"Property" includes non-tangible things though.
Copyright theft...
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
Perhaps, but it doesn't feel as wrong.
Just depends where people draw their morals.
I stopped all forms of 'illegal' downloading about a year ago, but that was a choice made due to my thoughts on the matter.
I stopped all forms of 'illegal' downloading about a year ago, but that was a choice made due to my thoughts on the matter.
Hey, very socialist thread, intellectual property is theft - download away you have nothing to lose but your bandwidth..
Things like copyrights, trademarks and patents.
You do come out with some gems Peter, i'd love to hear the explanation & thought process behind this one.
It's interesting when you look at the various levels of it though. I mean obviously there's downloading movies and TV shows that are on DVD because you cbf buying them. Which is not something I really do.
But then on the other hand you have downloading weekly episodes of TV shows that you follow. For example, my routine at various points of the year whenever they're airing sees me downloading episodes of Top Gear, Clone Wars, Always Sunny, The Office and Big Bang Theory after they've aired. While you can see the cost of downloading entire movies and TV series that are out on DVD I fail to see the harm in doing so - I subscribe to Foxtel (pay TV) and even that doesn't show the newest episodes of some of those series, which puts me in a position as a fan where I'm just... supposed to wait until someone here can be assed paying the license fee or for a box set to come out in a year or so?
Anyway, anyone that's really concerned about the theft of intellectual property and is getting high and mighty about it better not have ever downloaded highlights to our games from the Videos thread.
But then on the other hand you have downloading weekly episodes of TV shows that you follow. For example, my routine at various points of the year whenever they're airing sees me downloading episodes of Top Gear, Clone Wars, Always Sunny, The Office and Big Bang Theory after they've aired. While you can see the cost of downloading entire movies and TV series that are out on DVD I fail to see the harm in doing so - I subscribe to Foxtel (pay TV) and even that doesn't show the newest episodes of some of those series, which puts me in a position as a fan where I'm just... supposed to wait until someone here can be assed paying the license fee or for a box set to come out in a year or so?
Anyway, anyone that's really concerned about the theft of intellectual property and is getting high and mighty about it better not have ever downloaded highlights to our games from the Videos thread.
Fair point I suppose. Take football highlights - we have to jump through hoops and obstacles simply to see the goals of one single match nowadays. Yes the Premier League or whatever do have broadcasting rights to these matches but are they really going to make money out of restricting the viewing of Blackburn vs. Wigan goals to people who pay millions? In fact, is footage of Premier League matches really worth policing on YouTube?
Sometimes I feel all this rights management, licensing and copyright laws have gone too far and some software companies are not helping. Maybe it's the dirty liberal socialist in me. You used to be able to put a CD in your drive and listen to music without having to click on DRM notices and having nasty software installed on your computer...
Sometimes I feel all this rights management, licensing and copyright laws have gone too far and some software companies are not helping. Maybe it's the dirty liberal socialist in me. You used to be able to put a CD in your drive and listen to music without having to click on DRM notices and having nasty software installed on your computer...
Whether it's right or not, or worth policing or not, is neither here nor there though x42. If a person has made a determination to not infringe upon anyone's IP in any way whatsoever, fair fecks to them. But they'd better not be viewing highlights of matches on youtube/goaltube/footycast/torrenting them or whatever.
To be honest I really feel that this is an area where the law hasn't kept up with the developments in technology, and I look forward to whenever the option is open to me to pick units in IP law so I can get a better look at whats going on legally. A good example is the cases where shop owners have been told to turn off their radios, even in staff only areas, in case customers can hear them. Which seems nonsensical to me and most people, but obviously has some kind of legal basis behind it that I'd be very interested to finally find out the working of.
To be honest I really feel that this is an area where the law hasn't kept up with the developments in technology, and I look forward to whenever the option is open to me to pick units in IP law so I can get a better look at whats going on legally. A good example is the cases where shop owners have been told to turn off their radios, even in staff only areas, in case customers can hear them. Which seems nonsensical to me and most people, but obviously has some kind of legal basis behind it that I'd be very interested to finally find out the working of.
Its all about broadcasting, if you're using a radio in a place of work then its contributing to staff morale (probably the lowest form, but a contributer all the same). It then becomes a broadcast & as such requires a PRS license to do so (like bars & clubs that want to play music in them).
What's the difference?
I've been on the end of this. The Spanish association for music royalties, or whatever it is called used to constantly send one of my bars bills for royalties on the playing of music. The trouble was that they kept insisting that it was a disco when it was a bar/restaurant. Most of the music came over MTV/VH1, and you already have to pay a premium for the Sat TV because you were a public place, so the royalties had already been paid. You could tell them and tell them, yet every month, this bill would arrive.
So another angle, I had a huge CD collection that got scratched up/lost/died, am I morality justified to download replacements or should I just be pissed that the music industry decided to stick with a format that's shit?
Not justified, like how you smash your car into a traffic light but aren't allowed to get a new one for free from the factory.
If you have already paid for the content, you can do what you want for your own use IMO.
You're still stuck on the idea that you pay for the plastic. This is why DRM pisses people off. It doesn't stop piracy one little bit, yet harms the legitimate user.
Elvis my friend, this is bullshit.
I didn't mention plastic or anything.
Piracy involves "copy"right infringement which involves the copying of something - in the case of a piece of software, a perfect digital copy. This copy the copyright holder never owned. It was simply illegal to copy it in the first place.
Put it another way. If you design an image and I amateurishly copy it with my camera (an imperfect copy) and use it beyond permitted fair use and acceptable reproduction, then I haven't stolen from you. I have simply violated various rights you have as a copyright holder, including the exclusive rights for you to exploit this image for profit and gain.
I haven't "stolen" anything from you. I may have been able to exploit this amateur copy for profit but this wasn't stolen from you - you simply didn't obtain the profits I made off this illegal copy. Indeed, you may never have made a profit off the person I sold it too - what if this customer hates you?
This is why we have a term copyright infringement. Infringement of rights. It's not theft. It's potentially-lost revenue for you. I have not removed your ability to own the copyright of the product - you still have the copyright, if you like, in your possession. In theft, this is not the case.
If I go and buy a Ford Fiesta it doesn't give me legal or moral authority to start making Ford Fiesta's myself and either selling or giving them away. You buy the individual product but not the intellectual property in the design.
Argghhh, so much shit in one thread. Good job I didn't see this until just now, although I didn't make a podcast either.
What if I chuck it into my magical cloning machine and make a perfect copy? It's copying, not manufacturing, which is the problem. If I used Norton's source code to make x42bn6 Antivirus, then yes, I'm violating intellectual property laws. It's different in this case because I'm, for lack of a better phrase, copying a realisation of Norton Antivirus, which resides on a disc, for my own gain.
A Ford Fiesta is a bad comparison because it's not easily copied. Patenting aside I should be able to make a rough copy of a Ford Fiesta without the Ford Fiesta blueprints, the same way a CD burner can make a perfect copy of a CD containing software. Images are probably a better example.
I take it you would never say someone 'stole' your password then? They've just copied it, you still have the original password.
The fact is you can say someone 'stole' in common language when referring to an intangible object, even if the original object is left intact. Infringing someone's intellectual property rights is morally equivalent to theft despite the subtle legal distinction.
IP laws protect ideas - creations of the mind. My idea of a car with specific details like rocket-powered engines is protected under IP laws. To qualify for such protection there needs to be a sufficient amount of creativity and effort.
A Ford Fiesta car has various copyrights attached to it. It likely has various patents (which require a degree of effort and creativity to quality). It probably has industrial design rights (things like the colour of the car, the material of the seat, and so on) and trade secrets (how to power the engine in a specific way).
A password does not fall under this. There is little creative effort involved in picking a password. The password itself has zero inventive potential - what can you use a password for? Can you make an invention out of it? A process? A set of characters by itself cannot be copyrighted - it is data. Yes some phrases can be copyrighted, such as quotes; and sets of characters can be trademarked.
I'm not violating trademark laws by picking "Sprite" as my password to my computer at my high-powered job.
Does the law rule on moral theft?
Copyright infringement is immoral, and so is theft, but it doesn't equate the two! If I blackmail you into giving me something it's the act of blackmail which is illegal, not the transaction of the item - despite the fact you've lost something and I've gained it. But you don't equate theft to blackmail.The law distinguishes between intellectual property and copyright infringement because intellectual property can realised in different forms. The same antivirus software could be released under open source under different programming languages. The same Mozilla Firefox icon can be made into a GIF or PNG. IP protects the idea behind the different versions of software or the idea of the Mozilla Firefox icon. It prevents me from using a slightly-modified Mozilla Firefox icon for material gain, or taking the source code and changing variable names before recompiling. Copyright laws prevent me from taking those icons or lifting directly from discs the software itself without any sort of creative modification or exploitation. I haven't nicked "the idea" of the Mozilla Firefox icon. I've simply "nicked it".
In general treating copyright infringement as theft can be rather useful and I think in the UK they do it (in the US it's up to each state I think, and it doesn't apply in all of them), but there is a slight difference which doesn't make it the same thing.
I've been on the end of this. The Spanish association for music royalties, or whatever it is called used to constantly send one of my bars bills for royalties on the playing of music. The trouble was that they kept insisting that it was a disco when it was a bar/restaurant. Most of the music came over MTV/VH1, and you already have to pay a premium for the Sat TV because you were a public place, so the royalties had already been paid. You could tell them and tell them, yet every month, this bill would arrive.
SGAE (Spanish performing rights society) is right though. Surprisingly, your TV license or subscription fee does not cover the right to play copyrighted music in a public place, even that contained within the broadcast. You will need a license from the relevant performing rights society for that.
The PRS is the UK society:
You have a TV licence - isn't that enough?
torrents and internet streams are epic.
On a slightly different tangent to original question, but I actually think that pirating will be good for the music industry and am sick of hearing it as 'stealing'. So much illogical moral conditioning that people don't transcend. if someone says its wrong to steal from Tesco's they are also a muppet.
Even the argument over semantics in this thread is so trivial its absurd.
Musicians should want to makes music for music sake, for artistic reasons and earn money from touring or by earning the respect of fans who will then buy the album (quite common for people to still do this for favourite albums).
The music industry, major labels being obviously the worst, have for too long devalued artistic merit and promoted novelty songs. Plus anybody who goes into music to be rich and successful and not for the sake of making music is a good thing to remove.
Even the argument over semantics in this thread is so trivial its absurd.
Musicians should want to makes music for music sake, for artistic reasons and earn money from touring or by earning the respect of fans who will then buy the album (quite common for people to still do this for favourite albums).
The music industry, major labels being obviously the worst, have for too long devalued artistic merit and promoted novelty songs. Plus anybody who goes into music to be rich and successful and not for the sake of making music is a good thing to remove.
IP laws protect ideas - creations of the mind. My idea of a car with specific details like rocket-powered engines is protected under IP laws. To qualify for such protection there needs to be a sufficient amount of creativity and effort.
A Ford Fiesta car has various copyrights attached to it. It likely has various patents (which require a degree of effort and creativity to quality). It probably has industrial design rights (things like the colour of the car, the material of the seat, and so on) and trade secrets (how to power the engine in a specific way).
A password does not fall under this. There is little creative effort involved in picking a password. The password itself has zero inventive potential - what can you use a password for? Can you make an invention out of it? A process? A set of characters by itself cannot be copyrighted - it is data. Yes some phrases can be copyrighted, such as quotes; and sets of characters can be trademarked.
I'm not violating trademark laws by picking "Sprite" as my password to my computer at my high-powered job.
Does the law rule on moral theft?
The law distinguishes between intellectual property and copyright infringement because intellectual property can realised in different forms. The same antivirus software could be released under open source under different programming languages. The same Mozilla Firefox icon can be made into a GIF or PNG. IP protects the idea behind the different versions of software or the idea of the Mozilla Firefox icon. It prevents me from using a slightly-modified Mozilla Firefox icon for material gain, or taking the source code and changing variable names before recompiling. Copyright laws prevent me from taking those icons or lifting directly from discs the software itself without any sort of creative modification or exploitation. I haven't nicked "the idea" of the Mozilla Firefox icon. I've simply "nicked it".
In general treating copyright infringement as theft can be rather useful and I think in the UK they do it (in the US it's up to each state I think, and it doesn't apply in all of them), but there is a slight difference which doesn't make it the same thing.
I know IP law pretty well - at least I should do, it is my job... or rather it was, I just got promoted
You misread the analogy. My point wasn't that there is IP in a password, but rather that you can talk about stealing things like passwords even though it doesn't involve taking a physical object or destroying the original. In the same way you can talk of stealing a piece of music by illegally downloading it, even though it is not legally 'theft' but rather copyright infringement.
In other news, rape isn't murder. Both are wrong though.
Wow law really is just a case of blocking out all your common sense, arguing over the words meanings and context, glad I didn't do it in the end, don't want to be the master of the straw man argument. We all have instilled in ourselves morality from our environment, thats all. But the moral code that is instilled by superstructure institutions don't show the same morality to the average citizen.
