Arquonzo Arquonzo

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

▼

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

My $.02

from JoeUser Forums
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
297,543 views 125 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, so you come home with your paycheck and hand it to your wife, she puts it in her purse to pay bills and buy your groceries, then I come along and take her purse, paycheck 'n all. Have I stolen from her, or you, or both?

When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.


More like there is an evil landlord squeezing the cents out of his tenants and making for a miserable life especially for the lowest of the tenants.

Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll be honest.

I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop which I still think is too high but what the hey.
Reply #104 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already.

Once the landlord cannot afford to maintain the building...he dumps it on someone else...who promptly evicts the tenants and turns it into a multi-storey carpark.

Nah....the tenants aren't being robbed blind anymore...they're now homeless....

Beautiful analogy....couldn't have thought up a better one myself....

Reply #105 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Except whoever heard of multi-millionaire landlords not being able to afford to maintain their buildings? And what if these landlords were blatantly stealing from their tenants as well and when these tenants tried to move someplace else they found all the landlords were the same? And there was nothing that could be done because it was in their contract which was even worse because it made the landlord's theft absolutely legal. Stealing is stealing, and while the community may be taking the pennies out of the tenant's jars the landlord has got the combination to each and every tenant's safe. Which is the bigger problem?
Reply #106 from WinCustomize Forums Top
~
In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain.
He will only have to listen to any song once,the copy will be in his own brain.
He then will simply use a form of telepathy to play the song on his stereo for his friends.
He will also be able to send a copy of the song directly into other peoples brains if they would like.
Question:
Will we be able to stop this behavior with law suits?
~
Reply #107 from WinCustomize Forums Top

In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain.

....hopefully he'll be able to distinguish between bullshit attempts to justify property theft as existentialistic....can't see any hurt ergo there IS no hurt....

Reply #108 from Stardock Forums Top

You guys should actually read that Courtney Love thing someone posted. I was surprised by how articulate and interesting it is considering the source. I was never very fond of her.


And for all the comments of "it's funny how so many people can rationalize theft" from the anti-downloading people, I have to say it's funny how many are willing to accept artists getting raped in favor of black-and-white morality like:
Downloading songs is bad.
Buying CDs is good.

When the latter perpetuates the status quo of artists getting next to nothing for their efforts.
"Well at least they get something" you say, like that makes it any better. Like it doesn't encourage things to stay the same.


I'll support artists selling their music directly, and gladly pay to go to concerts or get their music directly from them, but I go out of my way to not support the music industry, because it is run by scum.


Lastly, there was talk of "you'd have to prove you wouldn't buy it if you had no choice" to make such a statement valid, and it's interesting to me to see Draginol's input only be something as black and white as:

I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft.


Aren't you one of the biggest proponents of abolishing copy protection on games, Draginol? And isn't one of the reasons your belief that many of the people who pirate a game wouldn't have bought it anyway if they couldn't get it illegally? This is based on articles of yours I read probably over a year ago, so if your position has changed, I apologize.

Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Suk It


I might actually read your post if you had a more intelligent user ID.

Reply By: Iben


If this had actually been a POEM, it would have been a pretty cool reply.

I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop


Oh, great... don't encourage them!

It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands.


Is this supposed to be justification?

There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.


There are only two sides to this debate amongst those debating because they want something for free, or they want to get paid for something that others want for free. There IS another side, that of the person who debates for the joy of the intellectual challenge of navigating the legal tentacles, moral implications, and emotional hooplah of the issue.
Reply #110 from WinCustomize Forums Top

There IS another side, that of the person who debates for the joy of the intellectual challenge of navigating the legal tentacles, moral implications, and emotional hooplah of the issue

Intellectual brain-farting is really pointless....other than for the ego-tripper hell-bent on feeling superior, like his life has a meaning.

It is NOT a 'side to a debate' it is the REASON for the debate....and when people realise debating only wears out brain cells.....and won't change the tiniest opinion of the protagonists...they'll find something better to do....

Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, come on, Jafo... at least my flowery prose should be worth SOMETHING!!!
Reply #112 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'm pretty sure Rolf would rather NOT have those 'advantages'.


