no different than saying that somebody that buys stolen goods unknowingly has a right to keep the goods.

Not completely. The problem here is that the "agreement" is something that's at all times only implied. The distributor buys the discs. They make no specific agreement with the producer. It's assumed because something is written on the package that it is a real agreement. The distributor sells it to the music shop. They make no agreements about not copying things. It's just assumed. The shop sells to the customer. They make no agreement about copying. The customer buys the product ... and because it is written on the package that an agreement is made, they act like it really was an agreement.

Let's say before I sell my car to a car dealer I put a sticker inside the door:
For every mile the car is driven, the owner must pay Krugerrand $5.00. The sticker is not removable. Buy purchase and use of this car, the owner agrees to this arrangement.

Just because I put the sticker inside the door of my car that says it's an agreement does not make it so. I would get laughed out of a courtroom (or worse) if I tried to get the government to enforce that sticker on my behalf.

[Mini-Me]

Actually, I partly retract that I accept your point (which I up to now also believed in) because you can't predict what will happen in a completely free market. Maybe sellers of devices which copy data will be encouraged to develop mechanisms that copy only authorized data. Maybe it won't happen. Maybe it will happen only with some devices. But we can't predict how a completely free market will work, because we never had it, and it will be a very different world.

You're referring to DRM, which already exists...actually, you seem to be referring more to primitive DRM based on the idea that manufacturers agree to restrict usage, e.g. Macrovision. None of these are new concepts though, and they tend to fail. Consumers tend to prefer devices that don't police them, and optical disk reader manufacturers, hard disk manufacturers, software developers implementing copy/paste, etc. have no profit incentive of their own to deny this except for payola from another industry. In the absence of government laws restricting competition or forcing manufacturers to respect copying restrictions, unrestricted devices will always emerge.

[specsaregood]

Not completely. The problem here is that the "agreement" is something that's at all times only implied. The distributor buys the discs. They make no specific agreement with the producer. It's assumed because something is written on the package that it is a real agreement. The distributor sells it to the music shop. They make no agreements about not copying things. It's just assumed. The shop sells to the customer. They make no agreement about copying. The customer buys the product ... and because it is written on the package that an agreement is made, they act like it really was an agreement.

As I has been stated multiple times, no specific agreement is made, because of copyright laws, in the absence of such laws such explict agreements could be common place. I have no problem with making that change -- requiring an explicit agreement be made at the time of sale/licensing.

[low preference guy]

Consumers tend to prefer devices that don't police them, so in the absence of government laws restricting competition or forcing manufacturers to respect copying restrictions, unrestricted devices will always emerge.

Sure, but the creators might give a share of their profits to those who create the devices with protections, and distribute their goods only in that format.

The question of how effective that will be depends on technology. How long does it take to figure out how to break the protections? But that's unpredictable because technology changes with time. The absence of copyrights will encourage a lot of research in this area and I don't think what will happen is predictable.

[dannno]

Let's say before I sell my car to a car dealer I put a sticker inside the door:
For every mile the car is driven, the owner must pay Krugerrand $5.00. The sticker is not removable. Buy purchase and use of this car, the owner agrees to this arrangement.

Just because I put the sticker inside the door of my car that says it's an agreement does not make it so. I would get laughed out of a courtroom (or worse) if I tried to get the government to enforce that sticker on my behalf.

Precisely!!

You could stick the sticker in a place where the new owner wouldn't even see it, maybe below the spare tire.. Do you really expect the buyer of the car to scavange the whole car for hidden agreements? Fuck that shit, you guys are ridiculous. The only agreements made are the ones in the contract when the seller buys the car and signs it.

Both parties need to explicitly agree to the terms of the contract, none of this writing the contract on the package BS.

I'm also going to ask mini-me if he's built back his rep so he can give me one like he wanted to earlier, or krug if you have any rep cause I actually got a negative rep from lpg because apparently I'm imposing my views on everyone rather than making the simple suggestion that both parties explicitly agree to terms of sale rather than having it imlpied when I hand over money.

