1stMay2007 The Day on which Moderation Died

Yes, Meta, I think I get your point. It's the old Robin Hood story writ large, that is, it's OK to steal from people who you have decided have a lot of money. That might make you feel better than if you were to steal from some poor bugger, but it doesn't change the fact that you're stealing and you're a thief.

Here's some more gross rationalization of immorality: "Stealing an album isn't quite the same as not paying your gardener. If you don't pay your gardener then the labour he's expended cutting your lawn is lost and can't be recovered. It's not re-usable. The same thing doesn't quite apply to stealing an album, which can be downloaded 1000s of times, over and over again, without extra labour being expended on the part of it's creator. ... So (given the reusability of the resource) we can't say for sure that the creator is 'losing' anything (either in terms of labour or profits)... can we?"

Let me make it easy for you. Philosophically, morally and etc. there is absolutely no difference in stealing from your gardener and stealing an album. Both are theft, in which you've intentionally benefited from someone's labor without compensating them for it.

This gets back to my whole tangible/intangible argument, which all the music to the masses internet types seem to unconsciously possess. IE: They seem to think it's OK to steal albums and movies and whatnot over the internet because all they're doing is clicking a few buttons and they never have to experience the pain and loss the person their stealing from suffers. But these same people would never go out and swipe a car or lawn mower, because that would be wrong, it could land them in jail and they would have to physically experience the theft and its consequences. Holding these views is grossly hypocritical.
 
Based on this logic, all used book stores are breaking copyright laws, aren't they?
 
Me too. Does anyone with internet access and any sense actually go into a shop and buy a CD or a book these days? Why go to all that trouble when you can have it delivered to your door for a knockdown price. :shrug:
 
samcdkey

Based on this logic, all used book stores are breaking copyright laws, aren't they?
Click to expand...

No, I believe that there is a royalty that is paid when a book is sold second hand, it is like one for radio and TV, everv time a song is played, the artist get a few pennies in royalty fee, the same when it is used in advertising, the same happens for the movie industry, and the actors, when a movie is played a song, or speech, on TV, there is a formula by which the numbers of house holds watching is computed, and then a fee assessed against the network based on that number.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
samcdkey



No, I believe that there is a royalty that is paid when a book is sold second hand, it is like one for radio and TV, everv time a song is played, the artist get a few pennies in royalty fee, the same when it is used in advertising, the same happens for the movie industry, and the actors, when a movie is played a song, or speech, on TV, there is a formula by which the numbers of house holds watching is computed, and then a fee assessed against the network based on that number.
Click to expand...

O rly? Like when I sell my used books on ebay, the author gets a royalty?

Wow! Who pays it?
 
Singularity

Here we are arguing that the laws are wrong and there u r repeating the same song again.
Click to expand...

And exactly why are the laws wrong? I consider the law of making retro active abortion illegal, as wrong, but you don't see me braking it, just because I might disagree with it.
 
You believe wrongly, BR. You're saying that when Grubby Ken's Books buys a book off customer A and sells it customer B, Grubby Ken then sends money to the author? How does this work exactly?

Since my understanding is that, at the end of such a transaction, Grubby Ken pockets the difference and uses it to take himself, his wife Martha and his two kids off for a fortnight in Spain.
 
You wouldn't get a dollar. You'd have to pay eBay and probably PayPal out of that. Then they split, like, 8% of 8 cents between the 40 authors. Probably.
 
redarmy11 said:
You wouldn't get a dollar. You'd have to pay eBay and probably PayPal out of that. Then they split, like, 8% of 8 cents between the 40 authors. Probably.
Click to expand...

Thats strange, I got a dollar (not for 40 books though). Said it was a deal for a first time seller. Will they come for me d'you think? *anxiously peeking through the curtains*
 
Last edited:
countezero said:
Yes, Meta, I think I get your point. It's the old Robin Hood story writ large, that is, it's OK to steal from people who you have decided have a lot of money. That might make you feel better than if you were to steal from some poor bugger, but it doesn't change the fact that you're stealing and you're a thief.
[/count]

I am talking about a situation in which the rich actually benefit from the so-called thefts. The more stolen a copyrighted work is the more money it makes.

countezero said:
Here's some more gross rationalization of immorality: "Stealing an album isn't quite the same as not paying your gardener. If you don't pay your gardener then the labour he's expended cutting your lawn is lost and can't be recovered. It's not re-usable. The same thing doesn't quite apply to stealing an album, which can be downloaded 1000s of times, over and over again, without extra labour being expended on the part of it's creator. ... So (given the reusability of the resource) we can't say for sure that the creator is 'losing' anything (either in terms of labour or profits)... can we?"
Click to expand...

This is true. We can't.


countezero said:
Let me make it easy for you. Philosophically, morally and etc. there is absolutely no difference in stealing from your gardener and stealing an album. Both are theft, in which you've intentionally benefited from someone's labor without compensating them for it.
Click to expand...

Nothing is that easy. The only way that it is that easy is if you have a stick to hit me with and I don't see that.

countezero said:
This gets back to my whole tangible/intangible argument, which all the music to the masses internet types seem to unconsciously possess. IE: They seem to think it's OK to steal albums and movies and whatnot over the internet because all they're doing is clicking a few buttons and they never have to experience the pain and loss the person their stealing from suffers. But these same people would never go out and swipe a car or lawn mower, because that would be wrong, it could land them in jail and they would have to physically experience the theft and its consequences. Holding these views is grossly hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Not really. Imitation is not the same thing as being the company or the person. If the customers are loyal to the producer of a product the customers will still bring that person or company a lot of money, like people who used to listen to tapes of the Beatles while saving up to buy albums. The industry has had to use a lot of deception, bullying, and actual bribery of legislators in order to create the myth that intellectual property can be stolen like that. At the same time "Robin Hood" has pumped their profits up to tremendous heights. If the rich who traveled through Sherwood forest had actually gained money for each time they were robbed, they would have known not to try to shut Robin Hood down. The losses that they talk about are lies.
Click to expand...
 
redarmy11

You believe wrongly, BR. You're saying that when Grubby Ken's Books buys a book off customer A and sells it customer B, Grubby Ken then sends money to the author? How does this work exactly?

Since my understanding is that, at the end of such a transaction, Grubby Ken pockets the difference and uses it to take himself, his wife Martha and his two kids off for a fortnight in Spain.
Click to expand...

In this country and any other that I can think of that have a tax on business sales, you have to keep track of your sales transactions, so that you can pay the sales tax, which also means that they know what you have sold, and if it is covered under the copy write laws you have to pay the royalties for those transactions, so I do believe that I am right in my thoughts on the subject, I had a discussion with a friendly manager at Borders Books, it is for the original sale through a book store and for any other sale from a store that has to collect sales taxes.
 
Does that mean lending libraries are breaking copyright laws?
If I loan a book to a friend, am I breaking copyright laws? What if I loan her a movie or some music?

What about stuff in garage sales? Is that illegal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top