Woman fined 1.9 million for downloading 24 songs

[bamf]

Also, copyright pertains to more than just distribution and performance. It also protects against plagiarism, which is in fact, illegal.

 

[BenW]

How is the physical world not universal and our thoughts are? How can you own a piece of the earth and not your own ideas? What makes the earth yours to own and your thoughts to be shared by all?

You only seem to be interested in part of the definition he used.
The argument is that information is universal in the sense that it necessarily encompasses other peoples property.
In other words, IP "rights" cannot be enforced without simultaneously violating other peoples property rights as a result.

Are you for patents? What about trademarks?

Against patents, sort of for trademarks.
I don't believe it should be legal to sell something to somebody, under the guise of being somebody else. This defrauds the buyer.

How is it alright to take claim over something you didn't do?

You or I thinking it to be alright or not should have little impact on it's legality.

I think cheating on ones lover is very much not alright, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Also, copyright pertains to more than just distribution and performance. It also protects against plagiarism, which is in fact, illegal.

Look through the US legal code, you wont find a single occurrence of the word "plagiarism".

Things that fall under the definition of plagiarism are only illegal when they, as such, violate copyright law.

It's completely LEGAL for me to turn in a paper to my professor that is public domain or unclaimed by the copyright holder, and claim it as my own.
I can be kicked out of school for it, but I cannot go to jail for it.

 

[bamf]

1. You only seem to be interested in part of the definition he used.
The argument is that information is universal in the sense that it necessarily encompasses other peoples property.
In other words, IP "rights" cannot be enforced without simultaneously violating other peoples property rights as a result.

2. Against patents, sort of for trademarks.
I don't believe it should be legal to sell something to somebody, under the guise of being somebody else. This defrauds the buyer.

3. You or I thinking it to be alright or not should have little impact on it's legality.

I think cheating on ones lover is very much not alright, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Look through the US legal code, you wont find a single occurrence of the word "plagiarism".

4.Things that fall under the definition of plagiarism are only illegal when they, as such, violate copyright law.

It's completely LEGAL for me to turn in a paper to my professor that is public domain or unclaimed by the copyright holder, and claim it as my own.
I can be kicked out of school for it, but I cannot go to jail for it.

1. How does my creation of a song and claiming intellectual property on it violate other people's rights? I created the song first, therefor it is mine. Chord progressions are public domain, lyrics and melodies are not.

2. Fair enough

3. Our thinking on something is right or wrong should have the utmost impact on whether something is legal or not! Laws are the rules of the people, and the people should have a say in their creation. Your idea is as equally important as mine.

4. I don't believe the question here is public domain. I believe you said, and may I quote ''Claiming something somebody else created as yours'', and that goes far beyond public domain. Should you turn in a paper written by someone else, which isn't in public domain (just like a huge majority of music that is illegally downloaded), you would be breaking a law. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright, but you were correct in saying that it isn't always.

If one cannot have ownership on their creations such as books and poetry and songs, why would anyone create them in the first place? Why waste years creating something and not making a penny for your time?

 

[BenW]

1. How does my creation of a song and claiming intellectual property on it violate other people's rights? I created the song first, therefor it is mine. Chord progressions are public domain, lyrics and melodies are not.

Before I attempt answer your question, I would like to hear a justification as to why you think creating it ought to give you any right to it in the first place.

3. Our thinking on something is right or wrong should have the utmost impact on whether something is legal or not! Laws are the rules of the people, and the people should have a say in their creation. Your idea is as equally important as mine.

There are many things which I think are wrong, and that people shouldn't do, but I don't believe they should be illegal.

Something being morally repulsive to me is not justification for it to be illegal for you to do it.

I don't believe the question here is public domain. I believe you said, and may I quote ''Claiming something somebody else created as yours'', and that goes far beyond public domain. Should you turn in a paper written by someone else, which isn't in public domain (just like a huge majority of music that is illegally downloaded), you would be breaking a law. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright, but you were correct in saying that it isn't always.

