Well, no, it's copyright infringement.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| golem Jul 02, 2010 10:53 PM EDT |
Regardless of how strongly one feels about it, one doesn't get to rewrite the law on a whim. Most of the music I listen to is in my head. I have heard many old favorites repeatedly all my life, so that I can play back a reasonable facsimile in my head from memory. Am I stealing something from someone by doing that? I don't think so. Not until Orwell's nightmare world of crimethink becomes real, anyway. If that is not a crime, then why would it become a crime if some device other than living neurons were involved? Transistors, for example. Every time we view a web page, copyrighted or not, a more or less transient copy of it is made to our computer, and a more or less detailed and more or less accurate representation of it is recorded in our brains. Now, how shall we draw a line in this process between what is a crime and what is not? How long must the copy be kept, and how accurately, before it becomes a crime? Above all, how do we make a definition of the crime that will still make sense ten years from now, when electronic computing will presumably be something like a thousand times faster and more detailed? Not to mention whatever quantum computing will make possible. Or twenty years from now, when for all we know now, some large fraction of what goes on in our heads may be electronic or quantum based. The notion of copyright was invented in the days when copying was done laboriously on a printing press, perhaps with movable type if you were really up to date. It was literally the right to make a copy of something with a printing press. With today's technology the copies that matter are more and more seldom printed at all. Like it or not, the very notion of copyright is losing its meaning and enforceability. Not to mention that the notion of creativity is losing its meaning in an era when patentable inventions are being created or recreated by computer programs. I'm not saying that such notions must be abandoned. But it is increasingly difficult to make sense of them. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2010 11:23 PM EDT |
Of course it's stealing, in the same way that robbery is stealing, burglary is stealing, embezzlement is stealing, and fraud is (often) stealing. The fact that copyright law provides the interest that is stolen doesn't diminish the fact that you are stealing. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 6:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:Now, how shall we draw a line in this process between what is a crime and what is not? Simple, the article suggests it: It depends if the creator's wallet suffers or not. You don't have to agree, but that seems to be the reference of the article. |
| ComputerBob Jul 03, 2010 7:32 AM EDT |
A few years ago, some guy in China blatantly copied several of my articles from my site, word-for-word, posted them on a Chinese Web site, surrounded them with lots of paid ads, removed my bylines and copyright notices, and posted his own copyright notices on them, claiming that he was their author and that he had copyrights to them. Since my site is completely free (as in beer), yet completely copyrighted (All rights reserved), I would have a hard time making the case that my wallet suffered as a result of his actions. No harm, no foul, no crime? I think not. Quoting:Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. (Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161) |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2010 9:57 AM EDT |
clay man,Quoting:Most of the music I listen to is in my head. [...] Am I stealing [...]?Yes Quoting:If that is not a crime, then why would it become a crime if some device other than living neurons were involved?See above. False supposition, we just haven't figured out how to monetize it just yet, silly. Regarding viewing and retaining copies of transient content: Quoting:[Where] we draw a line in this process between what is a crime and what is not?Simple, if it's wanted by the individuals*/groups/mobs that buy the government, hence, they get the laws [and rules] to their liking, i.e. It's Fair Game. Thus, if it makes money for them or will do so in the future, to bypass it becomes a crime. The rest of your questions are to be answered as a class assignment based upon the criteria laid down above. Email to my LXer address by Monday** or expect reduction in grade for late submissions. Thank you. As aways, YBT * Not people, of course, only those with clout. ** Those celebrating the July 4th holiday, must submit theirs by Sunday. I am taking Monday off. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2010 11:07 AM EDT |
OBT's comment works equally well, with or without [serious] tags. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 1:13 PM EDT |