[Bman]

Pretend I sold apples that said:




Then I would be selling this with a transaction-implied contract, just like a cd.

Do you contend that I should persuade law enforcement to go around checking to make sure that the Prime Produce brand apples were only used in pie and never cobblers? Should I be able to invade people's privacy to inform law enforcement that people are using them in cobblers?

I don't contend that the law is right. I contend that if something is marked a certain way you knowingly buy/lease whatever under the conditions implied. Saying you did not agree to something is for lack of a better word a lie.

[Mini-Me]

Sure, but the creators might give a share of their profits to those who create the devices with protections, and distribute their goods only in that format.
What happens to cartels in the free market? :p


The question of how effective that will be depends on technology. How long does it take to figure out how to break the protections? But that's unpredictable. The absence of copyrights will encourage a lot of research in this area and I don't think what will happen is predictable.

The absence of copyrights couldn't really encourage much more research than is already being done, because filesharing is already rampant anyway. Even though they're breaking sales records all the time, the content companies are investing like crazy into DRM (and lobbying for felonies :rolleyes: ) to prevent piracy, and more importantly to prevent industry control from leaving their grasp. In the meantime, competition is starting to take hold that is actually embracing the Internet, and which has no need for DRM (and they are the way of the future anyway). At the most basic level, the analog hole cannot be closed, so all DRM is, at its core, security by obscurity. TPM chips and stuff like that, which hide the private key from the chips' owners, can delay the analog hole until later in the chain, but eventually the encrypted information must be decoded to plaintext if it's going to be used at all...which means that in some form or another, the consumer is within physical reach of the private key, and they only need to find a way to read it. In the absence of laws like the DMCA, it wouldn't be too difficult for competing manufacturers to create devices meant to crack even the most expensive and hardware-intensive DRM scheme.

However, I'll give you this: DRM actually works for console games, because of what Rosenzweig said: The games are tied to a service. What gamer wants to be banned from Xbox Live for modding their Xbox to play copied games? A few risk it, but the vast majority don't. Eventually though, consoles and gaming networks will probably cease to be quite so proprietary, so DRM will end up failing here too.

[pcosmar]

Again with the "copyright" issue.
It has nothing to do with File sharing, or book sharing for that matter.
It prevents someone from producing that book for sale. It does not prevent the resale of that book, nor does it prevent the sharing of the book.
It prevents the reproduction and sale of the reproduced book.
I can buy the book, and share it with friends or sell it to a used book store.
Copyrights are not applicable to file sharing.

[dannno]

I don't contend that the law is right. I contend that if something is marked a certain way you knowingly buy/lease whatever under the conditions implied. Saying you did not agree to something is for lack of a better word a lie.

What about the post above mine where the car dealer sticks a hidden agreement inside the car? How is that any different?

And yes, I'm saying I didn't agree to shit when I purchased the CD. I didn't. It just has some writing on it, they can write whatever the fuck they want on it, until I sign a contract or make an actual agreement with them I haven't agreed to anything.

[Mini-Me]

Again with the "copyright" issue.
It has nothing to do with File sharing, or book sharing for that matter.
It prevents someone from producing that book for sale. It does not prevent the resale of that book, nor does it prevent the sharing of the book.
It prevents the reproduction and sale of the reproduced book.
I can buy the book, and share it with friends or sell it to a used book store.
Copyrights are not applicable to file sharing.

This is a pretty shaky argument though, because it appeals to the specifics of today's version of copyright law. Does copyright law only forbid selling, or does it forbid creating copies and distributing them for free as well? Regardless, you're only one day away in a corrupt politician's life from changing that little detail in the favor of whatever the RIAA wants it to say.

