"Piracy" has been a term of art in the copyright world for over 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyrightpirates.jpg
> Is it a property at all if the usage of it is limited?
If you buy a copy of a book, you are not eligible to reprint that book and sell it yourself. There are limits on what folks can do with copyrighted works they buy.
It might be worth reading, for instance, about the American concept of first-sale doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
If such 'right' even exist then it belongs to people who wish to make copy of something isn't it?
It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy as long as a person who makes copy doesn't present such copy as original.
The how and who are easy: the Constitution[0], and the American government.
The why is trickier, but the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing, which means more money goes to the owner, and creators are therefore more incentivized to make and copyright things in America.
The idea that copies are supposed to be scarce is an invention of Disney marketing, and I'd argue contrary to the spirit of the law. The stated purpose of copyright is to increase the amount of works on the market (by giving creators some negotiating leverage with publishers), not to make individual copies more valuable. That's just a side effect, one that is supposed to be bounded by limited term lengths[1].
[0] For those wondering, this is also what drove copyright harmonization over the last century. Any difference in law between countries creates an avenue for publishers to find a way to cheat creators. Before the era of international copyright it was quite common for publishers to race creators to foreign markets, since translation was not yet an exclusive right of the creator and most countries did not recognize each other's copyright interests.
[1] Please stop laughing. I know life+70 is practically forever.
In my experience when I was thinking to publish something on phtostock I was presented with automatic contract stripping me from all of my "leverage" and if I disagree? it's their way or highway. Of course I could not agree to that. So experience was rather short as you might guess and no live person was even involved on their behalf.
So in my experience it seems that you need some other "leverage" to force publishers to negotiate with creators.
I wasn't talking about 'selling copies'. I was talking about right of making copies. Selling copies is something else I think.
From the same source: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
I can see here mention of "exclusive Right".
Can't see there man in the middle having exclusive Right though who also allowed to strip all the rights from the Authors and Inventors. Can't see there any "copyright". Can't see there entitlement "to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy". Selling copy is something else. But who can prohibit making copy?
If you read this text you have copied it to your brain from the 'screen copy' of 'memory copy' of 'web response copy' of data stored on server which is 'copy of what I wrote' . There are more stages that I've mentioned of course and each of them produces copy.
>the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing
I do not see how current system is in the spirit of [0] and I do not see how current system is even in the spirit of what you've described. It's broken and works for other purposes. Doesn't "promote Progress of Science and useful Arts" it seems.
> Can't see there any "copyright". Can't see there entitlement "to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy". Selling copy is something else. But who can prohibit making copy?
17 U.S.C.§106 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
You also take umbrage with the fact that "copy" is fairly ambiguous. You can find the legal definition of "copy" in 17 U.S.C§101: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101. It's fairly cut and dry.
It is your choice of course but please try to understand that I was not even trying to be on any rails there as I am questioning the logic and ideas behind the current laws because I observe inconsistency of current laws with initial idea of promoting progress in Science and Arts by giving exclusive Right to Authors and Inventors. Not some man-in-the-middle by the way. Authors and Inventors. Where ever I go I do not see copyright belonging to Authors, all I see is someone else who took all rights from those Authors and Inventors. Even if we accept such exclusive Right I do not see why such exclusive Right should be transferable as it is obviously would be abused and we observe that in reality.
>It's fairly cut and dry.
In the context I've described above while I am thankful to you without any irony for providing useful links to the current laws and definitions I am still more interested about ideas behind them rather then current implementations.
>You also take umbrage with the fact that "copy" is fairly ambiguous.
I would not use word 'umbrage' but when one questioning ideas behind certain definitions every term becomes open for interpretations and the current legal definition is just one of them.
The entire point is to encourage creative endeavors, whether by patents for inventions or by copyright for the arts. The ability to restrict trivial copying has been essential for the advancement of arts & sciences.
So, no, making a copy and giving it to your friend is technically against the law, but in a practical sense, unless you are doing it at scale, it is legal in a practical sense.
That said, the systems of both copyrights and patents are massively forking broken. And abused.
So, the need for overhaul is massive, but to act like it is some alien concept with no possible worth is not helpful to the discussion, merely disingenuous or ignorant.
Since the legal system in the USA (and elsewhere) has "evolved" to consider copyright to be property in most of the same senses as anything else you can own, it follows that copyright can be transferred to others.
You are welcome to disagree with either premise ("no copying of someone else's creation", "right to copy is property") but that's the situation at present, and it's not obviously wrong unless you adopt some philosophical positions that the USA (and most of western Europe) does not (in aggregate) hold.
Speech rights and copy rights are both rights. Great that speech rights are universal in most democratic countries. Awful that copy rights are exclusive.
FTFY
(from wikipedia...)
Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works
Theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
So in a sense you are right, "greed" is the operative word -- not on the part of people who download, but on the part of the people who benefit most from the copyright system.
So if it's long enough it assumes it's correct? Hard to see logical connection there.
In our power to reconsider false and confusing terminology.
Well... Yes? That's how words work, really. If enough people agree a word means something, then it does.
Another modern example of a word that rapidly loses its meaning is "fascism": these days it is used as a general term for any policy not supported by the person that uses it. BLM fascists, left fascists, ultraright fascists, antifa fascists. On the subreddit about new Apple "Foundation" show someone described the depicted Empire as fascist. Everybody are fascists, especially the US who have fascias everywhere in state imagery!
But all that does it make words mean different things at different points in time, which is still just how words work. The meaning of the word "gay" is pretty different now than what it was, "meat" used to refer to all solid food, not just muscle and organs, "tweeting" is, at this point, more used as a reference to an internet service than to birds.
We didn't get to learn a final and set version of our languages, we just got the current one, they all keep changing nonstop and words changing meaning is just one of the ways in which that happens.
It has precisely zero relation to copyright infringement, and should not be used to denote the it.
Is it? Framing a conversation through word connotation is a very powerful, and oft used, political tool. It isn't necessarily within your power to control it when stronger political and social forces are pushing it in other directions.
Sure, that's a good enough of a descriptivist basis for a definition to be "correct."
I'd wager most folks on here don't see the name "The Pirate Bay" and question what it has to do with literal seafaring scallywags.
You purchased convenience -- not having to deal with filesharing systems that are polluted with various misidentified files, not having to try to figure out if the thing you are downloading is actually malware (for non-technical users this is often a challenge), not having to correct / create tags for the MP3 (artist/album/etc.), not having to guess at the quality of the audio (sometimes "lossless" actually means "preserved loss from some other format"), etc. For most people the convenience justifies the price.
Raiding and pillaging, from North to South coast
We steal only metal like guns, tanks and toasters!
We melt them all down, and make .. roller coasters!
-anonymous
>What is it I purchase?
Something that's legal according to your region's laws, copyright laws and the EULA. In case of unDRM-ed downloadable files, you most likely purchase the right for personal enjoyment or private screening of the media contained within the files, and of course the store often provides the files themselves too.
As you noted, the legal part is often murky. In case of Hungary, you're permitted for example to back up your legally owned media, so you can legally rip your CDs for yourself. But this is not true for all regions.
The copyright of the composition, the right the redistribute, or usage in a commercial environment is most often excluded when you just "buy and mp3". These are special cases where you need a different legal instrument, like a contract or license, and to pay way more than €1 per track.
Now, onto the dark patterns. The media industry is rife with this. The first is that often you can read "buying", but it's way more restricted legally, and sometimes, the media itself is crippled with a mechanism that tries to enforce some legality[1] - this would be the DRM. Region locking, unskippable anti-piracy segment on the DVD, files that "stop working" after a while, media that's encrypted from file to display, albums/games disappearing or downgrading from your catalogue, there's a lot. Meanwhile you're often presented with how easy and cheap all this is, and how much in control you are - no you're not. If you feel angry or betrayed, that's because you're realizing the con.
What can you do about this? Pirating is fine as a fuck you to the industry, but the creators of all the enjoyable goodness deserve compensation just like everyone else who does good work. So you can look for ways to support them that's more direct than licensing their music from a streaming giant. Bandcamp[2], for one, is quite excellent towards users and artists alike. And also, there is a lot of people who is not content with the current state of copyright - so many that Wikipedia had to open a page just for this issue[3]. So you're certainly not alone in your questioning.
[0] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/462700/what-is-t...
I am asking basic questions because I do not see basic answers which are consistent with logic. It would be more useful and helpful to provide those answers if you know them of course.
>All of the points you bring up have been discussed more critically and insightfully on Body building forums.
Unfortunately in practice it is hard to observe impressive results of "what was discussed more critically and insightfully". So again perhaps sharing their line of thoughts would be useful.
My concern of course that "what was discussed more critically and insightfully" did not produce something logically consistent and that might explain why we do not see actual answers.
>I’ll start with that you seem to be hung up on that the only thing money can be exchanged for is property.
If we put aside "hung up on that the only thing money can be exchanged for is property" part which is irrelevant then probably we can see the real answer to the question : What one actually gets for his money and what is purchased when one "buys" some mp3?
The problem is that we are actually living in a medieval type of society. A pretty dark time actually. We have many people who enjoy exercising power over others. The trouble is that we think we are more advanced than we actually are.
We need to progress emotionally, spiritually, morally, and in our understanding of the natural world (physics: our reality). We need a new rennaissance, an enlightenment. To get there, we need clarity of thought from people like yourself who are unafraid to speak up and challenge the status quo.
keep shining your light and speaking your truth. Ignore the naysayers.
onwards.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
They surely make it difficult to find, though.
Then they launched Amazon Music (or whatever its name is) in my country, which only provides app-based access to music, and also took away my ability to buy MP3s from the US website and neglected to add it to my country's version of Amazon.
Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose I presume. What a web site providing access to the music has to do with it?
The whole 'buy mp3' idea always have been troubling for me because I can't figure out exactly what I actually buy there. What is it I purchase?
The right to listen for some composition?
The right to listen it in that specific mp3 format ?
The right to listen it more then one time because I have access to the file?
What do I actually possess after the purchase that I didn't possess before?
If it's my property then what is it? Is it a property at all if the usage of it is limited? For instance it belongs to me but somehow there are some limits to play it in my own restaurant, isn't it?
It's all presented as you buy something and it's clear what you buy. But if you are trying to think about it's more and more unclear.
It looks more like some bully simply blocks access to something he got using some leverage over the author then sells you 'unblock' feature while author is stripped away from any rights by the same bully and have no ability to sell it directly to you. Isn't it a case now days of redundant MIM?
Another issue is with how long it is blocked by paywall. The initial idea was how much? 10 years ? 15 years? How come that let's say Beatles are still protected from public? How that even possible and why nobody rises the issue of abusing initial idea?