dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18
share rss forum feed

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

reply to Shadow01

Re: Simple way to avoid copyright issues

said by Shadow01:

I like the way you think... The chances of me ever buying a Ferrari are about zero. That should make it ok for me to steal one. At least they get the advertising from me driving it around. I didn't hurt their sales since I wasn't buying in the first place.

That's cool, and when you get a Ferrari, can you please get your sister, mom, friends, Girlfriend and me one too so they can get to know the brand and maybe support them in an upcoming race?

Oh wait, you can't make copies of cars, so your analogy is crap.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
said by Kamus:

said by Shadow01:

I like the way you think... The chances of me ever buying a Ferrari are about zero. That should make it ok for me to steal one. At least they get the advertising from me driving it around. I didn't hurt their sales since I wasn't buying in the first place.

That's cool, and when you get a Ferrari, can you please get your sister, mom, friends, Girlfriend and me one too so they can get to know the brand and maybe support them in an upcoming race?

Oh wait, you can't make copies of cars, so your analogy is crap.

The way he presented the analogy is wrong (and crap) but if you fix it, it makes more sense...

If I get my friends permission to take apart his Ferrari and copy every piece in my workshop, then I put my parts together to make an exact replica of his car, have I somehow STOLEN something? Did my friend (or Ferrari) lose one of their cars? No. You could certainly argue that Ferrari lost the possibility of selling me one of theirs but is that theft? People make copies of products for their own personal use all the time and no one ever thinks it is stealing. It isn't until they start to sell them that they are going to run into morally questionable territory.

The entire concept of 'You stole my intellectual property because you are using it for your own personal use without paying me' is utterly ridiculous. I fully suspect that RIAA/MPAA/Wiley will soon start demanding that libraries charge patrons for the use of the material and send them the money... after all, no one could argue that libraries don't also cost them lost sales.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by CXM_Splicer:

If I get my friends permission to take apart his Ferrari and copy every piece in my workshop, then I put my parts together to make an exact replica of his car, have I somehow STOLEN something? Did my friend (or Ferrari) lose one of their cars? No. You could certainly argue that Ferrari lost the possibility of selling me one of theirs but is that theft? People make copies of products for their own personal use all the time and no one ever thinks it is stealing. It isn't until they start to sell them that they are going to run into morally questionable territory.

Didn't you steal this idea from Johnny Cash?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

The way he presented the analogy is wrong (and crap) but if you fix it, it makes more sense...

If I get my friends permission to take apart his Ferrari and copy every piece in my workshop, then I put my parts together to make an exact replica of his car, have I somehow STOLEN something? Did my friend (or Ferrari) lose one of their cars? No. You could certainly argue that Ferrari lost the possibility of selling me one of theirs but is that theft? People make copies of products for their own personal use all the time and no one ever thinks it is stealing. It isn't until they start to sell them that they are going to run into morally questionable territory.

The entire concept of 'You stole my intellectual property because you are using it for your own personal use without paying me' is utterly ridiculous. I fully suspect that RIAA/MPAA/Wiley will soon start demanding that libraries charge patrons for the use of the material and send them the money... after all, no one could argue that libraries don't also cost them lost sales.

So...your example is analagous to borrowing your friends music recording, listening to it and performing each part yourself (or hiring professional musicians to do it), recording it, mastering it and producing it, then making a copy of your recording for your personal use and nothing else. Don't really see any problem with that as you're returning the original without keeping a duplicate for your personal use. As that would be copyright infringement which is illegal assuming it's a copyrighted recording.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
said by PaulHikeS2:

So...your example is analagous to borrowing your friends music recording, listening to it and performing each part yourself (or hiring professional musicians to do it), recording it, mastering it and producing it, then making a copy of your recording for your personal use and nothing else. Don't really see any problem with that as you're returning the original without keeping a duplicate for your personal use. As that would be copyright infringement which is illegal assuming it's a copyrighted recording.
...
Of course it's not "theft" or "stealing".

