Stealing: Physical Vs. Digital

[EnderWiggin]

No we don't

 

I think you just don't want us to agree.

But we pretty much do

 

_EW_

[Ray Jones]

Then how am I entitled to the music (in your model)?

Easy. Just reread my previous posts.

 

Sure. Your argument was that if my parents are paying money that somehow supports the music, then I am entitled to it. Exact same thing except I've replaced "music" with "newspapers". If the argument works in one set of conditions but not the other, then something is wrong with the argument.

Don't try to twist my words. I said clearly the radio songs are paid through advertisement, and with tax money.

 

Then I can download as much media as I like so long as I don't distribute it. Right?

Nope. Because you (A) download without the copyright holder's permission, and (B) the material has not been published with the copyright holder's permission at that download location.

[Achilles]

I think you just don't want us to agree.

But we pretty much do

That's the sound of humor whizzing past you

 

Don't try to twist my words. I said clearly the radio songs are paid through advertisement, and with tax money.

First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.

 

Second, if newspaper articles are paid for through advertisement (which they largely are), then I should be entitled those as well. It's your logic, sir.

 

Nope. Because you (A) download without the copyright holder's permission, and (B) the material has not been published with the copyright holder's permission at that download location.

I used to record it without the copyright holders permission too. I don't see how that's different.

[EnderWiggin]

That's the sound of humor whizzing past you

 

 

Yeah, well. I guess that's just how today is.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.

Radio in Germany might receive tax support, however.

 

US radio, except for public service type programs like NOAA weather radio, does not usually receive any kind of tax/gov't support, Ray.

[Achilles]

Radio in Germany might receive tax support, however.

Indeed, however I tried to point out that's not the case here in post #39.

[Ray Jones]

First, as I have already pointed out, your assumption regarding taxes is incorrect. Taxes that go the FCC have nothing to do with the contents on an individual radio stations' playlist.

At least here in Germany, federal radiostations are almost completely funded by tax money. Ergo, so are the songs they play.

 

Second, if newspaper articles are paid for through advertisement (which they largely are), then I should be entitled those as well. It's your logic, sir.

Ah, now I understand. Yes. If you pay for it (since you have to buy it) you can make a copy of the newspaper for your own personal use.

 

I used to record it without the copyright holders permission too. I don't see how that's different.

The copyright holder made it available to public by selling the right to air it via radio. Again, at least here in Germany, and as long as you are not skirting any copy protection mechanisms, you are allowed to make a private copy of what you legally obtained, for your own personal use.

[Achilles]

At least here in Germany, federal radiostations are almost completely funded by tax money. Ergo, so are the songs they play.

Okay, that's great for Germany but since all the RIAA lawsuits that I know about are happening here in the U.S. I think we should play with the U.S. way of doing things in mind.

 

Ah, now I understand. Yes. If you pay for it (since you have to buy it) you can make a copy of the newspaper for your own personal use.

Where did I mention anything about purchasing the newspaper? And you accuse me of twisting words?

 

The copyright holder made it available to public by selling the right to air it via radio.

The copyright holder made it available for public recording for private use?

[Gurges-Ahter]

I think Achilles is right here. I wasn't old enough to be aware of it, but there was some hubbub generated back in the day when VCRs became popular because of the ability to tape television shows or movies without directly paying for them. An act was passed that is the same act being applied to MP3 downloaders today, amended for digital age media, that specifically stated it is illegal to download and distribute digital media. That being said, every case thus far against downloaders has been one of getting caught for distribution, not just for downloading. Because of that I've always disabled sharing of my files on P2P networks. Torrents are different in how they work, and currently end-user dloaders are not "at risk" for breaking the law.

 

So I think Achilles is right in comparing this to taping from the TV or radio - the act of doing so alone isn't stealing, but the distribution of that probably is wrong on some level. I believe this was created to prevent people from selling downloaded media.

[Ray Jones]

Where did I mention anything about purchasing the newspaper?

