RIAA confiscates DJ Mix CDs. No one notices.

[DaBarrister]

http://www.djmag.com/news_20.asp

The practice is in fact approved of by most producers who see it as fundamental to the survival of the dance scene - even if it is their tracks that are being copied and played without permission.

This latest attack by the RIAA is therefore hypocritical – they claim that their pursuit of copyright infringement is primarily in the interest of the artist, yet most dance producers actually approve of and rely upon this illegal distribution.

It looks like the brainiacs at RIAA will continue to shoot themselves in the foot 'til there aren't any feet (or consumers) left.

[pacmania_2001]

Why doesn't this suprise me?

[housepig]

on a related note, I heard Matt Jacobsen from Relapse Records, and Fat Mike from Fat Wreck Chords on NPR a few weeks ago, discussing the fact that even though neither company is a member of the RIAA, the RIAA has been lumping them and their material in it's lawsuits.

both were crying foul, and reporting that as soon as they found out about it, it took repeated notices to the RIAA to get them to stop...

I think the RIAA should merge with Microsoft and SCO, and we could have one convienient target for our rotten eggs, instead of having to divide them among the three...

[dphirschler]

I like Microsoft. Could it be better? Yes. But they don't deserve to be lumped together with the RIAA. Even the MPAA doesn't deserve that (yet).


Darryl

[haloblack]

http://www.djmag.com/news_20.asp

The practice is in fact approved of by most producers who see it as fundamental to the survival of the dance scene - even if it is their tracks that are being copied and played without permission.

There has never ever been a more vivid illustration of how little the RIAA knows about the people it "represents." Confiscating DJ mixes is like firing your own marketing department for using your music in a commercial for your album. They've clearly never talked to a single one of the artists they're "protecting."

[triphop]

No! Let 'em carry on doing it. Let them sue and carry-on until the lie about copyrights in the US is made abundantly clear to the majority of sheeple here. At them moment copyrights are not balanced against the requirements of the common good. In fact it can be argued that more and more of the social commons are being privatized. Now, I do believe that some copyright protection is important (as well as patents), but they should be far more limited than they are now.

<rant>
This kind of selfish thinking is widespread: Look at these idiots who drive gas guzzlers - they claim that they are free to drive what they like - they pay more for the gas, but thats fair, they argue. However, the pollution and green house gases produced are a problem for all peoples to deal with and even for people not yet born. Yet, somehow these morons claim they have some kind of right...
</rant>

[pdemondo]

King of a HUGE leap from copyright law to YOUR idea
of how much gasoline another person has a right to consume.
Why not have the government regulate automobile purchasing
so we all get cars that are okay with you?? See what
a good job they have done with copyrights

[phonomas]

This kind of selfish thinking is widespread: Look at these idiots who drive gas guzzlers - they claim that they are free to drive what they like - they pay more for the gas, but thats fair, they argue. However, the pollution and green house gases produced are a problem for all peoples to deal with and even for people not yet born. Yet, somehow these morons claim they have some kind of right...

Right on, Triphop!

[DaBarrister]

Kin(d) of a HUGE leap from copyright law to YOUR idea of how much gasoline another person has a right to consume. Why not have the government regulate automobile purchasing so we all get cars that are okay with you?? See what a good job they have done with copyrights

Good point. It is a bit inconsistent to complain of too much regulation and then bring up an example demanding greater regulation. You can't have it both ways. Some morons claim a right to use more gasoline that they've paid for, and some morons claim a right to steal someone else's property, eh?

I also take issue with the whole "copyright is evil" routine I keep seeing time and time again. Triphop partially redeems himself by at least acknowledging that "some copyright protection is important," albeit he posits that we have too much protection now. Fair enough.

But overzealous prosecution of copyright is not a reason to abolish copyright, any more than overzealous use of the death penalty is a reason for doing away with the crime of murder. Don't confuse the right/violation of that right with the enforcement of that right. I posted this story to see whether someone would draw the distinction. I'm disappointed that no one else brought this up in any detail. Anyway...

Copyright is good, and it serves as a valuable protection for those who produce the properties protected under those laws. Without such protection no one would produce the movies and music that you love so much. There is room for disagreement as to a) how long those rights should last; b) the extent of the rights protected thereby; and c) the amount of the punishment for violation.

