You cut out 2 seconds of it. You could argue that that's an entirely different song.

You could, but the court would still say no. Part of the copyright law states that even copying a portion of a work still constitutes copyright infringement.

... they could say singing it or playing the song on an instrument is illegal...

Not really. Reproducing the work in a new form (singing isn't exact reproduction, unless you're really damn good) can fall under Fair Use as it affects how much origial content is taken.

Copyright law is a gray area, and is always subject to the exact circumstances of the case. It's not just the action, but the motivation, and the extent of the copying that determines if it's really illegal.

They can't take that away. Sure it's reasonable to regulate the selling of the patented or copyrighted product, but to regulate how you use it is just wrong.

No law out there that I know of, makes it illegal to use a patented/copyrighted item you bought for your own use however you want to. It only covers what you do with that work when you give/sell it to someone else. If you make your own segway, they can't sue you.

Another aspect is non-copyright mp3s, ones freely available to download and share from various websites. Many of my mp3's are these, Also many are my own recordings from the radio, from my vinyl collection, and even from old cassettes! Mp3 is not so much a pirating medium, but a superb archiving/ storage format that is incredibly convenient. Many of the mp3s on my machine are tracks that i composed myself.

Give/Sell or Show to someone else. So if you purchased Braveheart, and then invite a hundred people over to watch it for free...... you never gave or sold it...... but it would raise issues.

Calvin

Such loss is simply not present in copyright violation cases; whether or not copyright violation is immoral, it can't sensibly be described as "theft".

If you are utilizing and enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor and creativity without compensating him for it, you have stolen it.

tanstaafl.

Damn, you should really stop ASSuming. The fact is that you CAN own "knowledge" - you can own information. You can own an IDEA or a CONCEPT. A design, a method, an algorithm, a process. That's the whole idea behind INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

Your arguments are meaningless. They're not arguments at all becaue you propose no information based on fact. Not even on educated hypothesis. The only fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. And you try and bend rules and laws that exist today, around the world, simply because you don't understand them.

"This law is meaningless because X and Y are meaningless." The problem is that "X" and "Y" are meaningless only to YOU.

Remember the other very important catch-all. Ignorance is NOT a defence. Remember that one when you're in front of a judge. Which I suspect you will be at some point.

Bruno

You can own knowledge. But you can't always own it exclusively. Once I have the knowledge, I own it, too. Let me see you take it from me.

Here's the difference I see between you and me. You keep refering back to what the law says while I keep refering back to what I think is right and wrong. And I don't see anything wrong with copying another person's idea.

So far I haven't seen any responses to my posts from you that actually contained any substance. You've just made vague statements like "your arguments are meaningless" along with various insults. You see, you're trying to have a win or lose argument here instead of just discussing the topic at hand. But if you feel that you need to try to put someone down, I feel sorry for you. I really do. Let me give you some advice, don't take debates like these, which really don't mean a thing in the long run, so personally. It only hurts you, trust me. So take a tip from my pirated Eagles collection and take it easy.

One day you just may do something with your life, like create a song or invent something, and the first time someone steals your idea you will suddenly understand and become a convert to the joys of intellectual property.

He was correct though, as we are talking about the legality of copying mp3's. If you don't take into consideration the laws that are on the books, and not philosophical ideas, then it's kinda hard to decide if it's illegal or not. Morality doesn't dictate legality an vice-versa. I think everyone has pointed out specific examples of why copying other people's mp3's are illegal, yet you continue to refer "back to what [you] think is right and wrong".

This is very true. It's "sharing" when it's someone else's stuff. When it's YOUR stuff, it's suddenly called "theft".

If you are utilizing and enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor and creativity without compensating him for it, you have stolen it.

Even assuming a "without his permission" in that sentence, I still don't believe it counts as stealing. I still maintain that the reason that stealing a physical object is wrong, is that the original owner is deprived of it. The activity you describe deprives the original creator of nothing, and so isn't really stealing. It's often illegal, and it's arguably immoral, but saying that it's illegal or immoral because it's stealing is misleading.

