Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[n_huffhines]

So going to a record store and stealing a cd that I would not have bought = bad

But illegally downloading a cd that I would not have bought = no problem?

Would you consider downloading a bootleg concert CD? Or would that be bad? I liken downloading CD's to downloading bootlegs. Yeah you aren't paying for something somebody else made, but when you steal an actual CD from the music store you aren't paying for the cost incurred to manufacture the CD, create the album art, and store and distribute the physical product. There is a big difference.

I don't know why downloading a song would be any different than recording it off of the radio, but people seem to think there is a difference.

 

[VOLatile]

Like Baker said, I'm not condoning it. But reasonable expectations have to be met. The companies threat with suit of exorbitant amounts of money and no one takes them seriously. How can you reasonably expect to shut down websites with user-generated content (YouTube, Reddit, Digg, Facebook, Twitter, etc) that happen to feature a copyrighted image/song/words? SOPA/PIPA will effectively shut down the internet.

 

[volinbham]

Would you consider downloading a bootleg concert CD? Or would that be bad? I liken downloading CD's to downloading bootlegs. Yeah you aren't paying for something somebody else made, but when you steal an actual CD from the music store you aren't paying for the cost incurred to manufacture the CD, create the album art, and store and distribute the physical product. There is a big difference.

So if I paid the direct costs of manufacturing, etc. then I could take it? How about if I take it and leave the amount of money the record store paid for the CD - that covers the cost you mentioned right? The content has no value.

I don't know why downloading a song would be any different than recording it off of the radio, but people seem to think there is a difference.

Technically it's not; philosophically it's not. It's just that downloading is more convenient.

The bottomline philosophically is whether or not people have ownership of their expressions. Practicality/convenience/technology are factors that impact law design but that doesn't change the underlying, fundamental issue of ownership.

 

[volinbham]

Like Baker said, I'm not condoning it. But reasonable expectations have to be met. The companies threat with suit of exorbitant amounts of money and no one takes them seriously. How can you reasonably expect to shut down websites with user-generated content (YouTube, Reddit, Digg, Facebook, Twitter, etc) that happen to feature a copyrighted image/song/words? SOPA/PIPA will effectively shut down the internet.

Expectations, practicality, etc. are all important factors in crafting the law. I agree that this law as written is terrible.

That said, it doesn't mean it's okay to download people's stuff for free (not saying you advocate that)

 

[n_huffhines]

From an economic standpoint, IP is a positive externality. If I shoot off fireworks, I can't prevent other people from enjoying it for free. Doesn't mean they are stealing it, and they aren't costing me anything.

 

[volinbham]

From an economic standpoint, IP is a positive externality. If I shoot off fireworks, I can't prevent other people from enjoying it for free. Doesn't mean they are stealing it, and they aren't costing me anything.

They aren't making a copy of your fireworks.

If you sing in public and other's here it there is no copyright protection. If you record the performance to use later or distribute as you see fit then it is copyright protected.

 

[vols4sure]

From an economic standpoint, IP is a positive externality. If I shoot off fireworks, I can't prevent other people from enjoying it for free. Doesn't mean they are stealing it, and they aren't costing me anything.

What if they can only see it from your land and you charge people admittance? Is it fair for others to sneak onto your land even though you don't have a fence up and you will never know that they were there. They wouldn't watch the fireworks if they had to pay. Its not costing you anything.

Just because something is in a digital format does not make it ok to steal.

 

[n_huffhines]

What if they can only see it from your land and you charge people admittance? Is it fair for others to sneak onto your land even though you don't have a fence up and you will never know that they were there. They wouldn't watch the fireworks if they had to pay. Its not costing you anything.

Just because something is in a digital format does not make it ok to steal.

If they are sneaking on your land then they are trespassing. We are getting really weird hypotheticals, here. Talking about trespassing and fraud when they don't factor into the question about copyright legitimacy.

Is it stealing or not to watch the fireworks for free? He paid for them, or created them with his talents. Should he be protected? Should there be some sort of enforcer who can make everybody who watched the fireworks pay.

I'm not talking about digital copies, I'm talking about the root of the issue here. Can we enjoy others' creations for free when they'd like to charge us, or is that stealing?

 

[vols4sure]

The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Authors, producers, and Constitution be damned, nbakerld wants free downloads

 

[n_huffhines]

The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Authors, producers, and Constitution be damned, nbakerld wants free downloads

Just answer the question. Is it stealing?

I am not saying damn the constitution at all. If it requires a proper amendment, I'm down. It actually doesn't establish copyright law, it just says congress has the power to do so.