[Krugerrand]

Again with the "copyright" issue.
It has nothing to do with File sharing, or book sharing for that matter.
It prevents someone from producing that book for sale. It does not prevent the resale of that book, nor does it prevent the sharing of the book.
It prevents the reproduction and sale of the reproduced book.
I can buy the book, and share it with friends or sell it to a used book store.
Copyrights are not applicable to file sharing.

Except that, while called "file sharing," it is not a loan of a product. It is a reproduction of the product.

[low preference guy]

At the most basic level, the analog hole cannot be closed

Today. I think technology is unpredictable. What do you think of the possibility of messing up with the waves that the analog devices would create so that humans can hear it but machines actually can't record it without a distortion?

Possibly that will never happen, and this discussion doesn't really matter too much as long as we think there should be no copyright laws but people should be able to sell things with conditions if they want to.

[pcosmar]

Except that, while called "file sharing," it is not a loan of a product. It is a reproduction of the product.

Only if it is being marketed and sold as the original thing.
Such as a copy of a movie. Packaged and sold as the original. That is illegal.

Counterfeit copies are illegal. But there is fair use of a purchased copy.

I will also add, I do not buy something unless I want it.
I watched the movie "Avatar" through file sharing before it was released on CD. It was file sharing that "sold" me on the movie. I then purchased a copy.
I don't buy music I have not heard, I do not buy an album for one song. If I like the album I will buy it.
File sharing is free advertising.

[Mini-Me]

Today. I think technology is unpredictable. What do you think of the possibility of messing up with the waves that the analog devices would create so that humans can hear it but machines actually can't record it without a distortion?
That's actually an interesting thought, and my gut tells me it's probably feasible in both the audio and video domains. My gut also tells me that devices could be created to specifically circumvent the technological weakness that's being exploited though. Still, it's an interesting concept. :)


Possibly that will never happen, and this discussion doesn't really matter too much as long as we think there should be no copyright laws but people should be able to sell things with conditions if they want to.

You're right, those are the cores issues to agree/disagree upon, and we're both in agreement...mostly, at least. I do tend to think that overly complex or draconian click-through contracts (EULA's) routinely rushed through by millions of people should often be considered invalid when contested though. Binding legal contracts are very serious things, and so any person or company who routinely pushes contract after contract on millions of people for every otherwise normal market transaction should be viewed with some prejudice. When a company constructs and pushes contracts in such a way that they encourage "sure, yeah, yeah" acceptance - and which are actually routinely accepted by millions of people in this manner - the terms and validity of those contracts should probably be viewed with skepticism by any jury when contested, especially if they're unusual (ad absurdum: "LICENSEE will surrender his/her firstborn no later than..." ;)).

[awake]

You are sharing an arrangement of digits and characters that are infinitely reproducible by way of a machine that can operate the instructions and produce still more copies. Something that can be produced in a near limitless and instantaneous manner can have no scarcity. It is only in the feeble attempt through the improper use of the law does one try to impose artificial scarcity where none would exists.

IP is a direct threat to real property rights in scarce things. It is a grant of privilege that enslaves all others from the free use of their own property as they see fit. All arguments for IP amount to taking only the perspective of the slave owners welfare (IP holder); once his slaves are freed, he losses his investment that the laws of slavery gave to him, and this is somehow the crime.

The same clever fallacies defend taxation; "what about the poor, the downtrodden, and the security that only big government can provide"... it is a massive mountain of lies masking a gargantuan rip off. The obfuscation of legal plunder by the few on the many.


On a side note: I believe that "The Cloud" is the natural progression of IP control and distribution.

[nobody's_hero]

Devil's advocate:

Wouldn't Benjamin Bernanke's actions of copying trillions and trillions of dollars not qualify as theft under the 'copying is not theft' doctrine?

[awake]

Devil's advocate:

Wouldn't Benjamin Bernanke's actions of copying trillions and trillions of dollars not qualify as theft under the 'copying is not theft' doctrine?


