Computer Hope
Other => Other => Topic started by: willythecat on May 30, 2009, 08:24:59 PM
-
Forgetting the grey area of torrent download sites, assuming you have access to a legal site that has most tunes playable in full, and if you install another legal program that can grab streamed music, is copying this music legal or illegal?
The laws get so confusing!
-
This would be fine because after all, you have purchased the music and you are using legal programs. But you can't reproduce, redistribute or do anything that would constitute as copyright breaking unless you have the right to do it.
-
If you have bought the song, you're safe. If you are downloading the song by any means and you have not purchased it, it is against the copyright laws.
and if you install another legal program that can grab streamed music,
uTorrent is a legal program yet it is mostly used to download copyrighted material. They're just software.
-
If you have bought the song, you're safe. If you are downloading the song by any means and you have not purchased it, it is against the copyright laws.
uTorrent is a legal program yet it is mostly used to download copyrighted material. They're just software.
Software itself is not really what's causing the problem, it's more so what people are doing with the software that are causing the problem. That's what I see.
-
Thanks everyone, but.....
I haven't purchased the music. It's a newish site (perfectly legal) where you can "listen" to most of the tunes available now, and in full.
Does that change things?
-
Thanks everyone, but.....
I haven't purchased the music. It's a newish site (perfectly legal) where you can "listen" to most of the tunes available now, and in full.
Does that change things?
If the website you get the music from is perfectly legal and they're allowing you to listen to if for free, and you are using a legal software to "Grab" the music, I don't think you'd have a problem if you were just keeping the music so you can listen to it whenever you wanted to (personal entertainment) but if you suddenly started massively distributing the music so that many many many other people can download it or get it, then there's a problem.
-
How about looking at the terms of use posted on the web site in question? Owners of copyright have a wide right to determine how their works can be used and distributed. If a copyright notice on the web site states, "You may listen to tracks on this web site only by using the streaming facilities provided. Capture, downloading or permanent storage of the tracks is strictly prohibited", then I submit you are on unstable ground.
-
How about looking at the terms of use posted on the web site in question? Owners of copyright have a wide right to determine how their works can be used and distributed. If a copyright notice on the web site states, "You may listen to tracks on this web site only by using the streaming facilities provided. Capture, downloading or permanent storage of the tracks is strictly prohibited", then I submit you are on unstable ground.
Sure, you need to agree to their terms of service but I wouldn't worry if you are just listening for personal enjoyment. Not giving away, not redistributing it anyway else, nothing.
-
Well there is a big difference between a legally correct answer and a pragmatic answer.
Reductio ad absurdum: downloading child pornography is illegal. But is it okay if it's just for personal enjoyment?
Here's a simple, two step self-evaluation questionnaire that should help everyone make up his or her own mind:
Q 1: Are you committed to morality? If yes, go to question 2, otherwise do whatever you want but I reserve the right to kill you whenever I feel like it.
Q 2: Is it immoral to break copyright laws (for personal enjoyment or any other reason)? If yes, then stop. If no, then go ahead, but I reserve the right to steal anything you ever write, paint, compose or invent and do whatever I want to with it, without any reference for you. I will justify this on the grounds of personal enjoyment.
-
Well there is a big difference between a legally correct answer and a pragmatic answer.
Reductio ad absurdum: downloading child pornography is illegal. But is it okay if it's just for personal enjoyment?
Here's a simple, two step self-evaluation questionnaire that should help everyone make up his or her own mind:
Q 1: Are you committed to morality? If yes, go to question 2, otherwise do whatever you want but I reserve the right to kill you whenever I feel like it.
Q 2: Is it immoral to break copyright laws (for personal enjoyment or any other reason)? If yes, then stop. If no, then go ahead, but I reserve the right to steal anything you ever write, paint, compose or invent and do whatever I want to with it, without any reference for you. I will justify this on the grounds of personal enjoyment.
I choose my own morals..
-
I choose my own morals..
That's quite a cop out considering how well the Guidelines were illustrated above...
-
*applause*
Rob, that was awesome.
-
Thank you. :)
In respect of choosing one's own morals, of course everyone does this. But what is the basis upon which we choose our morals? How do we know right from wrong? On the basis of an external absolute moral code (e.g. laws, religion or whatever)? Or on the basis of an internal code (how we feel about things)? In the latter case, if we choose on the basis of feeling, let me steal a quote from Ravi Zacharias.
In some cultures they love their neighbours; in other cultures in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have a preference?
-
there is no universal moral law...
-
well, I like to think of it like this.
Some people justify pirating/stealing programs by saying that it costs nothing to duplicate. This is true- a simple copy of the original. However-
Take, for example, a sculpture or painting. People make replicas of sculptures and paintings all the time, and they get sold for cheaper, or in some cases given away.
But a replica is NOT a duplicate. If it were possible, via a machine, to make an exact duplicate, atom for atom, that was indistiguishable from the original, how are we to tell them apart? In a sense, they are both the original and thus the artist can exercise the same rights over any duplicates as they do to their original copy. And of course any modifications to these "originals" is more or less vandalism.
The same sort of logic is easily applied to programs and music. the original artists work IS the duplicate, since the duplicate program is indistiguishable from the original, (not counting of course "vandalism" such as with "black XP" or "last XP" with Pirated Windows XP copies, for example) Because of this the artist (in this case the software manufacturer) can exercise the same rights over this duplicate as they would over an original piece of property.
Just because it's easy to duplicate something doesn't make it moral. It still takes work to make the original; and wether you like it or not, the duplicates aren't necessarily products of the original but really. they are the original.
there is no universal moral law...
actually, there are quite a lot of base set of morals that almost every culture recognizes. The only cultures, I believe, that would think stealing is not immoral are probably deep in a jungle somewhere. Even so; a persons actions are viewed by others in the light of some culture, and given that any software-exposed culture has the basic tenet of "theft is wrong" it can be deduced that, in the context of the internet at least, there IS a universal moral law.
Even forgetting about the moral aspect, it's still illegal. you cannot argue against a law saying it simply doesn't agree with your morals. Sure, you can attack it on the basis of a constitution, but intellectual property rights do not infringe on the rights of the individual. Their infringement, on the other hand, constitute a violation against the rights of the copyright owner.
-
there is no universal moral law...
Ah, I counter your erudite assertion thusly: you're dead wrong.
Are there occasions in which it would be okay to kill and eat a child?
BC is about to define "art", so I shall sit back and enjoy. ;)
-
Are there occasions in which it would be okay to kill and eat a child?
Personally, I just never seem to have enough ketchup. Also, it's tough keeping them in the soup pot. they keep jumping out. So I just stick with chicken. Sure, two letters difference- not quite the same.
-
but what if you're on an island with cannabalism your only hope?
-
Your only hope of what? Dying with a guilty conscience?
-
and more importantly, are you able to acquire ketchup?
hmmm, that would make a rather interesting, if not disturbing ketchup commercial. something along the lines of a miracle whip commercial, but with ketchup, and the implication of cannibalism.
but what if you're on an island with cannabalism your only hope?
Islands generally have more then just... children on them. Even the island in Lord Of the flies had a conch shell. And pigs, and all sorts of stuff.
There was however- no ketchup.
-
Ah, I counter your erudite assertion thusly: you're dead wrong.
Are there occasions in which it would be okay to kill and eat a child?
Read pages 22-30(not the .pdf generated pgs but the actual pages listed on the book.)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8EGUFEX7
-
Wow, I have never known another steamier pile of crap to be put into print.
Here is the problem though- this "morality" you and the book attribute to "god" existed LONG before the god we hear of today, or any gods of various other cultures; Take Stone age man. Now, I'm sure they were pretty violent, but in general, they had this human element known as Compassion.
Compassion, not necessarily "god" or any other form of super-being, is where morality get's it's base.
The book goes on to argue, that the very idea that murder is wrong is brought on by this supposed moral law brought on by the existence of god's laws.
The problem is, that isn't where your so-called "universal moral law" comes from. As mentioned, it's part of us, as human beings, ability to have compassion for other living things, but, more so, our respect for the relationships that us, as human beings, create amongst ourselves.
The basic idea is simple- actions that break these strings are definitely immoral, since they rip apart the fabric of society. Murder, obviously fits this bill. By killing another, you not only.. well- kill another.... but you also negatively impact the people that care about that person. Even more humourous, is that in the Anarchic chaos the book seems to preach, a murder of a families loved ones wouldn't be shrugged off, but rather dealt with quite angrily. More to the point, I find it ironic that, in order to try to justify their supposed right to steal the intellectual property of others, people actually have to go so far as to support the idea of a chaotic and lawless society.
A further irony is found in that, if such a state was to suddenly occur, these people, who, in most circumstances, limit their exercise to less then an hour a day, have stringy arms and legs and can barely lift their kitty-cat, would find that without order there would be no commerce. without commerce, industry collapses. without industry, bowls aren't made. so let me reach my point.
People with meaty strong arms,powerful legs abd a penchant for violence are likely to want to continue to eat soup, and still enjoy the smashing of the bowl afterward.
So, I'm sure we'd find said people quite able to overpower the so-called anarchists and create fashionable soup bowls out of their skulls and matching spoons out of their kitty-cats. All they have to do is smash their face in with a big rock, scoop out the brains, and TADA! it's a new bowl! After all, I mean- It's just a life. Good deal for a new soup bowl.
And even those that do survive for the longest will have difficulty adapting to the very chaos they subscribed to wanting- while order prevailed. Apparently none to aware that the order was what was preserving them, and their ability to support chaos. After all, once all network admins have had their skulls carved out into soup bowls, who will maintain the internet? Nobody. How will the self-proclaimed anarchist survive without his life-line to the virtual world, where he can scream his commitment to chaos, while at the same time adhering to a orderly existence elsewhere.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Why, quite a lot. The book goes on to essentially say that without the shackles of this moral law (since, the book previously used flawed logic to remove that concept) we can do whatever we want?
Oh really? If everybody were to suddenly believe that, well- then we have complete disorder and chaos! the perfect catalyst for a skulls to be smashed and/or turned into decorative bowls.
-
Oh really? If everybody were to suddenly believe that, well- then we have complete disorder and chaos! the perfect catalyst for a skulls to be smashed and/or turned into decorative bowls.
:) People very rarely think through the logical consequences of post modern, relativistic, "I'll do whatever the *censored* I like" morality.
Personally, I don't think one can assert an absolute moral law without an absolute moral law giver but apart from that, I agree with BC's position.
-
does that include the whole "decorative bowl" angle I covered? ;D
-
Absolutely. Good metaphor.