 

[volinbham]

Is it stealing or not to watch the fireworks for free? He paid for them, or created them with his talents. Should he be protected? Should there be some sort of enforcer who can make everybody who watched the fireworks pay.

No. Copyright is about unauthorized reproduction and use.

I'm not talking about digital copies, I'm talking about the root of the issue here. Can we enjoy others' creations for free when they'd like to charge us, or is that stealing?

If someone does their expression in public it is not stealing to enjoy/observe that expression. If you want to make exact replications of an expression then copyright law comes into play.

Generally, if the expression (original) is in public and an observer makes a recording (e.g. a photograph) then fair use applies. In fact, the photographer can copyright the photo. For example, photographers hang out on the Tail of the Dragon and take pictures of cars. Since the driving occurs in public, the photog can copyright the pictures they took.

 

[vols4sure]

I'm not talking about digital copies, I'm talking about the root of the issue here. Can we enjoy others' creations for free when they'd like to charge us, or is that stealing?

If it is protectable (falls withing the definition of copyright - original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression) and you are violating one of a copyright holder's exclusive rights (reproduce, display or perform publicly, sell to others, etc) then yes you are stealing.

Many of your worries are already factored into the laws. Again, arguing things like the amount of protection things are entitled, the means of enforcing the laws, etc. I believe can be reasonably debated. However, your stance that IP should in no circumstances be entitled to protection (unless apparently other laws are broken such as stealing a physical copy) and should be free for all is, imo, ridiculous.

 

[n_huffhines]

I know by law it's not stealing, but in your mind is it?

I just see no philosophical difference between watching a street performer without tossing a bill in his hat and downloading free copies of a performer's work. There is no difference in my mind.

 

[volinbham]

I know by law it's not stealing, but in your mind is it?

I just see no philosophical difference between watching a street performer without tossing a bill in his hat and downloading free copies of a performer's work. There is no difference in my mind.

The difference is entirely in the choice made by the creator. The street performer has chosen to make his performance freely available by choosing to perform in public. The recording artist has chosen to make his/her performances available to you via purchase contract via a private distribution system. It is not YOUR choice - it is THEIR choice as the owner of the property.

As noted repeatedly - the creator can choose to copyright or not and if the former, to enforce or not. I see no logic where you as the consumer should simply choose whether or not you want to pay for something you didn't create.

 

[volinbham]

Baker - if you don't believe IP is property and should have no restrictions on access or use at the discretion of the author, why do you suggest it would be fraud (in a legal sense) for me to copy someone's work and say I am the author? If the author has no ownership why would they have a claim to it's creation that should be legally defended. How is authorship deserving of legal protection if the creation itself is not?

 

[n_huffhines]

The difference is entirely in the choice made by the creator. The street performer has chosen to make his performance freely available by choosing to perform in public. The recording artist has chosen to make his/her performances available to you via purchase contract via a private distribution system. It is not YOUR choice - it is THEIR choice as the owner of the property.

I disagree. The difference is there is a law protecting the recording artist and there is not a law protecting the street performer. Don't you think the street performer would use legal protection from free spectators if the law permitted?

 

[volinbham]

I disagree. The difference is there is a law protecting the recording artist and there is not a law protecting the street performer. Don't you think the street performer would use legal protection from free spectators if the law permitted?

No since by definition the street performer is choosing to make his performance in public and is knowingly seeking free spectators. His/her choice.

There is a clear distinction between public and private. If you want to have a concert at a private venue you can charge whatever you want. If you perform in your home you can prevent people from observing. If you perform in public you cannot (although the municipality may depending on codes).

Just what you do in private is your business; what you do in public is the public's business.

 

[n_huffhines]

No since by definition the street performer is choosing to make his performance in public and is knowingly seeking free spectators. His/her choice.

There is a clear distinction between public and private. If you want to have a concert at a private venue you can charge whatever you want. If you perform in your home you can prevent people from observing. If you perform in public you cannot (although the municipality may depending on codes).

Just what you do in private is your business; what you do in public is the public's business.

The only difference is the law, because the recording artist knows his crap is going to be copied illegally, but he records and distributes it anyways. They are both making the same choice in a practical sense. The recording artist is "knowingly" supplying freeloaders. His/her choice.

 

[vols4sure]

I know by law it's not stealing, but in your mind is it?

I just see no philosophical difference between watching a street performer without tossing a bill in his hat and downloading free copies of a performer's work. There is no difference in my mind.

