Does Copying Music = Stealing?
My $.02
Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Arquonzo | Discussion: Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
 |
|
Page 2 of 7 | |
|
|---|
MountainDragon
Reply #22 Friday, December 16, 2005 12:45 PM
Reply #22 Friday, December 16, 2005 12:45 PM
After reading this thread and having a lively discussion with my 26 year old daughter on the subject, I have some thoughts:
First, I think the "widget" analogy is deceptive, because it places the problem in a fantasy realm, and obscures it somewhat.
A better analogy would be books, since they are (like music and software) governed by copyright law, and they can, if the effort is made, be copied. I could borrow my friends book and use a copy machine or scanner to duplicate it in it's entirety. This would save me the cost if the book, but would have it's own costs (time, equipment and/or fees for equipment use). The associated costs could make it less than worth it for me, unless I had a way to do it for free, like using my companies equipment and paper (thus stealing from them also). Now, if the book was already online, and all I had to do was download it to make a copy, how easy is that? The problem I would personally have with this is that the principle of ownership would keep me from doing it. I would not feel right about it.
When I listen to people advocating freely sharing of copyrighted or patented content, it seems that the principle of ownership doesn't even enter into the discussion. All we are left with then is whether it is convenient and practical to copy/share the work in question. This troubles me.
My daughter tells me she understands the principle of ownership issue, and does not disagree, but that for her, sharing/copying music/movies/software is more socially accepted. I take this to mean that for her age group it's assumed to be okay. My question to her (and others that think this way) is this: If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?
There seems to be an attitude of "entitlement" involved with the justtification for the kind of stealing we are discussing. At one point my daughter said: "If I had to buy CDs for all the music I have then I wouldn't have any music, since I can't afford it." So, the subtext seems to be that she is entitled to the music and that justifies getting it any way she can. This is not a new attitude, but I think it is much more widespread in our youth than previously.
First, I think the "widget" analogy is deceptive, because it places the problem in a fantasy realm, and obscures it somewhat.
A better analogy would be books, since they are (like music and software) governed by copyright law, and they can, if the effort is made, be copied. I could borrow my friends book and use a copy machine or scanner to duplicate it in it's entirety. This would save me the cost if the book, but would have it's own costs (time, equipment and/or fees for equipment use). The associated costs could make it less than worth it for me, unless I had a way to do it for free, like using my companies equipment and paper (thus stealing from them also). Now, if the book was already online, and all I had to do was download it to make a copy, how easy is that? The problem I would personally have with this is that the principle of ownership would keep me from doing it. I would not feel right about it.
When I listen to people advocating freely sharing of copyrighted or patented content, it seems that the principle of ownership doesn't even enter into the discussion. All we are left with then is whether it is convenient and practical to copy/share the work in question. This troubles me.
My daughter tells me she understands the principle of ownership issue, and does not disagree, but that for her, sharing/copying music/movies/software is more socially accepted. I take this to mean that for her age group it's assumed to be okay. My question to her (and others that think this way) is this: If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?
There seems to be an attitude of "entitlement" involved with the justtification for the kind of stealing we are discussing. At one point my daughter said: "If I had to buy CDs for all the music I have then I wouldn't have any music, since I can't afford it." So, the subtext seems to be that she is entitled to the music and that justifies getting it any way she can. This is not a new attitude, but I think it is much more widespread in our youth than previously.
Arquonzo
Reply #23 Friday, December 16, 2005 1:41 PM
The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern. This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors. Stealing a laptop computer does deprive the owner. Perhaps a better analogy would be if the computer thief copied all the files on your laptop. But even then, the analogy suffers because songs are clearly not private files.
The point of my analogy about the widgets was to take the conversation out of the realm of copyrights, because everyone already has a pre-conceived notion about what's right and wrong in regards to copying music. And while my widget copier is fantasy for the present, lets have this discussion again in 50 years.
Reply #23 Friday, December 16, 2005 1:41 PM
| If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved? |
The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern. This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors. Stealing a laptop computer does deprive the owner. Perhaps a better analogy would be if the computer thief copied all the files on your laptop. But even then, the analogy suffers because songs are clearly not private files.
The point of my analogy about the widgets was to take the conversation out of the realm of copyrights, because everyone already has a pre-conceived notion about what's right and wrong in regards to copying music. And while my widget copier is fantasy for the present, lets have this discussion again in 50 years.
MountainDragon
Reply #24 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:35 PM
The point of the laptop analogy was to address the "principle of ownership" issue. Of course you do not feel wrong stealing from the person who has the music. They are NOT the owner/creator, merely someone who has purchased/licensed a copy of the work.