I don't actually care much about hearing. I do care more about smell, which I can't do either.

Anyway...

In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain.
He will only have to listen to any song once,the copy will be in his own brain.
He then will simply use a form of telepathy to play the song on his stereo for his friends.
He will also be able to send a copy of the song directly into other peoples brains if they would like.
Question:
Will we be able to stop this behavior with law suits?


That is a annoying myth.. I'm been trying to kill this for a long time.
The answer: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html and many more if you look for a little.

I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft.

Never underestimate mankind's best and worse abilities. I have seen worse.
Reply #113 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I might actually read your post if you had a more intelligent user ID.


It's ok if you don't wanna read my post, but I find it dumb that you would think a a short user id name has any bearing on the content of someone's opinion. Also laziness, I mean, you can't look down a few centimeters below my name to read a couple sentences?? And who here is an example of someone with an "intelligent" user id? But since you're probably not going to read this anyways...
Reply #114 from WinCustomize Forums Top
debating is pointless .. those who want to will rationalize it until it becomes "non theft" and morally correct... (in their mind).. others simply dont care if it is..they will still do it if they want.. so this is much like a MACvsPC debate where neither side will win...
Reply #115 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Here's my 2 cents. To copy a book, a movie, or an album for your sole use is legal. It is intended for preservation of the original copy. When someone is online and gives copies away to whoever ask or just whoever then it is an infringement on the copyright. That is you happen to own the original. Cut and dry simple to understand.
Here is the problem of this whole thing. Downloading via P2P was known to be a legal issue in the music industry for awhile. The industry didn't view it as a threat until two things started to occur. One is slow sells. This is due to several factors. Downloading is not one of them. The shift in sales started before the mass P2P craze. The industry was ready to launch their version of download and equipment to use the downloads. Portable units where on the market and everyone was downloading. When a large enough population enjoyed the idea then why you should stop downloading for it is against the law and you should come to this site and pay for it. A dollar a song is still a huge profit for them. Which is what it is about.
If it was not intended to happen the the programs would not have been created and allowed to evolve. This whole thing is a form of advertisement. Get people used to the idea of downloading the music. Then you start putting in the tools to listen to them. Then you move in and take control of an existing market. People are going to grumble about it but they will pay for it.
One more note. Sony's little Trojan they made to protect thier music is just that a Trojan which by the way is illegal. Do you think the makers of the program are going to be arrested or the company owners(who would own the copyright) be punished for creating such a program. Now think if you or I created such a program. What would happen in the courts to us? This is about money and control of the market.
Reply #116 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Since the issue seems to revolve around music, and not "widgets", I'm going to stick with the music issue.
1) I haven't bought any music CD's in years. Why? they tend to be over-priced for the one or two songs on the album that I would actually listen too.
2) Those few songs that I do find worth exposing my damaged ears to generally can be heard on the radio (for free) or downloaded using software (paid-for). Since I don't usually burn them to CD's myself, I see no foul there.
3) As I wouldn't have bought the CD in the 1st place, the music industry hasn't lost any theoretical profits. The artist still has the potential to benefit because I have heard their music and may choose to attend a concert at some future time (remember damaged ears?).

So IMO, the artist (loosely speaking where the popular "bad poetry set to loud percussive rhythms" is concerned) has lost nothing. BUT, if I were to copy those selected songs to a permanent portable medium AND distribute them to others then, yes, those artists copyrights have been violated. That's the way the law reads.

Consider this though. I've seen and heard many fantastic renderings from relatively unknown individuals who ply their craft for no other reason than they love what they do. We, the members of this community, spend hours upon hours of our spare time creating skins to share with all the rest. We don't get paid, nor do we ask for compensation. The corporate entities at large simply have no relevant concept of this thing called sharing. Sharing doesnt equal profit. What if doctors only became doctors because caring for and healing people was what they loved, and not the potential income that it carries? Possibly I'm digressing, but the point remains. Were music labels more concerned with distributing good music and less concerned with how much dosh it puts in their pockets the entire issue would become moot.

