CR> In copying a CD, did you purchase CR> the ingredients that go into making the CD? Other than the blank CR> CD, I'm assuming you didn't. This is the difference.
What is in there except blank CD?
If you honestly think that's all it takes to make a CD, I guess it's pointless to argue with you. If that were the case, we'd all be listening to blank CDs. I guess we should just get rid of all copyright and patent laws. Obviously you can't steal anything that you can't physically hold in your hand. Silly me. Peter, I feel sorry for you or anyone else in a place where you cannot always afford or find music that you want (though finding it is less of an issue these days thanks to the large number of places to buy obscure music online). If I were in your shoes I'd probably be more apt to get illegitimate copies as well. It is still wrong, regardless of the circumstances of your situation, but definitely more understandable than some kid in the suburbs who just doesn't want to shell out the dough for the latest release. Craig M. Rath H: fripp@attbi.com W: rathc@questarweb.com
Hello Craig, It is actually hard to argue because it seems that you don't understand or pretend not to understand what I'm saying. I'm trying to say two things: 1. There should not be a law which gives the actor, composer or whoever advantage on sculptor, painter, cook or even cleaner based only on their profession. 2. Copying a CD cannot be qualified as theft. Whatever you call it - it is still not a theft. And, please, don't try to picture me as some bad guy who is trying to defend illegitimate copies because he is poor or whatsoever. It is definitely a wrong picture. I don't make pirated copies and not buying pirated CDs as well. I'm just trying to explain that there are some other ways to live and deal with art and work and copyright. And, just for a break, look at the huge and not at all Eastern European world of GPL software and think about the ways people behind it survive. Would it be an answer to the copyright crisis? May be. I don't really know... Sunday, December 1, 2002, you wrote:
CR> In copying a CD, did you purchase CR> the ingredients that go into making the CD? Other than the blank CR> CD, I'm assuming you didn't. This is the difference.
What is in there except blank CD?
CR> If you honestly think that's all it takes to make a CD, I guess it's CR> pointless to argue with you. If that were the case, we'd all be listening CR> to blank CDs. CR> I guess we should just get rid of all copyright and patent laws. Obviously CR> you can't steal anything that you can't physically hold in your hand. CR> Silly me. CR> Peter, I feel sorry for you or anyone else in a place where you cannot CR> always afford or find music that you want (though finding it is less of an CR> issue these days thanks to the large number of places to buy obscure music CR> online). If I were in your shoes I'd probably be more apt to get CR> illegitimate copies as well. It is still wrong, regardless of the CR> circumstances of your situation, but definitely more understandable than CR> some kid in the suburbs who just doesn't want to shell out the dough for CR> the latest release. NP: Morris, Joe "Singularity" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin@shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 01:40:19 +0100 Peter Gannushkin <shkin@shkin.com> wrote:
1. There should not be a law which gives the actor, composer or whoever advantage on sculptor, painter, cook or even cleaner based only on their profession.
Fortunately, it has not been established that such a law exists, so the issue is moot.
2. Copying a CD cannot be qualified as theft. Whatever you call it - it is still not a theft.
To reference a minor sax player, I think we may be getting hung up on what the meaning of "is" is. A suggestion: we drop the word "theft" from either side of this discussion, and see where it goes once the trivial verbal contradiction is out of the way, -- | jzitt@josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
2. Copying a CD cannot be qualified as theft. Whatever you call it - it is still not a theft.
Ok - I'm afraid I'm going to delurk here. This statement is WRONG. In most countries of the world there is a mechanism that bestows the properties of physical property on easily copyable material - its called copyright. It means that people can earn a living making stuff of this nature (music,books,software etc.). Although you are not physically stealing something you are still stealing "something" - someones work. Now as an artificial construct (as are money,credit cards,stock share etc. lest we forget how important these artificial constructs are to our societies) this doesn't always work intuitively. In fact I believe that in time it will be replaced by a more workable mechanism (although if the RIAA have their way it will be less workable). As someone whose entire output consists of stuff like this (software,music and poetry) I need to find a way to earn a living doing this kind of thing. I make software for a living - the direct consequence of your stance is that every piece of software I write becomes public domain as soon as a make it available in a copiable form. How would I earn a living doing it - and why should I do it if I can't earn a living from it (and perhaps more importantly when would I find time) There are many arguments about whether copying cd's is acceptable under some circumstances (see the rest of this thread) But under the laws of most of our societies we protect Intellectual Property (IP) - we can argue to change this - we can even ignore these laws but you are still breaking them. We need some version of this law otherwise musicians,writers,film makers and software developers are all wasting their time and will have to get other jobs. I for one would miss the vast output in these fields. cheers mark __________________________________ junklight http://www.junklight.com dark experimental electronics
Hello Mark, Sunday, December 1, 2002, you wrote:
2. Copying a CD cannot be qualified as theft. Whatever you call it - it is still not a theft.
m> Ok - I'm afraid I'm going to delurk here. This statement is WRONG. Well, I like your boldness. It is wrong because it is wrong. There is no way to argue that way. m> Although you are not physically stealing something you are still m> stealing "something" - someones work. No, I'm not. I'm copying it. I never talked about physical/virtual aspect of the thing. I was talking only about the fact that copying someone's work no matter if it's good or not is not the same as stealing. m> I make software for a living What a coincidence, I do too. m> - the direct consequence of your stance is that every piece of m> software I write becomes public domain as soon as a make it m> available in a copiable form. I didn't say such thing even once. And I don't think it is right. m> How would I earn a living doing it - and why should I do it if I m> can't earn a living from it These are two very different questions. The answer to the first one you can find if you look at the people behind GPL. How do you think Linux developers are living when all the software they are writing is free? And if you look at them, then you will probably figure out how to earn enough to live from it. m> We need some version of this law otherwise musicians,writers,film m> makers and software developers are all wasting their time and will m> have to get other jobs. I don't think that Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg are suffering and looking for jobs because customers are ripping them off. In fact, it seems the other way around. We need new copyright laws for sure but this law should protect both authors and customers otherwise the community will be soon in a big trouble. NP: Chicago Underground Duo "Synesthesia" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin@shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/
participants (4)
-
Craig Rath -
Joseph Zitt -
mark -
Peter Gannushkin