If it were up to me, I would a) reduce the number of years a copyright may be enforced; b) protect only the original and most derivative works; and c) would make the punishment equal to actual proveable damages plus penalties commensurate with the type of offense committed (drawing a distinction between personal use and commercial use).

Again, don't confuse the basic property right of copyright with the enforcement and penalties for the violation of those rights. You can argue as to the latter without invalidating the former. Copyright is here to stay and you'll get nowhere arguing for its abolishment; your efforts would be better spent tweaking the law to reach a fair compromise.

[lordsmurf]

Infringement is not theft. Theft is different.

Please quit calling it "stealing" and "theft" because that just shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

"Intellectual property" and property have different definitions. You cannot "steal" intellect, but you can infringe.

This is the damned problem. RIAA and MPAA think people steal. Then they attempt to make it a federal case on par with grand theft auto (a real theft crime). But this is not the case.

People infringe. Is infringement wrong because it is inherently wrong or because somebody else told you it was wrong?

I think we can all agree infringement on another idea person's idea is just fine. Eventually it will be done. The only question is "how long" until it becomes acceptable.

I did not steal "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens. I did buy the paper "bootleg" by a company that infringed on his ideas... but it is acceptable. Now, at least.

In time, Arnold movies and Metallica songs will be the same way.

The government itself needs to point this out since they are the ones trying to enforce the copyright time limits.

Breaking the limits should results in actual damages, not magic numbers of corporations, but it's still not theft. At most, it prevented the copyright holder from obtaining more income, but even that is dubious given that many that consume the free/cheap stuff would never buy the "official" items anyway.

It's a flawed system. Goons are in charge.

[triphop]

King of a HUGE leap from copyright law to YOUR idea
of how much gasoline another person has a right to consume.
Why not have the government regulate automobile purchasing
so we all get cars that are okay with you?? See what
a good job they have done with copyrights

Not a leap at all. In fact its quite consistent with a selfish world view that basically says that if I can afford it, that makes it ok. If I can copyright my works, then they are mine forever. If I can afford the gasoline, then its ok for me to waste it. Bull. It flies completely in the face of the needs of society - you know, that thing that we live in. The world doesn't just belong to rich folks (as much as we are conditioned to believe), it belongs to us all. And this has everything to do with property ownership - you might own the copyright, but the creation of the work came from the society (read taxpayer) that the creator lived in and therefore there is a direct obligation to that society that nutured the creation of that work. You do not create in a vacuum - you owe your environment and it is the greedy (and the stupid) who do not recognise this.

This same argument applies to automobiles. While the gas is yours - the pollution and greenhouse games ARE OURS. Unless you take responsibility for your pollution and waste and do not expect the general society (read taxpayer) and future generations to clean up then you are greedy (and stupid).

Understand now?? It goes a little beyond nursery school politics (not being able to share) but maybe its time to grow up.



PS. IMHO: Copyrights are ok but with limited terms (like 5-10years). I wonder if Disney would appreciate Hans Chrisian Andersons descendants asserting a claim on the The Little Mermaid, or Snow White, etc, etc. You get the picture?

PPS: You might have noticed that the Govt. already does regulate automobiles - safety, etc, etc. They already tax gas for road construction and other programs. I see no problem with them taxing gas for future ecological cleanup. FACT: The lead in the air is about 600% more than it was 100 years ago. You know why? Gasoline. Thanks a lot - lead in any quantity is not good. Who is going fix that?? Taxpayers thats who.

[Supreme2k]

Infringement is not theft. Theft is different.

Please quit calling it "stealing" and "theft" because that just shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

THANK YOU! As much as I've said it in the past, some people don't get it.

triphop,
I can kind of see what you're getting at, but it's still a pretty big leap. maybe not as much as "smoking pot = funding terrorists", but pretty high up there.

[triphop]

I can kind of see what you're getting at, but it's still a pretty big leap. maybe not as much as "smoking pot = funding terrorists", but pretty high up there.

I resemble that remark!!

[MOVIEGEEK]

"DJ mix CDs, sold in almost every independent record store are on the whole unlicensed and technically illegal to distribute. However, DJs and producers alike often rely upon these illegal mixes in order to gain credibility, and to promote themselves to the general public."

DJ's are not musicians and don't own any copyrights,duplicating and playing copyrighted music in front of a crowd without permission or a license is illegal.I also think the US law "5 years in prison and $250,000 fine"punishment is extreme and should be left to a judge and jury.
I'm not condoning what the RIAA did but they were in the right.

