Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   fine line

   

   xdroop, May 17th, 2002 @ 3:52am

   
   

   To me, most of the Napster apologists are splitting hairs when they claim that napster is not theft. Yes, you are not depriving the owner of something when you make a copy, but you are not compensating the lawful owner of that something when you take it -- which means the argument could be made that you are depriving the lawful owner of the compensation that the law says he is entitled to.

   It is a fine line, but currently the law is clear. If the law is wrong, it should be changed.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Changing the rules...

   

   Mgallagher, May 17th, 2002 @ 6:09am

   
   

   I understand the "sharing=theft" arguments. It used to be that to hear someone's music (or see thier movie or read thier book), you had to get the LP, CD, VHS, hardcover, or whatever, even if you intended to copy it. Theft is a pretty intutitive conclusion.
   However, that's not what happens in file sharing. It costs nearly nothing (at least maginal costs are nearly nothing, assuming you didn't get a computer and internet connection specifically for file swaping), and doesn't affect the original in any way. Just how much money should you be able to make from a good with a near zero marginal cost of production and no scarcity?
   I think that the rules have fundamentally changed in the industry and the common conceptions of how producer compensation have to change also.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Get a Grip

   

   Eric, May 17th, 2002 @ 7:13am

   
   

   Mike writes:
   "To steal something, the owner has to be
   missing something after you've stolen it."
   If someone renders you a service that requires
   no materials, e.g. do your taxes, represent you
   in court, give you a musical concert, ..., and
   you arbitrarily decide you should not pay them
   for services rendered -- that's not theft?
   The arguments of the Napster defenders often
   seem as dubious as the other side's.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Get a Grip

   

   Mike (profile), May 17th, 2002 @ 8:05am

   
   

   Assuming that you agreed with the service provider to pay them for that, then you signed a binding contract with them (even if it was verbal). If you don't pay them, you've voided the contract.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Gettin' that Grip

   

   Mgallagher, May 17th, 2002 @ 8:07am

   
   

   Again, I see Eric's point, but it doesn't address what I (and I think Mike-don't want to speak for you ) are saying. Seeing a concert, theatrical movie, play, etc. all have a physical component that would be expensive to reproduce, hence what I mention above about scarcity and marginal costs. Digital content is different, the costs of producing "another" unit are effectively zero - and specificially to Eric's point- I don't take up a seat that someone else might have paid for and I don't affect the original material.
   
   For the record, I have never used Napster or any other sharing service. I love my MP3 players, but I own the CD for every single track on them (gigs worth). I don't have the answer here, I'm just trying to figure out the problem. Maybe the technology is such that there is no effective model to make money on digital entertainment.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: fine line

   

   Mike (profile), May 17th, 2002 @ 8:10am

   
   

   To me, most of the Napster apologists are splitting hairs when they claim that napster is not theft. Yes, you are not depriving the owner of something when you make a copy, but you are not compensating the lawful owner of that something when you take it -- which means the argument could be made that you are depriving the lawful owner of the compensation that the law says he is entitled to.
   
   If that's true, then you're legislating business models. I think that's a huge mistake. You're basically saying that the music labels have an innate right to their business model.
   
   What if there were a store selling clothing, and I opened up a store directly next to it selling the same clothing... cheaper. Should I get in trouble for depriving the owner of compensation?
   
   It is a fine line, but currently the law is clear. If the law is wrong, it should be changed
   
   The law should be changed - but if you hadn't noticed, it's pretty clear that we've got a lot of idiots working on our legislation right now. However, I don't think the law is as clear as you seem to think it is. We do have fair use rights. There is simply a question as to whether or not this is really fair use rights or not.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Gettin' that Grip

   

   Mike (profile), May 17th, 2002 @ 8:18am

   
   

   Mgallagher spoke very well for me (thank you). In pure economic terms, you'll have a hard time convincing me that it's theft.
   
   I'd also like to state for the record that I don't own a single MP3 for music that I don't have. I used Napster a few times way back when and used it to listen to some songs of bands I was interested in, or other bands that people recommended. The ones I liked, I ended up buying the CDs (often used CDs - which, according to some of you might be just as bad, yes?). The ones I didn't like I deleted.
   
   I'm not defending this because I want free music. I'm defending it, because economically speaking, those who claim it's the same thing as "theft" are wrong. Maybe it's something else that needs an entirely new term... but I'm not even sure about that.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: fine line

   

   xdroop, May 17th, 2002 @ 8:48am

   
   

   If that's true, then you're legislating business models. I think that's a huge mistake. You're basically saying that the music labels have an innate right to their business model.

