Copying is (not) theft

[Hostigation]

Ok.
While that is a constitutional clause, the vast majority of us do not live by the constraints of the US constitution.

The clause also does not seem to mention a time frame other than "limited"

This is why I conceded the debate. I feel many here do not fully understand copyright. SCOTUS has ruled, recently even, that the grant of copyright must be limited otherwise would be stricken and found unconstitutional. In that opinion of the Court, the justices acknowledged Congress is tasked with assigning the time frame to abide by their duties of the Constitution, and could revisit that duty as each limit approaches, and again lengthen it to a state of virtual perpetuity, while never violating the Constitutionality. There really is no need to justify Copyright being limited and that the writings and inventions are a part of the public trust, our Forefathers saw to that when crafting our Constitution.

Your statement about this being a clause seems to me like you feel it carries less weight than say Freedom of the Press, but the Copyright Clause is actually part of our Constitution, not merely an Amendment. See how I did that They both are equally important, and to not live by the constraints of the Constitution means you support anarchy?

I am making that above statement assuming you are an American, if you reside in some other country, my apologies. And no, IANAL, I just spend too much free time reading opinions of the court.

 

[Exmasters-Mark]

Wow.

I was very interesting to read your posts.

I have something to say about several of them

Huge difference between giving a copy of your DVD to your friend and giving a copy of your DVD to 10,000+ anonymous people.

Legally there is no any difference whether you just gave a disc to watch to a friend, or to over 9k anonymous users of torrent trackers. You are crime. You have broken the copyright and if we follow the law, you should be sued in both cases.

However, there's still no difference in the profits for rightholders if their product is seeded via internet, because, as we may see from the discussion, the majority of people are against free download, the more so because, those 10 000 people who are leeching the copyright-protected products, might have never bought it having no opportunity to download. The one thing is when everyone is able to pay but still downloads the ripped copies, but when (lots of countries of the world) people have low incomes, shouldn't they be able to see the world's masterpieces, just because being not enough wealthy?

Every constitution, I believe, declares equal rights to all people, but in fact, money give more rights to ones, and less to others, and in case with copyright, there are more rights at copyright owners.

I understand that "Lex dura sed lex" principle which has been told by Romans and is still used, but we are talking about the real life, where rightholders are not even the real creators of the product, while even the huge download of their products for now payment gives really no damage to their income.

As I remember, copyright promoters were angry about audio cassettes. yelling something like "they will kill music!" because of ability to be copied at home, and videocassetes, which should have kill the cinema, but still we are moving forward, because people who create something worthy, are doing it not for money, but as the way of self actualization.

Again, I understand the laws, but I also live in the world and see how often the real life differs from what is prescribed by the documents.

 

[Blue]

This is why I conceded the debate. I feel many here do not fully understand copyright. SCOTUS has ruled, recently even, that the grant of copyright must be limited otherwise would be stricken and found unconstitutional. In that opinion of the Court, the justices acknowledged Congress is tasked with assigning the time frame to abide by their duties of the Constitution, and could revisit that duty as each limit approaches, and again lengthen it to a state of virtual perpetuity, while never violating the Constitutionality. There really is no need to justify Copyright being limited and that the writings and inventions are a part of the public trust, our Forefathers saw to that when crafting our Constitution.

Your statement about this being a clause seems to me like you feel it carries less weight than say Freedom of the Press, but the Copyright Clause is actually part of our Constitution, not merely an Amendment. See how I did that They both are equally important, and to not live by the constraints of the Constitution means you support anarchy?

I am making that above statement assuming you are an American, if you reside in some other country, my apologies. And no, IANAL, I just spend too much free time reading opinions of the court.

I didn't intend it to sound as though I felt the clause was unimportant in the context of the constitution, just that the limit set is arbitrary.

I'm not an American but I have a pretty good working knowledge of the US constitution. That being said would those US copyrights mentioned in the constitution not only apply work the works of US artists?

 

[Hostigation]

I'm not an American but I have a pretty good working knowledge of the US constitution. That being said would those US copyrights mentioned in the constitution not only apply work the works of US artists?

I know I would have to read more to get a better understanding on the issue, but as I understand it, all works are covered by this clause, not just the works of Americans. We certainly do not wish to steal from our neighbors around the world while protecting our own. Copyright is covered in many treaties with foreign nations, but Congress will always attempt to harmonize the limits with those treaties if they become out of sync.