You have to ask why people are so keen to describe this unrelated crime as "stealing" or "piracy". Usually it's because it's obvious, because of the deprivation consideration, that stealing and piracy are immoral and should be illegal. Labelling copyright or patent violations as "stealing" is often an attempt to avoid evaluating those activities as themselves for immorality or illegality.

Peter

I have to agree with peter. Taking something that the person doesn't lose is hardly stealing, it's more like anti-competative acts by the consumer. By giving out free copies of something you bought, you are competing with the original seller without any loss on your part. Copyright Infringement has nothing to do with theft (press calls it theft) and everything to do with bypassing the owners ability to sell their material.

Again, what's the difference between reprorducing the song on your computer and reproducing the song on instruments? One is just more exact than the other.

You can't simply arrest someone because their actions are hurting business for another person. Should Burger King have the right to arrest you if you decide to cook your own Whoppers? The bottom line is supply and demand. You can't take away things from the consumer because you think the the new Destiny's Child cd should be going platinum. People figured out how to make mp3's. The secret's out. The music industry should just have to take the hit.

----------------------------------------
"If you don't take into consideration the laws that are on the books, and not philosophical ideas, then it's kinda hard to decide if it's illegal or not. Morality doesn't dictate legality an vice-versa. I think everyone has pointed out specific examples of why copying other people's mp3's are illegal, yet you continue to refer "back to what [you] think is right and wrong". " - Yang

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it is illegal, but whether or not it should be.

I hate to do this...

Should Burger King have the right to arrest you if you decide to cook your own Whoppers?

Answer: No.. Now go copy your own music..

I figured someone might say that, so here's my reply.....

What if you made exact copies of the whopper? And then you opened up a building next to Burger King and gave them away for free? And yes, I know burgers aren't copyrighted (and for good reason), but you can see the direct correlation.

Further more, copying Burger King's burger would be just like copying a band's song on an mp3 except that a machine copies mp3's the for you. So what if a machine was created that could make exact copies of burgers? You paid for the machine, you own the machine, therefore the copies it produces are yours.

That analogy doesn't work for several reasons.. Besides Woppers not being copyrighted (the name is trademarked though..), it requires you to produce the item. Copying MP3's is something that doesn't take any skill at all to perform if you have a program do it. I don't know of anyone copying music by listening to it and reproducing the bits by hand, so I would be pretty safe in assuming that everyone uses a program.. Also, when copying music, you have an almost exact (to most it's perfect) copy of the original, and until we get replicators like in star trek, your woppers won't be exact..

Additionally, it costs you money to produce the woppers, and thus giving them out for free would make it a rather unprofitable action. While profit isn't required for there to be a violation, it's hard to say you're "stealing" their market when you are pouring money in and not getting anything back.. (MSIE doesn't count.. that's anti-competitive actions by a business)

I think we're getting off on a tangent that isn't necessary.. Copyright gives the author of a work which can be represented in a physical medium (paper, digital, whatever) the right to determine who can have copies of that work. Thus, your Xerox Burger-Copier would produce illegal copies of the burger because the artistic representation (food art anyone?) would be copied. If you copied a picture Burger King took of a wopper and sold it, you would be in violation.. Copying blueprints is a violation.. City of New York might get sued because they took the design of the 4 firefighters around the flag and changed it to be 4 different raced people. This is a violation because they own the ideas represented in the picture (not the picture as it was used for press purposes).. So here you have an example of art being a violation..

ok, I know that we are getting a bit off topic, but I did a quick search on Burger King patents and came up with a small list

I'm sure that there is something in there that says you can't xerox(tm) their burgers. Plus I think we have forgotten about trade secrets and all that (you know, how they make that yummy 'special sauce')

ok, I'll try and get back on topic now...

//matt

recipes aren't patentable, only designs of machines/software. source code is copyrighted, as well as their recipes as they wrote them down. But if I wrote down:

Burger:
1 bun
1 meat(?) patty
1 slice of onion
2 pickles
etc..

I wouldn't be violating their copyright on their recipe.. the 11 herbs and spices in the KFC chicken isn't copyrighted.. that's why it's secret.. so noone can use them.. revealing trade secrets by an employee would be a contract violation..