The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.
Reply #24 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:35 PM
| This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors. |
The point of the laptop analogy was to address the "principle of ownership" issue. Of course you do not feel wrong stealing from the person who has the music. They are NOT the owner/creator, merely someone who has purchased/licensed a copy of the work.
The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #25 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:43 PM
Bingo. Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.
What I write is a portion of my labor. It is material that I should be free to shop out on the free market (and will, eventually, but that's another blog entirely). If someone steals the product of my labor without permission, it's NOT just "bits of data", it is, rather, MY PROPERTy. The same applies to music (well, SOME of it anyway!)
Reply #25 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:43 PM
| The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed. |
Bingo. Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.
What I write is a portion of my labor. It is material that I should be free to shop out on the free market (and will, eventually, but that's another blog entirely). If someone steals the product of my labor without permission, it's NOT just "bits of data", it is, rather, MY PROPERTy. The same applies to music (well, SOME of it anyway!)
MountainDragon
Reply #26 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:47 PM
How about this analogy:
I don't know what kind of work you may do, but suppose your job entails something which does not result in an object (like a computer, or a chair) that has a particular physical location (and thus can be "stolen" under your definition).
Let's say you write ad copy for some advertising agency. You get paid a salary based on your ongoing performance of the job. Your work consists of creating sequences of words, using a computer, that are stored and shared with the other parts of the job (graphics designers, printers, clients, etc.)
Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position. Would you stay in that job? Would it seem right to you that they did that?
Reply #26 Friday, December 16, 2005 2:47 PM
| The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern. |
How about this analogy:
I don't know what kind of work you may do, but suppose your job entails something which does not result in an object (like a computer, or a chair) that has a particular physical location (and thus can be "stolen" under your definition).
Let's say you write ad copy for some advertising agency. You get paid a salary based on your ongoing performance of the job. Your work consists of creating sequences of words, using a computer, that are stored and shared with the other parts of the job (graphics designers, printers, clients, etc.)
Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position. Would you stay in that job? Would it seem right to you that they did that?
Arquonzo
Reply #27 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:04 PM
The book analogy isn't an analogy. It's precisely the same thing.
Plagiarism is stealing credit for the idea. I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism.
I understand that the creator of the bit patterns or soundwaves or whatnot feels that he has excusive right to his ideas in perpetuity. And I understand that if I wrote a song and only distributed it on the internet and never gave a concert I probably wouldn't get paid for it. However, ideas are not the same as physical objects.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Please see the rest of his article here:Link
Oh, and if they quit paying me, I'd find another job.
Reply #27 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:04 PM
| The book analogy is precisely on point |
The book analogy isn't an analogy. It's precisely the same thing.
| Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files. |
Plagiarism is stealing credit for the idea. I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism.
| Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position. |
I understand that the creator of the bit patterns or soundwaves or whatnot feels that he has excusive right to his ideas in perpetuity. And I understand that if I wrote a song and only distributed it on the internet and never gave a concert I probably wouldn't get paid for it. However, ideas are not the same as physical objects.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Please see the rest of his article here:Link
Oh, and if they quit paying me, I'd find another job.
MountainDragon
Reply #28 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 PM
Reply #28 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:25 PM
The idea for a piece of music is NOT music. A whole lot more goes into it than an idea. Ideas are a dime a dozen. What makes ideas into property (works) is called implementation, or production, or composition.
Jefferson is talking about patents, not copyright, and while he brings up interesting points, there has obviously been much more said and done on that issue since he said what he said. I'm not really sure what your point is about this, but I don't think it really speaks to the points that I raised, specifically that a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits".
This tendency of people to view insubstantial objects (art, music, video, etc) as incapable of being claimed in ownership by the creators could have VERY far-reaching effects on the economics of our socety.
Jefferson is talking about patents, not copyright, and while he brings up interesting points, there has obviously been much more said and done on that issue since he said what he said. I'm not really sure what your point is about this, but I don't think it really speaks to the points that I raised, specifically that a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits".
This tendency of people to view insubstantial objects (art, music, video, etc) as incapable of being claimed in ownership by the creators could have VERY far-reaching effects on the economics of our socety.
garsgolfer
Reply #29 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:04 PM
You became a thief when you copied part of the work then made modifications. What's sad is far to many people have distorted the act of stealing to justify their own behavior.
Reply #29 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:04 PM
| At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? |
You became a thief when you copied part of the work then made modifications. What's sad is far to many people have distorted the act of stealing to justify their own behavior.
Corky_O
Reply #30 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:33 PM
Reply #30 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:33 PM
| Never accept no-brainers. Always think. |
Please define "stealing".