That, and your claim was that the act of plagiarism itself is illegal, and this is not true, so I wished to point that out.

Public domain was just an example of when plagiarism doesn't violate copyright law.
Another good exampe; sites that sell term papers, that is NOT a violation of copyright law, as the authors give you permission to distribute it and claim it as your own, but using them will still get you kicked out of school.

Fact is:
In and of itself, there is nothing illegal about the act of claiming a work as your own, even if it's not.
This is the very definition of plagiarism.

If one cannot have ownership on their creations such as books and poetry and songs, why would anyone create them in the first place? Why waste years creating something and not making a penny for your time?

Good question.
Personally; don't know, don't care.
And, I'm saying this as an "artist" myself, as pretentious as that may sound.
I can certainly say this much, my motivation for writing music is NOT to make money.

 

[bamf]

The world runs on a system of ownership. We have determined that our time is worth something, and as soon as we give something worth, we create ownership. It's how economics works. How is a song not the songwriter's property? Because it at it's roots comes from someone's idea? The wheel was created because someone had an idea. I own the lyrics to my song the same way GM owns the blueprints to it's car models. Now before you go crazy listing how people can resell a car and it's not illegal, media is a little bit different. There are a set number of cars GM produces, they make a profit off of cars and then those same cars (which GM was paid for) are sold by other people, media on the other hand is easily duplicated. The artist is not getting paid for the millions and millions of potential copies that are being made of their work. Reselling CD's and DVD's is legal because the creator has already been paid for that copy, duplicating them creates a new copy that the creator has never been paid for, regardless of someone else hands out the copies for free.

This gets us to the root of the debate. You claim there shouldn't be ownership over intellectual property and I claim there should be. GM makes a new line of cars every so often, and because they did it first, they own the rights to that car (if you argue this, than you are arguing in a completely different sense of economy which the world does not run off of. if this is the case, I will not waste my time responding to your posts on this subject). They came up with the idea for the car, the idea being intellectual property. Just because someone else could have thought of it shouldn't take away from the fact that GM did it first. Same goes for writing a song. GM then creates a blueprint for their new vehicle (lyrics/sheet music to a song). That blueprint is then used in a factory to produce a finished product, a car (the song is then played by a musician and recorded and pressed into some sort of media). If GM owns the rights to the car, the musician owns the rights to their songs.

Are you arguing that one cannot own a song because it is technically intangible? That one has to see something or touch something to have the ability to own it? Does this mean a blind person without a sense of touch has no right to own something simply because they cannot see or feel it? If we argue that something physical, like a piece of land, can have ownership, can't something that is heard or written down have ownership? What makes the earth any more ownable than lyrics to a song?

And you saying "don't know, don't care" scares me. If people are not rewarded and secured in their creations, why would anyone create? If we loose comfort in the knowledge that we actually have ownership over our creations, we will potentially miss out on countless creations that could make the world a better place.

My motivation for writing music is not to make money either. In fact I am a recording and touring musician that releases all of my music for free and plays only free shows. Does this mean this is the way everyone should have to do it? HELL NO. Just because I don't decide to make it my career doesn't mean I should limit someone else from having the opportunity.

 

[BenW]

The world runs on a system of ownership. We have determined that our time is worth something, and as soon as we give something worth, we create ownership. It's how economics works.

Labor theory of value is one commonly accepted viewpoint taken in economics, it is neither universally accepted nor "how economics works".

How is a song not the songwriter's property?

The burden of proof isn't on me to explain why it isn't, as you initially claimed it to be. Why should I debate against something you haven't justified to begin with?

Because it at it's roots comes from someone's idea?

Precisely.
Even pro copyright people are quick to elaborate that "ideas" are NEVER copyright or patented, only very specific implementations of them are.

The wheel was created because someone had an idea. I own the lyrics to my song the same way GM owns the blueprints to it's car models. Now before you go crazy listing how people can resell a car and it's not illegal, media is a little bit different. There are a set number of cars GM produces, they make a profit off of cars and then those same cars (which GM was paid for) are sold by other people, media on the other hand is easily duplicated. The artist is not getting paid for the millions and millions of potential copies that are being made of their work. Reselling CD's and DVD's is legal because the creator has already been paid for that copy, duplicating them creates a new copy that the creator has never been paid for, regardless of someone else hands out the copies for free.

This gets us to the root of the debate. You claim there shouldn't be ownership over intellectual property and I claim there should be. GM makes a new line of cars every so often, and because they did it first, they own the rights to that car (if you argue this, than you are arguing in a completely different sense of economy which the world does not run off of. if this is the case, I will not waste my time responding to your posts on this subject).

I'm not sure what you mean by GM "owning" the rights to any given car.
The name of the car?
A specific aspect of it's design?
The entirety of it's physical layout?

They came up with the idea for the car, the idea being intellectual property. Just because someone else could have thought of it shouldn't take away from the fact that GM did it first. Same goes for writing a song. GM then creates a blueprint for their new vehicle (lyrics/sheet music to a song). That blueprint is then used in a factory to produce a finished product, a car (the song is then played by a musician and recorded and pressed into some sort of media). If GM owns the rights to the car, the musician owns the rights to their songs.

"Ideas", again, are not protected intellectual property, only implementations. You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue if you believe this to be true, and argue from this standpoint.

Are you arguing that one cannot own a song because it is technically intangible?

Yes.

That one has to see something or touch something to have the ability to own it?

More along the lines that one has to OWN something in order to OWN it...
You don't own the bits on my hard drive, I do.
I should have the right to fill them with whatever I want, and you shouldn't have the right to stop me.

Does this mean a blind person without a sense of touch has no right to own something simply because they cannot see or feel it?

Um, no.

If we argue that something physical, like a piece of land, can have ownership, can't something that is heard or written down have ownership? What makes the earth any more ownable than lyrics to a song?

The only way intangible things can have any ownership associated with them is by means of a tangible copy. In other words, your "idea" or "song" can exist only in my tangible property, as in the hard drive example above.

And you saying "don't know, don't care" scares me. If people are not rewarded and secured in their creations, why would anyone create? If we loose comfort in the knowledge that we actually have ownership over our creations, we will potentially miss out on countless creations that could make the world a better place.

If you honestly need an example that counters what you just mentioned, just look at open source software.
(which, quite ironically enough, uses copyright to it's own manipulatory ends, especially in the case of the GPL)

Your post was very hard to follow, try and clarify your ideas.

 

[bamf]

1. Labor theory of value is one commonly accepted viewpoint taken in economics, it is neither universally accepted nor "how economics works".

2. The burden of proof isn't on me to explain why it isn't, as you initially claimed it to be. Why should I debate against something you haven't justified to begin with?

3. Precisely.
Even pro copyright people are quick to elaborate that "ideas" are NEVER copyright or patented, only very specific implementations of them are.

4. I'm not sure what you mean by GM "owning" the rights to any given car.
The name of the car?
A specific aspect of it's design?
The entirety of it's physical layout?

5. "Ideas", again, are not protected intellectual property, only implementations. You have fundamentally misunderstood the issue if you believe this to be true, and argue from this standpoint.

Yes.

6. More along the lines that one has to OWN something in order to OWN it...
You don't own the bits on my hard drive, I do.
I should have the right to fill them with whatever I want, and you shouldn't have the right to stop me.

Um, no.

7. The only way intangible things can have any ownership associated with them is by means of a tangible copy. In other words, your "idea" or "song" can exist only in my tangible property, as in the hard drive example above.

8. If you honestly need an example that counters what you just mentioned, just look at open source software.
(which, quite ironically enough, uses copyright to it's own manipulatory ends, especially in the case of the GPL)

Your post was very hard to follow, try and clarify your ideas.

1. If economics does not work off of the understanding that time and labor have value, please enlighten me how it DOES work.

2. I have justified in my own terms why one owns the intellectual property to their songs, and you were the one who first claimed that one didn't. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me but don't try to pretend I don't back my shit up.

3. I never said idea's are copyrightable. I'm not the moron you like to paint me as. You're arguement is that because they stem from ideas than they are without ownership and this is flawed. All things stem from ideas. By this 'reasoning' nothing should have ownership.

4. Yes, and you completely miskewd the analogy.

5. Once again, I said they STEM from ideas. All things STEM from ideas.

6. I don't own the bits in your drive and you don't own the arrangement of the words to my song. If we're going to play your little game of 'burden of proof' bullshit, you tell me what gives you the right to make copies of a song? Just because you own it? What does ownership of a copy give a person? I own my dog so can I beat it?

7. First off, says who? Who made the rule on intangible ownership or is that your idea? Second, you have a copy of the original. What gives you the same rights as the creator of it? Was it by selling it? Because purchasing a CD or DVD does not grant an individual the right to duplicate or reproduce the said copy. Those rights are reserved to the creator/distributor. I'm sorry but that's not you. You can enjoy your copy of the CD but it's another story when you claim you have rights to the song itself to the extent that you can create and distribute as you see fit.

8. I would appreciate it if you actually would take the time to create and defend your position aside from posting links and dissecting what I'm saying. You ask me for all this proof and explanation without giving your own, Professor.

 

[bamf]

Also, open source is created to be just that, open and modifiable. Songs are not sold to be reproduced. It IS copyright law.

 

[BenW]

1. If economics does not work off of the understanding that time and labor have value, please enlighten me how it DOES work.

Time an labor do have value, subjective value, and they do not necessarily transfer that value on to the things they are used create, as marginalism states.
Two things create value; usefulness and scarcity.
You could hire hundreds of people for thousands of hours to make a painting, and still wind up with a valueless product, simply because it doesn't have any utility (IE: nobody wants to buy it).
Anyway, this is a pretty big diversion from what we should be talking about.

2. I have justified in my own terms why one owns the intellectual property to their songs, and you were the one who first claimed that one didn't. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me but don't try to pretend I don't back my shit up.

All you have stated is that a person should have the right to control the distribution of something they create.
When asked for a reason why, I was only reminded of the fact that they created it.

3. I never said idea's are copyrightable. I'm not the moron you like to paint me as. You're arguement is that because they stem from ideas than they are without ownership and this is flawed. All things stem from ideas. By this 'reasoning' nothing should have ownership.

They came up with the idea for the car, the idea being intellectual property.

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks ARE intellectual property... Ideas are not.

If you meant to state something else, instead of taking my (fairly reasonable) misunderstanding personally, just reword what you said.

4. Yes, and you completely miskewd the analogy.

All I did was ask for clarification.
Is your "yes" in response to GM owning all 3 of the things I listed?

6. I don't own the bits in your drive and you don't own the arrangement of the words to my song. If we're going to play your little game of 'burden of proof' bullshit, you tell me what gives you the right to make copies of a song? Just because you own it? What does ownership of a copy give a person? I own my dog so can I beat it?

I don't think you spent much time trying to understand my statement.
As I said, the words to your song only take a tangible form in property that I already own. By enforcing any sort of distribution rights on them, you automatically must involve yourself with my property.

7. First off, says who? Who made the rule on intangible ownership or is that your idea?

It's not a rule, it was a statement of mine trying to exemplify how IP rights are irremovably linked to my rights as the owner of property.

Second, you have a copy of the original. What gives you the same rights as the creator of it? Was it by selling it? Because purchasing a CD or DVD does not grant an individual the right to duplicate or reproduce the said copy. Those rights are reserved to the creator/distributor. I'm sorry but that's not you. You can enjoy your copy of the CD but it's another story when you claim you have rights to the song itself to the extent that you can create and distribute as you see fit.

I, as you probably have noticed, was arguing the entire time that the creator doesn't have any rights regarding what they create to begin with. I'm not sure why you are using examples of the current legal system to argue against me, when I'm giving you reasons why I think they should be changed.

8. I would appreciate it if you actually would take the time to create and defend your position aside from posting links and dissecting what I'm saying. You ask me for all this proof and explanation without giving your own, Professor.

Open source software was an example of things being accomplished despite any form of reward for authorship reserved for the people working on it. Open source software and free software have accomplished things which easily rival and often overtake the accomplishments of large companies with lots of capital.
And very few people even make money off of open source software.
(as I alluded to earlier, the GNU licence is just as manipulatable as any other form of copyright, despite what the open source gestapo may tell you)

Also, open source is created to be just that, open and modifiable. Songs are not sold to be reproduced. It IS copyright law.

Like I said above, I cited it as an example of people working and accomplishing things under conditions other than those in your example. Great coders in the free software community don't code to get rich, they do it because they love to do it, which was the parallel to artists.

I don't think you're an idiot, but your hostility in this post implies you are convinced that I do.
Feel free to respond to this post in any manner you want, but I won't be responding to any of your future posts in this thread.

 

[Morpheus]

In the face of news like these I can only feel happy for that I don't live in America. This would never happen here, or in most western countries.

Edit:

I'll have to join the copyright debtate. I basically think copyright laws are bullshit. Art should never be a way of becoming rich (edit: added the last word. that was a weird mistake). Making a living, sure, we don't want our artists dead, but I don't believe the right way to go about is to turn it into products and distribute it through marketplace. That undemines the authenticity of the whole thing.

Piratism is often compared to stealing (as the name suggests), but that is nothing but propaganda. Me downloading the music doesn't take it away from anyone else, unlike me stealing a car. It's not even a direct cut from profit: I would never buy all the music I download if the latter was impossible. (actually, I would never buy all the music I buy if I couldn't download it first)

 

[Silently Honest]

I can't help with the feeling that BenW doesn't quite know where he's going with this argument either... it seems that he's just introducing new tangents as he goes, which is great for discovery but not so much so for defending a point. In fact all I've noticed was him dismissing some of minority funks arguement, which works if you in a timed argument between two people, not so much when you can revisit an argument whenever you please though.

 

[Eniko]

For my part in this debate I'm not with the anarchists but I'm not with people who defend IP rights such as copyright. No system would be broken, but the system as is is pretty broken too. The most extreme cases of this would be people making a living off the patent system by buying up old lapsed patents (that never materialized a product) and finding out who they can sue the pants off.

 

[Detective Conan]

Please! A jury gave her this fine, not the music industry.

If the music industry wanted 1.9 million for downloading 24 songs then I'd agree it's excessive however they gave her an offer of $3,500 to settle but she refused as she claims she did nothing wrong, as far as I'm aware that offer is still available to her, the $1.9m is what the jury gave her. She also didn't just download songs for her own personal use, she put them up online for others to access for free.

The first part of Lurker's response reminded me of something I saw on SNL, when Micheal Phelps got busted for drug-use. The skit pertained to "who was the dick that decided to photograph this?" Anyway, while totally different subjects, I have the same thoughts toward the jury that gave out the sentence. Seriously, 1.9 million? I'd be interested to know how that happened in the jury room... blast American laws with the court system. "What happens in the jury room stays in the jury room." (at least this is how it rolls in Idaho...)

But, this is partially the woman's fault. When given the choice to settle for a small fee (small when compared to 1.9 mil...), she refused. I don't get how someone thinks that would be a good idea! Settling usually means either calming down, or taking what you think you can get for something. Still, she went to court over the issue. There she would've been lucky to get the small fee as her sentence. I'm guessing that maybe when the jury found out she didn't just pirate it, but also helped in further distributing it to other piraters, that they decided to up the antie... But still, the 1.9 mil just boggles my mind.