|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2006 : 18:26:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I am particularly guilty of this form of theft, if such it be.
When I was driving big truck, I used to dub a copy from another tape or CD to listen to over the endless miles. If I had an especally good one, I'd make a couple of copies to trade with other drivers. I used the original as a master only, as mysterious and horrible things happen to tapes riding in tractor/trailers and I was forever replacing favorites.
Somehow, I fail to feel much guilt for this -- must be yet another flaw in my charector.
In Sweden, you are allowed to own copies for personal use, as long as you own the original. Creating duplicates to have in the truck/car/summer-home/hunting-cabin is perfectly ok. Having a copy lying around in your friends apartment is basically ok as long as he doesn't listen to it when you're not there.
As such, it's a pretty common-sense law. Just like a owning a book, only one can use it at any given moment. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 18:33:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, over here in the U.S., it isn't a criminal act to portray yourself as the creator of an artwork when, in fact, it is someone else's work. Is it actually a crime in Sweden? You said "fraud," but is that a crime or just a civil action?
The boundaries between criminal and civil action isn't as distinct over here as in America (as far as I know, I haven't had any reason to ponder over it). I pretty sure entry-level courts in Sweden deals with both, but I'm not certain.
But this would be a civil action. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 19:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Having a copy lying around in your friends apartment is basically ok as long as he doesn't listen to it when you're not there.
As such, it's a pretty common-sense law. Just like a owning a book, only one can use it at any given moment.
Actually he can if he wants. "Enskilt och privat bruk" includes your close family and friends. As long as you are fairly consistent and normal when defining "friends".
"Everyone on my favourite Direct Connect hub" is not an acceptable defenition. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 20:33:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
"Misledande marknadsföring" which translates to something similar to "advertising with the intent to mislead" is a type of fraud here, yes.
Oh, we've got fraudulent advertising laws here, too. They just don't apply to simple plagiarism, so far as I know.quote:
I am not sure what the difference between a "crime" and a "civil action" is, my knowledge of US legal terms just about covers the difference between a felony and misdemeanour.
A criminal action is one where the government is compelled to bring the charges, and that's how people wind up in prison. A civil action might be one citizen suing another, to get a "cease and desist" order and/or monetary compensation (for examples). While some criminal activities will only result in a fine (and no jail time), no civil action will result in jail time, ever.
Our anti-fraud activites over here involve the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suing citizens (including corporations, which are "legal people") who make false and/or misleading statements about the products they sell. They sue for cease-and-desist orders and monetary fines, and many times the behaviour which is punished continues anyway, just under different names.
For copyright infringement, however, the copyright owner is the one which has to sue. The government doesn't help us protect our intellectual property, except by providing judges to hear the suits. And they generally toss out copyright cases in which the monetary value of the infringed copyright(s) is low or zero. Some of the pages of my psoriasis Web site, for example, have been illegally copied, but since I make no profit from them, were I to bring suit it would likely be thrown out. Owning a copyright here in the US isn't exactly full protection, anyway.
So, Bunga, why is it that you and that new political party feel that anyone and everyone should be allowed to, for example, own a copy of a novel for free? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 21:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, Bunga, why is it that you and that new political party feel that anyone and everyone should be allowed to, for example, own a copy of a novel for free?
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age. And restricting the flow of widely available information is likely to become even more difficult in the future. |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 22:29:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age. And restricting the flow of widely available information is likely to become even more difficult in the future.
Isn't this simply the “it's not a crime if I don't get caught” routine? Just because a law is hard to enforce does not make it morally justifiable to break that law.
|
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 23:01:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, Bunga, why is it that you and that new political party feel that anyone and everyone should be allowed to, for example, own a copy of a novel for free?
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age.
I'll dispute this in two ways:
1) If that's the case, what happened to Napster, and why can the RIAA sue a 12-year-old for copyright infringement?
