Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Cheap? said by hemzer:With invention of file sharing what has happened is it has helped people to band together and work out the correct market price of the materiel. Markets theory says prices are determined by willing buyers and sellers. A bunch of buyers sharing something for free (against the seller's wishes) isn't a market price.
People who argue for copyright violation seem to oscillate between how it's just a "market" like anything else, or it's not really property (and not really theft) because the Supreme Court emphasized the fact that intellectual property is treated differently (to accomplish the same goals as criminal law concerning physical property).
Mark | |
|
  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Cheap? said by amigo_boy:it's not really property (and not really theft) because the Supreme Court emphasized the fact that intellectual property is treated differently (to accomplish the same goals as criminal law concerning physical property). Except I can go and physically steal a CD or DVD and be punished less than those who download that same movie/music.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
 | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Cheap? Is anyone being "punished" for downloading copyrighted material? I believe the copyright infringement suits and settlements have all been about unauthorized distribution. So, your argument would be more appropriate if you stole a CD or DVD and then made a bunch of copies and distributed the copies without permission. | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Gbcue:said by amigo_boy:it's not really property (and not really theft) because the Supreme Court emphasized the fact that intellectual property is treated differently (to accomplish the same goals as criminal law concerning physical property). Except I can go and physically steal a CD or DVD and be punished less than those who download that same movie/music. The severity of the punishment for copyright infringement isn't for downloading a song or movie. It is for uploading it - even if that wasn't the intent of the violator. The choice of tool(with automatic uploads also enabled) to download that movie is what gets them in trouble. I guess the lesson to be learned is to be careful about HOW you go about getting content illegally. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Gbcue:said by amigo_boy:it's not really property (and not really theft) because the Supreme Court emphasized the fact that intellectual property is treated differently (to accomplish the same goals as criminal law concerning physical property). Except I can go and physically steal a CD or DVD and be punished less than those who download that same movie/music. I definitely agree that copyright (a social invention, intended to balance the interests of property owners and the society that enables their market) has tilted too far toward the property owner.
Mark | |
|
| | said by amigo_boy: A bunch of buyers sharing something for free (against the seller's wishes) isn't a market price. Mark Though I would agree with you on a whole concerning market price, but if people are unwilling to pay for it but willing to get the product, it says something of the price.
Right or wrong, if content is stolen in masses then that content is overpriced regardless of what it is. Even if it is stolen for no other reason then convenience (can use it how they want).
Keep in mind that I am a person that does not believe in "pirating" and believes if you like something you should support the person / business that produces it. I flat our refuse to watch any movie that has been "pirated" regardless of the reason. Music I would be the same, but I am not a big music person.
The landscape is changing. These content producers must adapt because they can't control the 0's and 1's. | |
|
| | | Re: Cheap? said by Skippy25:Though I would agree with you on a whole concerning market price, but if people are unwilling to pay for it but willing to get the product, it says something of the price. No it says something of human nature. People are selfish beings at their core. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:if people are unwilling to pay for it but willing to get the product, it says something of the price. I understand your point. But, the real message those people are sending is that they're not willing to buy at the seller's price.
Taking the property for free speaks more to a problem in enforcement of the seller's rights. That argument justifies stiff, astronomical (example setting) judgments against infringers.
That's my problem with the "I want it free" folks (which you're not one). Their choice is to not buy the product. It's not to make decisions for the seller.
I've seen these people rationalize that pirates are actually doing the seller a favor, marketing the product for free. It's the seller's choice. Not the buyer's. If the seller wants to live in the dark ages, that's her choice. It's not the buyer's right to "help" the seller in ways that are 100% opposed to the seller's intention.
But, I do agree that copyright has tilted too far toward sellers.
Copyright was intended to accomplish the same goals as criminal laws protecting real property. But, it was also different, recognizing that it was a social invention to create a "market" for owners of intellectual property, to satisfy social goals (the progress of useful arts and science). There was supposed to be a balancing of interests between society and artists/scientists. Liberal free-use. Society ultimately becoming the owner through Public Domain (limited durations, short enough that the property would still be useful to society).