Perhaps his intent is the fruits of labor with intellectual property is the montary one that you get from it at a later point. If you go and distribute the property away for free then you deprive the maker of that.

Calvin

A thought to ponder. The word 'copyright" means "right to copy" and that is given by the owner of the copy right. All those that argue that copying something without permission should be legal is arguing against the concept of copy rights.

Calvin

It depends on the person. Do you think the guy who invented emacs is screaming and ranting about why he should be paid for every copy made? :-)

Calvin

Obviously, there is no physical law in the universe that ensures these things work. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc, are human intellectual devices designed to further society at large. Obviously you are an individualist, and as an individualist you are looking out for one person, and that is yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but it might be viewed as selfishness. If you never have to consider what *other* people think is right or wrong, or what we, collectively as a society think is right or wrong, with only yourself to answer to, I can only conclude that you need to increase your knowledge of ethics. What you call a debate is not a debate. You need to listen in order to debate; if you open your debate by closing your ears to the opposing side, then you'll find no one listening to you.

Anyway, back to your topic at hand. There are societies where intellectual property is considered to be common. Meaning, there are no concepts of copyrights and patents the way we, as an American society conceives of. When one person creates something, it is considered to be owned by all. This is practiced in some if not all of the communist countries. If I read your opinions right, you might as well move to Communist China where music and software and invention may be copied by anyone and you can buy DVDs for a penny. You have to wonder why societies like that do not produce unique culturally affective material on the scale of the United States? Is it because we reward the creators of intellectual property greatly and they do not? Maybe. Plane tickets are pretty cheap right now to China by the way.

Calvin

The activity you describe deprives the original creator of nothing,

Nothing? Well, nothing except the remuneration he was entitled to receive in return for your being allowed to use his intellectual property.

I think that counts for something...

tanstaafl.

Nothing? Well, nothing except the remuneration he was entitled to receive in return for your being allowed to use his intellectual property.

I think that counts for something...

What I meant is, you deprive him of nothing which he already owns. No doubt he expects to be richer after enforcing his copyright and/or patent. But a cutpurse expects to be richer after lifting your wallet: the entire issue here is whether current copyright and patent legislation creates expectations in the copyright or patent holder which it is moral for him to act upon.

Peter

P.S. "Intellectual property" is another expression, like "piracy", which seeks to prejudge the entire point we're debating here, by (IMO artificially) treating intangibles as if they were (physical) property. It is misleading to use that expression.

Though this whole issue has gotten off topic, I really have to comment.

I have two jobs in life: a programmer and a musician. Both of these jobs require that I create something intellectually and I am glad the people in my country have agreed that this work is worth protecting. The company I work for is small, but we have a great product that is protected by a patent, and this means we have a chance to compete in the marketplace. We have spent two years (and loger before I got there) and millions of dollers developing a revolutionary product, and it would stink if any of our clients could freely decide not to buy our product from us but use our research and development to build their own (which would certainly be economicly viable in some of our really big systems).

As a musician, at this point I would (and will with the album I am currently working on) freely distribute and let people copy my music, but that is my choise becase I am financing the project and I am not really doing it for profit. Record companies do have a say in who should be able to listen to music because they are responisible for it being made (though their response to mp3's has been ignorant and sad - I do agree they are loosing this battle and I am totally steamed that I can't rip a CD my wife bought me for Christmas).

As far as bands playing songs in bars, I am pretty sure it is illegal to play copywrited material if you make people pay to see your band. I lead the music at my church and we have to report all the music that we do (for free to the church goer, mind you) so the authors of the music get paid. My church is perfectly happy to do whatever we need to so that great music keeps getting written.

I do think that using music you didn't pay for (that isn't free of course) is stealing, and that is an appropriate word for it.

No, but even he (RMS) used copyright laws to ensure his work is used as he intended it. FSF GPL is firmly based on copyright laws.

Ok, point taken.

Calvin

IT's not secret, and it's not 11 herbs and spices.

Here it is in all it's glory.......

Salt, Pepper, MSG.

What, expecting something more complex?