> Simple, if it's wanted by the individuals*/groups/mobs that buy the government, hence, they get the laws [and rules] to their liking Spot on. Copyright is a creation of statute. It is a paper crime, just like "speeding" or walking over lines on a map without permission. Which leads me to wonder, does TC always abide the posted speed limit? Hmmm. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 1:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Copyright is a creation of statute. It's not, it's a social agreement between people, just like property. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2010 1:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:it's a social agreement between people, just like property.I did not agree to the copyright-based Windows Vista EULA when I purchased my desktop system. Neither did I reject it. I never saw any agreement, of any kind, neither on the screen, nor on paper. Supposedly, I broke the agreement when I wiped the partition table and installed Linux, but I found this out only after the fact. Will that matter to the BSA's thugs, when they're kicking in my door? Don't tell me it's a social arrangement between people. I wasn't privy to the arrangements when they were made. |
| phsolide Jul 03, 2010 2:14 PM EDT |
Dinotrac, after years of resting on strictly legalistic and by-definition arguments, you really, really should not start arguing something that simply isn't true legally Copying, under some circumstances, is infringement, not theft. Copying is not even infringement in all circumstances. Copyright shouldn't be allowed precedence over freedom of speech, either. In order to preserve what's arguably the most important civil right, we have to allow some uses that would constitute infringement in other circumstances. Theft is by definition a crime, while infringement, except in the the most egregious of circumstances is a civil matter currently. My advice is to back away from that particular soap box. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2010 2:20 PM EDT |
Bob - there are lots of paper crimes. Failure to pay taxes is a paper crime. Wire fraud is a paper crime. Espionage is a paper crime. Statutory rape is a paper crime. Possession of weapons grade nuclear material is a paper crime. Etc. So? |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2010 2:24 PM EDT |
phsolide -- Stealing is stealing. You think it's permissible to violate the law (hey! Gosh -- it's ok to break the law now! Guess I'll get me into some nifty Ponzi schmes...) to take a valuable interest from another person who to whom that interest has been legally granted. Remind me never to trust you around the silverware. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 2:39 PM EDT |
> Don't tell me it's a social arrangement between people. I wasn't privy to the arrangements when they were made. Exactly. Expecting an agreement between A and B to apply automatically to C is a logical fallacy. Dino, > Bob - there are lots of paper crimes. Exactly. Abolish them all the same way they were created, by the stroke of a pen. Then, prosecute people for harming others, which requires no statute at all to be wrong. > Remind me never to trust you around the silverware. That would be theft, depriving you of your property, and therefore wrong. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2010 2:41 PM EDT |
>That would be theft, depriving you of your property, and therefore wrong. Glad you think so, but what do I do on the day when you decide that I didn't do anything to earn my silverware, that I have no legitimate property interest in it, that taking it would be no more than a paper crime? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 3:05 PM EDT |
> Glad you think so, but what do I do on the day when you decide that I didn't do anything to earn my silverware, that I have no legitimate property interest in it, that taking it would be no more than a paper crime? Depriving you of your property is not a paper crime. It's trespassing, just like every other real crime, which follows from the basic natural right of self ownership. Examining your flatware and making a set that looks just like them for myself does not deprive you of your property, which is why it requires a statute to make doing so a crime. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 3:08 PM EDT |
gus3: The EULA doesn't matter, that's not at all what this is about: This is about the intrinsic properties of property. Property exists because there's a social agreement between people. If there's a general consensus in society you own something, you own it. If there's no consensus and there's a fight, at that moment nobody own it until consensus is reached. If there's a social agreement between people about copyright, then copyright could be considered to be about property - and theft. If there's social disagreement about copyright, in other words: People don't agree that copyright makes someone own anything, then in such a society there can be no 'theft' by means of copying infringement / copying. Bob: I can steal your car and claim I didn't harm you, because it was never yours. Why was it yours in first place? Why did you consider it your property after you bought it? Right, because there was a social agreement it was yours. Property is a social phenomenon, not something created by 'laws of nature' or such. Copyright is very much the same thing. Tresspassing of someone's land is very much the same thing: There's an agreement somebody owns some land. But from an ants point of view, there's nothing which makes you own your house or land. Just an agreement between you and other people. Your differentiation between 'property' and 'copyright' is artificial, only in a humans mind it could exist. From a metaphysical point of view, there isn't that much difference between physical property or copyright: It's something humans invented and their societies agree upon. Sometimes they don't agree, and they keep fighting about 'property' until an agreement is reached. BTW the relation between 'harming' and stealing is also purely artificial: I could steal hundred thousand dollars from Bill Gates without harming him. You might remember the Notorious B.I.G. (Mo Money Mo Problems): It could equally be stated it's the other way around. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2010 3:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:gus3: The EULA doesn't matter, that's not at all what this is aboutCome again? As stated in the EULA, Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows Vista, and is merely "licensing" its use to me. By behaving in terms contrary to the EULA, I was supposedly violating the copyright... even though I neither accepted nor rejected the terms of the EULA, not having seen it until much later. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 3:27 PM EDT |
> Bob: I can steal your car and claim I didn't harm you, because it was never yours. Which then undermines anything you might claim to own, and Hobbsian "war of all against all" is all that is left. However, that's not what happens in the real world. A basic respect for private property is one of the underpinnings of pretty much every culture on earth. I agree with you that it is a social construct. It is the most basic of social structures, and the respect for private property is one of the defining factors as to whether or not a society flourishes. > Copyright is very much the same thing. False. Absolute, utter, bull***t. Copyright means that an agreement between A and B automatically applies to C. Copyright is a direct violation of the principle of private property. It means that if I buy a book, it's not mine. I can't do with it what I wish to do. I can't make another one, I can't give it away. I can't sell it. It is, for all tense and purposes, not mine at all. And worse, if someone gives me a book (movie, song, image), I am somehow legally held to an agreement I never made, was not party to, didn't even know existed. Now maybe the person who bought the CD, ripped it and made those file available online violated the CD's EULA. Maybe, but I doubt very much the RIAA has a signed license agreement with that person. So I either live in abject terror, sharing nothing, not even talking about things for fear of violating someone else's statute laws, or I just go on and advocate for liberty. I choose the latter. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 3:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Copyright means that an agreement between A and B automatically applies to C In a society in which C agrees: Yes. In a society in which C doesn't: No. Just like claimed. Quoting:the respect for private property is one of the defining factors as to whether or not a society flourishes You're the RIAA of property, because RIAA says: "The respect for intellectual property is one of the defining factors as to whether or not a society flourishes". You realize that, do you? Quoting:And worse, if someone gives me a book (movie, song, image), I am somehow legally held to an agreement I never made, was not party to, didn't even know existed. Proves what I just told: If there's no agreement, that is, if C doesn't agree about copyright being property, then there will be a fight and untill agreement is reached there could be considered to be 'war'. RIAA, MPAA and the PirateParty clearly think so (though a political war), in their "war against piracy". Indeed, you can claim a political war is going on because there's no agreement. Just like I claimed! Quoting:if someone gives me a book (movie, song, image), I am somehow legally held to an agreement I never made, was not party to, didn't even know existed. If somebody else gives you some land or a car, and you consider it your property, I'm legally helt to an agreement I never made if I try to steal it. Just the same, you see? It's all a social phenomenon. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 4:15 PM EDT |
> If there's no agreement, that is, if C doesn't agree about copyright being property, then there will be a fight and untill agreement is reached there could be considered to be 'war'. This is a good example as to why it is so difficult to discuss this issue. Not once have I said anything about violating copyright not being illegal. And, as with anything illegal, it's backed up with the overwhelming violence, the "war" as HK puts it, of the State that maintains that law. > Indeed, you can claim a political war is going on because there's no agreement. By Cromm, I would love to know where I said that. > I'm legally helt to an agreement I never made if I try to steal it. Correct. Well said, even. I've seen that argument put forth by many a socialist. But, funny thing, when it's their property, they defend it. I consider that hypocrisy. What you've failed to distinguish is between the scarce and the non-scarce. Physical property is scarce. Patterns aren't. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 4:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:By Cromm, I would love to know where I said that. Neither did I say you said so. French uses 'on', Dutch uses 'men', I might have used 'one' instead of 'you', but it's not usual in English. And illegal or not, only 'nomenclature' invented by humans. It's not important at all, it's the social agreements that are. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2010 4:59 PM EDT |
