Avatars and Copyright Infringement

[NotLKH]

A friend of Mine brought up the question of the legality of useing
images that are obviously known to be owned by companies and corporations.

To Quote:

Isn't that the elderly Bruce Wayne of the Batman: Dark Knight cartoon
series? Where do you get these avators? Make them? What about copyright
issues?

So, the Question is: Is there a legal infringement with my Avatar, and all avatars that were captured from corporate graphical images?

-Lou

[filburt1]

It's not like I'm copyrighting it myself or like it wasn't free.

I'm guessing you don't use Napster.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by filburt1
It's not like I'm copyrighting it myself or like it wasn't free.

I'm guessing you don't use Napster.

No, I don't use Napster. Sorry I'm a little slow today, but I'm
don't understand It's not like I'm copyrighting it myself or like it wasn't free.. So, are you saying there is no copyright problem
lets say, with My usage of Bruce Wayne?

-Lou

[Bloodeye]

Tough question:

Copywright
VS
Public Domain

I would think that copywright would only come into effect if you were using your avatar in an inappropiate manner, or if you were trying to make money with it or from using the avatar.

Where exactly is the line drawn between Public Domain|Copywright infringement? Here's something else to consider. Is your avatar a "gif" file? If it is, do you need permission to use the gif format....isn't there strict policy about using the "gif" format? This board could be in big time trouble if that's the case. Look at all the smiley's used, they are all gifs.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by NotLKH


No, I don't use Napster. Sorry I'm a little slow today, but I'm
don't understand It's not like I'm copyrighting it myself or like it wasn't free.. So, are you saying there is no copyright problem
lets say, with My usage of Bruce Wayne?

-Lou

In my opinion, if the image was freely available from a legal site and you are not attempting to copyright or sell it, you can use it for an avatar.

[HarryW]

In my opinion, if they don't like it they can send you an email telling you so. Cheaper than a lawsuit.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by HarryW
In my opinion, if they don't like it they can send you an email telling you so. Cheaper than a lawsuit.

The law doesn't treat e-mail as an official document as it can be forged, I am guessing. A letter with a signature will get you somewhere.

[NotLKH]

IMHO, I don't believe that there would be any copyright issue here.

My reasoning is as follows:

If I use the term "Bruce Wayne" in a general conversation, that,
in itself, is not a CopyRight infringement. However, if I claimed
ownership of "Bruce Wayne", and used it as part of a marketing
or identifier for some product or service, obviously That would be
Illegal under CopyRight Laws.

So, The use of an Avatar in these forums is Not meant as a
means of Marketing or Advertising, but as a visual identifier of
who I am. Even though it is My Avatar, Here, I am Not
claiming "Ownership" of the actual image itself, just an informal
association.

So, to me, it seems like there is no copyright problem whatsoever.

However, what about the instances where a person advertises a
service or site for profit generation in a post or thread, who is
using an image for an Avatar that is copyrighted by somebody
other than him{her}-self? Would THAT be considered Legally
Actionable?

-Lou

[filburt1]

I can just hear Katie and others saying "just use a black avatar!"

[parksie]

Well black is supreme

[barrk]

Black is caused by the absence of light!

[filburt1]

Technically and metaphorically true.

[cypherx]

Originally posted by NotLKH
IMHO, I don't believe that there would be any copyright issue here.

My reasoning is as follows:

If I use the term "Bruce Wayne" in a general conversation, that,
in itself, is not a CopyRight infringement. However, if I claimed
ownership of "Bruce Wayne", and used it as part of a marketing
or identifier for some product or service, obviously That would be
Illegal under CopyRight Laws.

Take this as an example: If I play a song I got from Napster, then I am not using "it as part of a marketing or identifier for some product or service." Yet it is still copyright infringement. This is because you have stolen something, e.g. performance rights. It is immaterial whether you make money with it or not. I am not talking about trademark dilution or other issue, but pure copyright, which is often the only value a creator has in the product of his work.

When you use an icon made from the work of someone else you have arguably violated one of two copyrights: the right to copy or the right to make derivative works.

The point is not whether you can or do make money from it, but that the right to copy (and do other things with the work) rests solely in the holder of the copyright. That is what copyright means.

Whether you would pay Hanna-Barbara, DC, or whoever holds the copyright in this case to use the image as an avatar, I don't know, but you certainly won't pay if you can take it without a care about the copyright holder. You may think it harmless, but so do millions who until recently (and perhaps soon again) were downloading songs for nothing. Whatever you think about the big, bad record companies, the music industry feeds, clothes, and houses people. When you steal their work you are taking money out of their pockets, perhaps even food out of their mouths. No matter how rich you think someone is, it is not right to mug him in an alley and steal his money, perhaps in fact his livelihood. Once you can steal every song and album that the Megadeth records, why will you ever buy an album?


I am surprised that coders would hold this 'napster' perspective since you are the creators of intellectual property protected usually by copyright and you should be able to see the connection. If I steal a program from you, I am taking food out of your mouth. You want to get paid for your work and what it is worth I would presume. Do you want people to feed off of you for free like vampires?

Just my two cents and, yes, I was the one being originally quoted by NotLKH. It was meant as a rhetorical question, both in its conclusion and the potential response. My way of chiding him.

Remember, stealing is stealing. Using other people's stuff for your own stuff is not fair use, it is theft.

Let the flamefest begin!

cypherx

[NotLKH]

I'm not going to disagree with you, especially about napster .(even though what a person does and doesn't believe is immaterial when it comes to the law, I believe when an individual is directly paid for a product such as a song, it is wrong to get it for free, since as cypherx accurately pointed out, that is stealing.)

But now, as to the usage of an image which is distributed among the public two different ways, as a product which we pay for, ie a show, movie, magazine, etc..., and as part of a promotion that is provided free of charge, ie... a commercial, website, etc.. How is it
concluded that , to quote cypherx,

you are taking money out of their pockets

when you use an image from a source that isn't marketed for money directly, but it is distributed among the public freely to induce people to spend money on the companies actual product.

It would seem, in this instance, that the more the image appears,
the more it Helps them Generate income.

Of course, thats my opinion, and in no way reflects my actual knowledge of the legality of this issue.

To Quote Myself,

So, to me, it seems like there is no copyright problem whatsoever

Right. To me, there is no problem. But its still illegal.




-Lou

[Bloodeye]

NotLKH -

Here's something to think about. Every time I load this page a "Copy" of your avatar is placed on my HD (unless it's already in the cache). So if you believe it's "illegal" for you to use that avatar, then thanks for making wrongdoers of us all....

[NotLKH]

Ok, I'll Play that game,

Thanks for your input, BloodEye. However, I do believe that for a person
to be legally held responsible for an illegal transgression, one of
the things that has to be proved is that they were aware that
they were involved in an illegal transaction to begin with. But lets
wait for cypherX to weigh in on this.

