Does this make me a criminal?

[pofnlice]

Another thought...

Whenever you purchase software, DVD's, whatever...You can legally make a copy of it to preserve the "original."  Now if I loan this copy out, I am violating copyright laws, whether I am charging moneys for it or not.  But if I loan the original to a freind, then it's legal and there is no control over that.  How exactly does that work?  Why make a copy to preserve the original then since it's more likely to get damaged in anothers hands than the ones of the person who paid for it?

[Zombie9920]

Wow! Those were some great posts American Bastard.

To answer your original question, yes. There is technically only 1 original copy of the movie. The original copy is the one on the film roll in the producers' studio.

(edit)Well, since I know that you are a cop now I better watch what I say around you. J/K, I always have to poke fun at people and stuff.  ;P

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Stryker]

If it was considered stealing, there would be no need for seperate copyright laws. It is a violation of copyright laws, yes... but it is not stealing. Wether it's right or wrong is simply a matter of opinion. The government says it's wrong. A lot of society says it's wrong. If you don't think it's wrong, do something about it. I would but I'm still young and I honestly don't care that much about it. I don't mind paying $10 to buy a movie.

[Zombie9920]

$10 for a movie isn't bad at all. $20 is even reasonable. However, new releases don't cost no $10 or $20. Most of the time a new release on DVD goes for $30-$50. $30 is severely borderlining what a single copy of a movie in mass copying/production is worth. Any more than $30 is outright unreasonable and is what I'd like to call highway robbery.

The same goes for Music CD's. $5 per CD would be great, $10 is borderlining acceptable. $15-$21 is highway robbery. Most of the time the CD only has a few good songs on it anyways. Why in the hell should people pay $15+ for a few good songs? After so many copies of a music album have flowed out to the public each copy of the CD is technically only worth about $2 or $3 because the sales of the first line of copies more than pays for what it costed to pay the artist, for the materials used to record the music, for the time spent by editors to make the music sound its' best and the cost of the press for that album to be mass produced.

The bad thing with music is when you buy a CD the artist only sees a small percentage of the money from the album sales. The largest percentage goes to the label and the RIAA.

CD's being a straight up rip-off is the reason why services such as iTunes is so successful. People get to buy the music that they truely want at a reasonable price. They don't have to pay the full cost for a CD with a few good songs and the rest being of trash. To make a long story short, they aren't paying for unwanted songs.

Now here is a question I have for some of you. Why is it ok for us to get raped by the entertainment world but it isn't ok for us to get a little measure of revenge on them(us fucking them over a bit). Some of the old wise prophets said, "What goes around comes around".

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.

No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.

What is this, some sort of retroactive definition of stealing?  They never had the "profit" to begin with, so how could I possibly take it from them?  I may be denying them profits, but that's a totally different situation.  This is like telling me I'm stealing from a book publisher when I go to read a book at the library.  Or when I lend my friend a DVD.  Or when I shop at Wal-Mart instead of K-Mart.  In all of those circumstances you could argue from the same logic the copyright regimes are using to defend their IP monopolies.  The fact that I have to relinquish my copy of Friday After Next so my friend Joe can watch it is beside the point.  After all how often would I want to watch the movie at the same time?  The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch.  He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
 The point is that he is watching - for free - something he would normally have to pay a media cartel to watch.  He is denying them profits and therefore is a thief by their same definition.

He's not watching something you normally have to pay for.
What he downloaded is not a copy of anything that exists (yet). Their is no media you can use for tv or computer available.

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]

[M51DPS]

This is just my interpretation guys, and I think it's horrible what the RIAA does, and people should not be charged for ideas. Unfotunately things such as copyright laws and "intellectual property" screw things up.

[Laukev7]

quote: No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.

I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.

Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


I am a science student. NOTHING is infinite, according to Lavoisier's Law of Conservation. NOTHING. Even data takes space on your hard drive. Hard drives take space in your computer. Hard drives cost money to produce. So 'infinite' potential redistribution is limited to the number of hard drives / CD's available. Just wanted to nitpick, by the way.

Even then, the artiste does not benefit from an infinite financial compensation, because he is not immortal.

That's bullshit and completely off subject.

Sure infinite wasn't the best word for him to use, but you know what he means. An artist along with the recording company has the potential to get every piece of money that exists. All for whistling a few tunes. There should be some set limit, say a song can't bring in over $20,000 profit per song or something... then after that limit is reached the music may be freely distributed. Some changes should be made.

[Laukev7]

quote: There should be some set limit, say a song can't bring in over $20,000 profit per song or something... then after that limit is reached the music may be freely distributed. Some changes should be made.

That's better. But the problem remains that the people will actually have to BUY the songs before they are released for free, which in some cases may never happen, because everyone will wait for the song to be released for free (that is, if they don't rip it off with Kazaa first).

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


That's better. But the problem remains that the people will actually have to BUY the songs before they are released for free, which in some cases may never happen, because everyone will wait for the song to be released for free (that is, if they don't rip it off with Kazaa first).

I wouldn't wait. I know it could take months, or even years, to get it free. And I know there are enough people willing to pay that it'd be freely available soon anyways. Pretty much every song is freely available already through kazaa and other such p2p networks. They still make a nice profit. The only drawback of setting a limit would be that some people would wait until that limit is reached, lots of people wouldn't wait though... they'd still go out and buy it.

[flap]

Infinite is the best word to use. Infinite doesn't mean "eternal" or "going on forever" - it just means a lack of any finite limit. You're suggesting that artists should be able to earn infinitely for one piece of work. It doesn't matter that in practice the limited length of their lifespan, the amount of hard disk space on earth, whatever etc. is going to eventually stop them making money, the point is you see an artist as being entitled to an amount of income that's a function of how many people (infinite) that will use their work, rather than of how much work that they've done.

[AmericanBastard]

ok, now we're starting to get off topic...thought the extras are excellent "food for thought" the question was...am I a thief?

Artists are entitled to royalties...ie...the $30.00 you pay for a DVD, one of the actors may only make $.02c on that.  this encludes everyone from the producer to the actor (yes this includes the guy in the credits that's only listed as "man with funny wig")

There is specific law concerning copyright infringement.  Most is based on case law.  Any copyright infringement generally falls under the larceny clauses.  Why you might ask.

an Artist/creator cannot as we all know, copyright a bar of music or a line of code...however wrap the whole song/program/movie together...and it is the creation...thus the copyright...

Now for those of you who like to read between the lines

I have X movie...

I "share" it in 3 parts on a "sharing network" such as edonkey or bit torrent...

by what I said previously is that copyright infrngement?  what about the rights of the persons involved in it's creation...are they entitled to anything from my "sharing?"

[AmericanBastard]

Right...as I read through this, there are some peeps trying to find loop holes for all ready existant laws...I do not for a minute denounce that law has not caught up with tech...but some laws need no change o keep up...

If someone sells you a stolen car, you are still getting processed for recieving stolen goods.  The means are available for any member of society to check the validity of a purchase.

This is still larceny... any questions?  then read or go to your local PD, they will be more than happy to tell you what to look at.  To find loop holes you have to compare to case law, not book law.  Loop holes are made through case law.  Book law is finite and ca only be changed by the courts as certain circumstances are brought up.

All laws in most modern societies are based on the ten commandments...whether your religeous or not, you have to admit, they form a credible foundation for harmony in society.  The rest of the laws are just derivatives of them.