You asked whether it would be okay to copy articles in a newspaper, because they are mostly funded through advertisements as well. Hence my answer, hence "if you pay for it", since, unlike to tuning into a radio programme, you actually have to pay to get a newspaper.

 

The copyright holder made it available for public recording for private use?

In analogy to publishing/selling a song on a CD or in a download portal, yes. Although music usually is not published for "recording for private use".

[Achilles]

You asked whether it would be okay to copy articles in a newspaper, because they are mostly funded through advertisements as well.

No, my question was regarding the newspapers themselves, not the articles (I thought that would have been clear given the earlier exchange, however I apologize for not being more concise).

 

In analogy to publishing/selling a song on a CD or in a download portal, yes. Although music usually is not published for "recording for private use".

No analogy please. With regards to the context provided.

 

The copyright holder made it available to the radio station so that the listener could make a recording for their private use? Yes or no?

[Ray Jones]

No, my question was regarding the newspapers themselves, not the articles (I thought that would have been clear given the earlier exchange, however I apologize for not being more concise).

Aperlogy essapted.

 

However. You seem to put the process of making a legal *copy* of a product equal to obtaining the product *itself*, then.

 

The recorded song is already a copy of a legally purchased product, whereas the newspaper you take from the shelf is the original, which you still have to pay. So when you take the newspaper itself, without paying for it, you're neither making a copy, nor not stealing it.

 

 

The copyright holder made it available to the radio station so that the listener could make a recording for their private use? Yes or no?

Of course not, no.

 

Hm.

 

In the first place I'd make a song available to the radio station so they'd pass me a dollar or two for it, what would you think. Beside that, I'd hope people would like the song they hear on the radio, go to the record store and buy the song, if not even the whole album or other related material like the live DVD.

 

Yes, I'd push my stuff to the stations so I could actually sell it.

[Achilles]

However. You seem to put the process of making a legal *copy* of a product equal to obtaining the product *itself*, then.

"Legal" copy is a qualifier that you're adding, not me. If I have three mp3s (one ripped from a cd that I've purchased, one that I've downloaded from a pay site, and one that I've obtained via some other means), how do I designate one a "copy" and another "the product"? You can't because "the copy" is "the product".

 

The recorded song is already a copy of a legally purchased product, whereas the newspaper you take from the shelf is the original, which you still have to pay. So when you take the newspaper itself, without paying for it, you're neither making a copy, nor not stealing it.

You are arbitrarily adding a whole lot of qualifiers that have nothing to do with the discussion. I hope that it's an honest mistake and not a dishonest attempt to derail the dialog.

 

Of course not, no.

Okay. Since you are acknowledging that music obtained this way is outside the boundaries of fair use, I don't see how you can deny that it's stealing any longer. Thanks.

[EnderWiggin]

 

So I think Achilles is right in comparing this to taping from the TV or radio - the act of doing so alone isn't stealing, but the distribution of that probably is wrong on some level. I believe this was created to prevent people from selling downloaded media.

 

 

I don't understand. The way I read this dialog, Achilles is saying that the act of doing so is stealing, and I agree. Downloading MP3s or taping, I think the act is stealing.

 

So what are you trying to say?

 

_EW_

[Gurges-Ahter]

I meant to say Achilles was right for comparing downloading MP3s to taping a TV show on your VCR, or a song from the radio on a cassette tape. I made my post before I finished reading the thread. I believe neither is stealing.

[EnderWiggin]

I meant to say Achilles was right for comparing downloading MP3s to taping a TV show on your VCR, or a song from the radio on a cassette tape. I made my post before I finished reading the thread. I believe neither is stealing.

 

Ok, just so it's clear that we think both are stealing.

 

_EW_

[RyuuKage]

Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal. Copying a DVD you rented however, is stealing because it is not broadcast on a free-use station.

 

And like someone said earlier, its not the disc or the tape or whatever that you're buying; it's the content ON it.

 

and apparently the great majority of people here are perfectly fine with stealing...that's depressing...

[EnderWiggin]

Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal.

 

Yeah, just like how LimeWire should be illegal technology.