Let's take your fireworks example. I want to put on a great show and but I know I will have to spend a lot of money buying the fireworks. As a way to recoup some of that money, and the only way I will be able to afford doing the show, I decide to hire a film crew to make a dvd of the show. I do not charge admission, but one of the spectators filmed it on their phone and to put it on youtube. It was a one of a kind show and the dvd will easily allow me to recoup the money I spent on buying the fireworks (and maybe make a little profit) if people do not have access to a free version on youtube.

Should copyright laws allow me to prevent the spectator from putting his version (of the entire show) on youtube?

It never goes on youtube, but as soon as my dvd hits the market and becomes a success, the spectator who videotaped it on their phone undercuts me and sells a digital version on a website they created for $1. Ok?

Another spectator is so impressed that they buy one of my dvds. The spectator wants to show his out of town family what the firework show he had been raving about looked like so he makes a digital copy of the entire dvd and uploads it to youtube where everyone can see it. Should copyright laws allow this?

A website whose sole purpose is to provide free content to people that can't afford buying cd's and dvd's buys a dvd of my show, makes a digital copy, and places the digital copy in it's file sharing program for upload? Ok?

 

[volinbham]

The only difference is the law, because the recording artist knows his crap is going to be copied illegally, but he records and distributes it anyways. They are both making the same choice in a practical sense. The recording artist is "knowingly" supplying freeloaders. His/her choice.

Illegally - sums it up. The fact that he practically can't stop it doesn't mean he should have the right to try.

Let's say you own a big chunk of land on the river. Rafters stop and use your property for a picnic. You can't practically stop every one that does this even though it is legally trespassing. Their use doesn't harm you or your property. Why is there a law that says they can't stop without your permission? Where's the harm?

 

[volinbham]

Let's take your fireworks example. I want to put on a great show and but I know I will have to spend a lot of money buying the fireworks. As a way to recoup some of that money, and the only way I will be able to afford doing the show, I decide to hire a film crew to make a dvd of the show. I do not charge admission, but one of the spectators filmed it on their phone and to put it on youtube. It was a one of a kind show and the dvd will easily allow me to recoup the money I spent on buying the fireworks (and maybe make a little profit) if people do not have access to a free version on youtube.

Should copyright laws allow me to prevent the spectator from putting his version (of the entire show) on youtube?

It never goes on youtube, but as soon as my dvd hits the market and becomes a success, the spectator who videotaped it on their phone undercuts me and sells a digital version on a website they created for $1. Ok?

Another spectator is so impressed that they buy one of my dvds. The spectator wants to show his out of town family what the firework show he had been raving about looked like so he makes a digital copy of the entire dvd and uploads it to youtube where everyone can see it. Should copyright laws allow this?

A website whose sole purpose is to provide free content to people that can't afford buying cd's and dvd's buys a dvd of my show, makes a digital copy, and places the digital copy in it's file sharing program for upload? Ok?

You may be on shaky ground with this one if the fireworks show was deemed public (since it would be viewable in public). Not sure what the copyright laws are in this particular case.

 

[vols4sure]

You may be on shaky ground with this one if the fireworks show was deemed public (since it would be viewable in public). Not sure what the copyright laws are in this particular case.

Sorry, meant to include in hypothetical that video was shot from my land (only/best viewing).

 

[n_huffhines]

Illegally - sums it up. The fact that he practically can't stop it doesn't mean he should have the right to try.

Let's say you own a big chunk of land on the river. Rafters stop and use your property for a picnic. You can't practically stop every one that does this even though it is legally trespassing. Their use doesn't harm you or your property. Why is there a law that says they can't stop without your permission? Where's the harm?

That's my point. At the core, the street performer and the recording artist are doing the exact same thing. They make their art available to freeloaders. The only difference is there is an unenforceable law protecting the recording artist.

 

[vols4sure]

The only difference is the law, because the recording artist knows his crap is going to be copied illegally, but he records and distributes it anyways. They are both making the same choice in a practical sense. The recording artist is "knowingly" supplying freeloaders. His/her choice.

In other words, the girl at the bar wearing slutty clothes should know that she is going to be raped.

 

[volinbham]

That's my point. At the core, the street performer and the recording artist are doing the exact same thing. They make their art available to freeloaders. The only difference is there is an unenforceable law protecting the recording artist.

1) there is an underlying reason for the law

2) there is a distinction in public/private

3) inability to completely enforce does not negate #1 above.

In my land example I pointed out that you can't completely enforce trespassing but it's still a law. Why?