he's obviously implying that since I am capable of making a distinction between making a perfect copy of something (illegally) and removing an item from another persons possession (illegally) that I MUST then be a thief.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet
- Thread starter YL_Bass
- Start date
he's obviously implying that since I am capable of making a distinction between making a perfect copy of something (illegally) and removing an item from another persons possession (illegally) that I MUST then be a thief.
the act of stealing has nothing to do with whether there is only i individual item involved. when someone takes something that should be paid for with out paying for it, that's stealing. regardless of format.
it´s just the same thing, you are stealing the profits of the artist when you download his work illegally.
look, COPYING something without the original creator's permission in my opinion just is not the same as stealing. is it "right?" no. does it deprive the person of money that they hoped to make? sure. however, words mean things, and when we use those words to imply things legally, it's important that they mean SPECIFIC things. "Stealing" is when you take something from someone without their permission, NOT when you make a copy of something without their permission... there are a whole other category of words that describe that sort of activity.
again, use my coffee table analogy, if I make a nearly exact copy of a coffee table that you build and sell in a furniture store for my own use in my own home, I HIGHLY DOUBT that you could find a single court in the US that would convict me of any crime... and even if you DID manage to get me convicted, i GUARANTEE it wouldn't be for "stealing."
Legally, no, its not the same thing. From a moral or ethical point of view, I guess its fair to say they're roughly the same thing.
steal
   /stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
   /stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
so, by your reading of said definition, if I make an exact replica of an Ikea table...
(we'll say this one):
Link Removed
... for the use in my own home, I am "stealing" an ikea coffee table and I owe ikea the $70 the table would cost at the ikea store? am I following you so far? if so, I can at least agree to disagree with you on the term in confidence that you have a clear definition in mind.
Well, that might be a bit of a stretch. This would equate to actually sitting down and re-recording exact replicas of her music and then using it, which isn't exactly what's being discussed
well, true, but I was actually referring back to my earlier analogy of if every home had a machine that could automatically build copies of tables for you, like a easy-CAD-oven of the future (which btw, they are working on so we should probably get all this stuff straight before then!)
Using this logic making "copies" of currency is not stealing since the original money is also still available. This of course makes the legal currency worthless (which was one of the tactics Hitler planned to use by the way), and thats the main issue most have with copyrighted material. Not only do they get ripped off of any profit from the sale of thier material, but they also lose value of the material.
making a copy of a CD it´s different...
to give you an example in you own terms:
1. you can go to your home studio and record all the songs of that album without asking the artist, in that way your gonna have a copy (made by yourself of course) of the CD, this way you are not stealing the profits of the artist.
2. but you cannot copy the CD from the original one, without the artist permission, because that´s stealing his profits.
Regardless of the semantics of stealing, this argument is flawed because it makes the following assumption: that, had I not been able to copy the song illegally, I would have paid $1 for the song. I think some reflection on this assumption will show you that it is flawed, for much the same reason as thinking that a kid that steals a laptop would have went and bought the same laptop had the opportunity to steal it not arisen (and the answer is not, in the general case, "he couldn't afford the laptop").
well, that's all good and fine, but making copies of currency ISN'T STEALING. It's called COUNTERFEITING.
p.s. I had no intentions of turning this thread into a "debate piracy" thread, and I'm sorry that it seems to have gone that direction. my intent was only to make the case that words like "stealing" have specific meanings that may (or may not, that's the fun of public debate) be appropriate to apply in this particular case. I feel I may have painted myself into a corner and felt it necessary to defend my e-go (get it? it's a pun) by wading into topics that on a second reading are obvious coming close to crossing into inappropriate territory for this site. Not to say I don't believe fully what I'm trying to say here, just that I "painted myself into a corner" in so much that I had to begin to explain my opinions on the matter in order to make sense of my more basic (talkbass safe) comments.
The question behind music piracy isn't whether or not something is stolen, it is not. It has been taken to court time and again and found that it is not.
What has been the question of the courts is whether or not once you have sold something such as a song or a book, do you still retain the rights over how that song or book is used and distributed. This was a question with libraries as well when they were opened. The problem with digital music, is once you had something that was possible to copy, you weren't just selling a single piece of music you were selling a piece of music that was able to be replicated. You were selling a computer file.
That is why music piracy is not illegal in Canada for personal use (as of yet), because I am gaining nothing. If you remember videotapes they had an FBI warning that they could not be reproduced for "commercial use", but personal up (until it cut into sales) was fine.
I understand that many people have moral qualms over digital distribution. But I know that my band has no qualms about our music being copied and sold. We make most of our money through vinyl and tshirt sales (huge markup in vinyl).
But its really just become a default assumption that you receive money for music in a single serving recently in the history of music. Famous composers were always charged with creating music for a fee. They did not continue to make money off a piece of work for further time to come. Recordings have allowed this. But that doesn't mean that copyright law won't evolve with emerging technology just like it did when recording was invented.
At the moment it is legal where I live, and deemed not stealing.
What has been the question of the courts is whether or not once you have sold something such as a song or a book, do you still retain the rights over how that song or book is used and distributed. This was a question with libraries as well when they were opened. The problem with digital music, is once you had something that was possible to copy, you weren't just selling a single piece of music you were selling a piece of music that was able to be replicated. You were selling a computer file.
That is why music piracy is not illegal in Canada for personal use (as of yet), because I am gaining nothing. If you remember videotapes they had an FBI warning that they could not be reproduced for "commercial use", but personal up (until it cut into sales) was fine.
I understand that many people have moral qualms over digital distribution. But I know that my band has no qualms about our music being copied and sold. We make most of our money through vinyl and tshirt sales (huge markup in vinyl).
But its really just become a default assumption that you receive money for music in a single serving recently in the history of music. Famous composers were always charged with creating music for a fee. They did not continue to make money off a piece of work for further time to come. Recordings have allowed this. But that doesn't mean that copyright law won't evolve with emerging technology just like it did when recording was invented.
At the moment it is legal where I live, and deemed not stealing.
right, but what if I have a machine that can cut and assemble the table for me? then what's the difference? (these are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually asking)
baalroo is just flat-out wrong, legally and morally. When one owns intelectual property (something protected by copyright or patent), one owns the IDEAS (the contents, the design). When you fix the IDEA into a tangible form (record, book, widget) you own both the IDEA and the tangible thing. When you sell the tangible thing, you give permission to the buyer to use the IDEA fixed into a tangible thing, but do not sell the right to place the IDEA into another tangible thing. The right to fix the IDEA into another tangible thing is a separate right--and it's much more expensive to buy.
And yes, I am a lawyer--20+ years.
Carol Kay was totally justified. If you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.
And yes, I am a lawyer--20+ years.
Carol Kay was totally justified. If you are the middleman between a thief and someone buying stolen goods, you can't defend yourself by saying "I didn't steal anything, and I didn't buy stolen goods." You are still helping the thief. Similarly, the fact that an illegal torrent exists on someone else's computer isn't a defense if you are providing the means for the torrent-sharers to find one another.
