Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.

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.

	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>>

	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.

	*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.

	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?

	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.

	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>>

	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>>

	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>>

	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.

	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.