[BJ_M]

"DJ mix CDs, sold in almost every independent record store are on the whole unlicensed and technically illegal to distribute. However, DJs and producers alike often rely upon these illegal mixes in order to gain credibility, and to promote themselves to the general public."

DJ's are not musicians and don't own any copyrights,duplicating and playing copyrighted music in front of a crowd without permission or a license is illegal.I also think the US law "5 years in prison and $250,000 fine"punishment is extreme and should be left to a judge and jury.
I'm not condoning what the RIAA did but they were in the right.

Dance clubs and Bars and the like all pay a yearly fee for performance and media rights ... its not cheap either .. True - some 1 night type Raves skip this proccess.

[pacmania_2001]

...Don't confuse the right/violation of that right with the enforcement of that right.

Copyright is good, and it serves as a valuable protection for those who produce the properties protected under those laws. Without such protection no one would produce the movies and music that you love so much. There is room for disagreement as to a) how long those rights should last; b) the extent of the rights protected thereby; and c) the amount of the punishment for violation.

If it were up to me, I would a) reduce the number of years a copyright may be enforced; b) protect only the original and most derivative works; and c) would make the punishment equal to actual proveable damages plus penalties commensurate with the type of offense committed (drawing a distinction between personal use and commercial use).

I have to say, that is one of the smartest comments I have seen on this forum in all my time here.

I resemble that remark!!

Do you mean resent?

I have to agree with you on some of your points. Your arguement can also be applied to things like smoking (it's your lungs, but the second hand smoke affects my lungs).

To stray off the topic for a second, I think their will be greater regulation coming in the near future in terms of pollution and emissions especially from the US government.

[pdemondo]

Who is going to decide how much is enough? I say 5 DVDs per person!
Any more than that and you are taking more than your fair share.
10 CD's per person.

As far as vehicles goes, how about no more than 1/120 of a gallon
of gas used per mile (for each passanger)? What about housing?
If those "rich" people wouldn't pay so much for houses, they would
be much more affordable. Let us get a law passed to limit
homes to 800 square feet per resident.

Then there will be much more for us poor folk!

[DaBarrister]

Infringement is not theft. Theft is different.

Please quit calling it "stealing" and "theft" because that just shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

"Intellectual property" and property have different definitions. You cannot "steal" intellect, but you can infringe.

I apologize, my friend. I did not realize that you are a fellow lawyer and are so skilled in the practice of law.

You think playing a game of semantics makes one damn bit of difference? Since you obviously are not a lawyer, let me give you a free lesson in copyright law and intellectual property.

Intellectual property is defined as "any new and useful process, machine, composition of matter, life form, article of manufacture, software, copyrighted work or tangible property." Setting forth that particular intellectual property into writting, film, video, bits of code, etc. produces a copyrighted work. Automatically. Copyright laws then protect those forms of intellectual property. With me so far?

Now, a "copyrighted work" is a subset of "intellectual property." "Infringement of copyright" is a subset of the larger category of "theft of intellectual property." So, you see, not all thefts of intellectual property are infringements of copyright, but every copyright infringement is a theft of intellectual property. When you copy or reproduce a copyrighted work (when you do not have the right to do so) you are guilty of the theft of another's intellectual property.

To put this in terms you might understand, not every hit is a home run, but every home run is a hit. Not every theft of intellectual property is an infringement of copyright, but every infringement of a copyright is theft of intellectual property. Get it?

Gee, I guess that's why they called the latest statutory amendment to the copyright laws The No Electronic Theft Act. And what does that act deal with? Theft of intellectual property via infringement of copyright. Here it is, in pertinent part:

CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--

"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

"(2) 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,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

You see? "Reproduction" = "copyright infringement" = "theft." End of story. I rest my case, (as real lawyers like to say).

Might I suggest you consult a lawyer, in the future, before making specious arguments?

[Cornucopia]

CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--

"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

"(2) 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,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."

(Disregard this next part if your quote was taken out of context or was edited)
I find it ironic and even disquieting that the quoted law makes no distinction between "reproduction...of copyrighted works" and "UNAUTHORIZED reproduction...of copyrighted works".
This could be one of those arguable areas you were talking about. What do you think about fair use?

Scott

[DaBarrister]

(Disregard this next part if your quote was taken out of context or was edited)
I find it ironic and even disquieting that the quoted law makes no distinction between "reproduction...of copyrighted works" and "UNAUTHORIZED reproduction...of copyrighted works".
This could be one of those arguable areas you were talking about. What do you think about fair use?

Scott

As I noted, The No Electronic Theft Act is a statutory amendment to the larger, more complete copyright act, contained in 17 U.S.C. et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. et. seq. That is, it modifies the older code that already sets forth copyright law in detail. What constitutes an unauthorized reproduction (i.e., an "infringement") is further set forth in those sections of the U.S. Code. Hope this helps.

[triphop]

I resemble that remark!!

Do you mean resent?

Yes - Old, bad joke.

Who is going to decide how much is enough? I say 5 DVDs per person!
Any more than that and you are taking more than your fair share.
10 CD's per person.

As far as vehicles goes, how about no more than 1/120 of a gallon
of gas used per mile (for each passanger)? What about housing?
If those "rich" people wouldn't pay so much for houses, they would
be much more affordable. Let us get a law passed to limit
homes to 800 square feet per resident.

Then there will be much more for us poor folk!

<rant>
Look - this is getting off the point. And this is a simple matter: Your numbers are meaningless and are merely attempts to make light of a fundamental albeit simple concept: If you are going to dump your pollution into the common air (my air, your air, our air; Capiche?), then build the cost of cleaning it up into the price of the product. If the goons who dumped all that lead into the air, paid the price upfront (and they knew it was bad, people died in their factories regularly - people without lawyers), then I would not be having to breath a aerosol heavy metal today. And neither would you if you cared about your IQ.

Copyrights represent a simple power grab of the creative commons that nurtures the products they wish to sequester. Yes, provide a short-term benefit for the immediate copyright - but keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain for 90 years - this is ridiculous - its a picture drawing of mouse goddamnit. We have protect the ownership of ideas with a sane and balanced copyright law, not the ever expanding travesty of today. And also don't give me your laissez faire stories - that just means that the prize goes to the rich man and the rest of us scratch in the dirt like our grandfathers dug in the coal mines. Read Sinclairs: The Jungle. Read it - its public domain. Without regulation we'd still be pumping leaded gas, using asbestos, pushing cigarettes on kids. The government of the people need to regulate this so that copyrights expire within the some reasonable time.

Of course the big joke is that the USA only got the copyright religion recently. Charles Dickens famously complained about American publishers printing his works without permission. When he had the temerity to complain about this - he was pilloried in the US press. And now this same press is all righteous about intellectual property - thats bull - its just that the goons want to protect what they got going on - and no sharing for you anymore.
</rant>

Disclosure: I am a wedding videographer and I fully support copyrights - for a limited term. I do not want to be responsible for someones wedding video for 50 years! I just want to maintain some degree of control for a reasonable term (typically I would cede control after 5 years - its someone elses wedding video ). I have gotten into some hard core arguments with some folks here on this. forum on my stand on this. I remain unrepentant

[DaBarrister]

Look - this is getting off the point. And this is a simple matter: Your numbers are meaningless and are merely attempts to make light of a fundamental albeit simple concept: If you are going to dump your pollution into the common air (my air, your air, our air; Capiche?), then build the cost of cleaning it up into the price of the product. If the goons who dumped all that lead into the air, paid the price upfront (and they knew it was bad, people died in their factories regularly - people without lawyers), then I would not be having to breath a aerosol heavy metal today. And neither would you if you cared about your IQ.

Wow. Another expert on the law, this time with a double expertise in copyright and environmental law.

Under your theory, as applied to the issue we were discussing, copyright holders should charge more for their products so consumers will "pay the price up front" for all the copyright theft that goes on. Nice.

You could not have come up with a worse example to prove your point. That said, I think your point was not to discuss copyright issues, but to simply air (no pun intended) :P your grievances re: environmental issues. Whatever.

