believe it or not i was charged with "theft by finding when i was a kid" think that was the legal term.. feckers.
Nothing "ceases to be a crime" automatically. Crimes continue to be crimes, at least in theory, until such time as the law is changed. The law on copyright is what it is, for the moment. Surely what we are discussing is the way that in earlier times new technology resulted in new legal entitlements, and new means of enforcing them including creating new crimes; but then further new technology makes those entitlements obsolete and unenforceable, and the crimes along with them. How long will it take before the law catches up with realities?
If you happen to find a wallet full of money lying in the street, it belongs to somebody who no doubt wants it back. Honest people are supposed to try and find out who it belongs to and if possible return it. Less honest people regard it as bounty and keep it. The law sides with the former, not the latter, I'm afraid.
I found an old pushbike when I was a kid. I handed it to the police and got it back 6mnths later. If I walk past a shop and overhear music being played from within, this does not mean I stole the music.
yip they got me.10 or11. £72 lying on the ground spent £20 on a skate board. handed that in also. ended up in front of the children's panel. feckers.
@Pete(64) Yes Pete, I have, you seem to think/allude to it being a victim less crime. Which perhaps to some extent it is. Try telling that to the guys renting recording space, buying instruments, endless practice sessions, transport et al. Making a living out of sales.
Pete has done a wonderful job for opening up the discussion whilst other posters have done an excellent job of clarifying the issues. I don't for one moment believe that Pete is struggling to understand the issue but I do believe he is struggling to put his point forward. Deliberately or otherwise
Pete - your argument is entirely flawed The copyright holder can decide how they deliver their 'product' - whatever that product is In some cases they decide to deliver that for free to the public - however thats their right and is usually underpinned by payment to them from elsewhere eg Prince gave away his album Planet Earth for free with a newspaper - however the newspaper paid him for the priviledge As soon as there is no payment what is the point in a professional artist continuing ? How can they survive? Streaming thats paid for involves in the background payment from the platform to the artist Thats fine because the Artist approves and condones that If you decide to then copy it thats not fine - it deprives the Artist of revenue as you are not clicking on stream which would trigger the payment Illegal downloads or torrents are the same but worse in that there is no and has never been any payment whatsoever to the artists Its got nothing to do with the ease of copying Its got everything to do with 'owning' something that you can access when you want without paying for the priviledge of ownership Heck - why dont I just come and borrow your motorbike when I like ? Dont want to buy or pay for it - just use it when I like - whats wrong with that? The difference with radio or legitimate streaming is you are renting the song - you dont choose when to access it The rental with radio is that the artist gets a royalty and the advertisers pay for being on the station that people listen to to listen to the ,usic So - rent me your motorbike and we are sweet?
This is the point. If you wish to profit from someone else's effort and expense, you are supposed to remunerate them. It makes no difference as far as I am concerned whether they have produced a physical object or an etherial one. Failure to do so means that no one will invest the effort and expense to produce them. I remember in the 90s, Microsoft charged about CHF 700 (say £460) for their programme Word. Naturally, most consumers deemed this to be completely excessive and pirated it. It was even more excessive when you considered that Microsoft expected you to stump up a similar sum for that other office stalwart, Excel. Consequently, we only ever sold that software to companies, ofter largish companies at that. Scroll on and Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and Powerpoint) now costs CHF 159 for the entire package. Consequence - nearly everyone using a Mac who needs the software buys it. It is considered a reasonable expense. A music track costs CHF 2.20 to download - that seems to me to be a reasonable expense. I personally don't think it is fair to just take the music FOC for my enjoyment. I'm not holier than thou about this. I also have some copied music and some unauthorised downloads (handed on to me, not downloaded myself as I don't want to get into the whole torrent thing for many of the reasons outlined in my posts). However, if I enjoy the copied music, I nearly always buy the actual CD, partly as a point of principle, partly because I want a bona fide rendition of the music and artwork, and partly because the relative expense of it is paltry in the scheme of things. Frequently therefore, I have been given a pirated copy of something and have ended up buying much of the artist's back catalogue. I reckon they have definitely benefited from the original piracy as far as I am concerned. However, I'm prepared to bet that my behaviour is not typical.
So you choose to ignore completely all the points I have made, and wander off on a tangent. You put up straw-man arguments which have already been fully disposed of. Fine, if that amuses you.
All "income" is hypothetical until it is realised. Take for instance your pumpkin stall down the market (I had no idea you are a market trader, by the way.) You derive no income from selling your pumpkins until such time as the customer hands over his cash. Before that point, it is money that may never exist (perhaps thereby forcing you into a life of crime, stealing [music] to make a living). It's already been explained to you the difference between listening to a broadcast that has been paid for by a legitimate concern (e.g., a radio station) and listening to a copy of the same music in a fashion that has not been paid for in accordance with copyright terms. To simplify for you - the radio station paid the copyright owner for the right to broadcast the music for people to listen to, during that broadcast. No other use of that broadcast material is legal although obviously enforcement is an issue. In 1450, there were no laws requiring airline pilots to be trained and licensed to fly. There were no copyright laws covering the use of computer software in 1900. Why are you talking about the 15th Century, and the beginning of the 20th Century, in a discussion that concerns the late 20th and the 21st Century? Pete seems to be arguing that an unenforceable law cannot be broken. I know that he knows better so what is this all about? Is he trying to force people into accepting that the law is unenforceable is is therefore somewhat foolish?
The pumpkin (Glidd's neighbour's pumpkin) exists, has a value, and is the property of its owner. The owner hopes to sell it to some customer in exchange for money. The value of the pumpkin is lost to the owner when he sells it, in exchange for money which he receives and which constitutes income. If a passing thief takes the pumpkin without paying for it, the owner has lost real (not hypothetical) value. The contrast could scarcely be sharper with making copies of something, which does not deprive the owner of the object or its value.
And I have already explained to you that technological change has made the principle you describe entirely hypothetical. The legal situation is based on earlier technologies, which have been superseded by events. The question is: Why are you so obsessively wedded to an antiquated legal structure which plainly has become unworkable, does not work, and has less and less chance or ever working as time progresses?
Why am I talking about earlier centuries? Because the concept of copyright is not some permanent and immutable ethical principle; it is a practical expedient which was newly adopted in recent historical times, purely as a response to the capabilities and limitations of the technology of the day. In 2014 the technology has moved on, and the concept of copyright has had its day. At present copyright is a legal construct which still exists, not yet having been abolished, but which lacks both an ethical underpinning and a practical mechanism. A large part of the population has grasped this, but there are still some who are in denial and pine for the old days. You seem to align yourself with the latter.
Are you telling me that for a thing to have financial value, it has to be tangible? If this is not what you are trying to say, please use your words, Pete. Use your words. I'm not wedded to an antiquated legal structure, I am trying to not fall foul of it. The law may be an ass (I see a lot of evidence in support of this conjecture) but this is still on the statute books and - pay attention now - it gets enforced from time to time. The question has mutated somewhat from my original thoughts, so to recap - I try not to download pirated copyrighted material, not because it is illegal, but because it is depriving the artist of an income that I feel he deserves, both for his work/time/effort and for the pleasure I derive from it.
Feel free to donate money to musicians, charities, suppliers of free stuff, or anyone you like. If it makes you feel good, fine. Just don't expect anybody else to feel obliged to do the same as far as musicians are concerned.