-Lou

[cypherx]

Originally posted by NotLKH


But now, as to the usage of an image which is distributed among the public two different ways, as a product which we pay for, ie a show, movie, magazine, etc..., and as part of a promotion that is provided free of charge, ie... a commercial, website, etc.. How is it
concluded that , to quote cypherx,

you are taking money out of their pockets

when you use an image from a source that isn't marketed for money directly, but it is distributed among the public freely to induce people to spend money on the companies actual product.

It would seem, in this instance, that the more the image appears,
the more it Helps them Generate income.

Legalities aside (it is of course violative of law), the point in fact is that you did not let THEM decide that. It is their copyright. They can do what they want with the product. You can't. I may take your car to the car wash, but when I bring it back, you are probably most concerned with why I think I have the right to take your car anywhere, not with the fact that it is clean. The fact that you were not positively harmed by my seizure of your property, in fact actually helped, will likely not be counted as a defense for my 'right' to take your car. It is your property and taking it (even obstensibly for your benefit) is a harm as it interferes with your right to control the property. If you don't have a right to control (i.e. possess) property then it really isn't property, is it?

If you think it is such a benefit to the copyright holder, why don't you ask for PERMISSION to use the image. Make your case and abide by their decision. That is called the rule of law and it is what civilized people abide by. This 'Viking' mentality that you can take what you can get away with is what is behind the use of services like Napster and software piracy in general under the guise of 'freedom of information' rhetoric. Maybe I should propose 'freedom of transportation' and start driving these peoples' cars. Or how about 'freedom of habitation' and I move in with them?

Sounds like a plan to me!

--cypherx

[parksie]

Or how about 'freedom of habitation' and I move in with them?

Hmm...not heard that chatup line before Could be interesting to try...........

[InvisibleDuncan]

I've pasted this in from the site where I got my avatar. They also have animated gifs of Disney characters, spiderman, Garfield etc.

TERMS OF USE & DISCLAIMER
All animations on this site are free for you to download and use on your noncommercial projects. It's not necessary to provide a link back to this site, but if you do it, would be greatly appreciated. Please don't use these animations on any other collections.

You use these animations at your own risk, and agree not to hold *****.com responsible for any damages that you may incur through use of these animations.


COPYRIGHT NOTICE
To the best of my knowledge the animations on this site are not copyrighted. If you find any animations that are, please notify me & I will remove them or preferably give the credit for the artist. Thank you!

So, if this is the opinion of a website that exists purely to give people access to animated gifs, I think it's likely to be reasonably accurate...

[HarryW]

InvisibleDuncan, not sure if you know but your avatar is a fire elemental from Ultima Online, so the copyright almost certainly lies with Origin.

cypherx, it's all very well talking about stealing people's cars and squatting in their houses, but what you are talking about when you talk about information is something that is completely replicatable with no actual harm done to anything or anybody, aside from the fact that you now also hold the information.

Now I understand you think this is bad enough in itself, so lets talk about that and not cloud the issue with talk about theft of physical property leading to personal cost other than that of opportunity.

So, the cost incurred in copying a song is not one of physical assets, or of money; it costs the legal owner of the song the opportunity to sell it to you. I don't debate their right to sell it to you, that's fair enough. Also, if they would specifically rather you didn't have it (whether you paid for it or not), then I respect that too and I think that's also fair enough.

My reservation is the attitude that it's the law, so it must be right. The law is a generalisation and is not intended to be fair. It is intended to maintain social order and benefit society as a whole by inflicting one rough set of morals on the entire population, with fairness as an optional extra. That's not a bad thing, but it's not perfect. The law is flawed in lost of small ways, many of them not reasonably solvable.

Now, you have the copyright owners wishing to protect their intellectual property, as they have the legal right to do. Unless they dislike you personally, or have some other similar reason to prefer you not to hold a copy of their property, the only ethical (using the same ethics the law wants to project onto the masses) reason they could want to prevent you holding a copy is so that they can extract money (or other assets) from you in exchange for granting you the right to hold a copy.

So, if you were about to buy a song, but discovered that you could get it on mp3 for free, I would have a moral objection to you electing to take the mp3 and not paying for it. However, if you get an mp3 of a song and would have no intention of buying it, should you for some reason lose the mp3, then I have no objection because you are not denying the copyright owner the opportunity to sell it to you. The opportunity to sell it to you never existed in the first place, and it is therefore worthless. That makes the song worthless in this context. Perhaps you would pay a tiny amount for a legal copy of the song, given the chance, but that isn't an option in real life.

That's really my take on the whole intellectual property deal. The same applies to software, in my opinion. I would consider anybody trying to deny such intellectual property to an individual to whom it is worthless (not the general population) for no reason other than the fact that they can to be immoral, and acting in opposition to the purpose of the law they use to leverage their will.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Harry,

I didn't know that - I just nabbed it from a site full of animated gifs because I liked the look.

I can't imagine they'd complain, though - it's almost like subliminal advertising (assuming people recognise it).

[cypherx]

Originally posted by HarryW
[snip]

cypherx, it's all very well talking about stealing people's cars and squatting in their houses, but what you are talking about when you talk about information is something that is completely replicatable with no actual harm done to anything or anybody, aside from the fact that you now also hold the information.

Now I understand you think this is bad enough in itself, so lets talk about that and not cloud the issue with talk about theft of physical property leading to personal cost other than that of opportunity.

I think I made very careful examples. Do you mind me or anyone else driving your car when you are not using it? You know, like at night? Well, that's my example. What is the problem with me moving in with you? I take up very little space, and all you lose is opportunity to use this room or that only while I am there. Too tough? Okay, maybe we have a rule that I can only use a room when you are not using it. What is wrong with that? That is my example.

The problem is that these are your things and what makes them yours is that you can exclude others from having it. If you cannot do control the use of your property, then you do not own it. It is not your property. If you wish to get rid of property rights, then fine. But I don't think there are many people who can be consistent about this.

So, the cost incurred in copying a song is not one of physical assets, or of money; it costs the legal owner of the song the opportunity to sell it to you. I don't debate their right to sell it to you, that's fair enough. Also, if they would specifically rather you didn't have it (whether you paid for it or not), then I respect that too and I think that's also fair enough.

This seems odd though. You minimize the harm. As if to say: 'Hey, what is the harm?' It's not so bad really. I find your claim that you won't debate their right to sell and it is fair enough rather hollow since you are quite willing to put forth an argument to make their property worthless so no one will feel a moral compunction to steal it from them. Hate to put it so harshly, but that is what your position amounts to.

[quote]My reservation is the attitude that it's the law, so it must be right. The law is a generalisation and is not intended to be fair. It is intended to maintain social order and benefit society as a whole by inflicting one rough set of morals on the entire population, with fairness as an optional extra. That's not a bad thing, but it's not perfect. The law is flawed in lost of small ways, many of them not reasonably solvable.[quote]

I feel another rationalization coming on. I never said that because the law is the law that it is right or must be right. I don't hold that attitude. I would thank you to keep your foot out of my mouth. However, I can see why this step is necessary because we must find a way of denigrating the law so that we can feel free to break it. So now the law is unfair or at least not intended to be fair. Wild statement: Laws are fundamentally (definitionally) based on the idea of fairness. Reality is not perfect, far from it, but to say that fairness is only an extra and not a goal of the law is seriously (wildly) overstating the matter. Laws, to be laws, must be at least ostensibly fair (at a minimim, prima facie). (The idea of laws being generalizations is flawed. What are they generalizing? Certainly not actual human behavior. It is general human behavior that is being ruled against. Take Napster, for instance.)