 

[SenseiSteve]

However, there's still no difference in the profits for rightholders if their product is seeded via internet, because, as we may see from the discussion, the majority of people are against free download, the more so because, those 10 000 people who are leeching the copyright-protected products, might have never bought it having no opportunity to download. The one thing is when everyone is able to pay but still downloads the ripped copies, but when (lots of countries of the world) people have low incomes, shouldn't they be able to see the world's masterpieces, just because being not enough wealthy?

Every constitution, I believe, declares equal rights to all people, but in fact, money give more rights to ones, and less to others, and in case with copyright, there are more rights at copyright owners.

I understand that "Lex dura sed lex" principle which has been told by Romans and is still used, but we are talking about the real life, where rightholders are not even the real creators of the product, while even the huge download of their products for now payment gives really no damage to their income.

As I remember, copyright promoters were angry about audio cassettes. yelling something like "they will kill music!" because of ability to be copied at home, and videocassetes, which should have kill the cinema, but still we are moving forward, because people who create something worthy, are doing it not for money, but as the way of self actualization.

This is wrong on so many levels.

might have never bought it having no opportunity to download.

I'd change that to "might have never bought it having no opportunity to illegally download it." Of course, if you're a thief, you'll always opt for the opportunity to steal something rather than buy it.

The one thing is when everyone is able to pay but still downloads the ripped copies, but when (lots of countries of the world) people have low incomes, shouldn't they be able to see the world's masterpieces, just because being not enough wealthy?

Being poor doesn't give you the ethical right to steal.

Every constitution, I believe, declares equal rights to all people, but in fact, money give more rights to ones, and less to others, and in case with copyright, there are more rights at copyright owners.

I don't know where you're going with this, but the constitution does NOT give non-copyright holders the same rights as the copyright holder, as it pertains to their specific copyright.

but we are talking about the real life, where rightholders are not even the real creators of the product, while even the huge download of their products for now payment gives really no damage to their income.

This sounds like the reasoning a thief would use. It doesn't matter if the copyright holder is the creator of the product, and the courts have repeatedly held that illegal downloads do, in reality, affect the profits of the copyright holder.

Again, I understand the laws, but I also live in the world and see how often the real life differs from what is prescribed by the documents.

I would agree with that - with rip sites, it's so much easier now to be a thief.

 

[DataShack]

Huge difference between giving a copy of your DVD to your friend and giving a copy of your DVD to 10,000+ anonymous people.

Ok, that's a good point. Where is the line? If I walk around town and let 50 people read my newspaper am I a pirate? Is it 100? More than 1? I leave my magazine in a doctor's office and over the next year 500 people read it. Are they going to come to get me?

My issue is not with the right or wrong part of it but the "where is the line" part of it.

Years ago the line was with money. You could give stuff away but you couldn't sell it. The line's been moved. They need to tell us where it is and then enforce the laws evenly along those lines.

 

[Blue]

The line is still the same.
You buy a product and you have the right to give that physical product to another person.

That does not extend to digital properties.
That is why there is DMA.

 

[Exmasters-Mark]

This is wrong on so many levels.

It's only yours point. I hope you understand, you can't be the only torch of truth.

Of course, if you're a thief, you'll always opt for the opportunity to steal something rather than buy it.

I do not think all those people who use trackers are thieves. They just realize the right of informational exchange. This process moves the human evolution, in global scale.

Moreover, if you, Steve, personally are not thief, how could you know what do thieves prefer and what are their motives and reasons?

Still think copying is not theft.

Being poor doesn't give you the ethical right to steal.

I was asking another question. I was wondering why people deserve to be culturally isolated, taking into attention the overall income level in country? This is a simple humanity, isn't it?

I don't know where you're going with this, but the constitution does NOT give non-copyright holders the same rights as the copyright holder, as it pertains to their specific copyright.

Maybe I was not enough accurate in my words, but I meant not the legislative, juristic rights, but the natural human rights, which, I think, include the right to share the information they possess.

it's so much easier now to be a thief.

You see, theft is in fact a very relative term. If we take the Proudhon's phylosophy for the basis instead of Smith's, we see every private property to be the act of theft.

Again, I am not talking about the rights prescribed by the laws, I am talking about natural rights, which are being depressed by the laws.

They need to tell us where it is and then enforce the laws evenly along those lines.

No! Why should they decide for you? Can't we decide for ourselves? Rights are not the gift of the governments, rights belong us since we are born and we must protect it in order to stay free.

The line is still the same.
You buy a product and you have the right to give that physical product to another person.

Yes - the same line, the same responsibility for the different kinds of products.

Bernard Shaw has already expressed the point clearly (indirect):

"When I have an apple and you have an apple, the exchange will lead us to possessing of the only apple each, but if I have an idea and you have an idea, the exchange means we have two ideas each."