I have no problem with you modifying the analogy a little as long as my recorded performance is a bit-by-bit identical copy of the original... glad you agree with me that there is no problem

Incidentally, since I am using my own electricity to create the 'recorded bits' onto my hard drive, there is little difference between what you describe and copying.

quote:
If you think distribution of copyrighted material is OK, well that's fine, but it's still illegal.

I don't think anyone here is arguing to the contrary.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

Didn't you steal this idea from Johnny Cash?

No, I only borrowed it... I SWEAR!


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to CXM_Splicer
I compared you actually manufacturing the Ferrari in your garage to "manufacturing" music meaning actually performing and recording the music. It would be almost the same, but not identical, just like your Ferrari example. A more accurate analogy, but altogether different than a bit by bit idenical copy.

A bit by bit idenical copy in my opinion would fall under distribution which is copyright infringement.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by PaulHikeS2:

I compared you actually manufacturing the Ferrari in your garage to "manufacturing" music meaning actually performing and recording the music. It would be almost the same, but not identical, just like your Ferrari example. A more accurate analogy, but altogether different than a bit by bit idenical copy.

Then you are breaking the analogy to better suit your argument since you know that's not what happens with copyright infringement. If you want a better analogy, you have to go past the physical limitation of not being able to 'create' a perfectly identical copy of something (which copying a file does).

To better the analogy, consider the Star Trek transporter. If you turn off the dematerialize feature and simply scan the physical object and create an identical copy using only pure energy then you will have a better mechanism for describing copyright infringement.

So now the questions become: If I scan my friend's Ferrari and 'create' another one, have I stolen anything? What if I create 20 Ferraris and give them to my friends? What if I run off a few dozen and open up a lot to sell them? If you want to insist that I am stealing something, please tell me exactly what it is I am stealing.

One has to delve deep into science fiction to come up with a scenario that properly compares copyright infringement to shoplifting... that's why the comparison is completely absurd. When you actually DO a proper comparison, almost no one would have a problem with making a copy of a friend's Ferrari for his/her personal use; there is NOTHING WRONG with it. If/when such a Santa Clause machine is invented and everyone has one, what should we do... tightly regulate its use to make sure business doesn't change? Or would it be time to rethink the way products are created & distributed.

You seem to keep going back to a legal definition of Copyright Infringement; I don't know if you read the whole thread or not but it was about comparing copyright infringement to shoplifting.


Morac
Cat god

join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by CXM_Splicer:

So now the questions become: If I scan my friend's Ferrari and 'create' another one, have I stolen anything? What if I create 20 Ferraris and give them to my friends? What if I run off a few dozen and open up a lot to sell them? If you want to insist that I am stealing something, please tell me exactly what it is I am stealing.

Technically you would be devalueing Ferraris in general based on the principals of supply and demand.

This episode of the Duck Tales cartoon actually does a good job explaining this:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrp···a_player

--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

quote:
Technically you would be devalueing Ferraris in general based on the principals of supply and demand.

Yes, definitely. And I am sure Ferrari would be pissed about it and stamp their feet and shout 'You STOLE that Ferrari!!' But people would laugh at such a ridiculous accusation.

That was a great video, I loved the part with George thinking of the turkey! I think it is 100% true but we should take it a little deeper... Mr. McDuck correctly states that duplicating the money will ruin the economy. The thing is, if they really had a Multiphonic Duplicator, it wouldn't ruin the economy... it would render it OBSOLETE. People would have no need to duplicate money... they would simply duplicate the commodity. The economy would simply disappear as people duplicated all the food, clothes, houses, cars, computers, whatever they needed. The people who provided those commodities in the past for a profit might resent their loss of power & position and demand legislation to limit the duplication of commodities. So we would have corporations trying to force us to keep using the old, obsolete model because they found it more profitable.