You also denigrate our ability to deal with problems generally. This will allow for falling back into hopelessness about our ability to prevent theft so everyone should steal. After all it is unfair to ask people not to steal when we can't prevent everyone from stealing. You know, it is so damn easy now to steal. [You are close to a point here, but I think you missed it completely.]

[snip]

So, if you were about to buy a song, but discovered that you could get it on mp3 for free, I would have a moral objection to you electing to take the mp3 and not paying for it. However, if you get an mp3 of a song and would have no intention of buying it, should you for some reason lose the mp3, then I have no objection because you are not denying the copyright owner the opportunity to sell it to you. The opportunity to sell it to you never existed in the first place, and it is therefore worthless. That makes the song worthless in this context. Perhaps you would pay a tiny amount for a legal copy of the song, given the chance, but that isn't an option in real life.

This seems confused. Perhaps you will elaborate. However, the fact that you would not pay for something is immaterial to the case. I already dealt with this in previous posts above. Whether you will pay for something or not, you certainly won't pay for it if you can rightfully get for free. I am confused in that I don't understand what you are suggesting. What is the practical suggestion in all that?

That only those willing to pay should be charged? That is a silly idea. Won't everyone become 'unwilling' in order to get the (five-fingered) discount? Isn't this what happened with Napster? Those who are willing to pay for the song, deserve to have it. Those who don't, don't , especially because other people did pay for the right to have a copy. So, you have your morals all backwards.

Those who produce information (objects) deserve at least to be compensated for the value the market places on the information (objects). (The main upshot is that if you do not have a compensation structure, then people will produce less or less valuable products, or perhaps none at all.) That is the whole market, not each individual buyer (unless you want to sell everything in an open 'auction' market; a highly impractical idea). If enough people think something is worthless, then it will be worthless and no one will buy it for any price and you can wipe your butt with it. The interesting things about worthless stuff: people don't try to have those things. You never see people picking up litter because, all else being equal, they would like to have litter except for the fact you have to pay for it. That is what it means to be worthless: people don't want to have it. Those who have things have them because they value them in some way. If they value them, then there is some price they would pay to have it. It is utterly impossible to describe it in any other way. To say that people want things which are worthless to them is a contradiction. Total, utter rubbish! (Pun intended! )

That's really my take on the whole intellectual property deal. The same applies to software, in my opinion. I would consider anybody trying to deny such intellectual property to an individual to whom it is worthless (not the general population) for no reason other than the fact that they can to be immoral, and acting in opposition to the purpose of the law they use to leverage their will. [/B]

Since that makes no sense (nonsense which could never happen), I guess we are not disagreeing here. Immoral people take what they can because they can. Immoral people will not pay for things if they can easily and with impunity (literally without punishment) get it for nothing. They are freeloaders, freeriders on the system. The 'pay for products' system has produced some wonderful products that these people want and take. They take them because they find them valuable and they can have a lot more if they do not pay for them (or they can have fries with them, which are a lot harder to steal and so have to pay for). Anyone using software or listening to music who says they wouldn't be using the software or listening to that music if they had to pay for it because the program/music is worthless is a living contradiction. Flushed out as self-rationalizing liar by their own self-contradicting actions.

Don't fall for it! What they mean to say is either a) I wouldn't use it if I had to pay the current market price because I do not value it that much, or (much more likely) b) I won't pay for it when I can get it for free by stealing it. Their very use of the product is self-verifying proof that they value that product. Neither of these attitudes is a moral justification for taking what is not theirs.

So let's be clear about the morality here: This is not about food or shelter, it is about information (and not necessary information either). Most of the products people like to steal are entertainment products. It is never immoral (as far as I can fathom) to withhold unnecessary information for a price. I really don't think people have any 'right' to these products even if we were in an Alice in Wonderland world where people would want things they thought were worthless.

cypherx

[HarryW]

The car theft and house-sitting issue is just not that similar. You may think it is but the reasons you wouldn't want someone living in your house while you weren't there, or using your car while you weren't are completely different. If they have your car, what if you suddenly needed to use it when they had it? What if they crashed it, or scratched the paintwork? They're adding mileage and engine wear every time they use it. If they live in your house, they'll nose around, they might move things, take them or damage them. You might feel uncomfortable living in such close proximity to a complete stranger in your own house. The problem you (or I at least, perhaps I am alone in this) would have with it would not be from the fact that I'd lost the opportunity to rent them my car, or my room (but only when I'm not using them, which would be odd).

Okay so I see your point about property rights, and what makes it your property, but that doesn't change the later point I made about keeping someone from having something just because you can.

So, the cost incurred in copying a song is not one of physical assets, or of money; it costs the legal owner of the song the opportunity to sell it to you. I don't debate their right to sell it to you, that's fair enough. Also, if they would specifically rather you didn't have it (whether you paid for it or not), then I respect that too and I think that's also fair enough.

This seems odd though. You minimize the harm. As if to say: 'Hey, what is the harm?' It's not so bad really. I find your claim that you won't debate their right to sell and it is fair enough rather hollow since you are quite willing to put forth an argument to make their property worthless so no one will feel a moral compunction to steal it from them. Hate to put it so harshly, but that is what your position amounts to.

You can put it as harshly as you like, the simple fact is that you don't agree with my opinion and want to see it from the most negative viewpoint possible. I have not said "Hey, what is the harm? It's not so bad really", I have said that in some circumstances there is no harm. I stand by that point even though you may disagree. Further, I am not trying to portray the property as worthless, just saying "if it is worthless, then....", which is not by any means the same thing. Feel free to point fingers at people who disagree with you if it makes you feel better, but I still disagree.

You have misunderstood the point about the product being worthless. It is worthless because the opportunity to sell it never existed. I clearly stated this in my previous post. It is not a matter of whether anyone wants it or not, it's a matter of whether there is any realistic way that the owner would be able to sell it to the consumer.

The consumer might have been willing to pay some amount for it. Suppose you have a single which costs £4 - perhaps you don't like the song that much that you'd be willing to pay that much for it. Perhaps it's something you'd quite like to hear every now and again, but aren't motivated sufficiently to pay the whole £4. Perhaps you would be willing to pay £1 for the privilege. Clearly, in the real world, you cannot call up the owner and haggle with them, and so, given the fact that you are not willing to pay £4 as it is only worth £1 to you, there is no opportunity to sell it to you. The song is worthless in this context - not to the consumer, to the copyright owner. There is no chance that the copyright owner is going to extract any money from the consumer in exchange for the right to own a copy of the song.

