My $.02
Published on December 15, 2005 By Arquonzo In Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!

Comments (Page 1)
9 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Dec 15, 2005
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft?


1st? Here:

I reverse engineer the widget
on Dec 15, 2005
And here:
I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made.

So, to answer the title's question, YES.
on Dec 15, 2005

Theft of the idea...for starters.

The 'widget' will have intellectual copyright....if one person thought it up then it is HIS idea, not yours.

If you deliberately replicate it you are violating COPYright...you made a COPY.

See....that is why it is called 'copyright'...the right to copy.

The English explanation is so simple even a knuckle-dragger 'should' be able to comprehend in between drools.

Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical.

Also....the act of reverse-engineering will have violated any use agreement....usually referred to as an EULA.

When the original sees a drop in sales...he can quite legitimately 'go you' in court...and you will lose.  Lost potential income to the original creator will be the first moneys extracted from you.

Then there will be compensation for damage and injury/dilution of his trade name/reputation.

Then there can always be punitive damages imposed for any actual criminality.

'Synthetic reproductions'?  Exactly what planet did you fall out of?  The written word is also a 'synthetic reproduction' of the author's thoughts....yet it is the latter manifestation that has the copyright attached.

Sure, the music industry WILL change...but like most industries tripping into the 'now-generation' of Internet-speed-dissemination...it'll look like it's dragging its heels.

Rather than spend 2 cents on these debates...save them all up an by legal widgets....don't steal them....

on Dec 15, 2005
'If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, '

This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use.

It's when you make a copy for distribution that makes it illegal.
on Dec 15, 2005
This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use.


That statement is where the problem lies...the person made a copy of a widget/object of something that ANOTHER person bought. The only person that is allowed to have a copy of the item would be the original purchaser...not his friend who then decides to reverse engineer or copy a borrowed item. The theft occurred when he reverse engeineered the orginal widget. He then committed even more theft by borrowing widgets from those people that purchased them and made copies of them (even though he wasn't selling them), as he wasn't the original purchaser of the items in question that were being copied.
DD


Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central
on Dec 15, 2005
As for the music goes, I personally have downloaded music, so I will definitely have an extreme bias. I understand that it most likely is stealing, and understand the logic behind it. But, as I often do, I frequently become my own Devil's Advocate, asking myself from other sides the questions I would ask others. Where does copyrighting sound end? Will I not be able to recite the Star Spangled Banner without paying a duty to Key or the U.S.? Can I copywright words that I have said? Who owns sound?

I understand that these arguments are very weak in mine and others idea of "morality" but I believe that it is an interesting concpet, very much worth exploring.

on Dec 15, 2005
Widgets are not copyrighted. Patents are not copyrights.

Copyright is not and has never been considered a natural right. Both copyright and patents are government-granted monopolies.

The American constitution specifically gives government the power to introduce laws to create copyrights and patents in order to support innovation. Violating such a law is not stealing.

(And yes, in most countries a certain number of copies for certain purposes are completely legal. If copyright "owners" say something else, they are lying.)
on Dec 15, 2005

I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit.

Music generally falls into the "Intellectual Property" category.

Recent example:

Archive.org recently removed the download access to live Grateful Dead concert music, which had been previously available for download to all (source files of both audience and sound boards).

After some discussion, the remaining members of the Grateful Dead decided that it would be okay to allow downloads of source files from audience tapes (which is considered to be part of a scene that we - I can include myself as a Dead Head - were participating members), but that the sound board source files are to be available via streaming only - due to the "Intellectual Property" factor.

Though you can save the streamed files to the computer, they are around 220+ Kbps - so any effort to pass them off as professional content on disc would be a farce.

IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use.

on Dec 15, 2005
IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use.


I wholeheartedly agree. Indie bands freely send out there music in the knowledge that people will be very willing to download free music, and will draw people to their concerts. One recent example is Harvey Danger's new album. Not that I really like a lot of indie, but some is OK. The main hope is to make people buy concert tix, and really to appreciate the music instead of the corporatization.
on Dec 16, 2005

Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical.

Nutshell  ...read that.  There is actually more than one country on this planet...

on Dec 16, 2005
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
on Dec 16, 2005
Well crap. After a lifetime of only hearing the term 'patent infringement' in relation to the sale of said items, I actually did a bit of research this evening to see if things were not all as they seemed. They were not.

About.com says that "patent infringement is a statutory wrong and is governed by federal law. 35 U.S.C. 271 defines infringement as 'whoever without authority makes, uses, or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.'" (emphasis added)

Learn something new every day.

Yes, this means my widget maker can only be used on items for which the patent has expired. *sigh*


Upon further reflection, I guess this means if I get a patent on a really cool device which is made from three rubberbands and a popsickle stick, you guys don't get to make one for yourselves without paying me first. Interesting law...
on Dec 16, 2005
XX casts the first stone.

Hey, I am deaf and never downloaded a music file.


Anyway, IMHO, you can copy whatever you want when object being copied is owned by you. You cannot loan this copy to your friends or even worse, sell it. That would be violating copyright law.
on Dec 16, 2005

I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit.


Never accept no-brainers. Always think.

The question was whether using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing. Merely showing how X is using an idea of somebody else's does NOT constitute proof that using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing.
on Dec 16, 2005
i dont care what anyone says i see it like this if i can download a full album in 9 mins do the record companys really think im gonna get of my sorry ass, go into town and then spend £15 on buying a cd, hmmmm i think not
9 Pages1 2 3  Last