Stewie Griffin has been freed.

[Nebu]

The thing is, I am not by any means unique.  There is a huge market out there of people like myself who are willing to part with vast sums of money in exchange for music, as long as they get a chance to preview it first and make sure it isn't ass.  And rather than courting that market in an attempt to get some of that phat cash, the RIAA is demonizing it and slapping it with lawsuits.  REAL FUCKING SMART, ASSHOLES.  That's all I'm saying.

I agree with you completely.  The issue I have is that noone has the right to obtain their own preview.  It's up to the artist to release their information and/or make portions of it public domain.  With the right kinds of pressures, perhaps this will start becoming more commonplace.  I believe many artists are already releasing song previews on the net and there's always the whole radio/satellite radio mechanism.

[Nebu]

But that has no bearing whatsoever on what we're discussing, because we're discussing instances in which the purchase is made.  Do you agree?

I think we're on the same page.  I just can't condone the downloading of music against the terms of the copyright.  You're saying that pirating music is ok if it causes you to buy the music.  I'm saying that piracy is piracy no matter what the end result is.  The solution is a change in the way that music is distributed for preview and it appears we agree there as well.   

[Samwise]

The issue I have is that noone has the right to obtain their own preview.

So should it be illegal for me to borrow a friend's CD in order to preview it for myself?  The artist certainly doesn't explicitly consent to that.

[NowhereMan]

I think saying that previewing music by download is tantamount to stealing is going a bit too far. It's not something the artist consents to, that's true, but it doesn't negatively effect the artist in any way (assuming said song doesn't suck, and people who release bad music don't deserve money). It seems to make more sense to equate that with listening for an artist's new song on the radio and deciding whether it's worth getting or not.

[Nebu]

So should it be illegal for me to borrow a friend's CD in order to preview it for myself?  The artist certainly doesn't explicitly consent to that.

I think now your trying to be ridiculous to grasp for a concession.  First, I have no idea what the artist has or hasn't consented to in any particular case.  I do know that listening to music is quite different from making a new permanent copy that violates copyright law.  Do you see the difference?  Borrowing a CD is using a copyrighted version of the material much like checking a book out from the library.  Copying a song from the net creates a new permanent copy of the song that violates the copyright much as it is illegal to photocopy most books.

Maybe I'm missing the subtlety of your point???

My point is this: You're either making an illegal copy or you're not.  It's pretty simple really.  Whether or not you like this isn't the point I'm after.

[NowhereMan]

Downloading creates a permanent copy of the song but that's only because of the way that the technology functions rather than eveyone desperately wanting to steal an artist's song. If someone downloads a song with the intention of previewing it and doesn't like it, they probably aren't going to want to listent to it much.

Yes it allows for the possibility that people will just download music and not bother to buy it but so does radio or lending a CD to someone. The only difference is that downloading requires the creation of the copy and so it's a lot easier for people who don't want to buy it. I'm not sure if that's justification enough for saying all downloading = theft though. If you go out and buy the song afterwards I doubt many artists could give a rats ass how you heard it first.

[Samwise]

So should it be illegal for me to borrow a friend's CD in order to preview it for myself?  The artist certainly doesn't explicitly consent to that.

I think now your trying to be ridiculous to grasp for a concession.  First, I have no idea what the artist has or hasn't consented to in any particular case.  I do know that listening to music is quite different from making a new permanent copy that violates copyright law.

Okay, what if I download a song from Napster, listen to it once, and then delete it?  It's no longer "permanent".  Am I still in violation of the law?

My point is that copyright is not an end unto itself.

[schild]

Ok. Enough with this gray area bullshit.

Downloading something that wasn't meant for preview is pirating.

I do it, we do it, everyone does it. All the way up. Lead designers at gaming companies do it.

It's because we don't give a shit, not because it might be legal and fall into one of the gray areas.

Most of the bullshit laws that are cropping up lately are because we've invented as a cyber-society this gray area mess. It's our fault.

That said, many of the laws are dumb as shit.

[Nebu]

Ok. Enough with this gray area bullshit.

Downloading something that wasn't meant for preview is pirating.

I do it, we do it, everyone does it. All the way up. Lead designers at gaming companies do it.

It's because we don't give a shit, not because it might be legal and fall into one of the gray areas.

Most of the bullshit laws that are cropping up lately are because we've invented as a cyber-society this gray area mess. It's our fault.

That said, many of the laws are dumb as shit.

I feel stupid for not stating it like this sooner. 

[Samwise]

That said, many of the laws are dumb as shit.

That's pretty much all I was getting at.

[schild]

That said, many of the laws are dumb as shit.

That's pretty much all I was getting at.

The Family Guy movie was awesome.

