Controversial opinions on metal

[Elric of Melniboné]

We're not arguing that you can' be convicted for "stealing" music through piracy.

To state this as simply as possible: it's impossible to steal something if the person still has the thing you steal after you steal it.

You apparently don't understand intellectual property law in the slightest. Theft doesn't have to consist of stealing a physical item.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You apparently don't understand intellectual property law in the slightest. Theft doesn't have to consist of stealing a physical item.

According to Proudhon, property is theft. Therefore it's actually the musicians who are stealing the music.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

According to Proudhon, property is theft. Therefore it's actually the musicians who are stealing the music.

This must be your way of saying that I'm correct, since you didn't offer any actual evidence to support your argument.

Intellectual property can be owned and it can also be stolen. This is according to actual laws and not my opinions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How many times do I have to tell you that my opinion is not what defines theft, but the outlines of the law? I don't understand why you're unable to understand this.

If someone fails to secure intellectual property under a copyright, it's not owned by anyone so it can't be stolen.

I'm not sure what your hypothetical is supposed to bring to the discussion.

Show me the Canadian law that defines the downloading of music for personal use as theft.

My hypothetical is revealing that you are using law to define your opinion on ethics without critically thinking about the value of those laws. If your views of copyright were a long-standing view, it would be illegal to perform any of the classic symphonies without the permission of their composer's great-great-great-great-etc grandchildren, for example. Or Disney would not have ownership of several intellectual properties that they currently claim to have. I see the value in protecting intellectual property, but it's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of creating an environment that allows creators of IP to be rewarded via the marketplace, and encourage further creation of IP. That is explicitly what the US constitution spells out on IP law, although today it has been distorted to mean the protection of even music long past its release.

Also, copyright doesn't necessarily have to be "secured"; copyright is assumed given by anyone that creates intellectual property. Registration of copyright makes it easier to prove ownership, especially when talking about idea-"theft" (e.g. law suits over similar melodies between popular songs), but isn't necessary to simply establish copyright.

 

[Internally Deformed]

This is according to actual laws and not my opinions.

That's about right, you have laws, we have opinions.

What I've been arguing is that the concept of property as it applies to physical objects doesn't really apply in the same way to intellectual productions, and that therefore the concept of theft as it applies to physical objects doesn't really apply in the same way to intellectual productions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You didn't reply to this btw:

Please quote the portion of that article you believe to be relevant to your argument.

I'm guessing it's because you Googled something like "new canadian copyright law" and just gave me one of the first links it spat back, because your link concerns the obligation of internet providers in reporting violators of copyright and other such things. It has nothing to do with personal downloading of music.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Show me the Canadian law that defines the downloading of music for personal use as theft.

My hypothetical is revealing that you are using law to define your opinion on ethics without critically thinking about the value of those laws. If your views of copyright were a long-standing view, it would be illegal to perform any of the classic symphonies without the permission of their composer's great-great-great-great-etc grandchildren, for example. Or Disney would not have ownership of several intellectual properties that they currently claim to have. I see the value in protecting intellectual property, but it's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of creating an environment that allows creators of IP to be rewarded via the marketplace, and encourage further creation of IP. That is explicitly what the US constitution spells out on IP law, although today it has been distorted to mean the protection of even music long past its release.

Also, copyright doesn't necessarily have to be "secured"; copyright is assumed given by anyone that creates intellectual property. Registration of copyright makes it easier to prove ownership, especially when talking about idea-"theft" (e.g. law suits over similar melodies between popular songs), but isn't necessary to simply establish copyright.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-19.html#h-28

Have fun. You might need to learn to read legal texts in order to understand what this means. I do it regularly as part of my profession.

It basically making an unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is illegal if you need a tl;dr version. The possible penalties and process for legal action are also outlined here.

 

[Internally Deformed]

So pointless because whether a given act is legal or illegal has absolutely no bearing on deciding whether it should be legal or illegal.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I gave my reasons for why I think downloading is bad. Mainly related to entitlement and how it creates issues for bands and record labels.

I also gave evidence that people who said it wasn't stealing were incorrect. I already made it clear that my opinions are irrelevant in the discussion of what is and is not legal.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Why is Covenant Morbid Angels most successful album when fans seem to prefer Altars of madness and Blessed are the sick?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...e-in-the-mail/article22336673/?service=mobile

Here's an article about "notice and notice" laws in Canada, which further squelches any possible argument that using file sharing services to download music in Canada is not illegal.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Mainly related to entitlement and how it creates issues for bands and record labels.

Yes, but in cases where it won't create issues for bands or labels - i.e. if the record is rare and sells for hundreds of dollars second hand online, or if the "pirate" already spends plenty of money on buying music - why should the fact of piracy being legally classified as theft actually make it wrong to do?

That's what you're not responding to.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Why is Covenant Morbid Angels most successful album when fans seem to prefer Altars of madness and Blessed are the sick?

Actually, most fans do indeed prefer Covenant(not here though), and i cant blame them .... its a beast of an album and one death metals best.

I have it Altars > Blessed = Covenant >> Domination as far the the Steve Tucker albums go.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Yes, but in cases where it won't create issues for bands or labels - i.e. if the record is rare and sells for hundreds of dollars second hand online, or if the "pirate" already spends plenty of money on buying music - why should the fact of piracy being legally classified as theft actually make it wrong to do?

That's what you're not responding to.

I have alreadly explained that I oppose such behavior because you aren't entitled to steal something because of its obscurity.

Also, if the owner of the music doesn't have plans to reissue the album or make it available, that should legally be in their hands to decide. You don't get to decide for them. Again, an issue of entitlement.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-19.html#h-28

Have fun. You might need to learn to read legal texts in order to understand what this means. I do it regularly as part of my profession.

It basically making an unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is illegal if you need a tl;dr version. The possible penalties and process for legal action are also outlined here.

Why do you keep linking to laws concerning obligation of an internet provider to notify infringers? This one is more relevant:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-8.html#docCont

Secondary infringement

(2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to

(a) sell or rent out,

(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,

(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or

(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),

a copy of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer’s performance or of a communication signal that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it.

Notice how none of those have to do with downloading for personal use?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Explain to me how it can be legally required for an ISP to notify you that you're committing copyright infringement if you're downloading music or other copyrighted media and yet you can try to claim that it is not a form of copyright infringement. Please tell me how this is possible.

You lost the argument already. It's over.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I have alreadly explained that I oppose such behavior because you aren't entitled to steal something because of its obscurity.

Also, if the owner of the music doesn't have plans to reissue the album or make it available, that should legally be in their hands to decide. You don't get to decide for them. Again, an issue of entitlement.

If you found a brand new flat screen TV dumped in a ditch, would you consider taking it theft? For all you know, the owner of that TV wants it in the ditch, and would be devastated to find out that you'd removed it. What makes you entitled enough to decide that it would be better off not in the ditch and in your living room instead?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

If you found a brand new flat screen TV dumped in a ditch, would you consider taking it theft? For all you know, the owner of that TV wants it in the ditch, and would be devastated to find out that you'd removed it. What makes you entitled enough to decide that it would be better off not in the ditch and in your living room instead?

You have no basis to make an analogy that requires you to know how I would behave in that situation since you don't know me at all.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You have no basis to make an analogy that requires you to know how I would behave in that situation since you don't know me at all.

...what?

The point of the analogy is that if you don't take the TV (which I'm actually even beginning to suspect now you might not), you're a complete moron.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I don't want it. I already own two large 4K resolution flat screen TVs and I don't have anywhere to put a third one. It also doesn't belong to me.