Scott Turnbull

Thanks for the support Marc, Ed, and Randy.
I was beginning to feel like the stranger in a strange land.

Lobis,
You said earlier you are in school.
You may not realize it now, but what you've just heard in this conversation is the real world version of 300 level Ethics. Much better than what you will get in most universities. (save maybe Pepperdine!)

The difference you heard in these postings is the difference of an outwardly focused understanding, ownership, and stewardship of the community as a whole -vs- an inwardly focused, out for myself, the world owes me everything perspective. "F" the rest of the world. Age, education, family, responsibility, and of course spirituality can all help shift this perspective. However, in the end it is always your decision and you and you alone must live with The Tell Tale Hart.

I am not trying to be malicious. I am giving you respect by being honest and direct.

I would suggest you print this tread and let your business ethic instructor read and comment on it. It should be more fruitful than a full semester of bookwork.

lobis

I agree that I should not steal, but the music I get is not the entire album, just one song or two. The RIAA has raised prices on cds, i have lots of cds but cant justify paying $18-20 for one. I still buy cds, but only from artists that i really like. The only reason my A/C is almost fixed is due to the internet. I will buy the manuals when I get a student loan next semster. I just like to argue to. The RIAA is losing money because they raised thier prices to make money, to make money you lower prices and increase volume, wich increases profits. I did learn that in economics. When the RIAA raised prices more people went online to get thier music. Napster is shut down but you have Direct Connect, Kazza, AudioGalaxy, Bearshare, and more. Music and file sharing is here to stay. Oh and when I buy a CD now I look in the used section, they are only like $5 dollars. Is that not like stealing? When they are bought and resold the artist does not get any money off of that, just the store that does it like Hastings(Pay $15 for a cd sell it back for $5 and they sell it for $10 depending on the demand for the album). Another example is I prefer Linux over Microsoft because it is free, and stable. Well I hope all of you people don't hate me now.

Ed Ruiz

Rationalizing why you steal does not excuse you. Not being able to afford the music you steal is not a valid excuse for stealing it. Even if you just want to copy one track from a CD you do not own, you are supposed to get the permission of the recording label and/or the artist. If you do not get permission, then you are nothing more than a Pirate, and if the US Customs finds out, you will be subject to hefty fines and/or imprisonment.

Lastly, buying used CDs is pefectly legal if those CDs were paid for. Just in case you don't understand what I mean - buying stolen merchandise is also illegal.

Let me know when you want your next ethics lesson. <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" />

Dave H.

Blind Off-Site Archiver, if you please...



[quote]<strong>you are nothing more than a Pirate</strong><hr></blockquote>

Big Dave

Playing devil's advocate:

What's the difference between taping a song off the radio or copying from a CD? Don't stray off into a discussion of the quality of the copy.

May I remind you that just because something has been enacted as a law does not make it an ethical issue? Try not to mix the two concepts up.

I am not advocating theft, just stimulating the discussion again (like it needed it)

Greg86andahalf

Dave,

The over the air broadcast of music is based on the concept of "one time listening" It is played on the air and then gone. The radio station pays to play the song once. Capturing it and replaying it is where the unauthorized use comes into play.

People treat the private recording and listening of broadcast music like they do the VCR recording of TV shows. I can't fault that logic, but the music industry has not embraced that concept as much as the TV broadcasters have by submission.

At the end of Monday night football, there is a shpeeeel about any reo**** or description of this game is prohibited without the expressed writteen.... blah....blah... What are they saying? You are at work on Tuesday and your friend says" hey, did you see the game last night"? you respond, yes, I did, but by law, I'm not allowed to give you a description of the what happened. Yeah, right.

I go by the idea that once something is broadcast for general public consumption, there's no expectation of control over the material except for the re-broadcast or sale of the program by those who are not authorized. Similar to one's own expectation of privacy in public. There is little, if any. If you want to control it, don't put it in the public for general consumption.

Let's go to another level.