For example you would say that murder is a significantly worse crime than stealing. That stealing from one person is morally worse than stealing from a company.
Yet the sentence will be similar for the corporate crime and the murder, and least for robbing an individual.
For example you would say that murder is a significantly worse crime than stealing. That stealing from one person is morally worse than stealing from a company.
Yet the sentence will be similar for the corporate crime and the murder, and least for robbing an individual.
If you have any ideas on how compromising the value of assets is a good thing for the industry then please feel free to let me know. I have to give a presentation on new business models and monetisation strategies in music publishing next month, I'm an optimistic person but I think the good 'ol days of huge profits are behind us.
I'm not one to defend the business strategies the labels employed over the last decade or so - sticking your head in the sand is no strategy - however I think you're being very unfair on the artists here. To be able to do the things you suggest (touring, building a fanbase etc) you need capital, and usually a lot of it. This typically means an artist needs to get a big advance from their label and publisher to enable them to work before they start earning (if they're lucky). If the rights in the songs and the recordings are worth little, then there is no business in giving big advances and the industry slowly grinds to a halt... unless we can think of some way to stop the slide in mechanical income or replace it with an as-yet-untapped income source.
Is the law that ambiguous though? "Stealing a password" I feel is a metaphor. Nothing is stolen - heck, do you even own your own password?I know IP law pretty well - at least I should do, it is my job... or rather it was, I just got promoted
You misread the analogy. My point wasn't that there is IP in a password, but rather that you can talk about stealing things like passwords even though it doesn't involve taking a physical object or destroying the original. In the same way you can talk of stealing a piece of music by illegally downloading it, even though it is not legally 'theft' but rather copyright infringement.
In other news, rape isn't murder. Both are wrong though.
Theft implies deprivation and you are not depriving me of my password. You are obtaining it illegally perhaps.
It is a metaphor yes. Legally it isn't theft, but in common terms it very much is. I don't have a problem with people calling copyright infringement theft, just as I don't have a problem with people saying passwords are 'stolen'; it's the same morally if not legally.
"I wasn't drink driving, I was under the influence of narcotics." Different, but morally the same.
Do the podcast...
Lots of things get stolen - moments, kisses, thunder.
With that loose definition, then I suppose a lot of things are theft. Don't think this is legally the case though which is why I don't accept arguments like, "You wouldn't steal a car."
I feel those kind of messages are counter-productive, but to be fair they're not trying to construct a legal argument are they? If it said "You wouldn't infringe the patents in the design of a car", I think the message would be somewhat lost.
Oh, of course, that's the point of advertising. It just feels very non sequitur to me.
This is the only problem here.
I am no socialist nut but I think a society where actors, musicians and sportsperson are earning so much money in an year is a flawed one. Especially since loads who are do not even possess much talent are able to use the existing situation to earn millions.
Basically technology has been a great leveler to remedy this fallacy since Governments all over the world do not have the back bone to impose any kind of regulation. Again I am not talking about communist USSR, but say putting a wage cap on footballers salary, limiting it to 100k a week. Still a lot of money but limiting it to 100k would help decrease the ticket prices somewhat and avoid a lot of clubs going bankrupt. Similarly for music and movies, put a maximum limit on an album, movie ticket or DVD price. Movie stars or artists would not suddenly come to streets because of that but may be forced to buy one ferrari instead of two or fly first class instead of their own private jet.
Look at the number of people now using itunes store to buy songs instead of downloading it because Apple were brave enough to fight the industry for the right to sell each single song instead of forcing people to buy 10 rubbish ones just to listen to one.
Regardless, the greedy industry would not be winning this battle. With the ever increasing internet speed, people will just stream music and videos instead of downloading them. I have not downloaded a song for ages, I just youtube all of my favourite songs. I have an Iphone as well so again can steam music. When Wimax or LTE becomes more universal I may not even need any music on my phone/Ipod, a long playlist on youtube will do.
The trouble is it's not the big artists who are really affected. Having just paid James Blount (don't know why he dropped the 'o') his royalties for the last six months, I can tell you that talentless musicians are still doing very well.
I think the only real hope for the entertainment industries long term - especially the music industry - is to aim for a 'feels-like-free' model. For example, a music download / steaming package that comes bundled in with your ISP or mobile contract so the consumer doesn't really feel they're paying their 15-20 quid a month for music.