[lordsmurf]

How does one one steal something that does not exist in physical form?

in·fringe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v. tr.
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European Roots.]

theft ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thft)
n.
The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Obsolete. Something stolen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English thefth.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


theft

( P ) theft: log in for this definition of theft and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


theft

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

2. The thing stolen. [R.]

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


theft

n : the act of stealing; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, thievery, thieving, stealing]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


theft

Punished by restitution, the proportions of which are noted in 2 Sam. 12:6. If
the thief could not pay the fine, he was to be sold to a Hebrew master till he
could pay (Ex. 22:1-4). A night-thief might be smitten till he died, and there
would be no blood-guiltiness for him (22:2). A man-stealer was to be put to
death (21:16). All theft is forbidden (Ex. 20:15; 21:16; Lev. 19:11; Deut.
5:19; 24:7; Ps. 50:18; Zech. 5:3; Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9; Eph. 4:28; 1 Pet.
4:15).

steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.

v. intr.
To commit theft.
To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.
Baseball. To steal a base.

n.
The act of stealing.
Slang. A bargain.
Baseball. A stolen base.

Idiom:
steal (someone's) thunder
To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stealer n.
Synonyms: steal, purloin, filch, snitch, pilfer, cop, 2hook, swipe, lift, pinch
These verbs mean to take another's property wrongfully, often surreptitiously. Steal is the most general: stole a car; steals research from colleagues. To purloin is to make off with something, often in a breach of trust: purloined the key to his cousin's safe-deposit box. Filch and snitch often suggest that what is stolen is of little value, while pilfer sometimes connotes theft of or in small quantities: filched towels from the hotel; snitch a cookie; pilfered fruit from the farmer. Cop, hook, and swipe frequently connote quick, furtive snatching or seizing: copped a necklace from the counter; planning to hook a fur coat; swiped a magazine from the rack. To lift is to take something surreptitiously and keep it for oneself: a pickpocket who lifts wallets on the subway. Pinch suggests stealing something by or as if by picking it up between the thumb and the fingers: pinched a dollar from his mother's purse.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


steal

( P ) steal: log in for this definition of steal and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


steal

( P ) steal: log in for this definition of steal and other entries in Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.


Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


steal

\Steal\, n. [See Stale a handle.] A handle; a stale, or stele. [Archaic or Prov. Eng.]

And in his hand a huge poleax did bear. Whose steale was iron-studded but not long. --Spenser.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


steal

\Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb. n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.] 1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.

Maugre thy heed, thou must for indigence Or steal, or borrow, thy dispense. --Chaucer.

The man who stole a goose and gave away the giblets in ?lms. --G. Eliot.

2. To withdraw or convey clandestinely (reflexive); hence, to creep furtively, or to insinuate.

They could insinuate and steal themselves under the same by their humble carriage and submission. --Spenser.

He will steal himself into a man's favor. --Shak.

3. To gain by insinuating arts or covert means.

So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. --2 Sam. xv. 6.

4. To get into one's power gradually and by imperceptible degrees; to take possession of by a gradual and imperceptible appropriation; -- with away.

Variety of objects has a tendency to steal away the mind from its steady pursuit of any subject. --I. Watts.

5. To accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner; to try to carry out secretly; as, to steal a look.

Always, when thou changest thine opinion or course, profess it plainly, . . . and do not think to steal it. --Bacon.

To steal a march, to march in a covert way; to gain an advantage unobserved; -- formerly followed by of, but now by on or upon, and sometimes by over; as, to steal a march upon one's political rivals.

She yesterday wanted to steal a march of poor Liddy. --Smollett.

Fifty thousand men can not easily steal a march over the sea. --Walpole.

Syn: To filch; pilfer; purloin; thieve.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


steal

\Steal\, v. i. 1. To practice, or be guilty of, theft; to commit larceny or theft.

Thou shalt not steal. --Ex. xx. 15.

2. To withdraw, or pass privily; to slip in, along, or away, unperceived; to go or come furtively. --Chaucer.

Fixed of mind to avoid further entreaty, and to fly all company, one night she stole away. --Sir P. Sidney.

From whom you now must steal, and take no leave. --Shak.

A soft and solemn breathing sound Rose like a steam of rich, distilled perfumes, And stole upon the air. --Milton.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


steal

Stale \Stale\, n. [OE. stale, stele, AS. st[ae]l, stel; akin to LG. & D. steel, G. stiel; cf. L. stilus stake, stalk, stem, Gr. ? a handle, and E. stall, stalk, n.] The stock or handle of anything; as, the stale of a rake. [Written also steal, stele, etc.]

