I'm not sure if i'm allowed to share this - but it made me gasp

[mugloch]

Yes it is. You seem to follow a principle that it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good. But let me ask you... if a person A pushes a person B from a cliff and person B happens to fall down safely and not get hurt, moreover he happens to land on a lost $100 bill and becomes $100 richer due to person's A push; does that make pushing people off the cliff right?

Hi Saul,

But for every argument like that you can throw up an opposing case. What about if the person being pushed over the cliff had a chronic illness that meant life was not worth living and they asked to be pushed over a cliff: this situation is probably more likely (just about...) in the real world than the $100 + miraculous escape scenario

Is it still wrong to push someone off a cliff?
More importantly, is it always wrong to push someone off a cliff.

Can we all agree that there are always situations where binary right/wrong do not apply


In the context of copyright infringement, the only moral rights the author has (in my country - Ireland) are (1) to be identified as the author of the work (2)the right to prevent mutilation, distortion or other derogatory alteration of the work, (3) the right not to have a work falsely attributed to you: and fair dealing exceptions of course come into play in (2) for comment/criticism.

There's no such thing as a moral right to not have your copyright infringed, that's a breach of civil law. The copyright law that was originally put in place (and is rapidly degrading) recognised that copyright is an agreement between creators and the public, and most importantly that creative acts has benefit for society as a whole, not just for the author. This balance between the author's benefit and society's benefit is why it's possible to say in some circumstances that "it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good"

When you say "wrong" do you mean morally wrong or unlawful?

How can it be morally wrong if the outcome is good? (but good for who....)

If it's unlawful but has a good outcome then maybe the law is too strict.

Scott

[molona]

Yes it is. You seem to follow a principle that it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good.

I am biting my tongue... the one I want to answer is Sagewings because he loves examples so much

But let me ask you... if a person A pushes a person B from a cliff and person B happens to fall down safely and not get hurt, moreover he happens to land on a lost $100 bill and becomes $100 richer due to person's A push; does that make pushing people off the cliff right?
.

Saul, let's not drift that far... it is like if I asked you if it was right for person A to kill person B because he entered his house and attacked him and very likely would have killed him... but person A killed him first. Is person A a murderer?
We could go on forever creating scenarios but let's simply stick to copyrights

[tke71709]

Definately, it is wrong and the guy is a thief but certainly Madonna's life style is not hurt in the same way that you'd be hurt.

In other words, it's OK to steal from the rich because they are rich.

That's a slippery slope at best, is it OK for a street person to steal from a lower class person because they are richer than them? Is it ok for a lower class person to steal from a middle class person because they are richer than them?

Is it OK for Nigerian scammers to steal from middle class US seniors because they are richer than them?

[molona]

Definately, it is wrong and the guy is a thief but certainly Madonna's life style is not hurt in the same way that you'd be hurt.

In other words, it's OK to steal from the rich because they are rich.

I would suggest to re-read the sentence and not to change the words and not to apply to them a conclusion that can't be extracted from them. This will help to get us all understood and not to put words into someone else's mouth that (s)he didn't say. Thank you

[Ryan Mortier]

I know I'm about to open a can of worms here but here I am being honest.

When I first discovered SitePoint 2 years ago, I was recommended your books. I will admit that I found them on a file sharing network and gave a few a quick skim read. This however has brought me to purchase (and I currently own) these books:

Hard Copies
The Ultimate CSS Reference
The Ultimate HTML Reference
Fancy Form Design
Build Your Own Database Driven Website Using PHP and MySQL 4th Edition
Build Your Own ASP.NET Website Using C# and VB.NET, 3rd Edition
Simply SQL

I've also purchased nearly 10 PDF books. (including all of the anthology books)

I also plan on buying more in the near future like Simply JavaScript and the jQuery Novice to Ninja books.

What does this mean?

If people are pirating your books and you try to stop them or block them from doing so, they arn't likly to purchase the books if they suddenly can't download them.

On the other hand, piracy has brought me to purchase your books.

I like to try before I buy and since I don't have a local book store that has your content, I downloaded them.

That being said, I don't have any downloaded books currently that I don't own.

Same thing can be said for music, while the iTunes preview can only be so good with its 20 second or so preview, I'd like to hear the full song before buying.