..the music would be better too
Reply #117 from WinCustomize Forums Top

We, the members of this community, spend hours upon hours of our spare time creating skins to share with all the rest. We don't get paid, nor do we ask for compensation. The corporate entities at large simply have no relevant concept of this thing called sharing. Sharing doesnt equal profit.

Stardock is a 'corporate entity' which not only understands the concept of 'sharing' but even goes as far as to facilitate that 'sharing' which 'we, the members of this community' benefit from....

Reply #119 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Only one thing worse than a thief.....a thief who refuses to admit he/she is one.

And oh, yeah...a thief who makes piss weak excuses and calls it something else.

Pathetically weak at best
Utterly disgraceful at worst
Reply #120 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Obtaining something without paying for it is stealing, no matter what it is. The same applies to intellectual property as does physical items.


This is argumentative. I see your point in this comment, but as your name "Fuzzy Logic" suggests, you might be able to see the hole in it as well.

One who reaches out to take something that is not theirs, must be defined in action, to be presented as 'stealing'. Walking into someone else's house and taking something that is not offered to you to take, is stealing...the other is not. Coming here to 'take' themes and whatnot that are not yours, is called 'sharing' as it was meant to be, not stealing as the comment could suggest. But, from what viewpoint are we talking here, are the artist's work here given, or being taken? See where I am coming from?

Now, seeing as I have read alot of your comments, you are a highly intelligent individual who shouldn't be prone to making definitive comments.

My take:
As an artist myself, there are many viewpoints. I have spent the last 20 years of my life developing art, music so that others can enjoy it. Sharing is what I promote, and if you wish to donate money to the cause, that is welcome too. I however, am not like the others in that I require the music industry to support my cause, therefore my expenses are nothing but time. Time I've chosen to share, but don't require compensation for it, because I do the things I do, because I want too. I would be thrilled to know that my music is being scattered all around on a P2P network because people want to hear it. Others have different opinions as they use that as a source of income, and should therefore be compensated. How they are compensated is up to them and their managers/recording outfits.

If you like the art, no matter what form it is in:
If it's for sale, buy it. Sample it if you must, but support them anyway you can. Shirts, record sales, concerts....you name it.
Backup and protect your investment.
Letting someone borrow your purchased CD to listen to, fine, no problems...burning a copy and giving it to them because they are to lazy too buy it themselves, not a good idea.

There are many grey areas surrounding this issue. You can discuss until you are blue in the face about how much the recording industries are stealing from the artists, but that's an artist's choice to sign up under those conditions. The offer is set in front of them, and they negotiate..they are under no legal commitments to any agreement until they sign. A choice.

You can also discuss about how artists only create a few good songs, and put 12 songs on a $18.00 CD that you don't like, and that's why you download only the songs you want...well, suggest your ideas to the artists!! 9/10 they have websites in which you can leave your comments there...trust me, they are there, and they do listen.

Keep an open mind people, and support your cause.
Reply #121 from WinCustomize Forums Top
This is all extremely interesting and makes me chuckle a little.

Perhaps we can consider this HYPOTHESIS:

I own a company that has a product which, by its design, is able to skin the GUI of a popular operating system. I work very hard at improving this product and it is imensly popular.

The major O/S of which my program has the ability to skin is, in the near future, going to release a new version of their GUI that has the ability of per-pixel shading. I work extremely hard on my own original product and, in its next release, it too will have the ability to perform much the same function.

Next, the major O/S company previews its newly intended product interface to the public and many people are geuinely interested and/or impressed by its new upcoming look (which is rumored to be perhaps the most innovative thing in the upcoming product ).
My product, (which is able to skin the previous version of this upcoming release), is widely supported by various creative people who upload their 'original' designs to 'share' with those people who have my product on their existing O/S.

One of these artists, no way affiliated with my company, 'copies' the look of the previewed GUI , so successfully in fact,that it could be said to be a 'geuine representation' of the real thing ....This artist then 'submits' the design for 'approval' to the popular design web site area that my company uses to support my product and 'share' GUI skins that can be used in conjuntion with my product ....... (this 'genuine representation' needs my software to successfully impliment it on an existing users O/S. Will or should I accept this 'genuine representation'??!!...(After all I do have strict policy and 'moral' standards on 'intellectual property rights').