[Samwise]

Huzzah!  The thread has come full circle.  I think we're all winners today.

[schild]

Neg. Just me. Awardz plz.

[Samwise]

Best I could do on short notice.

[schild]

That's fair. I'm the guy he didn't just eat.

[Llava]

[MrHat]

Do I get a consolation prize?


nvm, the movie was a prize in itself.

[Llava]

[MrHat]

Spoiler, but so funny.

[schild]

Why link when it's your avatar?

Weird.

[MrHat]

I could link the other one.  But you shot me down.

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS SHOOT ME DOWN.

You need a roofiecolada.

[schild]

You need strychnine in your guacamole.

[AOFanboi]

My hatred for *IAA is based on their abuse of a law designed to protect individuals' works of art to protect their employee's industrial works for hire. Since the creator "forcibly" relinquishes their copyright to a third party, the intent (as I understand it) of the law no longer applies.

Note that this is different from when an author/artist licenses their work to someone for reproduction, e.g. a printer for publishing their book. The copyright stays with the maker.

These work-for-hire clauses come in addition to copyright term extensions which only serve those that profit from the works at a later date, and not the creator of the work. These might be family trusts (like Tolkien) or corporations.

IANAL and all that shit.

Oh, and literary piracy is old.

[HaemishM]

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you're wrong.  File sharing is the making and distribution of copies of an initial copyrighted piece of material that violate the terms of said copyright. 

Here's why that is such a foreign concept to just about everyone. Lots of the reasons are because of the things that I mentioned in an earlier post that ARE legal.

1) I can make a copy of the CD for myself - legal, yet it's an exact copy of a copyrighted material
2) I can let my friend listen to the CD for free - legal, and as a matter of fact, it's only illegal if I CHARGE him for listening
3) I can give my friend the CD for free - legal, but he hasn't paid for the copyright material
4) Radio stations can play the CD and I can listen to it for free and I can copy the song for free - legal, yet many people are listening to this for free and can copy it for free. The radio station makes money off selling ads to other people, and to my knowledge, doesn't have to pay licensing fees for every song (unless they put it on the Internet)
5) I can buy or sell the CD to or from a used CD store - legal, and the original artist never ever sees a dime of the second sale

So it should be needless to say, these are all instances where similar actions can happen as file-sharing that ARE NOT ILLEGAL. The radio stations is the big one to me, as is the used CD store. The laws itself are not only not clear, they are contradictory. It gets even more muddied when you start tossing out the idea that the RIAA wants to charge licensing fees to radio stations who broadcast DIGITALLY, but not the traditional way. It's a whole bunch of mixed messages, and there can be a lot of money changing hands that never go into the artist's pocket at all. The RIAA is even sending mixed messages about what the actual product we are buying is. Are we buying the song? The CD of songs? Are we buying the right to listen to the song in only limited, but not clearly defined, circumstances? Is it only digital copies of the songs that are problematic because they are so "true" to the original recording?

The problems are that file sharing really isn't that different from other things already being done that are legal, except in the means of transmission. If I only use P2P software to trade songs with people I know, and they do not keep copies of the songs, is P2P then being used illegally? The RIAA has targeted P2P, but that's just the technology. And very few people with power are trying to unfuck the copyright laws to be fair to the original artists; they are more concerned with the people whose current business model is threatened by a technology they don't understand.

Every instance where a person accepts an illegal copy instead of purchasing the original copyrighted version, the artists and the apparatus lose money.  I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because of the legal means of doing the exact same thing as I listed above.

Now there are instances where having access to the music may encourage people to purchase a copyrighted version, but the ends do not justify the means.

You mean like paying radio stations and dj's illegal gifts to make sure they play a record company's songs more times than a competitor's songs? Do you mean instances like that?

The artist and or record company own the rights to the media and to its distribution.  Here's the thrust of the argument: If the artist wishes to distribute their media for free, that should be their choice to do so.  At this moment, media is being distributed without the consent of the artist and that is where your argument breaks down.  People are distributing materials that violate the copyright of the holder... in my mind this is stealing, but opinions vary.

The only problem in that is that the copyright holder, i.e. the original artist, very often have very little say in how their media is distributed. The copyright holder is being held over a barrel by large, monied conglomerates who has no qualms about inflicting endentured servitude on creators. Creators want to be heard, and so are faced with either toiling in poverty for their entire lives, or signing a shitty shit shitty shit contract just to make ends meet and still have their creations be their job. The copyright holders are not the people that the RIAA is representing, nor is it the copyright holders whose interests are being protected.