> Neither did I say you said so. Now I'm confused. Didn't you just write, > Indeed, you can claim a political war is going on because there's no agreement. ??? Either I did claim, or I did not claim. Can you be more precise? |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2010 5:36 PM EDT |
Bob - It is too a paper crime. Only a society with a legal and enforceable definition of proper could make theft a crime. Otherwise, everything is either communal or property -- in the sense of temporary possession -- of the strongest. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2010 6:58 PM EDT |
Bob: French 'on' is not about 'you', neither is English 'one'. It's supposed to read: "One can claim a political war is going on". It doesn't matter who claims so and if you or I do or don't, all that matters is that it can be claimed. |
| KernelShepard Jul 04, 2010 9:49 AM EDT |
I wonder how many of the people that don't agree that copying is stealing would feel about GPL'd code being taken and put into proprietary software without the developer's permission? I guarantee that everyone on LT and LXer would feel strongly opposed to such a thing, so why the disconnect? It's the same thing in both cases: copyright. Anyone who disrespects copyrights on music or movies must then, logically, feel that the GPL is something that is unfair to enforce and that proprietary software companies should be able to get away with ripping off GPL'd projects. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2010 9:58 AM EDT |
KS - Yup. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 10:08 AM EDT |
Dino, With theft, the owner is deprived of a thing. That deprivation is why it's a crime. Copyright exists only through statute. HK, thanks. I don't see much of a war, when one side has all the guns and the other is simply making an argument. KS, so what happens without copyright law? Let's assume no government at all. If I take someone's code that explicitly states the terms we understand as the GPL, and uses it, and is discovered and proved to be doing so, then there are at least two remedies: Arbitration: Bring the dispute to dispute resolution, levy charges, present proof. If the "social standard" is such that people can be held to those terms, then they will be so held. Reputation: Already we have reputation being a great part of our lives. Publish that so-and-so "author" is nothing of the sort, that they have deliberately copied other people's code and claimed it as their own. So far, reputation has been used with the GPL. Violators substantially comply once it's been brought to their attention just what the GPL means to them. > Anyone who disrespects copyrights on music or movies must then, logically, feel that the GPL is something that is unfair to enforce Incorrect. Copyright is arbitrary. The GPL is not. I strongly oppose copyright and support the GPL, because I consider fraud a bad thing. Using someone else's ideas without attribution is ... impolite. |
| gus3 Jul 04, 2010 11:07 AM EDT |
@Bob: The GPL is based on copyright law, just like a Microsoft EULA is based on copyright law. If someone violates the GPL (like SCO, like Microsoft, like some embedded device makers), the lawsuit to be brought is a copyright infringement lawsuit. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 04, 2010 11:18 AM EDT |
KS, For once you make sense, with the caveat that NOT everyone on LXer would be incensed about the misuse of GPL. There are many, including yourself that do not seem that attached to either the license or the principles* of Free software. YBT * Applies to both the personages and the ideals. |
| gus3 Jul 04, 2010 11:26 AM EDT |
MBT: The personages would be the "principals". |
| ComputerBob Jul 04, 2010 11:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:With theft, the owner is deprived of a thing.Bob, if someone were to steal your written work and claim authorship and copyright ownership of it, and if you were to state that they hadn't deprived you of anything, then I would have to conclude that you hold your own work in very low regard. |
| KernelShepard Jul 04, 2010 12:39 PM EDT |
Bob: Without copyright law, the GPL would be unenforceable and proprietary software companies would be legally free to take code from GPL'd products and stuff it into their proprietary software if they so choose. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 04, 2010 1:00 PM EDT |
My Third Best Buddy Gus, What's the swapping of a minor vowel between friends? I was just trying to be efficient by extending the meaning just a bit. Where's the harm? Fewer words, less stress in comprehending the meaning. All to the good from my point of view. Nonetheless, "principle" was the correct version within the sentence, but not within the footnote's use. So would you please stop being such a nit picker on grammar? Moreover, that's a topic I have never understood*. YBT * I always wanted to be an engineer, but ended up in the unadulterated sciences, instead. Thus, my weaknesses in the English language should be given, considering my predilection in profession. Q.E.D. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 1:21 PM EDT |
Gus, KS,
> The GPL is based on copyright law Indeed, because that's the environment we're working in. My keyboard depends upon gravity, because it contains no function for adhering itself to the table. Remove gravity, people will figure out ways to make keyboards that work without it. Look at what the GPL is trying to accomplish, figure out how to do it without copyright. The only reason Copyright is used is because copyright exists. ComBob, > if someone were to steal your written work and claim authorship Fraud. Copyright doesn't enter into it. |
| ComputerBob Jul 04, 2010 1:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:ComBob, > if someone were to steal your written work and claim authorshipI believe that opinion to be completely unjustifiable -- morally, legally, ethically or in any other way. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 1:58 PM EDT |
> I believe that opinion to be completely unjustifiable -- morally, legally, ethically or in any other way. How so? What do you think fraud is? If I paint something that looks just like the Mona Lisa, represent it as the original and sell it, I have committed fraud. It's not copyright infringement, because the Mona Lisa is too old. Copyright doesn't enter into it. (this may change in the future as Disney gets copyright extended more and more) So if fraud applies where copyright does not, then without copyright, fraud still applies. Here's the funny thing about fraud: It's not a crime against Leonardo, it's a crime against the person to whom I falsely represented the painting as the original. |
| gus3 Jul 04, 2010 2:22 PM EDT |
It's fraud, as in misrepresentation. But if Charley Pride sings "Party in the USA" in a concert, even if he attributes the song's composition, he's still infringing copyright, if he did so without permission. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 3:31 PM EDT |
> he's still infringing copyright, if he did so without permission. Indeed. I don't think anyone is trying to say copyright is not the law. It's interesting to me that Julian Lennon could have owed money to Michael Jackson for singing one of the songs his own father wrote with Sir Pauly 30 years earlier. Oh what a tangled web we weave! |
| jdixon Jul 04, 2010 3:32 PM EDT |
> But if Charley Pride sings "Party in the USA" in a concert, even if he attributes the song's composition, he's still infringing copyright, Not normally, at least not if he pays the appropriate fee to the appropriate agency. From Wikipedia: "Often though, if the underlying musical work is well known, the work can be licensed for public performance through a performance rights organization such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license for all the gory details. As I understand it, once a song has been released, it's rather difficult to limit it's reuse, as long as the user is willing to pay for that usage. That's why Chrissie Hynde can't stop Rush Limbaugh from using "Back to Ohio" as his theme music. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2010 3:53 PM EDT |
Bob - You have a cute notion of fraud. What the heck do you think fraud is? If I tell you that I have written something that I didn't write, what is the recourse? Who has been damaged how? |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 04, 2010 4:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:I wonder how many of the people that don't agree that copying is stealing would feel about GPL'd code being taken and put into proprietary software without the developer's permission? IMHO that's still not stealing, though it is wrong. It's still a matter of civil law, not criminal law. I would think it very wrong if the owner of a piece of GPL'ed software can call the cops and tell them to raid Bill Gates' office because MS used his GPL'ed code in one of their products. Instead, the author of the GPL'ed code should sue MS in civil court and prove infringement though discovery. Stealing is criminal law. Copyright infringement is civil law. That distinction should stay. Precisely because of what was said above and in other threads: with copyright infringement, the owner is not deprived of use of the product. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 4:59 PM EDT |
Dino,
> You have a cute notion of fraud. Indeed. It should be obvious that I am no lawyer. I'm sure you could remedy the problem, but seriously I don't think it's worth your time. > Who has been damaged how? Funny, that's exactly where many people disagree with me. My position is: Prove damages, receive restitution. It's not up to me to define who is and is not harmed. Let the person harmed do that. Not only does that eliminate any requirement for statute law, it also means keeping up with changes to technology in "real time" without the delays inherent in legislation. I said that the buyer of a $10 "Rolex" is not being defrauded, because there is no expectation that a _actual_ Rolex is being sold for $10. Neither is the Rolex corp. being cheated out of a sale, since the person who buys a $10 "Rolex" isn't someone who would be buying a real Rolex in the first place. |
