4 ms·

Hey look, its the physical-goods-are-the-same-as-digital-information strawman. Haven't seen ya in a while.

by zanny 9y ago

6stringmerc 9y ago
A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it. In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else. It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
- wumbolad 9y ago
  Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    oh ok, that's fine then.
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background. The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
paulcole 9y ago
Using/taking what isn't yours isn't right. Period. Do it if you want but don't ignore that pretty simple fact.
- xiaoma 9y ago
  So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Yes, I have sung Happy Birthday but I don't remember starting a business making money off of it and then bragging. Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
    - xiaoma 9y ago
      IMO it takes greater mental gymnastics to justify the current copyright laws which extend far past the life of the author than it does to justify a lyrics site. The current law is almost exactly what Jefferson was worried about when writing about US copyright in its initial form—it locks up vast swaths of modern culture and even that of nearly a century ago. It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...
    - xiaoma 9y ago
      This is great to see! After 80 years a key piece of shared culture is finally free. I hadn't realized this news. It is kinda insane that it took until 2015, though. I still somehow doubt that people who get on a high horse about lyrics sites and IP waited until someone with deep pockets was able to fend off a lawsuit in 2015 to sing the song, though.

Hey look, its the physical-goods-are-the-same-as-digital-information strawman. Haven't seen ya in a while.

by zanny 9y ago

Hey look, its the physical-goods-are-the-same-as-digital-information strawman. Haven't seen ya in a while.

A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it. In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else. It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.

wumbolad 9y ago
Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
- paulcole 9y ago
  oh ok, that's fine then.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background. The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.

paulcole 9y ago

Using/taking what isn't yours isn't right. Period. Do it if you want but don't ignore that pretty simple fact.

xiaoma 9y ago
So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
- paulcole 9y ago
  Yes, I have sung Happy Birthday but I don't remember starting a business making money off of it and then bragging. Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    IMO it takes greater mental gymnastics to justify the current copyright laws which extend far past the life of the author than it does to justify a lyrics site. The current law is almost exactly what Jefferson was worried about when writing about US copyright in its initial form—it locks up vast swaths of modern culture and even that of nearly a century ago. It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    This is great to see! After 80 years a key piece of shared culture is finally free. I hadn't realized this news. It is kinda insane that it took until 2015, though. I still somehow doubt that people who get on a high horse about lyrics sites and IP waited until someone with deep pockets was able to fend off a lawsuit in 2015 to sing the song, though.