2) All laws are unenforcable to some extent or another, depending on the subtlety of the violator. Most people break some traffic law or another every time they drive. Some people do get away with murder.quote:
And restricting the flow of widely available information is likely to become even more difficult in the future.
Which doesn't, of course, mean that the behaviour in question is morally correct. All it means is that there will be more victims in the future, who did nothing more than try to profit from their talents.
In a Star Trek world where money is mostly meaningless and everyone is supported no matter what they choose to do, I'd agree that intellectual "property" doesn't much matter (neither would physical property). But so long as even a few extra hundred bucks a month can mean the difference between a diet of Ramen noodles and three truly square meals a day to someone who's just trying to supplement a minimum-wage job with their artistic or engineering skills, it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to think that their output (whatever it is) should be available to anyone to use in any way they see fit, for free.
It's obvious, to me, that a lot of these anti-intellectual-property folks are really just pissed off at the success of the Microsofts and Metallicas and Glaxos of the world. But eliminating the laws that allow those giants to protect their intellectual property and rake in huge amounts of cash would also eliminate the protections those laws confer on the little guys who are just trying to make a few extra dollars.
I'm in the process of becoming one of the little guys, and it really gets under my skin when someone thinks they should be able to deprive me of even a measly $10 because I shouldn't have a right to be the sole distributor of my work. Fuck them. If they want music, software, movies, games and books without having to pay other people for them, they can go create such things themselves. Not enough talent? Too damn bad, life ain't fair. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 23:28:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleJ
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age. And restricting the flow of widely available information is likely to become even more difficult in the future.
Isn't this simply the “it's not a crime if I don't get caught” routine? Just because a law is hard to enforce does not make it morally justifiable to break that law.
To a degree it is used as such, but it's more of a pragmatic argument. I'm not condoning copyright piracy any more than I'd be condoning illicit drug use by pointing out the futility of current drug laws.
It's not just about the law being hard to enforce either. It's about the law representing society's actual opinion about what is moral and what is not. If, hypothetically, %90 of people regularly engage in downloading pirated music and don't feel guilty about it, does that say something about society's collective stance towards pirated music? |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 00:55:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age.
I'll dispute this in two ways:
1) If that's the case, what happened to Napster, and why can the RIAA sue a 12-year-old for copyright infringement?
Obviously because the laws are still in effect. By unenforcable I don't mean that no one ever gets caught or prosecuted. What I mean is that such actions do little to slow the overall rate of piracy. To my mind prohibition was an example of an unenforcable policy. Of course some people were still caught and prosecuted.quote:
2) All laws are unenforcable to some extent or another, depending on the subtlety of the violator. Most people break some traffic law or another every time they drive. Some people do get away with murder.
It's certainly a subjective call. I suppose it might partly depend on the ratio of our moral outrage to the difficulty of enforcement. Many people, certainly a large fraction of society, see nothing wrong with internet piracy. The flip side is also true of course.quote:
quote:
And restricting the flow of widely available information is likely to become even more difficult in the future.
Which doesn't, of course, mean that the behaviour in question is morally correct. All it means is that there will be more victims in the future, who did nothing more than try to profit from their talents.
Morals are fluid though. They change with the times. I'm not saying that today's attitudes about copyright infringment will change, but it does seem to be moving in that direction.quote:
In a Star Trek world where money is mostly meaningless and everyone is supported no matter what they choose to do, I'd agree that intellectual "property" doesn't much matter (neither would physical property). But so long as even a few extra hundred bucks a month can mean the difference between a diet of Ramen noodles and three truly square meals a day to someone who's just trying to supplement a minimum-wage job with their artistic or engineering skills, it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to think that their output (whatever it is) should be available to anyone to use in any way they see fit, for free.
Just to be clear I'm not saying that their intellectual efforts should be available for free, just that if it is distributed on the internet or via some other digital medium and people want it then it will be available for free.quote:
It's obvious, to me, that a lot of these anti-intellectual-property folks are really just pissed off at the success of the Microsofts and Metallicas and Glaxos of the world. But eliminating the laws that allow those giants to protect their intellectual property and rake in huge amounts of cash would also eliminate the protections those laws confer on the little guys who are just trying to make a few extra dollars.
Very true, unfortuanately keeping the laws as they are is not in itself a solution. Some form of bulletproof copy protection is needed that allows legitimate users to view, listen or interact with various media but not copy it. My understanding is that for noninteractive mediafiles this is extremely difficult.quote:
I'm in the process of becoming one of the little guys, and it really gets under my skin when someone thinks they should be able to deprive me of even a measly $10 because I shouldn't have a right to be the sole distributor of my work. Fuck them. If they want music, software, movies, games and books without having to pay other people for them, they can go create such things themselves. Not enough talent? Too damn bad, life ain't fair.
I agree, it's not fair. My argument is more to do with the practicalities of copyright law. You would probably know better than I about the efficacy of copyprotection technologies. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 07:05:22 [Permalink]
|
Just to interject RE copyrights, intellectual property rights, etc. in this country, I don't know how these matters are enforced outside of the US, but it appears to me that as with many other things- in a practical sense- the laws are mainly only suited to protecting large corporations, major recording artists, etc... situations where very large amounts of cash are involved. As for how they apply to Dave's very legitimately cited situation, regardless of how innovative or novel his software or product might be, unless it generates very serious amounts of cash (and fast) the legal costs involved in launching an effective protection and lawsuit in case of infringement would almost certainly be prohibitive to a private entrepeneur, and the usually less than cut-and-dry nature of such cases would likely make it impossible to get an attorney to take it "on a contingency basis." In other words, unless you're General Motors, ATT, or similarly have a staff of full-time attorneys on your payroll... or have such an obviously brilliant, groundbreaking, revolutionary and stellar idea that it's clearly guaranteed to generate massive profits (and how often does that happen?) there's not much to prevent someone(s) from overtly ripping-off your intellectual labors or ideas and snickering away, knowing your "legal protections" as such are almost certainly unenforceable lip service.
For example, almost any idea- regardless of how crackpot or laughable- can be "patented" if someone has maybe $20K to throw at a patent attorney, filing fees etc. (who will find something about their idea to make it "patentable" in some sense, no matter how idiotic it might be) but that's a hefty sum for most private parties to speculatively "toss at an idea"... especially considering that a lot of funding for legal services would thereafter likely be needed in addition anyway, were they thereafter to find need to sue. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/14/2006 07:19:22 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 13:26:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
"Misledande marknadsföring" which translates to something similar to "advertising with the intent to mislead" is a type of fraud here, yes.
Oh, we've got fraudulent advertising laws here, too. They just don't apply to simple plagiarism, so far as I know.
My statement was directed towards a scenario where person A copied person B's artwork and was selling it on to person C as person A's original work. If, in this scenario, person A says to person C "yes; it is my original piece, please buy it", this would be fraudulent advertising. He is advertising the work as his own, when this is not the case.
If this argument would not work in the US (which it likely wouldn't, given what I remember from a certain McDonalds case) it just means there are yet more inconsistencies in the laws.
quote:
quote:
I am not sure what the difference between a "crime" and a "civil action" is, my knowledge of US legal terms just about covers the difference between a felony and misdemeanour.
A criminal action is one where the government is compelled to bring the charges, and that's how people wind up in prison. A civil action might be one citizen suing another, to get a "cease and desist" order and/or monetary compensation (for examples). While some criminal activities will only result in a fine (and no jail time), no civil action will result in jail time, ever.
Our anti-fraud activites over here involve the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suing citizens (including corporations, which are "legal people") who make false and/or misleading statements about the products they sell. They sue for cease-and-desist orders and monetary fines, and many times the behaviour which is punished continues anyway, just under different names.
As I understand it, it is quite different here. When a report of an allegedly illegal activity is brought to the police they hold what is literally called a "pre-investigation" or förundersökning. The results of this is then brought to what I think is the equivalent of the DA, who will either decide to throw it out or continue to an full-fledged investigation. At some point during this process official charges are filed by the DA's office should he see cause for it, and the complicated process of the trial starts.
Often no one needs to file a report with the police for it to take action of course, but no matter how the matter came to the attention of the police they are obligated to launch the förundersökning. If the crime is such that someone is owed damages, they are awarded as part of the sentencing.
quote:
For copyright infringement, however, the copyright owner is the one which has to sue. The government doesn't help us protect our intellectual property, except by providing judges to hear the suits. And they generally toss out copyright cases in which the monetary value of the infringed copyright(s) is low or zero. Some of the pages of my psoriasis Web site, for example, have been illegally copied, but since I make no profit from them, were I to bring suit it would likely be thrown out. Owning a copyright here in the US isn't exactly full protection, anyway.
Unless the police stumble on evidence of illegal copyright infringment as a part of another investigation, someone has to file a report to the police for them to take action. The term "sue" however, doesn't really apply. Anyone can file such a report, not only the copyright holder, and the police will be equally obligated to investigate.
quote:
So, Bunga, why is it that you and that new political party feel that anyone and everyone should be allowed to, for example, own a copy of a novel for free?
We already can, even now. If I go to a library, borrow a book, I am within my rights to make a copy of that book for personal use. I believe that anyone and everyone should be allowed to do so because it is (I am sufficiently intelligent to know that "it is" really means "I believe it is") right.
Edit: Quote hierarchy fixes |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/14/2006 13:29:08 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:01:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
We already can, even now. If I go to a library, borrow a book, I am within my rights to make a copy of that book for personal use. I believe that anyone and everyone should be allowed to do so because it is (I am sufficiently intelligent to know that "it is" really means "I believe it is") right.
If you sell material that I created and produced as a result of my time and effort, and if you do so without my permission, you are a thief. If you copy and give away the efforts of my creativity, time, and effort, without my permission, you are a thief. Whether you actually do this or not, if you believe it is acceptable to do this, you have the moral integrity of a thief.
I think you might condone this sort of behavior because you're either unable or unwilling to work for what you get. Being unable to work for yourself is understandable, but being unwilling to is an entirely different thing. It's a despicable characteristic for a human being to display. If that describes you, you're dead weight, not willing to take care of yourself, a lazy dependent leach.
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:15:26 [Permalink]
|
I disagree, and would appreciate it if you stopped the ad hominem attacks.
I find it offensive. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:56:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
I disagree, and would appreciate it if you stopped the ad hominem attacks.
I find it offensive.
If someone has the moral integrity of a thief, and if I say they have the moral integrity of a thief, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's a simple statement of fact. If someone believes they have a right to the fruits of the work of others without working for it themselves or providing compenstation, they are a social leach. That's not an ad hominem attack. That is also a simple statement of fact.
And I find social leaches and thieves offensive, so it's unlikely I'll mince words or try to use any dainty diplomacy when describing them. If it just happens to be you, too bad. Buck up and live with it, or modify your moral standards.
Edited a typo. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/14/2006 14:59:10 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 14:59:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, Bunga, why is it that you and that new political party feel that anyone and everyone should be allowed to, for example, own a copy of a novel for free?
Horning in here, one rational might be that copyright laws are unenforcable in the digital age.
I'll dispute this in two ways:
1) If that's the case, what happened to Napster, and why can the RIAA sue a 12-year-old for copyright infringement?
Arrg. Stupid login!
I will post s summary of my post:
RIAA has not enforced the law by suing Napster. They have just pushed people to other P2P networks.
Suing 12 yr old girls is just evil.
Everyone should get with the times and distribute through iTunes Music Store if they are worried about protecting copyright. iTMS has shown that people will rather buy songs than pirate them if they are given what they want and can get it in a simple way.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/11/ipodders_not_thieves/ |
| Edited by - woolytoad on 01/14/2006 15:06:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
