Downloading music from the internet...

Downloading music from the internet...

  • Yes, it's no big deal

    Votes: 16 27.6%
  • Yes, but I feel bad

    Votes: 4 6.9%
  • No, its stealing

    Votes: 24 41.4%
  • No, I use legal means such as apples music store

    Votes: 14 24.1%

  • Total voters
    58

Rav_Yeshai

New member
response to .ant

response to .ant

Yes I believe we agree then.

Some laws are foolish (even though we must obey ) unless they violate Torah. Other laws protect ones rights. one's rights, hmm. that is a concept worth exploring.

The Torah of Yahweh Elohi says man has no rights outside of it. So for example, I were a congressman and tried to pass a new right for americans that said we have the right to slap someone if they are more than 4 foot tall.

This would be outside of Torah. and ungodly.
Many laws exist that break the word of Eloah.

My point is :

When it comes to music piracy, you know that it's a sin. You know that it's illegal.

Illegal? yes, stealing? no.

They call it stealing, (otherwise they would be years trying to conjuor up a charge. you know, i can see them now! "Its not stealing, hmmm, well , can we call it murder? na, the public will never buy it. hmmm, lets just go with the theft thing! ok.") to get the bill passed into law. But it's not. Its illegal.

Two different things, (especially now days)
 

Eli_Cash

New member
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"Erm... copyright laws are as necessary as laws against theivery in today's world."

No they aren't, because copying a work does not deprive anyone of anything. Thievery does.

"It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits."

What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.

From http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/12540/2722
So what about people who download and listen to unpaid-for music? These people are certainly breaking the law and must accept the associated risks, but they are not morally in the wrong. They simply represent points on the demand curve that the RIAA member companies have chosen not to sell to because they are not "sufficiently" profitable. The RIAA may shed crocodile tears over the loss of revenue from this segment of their market, but in the end it is their own decision not to sell to these people.


"By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong."

Stolen cars are just that, stolen. Copied music is not stolen, it is copied. You have yet to justify the position that copying is stealing, and it is that claim that your ridiculous counter to this article rests on. Your criticism of this article rests on the contention that copying is stealing, which you have not proven.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?


"Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?"

Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?

"Possibly."

Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.
 

.Ant

New member
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Stolen cars are just that, stolen. Copied music is not stolen, it is copied. You have yet to justify the position that copying is stealing, and it is that claim that your ridiculous counter to this article rests on. Your criticism of this article rests on the contention that copying is stealing, which you have not proven.
So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?
 

Eli_Cash

New member
"So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?"

No, that's a perfect example of how a free market is supposed to work. Prices driven down by competition, such that the products actual value is represented in its price.
 

Em7add11

Official TOL band member
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"So its perfectly fine to "copy" a piece of label clothing, and sell it dirt-cheap? Isn't that an example of where copying is not good?"

No, that's a perfect example of how a free market is supposed to work. Prices driven down by competition, such that the products actual value is represented in its price.

And a perfect example of how the original still retains the higher value because it's the merch that is higher quality. The brand name is the value instead of the actual product. Pharmacy drugs work on the same principle. There's lots of headache relievers but the brand names sell for more.
 

Eli_Cash

New member
"And a perfect example of how the original still retains the higher value because it's the merch that is higher quality. The brand name is the value instead of the actual product. Pharmacy drugs work on the same principle. There's lots of headache relievers but the brand names sell for more."

True, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, or is it just an observation?
 

.Ant

New member
Another rebuttal

Another rebuttal

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?
Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?
Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?
Possibly.
Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits.
What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.
In your argument above, the word "copying" could be replaced with "stealing":

"The only potential profit that stealing eliminates is one that is created by anti-theft laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market."

Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.
 

Eli_Cash

New member
Eli_Cash:
A good question for you is, is it fair to have a law that lets you work once, and make money from that work for the rest of your life?

.Ant:
Yes, why not? What's wrong with making something and then charging people to use it?

Eli_Cash:
Nothing. But this isn't what we are talking about here.

"Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it."

And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.

Eli_Cash:
And also my original question, is it stealing for me to get my widgets for free when someone else is selling them?

.Ant:
Possibly.

Eli_Cash:
Wrong. It is absolutely not stealing. It is the consequence of a free market.

"It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

quote:Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong."

The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.


.Ant:
It deprives people of profits and/or potential profits.

Eli_Cash:
What potential profit? The only potential profit that copying eliminates is one that is created by anti-copying laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market.

"In your argument above, the word "copying" could be replaced with "stealing":

"The only potential profit that stealing eliminates is one that is created by anti-theft laws. Such profits are artificial, and are contrary to the priciples of a free market."

Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law."

But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.
 
Last edited:

.Ant

New member
Getting ever closer to the nitty-gritty :)

Getting ever closer to the nitty-gritty :)

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.
And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.
I didn't say that.Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.
In other words, it's a fair argument, if my assumption is correct.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.
But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.
Are you saying it's impossible to steal something if it's not physical?
 

Eli_Cash

New member
.Ant:
Yes, it is. I think this may be the crux of my argument. I posit that using copyright is making something and then charging people to use it.

Eli_Cash:
And this is where your argument fails, as it assumes that ideas are property, which they aren't.

"I didn't say that.Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?"

Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.

.Ant:
It can sometimes be stealing. It's called the black market. Of course you can get goods for cheaper when they are illegal. But it's not right, and there's good reason for them being illegal. Which is what I meant by:

quote:Originally posted by .Ant
By that argument, people who knowingly buy stolen goods such as stolen cars are not morally in the wrong.

Eli_Cash:
The black market is not necessarily stealing though. It can be supplied by stealing, but this isn't the only way. And that is the crux of the argument in the paper to which you responded. It claimed that copyright violation is not morally wrong, because, while it is an illegal black market, no actual theft takes place. Yet you say this argument also justifies stealing or buying stolen goods, which it does not. You're arguing in a circle here, as the only way your analogy could hold true is if you assume copyright violation to be stealing, which is the question you are trying to answer.

"In other words, it's a fair argument, if my assumption is correct."

No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.


.Ant:
Profits aren't artificial just because they are made possible by law.

Eli_Cash
But copying isn't stealing, no matter how often you try to say it is. And stealing is not stealing because of antitheft laws either. It is because of the reality of a limited supply of physical property. My taking physical property deprives someone else of that property. This is simply not the case with ideas.

"Are you saying it's impossible to steal something if it's not physical?"

I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property. Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.
 

.Ant

New member
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.
I don't agree. If I invent a new joke, and tell it to a friend, and then my friend tells it to someone else, does that stop the joke from being unique? Does that change the fact that I invented it and told it first?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.
It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.
How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.
And copyright law makes limited supply of art and other information possible.

So have not said anything about why or how the "restriction" of copyright law is necessarily bad, and anti free-market. Or how the "restriction" of copyright law is any different from the "restriction" of property law, apart from one being about physical things and one being about non physical things.
 

Eli_Cash

New member
.Ant:
Copyrights are more than just ideas, but unique works. What's unfair about saying that a book I wrote belongs to me?

Eli_Cash:
Nothing, if your are referring to the pages and cover. But I take it that you are referring to the ideas contained in it. These cease to be unique as soon as they are copied.

"I don't agree. If I invent a new joke, and tell it to a friend, and then my friend tells it to someone else, does that stop the joke from being unique? Does that change the fact that I invented it and told it first?"

Nope, and you have a right to be recognized as telling it first. But as soon as you tell it, you lose control of it. There are now copies of that joke circulating, so it is no longer unique.

Eli_Cash:
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.

"It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion."

Let's see. The article showed evidence that the black market was due to price gouging by a monopoly. Thus it is not created by stealing anything. You claimed, without justification, that a black market is stealing.

So, no the article did not assume, and yes, the article made a much better point. You have yet to justify your equivocation of market circumvention with stealing. Stealing is market circumvention, but market circumvention isn't necessarily stealing. Unless you can prove otherwise, your just spouting unjustified opinions.

Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.

"How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?"

They have the right to enforce their privacy to the extent possible by actual property laws. For instance, you have the right to not show me the book you wrote. And you have the right to make me sign a contract before you let me look at the book, which forbids me from revealing any of the details. This would fall under contract law. It has nothing to do with copyrights, or the question of whether or not copying is stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Only the fact that the thing that is property must be in limited supply.

"And copyright law makes limited supply of art and other information possible."

Which is why it is an artificial right. Property is naturally limited, ideas are not. Property laws are the recognition of natural rights.

"So have not said anything about why or how the "restriction" of copyright law is necessarily bad, and anti free-market. Or how the "restriction" of copyright law is any different from the "restriction" of property law, apart from one being about physical things and one being about non physical things."

Property law is the recognition of a natural right. Copyright law is the creation of an artificial right, which almost invariably leads to the trampling of natural rights.

As to how it contradicts a free market, I posted the link to that article that explains it clearly. In short, it creats a situation conducive to the formation of monopolies.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I've posted this in my other copyright discussions, but didn't get any answers. I asked Bob Enyart, and he didn't supply an answer (although I'm not pushing for an answer from him... I'm just saying he didn't have an answer when the question was asked).

The question: Would we have property laws if real property were infinitely copyable, to near, if not perfect, tolerance?
 

Goose

New member
Yorzhik,

I don't think it would be efficient to have copyright laws if the property could be easily reproduced. Tragedy of the commons wouldn't hold.
 

Eli_Cash

New member
"The question: Would we have property laws if real property were infinitely copyable, to near, if not perfect, tolerance?"

The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.
 

PureX

Well-known member
I recently bought and downloaded music from the new Apple Music Site and it worked very well. The sound quality was good and the songs have been burned to a CD and played on a good stereo (Bose).

I had a little trouble getting all the software set up (I had to update OSX) but so far it looks like a good service. A dollar a song is a good price considering you can make CDs that have all your favorite songs. One dissapointment, though, is that although the master list of music is fair, it's missing a lot of music, too. I'm guessing this has something to do with the owners of some songs not wanting them there, and some artists not wishing to participate.
 
Top