RIAA Sues 12-Year Old Girl

blorg

Originally posted by unkel
Jaysus Cabaal WTF? Is this a real ad run by the RIAA or just a sarcastic piece of work depicting the RIAA as the bullies / facists they are

LOL! I think it's a safe bet that this wasn't put out by the RIAA, honestly :rolleyes: did you think this was their official policy? Besides, I don't think such tactics would be allowed until at least the second offence, or perhaps if you were sharing Metallica songs

blorg

As has been pointed out, copyright violation is not the same as stealing. The very best you can say is that it is analogous, but it is not the same thing. The key difference is scarcity of resources; physical objects are scarce, while intellectual property is not. If you steal something from me, you have it, and I no longer have it. This is not the case with the unauthorised duplication of intellectual property. It might also be obvious that there is actually a difference between physical objects and intangibles.

Stealing has been seen as a crime in just about every civilisation that ever existed. Copyright, and the crimes surrounding its violation, are a somewhat more recent introduction, having their origins in the English letters patent of the sixteenth century. This system was initially conceived for the benefit of the crown, to facilitate censorship and control of the media; it developed from there to a system designed to protect publishers and the idea of copyright as a protection for authors is only a comparatively recent innovation (and one which is still largely theoretical today.)

The RIAA would like you to think that copyright violation is the same as stealing. This is because the vast majority of people believe stealing to be wrong, but lack such strong feelings about copyright violation – and with good reason.

RainyDay

As has been pointed out, copyright violation is not the same as stealing. The very best you can say is that it is analogous, but it is not the same thing. The key difference is scarcity of resources; physical objects are scarce, while intellectual property is not. If you steal something from me, you have it, and I no longer have it. This is not the case with the unauthorised duplication of intellectual property. It might also be obvious that there is actually a difference between physical objects and intangibles.

Hi Blorg - the tangible/intangible stuff is irrelevant. By downloading a track, you are getting the value. (And if there is no value to it, why did you bother downloading it). The IP holder has been deprived of the opportunity to earn revenue from their product/work.

blorg

Rainy Day, I'm not arguing about whether copyright violation is right or wrong, I'm just making the point that it is not the same as stealing. This is fact; stealing is quite a different crime, with a very different history, and is generally covered under quite different statutes. This distinction is also backed up by common sense and the public have very different opinions on the two issues. The RIAA is running a campaign to try to convince people that copyright violation is stealing because while the vast majority of people think stealing is wrong, they don’t think copyright violation is wrong, or at least they don't think it is as wrong as stealing.

As an aside, your point also makes the assumption that anyone who has ever engaged in copyright violation would otherwise have purchased the IP. This is not a valid assumption.

RainyDay

As an aside, your point also makes the assumption that anyone who has ever engaged in copyright violation would otherwise have purchased the IP. This is not a valid assumption.

No such assumption - that's why I used the term 'opportunity' to earn revenue.

blorg

Well that is just my point then. Depriving someone of a theoretical opportunity to obtain revenue isn't quite the same as stealing, which tends to involve the actual removal of a real and existent object, and an actual and quantifiable loss from the victim.

RainyDay

We disagree again - I wouldn't see it as a theoretical opportunity for revenue - I'd see it as a very real opportunity for revenue which has been lost.

But even if we disagree on this, it is important to note that one of Ireland's leading legal eagles in this area has formed the view that file sharing of copyright material is a criminal offence - see my earlier post for details.

blorg

Rainy Day, no one is disputing that copyright infringement can be a criminal offence. That doesn't make it stealing. Plenty of things are criminal offences, it doesn't make them stealing.

An opportunity is by its nature non-concete, theoretical. An object by contrast is concrete, actual. So in one case (stealing) what is lost is an actual object of some sort. In the other (copyright violation) what is lost is 'a very real opportunity for revenue'.

What is it that consititutes the 'reality' of the opportunity? What would constitute an 'unreal' opportunity? Copyright infringement by dragons?

RainyDay

Hi Blorg - Forgive a small but important nitpick. The legal guy stated that filesharing would be a criminal offence (not can be.

So in one case (stealing) what is lost is an actual object of some sort. In the other (copyright violation) what is lost is 'a very real opportunity for revenue'.

You really are splitting hairs here. The difference between the two is not really relevant to the copyright owner. In both cases, they have lost something that costs them money.

The fact that a track is available online instead of on a physical CD does not mean that cost zero to produce. So tbe downloader is taking something that cost money to produce - That's close enough to stealing for me.