You don't buy a car without test driving it first, do you?

[Sagewing]

I am biting my tongue... the one I want to answer is Sagewings because he loves examples so much

I'd love to hear the answer. But, each answer comes with a bunch of new information about 'other ways to look at it' and things like that. There simply has to be a point where an actual decision is made, at least for an individual circumstance.

So, taking the photography example discussed before. We know that the clients knew the photographers terms before they agreed to hire him, then decided to make some extra prints without paying for them. They would not have paid for those prints, say the clients. They may have paid for them in the future, says the photographer. So, the idea of 'lost revenue' isn't clear but clearly there is no material damage at this point.

What if we take that case to court. Let's say the photographer goes to court and attempts to either get them to pay the fee for the photos that they took/used OR to have the cease using those photos in everything from their personal albums to Facebook.

The photographer claims they are using his copyrighted materials without authorization.

And let's say that YOU are the judge. We don't need to know if this is civil or criminal, moral court or ethical court, or any other court. We don't need to know the jurisdiction, you are the judge.

How do you rule?

[Sagewing]

In the context of copyright infringement, the only moral rights the author has (in my country - Ireland) are (1) to be identified as the author of the work (2)the right to prevent mutilation, distortion or other derogatory alteration of the work, (3) the right not to have a work falsely attributed to you: and fair dealing exceptions of course come into play in (2) for comment/criticism.

I'm not sure that your summation of Irish copyright laws is all that accurate. Take a look at this link http://www.cai.ie/faq/index.htm#8 which seems to explain that there are moral rights, yes, but also some clear rules on how copyrighted material can be used. I didn't bother to find more sources, but I think there is more to the Irish law than you describe.

There's no such thing as a moral right to not have your copyright infringed, that's a breach of civil law.

In the US, it can be civil or criminal depending on the circumstances. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

The copyright law that was originally put in place (and is rapidly degrading) recognised that copyright is an agreement between creators and the public, and most importantly that creative acts has benefit for society as a whole, not just for the author. This balance between the author's benefit and society's benefit is why it's possible to say in some circumstances that "it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good"

Where does this analysis come from? Copyright law all over the world is being discussed and while practices such as CRM and p2p are changing and being debated, I haven't seen any clear degradation of copyright law as you claim. Intellectual Property is a fast growing field in law. In the US, more and more cases and coming to trial and new case law being created and explored.

The laws may be changing, adapting to new times but degrading?

And sure, sometimes you can say "it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good" but who can say that? when? does each person interpret the law for each situation based on their own interpretation? what about rule of law? courts? enforcement?

You can say anything you want, but some things are more concrete such as what the actual laws say and how the courts apply those laws.

[Sagewing]

I know I'm about to open a can of worms here but here I am being honest.

When I first discovered SitePoint 2 years ago, I was recommended your books. I will admit that I found them on a file sharing network and gave a few a quick skim read. This however has brought me to purchase (and I currently own) these books:

Hard Copies
The Ultimate CSS Reference
The Ultimate HTML Reference
Fancy Form Design
Build Your Own Database Driven Website Using PHP and MySQL 4th Edition
Build Your Own ASP.NET Website Using C# and VB.NET, 3rd Edition
Simply SQL

I've also purchased nearly 10 PDF books. (including all of the anthology books)

I also plan on buying more in the near future like Simply JavaScript and the jQuery Novice to Ninja books.

What does this mean?

If people are pirating your books and you try to stop them or block them from doing so, they arn't likly to purchase the books if they suddenly can't download them.

On the other hand, piracy has brought me to purchase your books.

I like to try before I buy and since I don't have a local book store that has your content, I downloaded them.

That being said, I don't have any downloaded books currently that I don't own.

Same thing can be said for music, while the iTunes preview can only be so good with its 20 second or so preview, I'd like to hear the full song before buying.

You don't buy a car without test driving it first, do you?

There are lots of publishers who offer free trials, etc. in hopes of generating sales. It frequently works, but apparently not always.

Audible give away a free audiobook for signing up. Lots of software is shareware with no timeframe or conditions- they are hoping you register for support or upgrades. Google gives away tons of services and makes money other ways.

So, I think everyone would agree that many publishers agree that their content will ultimately do best using a free distribution model or some variant of that. Some don't.

