Downloading music from the internet... [Archive] - Theology Forum

wholearmor

May 27th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by october
It's not stealing. It's sharing. I use a service called "Kazaa." It creates a folder on your desktop that you can fill with songs. So not only do you download songs, but people download from you. It is no worse than using a double tape deck. You take, you give in return. It has a rating system so that it gives lower priority to people who don't offer much to share. So I keep about 60 songs in my shared folder, and I'm still considered pretty low. Most of the songs I download are from the 70s and 80s, and they are songs that I have once owned on tape or CD but then sold, so in a sense I have paid for a lot of this stuff before in the first place.

It is no different to me than asking someone if I can read a novel after they are done with it. You don't have to buy your own copy of the book.

If I sold the CD's I burned, then I think it would be illegal and stealing, since I am trying to make a profit from free copies of the music.

OK, october, quit your job or whatever it is you do for a living and decide to make your living as a musician. Write a song and put it in your Kazaa folder and put it out there for everyone to share. When's your first dollar from your musician profession going to come in?

Rav_Yeshai

May 28th, 2003, 10:51 PM

Shalom,

We live in a day and age where the deceit of wealth determines what is "stealing". When technology grows, so will the law to protect the pocket of corp america.

I have many friends that are signed to "christian, meesianic jewish and secular" labels. Bottom line.

artists are pawns.

anyone remember when metallica was "anti-napster"?
Years from now (maybe even now) people will say "metalli-who?"

many of my friends have told me even the "christian- messianic " labels are run by the all unmighty dollar.

but is it stealing to download music under the digital millenium act ?

No!

is it a breach of Torah?

Yes!

how so? you might ask

It is not a sin to share materials. if it is i would ask where do you draw the line?
truth is consistent. truth is true the world around I always say ;)
take a look at the following and tell me 1 where the line of theft is, 2 which one is theft and 3 WHO determines what is theft to begin with!

downloading a song

hearing a song from someones stereo across the street and recording it

playing your best friend a song over the phone

playing a song in a chat room

strange how cultural varience and social construct bends perceptual ordanience.

however it is a sin to download music that has a copyright.
NOT BECAUSE ITS STEALING.

Because its breaking the law. which we are commanded to uphold, as long as it does not negate the word of Yahweh Eloah.

Shalom

wholearmor

May 28th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
Shalom,

We live in a day and age where the deceit of wealth determines what is "stealing". When technology grows, so will the law to protect the pocket of corp america.

I have many friends that are signed to "christian, meesianic jewish and secular" labels. Bottom line.

artists are pawns.

anyone remember when metallica was "anti-napster"?
Years from now (maybe even now) people will say "metalli-who?"

many of my friends have told me even the "christian- messianic " labels are run by the all unmighty dollar.

but is it stealing to download music under the digital millenium act ?

No!

is it a breach of Torah?

Yes!

how so? you might ask

It is not a sin to share materials. if it is i would ask where do you draw the line?
truth is consistent. truth is true the world around I always say ;)
take a look at the following and tell me 1 where the line of theft is, 2 which one is theft and 3 WHO determines what is theft to begin with!

downloading a song

hearing a song from someones stereo across the street and recording it

playing your best friend a song over the phone

playing a song in a chat room

strange how cultural varience and social construct bends perceptual ordanience.

however it is a sin to download music that has a copyright.
NOT BECAUSE ITS STEALING.

Because its breaking the law. which we are commanded to uphold, as long as it does not negate the word of Yahweh Eloah.

Shalom

The deceit of wealth determines what is stealing? How did you dream that up? Taking something of value without paying for it is stealing. Always has been and always will be. If it weren't for thieves, laws wouldn't have to be passed to protect the pockets of corporate America or to protect the pockets of you and I for that matter.

If artists are pawns then I'm the Queen of Sheba. I'd like to be a pawn like some of them are. I work at least 40 hours a week. I have to be there when they tell me, I can't take a break until they tell me, I can't eat lunch until they tell me, whether I'm hungry or not. I can't take my afternoon break until they tell me, I can't go home until they tell me, I can't take a vacation until they tell me, and I can't make any more money than they give me. Who's the pawn?

Yes, someday they may say "Metalli who," but, 1., what does that have to do with stealing Metallica's music, and, 2., hardly any one will ever say, "The Rolling who?," or "The Beatle who?."

Downloading a song is theft because it is of such high quality.

Recording a song from across the street is useless because of all
the birds and booming car stereos driving by.

Playing a song over the phone is extremely low quality and not worth recording and saving.

Playing a song in a chat room isn't something someone is going to sit and listen to more than a CD they may purchase.

I assume this word you used, ordanience, is supposed to be ordinance,
right? And this word, varience, is supposed to be variance I suspect. Anyway, cultural variance and social construct have nothing
to do with what stealing is.

I can't even comment on the last two paragraphs because I have no idea what you're talking about. Your entire post makes no sense to me.

Rav_Yeshai

May 29th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Shalom,

I would like to correct you on some of the statements you have made in error.

"Taking something of value without paying for it is stealing."

Lets disect this statement. I have 3 problems with it (as does Yahweh Eloah)

taking

something

and value

all perceptual

who determines what they are? you? the recording industry? bob down the street?

"taking something..."

hmmmm. anything? in my ears? air? the point I made in my first post was the something here is what is in question! ;)

In the millenium digital copyright act the "something" is music by new technological varience as a catalyst for distrubution.

Lets move on, "...of value without paying for it"

Who determines what is of value? you? me?
The owner of the property? yes, that is a correct statement.

but as we can see the owners of music in our culture have been "selective" on what is "taking music (that is valuable) without paying for it.

and thus making the laws implied at best : perceptual

kind of like saying what you have ---> "we will arrest someone who copies an album of high quality music for their friend, but if its recorded over the phone, well, then its ok!"

REALLY?!?!

LOL!

this is laughable

look at the logistics and componets implied here:

copying on some sort of medium

music

and a varience of quality

hmmmm

so the varience of quality determines theft?!?!

the Torah says no matter the quality if you have taken an object that is owned by another (this does not include radio waves, micro waves, audio signals, ideas, visuals, words, etc.) it is stealing and wrong.

My whole point is that record co's have stretched the line (as have cable co's, radio stations, etc) to call intercepting by technology or sharing what is freely there STEALING.

It's a joke.

and As myself I have been a musician all my life, know the industry and do have friends in the industry.
artists ARE pawns compared to the labels.

who makes the lions share of the cash?

its a no brainer.

In 1999 epic closed down its "metal" dept. on a whim.

many metal artists who were with them were sold to other labels.

when I spoke of pawns I wasnt speaking of $

you could be paid a million a year and still be a barney fife ;)

also I agree i one respect on what you said "If it weren't for thieves, laws wouldn't have to be passed to protect the pockets of corporate America or to protect the pockets of you and I for that matter. "

But I do believe that MOST laws have been made in the name of greed.

take for example many "Christians" who say : "this country was founded on godly morals!"