I reckon the white-collar criminals (i.e. the downloaders) just might have trouble sleeping at night as they begin to understanding that they are in at the same level as the average shoplifting junkie. Stealing from the end of a DSL line might seem a lot cleaner than stuffing a CD down your jocks, but ethically, it is really all the same.

blorg

Rainyday, copyright infringement can be a civil or criminal matter, or both. If you want to nitpick, these RIAA cases, the topic under discussion, are civil cases. Anyway, it is beside the point. I’m not saying copyright infringement can not be criminal, I’m not saying that it is OK, or something society should encourage. All I’m saying is that it isn’t stealing.

Many things are criminal offences:

• Murder
• Assault
• Theft
• Speeding
• Copyright Infringement

The point here is that not all criminal offences are equivalent. This is recognised by statute, and penalties are set accordingly. Society has a different view of people convicted of murder and people convicted of speeding. Like it or not, society also has a different view of theft and copyright infringement. They are simply not the same thing. I’ve provided arguments based on history, statute and common usage that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, while all you can provide is the subjective ‘That's close enough to stealing for me.’

blorg

The difference between the two is not really relevant to the copyright owner. In both cases, they have lost something that costs them money.

Except in one case, they still have the thing, while in the other, they don't.

Anyway, they have not 'lost something that costs them money' - rather, in your parlance, they have lost 'an opportunity', alebit a 'very real' opportunity, to make money. Society and law does distinguish between physical objects and opportunity.

RainyDay

Except in one case, they still have the thing, while in the other, they don't.

You seem to be missing the point, Blorg - whether deliberately or not, I can't be sure.

Where a physical CD is shoplifted from HMV, the shoplifter takes;
a) a physical CD - value about €0.50
b) the music/content - value about €19.50
Where the same album is illegally downloaded, the downloader takes the music/content - value about €19.50. I agree that there is a difference between the two incidents - but from a moral/ethical viewpoint, the difference is not that great.
The downloader is still taking something to which they have no legal right.

The key difference is scarcity of resources; physical objects are scarce, while intellectual property is not. If you steal something from me, you have it, and I no longer have it. This is not the case with the unauthorised duplication of intellectual property.

This is a narrow and slightly unfair view of reality. It seems to place an intrinsically lower value on intellectual work than on physical work. It is as if the production line guy who presses the button that produces the physical CD is the important guy in the operation, not the composer or musician.

blorg

Rainyday, the difference is blindingly obvious. In the HMV case, HMV are out by the amount the CD cost them - I don't know exactly what the retail margins are, but lets say in HMV's case it's 50%, and HMV paid €10 for the CD. So HMV are out €10. That's €10 of actual cost, not 'theoretical opportunity', stolen from HMV.

ixoy

Originally posted by blorg
but lets say in HMV's case it's 50%, and HMV paid €10 for the CD. So HMV are out €10. That's €10 of actual cost, not 'theoretical opportunity', stolen from HMV.

I think it was in the Irish Independent last week that HMV pay 4 quid a CD. The rest is for them....

Which is why we need proper online downloading of songs (as in a pay service, like iTunes) to cut this middle-man out...

sunbeam

Originally posted by ixoy
Which is why we need proper online downloading of songs (as in a pay service, like iTunes) to cut this middle-man out...

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but for what it's worth there are already a few services available in Europe e.g. MSN /Tiscali/Freeserve/HMV music clubs, all in partnership with OD2

They all seem more expensive than iTunes though.

blorg

I subscribe to www.emusic.com myself, which is great if you like jazz and out of the mainstream stuff. Unlimited downloads for $10/month, fast and reliable, download an album with one click, 192k vbs LAME encoded mp3s with no DRM.

yorema

i don't care what anyone says

i'm a 2nd level student with limited cash so y should i fork out over 40 euros for 2 cds when i can pay like 33 euro a month for my 600k cable and d/l songs?

i don't care if ppl say it's stealing/copyright violation i won't lose sleep over having not bought cds at ridiculus prices........if the cds were cheaper i would go out to the shops and buy them but atm they r **** ass high priced and therefore i will d/l alot of songs/albums as i wish cuz i'd rather spend my money on my internet connection and use it rather than spend more money on 2 cds

Cabaal

Originally posted by yorema
i don't care what anyone says

i'm a 2nd level student with limited cash so y should i fork out over 40 euros for 2 cds when i can pay like 33 euro a month for my 600k cable and d/l songs?

Ok so this is your logic, ok so

You hear a song and want to buy the song, but its 4.99 in the shops which is a mad price for one song...so you download it for free
But your logic is that when its a decent price you'll pay for it
By that VERY same logic, why should you pay for Windows because its crazy expensive when you can download for free untill MS make it cheaper (or why not just use Linux )

Now I'm not saying that CD's are fine at there current price but your logic is slightly flawed, you might want to stop downloading aswell otherwise you justify the RIAA's court action and by stopping you'll also make a valid point.
Something to think about....