| gus3 Jul 04, 2010 5:43 PM EDT |
@jdixon: You chopped off the final qualifier in what I wrote: "if he did so without permission." That's the whole point of my comment. |
| KernelShepard Jul 04, 2010 5:50 PM EDT |
Sander: Semantics. The point that I think Carla is trying to make here is that making a digital copy of music (or whatever) without paying for it is morally wrong. Whether you call it "stealing" or "copyright infringement" is really irrelevant, you are taking what is not yours and it [financially] hurts the artist (in that they are not being compensated for their work by you). Just like lifting GPL'd code and putting it into a piece of proprietary software is morally wrong. Both are infringements of copyright. Quoting:Look at what the GPL is trying to accomplish, figure out how to do it without copyright. The only reason Copyright is used is because copyright exists. I don't know how it'd work without copyright, to be honest. I don't think it *could* work without copyright. In most cases, since the software is distributed for free, you couldn't even argue that it is hurting the author financially - and even when the original author isn't distributing for free, the fact that anyone who ever got a copy of the software is allowed to redistribute for free really makes it hard to claim financial damage. The only means of protecting the original author at all is copyright, unless some new legal means is created. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 5:51 PM EDT |
Sander,
> Stealing is criminal law. Copyright infringement is civil law. That distinction should stay. You might find it interesting to look into the origins of "criminal" vs. "civil" law. It's not such a nice distinction once one knows why it exists. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2010 6:28 PM EDT |
Bob -- Seems Shakespeare understood trademark and its importance a whole lot better than you do,. From Othello: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. In your example, the buyer of the watch is not harmed, but Rolex is. Inferior goods that bear your trademark diminish your reputation and your ability to profit from it. That may not matter to you, but lots of us out in the real world rely on reputations as an aid in our decision making. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 6:31 PM EDT |
> That may not matter to you, but lots of us out in the real world rely on reputations as an aid in our decision making. Maybe your search button can bring you back to my post above where I mention the importance of reputation. Or you could read the prior postings in a thread. Then you won't make such statements as "That may not matter to you" on a subject where I brought it up long since. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2010 6:39 PM EDT |
Sorry Bob, Neither is the Rolex corp. puts the lie to your protestations. Seems clear that you can wave the "r" word around when talking GPL, but don't believe it to truly have any value --- Or, back to my real point, that your position is unprincipled. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 6:46 PM EDT |
> your position is unprincipled. You disagree with it, that doesn't make it unprincipled. If you believe Rolex is harmed, then bring suit, prove damages, and receive restitution. It is my opinion that Rolex is not harmed, because there is no reasonable expectation that the $10 "Rolex" could have anything to do with the real Rolex product, any more than a photograph of the Mona Lisa has any reasonable expectation of being the original. Simply stating that they are harmed is insufficient. Demonstrate it. |
| jdixon Jul 04, 2010 7:05 PM EDT |
> I wrote: "if he did so without permission." That's the whole point of my comment And my point was that he doesn't need permission. The licensing is compulsory. The original artist can't deny permission. All he needs to do is pay for the use. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2010 7:14 PM EDT |
Bob... My agreement is not what makes it unprincipled. You pretend that reputation has value when you talk GPL, then pretend it has no value in other contexts. And that's all it is -- pretense. You don't care about anything more than your argument. As to your ludicrous suggestion that I bring suit in the belief that Rolex is harmed. I would have no standing to do that, but the real Rolex files criminal complaints on a regular basis to protect its name, a name it considers to be valuable. Rolex and other companies daily take assorted legal actions to protect their trademarks. Protecting your trademark is, in fact, a legal requirement for keeping it. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 7:20 PM EDT |
> then pretend it has no value in other contexts. Funny. I have no idea how to contradict that statement in any stronger terms than I already have. I'm left to leave you to your error. > but the real Rolex files criminal complaints on a regular basis to protect its name, a name it considers to be valuable. Again, I am left to wonder why you say you disagree, then agree. They are doing exactly what I have said is correct to do, yet you say I am "unprincipled". Does that make them unprincipled as well? |
| jdixon Jul 04, 2010 7:40 PM EDT |
Dino, Bob: Rolex is a trademark, not a copyright. The arguments for and against both may be similar, but they're not the same. The original discussion concerned copyrights. |
| jdixon Jul 04, 2010 7:47 PM EDT |
> Rolex and other companies daily take assorted legal actions to protect their trademarks. And then drop them like a hot potato when they decide it's no longer convenient. The brand C&P Telephone has a long and respected history. The brand Bell Atlantic, not so much so. Yet it was C&P Telephone which was cast to wayside. Likewise for GTE, which disappeared in the merger which created Verizon, as then the formerly so much more important Bell Atlantic. So, exactly how much is was the brand C&P Telephone worth? I guess that depends on when you asked the company, doesn't it? |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 7:54 PM EDT |
JD, point taken. Thank you. Having no training in the legal distinctions, I have to plead that any errors on my part come from simple ignorance of where one ends and another begins. To me they're all just make work for lawyers and politicians, better left in the dust bin of history, like chattel slavery and serfdom. |
| phsolide Jul 04, 2010 9:45 PM EDT |
Dinotrac wrote: Quoting:You think it's permissible to violate the law (hey! Gosh -- it's ok to break the law now! Guess I'll get me into some nifty Ponzi schmes...) to take a valuable interest from another person who to whom that interest has been legally granted. That would be one of the lamest straw man I've ever been accused of. You spend days and weeks arguing according to the finest points of "the law", yet when it comes right down to it, you're willing to change something that not theft (copyright infringement) into theft. According to the law, copying might be infringement, and it might not. It's also a civil crime. I wrote nothing about breaking laws, or the stealing of property. You falsely accuse me of something that I just didn't write, nor did I give any indication that I believed it. Differences exist between "ideas" and "things". You can steal one, you can copy the other. People have different ideas about where copying stops and stealing starts. Right now, copying is infringement, not theft. But yes, I'd say it's OK (maybe "ethical" would be a better word) to copy in some circumstances. Reviews of movies or books. References in technical literature. Whistleblowing documents, things like that. Calling that "theft" is at best overblown, and at worst it's surpressing civil liberties. How about published algorithms? Is copying them "theft"? And that's just the start of the problems. Two people can come up with the same idea independently. If we allow "Intellectual Property", then one of them, maybe not even the first chronologically to think of a concept, gets to "own" the idea. My sister, an architecture major in college, claims she thought of curtain walls before she ever heard of them. In 4th grade, I thought of the same atomic propulsion that Freeman Dyson's "Orion" used. More mundanely, I thought of circular windshield scrapers, a patented idea. You don't have to believe those things, but surely you can think of others. The whole realm of "intellectual property" is so murky, so filled with problems where an arbitrary line must be drawn, that to allow it is to risk everything of the current social order. If you want to change a major policy, you need to ensure that the fix for the problem doesn't cause more harm than just leaving things as they are. Instituting "copying is theft" would do just that, cause more harm than the good that would come from fixing any problems. |
| gus3 Jul 04, 2010 9:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:And my point was that he doesn't need permission. The licensing is compulsory. The original artist can't deny permission. All he needs to do is pay for the use.Okay, perhaps you're talking about the rights-holder, but I'm talking about the performer. If the performer has not secured the permission (via payment of royalties or license fees), then there is a copyright violation. |
| jdixon Jul 04, 2010 10:46 PM EDT |
> If the performer has not secured the permission (via payment of royalties or license fees), then there is a copyright violation. Yes, in that case you are correct. Though even there I'm not sure payment has to be made in advance. I think there's a time frame for making the payment after the fact. Probably to allow for things like requests from the audience and such. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 04, 2010 11:06 PM EDT |
> Probably to allow for things like requests from the audience and such. I consider it very likely that, through the endless machinations that people must go through to make something as arbitrary as "copyright" function in the real world, such a convention would have to exist. Consider the lounge singer, who cannot know in advance what will be requested. Or do such casual violations get ignored for the sake of not being worth anyone's effort? I am left wondering how anyone can still consider "ignorance of the law" as no defense. Seems to me to be the standard state of affairs. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2010 7:11 AM EDT |
Bob - In some cases, it is the venue that pays, not the performer. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!