Music played at wedding receptions and dances by DJ's. Who is paying the fees?

Music played at those same events by live bands. Same question.

Hit music used by local radio stations in their commercials for "mom and pop" businesses? Same question.

People who quote poetry or lyrics to songs in a public forum, as in a speech? Same question.

I have this mental image of a struggling musician, doing anything to get his song heard by anyone who would take the time to listen to it. Then, it becomes a major hit and his lawyers are suing everyone who makes a copy and listens to it. Strange, huh?

bergstsm

If I may, as a software developer and open-source advocate.

The justification for stealing is nearly indefensible, but not completely. Consider the argument that the law is the law, and those that do not respect it are criminals. That makes every Christian in China a criminal. Hmmm! A law is not always ethical, it is just a law. Courts decide whether that law is enforceable, NOT ETHICAL!. Note the repeating of the point. This is true with IP, copyrights and trademarks as well. Consider some trademarks that people have:

The art of swinging sideways (I am not kidding, he even set up a royalty payment scheme).

The tone for every possible phone number combination ("Please pay 1 cent each time you dial a number")

The idea of hyperlinking on the web (Think about having to pay that royalty every time you created one on your website")

In one way or another, you have probably used a trademark and not payed the royalty. In fact, I can guarantee that all of you have broken at least one of them each time you have made a phone call. Now who wants to argue that? Ignorance is NOT an excuse, right?

As it stands, copyright holders and IP owners have certain rights, but consider this argument that is made regarding IP in general, and music specifically. Courtney Love(singer, widow of Kurt Cobain) once broke down the way that money is distributed when a CD sells. In short, it breaks down that the performer gets very little return, regardless of how many CD's are sold. Basically, the studio reaps the reward.

"But Shawn, didn't the studio pay to have the music recorded?"

Yes, and with very few exceptions, that cost comes out of the profit that the CD makes for ------ THE ARTIST. Yes, the artist ends up paying for it.

In reality, most artists (Metallica, who IMHO, is more talented than smart, fail to realize this I guess) are getting jobbed, make no money, and no longer own the music that they wrote and performed! Take that you PIRATES! The music artist barely wants to hear the MPAA cry that pirates are stealing and costing us profits. With that said, I have NEVER used Napster, and do not permit the use of anything resembling it on my home network. That includes my fiancee, for those that may say that I am ignorant and justifying Napsterizing free music. Besides, MP3s WILL ruin your speakers if played too loud. Not recommended for those that spend a fortune on a car setup.

I know this is a bit off-topic, however I wanted to sum this up by saying that perhaps painting with such a broad stroke is not always prudent. In some cases, IP and Copyright law are abused, and hurt the people it was intended to protect. Besides, when Porsche decides not to issue any copies of the manuals, please explain to me how you plan on getting a fresh set of manuals LEGALLY!

This off-topic rant is brought to you by the letter "Y"(tm), and the phrase "Huh? I didn't know that!(tm)

If this formats badly, please forgive me. <img src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" border="0" alt="[soapbox]" />

Ed Ruiz

Lets consider the 928 Owner's manual only, and not get into other copyright issues.

First of all, the only reason the manual was sold to anyone who could buy it has to do with this country's "Freedom of Information Act". Many 928 owners living abroad are not as fortunate as we here in the USA, for (according to their country's laws or lack of them) they aren't entitled to get the owner's manual.

Second, how many copies of a manual should Porsche print for a car they stopped making in 1995? When can they stop printing any more 928 manuals? How much should they charge for a manual that is 9 volumes in size, and with a very limited customer base?

Lastly, since they made the effort to print the manuals, don't you think they are entitled to do what they can to protect their copyright? <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

bergstsm

Ed,

I hope you do not misinterpret my rant. I personally am more than happy to pay the $400+ for the manuals. I have done it once, and (because of my lack of organization when moving) have to do it again. My argument was not an endorsement of lobis's irrational thinking, only a devil's advocate approach regarding copyright. His attitude of "F-em" is one that most of us in the open-source software development arena try to discredit. He is missing the boat, and failing to uphold his ETHICAL duty to carry on the small 928 culture by giving support to those that provide parts and services. But it is HIS choice, not ours, to make. If we all followed his lead, Porsche would be sure to NOT publish any more sets.