 

[Blue]

You clearly do not understand what a "right" is.

There is no "right" either god given or man made to steal.

 

[handsonhosting]

Wow - I leave here for a couple of weeks, come back to a thread link this that's all over the place (and rightly so) and still I'm stumbling for words to put into this message box

Copyright is Copyright. If you take something that is not yours, you're stealing. The music that I have created over the years is MY music. If someone decides to sample my music in their song, I should be compensated. If anyone downloaded my music and did not pay for it, they're stealing my money.

If I decide to donate my works of art to someone, that's my choice. I have a somewhat healthy garden in my back yard, and if anyone jumps the fence and takes my vegetables without asking, I'll press charges (good luck getting past my dogs!)

There's no grey area when it comes to what is right and wrong. If you download programs, music, games, books and you did not pay for them (and they're not FREE), you're stealing.

I honestly don't know why there's such a debate on this kind of issue these days. You'd think that everyone would know the laws, would remember places like Napster, Limewire and Bearshare who were each shut down in their own right for sharing of digital media. A torrent download is no different other than instead of downloading from ONE source, you're downloading from multiple sources.. each one of them breaking the laws.

I've never been able to figure out why people try to justify stealing or lying.

 

[SenseiSteve]

It's only yours point. I hope you understand, you can't be the only torch of truth.

I never said I didn't respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it, and neither do the courts.

I do not think all those people who use trackers are thieves. They just realize the right of informational exchange. This process moves the human evolution, in global scale.

Human evolution largely follows living withing societies and conforming to their laws and policies. There is no right of informational exchange as it relates to copyrighted material.

Moreover, if you, Steve, personally are not thief, how could you know what do thieves prefer and what are their motives and reasons?

Why does this statement even deserve a reply? The overwheming majority of the global populace are not murders or thieves. I don't have to travel to the bottom of the ocean to know it's down there.

Still think copying is not theft.

Fortunately, the courts do NOT side with your thinking, nor do global communities that have signed International Treaties outlawing copyright infringement.

I was asking another question. I was wondering why people deserve to be culturally isolated, taking into attention the overall income level in country? This is a simple humanity, isn't it?

I understand your reasoning, but simple humanity does not entitle everyone on Earth to all things - including copyrighted material.

Maybe I was not enough accurate in my words, but I meant not the legislative, juristic rights, but the natural human rights, which, I think, include the right to share the information they possess.

If I wanted a database of all web hosting providers, and a vendor had such a list copyrighted, would I be entitled to download a stolen copy, if it were offered free via a bittorrent? No, receiving stolen goods is theft.

You see, theft is in fact a very relative term. If we take the Proudhon's phylosophy for the basis instead of Smith's, we see every private property to be the act of theft.

I couldn't disagree more. While I agree that everything is relative, copyright law is very clear.

Again, I am not talking about the rights prescribed by the laws, I am talking about natural rights, which are being depressed by the laws.

So you would prefer to live in a lawless society?

No! Why should they decide for you? Can't we decide for ourselves? Rights are not the gift of the governments, rights belong us since we are born and we must protect it in order to stay free.

We have decided for ourselves - by electing representatives to speak for us, and we've agreed to abide by the laws enacted. Fortunately, in the U.S., we can recall or vote out representatives who don't align themselves with our beliefs.

Yes - the same line, the same responsibility for the different kinds of products.

It isn't the same line, as clearly defined by copyright law and the courts.

Bernard Shaw has already expressed the point clearly (indirect):

"When I have an apple and you have an apple, the exchange will lead us to possessing of the only apple each, but if I have an idea and you have an idea, the exchange means we have two ideas each."

Bernard Shaw's quote doesn't address copyright law, and it doesn't make stealing any less criminal.

 

[Artashes]

Copyright is Copyright. If you take something that is not yours, you're stealing. The music that I have created over the years is MY music. If someone decides to sample my music in their song, I should be compensated. If anyone downloaded my music and did not pay for it, they're stealing my money.

What if someone buys your CD and then gives it to 100 of his friends to listen because they liked it so much?

*CD being rotated between friends that is.

 

[handsonhosting]

Personally, I'd rather each of the 100 people would support my art rather than getting copies. I know that years ago there was a law that allowed users to purchase media and then give that freely to others. As long as there was no commercial gain, there was no infringement (this of course is looking strictly at the law and not at ethics).

My understanding these days however is that users can purchase a CD and make a copy for themselves (or copy to their ipod etc) but it's for their own personal use and not for distribution.

 

[Hostigation]

If I wanted a database of all web hosting providers, and a vendor had such a list copyrighted, would I be entitled to download a stolen copy, if it were offered free via a bittorrent? No, receiving stolen goods is theft.

