This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary. Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong. It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage of others. Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to reduce piracy. We should all support them, to the extent that this is their purpose. When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it. If you want to listen to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions. If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work. The artist is under no obligation to release their work. It is like a gift to the world. They are free to put whatever conditions they like on that gift, and you are free to accept them or not. If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions. If you then violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others, you are breaking your agreement. You become a liar and a cheat. If you take the song without paying for it, you are again receiving this gift without following the conditions that were placed on it as part of the gift being offered. You are taking advantage of the artist's creativity without them receiving the compensation they required. This isn't complicated. It's just basic ethics. It's a matter of honesty and trust. When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms acceptable, you simply refuse. You don't take advantage by taking what they provide and refusing to do your part. That's cheating.
[From: Anonymous]
If you take the song without paying for it, you are again receiving this gift without following the conditions that were placed on it as part of the gift being offered. You are taking advantage of the artist's creativity without them receiving the compensation they required.
Of course. But this isn't about that. At least not for me. The reason I don't like DRM is that it stops me from enjoying the music I buy. Unfortunately record companies are already getting started, which got me into trouble a few weeks ago. I wanted to purchase a CD, but it had something called "copy protection" which made it impossible for me to listen to it. I e-mailed the record company asking what I should do but got no reply. So, I gave up, and downloaded the album from the internet instead, since it was the only way I could think of to get the music. Now, being an honest man (and also wanting to express my opinion) I sent a letter to the record company telling what I had done and why, and enclosed a $10 bill since I wanted to pay for the music. You can read my letter at http://www.tydal.nu/en/cd/bmg.html
Subject: CDR: Piracy is wrong
This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary.
Which is a correct statement, but an incorrect line of thinking. Piracy is an illegitimate use of a designed in hole in the security, the ability to copy. This right to copy for personal use is well founded, and there are even supreme court cases to support it. DRM removes this right, without due representation, and it is thinking like yours that leads down this poorly chosen path. The other much more harsh reality involved is that DRM cannot work, all it can do is inconvenience legitimate consumers. There is massive evidence of this, and you are free to examine them in any way you choose.
Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong. It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage of others. Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to reduce piracy. We should all support them, to the extent that this is their purpose.
When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it.
These include the expectation that the artist will be paid according to whatever deal they have signed with their label. Inherent in this deal is the consumer's right to copy for personal use, and to resell their purchased copy, as long as all copies that the consumer has made are destroyed. DRM attempts to revoke this right to personal copying, and resale.
If you want to listen to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions. If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work.
And if the artist cannot accept the fundamental rights specifically granted, they should not produce art.
The artist is under no obligation to release their work. It is like a gift to the world. They are free to put whatever conditions they like on that gift, and you are free to accept them or not.
Last time I checked the giver is supposed to remove the pricetag from the gift before giving it. By a similar argument, everyone should be happy that the WTC flying occured, after all they were kind enough not to kill anyone that's still alive. The logic simply doesn't hold.
If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions. If you then violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others, you are breaking your agreement. You become a liar and a cheat.
In fact one of the specifically granted rights is the right to share the music with friends and family, so this has nothing to do with being "a liar and a cheat" it has to do with excercising not just rights, but rights that have been specifically granted.
If you take the song without paying for it, you are again receiving this gift without following the conditions that were placed on it as part of the gift being offered. You are taking advantage of the artist's creativity without them receiving the compensation they required.
Because of that specifically granted right, that copies can be made for friends and family, it is also a specifically granted right to accept those copies. So it is merely excercising a specifically granted right. You clearly have not read or understood the implications and complexities of your statements, with regard to either logic or the law.
This isn't complicated.
Apparently it is too complicated for you.
It's just basic ethics.
It's just basic rights and excercising of those rights.
It's a matter of honesty and trust.
If the record companies were prepared to trust, why do they employ a substantial army of lawyers? Why do they pursue every p2p network? Why are they pushing for DRM? Trust is not a one-way street. The recording labels have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted in any form, what delusion makes you think they can be trusted now?
When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms acceptable, you simply refuse.
Exactly, I refuse to accept a DRM -limited environment which does not allow me full ownership of something I purchased.
You don't take advantage by taking what they provide and refusing to do your part. That's cheating.
No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of everything involved, from law to basic logic you have misunderstood it all. Joe
"Anonymous" writes
This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary.
And even if it isn't, you're going to say it anyway, aren't you?
Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong. It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage of others. Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to reduce piracy. We should all support them, to the extent that this is their purpose.
Guess again. All photons on my property are mine to decode and process as I see fit. By sending photons onto my property, you agree to these terms.
When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it. If you want to listen to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions. If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work.
The artist is under no obligation to release their work. It is like a gift to the world. They are free to put whatever conditions they like on that gift, and you are free to accept them or not.