Well here's my thinking...
An extremely 'similar' design from a renound O/S (as yet unreleased) has generated huge amounts of interest and I know that a vast majority of people are eagerly awaiting its availability. If I accept this design it could only benefit the sales and interest of my own product (which is solely required to impliment this genuine representation.) $$$ for me. So, I approve it's 'sharing'.

The O/S company, after seeing the subsequent popularity of this 'genuine representation' is naturally concerned about its impact upon their own product and, after approaching my company's affiliated website and the creator of the design in question and requesting that this 'genuine representation' be removed, their wishes are eventually complied with.

Now, surely I must ask some questions of myself and my actions:
1. In complying to this request at the very least, shouldnt I accept that I, with regards to my own self interests, have supported the 'theft' (that word again! ) of someone else's 'intillectual property'?!

2. Should I admit to myself, that in approving this 'genuine representation', I have possibly..(I stress possibly) affected the sales for that company that originally designed the interface and hence the so called 'livelyhood' of those hardworking people?!

3. Could the fact that some people, after using this 'genuine representation' in conjuction with my neccessarily required software, feel satisfied enough not to pay the ten times extra cash required to purchase the original visual effect?!!( I may have to guess that the original desiners of the 'similar'interface may feel so).

OR, are there 'shades of grey' to this situation??? Apparently, from the moral standpoint of a majority of people within this discussion...there are NO 'shades of grey' when it comes to issues regarding this...only 'black' and 'white'....that 'theft' is 'theft'...the facilitation of sharing stolen or reproduced ideas, artwork, and written or digital material,in any way, is morally forbidden in an acceptable society!!

Personally, I think that there ARE 'shades of grey". I know that I have participated in recieving stolen intillectual property and design (even though it be in a different digital format to the original)....and I personally give more credence to the person who admits this than to the person who yells "'black' and 'white' only!", while at the same time operating within the 'shades of grey'....for that may be interpreted, by some people, as pious hypocracy.

P.S Excuse the length of this reply...I got carried away being the devils advocate!
Reply #122 from WinCustomize Forums Top
the facilitation of sharing stolen or reproduced ideas


Now, that's both a 'black and white' and 'grey' comment.

Sharing stolen ideas shouldn't be acceptable, but reproduced on the other hand has grey areas such as the defintion of how much an idea was reproduced, replicated, or just in fact a similar looking copy. However, if copyrights are to be looked at with 'black and white' vision, should it not all be viewed as copyrighting a name? If a 'name' suggests similarity to two given products (even if they are totally different), one must give way (by law in the US that is) to the original first copyright.

Hence Microsoft taking action against a person named Mike Rowe for naming his site: MikeRoweSoft.com. Two different names, but in sound they are the same, and confusing.

It is funny how the pendulum swings on matters of this kind. Artwork in itself being of particular interest for me to watch, as many here have done so much new work into their themes, icons and other art...just to see download counts skyrocket when a copy of a standard Window theme hits the site. Theming engines were designed to take people to new areas of GUI design, but when the standard comes out, such as Luna, or the new Aero Glass...people that have made copies of those tend to get some of the biggest hits! I am guilty myself of downloading a theme or two, not simply because it's a copy of the original (which by default we have the original already), but because I am a fan of the artist's work.
Reply #123 from WinCustomize Forums Top

cybermessiah ...your 'hypothesis' was clearly Vista/MS/Wincustomize/Stardock and Kol.

You could not have spelled it out any more clearly.

If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'.

Till now.

And only [it seems] Kol's version.

Wincustomize.com's [and other skinning sites] policy is that the whole concept of GUI skinning creates instances where 'some' OEM graphics may be utilised in a skin...eg via porting from one OS to another, etc....and that is OK....UNTIL the OS copyright holder declares otherwise.

Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to].

However...

MS failed to make this a universal request to ALL skinning outlets...which was blatant discrimination against WC [through oversight], and, until there was a 'level playing field' the skin was restored public.

That forced MS's hand to be fair and equitable....and request directly that ALL public accesses to that skin be removed....best way was to request action directly of Kol.

