Digital piracy of movies is 'wrong,' college students chided [by -- ugh -- Jack Valenti]

Cox News Service ^ | 02/26/2003 | Nora Achrati

[wtc911]

Let's see, you say that an idea can't be owned. If you don't want other people to have it keep it to yourself. In this argument you equate film to an idea. So, if the makers of a film don't want other people to have it they should keep it to themselves. Everyone having free access to the fruits of others labor is one of the legs of the essence of communism.

[Schnucki]

What are they doing teaching morality at the university? I thought the university was the place where everything is tolerated except morality. ;)

[wizzler]

What I have in mind as fraud is not mere free downloading, but copying for the purpose of resale.

Well, what we were talking about was free downloading, which I said was analogous to stealing. You replied by saying, no, it's not analagous to stealing, it's more analogous to fraud.

Granted, the scenario you subsequently laid out -- passing off another's copyrighted work as one's own -- is analogous to fraud. But we were talking about downloading.

Anyway, enough on the semantics stuff. We both know where the other is coming from here. If the word "stealing" is going to get in the way of discussion, I won't use it; I'm not that invested in the word.

The bottom line: You don't have to profit off my copyrighted work to be guilty of infringement.

what is your opinion of FR's unauthorized reproduction of news articles?

That it is wrong. I've argued vehemently against the practice, elsewhere in the forum.

[wizzler]

Wizzer go follow the links provided, the info's there.

Trust me, I'm quite familiar with the details of the MAP case. Here's what I was trying to get you to acknowledge: Nobody was convicted of "price-gouging" OR price-fixing. The labels settled, which does not establish guilt. That was my point.

Look, if you like the idea of a "free market" that isn't actually free, then you'll love the MAP suit and settlement. If you like the notion that consumers are helpless victims forced to buy CDs at prices they're uncomfortable with, then you'll love the idea of filing a "claim" to get money from the record labels. And if you like these things, I wonder if you call yourself a conservative.

[Cooter]

"And sometimes RIAA members determine prices by getting together and fixing them."

I left that as an exercise for you to determine on your own. ;^)

What make the MPA settlement a sham? Because all purchases were voluntary? The Attorneys General of 43 states don't seem to think so. Please enlighten me with your legal acumen.

Use of the word claim came straight from the MAP settlement. Only RIAA penguins would take offense. Unless, of course, you are confusing claim with handout. If the latter is the case then you have no idea where I stand ideologically.

[Shethink13]

(MIBII, Star Wars II, Goldfinger, ST:Nemesis, etc)

I hope you meant Goldmember?

[Sloth]

Let's see, you say that an idea can't be owned. If you don't want other people to have it keep it to yourself. In this argument you equate film to an idea. So, if the makers of a film don't want other people to have it they should keep it to themselves. Everyone having free access to the fruits of others labor is one of the legs of the essence of communism.

First of all, let's define film -- the way you are using the term, it is not the plastic, etc., that makes up the DVD, videocassette, etc., but the information contained on such media. Given that definition, then you are correct that I would say no one can own a film, because information cannot be owned, it can only be created, possessed, withheld, shared, or destroyed.

Suppose some mathematician writes and sells me a book which gives the solution to Fermat's Theorem. I read the book, and now possess the essence of it in my brain. If I explain Fermat's Theorem to my friend, or even read the book out loud to him verbatim, is my friend guilty of theft by receiving? Of course not. I am simply conveying information that I have acquired. The information is not property and therefore cannot be stolen. Once the book is published, the author cannot control who will learn his solution for Fermat's Theorem. The information will spread with or without his blessing. That is what I meant by keeping information to yourself, if you want to maintain control of it.

Now, suppose I decide to copy the mathematician's book and start selling copies to my friends. Are they guilty of theft by receiving? Of course not. They are not stealing any physical object. And I am not conveying any different information than in the earlier scenario, so they are not stealing content any more than the guy who listened to me reading. *I*, on the other hand, HAVE committed a crime. I have violated the creator's copyright by fraudulently reproducing and selling his original work without permission. I have NOT stolen anything. No property has been lost by the author. But I have violated a copyright.

[HamiltonJay]

I see, so because they settled when the writing was on the wall that they were going to be guilty, that gives them moral clout? Be real. Settlement is done for one of 2 reasons, 1 you don't have the financial ability to defend yourself (Hardly the case for the RIAA) or 2 you are guilty and don't want to get a GUILTY verdict in the courts... because then you can keep that Plausible Deniability argument you are slinging around viable. Every settlement ever signed in the past 50 years of any size always has as part of its clause NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING... doesn't mean the defendant isn't guilty as sin.

Clinton's can't practice law for 5 years, but he wasn't found guilty by a court... Sounds like you are the one throwing around liberal arguments.

Collusion whether you like it or not is illegal... anti-trust laws exist for a reason.. you make think they are bad, but I don't agree. RIAA are pond scum, they run their business horribly, and then blame their ineptitude on others. The real reason the RIAA is pissed about DFS is because it undermines their CONTROL on the distribution chain... and that is far more important and a threat to them in their minds than anything else.