That brings us back to a recurring theme. If Sitepoint wants to give freebies of books, or downloadable samples and that helps them generate sales that's fine. But what they think (right or wrong) that they make more money by simply having a 5 page preview and forcing people to pay for the rest of the book.

Do THEY decide their business model, or do YOU?

[molona]

@Sagewing: I answered to your example in various occasions and you now say "let's assume this and that and let's say the potographer this and the photographer that". I only asked one question and you ignored me? Now I am sad

[Sagewing]

@Sagewing: I answered to your example in various occasions and you now say "let's assume this and that and let's say the potographer this and the photographer that". I only asked one question and you ignored me? Now I am sad

Sorry, I must have missed something (it's getting hard to read back with this giant thread!!). Ask me again

Also, your answers were soft - like 'I can see both sides', etc. So, if you are the judge in the hypothetical then you have to rule up or down.

[Datura]

@ molona
Your claim:

Certainly, the vision that created that piece of artwork is yours and nobody can take that away from you but to say that even when is public it is only yours... I am not so sure... because once you exhibit it and even more if you sell it, it becomes someone else's and it can be an inspiration and the people that view it may been feel identified by it...

So what if one of them feels proud that he could do an exact copy of your work and then frame it? is it wrong? is it wrong that he does those copies and share them with friends because he feels proud that he can reproduce the same technique and he says "This is Datura's work. I copied it and it looks exactly the same... and I am able to do it over and over".

And aren't there many fine painters that charge to do exact copies and reproductions of classic paintings (Velaquez, Michael Angelo, Monet, Manet, etc)? Is that wrong?

Again, things are not black and white and, once it becomes public, your work stops being only yours.

Only if the copyright is expired is the work of something in public domain. As long as there is a copyright holder there is no such thing as being in the public domain. Copying old masters is legitimate because there is no copyright.

To clear some of your confused ideas about public domain here is a great site: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Where is the public domain?
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

[mugloch]

I'm not sure that your summation of Irish copyright laws is all that accurate. Take a look at this link http://www.cai.ie/faq/index.htm#8 which seems to explain that there are moral rights, yes, but also some clear rules on how copyrighted material can be used. I didn't bother to find more sources, but I think there is more to the Irish law than you describe.

That site's where I took my text from (sorry, should have cited it) but it wasn't intended as a summary of Irish copyright law, of course there are also economic rights as you can see in the paragraph above that http://www.cai.ie/faq/index.htm#7.

My point was in response the the moral aspect this argument. People are attempting to reason out moral arguments that have little basis in the law. In Irish copyright those points I stated are the only moral points.

In the US, it can be civil or criminal depending on the circumstances. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

As was said earlier, it makes more sense (to me) to think of copyright infringement on two levels. That commercial copyright infringement should be punished under the law, but that private "sharing" infringement should not. (this needs more nuance but that's the principle I'd stick with).

The US makes copyright a criminal offence only in three cases (from your link):

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

And all of these are for commercial gain. This is industrial infringement where one company is profiting illegally from another company's product. Or in case (C) where something is wilfully leaked before the rightsholder has a chance to earn from it.

All these points are compatible with the principles of copyright that go right back the Statute of Anne and the American Constitution. That copyright is a limited monopoly granted to rightholders to make money for a limited amount of time on their works before they go into the public domain.

Person to person sharing generally does not come into this. And there is as yet no evidence to support the idea that p2p filesharing has a detrimental effect on the music business. It may look seem like it must (if you choose to look at file sharing as "theft" for example) but there is no evidence for this. That said, I'm not sure that it's possible to count this in an effective way so any arguments based on this are probably moot or questionable at best.

Where does this analysis come from? Copyright law all over the world is being discussed and while practices such as CRM and p2p are changing and being debated, I haven't seen any clear degradation of copyright law as you claim. Intellectual Property is a fast growing field in law. In the US, more and more cases and coming to trial and new case law being created and explored.

The laws may be changing, adapting to new times but degrading?

My description of copyright law as "degrading" is based on the differences development of copyright law largely across the 20thC. The law has changed substantially, particularly in the areas of fair use provision and in length of copyright term. And these changes to the law are the result of lobbying by the Content Industries to increase their profit margins at the expense of the public domain (and occasionally creators). This interview with Bill Patry (copyright lawyer and head counsel for Google) is short but makes most of the salient points.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...38545965.shtml

You can say anything you want, but some things are more concrete such as what the actual laws say and how the courts apply those laws.