Corky_O
Reply #31 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:39 PM
Reply #31 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:39 PM
| Please define "stealing". |
Let me help you:
Stealing definitions (Marriam-Webster Dictionary) -
1 - to take and carry away without right or permission
2 - to come or go secretly or gradually
3 - to get for oneself slyly or by skill and daring
Still confused? 
Arquonzo
Reply #32 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:56 PM
I agree. When a painter creates a masterpiece, it is his to display or sell as he sees fit. When a song writer composes a song it is his to sell or license to a singer. When a singer rents a music hall and gives a concert it is his concert and he can charge admission. But when I go to the concert and hear the song, or go to the gallery and see the painting, the sounds and images are recorded in my brain. This does not constitute forfeiture. If I take a camera and record the image on film (or bits) how does that change things, unless I'm making that copy to sell, or trying to take credit for the work?
What if medical advances allow blind or deaf people to see or hear with mechanical/electronic devices? Will they be required to erase their ears when leaving the concert hall? What if we get to the point where we can get an electronic auditory implant to record everything we hear? Then I'd better not go to my friend's house when he's playing his CDs!
I guess my point in all this is that technology is antiquating copyright laws. We'll need to come up with new social conventions regarding intellectual property before my 'plastic pal who's fun to be with' comes with me to the theater.... (with apologies to Douglas Adams, RIP.)
Reply #32 Friday, December 16, 2005 6:56 PM
| a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits". |
I agree. When a painter creates a masterpiece, it is his to display or sell as he sees fit. When a song writer composes a song it is his to sell or license to a singer. When a singer rents a music hall and gives a concert it is his concert and he can charge admission. But when I go to the concert and hear the song, or go to the gallery and see the painting, the sounds and images are recorded in my brain. This does not constitute forfeiture. If I take a camera and record the image on film (or bits) how does that change things, unless I'm making that copy to sell, or trying to take credit for the work?
What if medical advances allow blind or deaf people to see or hear with mechanical/electronic devices? Will they be required to erase their ears when leaving the concert hall? What if we get to the point where we can get an electronic auditory implant to record everything we hear? Then I'd better not go to my friend's house when he's playing his CDs!
I guess my point in all this is that technology is antiquating copyright laws. We'll need to come up with new social conventions regarding intellectual property before my 'plastic pal who's fun to be with' comes with me to the theater.... (with apologies to Douglas Adams, RIP.)
Jafo
Reply #33 Friday, December 16, 2005 7:03 PM
Reply #33 Friday, December 16, 2005 7:03 PM
| I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism. |
You can probably do that only because he is dead and buried...and he and/or his estate no longer has copyright restrictions on its re-use.
ONLY accusations of plagiarism are quelled by credit-giving.
If there are specific restrictions on the works duplication then 'fair use' in terms of reference/example/teaching may be acceptable...but reproductions of its entirety may still NOT be.
The biggest reason these debates are ultimately bull-shit wasters of time and effort is...
There are two sides...only one is right...the other is through ignorance/indifference,
Those who think it's not stealing will never be convinced.....even IF they say they are....they'll keep on doing it.
Those who know it IS stealing will just bang heads and get nowhere....so you may as well do something else...more worthwhile....watching paint dry is good...
Arquonzo
Reply #34 Friday, December 16, 2005 7:33 PM
Your logic is breathtaking!
Leauki said
I would have to agree. Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it IS against current law. That is why we have this discussion... not to bore you, Jafo, but rather to bring these issues up in a public forum so that our laws can be refined to promote the greatest public good, striking a fair balance between artist and fanatic, with an eye toward enforceability.
Reply #34 Friday, December 16, 2005 7:33 PM
| There are two sides...only one is right...the other is through ignorance/indifference |
Your logic is breathtaking!
Leauki said
| The American constitution specifically gives government the power to introduce laws to create copyrights and patents in order to support innovation. Violating such a law is not stealing. |
I would have to agree. Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it IS against current law. That is why we have this discussion... not to bore you, Jafo, but rather to bring these issues up in a public forum so that our laws can be refined to promote the greatest public good, striking a fair balance between artist and fanatic, with an eye toward enforceability.
sTonEbLuE
Reply #35 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:06 PM
You are going to lose this arguement. Most of the people at this site will agree with Admin Jafo. This is a touchy subject and has been adressed ad- nausem......Let it go......
Reply #35 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:06 PM
| Arquonzo |
You are going to lose this arguement. Most of the people at this site will agree with Admin Jafo. This is a touchy subject and has been adressed ad- nausem......Let it go......