I would be more worried when people realize that the money is literally not worth the paper it's printed on, it is not even printed anymore, its a digit entry. Hyperinflation had at least that limit: of paper and ink restriction. Now there is no limit, he can destroy the worlds economy and civilization with a keystroke. Talk about a madman with the finger on the button.

[Mini-Me]

Devil's advocate:

Wouldn't Benjamin Bernanke's actions of copying trillions and trillions of dollars not qualify as theft under the 'copying is not theft' doctrine?

If he were operating a truly private printing press (or digital equivalent), no. The problem is that legal tender laws force people to accept US dollars for payment of debts and use them for taxes, and various alternatives are taxed or forbidden. Through this two-pronged use of force, we are made to accept the US dollar...which Ben then proceeds to devalue. If he ran one private company out of many, it wouldn't be an issue...unless it violated his contract with his customers, i.e. if the dollars were supposed to be backed by gold. In that case, it would be fraud.

You have a right to your physical property, not a right to its value...but when you're forced to use something as money, the very means of economic exchange, and someone is devaluing it, then yeah, there's a problem. The whole purpose of money is a medium of exchange, and it uses its utility when it cannot hold its value. The difference between real and artificial scarcity should be apparent here: Paper is an extremely stupid choice for money, because it can only be made scarce artificially, and its value is easily manipulated. When a government forces you to use a specific type of money, especially something so easily manipulated, and then proceeds to manipulate its value...you can bet your ass that it's tyrannical. You can call it counterfeit, you can call it bad management, you can call it an unconstitutional usurpation of monetary powers not authorized to the government, or you can call it a theft of purchasing power...but it's a problem. The actual counterfeiting is not the root problem though. It only exacerbates it. The root of the problem is the use of force to decree that something (especially something so easily manipulated) shall be the currency of the realm. Eliminate the force, and you eliminate the problem.


I would be more worried when people realize that the money is literally not worth the paper it's printed on, it is not even printed anymore, its a digit entry. Hyperinflation had at least that limit: of paper and ink restriction. Now there is no limit, he can destroy the worlds economy and civilization with a keystroke. Talk about a madman with the finger on the button.

Technically, there's going to be some limit based on the storage space a given field has in their database. It's just...really high. ;)

[Matt Collins]

The disagreement is that some of us don't think you have the right to the product of somebody elses labor, just because you can take it. It is their work product and should own the right to decide who gets to have it in their posession and under what conditions.

Just because you weren't gonna buy it anyways matters not. If you weren't gonna buy it, then you shouldn't have it.
But that's not theft. Because the definition of theft is that the person who takes it must be depriving the original owner of the object in question.

And the "copyright" privileges that is granted by the feds is simply governmental fiat. Congress could repeal the whole thing tomorrow if they want.

[Matt Collins]

You can't stop people from sharing music. And that's the practical aspect of it. To stop file sharing would be to turn the US into an ironclad police state. And even then, it wouldn't be possible to completely snuff it out.

[Matt Collins]

i believe it is theft, it is borderline but it feels (morally) wrong to meThat's because you've been suckered into industry marketing and FUD (look it up).

Violating copyright law is no more moral or amoral than putting a letter directly in someone else's mailbox -- which is against federal law.


Don't confuse morality and legality. Sometimes they are the same thing, but most of the time they are not.

[Matt Collins]

Contract and purchase are different things. I've never signed a contract to buy a CD, book, etc. Have you? If you tried to make such a contract, I doubt many people would buy your work. Imagine all the people who would enjoy your work without paying you if someone donated it to a library! The HORROR! :eek:
There is some interesting court cases dealing with this and EULAs (look it up).

People will buy software, open it up and while installing it, and then not agree to the EULA. So then they put it back in the box and take it back to the store. But retail stores won't accept opened software because it could've been copied.

[Matt Collins]

It should always be the content creators position that is respected. If they don't allow you to share their creation, then don't. I don't think there's a rule for all works.
Yes, but there is no way to force people to do it. Legislating this is not viable.

[Matt Collins]

Is File Sharing Theft?