[Nebu]

The only problem in that is that the copyright holder, i.e. the original artist, very often have very little say in how their media is distributed. The copyright holder is being held over a barrel by large, monied conglomerates who has no qualms about inflicting endentured servitude on creators. Creators want to be heard, and so are faced with either toiling in poverty for their entire lives, or signing a shitty shit shitty shit contract just to make ends meet and still have their creations be their job. The copyright holders are not the people that the RIAA is representing, nor is it the copyright holders whose interests are being protected.

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way trying to support the actions of the RIAA or any record company conglomerates.  I guess that I just have an antiquated sense of right and wrong.  In my eyes it's a simple matter explained with an oversimplified example.

Let's say a piece of copyrighted media is an apple.  If I'm holding the apple (or copyright) and you want the apple, there are two ways you can obtain it from me; you can take the apple or I can give you the apple.  Both cases end up with you holding the apple but the means by which you obtained it are fundamentally different. To me, media piracy is like taking the apple.  When you pay for something it's like being given the apple as it's an open exchange of a good/service. I guess most people perceive media piracy as ok because of a) the anonymity of the internet as a source for obtaining materials and b) noone appears to be hurt in the process.  Media piracy just "feels" too much like I'm just taking the apple.  All of this could also be compounded by the fact that I have been both a published author as well as a signed recording artist.  That being the case, I apologize for trying to impose my morality.  It's a sensitive issue to me.

[Pococurante]

Here's why that is such a foreign concept to just about everyone. Lots of the reasons are because of the things that I mentioned in an earlier post that ARE legal.

RIAA claims these are all accidents of history but now the technology exists to prevent same abuses.

Bullshit?  Of course.  But they're getting traction with judges and lawmakers with it.

That being the case, I apologize for trying to impose my morality.  It's a sensitive issue to me.

Nothing you need to apologize for.  I think it's wrong when people stop in a restaurant just to use the bathroom.  And yet I do it all the time.  Little wrongs I can live with.

[Samwise]

1) I can make a copy of the CD for myself - legal, yet it's an exact copy of a copyrighted material
2) I can let my friend listen to the CD for free - legal, and as a matter of fact, it's only illegal if I CHARGE him for listening
3) I can give my friend the CD for free - legal, but he hasn't paid for the copyright material
4) Radio stations can play the CD and I can listen to it for free and I can copy the song for free - legal, yet many people are listening to this for free and can copy it for free. The radio station makes money off selling ads to other people, and to my knowledge, doesn't have to pay licensing fees for every song (unless they put it on the Internet)
5) I can buy or sell the CD to or from a used CD store - legal, and the original artist never ever sees a dime of the second sale

Don't worry.  Once we all have our government-mandated DRM chips installed at birth, none of those will be possible anyway.  Because if you listen to music that you haven't paid for a license to, your head will implode.

[Furiously]

Public libraries baffle me in light of all this.

Then again - I ask myself - what if someone bundled up all the posts at F13 and sold the insightful commentary for $100 a pop to thousands of people, would I feel like I was owed a piece of the pie?

If I download Battlestar Galactica from England and 4 months later it plays in the US, who am I hurting? US advertisers I skip through anyways with my Tivo?

I try to be ethical with my downloads, If I sample a couple Anime episodes, If I like it I try to buy them. Granted half the time I suspect I am buying a Hong Kong knockoff on ebay anyways.

[HaemishM]

Let's say a piece of copyrighted media is an apple.  If I'm holding the apple (or copyright) and you want the apple, there are two ways you can obtain it from me; you can take the apple or I can give you the apple.  Both cases end up with you holding the apple but the means by which you obtained it are fundamentally different. To me, media piracy is like taking the apple.  When you pay for something it's like being given the apple as it's an open exchange of a good/service. I guess most people perceive media piracy as ok because of a) the anonymity of the internet as a source for obtaining materials and b) noone appears to be hurt in the process.  Media piracy just "feels" too much like I'm just taking the apple.  All of this could also be compounded by the fact that I have been both a published author as well as a signed recording artist.  That being the case, I apologize for trying to impose my morality.  It's a sensitive issue to me.

You ARE oversimplifying. It is a much more complicated process than that. You cannot and should not equate or compare the creations of the mind with the physical, tangible products you can hold in your hand.

As someone who hopes to be a published author someday, I still would rather fall on the side of looser copyright restrictions than tighter ones. Let's face it, I write here for free because I like doing it. I WANT my stuff to be read. I also want to get paid for it, but I am not so bold as to say that someone who is genuinely interested in reading my writing should be punished for the method in which he got my writing.

EDIT: Also, I haven't bought a new CD in years. I stopped buying them when the RIAA started suing the fuck out of everybody. I buy my CD's at used CD's shops and places like Half.com. There are very very few artists whose albums I will actively go out and buy new again. Who gets hurt by my stance the most? The artist. What caused it? Being treated like I'm a fucking dirty criminal by the industry whose products I wanted to purchase.

