Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 30, 2002
 Comments:
You've probably heard this all before but I feel it is now time to consolidate the arguments. This is not a troll - this is an effort to educate where the media and corperations have twisted the truth.

[Editor's note] I believe diaries of this nature are frowned upon at Adequacy.

diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Firstly lets take the word "Piracy" - this originates back in history to when Pirates would sail up to a ship and basically rob everything aboard. Basically Pirates are theives. In fact many people will state that "Copying music is theft". Who knows which bright spark decided to assosiate copying music with pirates. But simply this idea is flawed and misleading. Even US law doesnt view copyright infringement as theft.

To understand this you must understand the difference between music and material objects. Potatos, Chairs and Shoes are material objects and can be taken away. Music isnt a material object - its a steam of 1's and 0's at its simplest level. You cant hold that let alone take it away. Music cannot be stolen because music isnt a physical object. You cannot be a thief of music.

"copying music is stealing MONEY from the artist."

This is the popular image that the record industry likes to play on - that Mr Artist is some sort of shopkeeper and Mr Pirate is coming in and stealing his goods - taking money from his very pocket because of course shopkeepers have value in each one of their goods.

But we're talking about copying here - not taking. Therefore no matter how much music is copied the Artist will not lose any money. Imagine a shop in which customers walked in and made their own copies of goods in the shop and then walked out with the copies - not exactly theft is it?
Everyone knows that music has no value deep down - it would be daft to suggest that if I make 1,000,000 copies of an artists music that they would be millions of $'s in red. Copying isnt taking.

"copying music is stealing money from the artist INDIRECTLY"

That when someone copies music they arent paying for it so they are taking money from the artist. Well firstly that isnt taking at all - that is simply not giving. If I robbed a $10 note from the artist then that would be taking. But a person who has copied music without paying hasnt affected the artist at all. The artist has the same ammount of money and material possesion as before the copy was made. Ie the artist has given nothing away - nothing has been taken. Copying isnt taking.

"The artist has a right to their own creation - they can charge what they want for people to listen to it"

No one should have rights over pure data. Sure if the artist wants it locked up privately they shouldnt release it. But once released, it is just 1's and 0's or notes on octaves or A's B's and C's or *'s #'s and 's - there are infinite ways of representing it. You can graphically represent a drawing on paper, you can represent it as binary, as a single number, in any one of an infinite number of formats, MP3, WAV, MIDI, any you choose to make. Noone can own pure data - all data is is a pattern. Noone can own a pattern - its a stupid idea. You can own a chair, or a hat or car but its stupid to even suggest you can own something which doesnt exist. You'd laugh if someone said they wanted to copyright the number 24805354230597239488424 - you wouldnt expect the law would let them but still it happens all the time with music - the law in its infancy still allows people to copyright pure data.

"Without people paying for music, the music industry will die out"

No, its impossible it would never die out - it would just change. There are many other sources of money other than CD sales. But hey if the music industry is based on fake foundations and beliefs then why shouldnt it go the same way as the dot com companies where only the useful realistic companies survive? I dont see why we should support lies just because these lies make money. Its time the music industry changed to accept reality. Even its own customers are fed up with the prices it charges for music. In many respects lots of money harms music talent rather than promoting it. You just have to look at many of the boy/girl bands created solely for making money to see that music is being used for profit - that the big record companies arent really helping music as much as the smaller record companies. If the music industry went a little poorer I dont think it would be a bad thing at all for music.

"copying music is illegal. The law is the law and you must obey it and not question it. The law is always right - it cant be wrong"

What about the laws against black people in the 60's? You think they were right? You would applaud anyone who stood against them then. Stop being hypocritical - the law isnt always right. It changes all the time. Im saying that the current copyright laws applied to music are wrong.

       
Tweet

That was... (none / 0) (#1)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 09:58:12 PM PST
...a very long diary.
Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

 
what a moron (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:37:26 PM PST
Read this and find me an instance of the word "money". Copyright is about the right of copy, without which an artist can have no artistic control over his or her work. The reason you propeller heads always bring up money is, first, because you arent artists, you are consumers and this consumer bias colors all your perceptions, your insights and your elaborated intellectual property doctrines.

Secondly, as lowly technicians, you cannot seem to understand that computer code is unique because it is rarely original. Naturally, as lowly technicians, you think all art is like code. It never occurs to you that as popular as the GPL might be for code, it isnt a consideration for art; it frankly doesnt fucking matter if someone steals the GPL version of an algorithm that was worked out 25 years ago in psuedo code in the pages of some comp. sci. journal because that psuedo code is the only original expression that matters. Similiarly, it frankly doesnt matter if someone steals your hack for for sorting mp3 titles.

It was a big mistake to allow copyright protection for code in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, code should only be protected by patents.


You must be an 'artist', (none / 0) (#3)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:48:00 PM PST
and as such I bow before your creative powers.

Of course code is not art, all us 'coders' do all day is copy stuff out of books and from usenet - didn't you know that? It's called 'Open Source'.

Best Regards,
gcsb.


Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

i'm a programmer (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:14:49 PM PST
the code i write is protected because it's labor that earns money. If you infringe on the code you interfere with my labor. If you interfere with my labor you interfere with my ability to earn a living. None of the code I write is protected because it is original. In fact, 99% of all code -- if not more -- is unoriginal. That doesnt mean there is no unoriginal algorithms, of course, but orginal algorithms are patented or published by academics (quicksort is not under copyright, for example.)

I rescind my statement that code shouldnt be protected by copyright. Anything that can be copied should and is protected by copyright.


Sir, (none / 0) (#7)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:18:58 PM PST
Your last sentence has confused me greatly. Could you perhaps rethink it and resubmit your final statement.

Regards,
gcsb.


Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

turn off IP-Token cloaking (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:22:39 PM PST
Your last sentence has confused me greatly.

Take the word 'be' and insert it in the only place it would make sense.


Excuse me? (none / 0) (#10)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:45:08 PM PST
    Your last sentence has confused me greatly.


Take the word 'be' and insert it in the only place it would make sense

Which word 'be' is that exactly? And where would I put it? Into a coherent reply maybe as you seem to be unable to form one.

Regards,
gscb.


Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

 
Excuse me? (none / 0) (#11)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:45:39 PM PST
    Your last sentence has confused me greatly.


Take the word 'be' and insert it in the only place it would make sense

Which word 'be' is that exactly? And where would I put it? Into a coherent reply maybe as you seem to be unable to form one.

Regards,
gscb.


Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

10 mov moron,clue 20 jmp 10 (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:01:22 AM PST
Which word 'be' is that exactly?

That would be the word formed by pasting an 'e' at the end of a 'b'.

And where would I put it?

I believe it was the last sentence you were having problems with.

Into a coherent reply maybe as you seem to be unable to form one.

Hold on, I'm a quick study. Let me try again with a different sentence. If your reading comprehension was as good as your ability to discern typos, you would be that much smarter for your ability to read in context.


 
Data cannot be copyrighted (none / 0) (#4)
by PotatoError on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:09:59 PM PST
"computer code is unique because it is rarely original"

Here's my usual argument against copyrighting pure data. This will show you why its stupid:

My harddrive can hold a series of 1's and 0's.
Someone can copyright a series of 1's and 0's.

This means that if any part of my harddrive is the same as a copyrighted series of 1's and 0's then i have infringed copyright.

For example if someone was allowed to copyright 100001 then anyone who was found with that sequence on their harddrive will have infringed copyright law.

Now pretend that someone has made a song and copyrighted it. In MP3 format, this song is made up of 8 million bits (1's and 0's) in a specific sequence. So this 8 million bit pattern has been copyrighted.
In WAV format, this song is made up of 20 million bits in a specific sequence. So this pattern has been copyrighted too.
In fact after we go through all possible music formats it means the artist has already copyrighted hundreds of patterns of data just by trying to copyright their song.

Now for encoding:
For simplicity lets say a copyrighted data pattern was:
1101110110

so that if anyone had this pattern on their computer they infringe copyright.
But what about the pattern:
0010001001

Its the exact same pattern but inversed so that the 1s become 0s and the 0s become 1s. Surely this must be copyrighted too as it is just another format of representing the same copyrighted data pattern.

What if I swap each pair of bits around?
0001000110

Again its the same pattern in a different format.

If I swap every 3 bits around:
1100101111

Different format again but represents the same data pattern.

So you see with a MP3 of 8 million bits I could use a number of encoding techniques to generate an billions of different binary representations of that song. You cant seriously believe that the artist can copyright an infinite number of binary patterns. But that is what is necessary if you want to copyright pure data.

What if the song can be manipulated in such a way so that one of the patterns representing it is an exact copy of another copyrighted data pattern - such as winzip for example?
How can a music artist copyright the same data pattern as winzip has copyrighted?

Accept it that data cannot be copyrighted - its stupid.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Sir, (none / 0) (#5)
by gcsb on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:13:27 PM PST
Please stop being so boring. Find another 'hobby-horse'. kthxbye.

Regards etc...


Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

 
god, you're clueless (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:19:17 PM PST
its not data that's protected by copyright, it's *expression*. Ideas are free. You cannot copyright the idea that we should take weather observations. Data is free. You cannot copyright those weather observations. What you *can* copyright is the *expression* of those observations. If this is a problem for you, make your own weather observations.


wtf? (none / 0) (#35)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:19:57 PM PST
make more sense. where did the weather ever come into this?

Stuff you said:

Ideas are free.
Data is free.
expression isnt free.

So I can copy CD's? CD's sure dont have any expression on them. What do you measure expression with?

What the fuck is an expression of a weather observation?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I have a question for you (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:42:02 AM PST
where did the weather ever come into this?

Does the word 'example' mean anything to you?

Meteorlogical observations are data like notes are data. A weather report is copyrighted like the Village People's 'In the Navy' is copyrighted.

CD's sure dont have any expression on them.

PotatoBrain, not that 'expression' is legal jargon or anything, but did you bother to read the link to Title 17? Why not? Dont you think you should *at fucking least* know what copyright protects before subjecting us to long, inaccurate, boring diaries? Is that too much to ask?

What do you measure expression with?

An expressionometer. Consider yourself persona non grata and your opinion less substantial than milk farts.


Well (none / 0) (#63)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:33:58 AM PST
If copyright law wants to protect expression I find it difficult to see how it can enforce this:

If an artists expression in the form of a song is protected then how does it know if I have infringed copyright?

Does a magic sign appear over my head if I violate the artists expression?

Surely all you can do is look for a stream of binary representing the song on my harddrive. How else are you going to find if someone has a copy of the music?
Therefore what has basically been done is that stream of binary has been copyrighted. If noone can have it on their computer without being prosecuted then what the hell else are you gonna call it other that copyright?


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

what part of *copy* dont you understand? (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:27:10 PM PST
If copyright law wants to protect expression I find it difficult to see how it can enforce this:

It doesnt matter what you "see", potato, copyrights are routinely enforced. The proof is in the pudding.

Surely all you can do is look for a stream of binary representing the song on my harddrive.

I dont care about the information on your harddrive, I care about the dissemination of that information. Having a harddrive is not illegal, violating my right of copy is illegal. If you obtain information without violating copyright, it's yours, for your personal -- not public -- consumption.

Does a magic sign appear over my head if I violate the artists expression?

Copyright does not make it illegal to "violate the artist's expression" in private, it makes it illegal to violate his or her right of copy. If you redistribute an artist's expression you are obviously drawing attention to yourself so, yes, a magic sign appears over your so called head.

Copyright is a rather specific doctrine. Copyright is not potatoerror's confusions over its most elementary concepts. See the difference? Until you make the effort to learn about a subject, your opinion on the subject is worthless. You cannot criticize something you do not understand. Without understanding, discussion is futile.


Im not trying to be stubborn (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:03:32 PM PST
I am trying to make a point.

Noone can prosecute me unless they actually check my harddrive. Whether copyright has anything to do with storage mediums is irrelavant - they would still have to check the harddrive to see if I had a representation of the artist's song on it.
Right?

So they would be looking for me having the representation of a certain song on my harddrive right?

But then the problem begins - with the word representation. I have already shown there are billions of representations of a single song. And the problem is that some of these representations can be exactly the same as innocent files. Im sure that a mathematician will be able to prove to you how solitare.exe can be considered the representation of a certain song.

That is to say that when the "copyright police" check out someones harddrive what are they looking for? Literally ANY file could represent a copyrighted song. They could have simply scrambled an MP3 for example.

The current law says that as such, they could prosecute you for anything they could prove to be a representation of a song. That they could prosecute you for having an innocent file on your computer.

You may argue that they would ignore obscure representations such as this one but then you have just opened up a back door to copyright infringement. Everyone can scramble their MP3's into an obscure format.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
That is a wholly ridiculous way to look at it (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 04:55:35 AM PST
Artists aren't seeking to copyright binary numbers, fool. They are seeking to copyright the sound that is emitted from your speakers when the proper program loads those binary numbers. Most artists probably don't know what a binary number is.

While I don't give a rip about copying music, because it's statistically true that even with the advent of mp3 and napster, the music industries earnings per quarter have gone up, not down, I just had to point out how utter ridiculous your above argument is.

If artists sought to copyright a binary string, rather than the audible sound emitting from your home theatre system, all I would have to do is go in and change that very last bit from a 1 to a 0 or vice versa, and I no longer have any copyrighted material. But thats not the case. Boner.


But its TRUE!!!! (none / 0) (#34)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:16:30 PM PST
its true!!! They are literally copyrighting binary strings!

When they apply copyright to their music they are preventing anyone from possessing ANY representation.

"They are seeking to copyright the sound that is emitted from your speakers when the proper program loads those binary numbers"

The MP3 binary string is illegal.
The WAV binary string is illegal.

So are my millions of made up binary formats. Because its illegal to possess ANY representation.
It doesnt matter that they can be read directly by a music player or not. All I have to do is reverse the algorithm and they will be playable anyway. Therefore they stand as representations of the music.

"all I would have to do is go in and change that very last bit from a 1 to a 0"
Yes but you can still be prosecuted for possessing that binary string too - because apparently it still represents the artists song.
What would be interesting is to find how much you have to chop off before it no longer does represent the artists song. 1000 bits? 1,000,000 bits?

Honestly - to copyright pure data means you are copyrighting billions of binary strings. Because pure data can be represented in billions of different ways.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Your house is just a bunch of molecules, (none / 0) (#14)
by luisa on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:08:10 AM PST
which can be represented binarily. Can bob just move in tomorrow? Since, you know, anything in the world can be represented as a string of binary numbers and only a damnfool would try to 'own' or 'have rights to' a binary string. Existence is pure data, and using your justification, nobody can be said to even possess their own flesh. Anyone then should be free to take your stuff if they want to, because nobody has any claim on binary-representable anything, right?


good point but (none / 0) (#17)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 08:23:56 AM PST
A house is a physical object. You can own a physical object because there is only one of it and you can easily actually possess it - you can touch it and you have sit in it for example.

Music isnt a physical object. You cant own it because there isnt an actual thing you can point at and say "thats the music I own". It isnt possible to "take" music, only to copy it. The same isnt true of houses.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Are we talking physical objects? (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:36:10 PM PST
If we are, then you are most certainly in the wrong! I do believe that a CD is in fact a physical object. As such, even a half-intelligent fool could recognize that replicating that object through whatever means is an obvious violation of copyright laws (unless you somehow believe that by turning the physical object into electric charges, you feel justified in believing that you haven't actually "copied" anything?).

If you honestly believe any of this, then I can advise several different forms of treatment:

1 - Learn to read.
2 - Read BOTH sides of the argument.
3 - Think: If you had created something, whether it be a revolutionary concept or something that has been around for years, would you like it if a group of snot-nosed little brats felt themselves righteous enough to steal your idea , and gave it away for free? Would you answer the same if this was your life's work and only means of income? Oh, and:

What about the laws against black people in the 60's? You think they were right?

I believe this little piece of idiocy completely sums up this questionable and flawed "article".

Thanks for your time,

gad


Ok (none / 0) (#36)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:37:54 PM PST
Well you believe the CD is a physical object. So do I :)

Now for the bit you got wrong:

Its not the CD im concerned with - its the pure data contained on it. A CD can just contain the value '5' if someone wanted it to. Does this mean that they can copyright the CD and force everyone to pay for the number 5? dont think so.

Data is there to be copied - its just numbers. You cant copyright numbers - its a stupid idea. I cant see how you would disagree on this.

If someone creates a pattern of numbers then what right do they have to copyrighting it? I know they created it but they cant simply copyright numbers

The flaw with copyright of pure data:

Lets take it to a simple level where person A's song is represented by 7 bits in MP3 form.

Artist A's song in MP3 is: 1000101
Therefore they have copyrighted: 1000101.
Therefore they have also copyrighted 0111010 because it is the same pattern represented in a different way (the 1's and 0's are switched) and obviously if anyone has this pattern on their computer then they have a format of the song.
Person A also has automatically copyrighted 0100010 because again it is the same pattern represented in a different way (each pair of bits is switched round).

But what if Artist B has already made a song represented in MP3 by 0100010?
Its sure is different from 1000101 - it wouldnt sound the same but an algorithm can turn it into the song of artist A. Immediately Artist B can prosecute artist A for infringing copyright - stupid yea?

This can be done on big scale. I could find an algorithm for changing Winzip.exe into an MP3 of a copyrighted song.
If I make a player using this algorithm then if I load Winzip.exe into it, then it will play the copyrighted song. Does this make Winzip.exe an illegal music file? Can the makers of Winzip be prosecuted for distributing copyrighted music?





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Uh, music is a physical thing. (none / 0) (#29)
by luisa on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:37:53 PM PST
(Musical and other)Sounds are waves, which have physical form in the world. You don't appear to have even a basic understanding of grade school science.


sound representation (none / 0) (#30)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:06:17 PM PST
You think that CD's contain lots of waves?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Data is a physical object. (none / 0) (#38)
by luisa on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:05:16 PM PST
Anything in the world can be represented as binary data, and as such, data has physical representation in the real world. The soundwaves on a CD manifest physically (that's how one hears music.) Those soundwaves are contained in binary form, which makes that binary data physically real. Just because the solidness is slightly different than that of a dog or cat doesn't make it less real and present in the world. The fact is, you are trying to justify stealing by saying physical things (copyrighted mp3s) aren't physical things because, well, you personally feel that they aren't. One can feel that the world owes one forty million dollars, but that won't make it so, and you can feel that data isn't physically present, but it still is. Stop taking other people's stuff without asking. It's rather rude.


precisely correct. (none / 0) (#45)
by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:03:53 AM PST
Anything in the world can be represented as binary data...

This is transparently true. What Potato hasn't realised is that music is not data. The data is a representation of the music. In other words, as anything can be represented as data, anything can legitimately be controlled as data.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

no its incorrect. (none / 0) (#59)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:08:02 AM PST
"What Potato hasn't realised is that music is not data"

Yes it is data ffs. A music player turns the 1's and 0's into waves. It still means that if I have those 1s and 0s on my computer that I have the song on my computer doesnt it?

Sure anything can be represented as data. But If I have the data representation of a Car I dont actually own a Car do I?
A car can be owned and kept in a garage. Sound waves cant be owned or kept in a box - all you can do is copy the data pattern onto something like a CD. This doesnt mean the CD is music - it just means it holds the pattern which is.

If I have the data representation of music I have that music - because data is all music is.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

oh, for a killfile. (none / 0) (#70)
by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:32:55 PM PST
It still means that if I have those 1s and 0s on my computer that I have the song on my computer doesnt it?

Not unless you play it on your speakers. For the record, I don't expect that the RIAA would object very strongly to people's owning illegal .mp3's, if they could be sure that those .mp3's would never get played.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

heh (none / 0) (#80)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:31:14 PM PST
So copying MP3's is allowed as long as I dont play them? that could work.

"For the record, I don't expect that the RIAA would object very strongly to people's owning illegal .mp3's, if they could be sure that those .mp3's would never get played."

Heh spot the hidden pun in that one :)




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by hauntedattics on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:53:46 AM PST
Surely, Mr. Error, this horse is long past dead?




 
Every time you write about this, (none / 0) (#16)
by derek3000 on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:08:18 AM PST
you make me more opposed to your ideas of 'free stuff'.

Maybe I can explain this a little better because I'm a musician (Nathan, wanna jump in?). I work hard on my compositions. I try to make each one original, and there's a lot of thought and effort involved. To me, the sound that I hear when I'm done with all of that work is reward enough. However, if I bought some CD and a band recorded one of my songs without crediting me, how can I not feel slighted? For me, it has nothing to do with money.

On top of all of this, you would interfere with my right to charge what I want for my goods. You can't determine the price that I sell my goods at. You can influence it, but you are not the one who created the goods. I did.

Oh, did I forget your 'free market' argument? Let's take care of that one right now, because I will always be a champion of a free market economy--your twisted idea spits on the idea of freedom. It goes something like this:

If company A comes up with X, it has no right to it. Company B can use X. The competition is in support and other areas. So if company B has better customer service and whatnot, then A has to change or lose business.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard. It works for companies like Red Hat because Linux was deemed 'free' by its creator. But if Band B uses my shit, but is better looking and makes more money as a result, how is that right?. They are getting away with stealing. Plain and simple.

Now go fuck your mom.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

You misunderstand me (none / 0) (#18)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:13:36 AM PST
"However, if I bought some CD and a band recorded one of my songs without crediting me, how can I not feel slighted?"
I agree that the law should prevent people taking credit for others works. I agree with this lots. But I disagree that copyright should prevent a person from copying data for themselves only.

"On top of all of this, you would interfere with my right to charge what I want for my goods. You can't determine the price that I sell my goods at. You can influence it, but you are not the one who created the goods."
Thats true - you can sell CD's at whatever price you want but you should be selling the CD not the music on it. Ive already said how you cant sell pure data but yes you can sell packaged data - such as a CD or DVD.

I disgree with the current law which says that a person doesnt buy the music but is buying the rights to listen to that music. Afterall, there is no license agreement anywhere and I havent signed anything so surely it will stand up in court that I have purchased the CD and data on it and when you purchase something it becomes your property. Sure, I dont have the rights to say the music is my creation just as someone who buys a toaster cant say its their creation. But I am allowed to edit the music all I want just as I can edit my toaster all I want.
I can burn it if I want, I can copy the contents on it if I want. What I cant do is copy the CD and sell the copies to people. Thats a no no.

The bottom line is you think im saying that its okay for someone to take anothers work and pass it off as their own. No! I think only the author has the right to sell the data - noone else can take credit for the work either.
But im also saying that its not illegal if you choose not to buy it.

I think this is the worse act of criminality there is in this field. The law preventing this is the same law that prevents a TV manufacturer copying another companies TV's for example. This should stay.
All im saying is that pure data is not like TV's - by copying your music for my own use im taking nothing from you. To be honest, with something as easy to copy as music, I dont think its even viable to sell even before we talk about ethics.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

you are WEAK! you will be destroyed! (none / 0) (#19)
by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:52:14 AM PST
I disagree that copyright should prevent a person from copying data for themselves only.

Explain to me again the difference between stealing a credit-card number and the codes from a CD. Just because it is currently technically feasible to steal music does not make it moral! Your credit-card number is not a "physical object" either, but you'd be rather upset if I copied and used it, wouldn't you?

Through stealing your credit-card number, I would steal the money access to which that number represents. Through stealing my CD data, you are stealing the ability to reproduce music that the CD represents. Musicians need to control the reproduction of music if they're to live. I suppose you'd support the dismantling of the patent system on equivalent grounds. This proves how totally inane you are.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

OT: Music-as-product vs. Music-as-<EM>logos& (none / 0) (#20)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:44:27 AM PST
I don't intend to argue about the moral justification of copying music; rather, just a small excurse into ethnic studies.

Some types of music is a service, in the sense that it is a skilled labor performed by professionals earning their bread by producing music. "Synth-pop" bands and academic symphonic music is a good example.

Other types of music are not a service, but logos, "living word" -- the unconscious undercurrent of a society. Folk music, for example. Such music intends to be as primitive and straightforward as possible, because, ultimately, the point is not to create a quality service but to express the social archetypes of people that are hard to formalize with words. To artists that create such works the ultimate measure of success is when a song spreads anonymously, becoming a true "folk song" in the sense that people from all walks of life and social strata are familiar with it, and perform it regularly.

In the second case, MP3 distribution only furthers the artist's cause -- helping to turn the song into a wide-spread "meme", and familiarizing people out of the usual "music scene" with the song.

Again, I don't want to justify music theft, I just want to remind people that music, ultimately, is just an expressive tool, and different people use it to achieve different goals.


--
Peace and much love...




music as logos (none / 0) (#23)
by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:26:07 PM PST
Which one is Beethoven? I prefer the grey areas if we need to make that distinction.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Wouldn't that be service-oriented? (none / 0) (#24)
by derek3000 on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:55:44 PM PST
I only say this because I remember something about people commissioning Beethoven to write music for their burial ceremonies. Oh, and his last diary entry contains the phrase "the customer is always right." This is, if I'm not mistaken, the first instance of such an idea in recorded history.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

HAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#26)
by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:59:37 PM PST
YOU HAVE BEEN TROOLED! HAND! TTFN!

)Nathan's busy having a birthday)
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Sir, (none / 0) (#44)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:02:41 AM PST
your comment is most disturbing. Are you implying that my post was anything less than famously hilarious?




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Beethoven. (none / 0) (#25)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:58:50 PM PST
Interesting. Certainly, "Fuer Elise" is an ever-popular cell-phone tune; I'm willing to bet that most people installing the tune on their phone have no idea who wrote it or what the tune stands for.

However, at the time of his life, Beethoven was certainly interested in the purely commerical apsects of music...


--
Peace and much love...




 
GNU/Socialism not welcome here (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:11:06 PM PST
I've replied to this same type of "right to steal" pseudo-philosophizing so many times before on here and other places I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

Here is a URL you might want to check out (it's about ebooks, not music, but it is still informative):

http://www.stormwolf.com/essays/epirate.html


Face it - your wrong (none / 0) (#31)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:29:47 PM PST
I dont agree with any of that essay. The author constantly states that Information isnt free because its illegal to copy it. This isnt really an argument because Im saying that the law is wrong.
It was illegal for blacks to vote 50 years ago. I dont think that law was right either.
So im sure you will agree that the law can be wrong.

He then goes on to confuse physical objects with pure data and loses the argument. The reason pure data cant be owned or sold like physical objects is practical rather than ethical.

The main story on this site is made of letters - pure data. I could legally create an algorithm that converted this data into the pattern of a copyrighted britney spears MP3 for example.
If I then made a MP3 player that used this algorithm then you have just infringed copyright law by posting one of britney spears songs up on this site in an encoded format.

You see the problem?



The author of that essay also has no idea of socialist world history:
"the idyllic socialist paradigm they advance has been shown to be false, and has collapsed under its own weight the world round"
There hasnt been a pure socialist country ever - communism has always been corrupt so far. Communism has yet to be tested properly. Its only supposed to work through revolution in a capitalist state anyway.

I dont agree with socialism anyway. Physical object can obviously only have one owner and I cant see how you can all share wealth as its impracticle. But data can be copied infinitely at no cost. We dont need possession rules for it...in fact these rules break down if they are forced.
Im telling you that a communist country would be able to handle data ownership much easier than a capitalist one. They would just make it all shared and free to anyone. Easy. Simple.
The capitalist idea has worked well for physical objects but foolishly the capitalist countries think it works just as well for pure data. This has created problems and conflicts. The reason these problems exist is because the current laws are wrong and inpractice. Data is best governed by socialism.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Dear Mr. PotatoHead: (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by em on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:37:50 PM PST
I dont agree with any of that essay. The author constantly states that Information isnt free because its illegal to copy it.

Yes. This makes about as much sense as "a prison inmate is not free because it is illegal for him to escape jail". Yup.

This isnt really an argument because Im saying that the law is wrong.

I'll ignore your obviously wrong position that you have a right to break any law that you can cook up any half-baked excuse to break, and point out that were things the way you wished them to be, I could say the same.

It was illegal for blacks to vote 50 years ago.

Please support this with fact. The relevant constitutional amendment in the US was passed right after the Civil War.

I dont think that law was right either. So im sure you will agree that the law can be wrong.

By which standards? By those of an egotistical, half-educated, self-serving slob with ulterior motives, like you?

I dont agree with socialism anyway. Physical object can obviously only have one owner and I cant see how you can all share wealth as its impracticle.

The expert speaks. Say, how many courses you've taken in, e.g., cultural anthropology? Are you aware what this field would think of any statement with the words "obvious" and "practical" in it? (Not to mention "I can't see how...")

In any case, you keep on fetishizing this notion that since the costs of copying "data" are minimal, you have a right to copy it. But this fundamental premise of yours simply fails. "Data" needs to be produced, and copyright is a practical system to provide incentives for its creation. If you are not willing to compensate authors for what they have created, you have no right to participate in the valuable goods they have created for your consumption.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


whoops (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:53:39 AM PST
I'll ignore your obviously wrong position that you have a right to break any law that you can cook up any half-baked excuse to break...

...Are you aware what this field would think of any statement with the words "obvious" and "practical" in it?


 
how many times... (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:01:26 AM PST
It is not the binary data which is protected by law, it is the music itself.

But if munging web pages into bitstreams which exactly match the data on a Britney CD keeps you busy, then all the better for everyone else.


Ok then (none / 0) (#60)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:13:53 AM PST
So I have a file on my hard drive called song.mp3

"It is not the binary data which is protected by law it is the music itself."

But song.mp3 is binary data. So this data isnt protected by law? I can distribute it yea?

If there is any fuss I will rename it to song.txt and therefore I can say I dont own the music but a text file containing gibberish. Although I can still play this in an MP3 player you are saying that its not illegal to do so.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Queen Latifah (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:15:26 PM PST
Queen Latifah has a new song on the radio. At the end she raps out the line "Copywritten lyrics...don't copy me."

There you have it from the very mouth of the artist. This woman is absolutely demanding that you pirates stop copying her music. She knows, firsthand, the economic realities that your illegal actions bring to her and her family. She is obviously concerned. She wants to put food into the mouths of her children but realizes that you stand in her way.

Stop your atrocities. Have you no compassion for the plight of others?


she can shut up (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:06:58 PM PST
Just cuz shes an artist just means that she probably has a biased view of copyright law.

"She knows, firsthand, the economic realities that your illegal actions bring to her and her family"

Awww. Well maybe everyone should be forced to buy her CD then.


Ill tell you another story about a musician called Bob. He created a song and noone wants to buy it..he's starving now. Its all the fault of people who only buy the popular music. You are making artists like Bob suffer by not buying his work.

Look, many many good bands exist without charging for their music. Most of the utter rubbish is created from multi-million dollar pop stars. I dont see any correlation between money and creativity.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Which bands? (none / 0) (#37)
by elenchos on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:43:37 PM PST
And why don't you restrict yourself to taking their music and leave alone those who have not chosen to give it away?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Unsigned bands? (none / 0) (#50)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:11:19 AM PST
You know the majority of people who make music out there.
I "take" noones music. I just copy it. How long does it take you to get this concept that copying isnt taking?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Like which bands? (none / 0) (#66)
by elenchos on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:04:03 PM PST
Can you tell me the name of one? Can you tell me how they make a living? Do they sleep on their mom's couch? Work at KFC? Collect welfare? You have lots and lots of them to choose from, and you think you know what you're talking about, so share some of this vast store of information with me, will you?

How long does it take to "get" a concept that is false? For me, a very, very long time, I would hope.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Ok (none / 0) (#75)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:53:55 PM PST
visit www.flashrock.com theres a whole list of unsigned artists there.

You can find even more on MP3.com and lots of other places - i mean lots. Some of these people give their all music away for free - they just want the recognition. Others will sell some of their MP3's while giving others away as samples. Dont ask me what jobs they hold. It doesnt matter to me, I never check - I dont know where to find out either. Maybe you should listen to some of it. Sure, it isnt pop - if you like boy/girl band manufacured pop you will be disapointed. But it isnt crap music by any standard. Its as good as much of the signed stuff out there and occasionally you find really good unsigned songs.

Obviously they manage to make a living while creating good music. Obviously they must enjoy making music otherwise they wouldnt do it. So its stupid so say that artists require money to make music.

It takes large budgets to make and copy songs onto CD's and distribute them to shops. But distributing music over the internet in MP3 format can be done by the artists themselves. That is why the record companies are scared of technology - they know it will mean the death of their control over artists and therefore the death of their profits.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

So go download some of that stuff. (none / 0) (#84)
by elenchos on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:29:06 PM PST
They say you can take it, then take it. But how does it then follow that you can take music from everybody else too? The only way you can take what you don't have permission to take is by theft.

What makes it so obvious to you that they make a living? It looks to me like half of those guys do live off their parents, or their government check. Maybe they inherited a trust fund. What ever it is something else is subsidising their music hobby.

What "obvious" signs of their lucrative music trade are you seeing? I'm just blind like that. So help me see.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
If... (none / 0) (#43)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 06:22:21 AM PST
everyone's heard Bob's music, but no one wants to buy it, isn't that an aesthetic commentary on its intrinsic value? The same thing is happening to Mick Jagger, Kid Rock and Mariah Carey these days, even with their enormous marketing and PR budgets. It's not just the no-names.

Should we be forced to buy Bob's music if we don't like it? Wow, that's really anti-democratic...oh sorry, I forgot, you're a communist.

And I wouldn't talk trash about Queen Latifah if I were you, out of common sense if for no other reason.




then.. (none / 0) (#55)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:58:52 AM PST
Should I be forced to pay for music even if I like it?

You cant say that im "stealing" money from them by not paying for music. Thats like saying your stealing money from the artists whose music you dont buy.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

What the hell? (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:39:53 PM PST
You cant say that im "stealing" money from them by not paying for music. Thats like saying your stealing money from the artists whose music you dont buy.

Why did you state the same idea twice but in different words? Dumbass.


ok (none / 0) (#78)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:17:24 PM PST
I was pointing out the flaw in the stealing argument.

"You cant say that im stealing money from them by not paying for music"
I am copying the song.
I am not paying the artist.
Therefore I am taking money from the artist because you didnt pay.
Therefore im am stealing.

"Thats like saying your stealing money from the artists whose music you dont buy."
You are not purcasing the song.
You are not paying the artist.
Therefore you are taking money from the artist because you didnt pay.
Therefore you are stealing.

See everyone says the top argument is true but therefore they must accept the bottom one is true.
Either that or believe what I do - that both are false.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Ya know... (none / 0) (#71)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:23:49 PM PST
Should I be forced to buy sheet music for a song even if I like it? Why can't I just walk into the music store and take what I want without paying for it? Same thing, right?

No, you're not stealing money from artists, you're stealing their property, the property by which they make their living. If you were a car dealer and someone stole one of your cars, it's the same as someone stealing however much money that car is worth. What about this concept don't you understand???



 
Bob is a moron (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:10:12 AM PST
The fact that Bob's music doesn't earn him any money is entirely Bob's fault. If he likes to make the music he makes, fine, go ahead. If he expects it to earn him a living then he'd better realize that he has to make what other people like. Maybe that pisses him off so maybe he just keeps on making stuff that no one wants to buy. Or maybe he decides that he'd rather live in a mansion so he starts writing songs like the ones he hears on the radio.

'Good' is completely subjective. I'm sure that many 'free music' bands exist that I might even like to listen to. It doesn't have any bearing at all on Queen Latifah though because she chose to charge for her music and they chose to give theirs away. She drives a Ferrari and they drive a communal VW bus. If they are pissed off about that then they should take a serious look at their business plan to see where they went wrong, not just blame society's taste.

No one ever said there was any correlation between money and creativity. There isn't. Stephen King has been releasing the same damn book under a different title for 20 years and he probably had to buy a forklift to move his pallets of money around. But just because he sucks and my next door neighbor is talented (but broke and unknown) doesn't mean its acceptable to go steal all of Steve's stuff.

You and the entire culture you represent is just sickening. If you spent half as much time working as you do figuring out why everyone should give you everything, you'd be able to afford to buy whatever you wanted.


ok (none / 0) (#61)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:28:02 AM PST
"If he expects it to earn him a living then he'd better realize that he has to make what other people like"
This is the problem with "popular" music. Most of the money doesnt go into making the music "good" but simply advertising it. Many complete shite songs have got to number 1 just because of advertising. Removing the income from record sales wouldnt stop artists creating if they really enjoyed it. What would happen is we would get rid of all the crap that was in it purely for the money.

Where did all the dot com companies go? They all collapsed because their industry was based on something flawed. The current music industry is also built on something flawed - music is unsellable - one day soon society will realise this. Peer to Peer networks will get more sophisicated allowing users total anomity and allow them to encrypt their downloads. Music sharing will become common place with noone to blame for it other than the users which also are the record companies customers. Sueing millions of your own customers? sounds crazy.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Fine (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:52:51 PM PST
Why are you spending time complaining on this weblog? You have an idea that will revolutionize the entire music industry! Go start a company that doesn't advertise their artists, you'll take over the world with that one.

In addition, please explain how the addition of money improves music? Better production equipment? Maybe replace some guy's Glaesel with a Guarneris?

The current music industry has the force of law behind hind them. It is now, and always will be, illegal to copy the works of others without their consent as long as they have sought protection for those works under copyright law. It is even illegal to facilitate copying those works, ask Napster about that. The fact that you and your Gameboy toting friends don't agree with that means nothing, and the fact that you won't let go of the idea that binary sequences have even the slightest thing to do with this argument simply destroys any coherence your position may have had. Those of us who care to abide by the law understand copyright, why it is important, why it is necessary, and what it protects. You and the gift culture your represent are the ones doomed to die out.


you are wrong (none / 0) (#77)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:11:59 PM PST
The file sharing networks on the internet will never be shut down. The gnutella network is unstoppable now. Yes it has joined the dreaded "open source movement". The record industry cant shut down the gnutella network because the gnutella network has no owner - there is no centralised power that controls it that can be shut down.
Napster fell because it was based on a centralised system. But now we have adapted so that the record industry can no longer use the law against the file sharing systems. The gnutella network is 100% legal.
Now the record industry must resort to prosecuting the users of the network - its own customers. While it messes about wondering whether to do that, we will make the network stronger and increase user anominity and secure encrypted file streaming. Eventually gnutella will dominate and be as well known and used as napster was.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Dear retard (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 05:30:29 PM PST
That's Missy Elliot, not Queen Latifah.


 
Money (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by jvance on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:50:15 PM PST
"Music isnt a material object - its a steam of 1's and 0's at its simplest level."

Money is just a stream of ones and zeros. I'm sure you won't mind if I transfer all of your electronic funds to my PayPal account.


Thanks.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

nah (none / 0) (#32)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:01:09 PM PST
I think you are confused. Money isnt just a stream of ones and zeros. Pure data and Money arent comparable. The value of money can be represented by pure data but it is not pure data.

If money was pure data then we could just copy it and create infinite ammounts of money. But that wouldnt work would it?

A car is made of molecules and these molecules can be represented as a stream of ones and zeros. But this doesnt mean that a car is just a stream of ones and zeros does it?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You don't know what you are talking about. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by em on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:09:26 PM PST
If money was pure data then we could just copy it and create infinite ammounts of money.

The universe can't hold infinitely much information.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


wtf (none / 0) (#58)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:02:46 AM PST
"The universe can't hold infinitely much information."

Are you thick or what? This has no relevance in the argument. It was a figure of speech. Whether the universe can or cant hold infinite ammount of data is irrelevant to the point I was making.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
stop farting, you're smelling up the place (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:49:53 AM PST
Pure data and Money arent comparable. The value of money can be represented by pure data but it is not pure data.

The value of music can be represented by pure data, but it is not pure data. Note that I dont even have to know what you mean by the concepts 'pure data' or 'money'. I dont have to read your feeble mind at all because it is enough to refute empty, meaningless sentences with a simple 'you're wrong, potatobreath.'

Readers, ignore potatomush on the subject of copyright as on every other subject; he doesnt even know that copyright protects expression.


look you dumbass (none / 0) (#49)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:09:11 AM PST
If I am caught with a certain pattern of 1's and 0's on my computer I can be prosecuted for having an illegal copy of a song. Therefore this pattern of 1's and 0's HAS been copyrighted.

Only on the higher level does copyright apply to "expression".

What part of it dont you understand?

If web sites were REALLY copyrighted then we would have to pay to view them. What a shite internet that would make.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

*fart* (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:36:53 AM PST
If I am caught with a certain pattern of 1's and 0's on my computer I can be prosecuted for having an illegal copy of a song.

Oh, a *certain* pattern, is it? So, if you use notepad.exe to write out this certain pattern, you go to jail, right?

Time for your nap, potatonappies.


your mother (none / 0) (#56)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:00:38 AM PST
"if you use notepad.exe to write out this certain pattern, you go to jail, right?"

Yes you dumbass - thats what the law says. If you have the song in text format you still have the song. Your backing me up not arguing against me.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

in that case (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:32:39 AM PST
I didnt understand what you meant by "only on the higher level does copyright apply to expression", potatonuts. It would cut down on useless debate if you were coherent.

Right then. Copyright applies *only* to expression. No "higher" or lower levels of data is required to obfuscate the issue of copyright for your continued misunderstanding. If you reproduce my expression, of course you will be reproducing it using a form of data, numbnuts. Whether you reproduce it using analog patterns on a tape or digital 1's and 0's is irrelevant. It is very easy to write 1's and 0's, but only a *specific arrangement* of 1's and 0's (data) will *reproduce* my *expression* on an appropriate recording device. Please read Title 17 and shut the fuck up.

(Note that if you *interpret* my music in, say, a painting, you will not be reproducing it.)


ah ah ah! (none / 0) (#79)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:27:58 PM PST
"It is very easy to write 1's and 0's, but only a *specific arrangement* of 1's and 0's (data) will *reproduce* my *expression* on an appropriate recording device"

See thats where you are wrong! Ive already told you there is no specific arrangement of 1's and 0's for a song.
In fact there are BILLIONS of arrangements which can *reproduce* your *expression*. Im not joking - a song can have BILLIONS of binary representations which all *express* the same song.

So doesnt that blow copyright law away?
Because there are so many representations of songs, you get loads and loads of clashes. You must understand that a specific binary stream can represent many different songs - its just how you process that stream. A MP3 player processes a binary stream differently from a WAV player for example - and both of these process a binary stream differently that NotePad.

What happens when a binary stream can be proven to represent 10 differnet songs? Have I violated the expression of 10 artists?

What happens if I can prove that WinZip represents a song? Has the company who makes winzip violating the artists expression by distributing WinZip over the internet or has the artist violated WinZip's authors expression by illegally copying the program into music form?




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
OK, I think I've got one. (none / 0) (#47)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:55:30 AM PST
You keep saying that the artist is copyrighting the binary numbers. People keep telling you that this is not true, but you still won't think about what they are saying.

Here is what you are missing: The music is copyrighted, not the MP3. The mp3 being a copyright violation is secondary (anyone feel free to jump in here and correct me). Here's why:

You fail to realize that binary numbers are not the be-all and end-all, that mp3s are not the sole representation of music. They are just one format. So, if I choose to use letters instead of numbers in my new format, and "Hit me Baby One More Time" ends up being "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," then WTF?

The whole 'physical object' thing might be correct, but you have to admit that you are getting something for nothing. I admit to downloading massive amounts of mp3s, but I have everything on vinyl. It is justified--I have a copy of the original thing. I'm not going to infringe on your right to download shit illegally, but it's still wrong, corporate doublespeak notwithstanding.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

So (none / 0) (#48)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:50:10 AM PST
good, you understand that music can have many formats. If I have certain strings of binary on my computer I can be prosecuted for having an illegal copy of the artist's song. Therefore I think its obvious that this string of binary has been copyrighted.

Your post above is pure data - it can be a format of a song too. Therefore it infringes copyright.

If I made a player which could rearrange the data in your post so that it represented a copyrighted song - something which is time consuming but not difficult - then you have just posted a copyrighted piece of music on adequacy. Like you said, it doesnt matter what format it is in just that it represents the music.

Thats why artists shouldnt be able to copyright music - because its pure data and inpracticle to copyright.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

no... (none / 0) (#51)
by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:36:23 AM PST
If I made a player which could rearrange the data in your post so that it represented a copyrighted song - something which is time consuming but not difficult - then you have just posted a copyrighted piece of music on adequacy.

No, you would have created a program designed to violate copyright. The existence of an .mp3 file is not in itself a copyright violation. Its illegal use to reproduce music is a copyright violation.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

thank you. (none / 0) (#52)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:17:13 AM PST
At least someone gets what I'm trying to say.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
not true (none / 0) (#64)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:41:15 AM PST
If I make a MP3 player which *happens* to turn your post into a copyrighted song then I can claim I didnt know. Its not illegal to create music players.
The fact still remains that your post is an illegal copy of a song.
It doesnt matter if there is a player for it - If I have an illegal MP3 on my harddrive I still get prosecuted even if I dont have an MP3 player installed.

It doesnt matter whether its playable right now - just that it can be made playable. I can encode MP3s so they are not playable. But if I did this then im sure you would still say im infringing copyright wouldnt you?

In effect every post on this forum can be made playable as an MP3 given the right algorithms. Thats why the whole idea of copyrighting pure data is stupid.

One day someone will exploit this problem in a music solution. Then the music industry will crumble.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Cripes (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:02:20 PM PST
Allow me to interject here:

Potatoe is retarded, obviously. Your fantastic examples only serve to obfuscate the point of this matter, which is: Copying music is a violation of copyright. You keep mentioning the fact that a string of binary numbers on your hard drive is copyrighted, but you are a fool. What is copyrighted is the music you got that string from and the act of turing it into a binary string is where you violated the copyright. There would be no other way to get that exact sequence of binary information despite your fantastic ideas about writing players that turn Adequacy posts into Brittney songs.


If you dont want to understand (none / 0) (#81)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:36:31 PM PST
then shut up.
I made a legitimate point.

"There would be no other way to get that exact sequence of binary information despite your fantastic ideas about writing players that turn Adequacy posts into Brittney songs."

ANY data stream can be converted into another data stream. That is ALL data is related.

So with a couple of heavy algorithms every file on your computer could be turned into the MP3 version of a copyrighted song. No question about it.

Doesnt that mean you have encrypted MP3 files all over your computer?

Whats the difference between the encrypted MP3's on my computer and the ones on yours other than the fact that yours were unintentional? The law can hardly prove intention can it. Face it, if I go down so do you.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
But think of it this way... (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:58:10 AM PST
I agree with this article's subject but not the reasons it gives.

I'm all for MP3s of music and downloading them, but just because I'm downloading them doesn't mean I won't ever own the CD. I've bought more CDs now I have access to MP3s than I did before.

Let me repeat that.

I have bought <b>more</b> CDs now than I did before <b>because</b> of MP3 "Piracy"

If I couldn't download and listen to a (technically inferior) MP3 of a few tracks of an artist's album, I wouldn't risk buying the CD because I might not like it and it would have been a waste of my time and money.

If you had the chance to hear the music first, then decide to buy it, and then you're certain that you have confidence in what you're buying.

You wouldn't buy a Car without seeing what it looked like first would you? For all you know, what you think is a top-of-the-range Subaru could be an old Skoda.

There is also the tactic of releasing a few MP3s of a bands new album before the album is released so that it generates a bit of free advertising. The Manic Street Preachers were said to have done this with their album "Know Your Enemy" (correct me if I'm wrong). As a result, existing Manics fans that were looking for MP3s stumbled upon the new songs, which whetted their appetite for the Album.

But yet we are "stealing" from the musicians and from the companies, who are <i>obviously</i> losing so much revenue over this.

They probably spent more money shutting down Napster in the courts than they ever <i>potentially</i> lost through the distribution of MP3s.

Perhaps the music industry doesn't want to loose all the impulse buying of CDs just because the cover looks pretty?

Just my two cents, for all it's worth.



even better (none / 0) (#83)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:51:40 PM PST
The Record Companies are now making CD's which wont play on computers - but only in stereo's.

Sounds good doesnt it? Will this stop people ripping CDs to MP3s?

Uhh no. The record companies have made a mistake on this one. If this happens then one day Stereo's will run only CD's and computers will run only MP3's.
Almost everyone owns a computer nowadays - many people (like me) havent bothered buying a stereo because my PC is just as good as one.
So in the future people like me wont be able to buy CD's anyway! This can only increase the usage of MP3.
And as for preventing CD ripping - it can still be done but its more difficult.
But it only takes one person to rip the music off the CD into MP3 and distribute it online and everyone can access it.
Now try to convince me that the record companies actually have brains cuz I dont see it.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Origination of the term "Piracy" (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:06:23 PM PST
I think you are correct in your assertion that the term Piracy originated with the Pirates on the high seas (although it may have an earlier origin). As for how it came to be applied to copyright infringement, well, I'll relate a little anecdote I read somewhere. Sorry that I cant attribute this, it's just something that I found lurking in my mind.

Long ago and far away, in a different age, we didnt used to have copyright law. The printing press was a new invention and authors would spend large amounts of time writing books only to be ripped off by the publishers who owned the printing press's, who would just publish the authors work without paying them. After all, if you wasted money paying the author then other publishers could sell the book cheaper, so there wasnt any point. The practice of publishing an author's work without their consent came to be known as piracy, probably becase at the time piracy on the sea was still a problem and the authors saw themselves (rightly so, IMO) as being robbed of their work.

Now, wether or not that anecdote is true or not the fact remains that piracy is a term for unautherised copying and publication of a copyrighted work, and "sharing" mp3's is piracy. Most of us here are using machines that are easily capable of common audio, video and print "desktop publishing" tasks. Sticking to the unautherised distribution of mp3s, when you encode a CD to mp3 then you are probably covered by your fair use rights, depending on your local law, but when you "share" (read: publish) that file with other people who dont own the original CD themselves, I cant think of a single country in the world that has copyright law which would consider that to be legal. You are, in effect, playing the role of the publisher in pre-copyright days, putting out your own copies on your own printing press and not giving a single penny back to the original artist.

Now, as for the rest of your misinformed diatribe, I suggest you get yourself an economics textbook and read about the difference between "public" (read: non-exclusive) and "private" (read: exclusive) property. Public property has to be payed for somehow, in the case of physical public property such as roads we have taxes, what do you suggest for music? Sure, musicians can garner other sources of revenue, but if your against the concept of intellectual property as a whole (as that absurd paragraph about "pure data" suggests), how do you suggest writers earn a living? Reading aloud on the radio? Dont try to bullshit about writers managing to live OK hundreds of years ago, ever since the invention of the printing press the sole protection for writers against the ravages of Capitalism has been copyright law.

In short, your argument reduces to "Its not fair, I want something for nothing!!!!". Copyright law is there to protect the artists by giving them control of their work. If the artists want you to share their music on whatever the latest Napster is, they'll say so and let you. That you suggest that they shouldnt have the right to control their own property shows how little respect you have for them and their work and this transparent attempt to justify your wrongdoings shows how morally bankrupt you are.

--
Nick
Course, if you were arguing against IP from a socialist perspective you may have my backing, but I fail to see how denying arists income is standing in solidarity with them...


Thanks (none / 0) (#82)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:45:12 PM PST
Ta for that historical stuff if it is accurate. Ive been looking for where the word piracy originated but couldnt find anything like that.

My view on copyright of data isnt so much "data should be free because its better that way" but that data should be free because "copyright is unenforcable". I am willing to give music artists contributions to show gratitude for their work but with something like data I dont believe anyone should be able to force copyright on it.
Im positive that one day the flaws with ownership of data will be exploited in some sort of program or file sharing service and on that day, the idea of data copyright will simply crumble. So we might as well change over now.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.