I agree, the laws should be changed to reduce copyright term length, make it an opt-in system rather than automatic, and strengthen fair use provisions.

[mugloch]

Only if the copyright is expired is the work of something in public domain. As long as there is a copyright holder there is no such thing as being in the public domain. Copying old masters is legitimate because there is no copyright.

To clear some of your confused ideas about public domain here is a great site: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Hi Datura, surely you're misreading Molona's point here? or are you confusing the technical legal description of a work being in the public domain with Molona's non-legal description of the normal state of affairs that when someone sees/hears anything at all it becomes known to them and thus exists for them in a way that your "ownership" of it cannot change.

It's worth reiterating here that it's only the steady law-changing pressure of media corporations in the last 100 years that has flipped the balance of copyright and the public domain. Originally copyright was the exception, the public domain was the norm. Part of the wisdom of copyright was the acceptance that once put on public display something becomes part of public consciousness, that to grant a monopoly (copyright) to the creator was an act of violence on society in general that should only be tolerated for a limited period. From Lord Kames arguments against monopolies in publishing: "In a word, I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books would prove more destructive to learning, and even to authors, than a second irruption of Goths and Vandals." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...18106070.shtml
Thomas Jefferson makes similar arguments against monopolies such as copyright, that they must balance the needs of the creator with the public.

[molona]

@Sagewing: My answers may be bland because I can understand both points and what I can understand is why you can't see that the couple has their point too.

You seem to think that the couple is wrong for making their own copies of pictures that they paid for. They never rejected their rights over those pictures, just the printed copies. You deny that they have any rights but you seem to think it is Ok that the photographer shamessly uses those pictures without the permision from the couple to get new jobs and, who knows? even do a printed ad. But the people in those pictures is this couple, and they have the right to decide if they want their image to made public or not.
The truth is that the couple also has rights... they didn't pay the photographer for his time, but for taking their pictures for them.

Or better yet. Answer to this. A teenager has to move to another town away where she used to live, maybe to another coutry. There's this band she loved so much and she bought the album. She gets to the new town and she's suprised that the band she loves is completely unknown... she's a huge fan but she can't hear her favourite song on the radio because nobody there knows the band. So she makes a copy of the song, sends it to the local radio station that on her request play the song.... and thousands of people hear it and request the same song... the word start spreading... people record the song from the radio and ask their friends "have you heard this?"
It is getting big, so much so that the original record lable hear about it and decide to lauch it in that city. As a result, the band started to make loads of money and made concerts worlwide and became famous.
The girl made a copy and the radio station played it and the band got huge benefits even when they were never asked and the record label never knew about it till people took an interest on it.

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

Part of the wisdom of copyright was the acceptance that once put on public display something becomes part of public consciousness, that to grant a monopoly (copyright) to the creator was an act of violence on society in general

And to say that something a person produces automatically belongs to everyone isn't an act of violence against the producer?


If I'm a travel photographer, I may choose to take a trip to France to photograph vineyards for a month. The idea being that all the money I spend on plane tickets, guest rooms, batteries, and food while abroad, I can recover and gain from when I'm back in my home country (by selling photographs to persons who want them).

If the principle is that by my act of photographing anything, and someone else seeing it, it instantly belongs to the "public domain" and must be distributed for free, then how will that be fair to me? Have I not been harmed?

I'd be robbed of the opportunity to benefit from my time, my energy, and my expense. Does that not count as "stealing"?


It's dangerous to get stuck thinking about copyright only in terms of "media giants". The persons who'd have the most to lose from an abolition of copyrights are the little guys.

[mugloch]

If the principle is that by my act of photographing anything, and someone else seeing it, it instantly belongs to the "public domain" and must be distributed for free, ['scuse my boldtype - scott] then how will that be fair to me? Have I not been harmed?

No-one (except the extreme fringes) is saying what you say above, and I definitely didn't say that. Balance is the key point here, what I would like to see is a balanced copyright law.

Two brief points:
1) By people seeing your work it doesn't automatically enter the public domain, it may enter the public (or individual) consciousness but the public domain is a specific legal territory, not something in the brain.