In retrospect, in the final paragraph of my previous post, I was unclear. I should not have said it was worthless to the individual, that was not quite what I meant, I should have said something along the lines of "an individual in the context of whom it is worthless". Although that's still a bit unclear, it's closer to the intended meaning.

Don't fall for it! What they mean to say is either a) I wouldn't use it if I had to pay the current market price because I do not value it that much, or (much more likely) b) I won't pay for it when I can get it for free by stealing it. Their very use of the product is self-verifying proof that they value that product. Neither of these attitudes is a moral justification for taking what is not theirs.

I think perspective (a) is fine, which is where we obviously disagree. I suspect that the reason behind your disapproval of (a) is not because of the "what if they borrowed your car" idea, but something else, since I really don't see it as a very similar situation.

Laws are fundamentally (definitionally) based on the idea of fairness. Reality is not perfect, far from it, but to say that fairness is only an extra and not a goal of the law is seriously (wildly) overstating the matter. Laws, to be laws, must be at least ostensibly fair (at a minimim, prima facie).

Why do you think they are fair by definition? Is there some ancient greek or latin literal translation here tha I don't know about? I still don't see why a law should be intended to be fair. The law is there to maintain social order. It is self-perpetuating, just like any other evolving entity; it must be in order to survive. The law has not evolved on the basis of fairness, but on the basis of upholding the law. Obviously what affects the survival of any part of the law is mainly the opinion of the people who have the power to decide it, which is partly those high up in the area, such as judges and those like them, and partly the people as a whole.

A prime example of the law maintaining social order in preference to being fair is in places where capital punishment is not practiced, such as the UK. A person could commit a series of heinous crimes - think of whatever crimes you hate most - and upon their apprehension they would simply be imprisoned for the rest of their life. Is this fair? Certainly not, it would be fair to be as harsh on them as they had been on the rest of society. Why, then, don't we execute such people? Because 'it would be uncivilised' or 'it would bring us down to their level'. We are not comfortable with the idea of killing them because it is something we think could cause other problems in society if we feel we can kill criminals. We fear it may promote social disorder.

[NotLKH]

cypherx,

I was requested to bring up the issue of "fair use".

And perhaps, in terms of Napsterism "Humming" vrs actual File copying of an MP3. {Bear {Grrrr} with me, I'm dealing with another reticint party who has firm opinions but wishes to remain anonymous}


-Lou

[JungleMan]

You have a good point, i hear the color Black is copyrighted by Microsoft

[cypherx]

Originally posted by HarryW
The car theft and house-sitting issue is just not that similar. You may think it is but the reasons you wouldn't want someone living in your house while you weren't there, or using your car while you weren't are completely different. [snip]

Analogies only go so far. Expecting exact one to one comparison is an argumentative stance you can take but I think my examples make the point. And where they don't, they point out other interesting features which are similar. Originally, you were focused on actual harm, now you point to potential harm. Remember, my original example, there was not only no actual harm, but actual benefit to the owner (I took the car to wash it). So, it seems that you will agree there is a problem with unauthorized interference with possession in that there could be potential harm to the property. It would be interesting to see if ripping mp3s and giving them to people who do not value the product enough to pay open market prices has some potential to harm the owners. Hmmm.

Okay so I see your point about property rights, and what makes it your property, but that doesn't change the later point I made about keeping someone from having something just because you can.

I would point out here that keeping something away from someone 'just because I can' is only a problem if that someone has an arguable claim to the property. If the individual has nothing more than a capricious right to a piece of property, then I don't see why I need more than a capricious reason not to give it to him if the property is mine. But in any case, this never happens.

Sellers have no way of knowing which people would pay which price without polling each and every market member in an auction-like way. Not all products can be sold in an auction format, the markets are too discontinuous in space and time for that and the increased costs of selling the product are substantial in that it would harm more buyers than it would help. So, sellers give up the opportunity to extract the absolute market value of their product (both those who would go higher than the established price and those who would not go so high as the established price) and buyers forego the ability to procure each and every product that they might want. Both sellers and buyers gain from this arrangement, buyers get many products at lower prices than an absolute auction would give then because they value the product very much, and sellers are able to get a fair median on the price point even with lost opportunity at the high and low end. Due to market realities then, sellers/buyers operate in economic enviroments with relative uniform prices across the particular market.

Thus, also, such companies do not prevent those from having their property merely because they can, but because the market is not set up as an auction where all bidders eventually get a chance. One should note that low bidders may still have to wait a long because reserve bidding waiting periods would be necessary as well. Without a waiting period, all property would quickly go to a zero value as buyers would easily be able to wait out the high prices. We have these waiting periods with media companies now. Movies come out in the theaters at high prices per view (ppv), then go through the video rental market and pay-per-view tv with medium ppv after six months to a year or more, and then premium pay tv with even lower ppv , and then on commerical TV with only a nuisance ppv. So, the market covers just about everyone and nowhere do we see people preventing access just because they can. I believe these markets are operating as efficiently as possible at low costs. Auction-type markets wold be wildly inefficient in costs and convenience in comparison, although they would eventually achieve perfect price fitting before accounting for costs (though prices may actually be higher overall in such a market overall due to increased costs).

So, even if I were to give any weight to capricious desires (and I don't) then we still would not have capricious withholding of possession to these people. It is simply impossible to meet the needs of these people in a regularized market without very high costs. Such people might eventually find the movie they want in the video 'bargain bin' at a price which will reach a ppv that is acceptable to them. If they don't, then there is no harm to them anyway and there is substantial potential harm to the copyright holder. Even if an auction system was set up, it may take just as long to reach that price point, so there might be no difference under either market system except that the lattter is wildly cost-inefficient.

[snip] I have not said "Hey, what is the harm? It's not so bad really", I have said that in some circumstances there is no harm. I stand by that point even though you may disagree. Further, I am not trying to portray the property as worthless, just saying "if it is worthless, then....", which is not by any means the same thing. [snip]

I have shown that it could never be worthless in the requisite sense. If the person taking the property is denying the owner his asking price then there is a harm. That person is using a product without permssion (which undermines the whole idea of property) and compensating the owner, which is wrong in itself. Additionally, even if I was to think like you that the fact that someone is not compensated for his work is not in itself a harm, there are all sorts of potential harm. The method by which the interloper gains access (such as decryption) may open my property to widespread copying and loss of compensation from those unscrupulous people for whom my product is not 'worthless' from 'inadvertent' releasing of the decryption algorithym.

To be continued...

[cypherx]

...continued from above

You have misunderstood the point about the product being worthless. It is worthless because the opportunity to sell it never existed. I clearly stated this in my previous post. It is not a matter of whether anyone wants it or not, it's a matter of whether there is any realistic way that the owner would be able to sell it to the consumer.