But seeling the arrow's stale without, and that the head did go No further than it might be seen. --Chapman.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


steal

n : an advantageous purchase; "she got a bargain at the auction"; "the stock was a real buy at that price" [syn: bargain, buy] v 1: take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation" 2: move stealthily; "The ship slipped away in the darkness" [syn: slip] 3: steal a base, in baseball 4: to go stealthily or furtively: "..stead of sneaking around spying on the Dronk house''." [syn: sneak, mouse, creep, pussyfoot]

So we'd base this all of an idiom huh?

id·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-m)
n.
A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.
The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language.
Regional speech or dialect.

A specialized vocabulary used by a group of people; jargon: legal idiom.
A style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people: “Also important is the uneasiness I've always felt at cutting myself off from my idiom, the American habits of speech and jest and reaction, all of them entirely different from the local variety” (S.J. Perelman).
A style of artistic expression characteristic of a particular individual, school, period, or medium: the idiom of the French impressionists; the punk rock idiom.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Late Latin idima, idimat-, from Greek, from idiousthai, to make one's own, from idios, own, personal, private. See s(w)e- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


idiom

\Id"i*om\, n. [F. idiome, L. idioma, fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? to make a person's own, to make proper or peculiar; prob. akin to the reflexive pronoun ?, ?, ?, and to ?, ?, one's own, L. suus, and to E. so.] 1. The syntactical or structural form peculiar to any language; the genius or cast of a language.

Idiom may be employed loosely and figuratively as a synonym of language or dialect, but in its proper sense it signifies the totality of the general rules of construction which characterize the syntax of a particular language and distinguish it from other tongues. --G. P. Marsh.

By idiom is meant the use of words which is peculiar to a particular language. --J. H. Newman.

He followed their language [the Latin], but did not comply with the idiom of ours. --Dryden.

2. An expression conforming or appropriate to the peculiar structural form of a language; in extend use, an expression sanctioned by usage, having a sense peculiar to itself and not agreeing with the logical sense of its structural form; also, the phrase forms peculiar to a particular author.

Some that with care true eloquence shall teach, And to just idioms fix our doubtful speech. --Prior.

Sometimes we identify the words with the object -- though be courtesy of idiom rather than in strict propriety of language. --Coleridge.

Every good writer has much idiom. --Landor.

It is not by means of rules that such idioms as the following are made current: ``I can make nothing of it.'' ``He treats his subject home.'' Dryden. ``It is that within us that makes for righteousness.'' M.Arnold. --Gostwick (Eng. Gram. )

3. Dialect; a variant form of a language.

Syn: Dialect.

Usage: Idiom, Dialect. The idioms of a language belong to its very structure; its dialects are varieties of expression ingrafted upon it in different localities or by different professions. Each county of England has some peculiarities of dialect, and so have most of the professions, while the great idioms of the language are everywhere the same. See Language.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


idiom

n 1: a manner of speaking that is natural to native speakers of a language [syn: parlance] 2: the usage or vocabulary that is characteristic of a specific group of people; "the immigrants spoke an odd dialect of English"; "he has a strong German accent" [syn: dialect, accent] 3: the style of a particular artist or school or movement; "an imaginative orchestral idiom" [syn: artistic style] 4: an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up [syn: idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase]

So dummy-language is what is used. "Theft" and "steal" are dummy-versions for "infringement", a concept that nobody can seem to understand. I still say it's not the same thing.

Copyright as it exists today is a legal way to have greed. If school and college history classes taught me right, common law was based on society, often religious and moral ideals. Greed is bad in both contexts.

My my, how far the laws have skewed from original intent, if they are as you say they are. In this very article, "law" contradicted the desire of those it was "protecting" ... see a problem yet?

[triphop]

Under your theory, as applied to the issue we were discussing, copyright holders should charge more for their products so consumers will "pay the price up front" for all the copyright theft that goes on. Nice.

Uh, no. Two issues - two solutions. Charge polluters and limit copyright terms, respectively. Next question?

You could not have come up with a worse example to prove your point. That said, I think your point was not to discuss copyright issues, but to simply air (no pun intended) :P your grievances re: environmental issues. Whatever.

Whatever - thats the expression my young daughter has just learned in second grade - its a condescending attempt to fob off an uncomfortable issue. I do have issues with the poisoning of the environment - its part of a pattern of assault against society and the common good. Continual extension of copyright poisons the common debate by limiting the access to information to those able to afford it (draw a circle around this set of ideas and call it intellectual property). Fundamental too, when you think about it. The primacy of private ownership is not some law of god. Its how we currently view our world, not necessarily how we will always view our world.