Well, this post to Cypherpunks is my work. The conditions I put on it are that by reading it, anyone named "Anonymous" agrees to serve me until the end of time, transfer to me all their worldly goods, and permit me to sacrifice their firstborn to Baal.
If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions. If you then violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others, you are breaking your agreement. You become a liar and a cheat.
Like "Anonymous" here.
This isn't complicated. It's just basic ethics. It's a matter of honesty and trust. When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms acceptable, you simply refuse. You don't take advantage by taking what they provide and refusing to do your part. That's cheating.
Unsolicited free gifts are mine to keep. I just got some lovely address labels from a paralyzed baby-killers organization. I plan to use them on my mail, and not send them a dime. Anyone else who wants to send me free stuff, including photons, is free to do so. They won't get a cent either. Copyright should be abolished. If you don't want your secrets, or artistic works, copied and shared, you are free to keep them in a vault in your basement, for your sole enjoyment. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Anonymous wrote:
Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it.
Don't overlook the fact that when the government gives an artist a limited monopoly through copyright, the government retains some rights (e.g., fair use) to the public, whether the artist likes it or not.
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Anonymous wrote:
Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong. It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage of others.
On the contrary. Piracy, when defined your way, is a basic right. If someone has information and can copy it, it is in no way the author's concern. It would be if the author subsequently didn't have the work available, but that clearly isn't the case. Since information can be copied without in any way diminishing what the author has, piracy isn't theft. Copyrights, instead, severely limit what individuals can do with the information, equipment and other property they have. Copyright is an artificial limitation on people's rights, upheld on utilitarian grounds. It's a practice of granting a monopoly on some information by fiat to correct a market that is supposedly broken. It certainly isn't a property right, and the law doesn't pretend it ever was. Instead what copyrights are is a monopoly on certain kind of information/speech, backed by coercive power. Copyright is a compromise, and the reasoning behind its current form of is quickly becoming obsolete. Under the circumstances, it's no great surprise that there are such things as copyright wars.
Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to reduce piracy. We should all support them, to the extent that this is their purpose.
Well, then we shouldn't support them. DRM does not stop copying. If it did, we wouldn't have a DMCA hanging over our heads.
When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it.
Sure. But one part of a functioning legal system should be that conditions which cannot efficiently be enforced should not be. From my viewpoint, conditions put on by an author are tantamount in idiocy to the Firstborn Clause, and have nothing to do with what can be enforced.
If you want to listen to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions. If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work.
Au contraire. Unless your conditions are fully compatible with the right of individuals to do whatever they want with their CD-ROMs, T1s and P4s, they should not be respected. Intellectual and physical property are two institutions which cannot be meshed. You can have one or the other, but if you try both, you will end up with all sorts of nasty contradictions, or a severe bunch of limitations and easements to one of the institutions. Also, anything you'd ever want to do with IP short of building a second M$ can be achieved utilizing what protection we have for physical property. The only difference is, you will have to carry the costs. That's what's proper, not bringing the Men with Guns to people's doorsteps to harrass them about something they downloaded that's on the Internet anyways.
The artist is under no obligation to release their work.
Then why do they?
It is like a gift to the world.
Indeed, and I thank the artist.
They are free to put whatever conditions they like on that gift, and you are free to accept them or not.
But how's that a gift, then?
If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions.
No. I can very well acknowledge beforehand that I will take all gifts offered to me but will never respect any strings attached. After this, the artist can decide for himself whether he wants to offer the gift.
If you then violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others, you are breaking your agreement.
Well, this would be if there was a contract between me and the artist in which I agreed to abide by the rules set out by the author. But there isn't. I haven't promised anything, will not promise anything, and certainly will not conceed any kind of IP law to be a personal promise by me.
You are taking advantage of the artist's creativity without them receiving the compensation they required.
No. I am picking up what the artist voluntarily left on the street to be picked up.
This isn't complicated. It's just basic ethics.
Indeed. My basic ethics says freedom of speech is absolute and covers any act which involves solely the movement or expression of information. Copying fits in nicely. In fact, I might argue there is an ethical imperative to copy, as it doesn't take anything from the author, but certainly gives a lot to those who don't already have a copy.
It's a matter of honesty and trust. When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms acceptable, you simply refuse.
Come now. I'm getting my supply elsewhere, namely hot-mp3-warez.org. They give me much better terms. Call that competition.
You don't take advantage by taking what they provide and refusing to do your part. That's cheating.
You also don't do something you like and claim that others have agreed to pay for it when in actuality they haven't. That would be fraud. Even when that something is of use to others. Anyway, this discussion got old before it even started. We could debate ethics till the cows come home but what really matters, here, is who wins the wars in the end. Is it studios backed up by law or individuals backed up by hoardes of P2P programmers and DRM hackers? I'd put my bet on the latter -- nations may be powerful enough to kill millions, but they certainly aren't powerful enough to make a billion or so people respect conditions on listening to their favorite music which Britney just came up with. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Anonymous wrote:
This shouldn't have to be said, but apparently it is necessary.
Piracy - unauthorized copying of copyrighted material - is wrong.
Piracy involves someone other than a warring state attacking ships. The only recent example I can think of was the French gov't blowing up Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior. Your metaphor sucks. Unauthorized copying is sometimes wrong. However, if the copying is fair use, then authorisation is utterly irrelevant.
It inherently involves lying, cheating and taking unfair advantage of others. Systems like DRM are therefore beneficial when they help to reduce piracy. We should all support them, to the extent that this is their purpose.
For many of the proposed systems, that extent is nil. For example, the encryption used on DVD disks has exactly zero effect on anyone with appropriate tools who wants to copy the disk: Do not attack the encryption. Do not spend 200 billion computer cycles. Go directly to copying theb bits. A bit-for-bit copy of a DVD will play on any system the original would. Record and movie companies have a long history of trying to extend their control, to the detriment of both artists and audience. We should all oppose DRM to the extent that this is its purpose. Some examples: United Artists was founded by Chaplin and others as a defense against the big studios, a way for the actors and directors to get more money and some creative control. http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/TheStudios/studio1.htm See Courtney Love's rant for a recent example: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ The RIAA argued that making a cassette copy of a record you own, for example to listen to in the car, violated copyright. The US Supreme Court ruled it was fair use. The movie industry claimed that taping a TV show violated copyright. The Court ruled that at least some taping, such as recording a show to watch later or in another place, was fair use. Having lost in court, these industries are now attempting to bypass those decisions by technical means.
When an artist releases a song or some other creative product to the world, they typically put some conditions on it. If you want to listen to and enjoy the song, you are obligated to agree to those conditions. If you can't accept the conditions, you shouldn't take the creative work.
The reverse also applies. The clearest example is patent law. In return for a strictly limited monopoly on commercial exploitation of the invention, the inventor publishes details and agrees that the invention enter the public domain eventually. There's a trade-off. The basic public policy goal of patent and copyright law is to enrich the commons by getting good stuff created and into the public domain. Rewarding the creators is a step to this goal. In the US, the Constitution authorises the federal gov't: " To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for " limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their " respective writings and discoveries; (What is the legal meaning of "useful arts"? If it means only disciplines like medicine and engineering, then the Constitution does not grant the gov't the power to do anything about music or film copyrights.)
The artist is under no obligation to release their work. It is like a gift to the world. They are free to put whatever conditions they like on that gift,
No. An author cannot prevent you quoting his or her work, nor a composer stop you from humming a tune. Some things are fair use.
and you are free to accept them or not.
If you take the gift, you are agreeing to the conditions. If you then violate the stated conditions, such as by sharing the song with others, you are breaking your agreement. You become a liar and a cheat.
If you take the song without paying for it, you are again receiving this gift without following the conditions that were placed on it as part of the gift being offered. You are taking advantage of the artist's creativity without them receiving the compensation they required.
This isn't complicated. It's just basic ethics. It's a matter of honesty and trust. When someone makes you an offer and you don't find the terms acceptable, you simply refuse. You don't take advantage by taking what they provide and refusing to do your part. That's cheating.
It is far more complex than that. There are situations where various types of copying are unethical and should, I think, be illegal. Mostly, those are covered by existing law. There probably need to be some adjustments for the Internet. For example, I'd say it is fairly clear that buying a concert ticket does not give me the right to record the concert and sell tapes. It seems likely we need a bit of law that says the same principle applies if I get a piece of music off the net. Perhaps we even need some form of legal framework that has Internet "radio" stations paying royalties for muisic they play, as real radio stations do. Or a framework for choose-the-song pay-per-play music that treats it differently from broadcast material chosen by the station; if you're choosing the time, perhaps time-shifting is less of a legitimate reason for copying. Or ... However, it does not follow that we need any form of DRM software to protect the musicians' and music companies' rights on the net, any more than we need concert staff searching concert-goers for concealed recording equipment. Even if DRM software comes into wide use, neither defeating it nor distributing tools for that purpose should be an offense. There are many legitimate reasons to defeat it. A blind person wants to read an e-book, needs Sklyraov's software to defeat Adobe's stuff and get Braille output. I want to quote a movie in a review or a sociological paper and, since the paper is going on the web, I want a video quote. ... The companies involved have no more right to prevent such use than I have to sell copies of their book or film on the street corner.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Sandy Harris wrote:
The companies involved have no more right to prevent such use than I have to sell copies of their book or film on the street corner.
Speaking of Scum, (not to pull a choate, but) http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25435.html MS security patch EULA gives Billg admin privileges on your box By Thomas C Greene in Washington Posted: 06/30/2002 at 01:05 EST <SNIP> You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. <SNIP> So there you have it.
participants (8)
-
Anonymous -
daw＠mozart.cs.berkeley.edu -
Eric Cordian -
Joseph Ashwood -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sandy Harris -
Sunder -
Thomas Tydal