Only their original content can carry a copyright, lists cannot. So actually you can take their list, but be sure not to take any original content they provide with it.

 

[Hostigation]

Personally, I'd rather each of the 100 people would support my art rather than getting copies. I know that years ago there was a law that allowed users to purchase media and then give that freely to others. As long as there was no commercial gain, there was no infringement (this of course is looking strictly at the law and not at ethics).

My understanding these days however is that users can purchase a CD and make a copy for themselves (or copy to their ipod etc) but it's for their own personal use and not for distribution.

The First Sale Doctrine still allows for passing (selling) of copyrighted material from one party to another, where neither is the copyright holder. This is for the originally distributed copy.

For self consumption, you are right on, you can media shift a copyrighted work all you wish for yourself. The Library of Congress has also issued many exceptions to DMCA to avoid violating it while media shifting, but I think the reality is DMCA would not hold up to Constitutionality tests if it ever fell before SCOTUS.

 

[Exmasters-Mark]

Human evolution largely follows living withing societies and conforming to their laws and policies.

Yes, it is. But I think in this case we experience the law which is working for large corporations instead of working for people. I have already told about the reality of the copyright-protected products: their real producers - coders, musicians, designers, writers, etc. are not the owners of the things they create. The labels and corporations are. Facing the copyright, we face law designed to prevent not even their income loose, but just slowing down its growth. No people actually suffer from pirates, but many suffer from the laws being sued for huge penalties.

The more so because, we may see the alternative schemes working today, like for instance, OpenSource technologies, many musicians refusing to make income on CD's making a bet for the live performances. Actually, if I have downloaded an album of a band and I liked it, I will pay for visiting their live show, as soon as I have such an opportunity. But, with copyright domination it seems nobody really wants to play music or perform other art for being appreciated as an artist, only money is the interest, neither justice, nor the art itself. To my mind, it slows down the evolution progress.

copyright law is very clear

The law is clear, not the real situation. I also respect your opinion, but you seem to advocate the law itself, considering no facts it is being used for. The law should work for people, but in this case it works against.

As for my image of the laws, they are created by society to serve people and to protect their rights. By downloading the copies "illegally" nobody tries to challenge the author's ownership or impersonate his talent, so there is no victim in this "crime". The only victim is money, and the copyright law protects money against the human. That's an absurd - people and their work is the source of money, source of goods, so there could be nothing more important.

We have decided for ourselves - by electing representatives to speak for us, and we've agreed to abide by the laws enacted. Fortunately, in the U.S., we can recall or vote out representatives who don't align themselves with our beliefs.

US has a very good inner political institution, but anyway, by voting anyone, you confess their authority above yours, and you will have to abide the rules someone has set above you, for your will.

So you would prefer to live in a lawless society?

Not this time. Despite I think people can live without laws, prescribing what should they do, being able to decide for them selves, today this is not possible to be realized. That is why I'd just prefer to have reasonable laws, which would not depress the natural human rights.

Bernard Shaw's quote doesn't address copyright law

Yes, definitely! But it addresses the reality, where the theft (not by the law, but by the principle) is when one person takes the thing, another loses this thing - and the law about material theft is being developped to support justice. When it comes to an informational products share, nobody loses, everyone just receive becoming informationally richer, it just cannot be interpreted equally to the theft. That is why copying is not theft.

 

[SenseiSteve]

When it comes to an informational products share, nobody loses, everyone just receive becoming informationally richer, it just cannot be interpreted equally to the theft. That is why copying is not theft.

The holder of the copyright does lose, which is why copying is theft, no matter how you rationalize it. For those that illegally download copyrighted digital information, you may be informationally richer, but you're still a thief, in the eyes of the court. If you don't like the laws, become an advocate for change.

 

[Blue]

No people actually suffer from pirates,

Sorry but that is an absolute load of garbage and nothing more than a justification for stealing.

Whatever makes you sleep better I guess, but in a real society we do not get to pick and choose the laws we want to live by.

There are mechanisms in place to get laws changed. Subverting those laws is not a part of that mechanism.

 

[handsonhosting]

Since the OP is positive he's in the right, how about you report yourself to the various agencies to see if they feel the same way I guarantee that you'll be fined and/or imprisoned for violating the law.

 

[DataShack]

Whatever makes you sleep better I guess, but in a real society we do not get to pick and choose the laws we want to live by.

There are mechanisms in place to get laws changed. Subverting those laws is not a part of that mechanism.

I couldn't agree more. This is the exact same rational I use when talking to people about immigration issues. Well said.