1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Woman fined $1.9 MILLION for illegally downloading 24 songs

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Baron Scicluna, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Actually, I think it's right because the entire concept of intellectual property is a relatively recent historical mistake that I look forward to seeing rectified.

    And if nothing else, the amount of the award clearly violates the rule of law, no matter what message you want sent.
     
  2. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    The amount also destroys the credibility of the message thye're trying to send. The absurdity of the dollars makes this seem almost make believe.

    You're probably much more likely to impact others' behavior with a $1000 or $5000 fine. Probably would see folks think twice about downloading if they see an amount they could realistically be asked to cough up.
     
  3. maybe i'm paranoid but i wouldn't brag on a public message board about your wife illegally downloading stuff
     
  4. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    You sound like the kind of guy who called the authorities in the 1980s because you found out your neighbour had videotaped the NBC Game of the Week without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
     
  5. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Dammit, don't make me be in agreement with Old_Tony, but crap on a stick, he's right.
    A generation of people believe that internet content should be free and if you create something, you should be paid for that.
    I'd like to hear the argument that says the concept of intellectual property is a mistake.
     
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Outing: Old Tony is Hudson Hawk.
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    The argument starts with this: Intellectual property is a relatively recent invention, dating to about the early 19th century (well, there were small examples of it before that, but they weren't common). That of course doesn't mean it's bad, but I just want to give some context. For most of recorded history, there was the concept of property without the concept of intellectual property. The two do not go hand in hand.

    Eventually, the idea was advanced that giving people government-granted monopolies on their own ideas would promote more artistic, creative and inventive works. There's no proof of this, mind you. No empirical or even anecdotal research. Before that, the general assumption was that all ideas came on the foundation of previous ideas, from the culture at large, and any new ideas were simply added back into that.

    Ideas do not fit under the basic concepts of property, as understood by common law and tradition. By taking an idea, you do not deprive the original owner of use of it. Asserting intellectually property rights is actually imposing on the rights of others: You are telling me I cannot, for example orient the bits on my own private laptop in a certain manner. That's depriving me of my right to use my personal, physical property as I see fit.

    So the creation of intellectual property wasn't an issue of protecting basic rights, like actual property laws are. They were an attempt by government to influence society, government grants in the same sense that financial grants to artists are. So they have to be measured not by whether they are morally right, but by whether they are effective. Many would argue that they are not.

    Intellectually property weakens the cultural base from which all ideas are generated. It actually stifles creativity and causes less intellectual value to be created.

    Artists are perfectly capable of making money off their own creations without the protections of government-granted monopolies on ideas. They did for centuries before that, and the internet (which makes a mockery of copyright laws as they are written, just by its existence) proves that they can again. For one, people will not automatically buy a cheaper version of art from an alternative source. People place a strong value on the idea that they are supporting the original creator when buying. The most common example used is Tolkein, who found that he could not stop unauthorized copies of his books being sold, but he could call attention to them and sell his own, officially authorized books at higher prices and still have people pay.

    Now that doesn't mean fraud is okay. If I take your idea and sell it as my own, I'm defrauding my own buyers.

    (I'm actually a relatively recent convert to this, and I can't take credit for any of these arguments. Much smarter people than me convinced me to cross over from the "kids just want free stuff" side with arguments such as these.)
     
  8. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    He'll also call the police if he finds out you cut the "do not remove" tags off your mattresses.
     
  9. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    This makes no sense.
    Intellectual property arose from the fact that it became easier and cheaper to copy someone else's work rather than do it yourself.
    That's why it is a relatively new concept. Much the same as mineral rights and so forth became law because times and technology changed.
    Intellect intellectual property isn't so much government protecting an idea, as it is a way to protect an individual creation.
    A musician, for one, cannot make money off a song they wrote and performed if copies exist on a medium and can be taken by anyone for free.
    How could a musician make money if that was the case?
    You could argue well they can still tour, the songs and albums can be marketing tools to bring out larger crowds, and etc., but eventually musicians would get to a tipping point where the money begins to fall off.
    The woman in the case didn't get in trouble for downloading music. What she did was steal a key to the record store, unlock the doors at night and told anyone and everyone they were free to go and steal the music off the shelves.
    And, personal rights are infringed on regularly.
    You have free speech. You still cannot go into a movie theater and scream "fire" over and over again.
    At some point the common good outweighs the concerns of the individual.
    If you take my idea, a unique creation, and then sell it as your own. You aren't just defrauding your customers, you're defrauding me.
    Just because the internet came along, that doesn't change the fact that an original creation is protected intellectual property. The same as a unique invention is protected by patent law.
     
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    This is patently not true. (get it? patently? Just keeping it light :) )
    There are many ways to make money from content creation while not applying the concept of intellectual property.

    They can make money selling official copies. As I've said, empirical evidence shows that people will tend to pay more for copies they believe are directly benefitting the original author.

    They can perform it.

    They can produce it for advance payment.

    It's not theft. The courts don't even consider it stealing. It's copyright infringement. Since there's going to be a lot we disagree on, we should at least be as precise as possible in language.

    That said, the woman got in trouble because copyright infringement is against the law. Whether or not you, I or anyone else thinks it should be the law, it is the law, and she has to pay the civil penalties for breaking it.


    Agreed. Which is why I demonstrated an argument that the common good is not served by granting the creator of an idea sole rights over its distribution.

    I agree that's the law. I (and many others) are questioning why that should be the case.

    I'm certainly not expecting you to suddenly see it my way. I suspect within a generation or two the technological hurdles will have made intellectual property so moot that everyone will accept my point of view, but it's going to take awhile and I'm sure there will be plenty of dissent if that day comes. But you asked for the reasoning, and I gave it to you.

    Although I almost never agree with the libertarians, I think this is a good place to start if you want further research into the idea:
    http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

    I find this argument to be the most persuasive, personally:

     
  11. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    But regardless of that, it is the law today, it will be the law tomorrow and it's likely to be the law for a very long time, so I'll live with it :)

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98TUTTO1

    This woman, however, will appeal (of course). Her entire goal seems to be to win on one of various technicalities, such as forcing the RIAA to prove that anyone actually downloaded the files she made available or provide the full, certified documents of their copyright claims on the songs in question. I don't think that's going to get her very far.
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    So you work at a newspaper or magazine and you turn in a story. In doing the research for the piece, you stumble across a really killer story in another publication on the same topic.
    You apply the logic quoted above and copy the really killer piece and submit it for publication as your own.
    What happens next when it is discovered you copied someone else's work?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page