I have dealt with this above. The fact that there is no 'opportunity to sell' is a function of the system and not a capricious one, but quite necessary. No seller is withholding the property from the 'user' simply because he can, but because it is necessary to do so in order for the market to work. 'User' has no non-capricious claim on the property. However, giving into this weak want (by not pressing my own claims) exposes my property to potential harm in dilution of value as the free copy might be propagated around the market through 'loss' or otherwise, or the process by which the copy was made, through 'loss' or otherwise. In fact, allowing those unwilling to pay for property to simply have it free of charge could cause the market to collapse, a great moral harm to buyers and sellers everywhere. Obviously if Napster wasn't stopped, this would have eventually happened to the music industry as the 'opportunity to sell' simply disappeared from the market.

[snip] The song is worthless in this context - not to the consumer, to the copyright owner. There is no chance that the copyright owner is going to extract any money from the consumer in exchange for the right to own a copy of the song.

Again, I showed above that this 'lost opportunity' is already subsumed in the market. This is a loss to the seller and the buyer, but the seller and buyer also gain in other areas. It is a trade-off that ultimately benefits both. Sellers reach a stable median price which is expected to somewhere close to what they would get in an auction environment after costs. Buyers get to have some or many desires fulfilled at (at least to them) bargain prices.

In retrospect, in the final paragraph of my previous post, I was unclear. I should not have said it was worthless to the individual, that was not quite what I meant, I should have said something along the lines of "an individual in the context of whom it is worthless". Although that's still a bit unclear, it's closer to the intended meaning.

This is not important, but I thought this was cleared up above. Your point is that it has no potential value to the seller because this is a 'no opportunity to sell' situation. Am I wrong or is there something more to it?

I think perspective (a) is fine, which is where we obviously disagree. I suspect that the reason behind your disapproval of (a) is not because of the "what if they borrowed your car" idea, but something else, since I really don't see it as a very similar situation.

Simply put: no cognizable, let alone compelling, right to the property and potential harm to the owner. So, if you don't want to pay for the product, please let me know why I should be compelled to give it to you? What is the harm to you, the person who wants the product?

Why do you think they are fair by definition? Is there some ancient greek or latin literal translation here tha I don't know about? I still don't see why a law should be intended to be fair. The law is there to maintain social order. It is self-perpetuating, just like any other evolving entity; it must be in order to survive. The law has not evolved on the basis of fairness, but on the basis of upholding the law. Obviously what affects the survival of any part of the law is mainly the opinion of the people who have the power to decide it, which is partly those high up in the area, such as judges and those like them, and partly the people as a whole.

Laws are a functional component of justice and thus must be fair to be just. Laws by definition apply to all subjects similarly situated, ie. they are fair. Like cases are treated alike. (They may be fair in other ways, such as the process of their generation and the weighing of interests) Laws maintain social order because people abide by them and they do that because they think that, all else being equal, they are fair. Unfair laws usually cause an impetus to change them. So, social order is maintained to the extent that laws fit their function, that is they are fair. Your statement 'law has [ ] evolved [...] on the basis of upholding the law' is hopelessly circular and therefore meaningless. What is the sense of it? What would be the content of a law evolved on the basis of upholding the law? It could be only one: 'Obey the law'. This would cause an infinite loop in any lesser mind. We, on the other hand, just ignore such circular nonsense.

A prime example of the law maintaining social order in preference to being fair is in places where capital punishment is not practiced, such as the UK. A person could commit a series of heinous crimes - think of whatever crimes you hate most - and upon their apprehension they would simply be imprisoned for the rest of their life. Is this fair? Certainly not, it would be fair to be as harsh on them as they had been on the rest of society.

I see, you simply don't understand the word 'fair'. I suggest you look it up. Capital punishment is unfair when, say, disproportionally those who are black get executed for crimes that everyone else gets life imprisonment for. When like cases are treated differently. Fairness is a substantive component of justice, but it is not synonymous with it. There are other things important to justice. Fairness is only one of them.

Why, then, don't we execute such people?[snip]

I believe that the death penalty was abolished in the UK and elsewhere due to the fact that errors can and have been made. The danger of killing an innocent person is both real and should be enough on its own to abolish the penalty. I don't think many people buy the 'you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs' line of reasoning in this regard. There is a point about consistency: we kill even though we say one shouldn't kill. There is also the issue of proportionality of punishment: few killers kill their victims in the way we execute prisoners, i.e. lock them in a room and tell them exactly when and where and how they will kill them and then take their time doing it. If you increase proportionality in punishment (by reducing the time to death) then you increase the potential for error. It is a punishment we are not equipped to give and we are arguably inconsistent in giving it.

P.S. I also don't think it is fairly administered here in the U.S.

cypherx

[cypherx]

Originally posted by NotLKH
I was requested to bring up the issue of "fair use".

And perhaps, in terms of Napsterism "Humming" vrs actual File copying of an MP3. {Bear {Grrrr} with me, I'm dealing with another reticint party who has firm opinions but wishes to remain anonymous}

In American law, 'fair use' is not a right but a defense. There are many aspects of it, but basically it has to do with copying a portion of a copyrighted work for criticism, commentary, parody purposes, etc.. This is basically the 'quote' idea. You can quote a copyrighted work for the purposes stated above as long as the quoting does not represent a substantial portion of the work. You can use a copyrighted expression of an idea for parody purposes, like the Simpsons do a Star Trek parody. They do not need permission to do so because of 'fair use'. 'Fair use' is a defense in that if charged with copyright infringement, you can say that your use comes under the exception for 'fair use'.

I do not understand this idea of 'humming' versus copying an mp3. Do you mean me just humming a tune? This is not a violation of copyright unless it is a 'public' performance. I don't know, say a humming performance in Carnegie Hall. Humming to yourself or your normal circle of family and friends (this is the legal way of putting it) is not a violation. [I think this investigation of the law goes a long way to show that the law is just in taking all interests into account and balancing them. So I thank my anonymous interlocutor.]

You can always perform works in your home for yourself or for your family and friends. (I want to stress that you perform the work and that you need legitimate access to the work if you are not working purely from memory) The idea here would be playing John Lennon's 'Imagine' on your guitar at a family gathering. If you are a natural ear, you may be able to play it without owning the sheet music, but you may not steal or copy the sheet music just because you will only perform it in private.

Hope this helps your friend.

cypherx

[cypherx]

Originally posted by HarryW


2) One of several definitions of 'fair' is: "Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics". Obviously, I was concerned with the ethics bit. You seem to be discussing something different.

Interesting if you could cite a dictionary on that (I can find that def. nowhere). But if we take that as the definition of 'fair', as you use it (really more in common with 'right'), then nothing changes for me. Nothing in the idea of right (fair) says that we must or should visit the same action as the crime as the punishment. We do not steal from thieves or burn down the houses of arsonists. Why the exception in this case? Your concept of strict equality would demand that. Your equation of right with 'equal' (which is why you use the term 'fair' in the first place rather than 'right') is therefore erroneous.