Food For Thought, that is all. BTW, I cannot find the spot in the Constitution that deals with copyright law. While you are at it please let me know where the section is that deals with Income tax and selective-service. Just the constitution, please!

I look forward to contributing more to the 928 community than this rant. Please forgive me, I hope not to sound like a fool among my peers.

Shawn

edited
(Strike the income tax thingy, it was in the Bill of Rights, Amendment XVI)

Randy V

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It's deja vu all over again!"

Definite shades of the email List in this one. Counter to Martha's assertion, it's not always a good thing.

AO

Ed-

Let's say you do buy the manuals at $400.00. With that $400.00 you now also have the legal right to make a backup for your own use. It does not matter whether you make this backup yourself or pay someone to do it. Because of its nature, I'm sure many people (including myself) have accidentally torn, smudged, smeared, or in some other way destroyed a page or two in their paper manuals. I didn't want that to happen again without a proper recourse to replace it (without paying another $300-$400). So I made a backup. It worked so well, I thought, "Hey, why not give back and offer this to the rest of the 928 community." If other people want to hire me to make a backup, that's their business and there's nothing illeagal about it. There's no IP infringment or stealing involved. Simply the creation of a backup of piece of paper they already own.

If you do not want to preserve your manuals, that's up to you. I'm sure someone on Ebay or the big 3 would love to sell you another set of manuals. YOMV. <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

Ed Ruiz

Unless you have permission from Porsche to make multiple copies, you are only allowed to make one backup for your own personal use and only if you own an original. If you intend to make a profit from copying an original, then you will need to get permission from Porsche to make those copies. Good luck!

BTW, I've mentioned this in a previous discussion of this topic, but if the party of the first part confesses to me that they are commiting an illegal activity, it is my SWORN duty to report them. Secondly, do not make the mistake of assuming that this, or any other BBS is not monitored by law enforcement personnel or agencies. <img src="graemlins/icon107.gif" border="0" alt="[icon107]" />

bergstsm

Andrew,

The required reading that pertains to your question can be read here:

<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html" target="_blank">http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html</a>

Ed is correct. As it pertains to written works, there is little abiguity, although archiving multiple copies is allowed when a suitable replacement cannot be found at a fair price( a little vague if you ask me).

Ed, no hard feelings, your argument regarding written text is spot on.

Shawn

AO

Ed-

According to that logic, if I took my manuals over to Kinkos to make copies (self-service or otherwise) they are breaking the law because they are making a profit. Should we go after them too?

You make it sound evil to earn a buck. Profit is waht drive the world's economy. Porsche didn't design the 928 for the love of it. They wanted $! If I had paid someone to scan my manuals it would have easily cost $800+. I know, i looked into it. I decided to take an alternative route (you may call it the 'low road'). I thought other people, including yourself (yes, we still love you - Ed), might be interested in benefitting from my labors. Nobody is buying stolen merchandise (assuming they have the manuals already). We're just protecting our investment much the same you would with any other treasured item in your possesion.

"It's not getting what you want, but wanting what you've got!" Sheryl Crow (Available for free on your local radio - wait a minute, that might be stealing...) <img src="graemlins/icon501.gif" border="0" alt="[icon501]" />

Ed Ruiz

Kinkos makes a profit from making copies that its customer is paying to have copied. I suspect that they probably have words in their contract that say in effect they are only serving to copy information and that the burden of legality for copying that information lies with the customer.

You, on the other hand, know that the original is copyrighted and that making more than one personal backup copy is illegal, <img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[nono]" /> unless you get written permission from Porsche. <img src="graemlins/oops.gif" border="0" alt="[oops]" />