I think the people who argue that it's not really theft (they're doing seller's a favor by making their property available for free; the seller wasn't deprived of anything because she still has the "original") only justify the argument of property holders that copyright should tilt more in their direction.
Mark | |
|
| |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: Cheap? While I agree with everything that you've said, from a legal perspective, copyright infringement isn't theft. Courts have even mentioned that in their opinions.
If I were to go to court and try to prove that unauthorized duplication is theft, I'd lose. In fact, I'd never be able to make the initial showing.
Infringement and theft are different as far as the law is concerned. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cheap? said by Goober:While I agree with everything that you've said, from a legal perspective, copyright infringement isn't theft. Courts have even mentioned that in their opinions. I think this is a matter of semantics designed to confuse the uninitiated.
Copyright isn't treated as theft of ordinary (real, tangible) property because it's covered by more specific laws. The reason those more-specific laws exist is because intellectual property is different, and can't be protected adequately enough by ordinary criminal laws governing real (tangible) property.
When people say "even the SC said it's not theft," they seem to imply that the SC was agreeing that there is no concept of "stealing" IP. But, that's not true. They were just saying that the concept of stealing IP was addressed by more specific laws due to the more challenging nature of IP.
From a purely legal standpoint, infringement is not prosecuted by criminal laws punishing "theft." But, that doesn't mean that the goals of those criminal laws were not embodied in copyright law, a universal contract limiting the transfer of property which would be absolute absent a contract (and treated by criminal theft laws).
The principle of "theft" (and preventing it) is exactly why copyright was added to the constitution as a power delegated to the Federal government.
Mark | |
|
| | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: Cheap? It's not semantics. The reality is that if I draft a complaint and I don't meet all the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case, I risk summary judgement. That's all I was pointing out.
Your little copyright primer is okay as it goes, but I consider myself relatively sophisticated in this area (see my profile). Others may find it somewhat useful though. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cheap? said by Goober:It's not semantics. ... Your little copyright primer is okay as it goes, but I consider myself relatively sophisticated in this area (see my profile). Others may find it somewhat useful though. Sorry. I've just seen the point made so often that "the SC said it's not theft" that I assumed you were making the same point.
That argument always struck me as so out of context that it would be like saying "the SC said kidnapping isn't assault." Just because more specific laws were created to deal with kidnapping doesn't mean that activity doesn't share a significant component of "assault," and was treated more specifically to accomplish the same goal as laws against common assault.
If that wasn't your point, I apologize.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Cheap? I was just pointing out legal procedure.
In the brief and the arguments it's not a difficult matter to talk about theft and the like. In fact, that's where you'd draw the analogies. It's just in the filing that you have to be specific with the elements. You have to plead the right cause of action. | |
|
| | andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by amigo_boy:I think the people who argue that it's not really theft (they're doing seller's a favor by making their property available for free; the seller wasn't deprived of anything because she still has the "original") only justify the argument of property holders that copyright should tilt more in their direction. Pirates certainly aren't doing the seller a favor, but when copyright law is already tilted way too far toward the seller, they're doing the public a favor, by depriving the seller of the income used to buy those overreaching laws. (I realize that most pirates aren't motivated by this, but until the law becomes reasonably balanced, it doesn't matter. The present length of copyright isn't even remotely justifiable, so there's no chance that reasoning in terms of what serves the public good will work - Congress clearly doesn't care about that.) | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cheap? said by andre2:but when copyright law is already tilted way too far toward the seller, they're doing the public a favor, by depriving the seller of the income used to buy those overreaching laws. I guess. I think they could accomplish that by simply not buying the product (without resorting to stealing it). But, I could get on board with a civil disobedience movement. That our laws require the consent of the governed to work, and that willful disobedience of copyright is a political demonstration that society has lost confidence in the justness of the law. (Like the Boston Tea Party.).
Like you said, that's not what a majority of pirates promulgate. They just seem to want free stuff. They're not concerned with the larger social issues (growing corporate influence over our society).
Mark | |
|
| | You are shooting off in the wrong direction now.
you did not get the point.
The point made is that the market is rejecting the inflated price by pirating.
Make the price optimum and the underground hacks will disappear. That is the way it works, when the consumer feels shafted alternate methods will fill in to supply the vacuum. | |
|
|
|
|