[Nebu]

You ARE oversimplifying. It is a much more complicated process than that. You cannot and should not equate or compare the creations of the mind with the physical, tangible products you can hold in your hand.

Of course I was oversimplifying.  I still think you missed the point of my analogy.  To me it's all a permission issue. Having a copyright on a piece of media or intellectual property should (in theory) give you the right to say who can or cannot use it.  Unless something is public domain, it's all about permission.  The problem, as I see it, is that people consider music public domain when they find that they can freely access it.  This is clearly not the case.  If I hold a copyright, that should give me the right to decide who gets to have access to my materials.  Of course with music, the business end of it convolutes the whole situation.

[Samwise]

If I hold a copyright, that should give me the right to decide who gets to have access to my materials.

So, again... what's your position on radio play or used CD stores?  Because if the issue is permission and/or control, neither radio listener nor Amoeba patron obtains your permission in any way before they listen to your music, and you don't have the slightest amount of control over either of them.  Logically, you should be arguing for a ban on those methods of distribution as well.

[HaemishM]

But the problem with your permission reasoning is you NEVER had that absolute right. You still don't. Copyright doesn't give you that absolute right, for the reasons I mentioned above. Someone can always just lend your book out, or lend your CD out, and that's a potential lost sale.

Or, it's a potential GAINED sale, if you look at it as a form of viral marketing.

Now, for the people selling copied CD's on the sidewalks and in the markets, or bootlegged copied books? Yep, put them in pound me in the ass prison. The people making money off of file-sharing web sites (not the makers of the software, I mean the people offering paid access to torrent files or whatever or requiring donations)? Pound me in the ass prison. Samwise downloading a Yeah Yeah Yeahs CD to see if he likes it? He may actually buy it in the future, but if you keep hounding him telling him what a dirty pirate he is, I'm pretty sure he'll just tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Nebu]

So, again... what's your position on radio play or used CD stores?  Because if the issue is permission and/or control, neither radio listener nor Amoeba patron obtains your permission in any way before they listen to your music, and you don't have the slightest amount of control over either of them.  Logically, you should be arguing for a ban on those methods of distribution as well.

I fail to understand your logic.  I think the artist should have a choice in whether or not they wish to allow airplay.  Of course signed recording artists sign these permission rights away since they are fronted huge sums of cash to record and produce the project from the start.  For much the same reasons I think artists wishing to get exposure should offer free downloads of their music.  I'm just saying that they should have the option whether or not their music is given away in this manner.

[Nebu]

But the problem with your permission reasoning is you NEVER had that absolute right. You still don't. Copyright doesn't give you that absolute right, for the reasons I mentioned above. Someone can always just lend your book out, or lend your CD out, and that's a potential lost sale.

Or, it's a potential GAINED sale, if you look at it as a form of viral marketing.

Now, for the people selling copied CD's on the sidewalks and in the markets, or bootlegged copied books? Yep, put them in pound me in the ass prison. The people making money off of file-sharing web sites (not the makers of the software, I mean the people offering paid access to torrent files or whatever or requiring donations)? Pound me in the ass prison. Samwise downloading a Yeah Yeah Yeahs CD to see if he likes it? He may actually buy it in the future, but if you keep hounding him telling him what a dirty pirate he is, I'm pretty sure he'll just tell you to go fuck yourself.

If an artist doesn't want people downloading their copyrighted material from the internet, that's their choice.  If it hurts their image and sales in the long run, that's a byproduct of that choice.  I personally see a huge advantage to allowing people to download your material.  I'm just saying that if I hold the copyright, I'd like to have some say in how my material is distributed. I also realize that due to the huge costs associated with creating and producing media these days that many artists give up a large portion of these rights. I know that's what happened in my case.

As for Samwise wanting a copy of my new hypothetical copyrighted cd, he can listen to a friend's purchased copy, hear a sample on the radio or a sanctioned website or he can buy it.  He doesn't have to download it in a manner that violates the copyright.  He may choose to, but he doesn't have to. This is where it becomes an ethical matter.

[Samwise]

As for Samwise wanting a copy of my new hypothetical copyrighted cd, he can listen to a friend's purchased copy, hear a sample on the radio or a sanctioned website or he can buy it.  He doesn't have to download it in a manner that violates the copyright.  He may choose to, but he doesn't have to. This is where it becomes an ethical matter.

Okay, now to repeat my question: what makes one method different from the other, apart from the current copyright law that we agree is basically fucked anyway?  Is your ethical stance based solely on what the laws happen to say right now (and again, we all agree that what the laws say is fucked), or is there more to it than that?  Because if there's more I still haven't seen it.