rl78 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (25) comment rss

  • On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

    rl78 ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 08:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the true debate here?

    I do see what you mean.

  • On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

    rl78 ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 07:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......

    I'm seeing the light. I replied to both you and Mike a few replies below this one.

  • On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

    rl78 ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 07:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......

    Mike and Crade the above comment is mine, I wasn't logged in when i posted it.

  • On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

    rl78 ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 06:50pm

    Re: Re: The argument of no loss no foul.......

    Your point is taken but I think the difference is more semantic in nature than anything else, as I replied to Mike in my above comment. He says like you that because one would copy something, that it is a + and not a - therefore its not theft. Help me see why it's entirely different. I feel like its theft in a sense that one obtains something in a manner that's not authorized.

  • On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer

    rl78 ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2010 @ 06:37pm

    Re: Re: What is the true debate here?

    I can't say that aren't justifying anything. You point to Pogue's assessment of what happened in the article, and then say his point is clear, and proceed to say why you think it is, and that WE'VE been arguing this for awhile. In my mind, it appears you agree with him, maybe you don't, however your points of contention with my post would suggest you do.

    If copying something as you say is not taking anything anyway, and only adding, and therefore not stealing, then why don't you use file sharing sites? Why only acquire intellectual property from sources that provide it freely? You would be simply promoting it as this article suggests by the young woman obtaining the sheet music. ( I did read the entire article about the communication between the composer and the aspiring musician.)

    Intellectual property is impossible to steal in the sense that reproducing a copyrighted work never takes the work from the author, it simply adds another copy. That's inherent in the nature of what we are discussing. I agree with that, but the unauthorized reproduction is what is considered the crime here.

    Copyright laws allow for the copying of intellectual property for personal use, and preservation if the copy was legally obtained, so copying in and of itself is not the issue.

    While unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works may have beneficial side affects to the author, does not negate the illegality of the initial action. As you state, anyone can create anything and distribute it freely if they choose.

    This is why my main point is that I feel we should be arguing whether or not copyrighting a song, the music, for instance should at all be allowed. If we can prove that unauthorized copy and distribution of I.P. has no negative effects on the author, the end result would be the same with or without it, then what is the point of copyright to begin with?

    The counterpoints that you make in your reply seem to be semantic in nature, taking away as opposed to adding.

    Mike, is this article copyrighted?

    Thanks for the reply, I welcome the conversation.