Fact is they haven't changed their approach in 20 years, and they are being left in the dust. DFS should have been embraced by the RIAA, instead they view it only as a threat. Reality is there ineptitude has put them in this position, and they want to scapegoat their poor business management and actions away from theselves.

Amazing, there is nothign conservative about collusion, price fixing and market manipulation. I don't consider the RIAAs market practices a bastion of coservative principles, nor do I consider Enron's or Global Crossings practices such. Just because they are public companies, doesn't mean that there actions somehow are not destructive, illegal or immorral. Free Market is only free if it is free, collusion is not free... you can argue anti-trust laws are a bad thing if you want... history has proven monopolies do not benefit the marketplace or the consumer.. obviously blind ideology makes you wish that this were true... but its not.

THe RIAA has no one to blame for its troubles but itself... pure and simple.

The real threat is, that artists won't need the RIAA anymore, they will be able to distribute their own material independent of the labels, and that is the real fear... not illegal swapping, but them losing their control. It's only a matter of time before a big named group releases an albumn with no label at all behind them.... DFS is what is going to allow this to successfully happen, and that's where the real fear is... it has nothing to do with john q freshmen downloading the latest Nsync song.

[wizzler]

No, the word "claim" doesn't mean "handout." The definition is actually nice and straightforward: a demand for something that is owed.

And buyers are owed nothing here. They willingly purchased CDs at the advertised price. Why do you care how that price was arrived at? Why do you care if a bunch of record labels got together to decide what it should be?

Now, I know why those attorneys general care -- they've bought into the notion that trade should be managed by people like themselves, people who "know what's best" for "the public." They've bought into the notion that THEY know what a "fair price" is, regardless of what the seller thinks.

If those are the notions you've bought into as well, I guess I do wonder where you stand ideologically.

[Sloth]

I'm pretty ambivalent about downloading. Technically, it is an infringement of copyright, but I suppose walking to your neighbor's house is technically trespassing until you are explicitly given permission. In neither case is any measurable harm rendered. It's about like someone playing you music over the phone, only better quality. I imagine electronics stores that show movies or broadcasts on their display model televisions are technically in violation, too, but so what?

[wizzler]

OK, we have different opinions on the MAP case and antitrust law. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

But on to your whole thing about the "RIAA has no one to blame but itself" ....

Is it possible to have an argument about downloading and copyright without somebody tossing the RIAA red herring into the mix? Just for once? Please? These arguments inevitably descend into armchair theorizing about the economics of the record industry. Suddenly everybody's an expert on the music biz.

But who cares why -- or even IF -- the "record industry" is in trouble? For the purposes of this discussion, can't we talk about the philosophical, legal and moral implications of the issue? The RIAA just happens to be one entity arguing one side of this case. Its economic health, its Luddite attitude, its liberal politics -- none of these have to do with whether downloading is right or wrong.

These debates always get so screwy because they turn into arguments about "what's wrong with the record industry" instead of "what's wrong with downloading."

[Shethink13]

re post#47 - very, very good!

[Shethink13]

I'll take a stab at debate without the anti-RIAA argument.
Would you care to rumble? :^)

[wizzler]

Come on -- I've been rumbling for 50-something posts now!

[Sloth]

I forgot to add:

If you think FR is essentially stealing news content, then why do you come here and read articles? By viewing the page you are downloading information you didn't pay for, and creating a digital copy that is unauthorized by the creator of the material.

[Shethink13]

hehe

Well, I don't really mean rumble. Just polite discussion - a refreshing change, no?

[wizzler]

You're absolutely right. And I don't come here to read articles. I come to read discussions about news events and issues.

I don't expect to find a copyright infringment every time I click a page here. The burden is on those posting unauthorized copies, and on those facilitating that posting.

[Cooter]

Why do you care how that price was arrived at?

What happened to supply and demand?

they've bought into the notion that trade should be managed by people like themselves...

The federal Constitution contains a commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8) explicitly giving congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Each state constitution probably contains a similar clause concerning trade within the state. Therefore, trade is managed by people like themselves (i.e. representatives of the state).

If those are the notions you've bought into as well, I guess I do wonder where you stand ideologically.

I guess that would make me a constitutionalist. ;^)

And what's so wrong with customers asking for a refund?

[wtc911]

Your argument is specious at the outset. You posit that if you buy a book. Pirating "film" in any format presupposes that you are not buying it. The whole purpose of this pirating practice is to obtain the fruit of someone else's labor for free, without the copyright or liscence holders permission or even knowledge. It's cheap, sleazy and theft.

[Sloth]

You posit that if you buy a book. Pirating "film" in any format presupposes that you are not buying it.

A pirate can't buy a DVD and burn copies?

It's cheap, sleazy and theft.

It's certainly cheap and sleazy, but it's not theft. No property has changed hands.