   No, I'm saying that under the current legislation, copying of intellectual property is at the will and terms of the copyright holder. Just because it costs the copyright holder nothing for you to have a copy does not mean that the copyright holder is under any obligation to sell/give/turn-a-blind-eye-while-you-make one.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Gettin' that Grip

   

   Eric, May 17th, 2002 @ 8:49am

   
   

   I see your point. Except that if information
   is copyrighted, then the information, not the
   material, is what the law protects.
   Suppose someone buys one copy of a copyrighted
   book, photocopies it N times and then gives away
   the copies. Accepting a copy would be illegal,
   even though there is no binding contract between
   the author and the book copy recipients. So by
   violating copyright law you can be a thief, even
   if you are an ignorant one who didn't understand
   the relevant laws.
   There are two contracts involved in the case. One
   between the author and the state, where the latter
   has agreed to protect the former. The second is
   the implied "social contract" between citizen and
   state, whereby the former agrees not to break the
   laws. So the whole thing comes down to one of
   respecting the law or not.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Gettin' that Grip

    

    Mike (profile), May 17th, 2002 @ 9:00am

    
    

    Not necessarily. There are fair use rights, and the real question is whether or not these uses are covered under fair use.
    
    My argument is that they should be considered fair use, and part (yes, only part) of the reason why, is that it's not theft - which is what the basic economics are intended to show. I think people who say it's outright "theft" are being misleading and that's what I'm standing up to.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Gettin' that Grip

    

    Eric, May 17th, 2002 @ 9:55am

    
    

    The "fair use" concept, as far as I know, is
    that you are allowed to quote a small portion
    of a copyrighted work in your own work. If you
    use more than a small portion, not even the whole
    thing, then you can be in violation. If you
    quote the entire piece, there's no question that
    you're doing something illegal.
    

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Gettin' that Grip

    

    Mike (profile), May 17th, 2002 @ 10:10am

    
    

    Fair use doctrine also allows you to make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal, non-commercial use.
    
    The question becomes what happens when that "copy" is somehow left open for others to copy as well.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Why shouldn't music be FREE?

    

    Chronic Bluunt, May 17th, 2002 @ 10:25am

    
    

    Look, I am sick and tired of this "sharing is theft" argument. In fact, I've had it up to here with being called a thief because I like to download free music. The music is out there, it's available online, and best of all, it's free. I enjoy downloading MP3, and there free, so why shouldn't I be able to enjoy a little free music? I enjoy getting music for free, and frankly, I don't care if the GREEDY record companies and artists are whining about it. DEAL WITH IT! I will continue to download as many MP3s of copyrighted music as I please!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    The Game is Changing

    

    Carter, May 17th, 2002 @ 10:32am

    
    

    Fair Use laws were written in an era where it would have been very cumbersome and expensive for average citizens to abuse copyright laws (ie, photocopying an entire novel in order to avoid paying for it). The fact of the matter is the average person can now build an entire music collection with minimal effort and cost. The "rules" of the game have changed.
    
    It's easy to say that people who "share" copyrighted works are encouraging people to go out and buy what they like. The fact is, relying on inidividuals to do the "right thing" invites abuse. This is exacerbated by the fact that most people don't feel they are doing anything wrong.
    
    It's also easy to demonize the industry giants who are proposing such draconian measures as the DMCA. However, behind the scenes is an entire industry of hard-working, creative people who rely on copyrights to earn a living.
    
    Unfortunately, there's no good answer. I am convinced that this entire predicament is a failure by the market to provide a solution that people will by into. That's how black markets get started.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    I have a question

    

    Duffman, May 17th, 2002 @ 3:46pm

    
    

    I've missed out on a lot of this debate, but I have a question that I'm not sure has been asked here. What about homemade recordings made at concerts? Not ones that are also recorded by the group for future releases, but some fan who thinks a band has a great show, then puts it online. Is that stealing/theft/whatever? The group/publisher/promoter would not make a single cent from it, as they did not intend to release it. Just a question I thought of reading this interesting back-and-forth.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Is this piracy?

    

    80's child, May 17th, 2002 @ 5:19pm

    
    

    Is putting 2 boomboxes side by side, pressing play on 1 tape, and pressing record on the other considered theft?
    
    What if during the recording, your mother yells to come for dinner, and it gets into the reconrding. Is that still theft?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Re: Is this piracy?

    

    Timmah, May 17th, 2002 @ 5:40pm

    
    

    What has brown underpants done for you lately?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment