U2

By Stephen Boudreau at 12:09 PM| Permalink

The U2 concert was absolutely unbelievable. We had wonderful seats right up near the stage, the music was beautiful, the production was outstanding and overall... I feel like my words do not do it justice.
Without a doubt, the best concert I have ever been to.

Also, there was a very lucky fan at the show that got to come up on stage and play a song with the band. Unreal!

Wicked

By Stephen Boudreau at 12:08 PM| Permalink

This past weekend Shelley and I went and saw a splendid new musical called "Wicked" at the Fair Park Music Hall.

What is Wicked about, you ask? (yes... I believe you just asked.)
The Playbill summarizes it as follows:

Long before Dorothy dropped in, two other girls meet in the Land of Oz. One, born with emerald-green skin, is smart, fiery and misunderstood. The other is beautiful, ambitious and very popular. How these two unlikely friends end up as the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good Witch makes for the most spellbinding new musical in years.

Shelley and I both absolutely loved the show. It was both very funny and heartwarming, not to mention a creative and riveting tale. The music, of course, was quite memorable. In fact, Shelley and I are still singing many of the songs off-key around the house.

Molding the Minds

By Stephen Boudreau at 12:07 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

It's hard to believe, but tonight I will be giving a lecture to a business class at the University of Texas at Dallas. In it, Chris and I will be discussing "how to start a successful business", specifically in web design. Quite a topic! It's very flattering and humbling to do something like this, but it is also very exciting.

For those of you who don't know, Chris Mechsner is my business partner at Ascendio.

Wish us luck!

A Pirate, No More

By Stephen Boudreau at 12:06 PM| Permalink

I've been meaning to post this for months now, but...

As of this past summer, every piece of software and each and every mp3 in my possession is completely legal and/or paid for. I have to say it feels great to have removed this stain of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance from my life.

When it came right down to it, I have decided to no longer willingly participate in thievery.

Unfortunately, I'm sure there are plenty of other areas of life marked by a little Boudreausian hypocrisy. One day at a time...

----COMMENTS----
Can copyright infringement be properly called theft?
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.07.05 - 12:25 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My primary motivation was moral, not legal. Although both are relevant.

Since you mention it, though, I suppose that my decision to no longer willingly participate in thievery has yet another positive byproduct: no longer being a willing and active participant in copyright infringement.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.07.05 - 1:03 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't speaking with regards to your particular situation. More accurately, I'm using it as a springboard to question some of the assumptions we make regarding immaterial things like music, software, etc.
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 11:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i might be missing something, but i'm not entirely sure what your point is.

why would theft be confined to objects you can touch or hold? the only difference between walking into Virgin Megastore and stealing a copy of the latest Coldplay album with illegaly downloading it off the web is the so-called courage of the theif.

even worse: ultimately, we are stealing more than just "a cd" -- we are stealing the compensation a musician, software developer, business executive, etc. have requested in exchange for their work by putting it in the marketplace. theft deprives people of the appropriate remuneration for their work.

if the assumption that stealing people's music, software, ideas, identity and/or information is not "properly called theft", then we have inapproriately called it something else.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.09.05 - 12:25 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One cannot loan an idea to a friend, and expect the friend to return the idea once they're done using it. The reason for this is that information is fundamentally different in its nature from the material world.

Once an individual shares the information with another, it ceases to be in the ownership of the one and has thus become the ownership of the two. Now suppose the second shares the idea with a third. This transference of the information has not cost the first anything. And so forth the sharing can continue without costing the first anything. This is the nature of information. It is the ownership of all who happened upon it.

Therefore, if information is owned by all those who happen upon it, it cannot properly be stated that another 'steals' information from one whom has shared the information.
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.09.05 - 11:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though, it should be stated, copyright infringement is still illegal and should not be done.

Though, there is a gray area as to whether or not downloading copyrighted music without permission constitutes copyright infringement. The uploading and/or sharing of such music is more than likely copyright infringement as it could be argue it constitutes 'distribution.'
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.09.05 - 11:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unfortuantely, your argument is based on a false premise. an "idea" is not protected by copyright law.

copyright law protects original works of authorship, including literary works, musical works, dramatic works, pictures, graphics, motion pictures and other related works.

copyright belongs exclusively to the author of the work and violation of copyright involves, among other things, the reproduction of the work. therefore, if i have the latest version of Photoshop on my computer and didn't acquire it via an accepted, legal channel -- i am in possession of an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work. this is stealing.

on top of it all, you can't honestly compare the sharing of an idea with a friend and someone spending time and money producing an original, creative work. aside from falling flat on its face legally, this argument simply fails logically.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 12:19 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My analogy was intended to convey the nature of ideas/information. The point was to show the fundamental difference between the immaterial and the material. Information, by it's nature, is not 'owned' by any one individual, but is the possession of the collective who have obtained it through whatever means. Music itself is nothing more than an idea/information. Therefore, it is not logically inconsistent to compare the nature of the two.

You are correct in saying copyrights do not protect ideas. They exist to protect the limited monopoly the creator is provided for a period of time. The copyright is what belongs to the creator solely, not the ideas they have created. Thus, copyright infringement is not 'theft.'

I should note, being in possession of an 'unauthorized reproduction' of copyrighted material does not make one a copyright infringer. The infringer is the one who provided (distributed) said material, assuming it does not fall within the areas of fair use and other uses provided by copyright laws.
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 10:42 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, your argument is based on a completely false premise.

Music is not merely an idea or item of information, at least not legally speaking. Music is considered an original work of authorship protected by copyright law and owned, yes – owned by the author of the work.

When Clay Aiken comes out with an album he and/or his record label and/or his song publisher own the rights to that original work. There are no ideas or pieces of information in this discussion, so you needn’t keep bringing that up as if it were a valid point. We are talking about an original work of authorship. When you rush out and download Clay’s album off an unauthorized file sharing network, you have participated in copyright infringement by acquiring an illegal reproduction of a copyrighted work. You didn’t buy a copy of the album believing it to be a legal copy – only to later discover that you had purchased stolen goods. You willingly took part in the infringement of copyright.

Even further, these songs are, indeed, the property of Mr. Aiken. He owns the right to choose whether or not he wants to sell them and by which means he wants to make them available. Copies of these songs could have been purchased through appropriate legal channels, but were not. Clay’s personal property has been taken against his will. Clay’s personal property has been stolen.

Legally speaking, copyright infringement and theft are classified as two separate violations of federal law. But as in the case above, they often go hand in hand. Morally speaking, I believe the lines blur even more.

And sorry, the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law does not include wanting to sing along to Clay’s Christmas album the other 11 months of the year.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 12:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which premise is false, and why is it false?
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 1:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your premise that music is nothing more than an idea/information. It's false because Music is an original work of authorship protected by copyright law.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 2:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. Let me explain why.

Point 1. The idea.

An idea is something which exists in the mind as the result of thought. Because an idea exists in the mind of individual's, the idea can be said to be in the possession of the individual. Thus, it can be said the individual owns the idea.

However, this idea differs from material objects in the fact that it cannot be taken away from the individual. There is nothing anyone can do to take the idea away from the individual. The idea will always exist -- memory aside -- in the mind of the original author.

So the question is how do we define 'to steal.' If we say to steal means to remove from the owner's possession then obviously one cannot steal an idea from another.

There is also the concern of sharing the ideas of the original author. Should said activity be considered 'stealing?' Well, if we look at the definition provided, then I think we can easily conclude that sharing an idea is not stealing.

Thus, I believe we can agree it is philosophically impossible for one to steal an idea.

Point 2. The music.

Music without a mind is nothing. The reason for this is that without the mind, music could not exist. It requires a mind to develop the 'idea' of the song. It also requires a mind to perceive it. Thus, music is little more than a mental construct, an idea -- albeit a powerful one at that.

Point 3. The copyright laws.

One of the fundamental points of copyright laws is an acknowledgment that ideas cannot be owned by any one individual in the same manner as a car can. This is precisely why ideas, themselves, are not protected by copyrights. What is protected by copyright laws is the original author's rights to a limited monopoly on the expression of those idea. This is why it is necessary for one to fix the idea(s) into a "tangible medium of expression" to gain such rights. Without fixing the ideas into such a medium, no copyright protection will be granted.

Further, making a copy of this expression cannot be deemed stealing because the original still remains.

Based on this, we can understand copyright infringement to be infringing upon the rights of another rather than stealing their ideas.

It is upon this basis which I disagree with the idea of calling copyright infringement, theft.

Point 4. The extension.

It is my belief that the modern entertainment industry wants people to believe copyright infringement is stealing. The reason for this is that stealing is generally perceived as a bad thing. If people perceive stealing as a bad thing, and the industry can label copyright infringement as stealing, then generally people will avoid doing it.

The other problem with much of modern is the twisting of the original intent of copyright laws. The original intent was for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of the individual. Thus, society took precedence over the individual. Unfortunately, it has been flipped around where there are no more and ever expanding rights for the author's rights over those of society. This can be clearly seen with the numerous extensions applied to copyright terms.

Well, those are my thoughts on the subject. Though, I anticipate you'll disagree me. Lousy musicians.
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 3:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting related topic to this is 'ripping' Internet (mp3) streams from legit online radio stations. I tend to view the action as legit, and equivalent to recording songs from the radio (which is legal).
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chris, i am sorry, but i don't believe you have a very solid understanding of the actual copyright laws on the books. i am even more apologetic if that sounds rude.

the bottom line is that a song, a piece of software, etc. can absolutely be legally "owned". i am not "hoping" that this statement is correct; i am informing you of the law as it currently exists. again, i apologize if that sounds arrogant.

you have strong, well articulated opinions on the matter, but your posts are a commentary on how you wish things were, not as they are.

again, the whole reason i even brought this topic up to begin with was to raise a moral question, not a legal one. my moral opinion is simple enough: if i am getting music/software/movies/anything for free, when i should in fact be paying for it, i am stealing. if you need any more evidence or reasons not to do it, please re-read the discussion above.

thanks for the discussion. i honestly have nothing further to say on this topic.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 4:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opinions I've developed are the result of my thinking through the nature of information and the copyright laws (U.S. Code Title 17 and the Constitution). If you wish to suggest I am ignorant of them, then that's fine I can live with that.

However, I think my point has been misunderstood. I never intended to justify copyright infringement. In fact, I never argued against it. I accept the need for copyright laws. I believe financial reimbursement is a good incentive to encourage the creation of new information. I also believe it to be unethical and (with no doubt) illegal to infringe upon someone's rights granted by copyright. Where our disagreement rests is not in that point, but in whether it is proper to call copyright infringement theft or not. And I was merely using your post as a springboard to explore the idea.

So, aside from that, are you going to the Angels or the Yankees?
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am rooting for the astros.

i never root for the yankees.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to make matters worse, i typically root for the cubs, the red sox and most of all, the rangers.

what a headache!
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't know you were a Cubs fan. Ever been to a game at Wrigley? If you haven't, you need to. It's so cool!
Chris Campbell | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh yeah! my family lived in chicago for many moons.... we sat third row, behind the cubs dugout. quite a thrill!
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 5:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'Stros all the way! I don't like the cubs, or red soxs very much but I very much dislike the yanks.

[quote]even worse: ultimately, we are stealing more than just "a cd" -- we are stealing the compensation a musician[/quote]

I think its funny that you come to this when you have a real CD coming out soon. Which BTW I would like to purchase one, any chance they will be sold through your website?

most of those comments were too long for me to read.
jason | Email | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:20 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

actually, i have believed some form of everything i stated above for years. unfortunately, the allure of getting so much music and software for free has a way of blurring the lines between right and wrong. i finally decided that there was more at stake than just the legalities of my actions -- i believe my character, my values, and my integrity were on the line. obviously, that's a pretty big deal.

so anyway, that's that.

as for the album, i am not sure if we are going to have it for sale online. if we do, i'll definitely post it here.
stephen | Email | Homepage | 10.12.05 - 8:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First - GO STROS!

Second - Congrats Steve on your moving to the pirate free lifestyle. I found both of the arguments on this issue compelling, but ultimately I'm in agreement with you. I started doing the 'legal' download thing while in grad school after studying the issue in a business law class. Since then, I've been a loyal iTunes customer and agree that the feeling of rightfully owning great music is rewarding and I'm not stressed out about getting sued or caught by the relevant authorities.

Go Stros! Go Aggies! Go Spurs! Go COWBOYS!
Teno Villarreal | Email | Homepage | 10.14.05 - 5:07 pm | #