Ultraviolet on 12/4/2006 at 01:31
Quote Posted by Nicker
You are not buying an enduring licence for the copyright material on the disk, you are buying a commodity (CD) for your personal use. If it is damaged or lost that is your problem, not the artist's.
Wait, wait. I've heard another argument that this conflicts with. People generally agree that you buy a license to use the contents of a CD, and that ownership of the CD itself is trivial. Licenses may even provide for backup copies, as long as they are also used according to the license.
So you're saying that you also have zero rights to the contents of the CD? Because that'd be the ultimate snake-oil-sale right there, if a distributor could work that into the license.
And I'm not arguing with you; it does truly seem that a customer has no concrete rights to the product purchased.
Para?noid on 12/4/2006 at 02:33
THIS IS THE WORST THREAD EVER
Agent Monkeysee on 12/4/2006 at 02:55
That's just your SOCIALISM talking, commie.
Here in AMERICA we have the FREEDOM to do ANYTHING even if it's ILLEGAL and we get thrown in JAIL for it.
Nicker on 12/4/2006 at 03:41
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
Wait, wait. I've heard another argument that this conflicts with. People generally agree that you buy a license to use the contents of a CD, and that ownership of the CD itself is trivial. Licenses may even provide for backup copies, as long as they are also used according to the license.
So you're saying that you also have zero rights to the contents of the CD? Because that'd be the ultimate snake-oil-sale right there, if a distributor could work that into the license.
You are purchasing an object that just happens to have music on it that you can listen to and pictures to look at. It's yours to keep and listen to and look at, or to give or resell to another person. You can't rent it out without special licence and you certainly can't copy it for resale or even to give away. That would deny the owner of the intellectual property the money that would be earned from that sale or use.
Similarly, I own some pieces of original art. The artifact is my property and I can resell it but the image belongs to the artist. I can't make reproductions, or use it for my CD cover without permission. In some places it may even be illegal for me to deface, destroy or alter it.
Simply - If I buy a Dali it doesn't become a Nicker.
But a Nicker could become a Dali if I had access to this (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/330556.stm) cache of papers.
mopgoblin on 12/4/2006 at 11:39
Quote Posted by Nicker
You are purchasing an object that just happens to have music on it that you can listen to and pictures to look at.
I don't know anyone who buys music CDs without considering the music they contain. People pay to get at the music, not the media it lives on.
Quote:
You can't rent it out without special licence...
Yes you can. Unless you live somewhere with some damn stupid copyright laws, the only things that infringe copyright will be making or distributing copies or adaptations, public performance, possessing infringing copies, and assisting or contributing to infringement.
Quote:
...and you certainly can't copy it for resale or even to give away. That would deny the owner of the intellectual property the money that would be earned from that sale or use.
Sometimes they wouldn't get any money, though. If the person receiving the copy doesn't consider the work to be worth the retail price, they wouldn't have bought it in any case, so the copyright owner isn't missing out on any revenue or incurring any extra expenses due to a copy not being sold. Furthermore, if distributing an infringing copy does prevent a sale, then selling or giving away an unwanted original copy (which is both legally and morally acceptable) would have the same effect on the copyright owner's revenue and expenses. It's illogical to treat money as the main point of copyright.
Tenkahubu on 12/4/2006 at 12:26
It`s true that if you`re too paranoid to download then you can go to your public library or video rental and borrow them for a small fee. People have been doing this for decades (though illegally), since the tape recorder. The industry lives on.
If you lost all your CDs, but had a large collection of friends with similar tastes in music, would you stop to think before getting replacement copies from them? P2P removes the unpleasantness of having to be social.
There are many ways you can look at it to justify it to yourself, to dedide if you even care how legal it is.
I think posession of receipts combined with a suitably guile-free and innocent attitude would get you off lightly if you were caught.
The only downloading I really do is for games which I still own but can`t be arsed to search through my closet for. This is a bit pathetic, and morally questionable because other leechers will be downloading from me. I guess I`ll stop then...
Nicker on 12/4/2006 at 18:20
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
I don't know anyone who buys music CDs without considering the music they contain. People pay to get at the music, not the media it lives on.
The consumer cares but not the seller. If people would fork out $20 for a blank CD in a plain wrapper they'd be just as happy. The pretty pics and the nice music just makes the piece of plastic more saleable. The only permission you get with the retail purchase of any published work is permission to enjoy the copy you have while you have it.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Sometimes they wouldn't get any money, though. If the person receiving the copy doesn't consider the work to be worth the retail price, they wouldn't have bought it in any case, so the copyright owner isn't missing out on any revenue or incurring any extra expenses due to a copy not being sold.
Actually I believe the protection extends to 'potential' revenues. If by copying a CD you remove a potential customer (i.e. anyone not already possessing a legal copy) you have infringed on the license. Whether or not an individual likes the stolen product is immaterial.
If you play a DVD movie in your bar without permission you are in double jeopardy since you are 1: denying the license holder the revenues of a public performance and 2: possibly denying them customers who would otherwise purchase the DVD.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Furthermore, if distributing an infringing copy does prevent a sale, then selling or giving away an unwanted original copy (which is both legally and morally acceptable) would have the same effect on the copyright owner's revenue and expenses. It's illogical to treat money as the main point of copyright.
It would prevent a potential additional sale, that is true, but that is not enough reason to deny a person the right to resell an unwanted copy. Even if copyright holders could fly such legislation it would be immensely unpopular and unenforceable (and probably contrary to property law in most jurisdictions). By reselling a legal copy you are only transferring the very limited license, which comes with that copy, to another person. There is no loss of potential revenue since the artist has already realised the revenue from that particular item.
Money, artistic credit and control of use are the main intents of copyright law. Artists (hopefully) make their living from their intellectual property. Denying them that opportunity or profiting without their permission, is theft. I don't see how protecting them against theft is illogical.
Rug Burn Junky on 12/4/2006 at 19:57
There is so much bad information flying around in this thread that it makes me want to cry.
Malygris on 12/4/2006 at 22:52
SEE WHAT YOU DID NOW, YOU BASTARDS?
I hope you're happy.
Nicker on 13/4/2006 at 01:40
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
There is so much bad information flying around in this thread that it makes me want to cry.
Sorry if I have been adding to that. I'll stop now.
