Pardon my French, but I cannot say FUCK YOU loudly enough to this video

July 13th, 2012

Sure, when you copy a CD from a friend you’re not stealing from your friend. He still has his CD.

But that’s not the point you simple-minded self-satisfied selfish dickheads.

The point is you stole from the people who created the content in the first place by NOT COMPENSATING THEM for their intellectual property. See, your friend only bought the right enjoy the CD for themselves. They don’t own the content–that content is still the property of the person who owns the copyright.

Your buddy isn’t part of the equation. It doesn’t matter if you hurt him or not. You indisputably hurt the people who deserve to be compensated for their creation.

It is THEFT, you despicable assholes. Just as much as if you broke into the artist’s home and took money from his wallet. You didn’t pay him and he didn’t give you permission to fucking take his work.

Just because stealing is easy doesn’t make it right. In fact, it’s not even in your own longterm self-interest you soul-sucking simpletons. Because if everyone “copies” than the original creators will have no incentive to produce and there will be fewer movies, songs, books, and games for us all to enjoy.

So, once again, I’d like to offer a heartfelt FUCK YOU to you, your mother, your father, your friends, your teachers and anyone else who didn’t take the time to explain to you the difference between right and wrong.

Video found at Althouse

Entry Filed under: Observations

14 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  July 13th, 2012 at 10:18 am

    I both agree and disagree with you here. I largely disagree with a very particular point in your rant.

    You indisputably hurt the people who deserve to be compensated for their creation.

    This is not indisputable and is where the “disagreement” part of my equation comes in. You only hurt the people who own the content IF and ONLY IF you would have otherwise purchased said content.

    Further, if said friend plays said copied CD at his house and other people hear it and go out and buy it, then that is potential revenue gained for the original artist that might otherwise not have been incurred (e.g. free advertising). In this situation, if that person would never have purchased the CD on his own then they have actually produced a net gain on the part of the publisher.

    The point I am making is it is not always so black-and-white as the RIAA (or your rant) likes to make it seem. One copied music CD is NOT MONETARILY EQUIVALENT to the cost of said CD, despite their claims otherwise.

  • 2. John Foust  |  July 13th, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Also, “stealing” is a word tied to tangible items. The free market has responded to the easy violation of intellectual property rights based on old models. Prices have dropped, music is distributed in digital format, and content creators have new methods of selling directly to their customers, as well as new methods of raising money to produce their next project.

    Tell me why serial-loaners like libraries are a drain on the creative process. Tell me what the Founders intended when it came to copyright. Tell me how intellectual property would be protected when full and true Libertarianism rules the land.

  • 3. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Debunked, if you don’t buy the CD and don’t copy it the creator is not injured. If you copy the CD and don’t pay for it, you denied them a sale. Not sure how it could be simpler.

  • 4. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 10:57 am

    John,

    Libertarians are fierce defenders of property. It is one of the few areas most libertarians concede a need for some type of government/judicial system.

    Libraries are a special case and you have to return the property to libraries. They are not distributing free copies.

    My understanding is the founders set up copyright and patent law to allow the creator to benefit and then allow society to benefit when the work entered public domain. My opinion is both patent law and copyright law have gotten to restrictive, but that doesn’t justify the violation of creator’s intellectual property rights.

    Copies ARE tangible as is the original creation. If they were intangible they couldn’t be copied.

  • 5. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 11:01 am

    And Debunked, I don’t really give a crap about the RIAA. My interest is in protecting and compensating original creators. And in that I am being almost as selfish as the pirates are. I want PIXAR, Martin Cruz Smith, and other great artists to have as much incentive as possible to keep producing incredible work so that I can continue to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

  • 6. Debunked  |  July 13th, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Debunked, if you don’t buy the CD and don’t copy it the creator is not injured. If you copy the CD and don’t pay for it, you denied them a sale. Not sure how it could be simpler.

    It can’t be simpler because you are still making it a black-and-white issue. It is not.

    If you copy a CD that you absolutely, positively, certainly would never have purchased, how did you deny them a sell?

    If you copy a CD and let friends listen to it who make the decision to then go out a buy it, did you deny them a sale or make them a sale?

    You are ignoring my two fundamental points here and reiterating exactly what you said. A copied CD is not equal to a lost sale. Making the claim that they are completely equivalent is simply asinine.

    I’m all for protecting and supporting the original owner of content. If you enjoy some form of digital content or use it on a daily basis, you should support the owner of the content. But I’m not going to simply toss out the claim that copying digital content is completely equivalent to stealing a tangible product. Because the issue is more complex than that.

  • 7. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    I’m sorry you think I ignored your points.

    In the first case, I’m saying why would you copy it if you wouldn’t have bought it? Do you like it? No? Then why copy it? Oh wait, you like it but not enough to pay for it? That’s tough. I like BMWs, but not enough to buy one. That doesn’t entitle me to drive one for free. If you’re listening to it and you didn’t pay me for it you denied me a sale. If you never listen to it, then fine, you didn’t deny me a sale. (But why the hell would you copy it and not listen to it?) Basically, you seem to be saying if I disagree with the price on something I should be able to just take it. How the hell is that OK?

    As to your second point, go and steal someone’s car. Use that car as a taxi cab. Give all the money you make to the person you stole the car from. It’s way more money than the car is worth. Your victim benefited from you taking his car. Guess what? You still stole the fucking car.

    Bottom line? Don’t use someone else’s intellectual property without their permission (or outside the accepted legal definition of fair use). Why is that so hard to understand?

  • 8. Debunked  |  July 13th, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Basically, you seem to be saying if I disagree with the price on something I should be able to just take it. How the hell is that OK?