In any case, that is all off topic. The upshot of all this 'essay'-writing is that you contend that there is a possibility that there could be a situation where someone might not be reached by the market and it would be wrong to withhold the product from him just because you can. Persons in such a position appearto be not only the minority of the cases, but so vanishingly small a minority that it remains only a possibility in your argument; and even if there were such persons, the withholding of product from them is NOT simply because of fiat power, but because the market cannot operate in any other way. Since there is no arbitrary withholding for the purpose of mere fiat, your whole argument dies for lack of air. If you disagree now, then perhaps it is simply because you are disagreeable.

cypherx

[HarryW]

At no point have I said that this fits in with the system. There is not system for it. The 'vanishingly small' minority is hardly as small as you claim, that's just your opinion. Since you've once again made a false assumption and followed through with all your effort to try and make me look stupid, you've only succeeded in wasting your effort. Why you continue to make assumptions and charge along with them I don't know. When you make these false assumptions and end up being erronous your entire argument becomes invalid and just not worth reading.

There is no official system that would support this anyway as I said. It is not practical to accommodate the fact that different people will pay different prices for the same product. I have no objection to people side-stepping the system, when appropriate, to make things more reasonable.

Since you seem to be implying I'm a liar with the dictionary definition, here you go. I'm not sure what's so 'interesting' about it but if you think so: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=fair

[rEaL iGoR]

I just really think the whole thing is stupid! I mean...We're talking about animated characters and pictures. I just...can't seem to understand how you can ever believe why anyone will attempt to sue you or anything for that! Well, officially, it's illegal to take pictures from other websites, but does it actually hurt them that much? I don't really think so. If you can't steal an animated gif, what can you steal? I am amazed anyone would actually bring this up

In my opinion:

Use all the pictures you want of Cartoons, real pics, whatever. Nobody's gonna kill you for that!

[cypherx]

Originally posted by HarryW
At no point have I said that this fits in with the system. There is not system for it. The 'vanishingly small' minority is hardly as small as you claim, that's just your opinion. Since you've once again made a false assumption and followed through with all your effort to try and make me look stupid, you've only succeeded in wasting your effort. Why you continue to make assumptions and charge along with them I don't know. When you make these false assumptions and end up being erronous your entire argument becomes invalid and just not worth reading.

I didn't state that you DID say it fits in with the system. So you really need to learn how to read. You said that people were keeping products away from others simply because they could. I pointed out that the system simply could not accommodate such "buyers" and therefore authors were not keeping the the product away from these "buyers" just because they can. That was supposed to answer your 'fiat' argument. And it did.

As for the minority part, it is my opinion. Although I think a valid one in the wake of Napster, or do you think the hundreds of thousands [millions?] who stole and distributed thousands of copyrighted works over and over again for free were all, or even substantially, people who would never listen to any of the works they stole except for perhaps a token fee? You say that it is hardly as small as I claim, do you have facts to back that up or is that just your opinion as well? Thought so.

Let's get to the fact of 'vanishingly small minority'. How many people on Napster do you feel fit your criteria? That is people who scruple in the way you imagine. They pay for songs that they value at the market value or above and trade for free any that they don't (interesting, how short of the market value do you have to be before you can justify going all the way to zero, ie. how far below say $15 do you have to be before you can 'justify' stealing the all the music for nothing?). So, how many of these people who pay for all their music except where they don't value the music enough to buy it were there on Napster at its peak? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10,000? Any of that is what I call a vanishingly small minority

My opinion is based on the fact that people who do not value something very much do not take the time and trouble (and remember time is money) to invent ways of efficiently stealing a product and efficiently distributing their stolen goods. So, ipso facto, the vast majority of people (including the Napster himself) involved in this do value the things they are stealing and accepting as stolen from others.

There is no official system that would support this anyway as I said. It is not practical to accommodate the fact that different people will pay different prices for the same product. I have no objection to people side-stepping the system, when appropriate, to make things more reasonable.

My whole previous argument was to show that the market system was reasonable and that to require the market to accommodate such "buyers" would be unreasonable. You agree that it would be impractical and that makes it unreasonable to expect the system to allow this. So, there is nothing to make "more reasonable". The system is perfectly reasonable as it stands right now.

So, the whole issue is when is it appropriate to "side-step" the system?

Well, if the "buyers" had a legitimate moral claim, i.e. a non-capricious claim (i.e. one other than simply: 'I want it'), to the property, then there might arise occasions where theft of the property might be excused (note not right but excused). Such as when a starving poor man steals a loaf of bread to survive. Even in such an extreme case, we do not say that he no longer owes anyone for this bread. He is still morally obligated to pay for the bread if and when he comes into some money. The shopkeeper may waive this, but he is still waiving a right he has to compensation. We say that theft under such duress is excused, not subject to punishment.

Here, however, we are talking about the 'right' of someone or 'need' of someone to listen to the latest hit by N'SYNC. Not just listen to it of course, as they could do that over the radio or at a friend's house, but to listen to it "on demand" anytime anywhere they want. Oh, yeah, I forgot the extra part: without paying what everyone else pays for it. It is important that I respect that capriciousness for what reason?

Seems to me that it is the most petty 'need' one could think of (except perhaps as has been pointed out here: the capricious desire to use copyrighted pics for avatars for nothing.). This isn't much of a need even to the person himself since a necessary component of your argument is that they do not value the copyrighted work enough to pay what others are willing to pay for it. So, the fact that they cannot have it is not much of a loss, if any at all. Nothing of ethical import to recognize there and thus no need to excuse the stealing of the song. There is no sense in which these people deserve to have the song like the straving man deserves to be fed by virtue of his humanity and the requirement of food to sustain it. The "suffering" caused by having to listen to the song on the radio (or not at all) is not one I am ethically compelled to recognize, is it? In fact, your argument is that they don't much care to listen to the song anyway, let alone on demand anytime anywhere, since they don't want to pay (very much) for that privilege.

On the other hand, condoning or tolerating or allowing people to steal songs undermines the whole market which could collapse under the weight of 'side-stepping' file-sharing like Napster such that music would not be produced in the number and/or quality that it now is. Musicians would be forced to get real jobs since their music would no longer be making money for them. Seems I am ethically compelled to recognize that.

So, as between creating a situation with no recognizable harm or preventing one with substantial harmful effects that require recognition, I am compelled to choose the latter. You have provided no argument to the contrary and in fact agree with a substantial portion of my argument.

Even if you say that you are not for mass copying and trading of copyrighted works, I have shown that there is no way of distinguishing between those few undeserving people who just want to copy something they have no rights to but they do not want to pay for and the vast majority of people who simply want to get something for nothing (what the difference is between these two groups is lost on me anyway, even in theory). Any methodology of cheating or 'side-stepping' of copy protection or of file-sharing technologies with no checks will result in massive copyright violations and loss (this loss is measured in the billions in many markets, such as software). Such losses are recovered, like in the insurance industry, by charging more for the service or product. Costs and profits must be recovered from fewer and fewer people who, despite widespread copying, have a moral compunction about paying for the things they have and use. This will continue until even these people can no longer afford the market price for the product and/or the producers can no longer afford to make the product at market prices causing the market for that product to collapse. Thus, this will hurt and perhaps even collapse the particular market where stealing is allowed, hurting not only producers but legitimate buyers of those products. Napster is my prime example and proves my case.

