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 | #
A radio talk show host in Illinois has started a campaign called "Smokes for Soldiers" aimed at getting people to send care-packages to our troops in Iraq. These are special packages, though. Instead of being filled with magazines, movies, and candy, these will be packed with evil cigarettes!
Now this is a cause that fascinates me. Not because I am a smoker or support smoking, but because I am impressed at the chutzpah of this cause. Doesn't he realize that smoking is the new villain of our day?
I'm not here to argue the effects that a life-long smoking habit can cause, but I am blown away by how our culture has demonized smoking. I believe the war against tobacco has saturated American society with the belief that smoking is wrong, even immoral, and not simply unhealthy.
Back in the "olden days", you could attend sporting events where most spectators smoked, but none cursed. Today there is no smoking at stadiums, but obscene language is shouted out with impunity. We have traded in opposition to firsthand cursing for opposition to secondhand smoke.
If nothing else, this is a fascinating study in a shift of values of our culture.
Thanks to some advances in ultrasound technology, there are some amazing new types of photos available of a fetus at eight to twenty four weeks in the womb.
Make sure you click here to see some examples of these breathtaking photos.
Life is a precious gift from God.
I thought this was a good argument. It made me more aware of why many liberal people think the way they do. Enjoy!
- Posted by Shelley
Proclamation for Thanksgiving
October 3, 1863
By Abraham Lincoln , President of the United States of America.
The year that is drawing toward its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watching providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised not hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.
A study like this, just goes to show how meaningless so many "labels" that society has created for groups are. How can someone say "im Christian" and not actually believe in God... that doesn't make any sense.
It's also interesting to see how secular society labels Christians and separates that from an actual belief in Christ, let alone the actual existence of God. They aren't confused about whether or not vegetarians eat meat. that wouldn't make sense. But they have no problem understanding someone who says, "I'm a Christian, but don't believe in God." Faith and values have become a cultural status, not a spiritual one.
I don't know if this is more indicting on the church or our culture. Probably both.
Anyway, it is a very interesting read and it's short, so check it out!
http://channels.netscape.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/notbelieveingod/notbelieveingod
A new study found that a third of U.K. IT managers (the guys who keep the technical end of a business running) find that having email down for a week is more traumatic than going through a divorce.
Shelley and I went and saw "The Pianist" this weekend at the dollar movie theater. Yes... the dollar theater.
It was an incredible and inspiring story about a Polish Jew who survived the Holocoust of World War 2. It also serves as a thought provoking reminder of how evil this world can be.
I challenge anyone of the thousands of activists and liberals who were making the unthinkable comparison of President Bush to Hitler to watch this movie and still make that comparison. We all need to be reminded of what our world endured not that long ago in WW2 and what people like Adolf Hitler -- people like Saddam Hussein -- are capable of, that evil does exist, and how and why they need to be stopped.
Good vs. Evil. Right vs. Wrong. These distinctions are real and they matter. Here's an interesting article about this topic relating to current events.