    No, I’m simply saying that it does not in any way, shape, or form impact negatively upon the owner of the content if you would never have purchased it. The price concern is a separate issue. If enough people copy content that “would have purchased it were it cheaper”, then perhaps the industry should think about lowering the price and increasing sales in an attempt to increase net revenue. That’s the free market at work, there. But my point was simply a response to your statement that “[copying a CD] indisputably hurt the people who deserve to be compensated for their creation.” My response was pointing out simple example where copying a CD does not negatively impact the people who created said content.

    It’s way more money than the car is worth. Your victim benefited from you taking his car.

    And I can honestly say if somebody (unknowingly to me) took my car for the day, used it as a taxi and had it parked back in the parking lot before I needed it (so as not to inconvenience me) along with 10-grand in cash (or whatever would be more than my car is worth) from his “usage of it” as well as ensured the gas tank was at the same level as it originally was and the car was “no worse for wear” then I would have absolutely no problem with this. Who would?

  • 9. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    No, I’m simply saying that it does not in any way, shape, or form impact negatively upon the owner of the content if you would never have purchased it.
    Of course it does. Even if you wouldn’t have purchased it (which you might have if the only way for you to enjoy it was purchasing it instead of pirating it), you’ve damaged them by nullifying their right to control their own intellectual property. The same applies to your second point. If it’s your car and you don’t mind someone taking it that’s fine (just like people can give their intellectual property away or under creative commons), but you’re still the one making the decision. Copying intellectual property without the owner’s permission takes the control away from them and thus harms them (most often financially but also emotionally and mentally).

    It’s not harmful? Then why isn’t rape OK? When you rape someone you’re not removing their ability to have sex with other people. You’re just violating their ability to choose who they have sex with. Just like you’re violating my ability to choose who I share my intellectual property with when you pirate it. So maybe pirating is less like “theft” than it is like rape. Somehow I don’t think that makes it any better or more legal

  • 10. Debunked  |  July 13th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Of course it does. Even if you wouldn’t have purchased it (which you might have if the only way for you to enjoy it was purchasing it instead of pirating it) …

    Except this point is already nullified because it eliminates the exact qualifier I stated — namely, that you WOULD NOT have purchased it under any circumstances had you not copied it. Trying to then argue that you might have purchased is contrary to the very example I was citing. Yes, if you WOULD HAVE purchased it then you have cost the publisher and the artist money by copying it instead. I never disagreed with that. My point was that copying a CD is NOT NECESSARILY equivalent to stealing a sale. Because every person who copies a CD would NOT in fact have otherwise purchased said CD.

    you’ve damaged them by nullifying their right to control their own intellectual property. …… Copying intellectual property without the owner’s permission takes the control away from them and thus harms them

    Copying a CD does not remove their control of their intellectual property. Just because I copied a CD doesn’t give me the right to publicly play that music (or privately play it for profit), nor does it give me the right to make additional copies and sell that CD. If I buy a BMW and then paint it in a defamatory or derogatory way that makes BMW look bad have I nullified BMWs right to control their own intellectual property?

    It’s not harmful? Then why isn’t rape OK?…

    Logic, meet straw man.

  • 11. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    I will concede that if they were never going to buy it under any circumstances they didn’t steal a “sale.” But they still stole. In fact, it seems like an even clearer case of stealing. If your theoretical person didn’t want it, they wouldn’t copy it. So they must have wanted it. If they want it but aren’t willing to pay for it but take it anyway how is that not theft?

    And the mere act of copying does violate a person’s right to control their intellectual property if they don’t want you to copy it. If I say, “don’t do that” and you do it anyway how can you claim I’m in control?

    I’m not going to address the BMW theoretical because that mixes intellectual and real property issues. (If I buy the physical BMW, I have plenty of rights associated with my new ownership. Including altering it and reselling it.) Buyers of physical CDs have those same rights, by the way. But as the owner of the BMW I do not have the right to build an exact duplicate of it and give it to a friend.

  • 12. Elliot  |  July 13th, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    I have to admit I should never have used the word “indisputably” considering that Debunked has spent his entire day disputing it.

  • 13. John Foust  |  July 13th, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Libertarian thought on intellectual property is all over the map. One rabbit-hole, for example, leaves you defending every tittle-and-jot in shrink-wrap agreements, for example. Is that how you live your life today? Another says this isn’t a job for government. (I am quite familiar with Libertarianism. I have also argued extensively for the position you set forth here. In my opinion, the “steal a car / bicycle / sandwich” argument isn’t very strong, when it’s easy to see the difference between unitary physical objects and digital copying.)

    Even my man Jefferson isn’t a fan, saying in this context “as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” The Copyright Act of 1790 was for 14 years’ protection. Today, corporations have lobbied to extend it seemingly indefinitely. As long as Disney still controls every instance of Mickey Mouse, we’re safe for democracy, apparently.

    In any scenario, how will we discover these cases of intellectual property? Does fair use even exist? Why are you claiming that the damage to you is based upon the price you picked for your product? If I price my book at a trillion dollars, and the cops find a copy on your property, do you owe me a trillion dollars plus court costs?

    It’s not hard to find people and companies who don’t like the idea of libraries lending out easily-duplicated DVDs and CDs. Libraries are also lending e-books these days. You say I need to return those in the book slot, too?

  • 14. Dan  |  July 13th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    I would think that there could be some kind of technology that will prevent a CD being copied from a computer onto another CD on a different computer.
    I think some musicians screw themselves over when they put videos on You Tube, but if you are a new act, that’s what you have to do.
    As far as copying, I think the newer musicians don’t mind the copying because that will expose them more, but once they get established, then they change their tune, so to speak.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta