|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
71 members (anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, 17 invisible),
2,224
guests, and
427
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,913
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,913 |
Many people and organizations are campaigning for a more consumer-oriented approach to intellectual property law. But the key word in 'intellectual property' is _property_. Any argument for a change to IP law that is founded on a lack of respect for, or understanding of, property has no credibility and, in the end, weakens the cause. I am inclined to argue the opposite - that the longer we pervert the idea of property by extending it to the intangible, the more inappropriate and harmful laws we are likely to make. Hang on a minute... We didn't extend property law to the intangible. English law has recognized intangible property since medieval times. A lease, for example, is intangible property, as is a debt. Recognizing the product of your mind as your property as much as the product of your hands is an entirely natural application of existing law. When you buy intellectual property you are buying a bundle of rights, just as when you buy a lease or a debt. Of course, intangibles are different kinds of property from physical objects, and need a different kind of law. But to remove intangibles from the scope of propery would be the most radical thing to happen to English law since the Norman Conquest. My terminology was ridculously mistaken, and I apologize for that. I do have a point, and I'll try to make it in a different way. In the same way that killing time is not grounds for charges of murder, stealing ideas is not grounds for charges of theft. I'm NOT saying there shouldn't be charges - I'm saying we need a distinct and separate category. Ideas are not property, and stealing ideas is not theft. The crime is of a different and only accidentally-related kind. Copyright holders craftily advertise things like "stealing is illegal" - which it is of course, but that slogan only applies if I physically go into a shop, pick up a book or CD, and walk out without paying. If I pay for the book and photocopy it later, that's a crime too - but not the crime of theft nor anything resembling it.
(I'm a piano teacher.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,555
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
If I bought the book I'll scan it..I just didn't want the hassle/work, doing it..regarding the law..I do not "share" stuff..go out and buy yourself..so in that your keeping within some semblance of the law..same goes for CDs..go to the store and buy it..make whatever Mp3s etc..just don't share..this way..the artists get their just $due..problem is they want you to "re" buy..for every device..! now thats greed!..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,965
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,965 |
In the same way that killing time is not grounds for charges of murder, stealing ideas is not grounds for charges of theft. I'm NOT saying there shouldn't be charges - I'm saying we need a distinct and separate category. Ideas are not property, and stealing ideas is not theft.
Philosophically, I don't see why ideas should not be considered property. But, in fact, in English law copyright infringements are not considered 'thefts'. So all those ads claiming 'piracy is theft' are, in point of law, incorrect. But that's just a matter of semantics, no? Whatever you call it, the law recognizes that people are entitled to be rewarded for their creative and imaginative output. This does seem to me to reflect the consensus ethical view -- I think most people would agree, if asked, that if I create a work of imagination it is 'mine' in _some_ kind of sense. The tricky part is working out what the full implications of that 'mine-ness' amount to.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,913
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,913 |
In the same way that killing time is not grounds for charges of murder, stealing ideas is not grounds for charges of theft. I'm NOT saying there shouldn't be charges - I'm saying we need a distinct and separate category. Ideas are not property, and stealing ideas is not theft.
Philosophically, I don't see why ideas should not be considered property. But, in fact, in English law copyright infringements are not considered 'thefts'. So all those ads claiming 'piracy is theft' are, in point of law, incorrect. But that's just a matter of semantics, no? Whatever you call it, the law recognizes that people are entitled to be rewarded for their creative and imaginative output. This does seem to me to reflect the consensus ethical view -- I think most people would agree, if asked, that if I create a work of imagination it is 'mine' in _some_ kind of sense. The tricky part is working out what the full implications of that 'mine-ness' amount to. I agree with all you wrote here. Some of the major copyright holders, it seems, would prefer to legislate the tricky parts and the implications out of existence, enshrine the concept that my idea is "mine" in precisely the same way that my pencil is "mine", and thus create a situation that is simple but unjust and unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|