2) Once it goes out of copyright and enters the public domain is does not mean that it's free, it simply means that the price will drop to the lowest that the market will bear because there is no longer a rightsholder monopoly protecting the price. Granted that in digital terms the lowest price is often zero, but a balanced copyright would give the rightsholder time to make their money before it goes into the public domain.
And, there's plenty of people out there who make their living without any sort of copyright on their works. Cory Doctorow has his books available for free on his website as soon as they're available, and he's a well established author who would say that giving his work away for free is part of what made him successful.

I'd be robbed of the opportunity to benefit from my time, my energy, and my expense. Does that not count as "stealing"?

That still wouldn't be stealing but it would be crappy, I don't think anyone on either side of this argument wants that to happen.

It's dangerous to get stuck thinking about copyright only in terms of "media giants". The persons who'd have the most to lose from an abolition of copyrights are the little guys.

Sure, I understand that, but as I said in my original post i would like a change to copyright law, I never mentioned abolition. I only mentioned the media giants because of the changes that they brought to copyright that I see as problematic. And a large part of these problems are those that affect the little guy, you might find this interesting:

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26...killing-spree/

scott

[Sagewing]

@Sagewing: My answers may be bland because I can understand both points and what I can understand is why you can't see that the couple has their point too.

You seem to think that the couple is wrong for making their own copies of pictures that they paid for. They never rejected their rights over those pictures, just the printed copies. You deny that they have any rights but you seem to think it is Ok that the photographer shamessly uses those pictures without the permision from the couple to get new jobs and, who knows? even do a printed ad. But the people in those pictures is this couple, and they have the right to decide if they want their image to made public or not.
The truth is that the couple also has rights... they didn't pay the photographer for his time, but for taking their pictures for them.

The photographer didn't necessarily use the photos for anything else, and it wasn't clear in the hypothetical that the photographer would or would not - so lets say that the photographer doesn't use the photos for any other purpose whatsoever (to eliminate that). The couple, however, DID understanding the pricing when they hired the photographer. They paid for a photographers time, which came with a small set of photos and the understanding that they would have to pay more for additional prints beyond the included batch.

So, if you were the judge how would you rule? Would you obligate the couple to pay the photographer? Would you allow the couple to make as many prints as they want? What, exactly, would you do with a case like this?

[Sagewing]

Or better yet. Answer to this. A teenager has to move to another town away where she used to live, maybe to another coutry. There's this band she loved so much and she bought the album. She gets to the new town and she's suprised that the band she loves is completely unknown... she's a huge fan but she can't hear her favourite song on the radio because nobody there knows the band. So she makes a copy of the song, sends it to the local radio station that on her request play the song.... and thousands of people hear it and request the same song... the word start spreading... people record the song from the radio and ask their friends "have you heard this?"
It is getting big, so much so that the original record lable hear about it and decide to lauch it in that city. As a result, the band started to make loads of money and made concerts worlwide and became famous.
The girl made a copy and the radio station played it and the band got huge benefits even when they were never asked and the record label never knew about it till people took an interest on it.

In that example, the girl made an unauthorized copy of a song and that unauthorized copy of the song led to the original publisher making a bunch of sales.

So, the unauthorized copy of the song was likely an infringement of the copyright held by the song owner, as was the distribution of the song. The girl could be sued in civil court for that, although in this case the publisher made money instead of taking damages so it wouldn't be much of a case. So I'd say that it WAS copyright infringement but the owner of the media did ultimately benefit.

But then, what if that same thing happened except the song continued to be pirated all over the new city and no sales resulted. That is just as possible of an outcome. And say that the real publisher had planned on a massive marketing effort to go with the release of that song in that city, and now it's all screwed up. So, in that case the copyright infringement occurred and the publisher lost out.

Who decides if there is benefit or not?

The girl?
The label?
You?

According to current US law, it's the owner of the copyright.

[mugloch]

this is quite interesting, hot off the press, music industry execs debate with Pirate Bay founder.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1503079244.shtml

Obviously Mike Masnick has a particular angle on this already but I'm sure there are other takes on this event across the nets. Someone post an opposite take on it if they find one.

[Datura]

Thomas Jefferson makes similar arguments against monopolies such as copyright, that they must balance the needs of the creator with the public.