But I think you are right, we have reached the end of the line here. You just simply disagree. Perhaps I haven't left you with much choice.

Since you seem to be implying I'm a liar with the dictionary definition, here you go. I'm not sure what's so 'interesting' about it but if you think so: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=fair

What I find interesting about it is that no other dictionary I know of defines it that way. For instance, take Merriam Webster's (www.m-w.com) or the Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com). (You may have to be a member or affiliated with a University to use the latter online.) Together, these are close to the best authorities on the English language. It seems to me that Dictionary.com is confusing 'ethical' with 'equitable'. Certainly 'fair' is a part of the idea of ethics, but to equate 'fair' with 'consistent with ethics' is a conflation. We never say murder is unfair. We say it is wrong. 'Right' (at least in one of its senses) is closer in meaning to 'consistent with ethics' than 'fair'.

My challenge was that you could not find a dictionary which defined 'fair' as 'consistent with [...] ethics'. My thought was that you wrote that off the cuff which explained the inconsistency with my understanding. You have proved me wrong in that regard. In fact, you quoted that very source in your original posting. All one can ask is that you use a dictionary and you did. Although I certainly will never use that one.

In any case, I was interested in the citation only as this is of no matter to our argument. As you know I presumed this conflation of fair with ethics for sake of argument and was able to show that it is questionable whether the death penalty is 'fair' in the sense of right either.

cypherx

[HarryW]

Do you actually have a job or do you spend your whole waking life typing?

You aren't talking about the same thing as me, I'm not trying to say we should change any laws or anything. I think you presume too much about the users of Napster, and services like it, but then that's just our differing opinions. The law as it stands suits me fine. I just don't think the law is the defining set of rules for an individual's actions, or for taking the most productive actions for the greater benefit of society in every case. Most cases, yes, but not every case.

You keep making out as if I'm suggesting the law needs to be changed to accommodate these cases but I don't think it does.

I am simply suggesting that if a law isn't helping , and it's possible to do so, ignore it. Maybe that's a big shock to you, but not to me. Everyone breaks the law sometimes, just in different situations and to different degrees.

I didn't state that you DID say it fits in with the system. So you really need to learn how to read.

If you're going to be like that, I didn't say you said I did say it , it was just implied throughout all your posts. You really need to lay off the aggression and give me a break.

[cypherx]

Originally posted by rEaL iGoR
I just really think the whole thing is stupid! I mean...We're talking about animated characters and pictures. I just...can't seem to understand how you can ever believe why anyone will attempt to sue you or anything for that!

That is not the issue. If all you are concerned with are practicalities then you are not concerned with ethics, just what you can get away with. An interesting experiment was conducted in which college-aged men were anonymously surveyed as to whether they would commit rape if they knew they would get away with it undetected. One third answered in the positive (and those are the ones who would admit it to themselves). So, ethics is in serious decline (if it ever had a strong foothold) among the general population. At least the fear of punishment (which you rightly contend is not operational here) is preventing a large amount of crime since a large proportion of people appear to either have no sense of right and wrong at all or do not find it sufficiently motivating in light of their other desires. The latter is much more likely to be the case.

Well, officially, it's illegal to take pictures from other websites, but does it actually hurt them that much? I don't really think so. If you can't steal an animated gif, what can you steal? I am amazed anyone would actually bring this up

What can you steal? How about nothing? You have to be able to steal things?
Why do you feel the need to steal?

I didn't bring it up. I teased a friend of mine about it and he put it on here as a lure to this forum. It was never a serious question, either as to its ethical reasoning or the general response. The latter has occurred with precise prediction.

There is a principle here. A principle of right. If you don't mind doing wrong unless it hurts someone enough then we know what side we are on and it isn't truth and light. But I guess we would at least be among the 2/3 of people who are not all that bad. At least we don't actively and badly hurt individuals with malice aforethought. However if it doesn't hurt people that much then go ahead. We only will hurt a whole lot people a little bit each, a kind of 'nickel and dime' effect. But there is a 'little death' every time someone cheats you, or lies to you or steals from you even if the harm is very small. It erodes the moral fabric of life and the trust we have in each other. It can make life a little hell on earth. So, even if you think the harm is such a little thing, it adds up over time or over a large number of people. How much money do you think recording artists have lost due to file-sharing systems like Napster even though each time a file was shared was only a very small harm. Think of so-called chinese water torture. Only single drops of water. Individually, they are practically nothing, combined they can break the will of a man.

You don't seem to condone actions which actually 'hurt' other people. i already have a problem with your definition as shown above, but I wonder why you have this principle of 'harm' in the first place. Why is it wrong to 'harm' people? Think about how you would answer the rape survey (I mean seriously think about it, for yourself; i.e. don't post a response here about it).

This is the Ring of Gyges question: Would people be moral if their actions could escape detection?

I am asking, I suppose, the ultimate question: Why act morally?

In my opinion:

Use all the pictures you want of Cartoons, real pics, whatever. Nobody's gonna kill you for that!

So, is it alright to take things as long as people are not going to bother to take the time and use the energy to run you down and tackle you? I think you are right. That is how many people see it. Unfortunately.

This utilitarian calculus breeds fear among us. It is why we have to keep our possessions in sight and our doors locked at night. A sad state if you ask me. It is all those 'little deaths'; they add up after a while.

cypherx

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by HarryW
Do you actually have a job or do you spend your whole waking life typing?

A little bit off the topic, but you did bring it up.

True, cypherx has outposted you here, by 2 posts, so I could see that you might think that. IF he typed Extremely slowly.

OR, he could spend a whole 30 seconds per post, IF he was an extremely fast typer.

Of course, he could wonder the same thing about you, seeing that you have 1638 postcount compared to his 0. But then again,
would that be fair, since your daily average is 2.83 posts per day?

All in all, though, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate that as an 8.7 for a good intro line in a post.

{I know, what does this have to do with anything? Not a single thing, except to display there still is a silent group still here, watching, waiting, ...}

AND, just to give my opinion that CypherX is STILL good at this!!!

heh, heh


-Lou

[cypherx]

Originally posted by HarryW
Do you actually have a job or do you spend your whole waking life typing?

Um, today's Saturday right? Just checking. And my last post prior to today was a full week ago. Which was, uhn, another Saturday. Correct? Do you work on Saturday? Cause I don't. I'm not the one reading forums and responding on the boss' time (see your August 6th post above). Talk about aggression. For future reference, the official name for this fallacious form of argument is ad hominem.

You aren't talking about the same thing as me, I'm not trying to say we should change any laws or anything. I think you presume too much about the users of Napster, and services like it, but then that's just our differing opinions. The law as it stands suits me fine. I just don't think the law is the defining set of rules for an individual's actions, or for taking the most productive actions for the greater benefit of society in every case. Most cases, yes, but not every case.