I agree, if your god is apollyon! ;)

If I were to at gun point tell my neighbor to get out of his home and then tell him his home is now mine, then making him sign it over. I would be arrested so fast my jewish head would spin!

but this is the case of how this nation came to be.

Greed, .....its here to stay (until the messiah of all Israel comes!)

P.s. My english is not so good, but, as a wise man once told me, if court trials could be won on correcting spelling, lawyers would be english profesoors! ;)

Goose

May 30th, 2003, 02:40 AM

What bothers me the most, are the implications of the license and rights you have when purchasing something like a DVD or audio cd. It seems to be spilling over to things like DVD players and electronics. I can buy a car and modify it and reverse engineer it and what not. But I can't do that with some electronics, like DVD players that I own. Corporations are making it to where you really have little right to the property you own. It's very scary.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay once and own the merchandise, rather then it come down to some partial right of ownership.

Rav_Yeshai

May 30th, 2003, 09:23 AM

I agree Goose social construct and perceptual morality has influenced and bent (if not broken) the Torah of Yahweh Eloah, to the point where the average individual doesnt know if he is breaking the law or not.

Example: in 98' I purchased a $120. clipart set to put on my web. only to get home and find out i really didnt own the software, and "Didnt have the right" to place it on my web. :(

AND.. I couldnt get a refund. I was tweeked to put it mildly!

Goose

May 30th, 2003, 12:52 PM

See, thats a big problem for me and it weighs on my mind every now and then. Should intangible objects be able to be copyrighted, to where you can't use it's implication. Like, should soemone be able to copyright the molecular construct of Oxygen, and then go to charge everyone a monthly fee who uses it? No. Of course not. But these are some implications when it comes to things like fragrances and perfumes, music, food products with their ingredients, ordered electrons in the form of mp3's. And where do you draw the line? Ordered molecules in the form of Ferarri's? :D I'm just thinking that copyright or licensing laws have just overstept their bounds when it comes with ownership, and somehow, long ago, it just crept under the radar. The future looks like you'll never be able to 'own' anything. You're just going to rent it.

I'd rather own.

Rav_Yeshai

May 30th, 2003, 09:55 PM

I agree. In the reign of the heavens Ha olam, there will be no patents, copyrights, or trademarks. Just silly little ideas made by silly little men in the name of greed.

.Ant

May 31st, 2003, 11:48 PM

Hmmm... Goose's point reminds me that we don't own anything here on earth. We just rent it. :)

Except maybe God's love - we can own that! :king:

wholearmor

June 1st, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
Shalom,

...so the varience of quality determines theft?!?!

No, recording the music over the phone or from the next door neighbor's stereo as it floats along on the air is still stealing, but my point was, who would want to do that and still listen to it? It wouldn't be worth it due to the extremely low quality of the recording.

Rav_Yeshai, what do you do for income?

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
Hmmm... Goose's point reminds me that we don't own anything here on earth. We just rent it.I could see that reply going over well in a court of law.

wholearmor

June 1st, 2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Goose
See, thats a big problem for me and it weighs on my mind every now and then. Should intangible objects be able to be copyrighted, to where you can't use it's implication. Like, should soemone be able to copyright the molecular construct of Oxygen, and then go to charge everyone a monthly fee who uses it? No. Of course not. But these are some implications when it comes to things like fragrances and perfumes, music, food products with their ingredients, ordered electrons in the form of mp3's. And where do you draw the line? Ordered molecules in the form of Ferarri's? :D I'm just thinking that copyright or licensing laws have just overstept their bounds when it comes with ownership, and somehow, long ago, it just crept under the radar. The future looks like you'll never be able to 'own' anything. You're just going to rent it.

I'd rather own.

Well, the people that come up with these ideas that no one else did would rather own the rights to their inventions. If you came up with a better mousetrap, so to speak, that would benefit people in some way, what would you do with it? Oh, and don't forget, you spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars developing it.

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 12:57 AM

Wholearmor,

Would you restrict the disassembly and modification of the better mouse trap once bought? That's what is happening to media players, like DVD players and Playstations right now under the DMCA.

And not only, the fact that you "borrowed" the better mouse trap idea from the company who made the 'original' mouse trap, you now have to pay royalties for the parts(or get thrown in jail) that you rehashed from the original to make your improved trap. The same would go for just about any invention wouldn't it.

drbrumley

June 1st, 2003, 01:13 AM

Goose,

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by drbrumley
Goose,

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to pay $500 for a better mouse trap. There has got to be a better solution.

drbrumley

June 1st, 2003, 01:22 AM

Goose,

I totally agree.

Been thinking on this hard lately about this and The Rabbi here made a very valid point. It comes down to greed! Building a better mouse trap has been the American Way. Not no more, not without having the threat of lawsuits hanging over your head and all the royalty fees that have to be paid under the current system. Man, what a mess this has become.

Sorry Goose for the lamenting. LOL!

God Bless,
Dave

.Ant

June 1st, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Goose
Originally posted by .Ant
Hmmm... Goose's point reminds me that we don't own anything here on earth. We just rent it. :)
I could see that reply going over well in a court of law.
I wasn't talking about the law, but about godly attitudes.

We shouldn't treat things that we have like we own them, because we don't - God does. He's just given them to us to look after for a while.

As for things you may have bought which God didn't want you to buy - they may not be gifts from God, but they still aren't really yours. God has let you get them, and then only temporarily...

Stewardship and the transcience of this world are good principles to think about.

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by .Ant
Stewardship and the transcience of this world are good principles to think about. It's also good to keep an open mind, as long as your brains don't fall out. I see what your saying.

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by drbrumley
Man, what a mess this has become.I should go to school and become a lawyer. :D

wholearmor

June 1st, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Goose
Wholearmor,

Would you restrict the disassembly and modification of the better mouse trap once bought? That's what is happening to media players, like DVD players and Playstations right now under the DMCA.

And not only, the fact that you "borrowed" the better mouse trap idea from the company who made the 'original' mouse trap, you now have to pay royalties for the parts(or get thrown in jail) that you rehashed from the original to make your improved trap. The same would go for just about any invention wouldn't it.

Can you help me understand why anyone would want to modify a DVD player and Playstation? Also, what would someone want to use the modification for?

Rav_Yeshai

June 1st, 2003, 01:15 PM

The word of all powerfull Yahweh Elohiym states that all that has been given to man that is of benifit to him and in his ideas. I think when Yashua gives an idea, its foolish, greedy, childish and imature to hold it behind you and state (and this reminds me of the WB cartoon of daffy duck saying "IT's mine , all mine!!! Mine , Mine, Mine!!!) "Its MY idea and no one can make or invent anything simular to it or I'll sue!!!!"

Thought! ---> Did you know it would not be a sin to

1. be the head of your own country
and
2. make millions of copies of products ; microsoft, playststion.

hmmmm, I wonder what the ole U.S. would do If i owned an illand and copied millions of copies of software, dvds, videos, books, etc, then when I hear word from the justice dept and foriegn affairs of how my country is "hurting " the greedy republic, THEN I tell the U.S. to mind their own business "Cuz I have nukes pointed at ya!"

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

now that would be funny!

If i were that rich! I would do that and give all the copies away. tell the U.S. I do not honor their ridiculuous "It's my idea first!" laws.

foolish children.

Can't wait until judgement to see who REALLY owns the ideas!

;)

wholearmor

June 1st, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
Can't wait until judgement to see who REALLY owns the ideas!
;)

Why do you have to wait until judgement to see? You don't know already? I do.

Rav_Yeshai

June 1st, 2003, 01:32 PM

but seriously,

did you know, that the concept of "owning an idea" is new to the jewish culture. Its ok to sell products to make a profit. But when you claim that the complete idea belongs to you, or that no one can find out how your product works, or that you want to patent something that already exists (which is and has happened) I think the greed thing is going a bit over board.

I went to a website where a company actually got permission to sell land on the moon , mars, jupitor, and venus. LOL!!!! And someone was arrested for selling the same plots because appearently the moon belongs to this company!

Who did they buy it from? Eloah?
when?
lol
all in the name of greed!

Goose

June 1st, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor
Can you help me understand why anyone would want to modify a DVD player and Playstation? Also, what would someone want to use the modification for? The same reason that people like to work on their homes and cars. To make better DVD or Playstation technology. To make them better in some way. Your question sounds like it comes from someone who likes to prevent progress in the hands of commoners, rather then big business.

Rav_Yeshai

June 1st, 2003, 03:54 PM

I'm pro theocrocy. I am not a proponent of democrocy. (this issue is one reason why)

Democrocy is like being in a cage with nine canniabals and then voting on whether eating human should be allowed.

Thats sad.

The culture or social construct that rewards ignorance or injustice will deconstruct itself.

In this country at anytime, the inmates can take over the assylum. And that in itself is frieghtning. (acctually, it's already happened, ask any WW2 vet. they didnt fight for this!)

.Ant

June 1st, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
Thought! ---> Did you know it would not be a sin to

1. be the head of your own country
and
2. make millions of copies of products ; microsoft, playststion.

hmmmm, I wonder what the ole U.S. would do If i owned an illand and copied millions of copies of software, dvds, videos, books, etc, then when I hear word from the justice dept and foriegn affairs of how my country is "hurting " the greedy republic, THEN I tell the U.S. to mind their own business "Cuz I have nukes pointed at ya!"

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

now that would be funny!

If i were that rich! I would do that and give all the copies away. tell the U.S. I do not honor their ridiculuous "It's my idea first!" laws.
Not really funny - the US would just invade your country and force you to stop... or implement sanctions etc...

Rav_Yeshai

June 1st, 2003, 05:13 PM

but look how much fun i could have in the mean time :D, ;)

.Ant

June 1st, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
I'm pro theocrocy. I am not a proponent of democrocy. (this issue is one reason why)

Democrocy is like being in a cage with nine canniabals and then voting on whether eating human should be allowed.

Thats sad.

The culture or social construct that rewards ignorance or injustice will deconstruct itself.

In this country at anytime, the inmates can take over the assylum. And that in itself is frieghtning. (acctually, it's already happened, ask any WW2 vet. they didnt fight for this!)
Democracy is certainly not ideal. But is theocracy better? What of the risks of unjust rulers?

Rav_Yeshai

June 1st, 2003, 09:54 PM

this is why the Mouth of Yahweh Elohiym will rule all nations (before their destruction) himself one day. (I cannot wait) Come soon Yashua please!

.Ant

June 3rd, 2003, 12:30 AM

Oops, I was thinking you said monarchy. Who can have a problem with theocracy? Dissenters go to hell!

Eli_Cash

June 3rd, 2003, 12:55 AM

Copying music or other files is not stealing. It is against the law however. The use of the term piracy is a propaganda term to support an unjust law.

.Ant

June 3rd, 2003, 01:03 AM

Due to copyright law, it is in fact stealing. You are stealing someone else's proprietary material, which only they have the right to distribute.

Copying software is also lying, due to the license agreement you clicked "yes" to.

Eli_Cash

June 3rd, 2003, 01:07 AM

"OK, october, quit your job or whatever it is you do for a living and decide to make your living as a musician. Write a song and put it in your Kazaa folder and put it out there for everyone to share. When's your first dollar from your musician profession going to come in?"

This is a greatly misinformed position. Musicians don't make money from CD's, that all goes to the record label. In order to get any money from the record label, the musician has to be rich enough to hire lawyers to audit the label. Most musicians make their money from touring. The get popular from the mass distribution which the record company provides. With PC's this is no longer an issue. The record company has become obsolete, and propaganda like this statement is only slowing its demise, and is making it harder for artist to truly be in control of their ideas. Did you know that when a musician makes a record for a major label, the songs he records become the property of that label? In book deals, the author retains the rights, but licenses a company to publish the work. Record companies are not only obsolete, but they are also immoral.

Eli_Cash

June 3rd, 2003, 01:09 AM

"Due to copyright law, it is in fact stealing. You are stealing someone else's proprietary material, which only they have the right to distribute."

Sorry pal, but stealing is not defined by any particular law. When a song is copied no one is deprived of any particular product. What they are deprived of is a monopoly.

.Ant

June 3rd, 2003, 01:12 AM

When a song is copied, the artist is deprived of some of their rightful earnings. If you were allowed to copy books, for instance, how would anyone make a living as a writer? Publishers would just publish everything that sold well, and almost no profit would go to the writer...

I don't know about you, but depriving someone of rightfully earned money sounds like stealing to me.

Eli_Cash

June 3rd, 2003, 01:18 AM

"When a song is copied, the artist is deprived of some of their rightful earnings. If you were allowed to copy books, for instance, how would anyone make a living as a writer? Publishers would just publish everything that sold well, and almost no profit would go to the writer...

I don't know about you, but depriving someone of rightfully earned money sounds like stealing to me."

Rightful earnings consist of what a person can earn in a free market. A market regulated by copyright laws is not a free market. Consider this. A certain man makes widgets and sells them for two dollars each. Another man makes them, but gives them away for free. If I go to the guy who is giving them away, am I stealing from the man who is selling them?

wholearmor

June 3rd, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Goose
The same reason that people like to work on their homes and cars. To make better DVD or Playstation technology. To make them better in some way. Your question sounds like it comes from someone who likes to prevent progress in the hands of commoners, rather then big business.

As far as I can tell, Goose, you are the king of reading something into someone's message that isn't there. You speculate alot and you are wrong alot.

So you believe you should be able to take a Playstation, do a simple, minor modification, and sell the modified Playstation as your own invention or would your modification be to simply benefit you personally?

.Ant

June 3rd, 2003, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Rightful earnings consist of what a person can earn in a free market. A market regulated by copyright laws is not a free market. Consider this. A certain man makes widgets and sells them for two dollars each. Another man makes them, but gives them away for free. If I go to the guy who is giving them away, am I stealing from the man who is selling them?
Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world. Much of what is produced does not have immediate material value, so it doesn't fall under property law, however isn't it fair to say that a book written by me belongs to me, and that everyone shouldn't be allowed to copy it, adjust it, and sell it as they wish? Again, how can any producer of information make any money otherwise?

Goose

June 4th, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor
As far as I can tell, Goose, you are the king of reading something into someone's message that isn't there. You speculate alot and you are wrong alot.

So you believe you should be able to take a Playstation, do a simple, minor modification, and sell the modified Playstation as your own invention or would your modification be to simply benefit you personally? You can make modification chips and plug them into your playstations. It is illegal to make modification chips under the DMCA. If the DMCA was applied to cars, you wouldn't be able to install the high performance air filter you been working on, because of intellectual property.

THe mod chips don't come with a playstation. You just plug them into an existing playstation.

wholearmor

June 4th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Goose
You can make modification chips and plug them into your playstations. It is illegal to make modification chips under the DMCA. If the DMCA was applied to cars, you wouldn't be able to install the high performance air filter you been working on, because of intellectual property.

THe mod chips don't come with a playstation. You just plug them into an existing playstation.

So if I'm caught making mod chips, I could be arrested along with my neighbor with the meth lab?

Why doesn't the DMCA want people making mod chips and installing them into Playstations?

Goose

June 4th, 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor
So if I'm caught making mod chips, I could be arrested along with my neighbor with the meth lab?
yes
Why doesn't the DMCA want people making mod chips and installing them into Playstations? Because they want to create an abstract medium/protocol for which only their media can be played and no one elses. It effectively controls the transfer of "unauthorized" data by making the Corporations the authority, not the end consumer.

Rav_Yeshai

June 4th, 2003, 11:24 AM

Due to copyright law, it is in fact stealing. You are stealing someone else's proprietary material, which only they have the right to distribute.

Actually this law does not fit the Torah's definition of theft. The law can call it what ever they please. But it is not stealing.

It would be like this:
A neighbor is getting "Illegal cable" and everyday you come over to watch it, not knowing it he was recieving itand breaking the law.
Now, were you sinning when you watched?

Not at all.

yet. this is breaking the law to "watch" cable they have not charged you for.

You can't put the theft label on just any violation and think it will fly. This is silly.

"You saw my tv show at your neighbor's so your under arrest!" LOL

or how about this, 37 years from now your walking through a busy part of a city and hear music. suddenly 2 cops appear and detain you for "stealing" CFM signals and listening to them.

This is a joke. Much like the satelite argument. Under fed. law you cannot posess a device to tune in the waves that are all around us.

Think about it. the waves are all around. you cannot even make a device to receive them or you will be "stealing".

I place these "laws" into the "Corp America needs to get richer, so they streach the meaning of stealing" laws bag.

Rule no 1 of business, If you have to rewrite the Word of Yahweh Elohi in order to make a profit. Dont go into that business.

Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world. Much of what is produced does not have immediate material value, so it doesn't fall under property law, however isn't it fair to say that a book written by me belongs to me, and that everyone shouldn't be allowed to copy it, adjust it, and sell it as they wish? Again, how can any producer of information make any money otherwise?

Can you say that in your own words? Or have you been using the same words everyone else has been using?
Copyright laws are as necessary as laws against ... oops I'd better stop or I could be arrested!

copyright laws are:

uneeded, against Yahweh Eloah, for the greedy, selfish, fearful

To bad the Jews didnt copyright the Torah. LOL

If the words Yashua spoke were truth then they would be consistent.

IF copyright law is just, it will be consistent. lets put them to the test shall we?

I once had an article posted to my website by a friend in which it was taken from another website. The person who wrote it contacted me and told me o how it was her article. I told her I would take it down, but asked her (to make a point) If i could use the: "and if" and "There was a" out of it. LOL

I asked how much of the work I could use before I was stealing. (This idea in itself which is man made, is rediculous)30%? 20%? 5%? LOL

I asked her if any of the words used were copywritten by her, because I had other articles that had simular words or the same words and didnt want to be sued or arrested.

Was downloading mp3's stealing before the law "the digital millenial copyright act" was in effect?

Appearently not, as napster was up and no one was arrested.

however, whether stealing a car is against the law or not, it will always be stealing. ;)

Do you see how stupid and childish these "laws" are.

Again, owning an idea is a new concept to the Jewish mind.(not saying noone shouldnt be protected against someone else selling their authorship)
but like all garbage, when Yashua returns ,it will find itself in the pit.
:D Oymein!

Eli_Cash

June 4th, 2003, 07:24 PM

"Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world."

No they aren't, because copying a work does not deprive anyone of anything. Thievery does.

"Much of what is produced does not have immediate material value, so it doesn't fall under property law, however isn't it fair to say that a book written by me belongs to me, and that everyone shouldn't be allowed to copy it, adjust it, and sell it as they wish?"

But how can one sell anything if copyright is what gives it a value? It is fair to abolish laws that artificially constrain a market. These laws are communist. They run contrary to the proper functioning of a free market.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/12540/2722

"Again, how can any producer of information make any money otherwise?"

Who says they should? But it is possible nevertheless. As I have pointed out before, very few musicians with record deals actually make money from record sales. They earn money from performances. And software companies can and do make money from actively supporting free software.

A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?

And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?

.Ant

June 5th, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
A neighbor is getting "Illegal cable" and everyday you come over to watch it, not knowing it he was recieving itand breaking the law.
Now, were you sinning when you watched?
No. However it would be a sin if you did know.

When it comes to music piracy, you know that it's a sin. You know that it's illegal.

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
or how about this, 37 years from now your walking through a busy part of a city and hear music. suddenly 2 cops appear and detain you for "stealing" CFM signals and listening to them.

This is a joke. Much like the satelite argument. Under fed. law you cannot posess a device to tune in the waves that are all around us.

Think about it. the waves are all around. you cannot even make a device to receive them or you will be "stealing".

I place these "laws" into the "Corp America needs to get richer, so they streach the meaning of stealing" laws bag.

Rule no 1 of business, If you have to rewrite the Word of Yahweh Elohi in order to make a profit. Dont go into that business.
I agree. There are lots of silly laws, some of which are impossible to obey. However others, like copyrights, *usually* make good sense.

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
Originally posted by .Ant
Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world. Much of what is produced does not have immediate material value, so it doesn't fall under property law, however isn't it fair to say that a book written by me belongs to me, and that everyone shouldn't be allowed to copy it, adjust it, and sell it as they wish? Again, how can any producer of information make any money otherwise?

Can you say that in your own words? Or have you been using the same words everyone else has been using?
??? Those are my own words...

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
IF copyright law is just, it will be consistent. lets put them to the test shall we?
Yes, but that doesn't mean all copyright law is unjust. Just like some property law may be unjust, but that doesn't justify stealing.

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
I once had an article posted to my website by a friend in which it was taken from another website. The person who wrote it contacted me and told me o how it was her article. I told her I would take it down, but asked her (to make a point) If i could use the: "and if" and "There was a" out of it. LOL

I asked how much of the work I could use before I was stealing. (This idea in itself which is man made, is rediculous)30%? 20%? 5%? LOL

I asked her if any of the words used were copywritten by her, because I had other articles that had simular words or the same words and didnt want to be sued or arrested.

Was downloading mp3's stealing before the law "the digital millenial copyright act" was in effect?

Appearently not, as napster was up and no one was arrested.

however, whether stealing a car is against the law or not, it will always be stealing.
I can say the same about reasonable defined copyrights... like x number of words or something, I'm no expert, but I do think breaking copyrights can be stealing.

Originally posted by Rav_Yeshai
(not saying noone shouldnt be protected against someone else selling their authorship)
That's the kind of copyright law I'm talking about. Music, books, art...

.Ant

June 5th, 2003, 03:43 AM

Rav_Yeshai

June 5th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Yes I believe we agree then.

Some laws are foolish (even though we must obey ) unless they violate Torah. Other laws protect ones rights. one's rights, hmm. that is a concept worth exploring.

The Torah of Yahweh Elohi says man has no rights outside of it. So for example, I were a congressman and tried to pass a new right for americans that said we have the right to slap someone if they are more than 4 foot tall.

This would be outside of Torah. and ungodly.
Many laws exist that break the word of Eloah.

My point is :

When it comes to music piracy, you know that it's a sin. You know that it's illegal.

Illegal? yes, stealing? no.

They call it stealing, (otherwise they would be years trying to conjuor up a charge. you know, i can see them now! "Its not stealing, hmmm, well , can we call it murder? na, the public will never buy it. hmmm, lets just go with the theft thing! ok.") to get the bill passed into law. But it's not. Its illegal.

Two different things, (especially now days)

Eli_Cash

June 5th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world."

No they aren't, because copying a work does not deprive anyone of anything. Thievery does.

"It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits."

What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.

From http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/12540/2722
So what about people who download and listen to unpaid-for music? These people are certainly breaking the law and must accept the associated risks, but they are not morally in the wrong. They simply represent points on the demand curve that the RIAA member companies have chosen not to sell to because they are not "sufficiently" profitable. The RIAA may shed crocodile tears over the loss of revenue from this segment of their market, but in the end it is their own decision not to sell to these people.

"By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong."

Stolen cars are just that, stolen. Copied music is not stolen, it is copied. You have yet to justify the position that copying is stealing, and it is that claim that your ridiculous counter to this article rests on. Your criticism of this article rests on the contention that copying is stealing, which you have not proven.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?

"Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?"

Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?

"Possibly."

Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.

.Ant

June 6th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Stolen cars are just that, stolen. Copied music is not stolen, it is copied. You have yet to justify the position that copying is stealing, and it is that claim that your ridiculous counter to this article rests on. Your criticism of this article rests on the contention that copying is stealing, which you have not proven.
So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?

Eli_Cash

June 6th, 2003, 07:19 PM

"So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?"

No, that's a perfect example of how a free market is supposed to work. Prices driven down by competition, such that the products actual value is represented in its price.

Em7add11

June 6th, 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?"

No, that's a perfect example of how a free market is supposed to work. Prices driven down by competition, such that the products actual value is represented in its price.

And a perfect example of how the original still retains the higher value because it's the merch that is higher quality. The brand name is the value instead of the actual product. Pharmacy drugs work on the same principle. There's lots of headache relievers but the brand names sell for more.

Eli_Cash

June 6th, 2003, 08:52 PM

"And a perfect example of how the original still retains the higher value because it's the merch that is higher quality. The brand name is the value instead of the actual product. Pharmacy drugs work on the same principle. There's lots of headache relievers but the brand names sell for more."

True, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, or is it just an observation?

Em7add11

June 6th, 2003, 08:55 PM

Just an observation.

.Ant

June 7th, 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?
Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?
Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?
Possibly.
Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits.
What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.
In your argument above, the word "copying" could be replaced with "stealing":

"The only potential profit that stealing eliminates is one that is created by anti-theft laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market."

Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.

Eli_Cash

June 8th, 2003, 02:08 AM

Eli_Cash:
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?

.Ant:
Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?

Eli_Cash:
Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.

"Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it."

And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.

Eli_Cash:
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?

.Ant:
Possibly.

Eli_Cash:
Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.

"It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

quote:Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong."

The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.

.Ant:
It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits.

Eli_Cash:
What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.

"In your argument above, the word "copying" could be replaced with "stealing":

"The only potential profit that stealing eliminates is one that is created by anti-theft laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market."

Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law."

But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.

.Ant

June 8th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.
And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.
I didn't say that.Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.
In other words, it's a fair argument, if my assumption is correct.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.
But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.
Are you saying it's impossible to steal something if it's not physical?

Eli_Cash

June 9th, 2003, 02:41 AM

.Ant:
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.

Eli_Cash:
And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.

"I didn't say that.Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?"

Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.

.Ant:
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

quote:Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

Eli_Cash:
The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.

"In other words, it's a fair argument, if my assumption is correct."

No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.

.Ant:
Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.

Eli_Cash
But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.

"Are you saying it's impossible to steal something if it's not physical?"

I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property. Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.

.Ant

June 10th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.
I don't agree. If I invent a new joke, and tell it to a friend, and then my friend tells it to someone else, does that stop the joke from being unique? Does that change the fact that I invented it and told it first?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.
It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.
How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.
And copyright law makes limited supply of art and other information possible.

So have not said anything about why or how the "restriction" of copyright law is necessarily bad, and anti free-market. Or how the "restriction" of copyright law is any different from the "restriction" of property law, apart from one being about physical things and one being about non physical things.

Eli_Cash

June 10th, 2003, 03:19 AM

.Ant:
Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Eli_Cash:
Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.

"I don't agree. If I invent a new joke, and tell it to a friend, and then my friend tells it to someone else, does that stop the joke from being unique? Does that change the fact that I invented it and told it first?"

Nope, and you have a right to be recognized as telling it first. But as soon as you tell it, you lose control of it. There are now copies of that joke circulating, so it is no longer unique.

Eli_Cash:
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.

"It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion."

Let's see. The article showed evidence that the black market was due to price gouging by a monopoly. Thus it is not created by stealing anything. You claimed, without justification, that a black market is stealing.

So, no the article did not assume, and yes, the article made a much better point. You have yet to justify your equivocation of market circumvention with stealing. Stealing is market circumvention, but market circumvention isn't necessarily stealing. Unless you can prove otherwise, your just spouting unjustified opinions.

Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.

"How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?"

They have the right to enforce their privacy to the extent possible by actual property laws. For instance, you have the right to not show me the book you wrote. And you have the right to make me sign a contract before you let me look at the book, which forbids me from revealing any of the details. This would fall under contract law. It has nothing to do with copyrights, or the question of whether or not copying is stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.

"And copyright law makes limited supply of art and other information possible."

Which is why it is an artificial right. Property is naturally limited, ideas are not. Property laws are the recognition of natural rights.

"So have not said anything about why or how the "restriction" of copyright law is necessarily bad, and anti free-market. Or how the "restriction" of copyright law is any different from the "restriction" of property law, apart from one being about physical things and one being about non physical things."

Property law is the recognition of a natural right. Copyright law is the creation of an artificial right, which almost invariably leads to the trampling of natural rights.

As to how it contradicts a free market, I posted the link to that article that explains it clearly. In short, it creats a situation conducive to the formation of monopolies.

Goose

June 11th, 2003, 06:55 PM

Microsoft Patents Jesus (http://www.clipcode.com/books/id/001/ch02.htm)

Eli_Cash

June 11th, 2003, 07:48 PM

Goose, that's hilarious.

Goose

June 11th, 2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Goose, that's hilarious. A little unrealistic...or is it? ;) :D

Yorzhik

June 16th, 2003, 10:24 PM

I've posted this in my other copyright discussions, but didn't get any answers. I asked Bob Enyart, and he didn't supply an answer (although I'm not pushing for an answer from him... I'm just saying he didn't have an answer when the question was asked).

The question: Would we have property laws if real property were infinitely copyable, to near, if not perfect, tolerance?

Goose

June 18th, 2003, 11:10 PM

Yorzhik,

I don't think it would be efficient to have copyright laws if the property could be easily reproduced. Tragedy of the commons wouldn't hold.

Eli_Cash

June 19th, 2003, 03:16 PM

"The question: Would we have property laws if real property were infinitely copyable, to near, if not perfect, tolerance?"

The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.

PureX

June 19th, 2003, 03:23 PM

I recently bought and downloaded music from the new Apple Music Site and it worked very well. The sound quality was good and the songs have been burned to a CD and played on a good stereo (Bose).

I had a little trouble getting all the software set up (I had to update OSX) but so far it looks like a good service. A dollar a song is a good price considering you can make CDs that have all your favorite songs. One dissapointment, though, is that although the master list of music is fair, it's missing a lot of music, too. I'm guessing this has something to do with the owners of some songs not wanting them there, and some artists not wishing to participate.

.Ant

June 22nd, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.

It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion.

Let's see. The article showed evidence that the black market was due to price gouging by a monopoly. Thus it is not created by stealing anything. You claimed, without justification, that a black market is stealing.

So, no the article did not assume, and yes, the article made a much better point. You have yet to justify your equivocation of market circumvention with stealing. Stealing is market circumvention, but market circumvention isn't necessarily stealing. Unless you can prove otherwise, your just spouting unjustified opinions.

The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.

How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?

They have the right to enforce their privacy to the extent possible by actual property laws. For instance, you have the right to not show me the book you wrote. And you have the right to make me sign a contract before you let me look at the book, which forbids me from revealing any of the details. This would fall under contract law. It has nothing to do with copyrights, or the question of whether or not copying is stealing.
It is all to do with copyrights. The effect of a copyright is for an automatic contract to come into effect when you purchase / use the copyrighted item, which forbids you from copying the work. So when you pirate, you break your contract.

Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Property law is the recognition of a natural right. Copyright law is the creation of an artificial right, which almost invariably leads to the trampling of natural rights.
How did you decide that copyright law is artificial, while property law is not? They are both artificial, like all laws. As for "natural rights", what's unnatural about being paid for producing something valuable, or paying to read / listen to something that you enjoy? Copyright law upholds a right as natural as the right not to have your material goods stolen.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.
I disagree. Why is that necessary? You're just defining your own side of the argument to be true.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
As to how it contradicts a free market, I posted the link to that article that explains it clearly. In short, it creats a situation conducive to the formation of monopolies.
That's a problem of capitalism, not necessarily of copyright law.

Yorzhik

June 22nd, 2003, 01:08 AM

Goose, I thought your avatar before was better. Does this one have some specific meaning?

Goose

June 22nd, 2003, 11:55 AM

Which avatar? Cable from X-Men? This avatar is just an elder reading the bible.

Eli_Cash

June 22nd, 2003, 09:44 PM

.Ant:
"The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing."

Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.

Eli_Cash:
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.

.Ant
How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?

Eli_Cash:
They have the right to enforce their privacy to the extent possible by actual property laws. For instance, you have the right to not show me the book you wrote. And you have the right to make me sign a contract before you let me look at the book, which forbids me from revealing any of the details. This would fall under contract law. It has nothing to do with copyrights, or the question of whether or not copying is stealing.
It is all to do with copyrights. The effect of a copyright is for an automatic contract to come into effect when you purchase / use the copyrighted item, which forbids you from copying the work. So when you pirate, you break your contract.

.Ant
"Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader."

But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.

Eli_Cash:
Property law is the recognition of a natural right. Copyright law is the creation of an artificial right, which almost invariably leads to the trampling of natural rights.

.Ant:
"How did you decide that copyright law is artificial, while property law is not? They are both artificial, like all laws."

No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.

.Ant:
As for "natural rights", what's unnatural about being paid for producing something valuable, or paying to read / listen to something that you enjoy? Copyright law upholds a right as natural as the right not to have your material goods stolen.

It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law. When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.

Eli_Cash:
The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.

.Ant:
"I disagree. Why is that necessary? You're just defining your own side of the argument to be true."

No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.

But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable

Eli_Cash:
As to how it contradicts a free market, I posted the link to that article that explains it clearly. In short, it creats a situation conducive to the formation of monopolies.

.Ant
"That's a problem of capitalism, not necessarily of copyright law."

Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 12:58 AM

New poster incoming. :kookoo:

I have two personal viewpoints about this... and I'm really on the fence on this issue anyway, so feel free to bash away at what I'm saying cuz odds are I dunno what I'm talking about.

As a Consumer:

I have a bit of a problem in finding a lot of music that I want. I don't listen to normal music. I listen to Japanese music, and was introduced to it by a friend of mine. Many times I have heard songs that I have been unable to find except by downloading them on the internet.

Another thing is I have bought many japanese albums in support of my favorite artists, but I find that the prices they charge are extremely exorbant by any standards. The importation of the music I listen to bumps up the price amazingly, to the point where many times I CANT purchase all the music I want to since I don't get paid enough to do so. So there is another restriction as well.

My question is what would be the moral thing to do in situations such as these? My instincts sadly tell me I have to give up my hunger for japanese music out of the fear of stealing. Or I can take the exact opposite crazy approach and use all my money to buy the art which i crave instead of eating and paying my bills. Of course I could always move to Japan (something I plan to do after school). But until then... bleh. It really bites.

As an artist myself:

I am in a band, and really consider myself to be an artist. And as an artist the first goal is to express yourself (at least for me). Maybe it is just because I am currently not an established artist, but as I write my music and my novels I am not thinking "express myself... only to the people who will pay me enough to be heard"

Another thing is going into a Barnes and Nobles. I know many people who just pick up a book and read the whole thing over a couple days while sipping coffee without buying it. No one really goes crazy over this, as I suppose books and literary works of art are at a different standard due to libraries (i guess). But its amazing at how free and accessible those works of art are but are not kept a close eye over. I haven't seen many novelists start up 'abolish libraries' or 'down with barnes and nobles for their lack of enforcement'.

But its an interesting thing. I have sat and read parts of books in a bookstore to see if I want to buy it. I have downloaded songs from an album to see if I want to buy it.

Is my 'sampling' really all conditional?

I suppose when u get down to the roots of it on this issue, many artists have their copyrights to just say "if you are downloading this, you are stealing it against my word".

But it always is within the intent. To read a whole book in barnes and nobles just because you don't want to pay for it is basically stealing art. To download a whole album or song just because you don't want to pay for it is stealing art. To browse through a book... to sample music from a 'recommended artist' in hopes of finding new artistic enlightment? I guess the temptation to just 'read it all' or 'keep "sampling" until you have sampled the whole album without deleting it' is too great for us poor humans XD

-Jin

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 03:41 AM

"But it always is within the intent. To read a whole book in barnes and nobles just because you don't want to pay for it is basically stealing art. To download a whole album or song just because you don't want to pay for it is stealing art. To browse through a book... to sample music from a 'recommended artist' in hopes of finding new artistic enlightment? I guess the temptation to just 'read it all' or 'keep "sampling" until you have sampled the whole album without deleting it' is too great for us poor humans XD"

But it's not stealing. Not at all. Reading a book doesn't deprive the author of his ideas. Copying a book doesn't either. Listening to music doesn't deprive the author of his music, nor does copying it.

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 04:32 AM

I agree to that line of logic Eli. But I also agree that if the artist copyrighted its work (in music specifically), many times it is basically them saying "copying my music or downloading for free is like stealing it, because it is against our will". Many times... but not all I suppose. The problem is trying to reason out which artist is completely against it. I think all you Metallica fans who download their mp3's should at least be thankful that they help you fully understand you are stealing from them XD.

I see it a lot in music and not so much in situations like books or other art forms, which is probably why this mp3 downloading topic is so big. example: this one japanese band i love and adore is called Janne Da Arc. On their last 4 releases (album/singles) they have started putting burn protection on their CDs so the layman on a computer cant rip off their music to share. Obviously, that implication alone is that downloading their music would be against their will and therefore stealing it. (on a side note, unfortunately it makes my mp3 player unable to read it, because the burn protection thinks i might try to burn it with the way my mp3 player works -_-)

Anyway, you are right in that it doesnt permanently steal the ideas from the author or the feelings/thoughts put into the music. But it is definately stealing if the artist emphatically shows to you it is against his will for you to recieve his work for free.

Once again, as an artist I personally wouldn't see the harm in 'stealing my work', because I would be glad if anyone wanted to see my work with or without paying for it. But I understand the artists that do want their work to be given their monetary justice...

If you agree with what I've been blabbing on about, the problem is mainly with communication. All artists should clearly label their work as "burning/copying is OK, but not recommended" or "Burning and copying is completely prohibited, copy this and you are going to hell you rat bastards." it should be required to have one or the other in super huge sticker format on each album.

or to shorten it, BCO or BCP O.o

-Jin

boo money boo O.o <---- thats my artist speaking.

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 04:02 PM

"I agree to that line of logic Eli. But I also agree that if the artist copyrighted its work (in music specifically), many times it is basically them saying "copying my music or downloading for free is like stealing it, because it is against our will". Many times... but not all I suppose. The problem is trying to reason out which artist is completely against it. I think all you Metallica fans who download their mp3's should at least be thankful that they help you fully understand you are stealing from them XD. "

But you're not stealing from them. That's like if I own a business, and someone else is competeing against me, then I claim they're stealing my profits.

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 04:14 PM

'Competing' by going into your 'business' and taking your product from a jar thats clearly labeled "4$ each piece" without paying?

I guess you can blame the music industry for not finding out how to prevent 'copying' of their music (which is crazy considering technology these days). Or for your hypothetical 'business', how to prevent people from lying about putting money next to a jar.

The only way you can consider it not stealing is if it says "4$ each piece if you feel like it. thanks!". And I'm sure many artists feel that way. Others obviously don't.

Again, it kind of contradicts with the 'artist way' in that money is required for you to hear/read their work. But thats the way some artists want it, and if thats the way for the artist you are downloading, then you are stealing.

-Jin

.Ant

June 24th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.
Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.
So it makes an assumption about the difference between ideas and physical property, an assumption I disagree with.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader.
But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.
You obviously don't know much about the law. There are many contracts which are sealed without signatures, but instead by a certain action signifying agreement.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law.
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.
The following point counters all of the above:

Actually, property laws do make something property. There are many cultures where individual property is not a concept - everything is shared by the society. Property exists only through the law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.
Sure, but you've adjusted your definition of stealing and property to fit. If nothing you had was called property, I could take what I like without stealing.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable
I could just as easily say "I would like to see you try to show how material things can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are."

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.
Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 08:05 PM

.Ant:
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.

.Ant:
"So it makes an assumption about the difference between ideas and physical property, an assumption I disagree with."

It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.

.Ant:
Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader.

Eli_Cash:
But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.

.Ant:
"You obviously don't know much about the law. There are many contracts which are sealed without signatures, but instead by a certain action signifying agreement."

And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied. Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.

Eli_Cash:
No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.

Eli_Cash:
It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law.

Eli_Cash:
No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.

.Ant:
"Actually, property laws do make something property. There are many cultures where individual property is not a concept - everything is shared by the society. Property exists only through the law."

Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.

Eli_Cash:
When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.

.Ant:
"Sure, but you've adjusted your definition of stealing and property to fit. If nothing you had was called property, I could take what I like without stealing."

No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.

Eli_Cash
But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable

.Ant:
"I could just as easily say "I would like to see you try to show how material things can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are.""

But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.

Eli_Cash:
Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.

.Ant:
"Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?"
Never said that it did. You claimed that monopolies are a problem of capitalism. They aren't. But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?

But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an ide when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 08:10 PM

"'Competing' by going into your 'business' and taking your product from a jar thats clearly labeled "4$ each piece" without paying?"

That's stealing. When you take a product from a jar, that jar has one less item in it. When you copy something, that's not the case.

And it doesn't really matter if the artist feels they aren't being compensated what they should be. They are free to quit producing their art.

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 08:33 PM

The artist within me agrees ^-^

The Consumer doesnt :devil:

-Jin

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the consumer in you would rather pay for art?

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 09:17 PM

I guess as a capitalist/consumer I would rather have all art paid for since when I am in a capitalist/consumer mindframe it is all about putting things at dollar value so I know what is needed to obtain said art.

If that makes sense good... if not then I don't understand what I was talking about myself.

Lets just leave it at I understand your way of thinking and understand the opposite opinion as well. Which is why in my first post I stated I was very much on the fence on this topic.

-Jin

Eli_Cash

June 24th, 2003, 09:29 PM

"I guess as a capitalist/consumer I would rather have all art paid for since when I am in a capitalist/consumer mindframe it is all about putting things at dollar value so I know what is needed to obtain said art."

But copyright law contradicts capitalism, because it runs contrary to a free market.

iesu

June 24th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Explain how it runs contrary to free market.

The basic definition of capitalism states that the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned. So... if the said artist wanted to produce the music and distribute them only for a price without copying it against their will... then wouldnt they copyright it?

-Jin

edited: keep in mind i also stated that if my last post didnt make sense then I probably didn't know what I was talking about myself. you could have merely said "that doesn't make sense" and I would have just nodded and then went :hammer: to prove my point.

.Ant

June 24th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.
I recognise that fact, but I disagree with your thinking that just because something can be easily replicated, it should not be owned.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied.
Yes, expressed how? Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights).

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.
It should be obvious that I'm not saying that, from my comment
Originally posted by .Ant
Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?
They don't. I am arguing that (well-defined) intellectual property rights are just as valid as property rights.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an ide when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?
I don't agree with the way patents are used - a related but distinct issue. Again, what is stealing about insisting that people pay you to buy your art (in digital form, so as not to confuse the issue)?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.
I'm not talking about communism or hierarchies, but culture. For instance, in my country's native culture, land cannot be owned. As for pecking order - so what? In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy. The point is, individual property ownership isn't a "natural" right, it is a right created and enforced by law, like intellectual ownership.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.
Yes. Cultural relativism, in this case the fact that physical things are not property in every culture, shows that property is not a "natural" concept, but an artificial one.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.
No! Are you blind to your own culture? The idea that material things can only be possesed by one person at a time is not a global, omni-applicable concept. What basis do you have for thinking that property ownership is more natural a right than intellectual ownership? It's obviously easier to enfore property ownership, but that doesn't make it more natural.

Yorzhik

June 25th, 2003, 12:47 AM

.Ant, first I'd like to thank you for conceding this part of the discussion with this statement:

In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy.

You can stop talking about it now.

On to other things.

Even if several people have responsibility over any physical thing at one time, there can be only one of that thing. That is not the same as every idea, which several people can have at the same time - even everybody - there is no limit.

It only means that physical things have different properties than ideas. One of the consequences in reality is that physical things are scarce (as an economist defines the word). If you don't understand how "scarce" is defined by an economist, please look it up or ask an economist.

If you think copyrights are expressed agreements, then how on earth do you define an implied agreement?

Eli_Cash

June 25th, 2003, 04:08 AM

Eli_Cash:
It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.

.Ant:
"I recognise that fact, but I disagree with your thinking that just because something can be easily replicated, it should not be owned."

And you have yet to justify that position. The burden of proof is on you. I have given you solid reasons why the concept of property does not apply to ideas, and you have yet to explain why it does.

Eli_Cash:
And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied.

.Ant:
"Yes, expressed how?"

By signing, or by verbal agreement in the presence of a witness.

.Ant:
"Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights)."

No its not. It's implied, because the law does not require that I sign anything or give any expression of my consent. Laws cannot change the definitions of expressed and implied, no matter how they are worded.

Eli_Cash:
Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.

.Ant:
"It should be obvious that I'm not saying that, from my comment"

Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.

.Ant:
Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

Eli_Cash:
But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?

.Ant:
"They don't. I am arguing that (well-defined) intellectual property rights are just as valid as property rights."

Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.

Eli_Cash:
But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an idea when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?

.Ant:
"I don't agree with the way patents are used - a related but distinct issue. Again, what is stealing about insisting that people pay you to buy your art (in digital form, so as not to confuse the issue)?"

Because as soon as you create that art, it no longer belongs to you. You may own the canvas that its on, but the act of expressing art is the act of placing it inthe public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it, are stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.

.Ant:
I'm not talking about communism or hierarchies, but culture. For instance, in my country's native culture, land cannot be owned. As for pecking order - so what? In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy. The point is, individual property ownership isn't a "natural" right, it is a right created and enforced by law, like intellectual ownership.

In a "non ownership" culture someone still owns property. Its just that all the property is owned by one inividual or group who controls how it may be used. Some cultures don't like to admit that anyone owns anything. We call them communists.

Eli_Cash:
No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.

.Ant:
"Yes. Cultural relativism, in this case the fact that physical things are not property in every culture, shows that property is not a "natural" concept, but an artificial one."

No it shows that some cultures are based on lies, like the idea that things are not owned. Somebody owns everything, because somebody dictates how every piece of property is used. Some cultures don't like to admit this, but there is no way around it. But I'm glad you admit that you are a cultural relativist. Now take it to the next step and admit it was alright to be a Nazi in WW2 era germany.

Eli_Cash:
But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.

.Ant:
"No! Are you blind to your own culture? The idea that material things can only be possesed by one person at a time is not a global, omni-applicable concept. What basis do you have for thinking that property ownership is more natural a right than intellectual ownership? It's obviously easier to enfore property ownership, but that doesn't make it more natural."

Somebody always has a final say-so about any physical peice of property. This is a natural fact. You cannot get around it.

.Ant

June 25th, 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If you think copyrights are expressed agreements, then how on earth do you define an implied agreement?
I was using them interchangeably (sorry to be confusing and inaccurate).

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights).
No its not. It's implied, because the law does not require that I sign anything or give any expression of my consent. Laws cannot change the definitions of expressed and implied, no matter how they are worded.
When you click "I Agree" on the licence agreement when installing a software program, you are giving your consent.

This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.