HG_Eliminator
Reply #36 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:53 PM
as of yet it is still not possible to extract the exact data from your brain.. much harder to make an exact copy from it .. a camera or recorder is a different story...,as the object was meant to be shared with you personally at the time of viewing/listening... but to then take it and reproduce it is going beyond enjoying something shared with you..get the key word reproduction.. if i write a song then play it for you and you listen to it .. thats all and fine .. but if you sneak a recorder in and record it without my consent.. thats theft and invasion...if you take that recording and copy it and hand out to friends or sell it.. thats copywrite infringement...these laws were passed to keep lazy and theiving people from stealing other peoples works..
Reply #36 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:53 PM
| But when I go to the concert and hear the song, or go to the gallery and see the painting, the sounds and images are recorded in my brain. This does not constitute forfeiture. If I take a camera and record the image on film (or bits) how does that change things, unless I'm making that copy to sell, or trying to take credit for the work? |
as of yet it is still not possible to extract the exact data from your brain.. much harder to make an exact copy from it .. a camera or recorder is a different story...,as the object was meant to be shared with you personally at the time of viewing/listening... but to then take it and reproduce it is going beyond enjoying something shared with you..get the key word reproduction.. if i write a song then play it for you and you listen to it .. thats all and fine .. but if you sneak a recorder in and record it without my consent.. thats theft and invasion...if you take that recording and copy it and hand out to friends or sell it.. thats copywrite infringement...these laws were passed to keep lazy and theiving people from stealing other peoples works..
HG_Eliminator
Reply #37 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:58 PM
??? so you are saying that its ok to take anothers works they have dedicated time and $$ to ?????
so artists like the people here should have no say in how their art/programs are used ???? many of these artists make their living from the stuff they build .....so you are saying they should work for free??.. ok the day you go up to your boss and tell him/her that you refuse to get paid for your work.. is the day il buy ur "promote the greatest public good" BS....
Reply #37 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:58 PM
| Copyright infringement is not stealing |
??? so you are saying that its ok to take anothers works they have dedicated time and $$ to ?????
so artists like the people here should have no say in how their art/programs are used ???? many of these artists make their living from the stuff they build .....so you are saying they should work for free??.. ok the day you go up to your boss and tell him/her that you refuse to get paid for your work.. is the day il buy ur "promote the greatest public good" BS....
Arquonzo
Reply #38 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:33 PM
Of course not. It's illegal. You'll notice I mentioned that.
On the otherhand, does the expiration of a patent render your argument null and void?
I'd prefer to think of it as a discussion. And for me, this is the most popular blog I've had yet, so I'm stoked!!!
Reply #38 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:33 PM
| ??? so you are saying that its ok to take anothers works they have dedicated time and $$ to ????? |
Of course not. It's illegal. You'll notice I mentioned that.
On the otherhand, does the expiration of a patent render your argument null and void?
| You are going to lose this arguement. Most of the people at this site will agree with Admin Jafo. This is a touchy subject and has been adressed ad- nausem......Let it go...... |
I'd prefer to think of it as a discussion. And for me, this is the most popular blog I've had yet, so I'm stoked!!!
Jafo
Reply #39 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:52 PM
Reply #39 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:52 PM
| 'd prefer to think of it as a discussion. And for me, this is the most popular blog I've had yet, so I'm stoked!!! |
That will be because it has also cross-posted to Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music...
Arquonzo
Reply #40 Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:22 AM
Ah ha! That explains a bit. ... Windows users!!!
Well, thank you all very much for your thoughtful input. I really am trying to understand all the moral and legal facets of this issue, and you've all (well most of you) have given me interesting points to ponder.
Thanks again!
Reply #40 Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:22 AM
| Jafo |
Ah ha! That explains a bit. ... Windows users!!!
Well, thank you all very much for your thoughtful input. I really am trying to understand all the moral and legal facets of this issue, and you've all (well most of you) have given me interesting points to ponder.
Thanks again!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Friday, December 16, 2005 12:02 PM
sorry but to me this is a copout... in all the people i know i think maybe 1% actually uses "borrowed" music/software" most of them are buisness oriented and cant afford to have "stolen stuff on their pc's...the majority of my friends have the mind set of paying for what they use.. "we all had a big debate about it" the consensus was the majority actually felt compelled to buy the producta rather than copy and steal. why? most are small buisness owners or programmers or both... they know how it feels to have cheap people try to "get one over" on them...the others that arent buisness owners. felt that stealing music/programs is tantamount to .. somebody grabbing your stuff out of your house.. and giving it away on e bay...'yes the folks who grab it off of ebay are happy .. but the guy who paid for it, suffers'.......