 

It's not. Using it for copyright infringement is still stealing. Would you disagree?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Recording something with a VCR or writeable DVD-player isn't stealing, otherwise the technology would be illegal.

Depends on what the "something" is.

Copying a DVD you rented however, is stealing because it is not broadcast on a free-use station.

Because it is broadcast does that make it free use?

And like someone said earlier, its not the disc or the tape or whatever that you're buying; it's the content ON it.

I'm pretty sure I agree with this.

and apparently the great majority of people here are perfectly fine with stealing...that's depressing...

Hmmm. What makes you say that?

Yeah, just like how LimeWire should be illegal technology.

Eh? The technology itself is not illegal. The purpose it is most widely known for is illegal, but the technology itself is fine, no?

[EnderWiggin]

Eh? The technology itself is not illegal. The purpose it is most widely known for is illegal, but the technology itself is fine, no?

 

Yeah. It was my tongue-in-cheek way of responding to the 'VCRs should be illegal' statement.

 

_EW_

[ForeverNight]

I caught that one!

 

But, anyway, I've been following this since I noticed it, and, well, I guess I should just put my two-cents in...

 

If you buy the product, go ahead, make your copies, but don't distribute it. If you don't own it, and instead download it for free off of a site such as Lime-wire, then you've just stolen the product.

 

Because it is broadcast does that make it free use?[/Quote]

 

Yeah, it does, if you intend to copy it and keep it for your own use. I know that Von Ryan's Express was broadcast a month or so back at 8:00-10:00PM, we copied it onto a DVD-RAM just so we could watch it later(High School + Homework).

 

That is just like recording a song off of the radio to a cassette.

 

I don't know what the difference between the two is, except that the movie has a lot more people directly involved. But, since -as far as I know- recording off the radio to a cassette is legal, than so is the movie.

[Gurges-Ahter]

That is just like recording a song off of the radio to a cassette.

 

I don't know what the difference between the two is, except that the movie has a lot more people directly involved. But, since -as far as I know- recording off the radio to a cassette is legal, than so is the movie.

I agree with this, but let's take the logic a step farther (and FYI, this is one reason why just downloading MP3's has yet to result in any legal action by RIAA or anyone else - only the distribution of digital media has led to legal action). Let's say you're listening to the radio and you record a song on a cassette. No harm, no foul (perhaps Achilles disagrees). What if you then transfer that recording to your computer? Is that wrong? Probably not. What's the difference, then, in just downloading the mp3? I'm not saying there's not a difference, but the line between right and wrong on this issue is definitely blurred.

[Samuel Dravis]

The AHRA explicitly states that recording off the radio with an analog device is perfectly legal and that no action can be taken against people who do so for personal use. Using digital means to record is somewhat less clear, but from what I can tell the action is virtually the same.

[Ray Jones]

"Legal" copy is a qualifier that you're adding, not me. If I have three mp3s (one ripped from a cd that I've purchased, one that I've downloaded from a pay site, and one that I've obtained via some other means), how do I designate one a "copy" and another "the product"? You can't because "the copy" is "the product".

Ah. Now it is suddenly about mp3s? I thought we were talking about taping from radio, and stealing newspapers in this case.

 

You are arbitrarily adding a whole lot of qualifiers that have nothing to do with the discussion. I hope that it's an honest mistake and not a dishonest attempt to derail the dialog.

*pokes you in the eye*

 

I vaguely remember you coming up with the whole newspaper stuff. Eh.

 

Okay. Since you are acknowledging that music obtained this way is outside the boundaries of fair use, I don't see how you can deny that it's stealing any longer. Thanks.

I have acknowledged no such thing.

 

And tearing parts of my post out of context to make them sound as if won't change that either.

[EnderWiggin]

The AHRA explicitly states that recording off the radio with an analog device is perfectly legal and that no action can be taken against people who do so for personal use. Using digital means to record is somewhat less clear, but from what I can tell the action is virtually the same.

 

I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for sharing it with us.

 

_EW_