You keep making out as if I'm suggesting the law needs to be changed to accommodate these cases but I don't think it does.

I didn't think you are saying anything of the kind. My thought is that you are saying it is alright to steal and generally to break the law. Am I close? I don't think it is right to steal at all (although it might be excused in some circumstances none of which are presented here) nor break a law unless it is unjust or wrongful in some way (even then I think you can only break the law as a form of civil disobedience to get the law changed.) Please note I don't consider that an opinion, i.e. something we can legitimately differ on. Either I am right or you are.

As for Napster, either you presume too little or your head is in the sand. I asked you a question concerning the people using Napster. What is your answer? Can you say it out loud without it sounding foolish? I wonder.

I am simply suggesting that if a law isn't helping , and it's possible to do so, ignore it. Maybe that's a big shock to you, but not to me. Everyone breaks the law sometimes, just in different situations and to different degrees.

It doesn't come as a big shock to me and at least you are being honest now that it comes down to that.

The perfect illustration of the Ring of Gyges: What would you do if you could avoid detection?

It seemed to me earlier that you were trying to make some grand moral claim for those unfortunate music listeners who didn't want to pony up for the price to play and it is good to know that there is no pretense of that now.

I am curious though as to the "standard" to be used in determining when and how far you should violate the rights of others. It is so easy to be the judge of your own case. How hard it is to be the subject of another's.

If you're going to be like that, I didn't say you said I did say it , it was just implied throughout all your posts. You really need to lay off the aggression and give me a break.

Sorry. I guess you might have said 'implied'. That would have been better. Of course, I took your statement just that way and I was stating that I never implied any such thing. My point was that if you inferred that then you needed to learn how to read. And I really mean that. My text and position was clear. No passive-aggression here. You were claiming that people were keeping stuff away from the 'poor and downtrodden' just because they could and I was showing that was not the case. I NEVER suggested that you were contending that the market could accommodate these people or that it was your solution to the problem. My market argument was to show that 'keep away' was not arbitrary but because of the necessities of the market.

To rehash:

"I didn't state that you DID say it fits in with the system. So you really need to learn how to read. You said that people were keeping products away from others simply because they could. I pointed out that the system simply could not accommodate such "buyers" and therefore authors were not keeping the the product away from these "buyers" just because they can. That was supposed to answer your 'fiat' argument. And it did."

You were ALWAYS contending, it seemed to me, that people should steal what they were unwilling to buy. I do admit that there seemed to be some sort of moral argument there for a while, you know in all that stealing was justified when some were keeping others from having stuff just because they could, arbitrary-like. But now I feel the full force of your argument from anomie and it is clear that either there was never any such moral argument or it has been abandoned.

Sorry for the speed typing. Don't hate us touch typists.

cypherx

(Please note that my use of such passive-aggressive techniques as " " in this message is for ironic effect only.)

[HarryW]

Well the typing thing was just a joke, I didn't mean any offence by it. Hey, I got an 8.7, that's not bad for 3 am!

To be honest, I may be getting this thread a little confused with another I'm involved in about the same thing because you both have similar writing styles. I'm sorry if I did that.

As for Napster, either you presume too little or your head is in the sand. I asked you a question concerning the people using Napster. What is your answer? Can you say it out loud without it sounding foolish? I wonder.

I think many people on Napster were exploiting the situation to get songs for free. I also think there was a minority (myself included) who downloaded the music and still bought it when they could afford to. If you have a problem with that I guess you just have some different ethics to me.

It doesn't come as a big shock to me and at least you are being honest now that it comes down to that.

Comes down to what? Do you feel I was avoiding an issue?

The perfect illustration of the Ring of Gyges: What would you do if you could avoid detection?

I guess in some ways that's true. In some cases I don't think this legal perspective benefits society though, and my decisions are based on more than just the law.

It seemed to me earlier that you were trying to make some grand moral claim for those unfortunate music listeners who didn't want to pony up for the price to play and it is good to know that there is no pretense of that now.

Well that's probably the way you see it but I don't see it quite the same. I don't have a problem with certain cases of downloading songs.

I don't consider that an opinion, i.e. something we can legitimately differ on. Either I am right or you are.

I think this is just a case of differing opinion. Yet again you disagree but hey, I'm used to that.

You were ALWAYS contending, it seemed to me, that people should steal what they were unwilling to buy. I do admit that there seemed to be some sort of moral argument there for a while, you know in all that stealing was justified when some were keeping others from having stuff just because they could, arbitrary-like. But now I feel the full force of your argument from anomie and it is clear that either there was never any such moral argument or it has been abandoned.

I'm not saying they should steal, just that I don't object to it where there is no loss on the part of the owner. I do think there are cases where there is no loss on the part of the owner.

You are clearly displaying a completely opposing view to me on this whole subject. I have stated my opinion and you have quoted a lot of big words and written a lot of long posts and, in short, said "you shouldn't steal, stealing is bad, mmkay?" I don't think it's as black and white as that. There is little point in this debate, since you are not gaining from my view, I am not gaining for your view, and we are agreeing on just as little as we started out with. Clearly neither of us is going to be swayed by the other's opinion. This is all feeling a little pointless.

[rEaL iGoR]

Really. Come on. We're not talking about rape here. We're talking about animted GIFs. I don't have the need to steal anything. It's just that if you like a cartoon and you find a nice picture of it on the web, who would it actualoly hurt if you used him as an avatar on VBforums. I'm not a lawyer or anything near it. In fact, I hate ethics. I just think you should listen to your councience and do whatever you find more law-abiding. I'm just thinking about how serious your crime is.

And by the Way, WareZ RULEZ!

[beachbum]

I didn't bring it up. I teased a friend of mine about it and he put it on here as a lure to this forum. It was never a serious question, either as to its ethical reasoning or the general response. The latter has occurred with precise prediction.

cypherx, I actually agree strongly with ur opinion (the face on the left is Wallace's little known brother ) but i don't think it is a fair method of arguing to suggest that you are a puppeteer over less adept minds in some sort of social experiment. Agreed, you are obviously very knowledgeable on this subject but, for humility, remember that the people that you are arguing with may very well be much more talented than you in other fields.
Regards
Stuart

[NotLKH]

Just so you know,

Since I'm the friend, I just want to clarify a possible mis-interpretation of the statement:

I teased a friend of mine about it and he put it on here as a lure to this forum

In my view, it was not posted to "Lure" anyone but cypherx into participating in the forums. There was no nefarious plot, no "puppeteering" in mind.

As to the word "Lure", The event stated in my original post did occur, and since I value my friends insight, blatently stated or otherwise silently implied, I felt that there ARE legal issues that should be brought up and discussed in this forum. Especially if A corporation holds VBWorld responsible for actions taken by members which could unknowingly be considered An imposition on the Legal ownership of copyrighted materials.
Ultimately, In my opinion, If John or any Mod placed there opinion in this thread, THEN at least we'd have insight into how VBWorld views such avatars.



-Lou