Situation was resolved.

Anyone whose intellectual property rights are seen to be abused/misused can request resolution and it will be promptly dealt....be you MS or Joe Average...

Reply #124 from WinCustomize Forums Top
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."

QUOTE:
"If you deliberately replicate it you are violating COPYright...you made a COPY."

"See....that is why it is called 'copyright'...the right to copy."

"The English explanation is so simple even a knuckle-dragger 'should' be able to comprehend in between drools."

QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."

QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."

Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.

QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."

QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."


Some people, trying to just
Reply #125 from WinCustomize Forums Top
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."

QUOTE:
"If you deliberately replicate it you are violating COPYright...you made a COPY."

"See....that is why it is called 'copyright'...the right to copy."

"The English explanation is so simple even a knuckle-dragger 'should' be able to comprehend in between drools."

QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."

QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."

Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.

QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."

QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."


Some people, trying to justify their 'piracy', 'theft', 'copyright violation', indeed say that... "Well..it was never made clear by the party that I 'stole','borrowed' 'utilised' from, that my actions were in anyway piracy, theft or copyright violation. Indeed 'they' (the other party or original owner of the material in question) have created the so called 'grey area'"
...or could it be perhaps, that one 'chooses' to define this area as 'grey' in order to justify its violation.


Am I therefore able to interpret this as, just because in the past an artist hasnt spoken out againt the 'unathorised'utilisation of their intillectual property, I have the right to utilise it to my own advantage: until they state otherwise? Where is the moral standpoint that I should be able to discern for myself, that what I have done is comit and act of piracy, theft or copyright violation?

QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."

QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."


Why not priorly act on the above moral principles, with preconcieved hindsight? ... rather than actively approving and facilitating the sharing/'world-wide distribution' of something so blatently obvious as "violating COPYright..." That is after all the job of moderators who decide what is or isnt able to be shared (based apparently on these high standards of infringement on anothers 'intillectal property').

Is it right for me to, with the all above moral standpoints fundamental to my nature,to approve such material,(as it will only benefit my own self interets..$$$), then wait till I am asked either politely or forceably to remove the indicated material by the apriorically known 'not alway clear and obvious' 'affected parties'?

There seems to me a juxtoposition here at play.

QUOTE:
"There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.
Those who admit is is wrong, but 'possibly' do it a bit, or not at all.
and those who claim it is NOT wrong, so they have no reservations about 'doing it'.
One 'may' be hypocritical, but the other is definitely fancifully delusional."

From the above it would seem thate there is also a third type of people. Those who both admit it is wrong and yet have no reservations about doing it.

QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com's [and other skinning sites] policy is that the whole concept of GUI skinning creates instances where 'some' OEM graphics may be utilised in a skin...eg via porting from one OS to another, etc....and that is OK....UNTIL the OS copyright holder declares otherwise."

How should I interpret the above?...perhaps lets take out the specifics and generalise the rationalisation:
...I hold the policy, like many of the people I assosciate with, that in certain instances material/data from someone elses material/data ('intillectal property"?), may be utilised within my own 'authentic'work....that is UNTIL the original copyright holder of the material I have used, realises what I have done and, demands retribution....

This attitude seems to be the general attitude of many companies today who gain to profit from file-sharing with the debates over property rights and legal ramifacations filling the internet and is intersting reading indeed.

Perhaps we should consider an eloquent response from within this 'debate/discussion':

"stealing is stealing .. wether or not everybody else is doing it...what is popular is not always morally correct"

Regardless of 'who' creates the 'grey areas', when u have a moral stance on theft that is purely 'black' and 'white', where is the justification of exploiting the 'grey areas' created for you....Are those grey areas created for your benefit?

As previously stated, my own standpoint on 'theft' falls a little below the guidlines that we are all here being encouraged to follow.

But the reason I raise these interesting questions and interpretations (which are by the way purely subjective )is because I remember something that my old granny once told me:

"In setting and voicing the standards to which you believe other people should follow, you must be prepared to be analysed and judged by those same standards".

P.S. Once again somewhat long-winded, but just couldn't help myself!