Havn't we beat this dead horse multiple times over?
Try being on www.SlashDot.org :p

[Matt Collins]

It depends on whether you're selling the content or not. If you're selling another person's work without their permission, you should be punished by the legal system.
That is governmental fiat, and Congress could abolish those protections too tomorrow if they wanted to.

[Matt Collins]

I don't believe for a second that those taking part in copyright violations don't know the law or aren't aware of "copyright" when they purchase or "steal" the products. Downloading isn't illegal.

[Matt Collins]

Information, ideas, and 'arrangements' of property - are not finite, scarce resources. They are inherently non-rivalrous, non-scarce. The concept of property and by extension 'the market' was created in order to own, control, coordinate, and manage scarce resources. Thus, information, ideas, and 'arrangements' of property, do not constitute legitimate property.

Artificial scarcity created by the State is immoral, destroys wealth creation, and makes the market less efficient.

In a truly free market, IP would not exist (as it is only a State-granted privilege).

If physical resources/goods were somehow made non-scarce (like the replicators in Star Trek), there would be no need for a free market, nor the need for Lockean sticky property rights in those resources / goods.

It's also interesting to note that in Star Trek, due to the replicators making a post-scarce society, they don't need the free market nor the price system for goods / resources any longer. I know Star Trek is fiction, but they are accurate in that regard - though there would probably still be a market for collectibles, certain services, and certain luxuries (such as original works of art, etc)... but I digress.As supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. Therefore all music, movies, data, etc is essentially worthless (and free). y=mx+b

[Matt Collins]

This is already been covered, you don't OWN it. You have a license to use it according to the given terms and conditions. If you want to OWN, then contact the content producer and work out those conditions.There is no contract when you buy an album from the store.

[Matt Collins]

For video games and other software - Used game sales are a massive market - and developers and publishers lose a lot of money from such sales. For a long time, they fought this - and of course they lost.

It's called the "first sale doctrine".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine



But they found a way to encourage orIginal purchases. They included one-time use game codes for special items, maps, features and other content that new game buyers got that preowned ones would not get. There is also DLC, which is a way to maximize revenue from both new and used game customers. Not to mention, that the market has responded by allowing direct-to-download games (on xbox live and PS network) that ensure everyone buying it from there contributes revenue and thus profits. It's cheaper for the developer, the customer, it's gOt low overhead, and it's more convenient for everyone.
When I was in college back in 05 one of my marketing courses required a book. Typical, but this book included an unique code to access the website where all of the quizzes and tests were posted. The professors liked it because they had to do less work (quizzes were administered and graded automatically). And it cut out the resell market on that specific book because each student was forced to purchase the book just to get the unique code.

It pissed me off, but I had to admit it was brilliant.

[dannno]

There is some interesting court cases dealing with this and EULAs (look it up).

People will buy software, open it up and while installing it, and then not agree to the EULA. So then they put it back in the box and take it back to the store. But retail stores won't accept opened software because it could've been copied.


Reminds me of the example of the hidden sticker below the spare tire that informs the driver they have to pay the owner $5/mile driven, even after they've already purchased it..

What if the EULA said the user is liable for $100/day for use of the software after they bought it for $50? Of course they wouldn't know that before they bought it..

[Matt Collins]

Copying isn't theft, but it's still a crime. When you create something and get a patent on your invention or work, you have all rights to it.And by "rights" you really mean "privileges that government grants you".

[Matt Collins]

A contract is a "meeting of the minds".

If the minds of the parties of the contract don't actually meet, then the contract is essentially invalid.

[Matt Collins]

Besides, there are other ways to monetize the music industry. I have a binder full of them inspired by the Mises movement, and they are about to get implemented. ;)
I'm desperate for money, if you can hire me for anything, please do!

[BarryDonegan]

I'm desperate for money, if you can hire me for anything, please do!

We will be hiring in the future, so I will keep you in mind when the time comes!