[FulciLives]

Well how is this for a radical idea ...

When you buy a movie on DVD or a music CD you register with a common database that attaches your name (via SSN or whatever) as being a copyright holder of that material ... but without distribution or replication rights.

This first time purchase of said material is at a "decent" price. Something like maybe $25.00 USD give or take.

Now in the future if you wish to purchase additional copies ... be it another DVD or CD or even when the SAME movie or album gets "upgraded" to HD DVD or DVD-A (or whatever other formats come out in the future) you can get it at a reduced price. Say $5.00 USD or something like that.

So under this model I pay $25.00 once for the DVD of THE MATRIX

If I want another DVD for WHATEVER reason (additional copy for second home or because the first got destroyed etc.) I only have to pay $5.00

30 years from now when it comes out on Super Hi-Def StereoVision DVD I still pay $5.00 (plus inflation of course).

It's a thought ...

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Chaseskip]

What baffels me from the beginning on all of this "copyright" issue & "Illegal" downloading, etc..... is the following:

The BIG companies seem to fight all of these changes. Whether it be "Illegal" Mix cd's or MP3's. They have fought where they could embrace & actually make money. Instead of suing ppl over all of this, why not approach the ppl that make these Mix CD's & offer a contract to actually put them out for sale legally? If these are in high demand, couldn't this be "Revenue" for the BIG corps instead of Suing???? Everyone would benefit from this. The Artists in particular, who the companies SHOULD be trying to protect.

This also goes for MP3 downloading. Ever since ppl started using & downloading MP3's from the net, why didn't the BIG Companies embrace this "NEW" distribution method from the beginning. No packaging or distribution costs. Hmmm.... sounds like a MONEY saving idea to me. The only costs would be the actual maintenance of the web site which ALL companies already have. Unfortunately, this would mean the artists would be held more accountable for the product they then have to put out.
Gone are the days of the BIG albums with so many MEGA hits like Meatloaf Bat Out Of Hell or AC DC Back In Black. These albums sold so much because ppl would listen to the WHOLE album, not because all the songs were played on the radio. With MP3's & downloading single tracks, this is all but gone, unless the product is good.

Things & the way we do things always change, & to fight it only delays it, it never fixes it. I think they way BIG corps think is very tunnel visioned & Controlling. They could both control & make money by working with & embracing instead of fighting.

My 2 cents.

[Phantom Of The Opera]

It's a flawed system. Goons are in charge.

This is a good assessment of the situation.

[painkiller]

The goons (with the money) also like to play fast and loose with the English and the law itself.

Who else but the RIAA would get away with impersonating officers of the law - intimidating and threatening vendors on the street in California?

Even if/though the vendors may be wrong, the RIAA could just as easily brought officers with them, rather than dress up as look-alikes.

I still have yet to hear anyone call for their heads on that one.

[DaBarrister]

steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

There are two general types of property - tangible property, and intangible property. Cars are tangible property. Intangible property includes a number of different categories, most notably copyright, trademark, and patent.

Copyrighted works fall into the category of "intangible property." Property. Not ether, not waves, not air - property. It is property that can be bought, sold, given away, assigned, etc.

Stealing is taking the property of another without right or permission. You said so yourself. That's the definition of "steal" that you quoted. Those are your words. What don't you understand?

Are you really that dense, or are you just that desperate to defend your alleged right to steal?

You have a great deal of expertise in the use of many video products. No one here would dispute that, and I respect your expertise in those areas. But you're out of your league when it comes to issues of law, and your know-it-all ignorance is disrespectful of those of us who DO know the law. So please stop misleading people with your ignorance.

[triphop]

The whole concept of intellectual property is a recent idea - go back 300 years and people would look at you like you were an idiot if you mentioned the term. Thats not to say that there isn't a compelling case for it, I grant that. The issue, to me, is the continual extension of it. And that is where it gets bad - tangible property deteriorates and thus depreciates with the passage of time, but this is not necessarily so with intellectual property if you continually extend copyright terms. This assymmetry needs to be recognized.

And even if you think that others do not understand the law to the same extent as yourself, that does not mean that your sense of fairness is any more developed. The US had legalized slavery - that did not make it fair or good or right. Just because its the law, doesn't make it right. Sometimes unfair and unjust laws need to be resisted.