Well, the public need is such a rubber-band term, need is not a qualifier for making laws. Besides, the public has no claim on anything that an individual/group has created, no matter how people want for it to be so. They can only claim this by using force, the force used by laws to take from the creators.

I am coming into this debate from a philosophical point of view, I base all judgments on that. This way of looking at things keeps it uncluttered and free of distractions, certainly need does not come into my thinking

[mugloch]

Well, the public need is such a rubber-band term, need is not a qualifier for making laws. Besides, the public has no claim on anything that an individual/group has created, no matter how people want for it to be so. They can only claim this by using force, the force used by laws to take from the creators.

I am coming into this debate from a philosophical point of view, I base all judgments on that. This way of looking at things keeps it uncluttered and free of distractions, certainly need does not come into my thinking

What is a qualifier for making laws if not "need"? what else is there?
apart from "greed" of course...


Of course the public has no claim on anyone's work, that's not the point. This isn't a matter of binary yours/mine ownership, your work will always be your work but as soon as I experience it it becomes mine also. Now I don't "own" it and I cannot take it away from you, but it is a part of my experience and that makes it part of me.

[php_daemon]

Can we all agree that there are always situations where binary right/wrong do not apply

Yes, but my point was who decides what is right and what's wrong?

Sagewing has already answered that.

Saul, let's not drift that far... it is like if I asked you if it was right for person A to kill person B because he entered his house and attacked him and very likely would have killed him... but person A killed him first. Is person A a murderer?
We could go on forever creating scenarios but let's simply stick to copyrights

No no, I think my example was good enough to bring my point. The one with murder isn't because someone gets hurt anyway. And the point that I was trying to bring up is who decides?

What I find funny is that from most of your posts you seem (emphasis on seem, my head is spinning from the size of this thread and there's a chance I'm missing your point) to assume that power to yourself. You say that it's OK as long as the outcome is good. I strongly disagree with that. In most cases there's an agreement between the author and the user which clearly says what the author deems to be OK and what's not.

You can go ahead and argue that what the author wants the user to do with their product is unreasonable, but I firmly believe that it's their right to want whatever they please. You have one right that they don't have to grant you - it's to choose not to use their product.

[php_daemon]

Hi Saul,

But for every argument like that you can throw up an opposing case. What about if the person being pushed over the cliff had a chronic illness that meant life was not worth living and they asked to be pushed over a cliff: this situation is probably more likely (just about...) in the real world than the $100 + miraculous escape scenario

Yes, that might be OK if it is OK for the person who is affected. And it would be OK if the copyright holders said, "go ahead, pirate my work".

[Datura]

What is a qualifier for making laws if not "need"? what else is there?
apart from "greed" of course...

The qualifier to creating laws is the natural right of the individual as a human being. The right that this individual has to the creations of his mind. When the right of the individual is protected, all men (man qua man) are protected.

There is no dispute of ownership when rights of individuals are protected, only free trade and exchange of ideas without force are the interactions between men then. Laws are based in an ethics that protects and respects the rights of the individual not the so called "need" by the population at large.

If a person wants to gain something that another has created, he has to pay for it by an exchange of another value that the creator of the item might want. That is why money was invented, an easy exchange of work to work.

Now, there are many inventions that are based on previous inventions and to progress these older inventions have to be used. Just taking them and violating the right of the owner is theft. But the person who holds the right can either be bought out or he might like to see it developed and agrees with the use of his invention without compensation, as so often is the case today with electronic developments. But there is no force involved as there is with theft of any kind.

---

The way the term greed is used, is an outgrowth of envy, a very terrible emotion that is based in the bitterness of guys that see success by other people as something that was taken from them.

I consider people who want what they have not earned or paid for as greedy, for they want want want without any effort.

[mugloch]

Yes, that might be OK if it is OK for the person who is affected. And it would be OK if the copyright holders said, "go ahead, pirate my work".

Fair enough, I was just responding to your example with an equally arbitrary counterpoint. It's not important in the long run.

As for who decides what's right and wrong, that of course is the lawmakers. And behind the lawmakers are the lobbying groups who apply pressure to have the law the way they want it: be they public interest groups or industry pressure groups. The law will be made as a compromise between pressure groups. Historically, copyright law has been written by the media corporations.