Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on January 22, 2003, 02:04:36 PM
-
Verizon Must Reveal Internet Song Swapper (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=575&u=/nm/20030121/wr_nm/tech_music_dc_3&printer=1)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Recording companies won a victory in their fight against online piracy on Tuesday when a U.S. court ordered Verizon Communications to turn over the name of a customer suspected of downloading more than 600 songs in one day over the Internet.
-
Big Brother Inc. is watching You.
What the hell happened to privacy?
-
and how did the record companies find this out?
the startup spy companies working for the riaa are doing some borderline, if not outright, illegal toejam.
...but its ok. we, as a nation, are all for giving up butt loads of freedom. just slap a label on what the "bad guys" are doing and its an easy sell.
orwell was completey wrong on the date.
-
They've been watching for a while now. I got this email a few months ago. It's edited a bit for privacy, but when they sent it they had all my info in it... name, address, IP, port, the whole deal.
-------------------------------------------------------
I am the person at Michigan State University charged with investigating cases of computer abuse. We recently received a letter from the legal office at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) informing us that you are offering musical sound files on the Internet, and these songs are copyrighted by RIAA members. They supplied the following logs in support of their complaint:
Infringement Details:
------------------------------
First Found: 27 Sep 2002 13:16:20 EDT (GMT -0400)
Last Found: 27 Sep 2002 13:16:20 EDT (GMT -0400)
Network: KaZaA
IP Address: ---------------
IP Port: ----
Protocol: FastTrack
Username: kazaaliteuser@KaZaA
What was located as infringing content:
------------------------------
Filename: PEARL_JAM_-_07-Thumbing_My_Way.mp3 (3,915kb)
This is a violation of state and federal copyright laws. MSU does not allow its resources, including computer accounts, to be used for any illegal activity.
You must remove this copyrighted material from your server immediately. Failure to do so will indicate that you do not intend to abide by the MSU Acceptable Use Policy, and it will therefore be necessary for us to close your computer account.
If you would like to meet with me to discuss this matter, you can call my secretary at --------- to arrange an appointment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't shared files since.
-
Originally posted by Furious
and how did the record companies find this out?
isn't all they'd have to do is sign up with kaaza and do a search?
-
Originally posted by Animal
Big Brother Inc. is watching You.
What the hell happened to privacy?
Privacy wasn't included in the Bill of Rights. The closest you get is the right to not quarter soldiers in your home.
The only online privacy you get is what you contract for with your ISP and any online services for which you register.
-
Use WinMX :p
-
LOL!
MiniD
-
read this months wired.
firms are contracting with the record co.'s to snoop for info, place false files, miniature dns attacks and more.
when you say you are doing it to catch pirates, folks just go along. but do you think these companies have the will power not to look at the other information they get? and when they can get congress and more importantly, Microsoft, to go along with them, where will they stop? will they want to?
-
Originally posted by Furious
firms are contracting with the record co.'s to snoop for info, place false files, miniature dns attacks and more.
I'll bet we start getting "push" ads from the record companies. "Order your copy of 'American Idol Series II' today! Featuring the hit singles 'Love Ballad', 'Love Ballad, Too', and 'Love Ballad Some More'!".
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I'll bet we start getting "push" ads from the record companies. "Order your copy of 'American Idol Series II' today! Featuring the hit singles 'Love Ballad', 'Love Ballad, Too', and 'Love Ballad Some More'!".
now you did it, legal mp3's with ads crammed in the front and rear just like they've done at movie houses and dvds
-
"The Big Story with John Gibson" (Foxnews) touched on this last night. Several people wrote in along the lines that if CD prices weren't $17.99 and contained 12 crap songs and 1 good one, folks might be more inclined to BUY it versus download it
How many of us have shelled out $16-$17 for a CD and groaned that a majority of the tunes are crap
-
LePaul
Be careful with WinMX, on Long Island the broadband provider here has slapped bandwidth restrictions on anyone using WinMX, so you download at a MUCH lower rate.
How do they know? Easy all you need to know is what port it runs on.
And yes there are very very few CD's that I like a majority of the songs.
-
Fewer people would circumvent the regular channels of purchasing if the value was more commensurate with the price. This is an obvious tenet in a free market system. Thus, the prices must be being kept artificially high by some monopolistic or collusive actions. These companies, then, deserve to be circumvented
-
well stop listening to mainstream crap if you hate it so much. Americans seem to have forgotten the great art of boycott....Throw the Tea in the Sea , we don't need it.
so they have record companys looking a ip headers?
-
...so why not try getting a foreign ISP for hosting services?
-
Wherehouse Music filed for chapter 11 yesterday. Music sales are down over 11% in one year.
-
Screw em, I am tired of paying for little squeakes like Sean P Crappy Diddy Turd Nugget, J Ho Lopez, etc etc to ride around with 5 man servants etc etc, Ever watch MTV cribs? Even no talent assclowns like O'Town and other morons have 8 cars, 3 houses, $20,000 flat screen tvs in every room including the toejamter. I say if record sales are decreasing, have these jackoffs take a pay cut. I havent bought a cd in over 4 years, and have 3000+ of them in my collection with 98% of them being downloaded. Its pretty simple actually, if you dont wanna get busted with "pirated" music, burn the toejam to a CD and get it off your hard drive. That or keep it on there and dont "share" your files with other users. You can have 10,000 MP3's stored on your computer but there is a loophole in their law, if you dont share em they cant do toejam.
-
Privacy Ruling Goes Against Verizon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33972-2003Apr24.html)
-
This will be interesting...whose interests will be protected...those of the individual, or those of RIAA
I'm rooting for individuals. RIAA hasn't changed how they do anything, just trying to muscle people into paying for shoddy products and services in the music biz. Its a pity they do not understand how disgruntled consumers are.
-
sigh
At least we know that there are big corporate interests on the downloader's side that are trying to protect online privacy.
-
Originally posted by Pfunk
Screw em, I am tired of paying for little squeakes like Sean P Crappy Diddy Turd Nugget, J Ho Lopez, etc etc to ride around with 5 man servants etc etc, Ever watch MTV cribs? Even no talent assclowns like O'Town and other morons have 8 cars, 3 houses, $20,000 flat screen tvs in every room including the ****ter. I say if record sales are decreasing, have these jackoffs take a pay cut. I havent bought a cd in over 4 years, and have 3000+ of them in my collection with 98% of them being downloaded. Its pretty simple actually, if you dont wanna get busted with "pirated" music, burn the **** to a CD and get it off your hard drive. That or keep it on there and dont "share" your files with other users. You can have 10,000 MP3's stored on your computer but there is a loophole in their law, if you dont share em they cant do ****.
Good Advice Funk!
I remember reading in Maxim a while back how much money of a CD's sales actually goes to the artist. I think it was less than 5%. The rest goes to the manufacturer (A tiny percentage). Guess who gets the rest? The record company and the fat cat CEO's with their 20 million dollar annual bonuses, Mansions and trophy wives. You know, the enron style bastards? The same types who were trying to take huge bonuses at American Airlines, while asking working stiff like mechanics to take pay cuts?
So the record companys take it in the prettythang. Boo-F*cking-Hoo.
About tiime they get it. Meanwhile, the average blue collar/off white collar workers like you and me get laid off.
You know what, I would not pay a friggin dime to buy a CD ever again. I would go back to taping songs off the radio if I need to.
I'm not putting another cent into these crooked salamanders pockets.
-
LOL
I always find this issue funny. People getting pissed off because they are caught in thier thievery.
Plain and simple it's a copyright violation to do what you mp3'rs do, which is against the law. PERIOD.
I hope they throw the book at this guy....
-
Folks, most recording artists don't make crap either. It's not that their music doesn't make millions, it's that they don't see it.
This was the case before napster.
The record companies have been a classic oligopoly. Back when they shifted from vinyl to CD (when the power and draw of independent was at its zenith, incidentally), they doubled the price of music and they slashed the royalties to artists, and they did this while shifting to a medium that even then had a far lower material cost.
Then remember their war against used CDs?
Now CD burners are almost as ubiquitous as cassette recorders; and the internet -- in spite of their efforts -- is a force they can't stop.
Music piracy is so pervasive, they're left iwth the following options:
A) Let it go unchecked (and go bankrupt).
B) Adapt their business model (but to what?)
C) Use expensive security technologies to limit duplication (the software industry found out long ago that these don't work).
D) Threaten lawsuits against the millions of pirates (suing your potential customers is not good business)
E) Try to shut down the internet as we know it (spend lots of cash in Washington -- after all those guys don't know crap about technology)
F) Take advantage of the internet's weaknesses to make music piracy an inherently risky proposition. Use third parties to exploit weaknesses and screw with people's computers who pirate music.
I'd take F. Kazaa is already a giant trojan horse, why not make it work for the record companies?
---
anyway, the point is that all those years of screwing people over have come back to bite them in the prettythang. The recording industry for years has worked on the principle that people buy their music from them because they're the only source for the music people are exposed to in their daily lives (MTV, radio, and so on). And on the other side, they've exploited artists for the same reason.
Now those decades of greed have caught up with them, and, illegal or no, they're losing their core revenue stream, and the only effective thing business-wise that I see they can do about it is resort to illegal tactics themselves.
-
Seems to me they are using option "D"
Trying to scare consumers into buying their goods
-
Welp, I dont buy CD's since I could make my own in my cdrw.
Only in the rare instance that my fave. artist releases a CD with the songs I like in one CD do I buy it... and this hasnt happened in 2 years now.
A while ago there was an online company that had the right idea: customized CD's.
You'd go to their website, select the songs you wanted, and buy them. Each song had a price. Artists got their royalties, but I think the record companies didnt. So naturally, this medium of bussiness got closed down in less than a year.
The monopoly those companies have is even more evil than Microsoft's in my opinion.
And they wont put a stop to file sharing. EVER. They can hunt down every file sharing server in the US, there will be one opened in korea, chile, netherlands, south africa. And theres nothing they can do about it.
Empire records and the such should just pull their heads out their arses and instead try to take advantage of the internet for their own benefit. The first of these big companies to actually offer custom built CD's over the internet, either for download or delivered to one's door will swamp the competition and stay in bussiness.. the oppressive stance they are taking now is only running them out of bussiness and giving more people more reasons to share music online.
-
Originally posted by Udie
LOL
I always find this issue funny. People getting pissed off because they are caught in thier thievery.
Plain and simple it's a copyright violation to do what you mp3'rs do, which is against the law. PERIOD.
I hope they throw the book at this guy....
So, you have no problem with your ISP being forced to hand your identity over to any media company who will only need to fill out a form and submit it to your ISP? This is less about piracy and more about a poorly written law.
SOB
-
They can try anything they want...
Like the others said..You plunk down $17.99 for a CD with one good song, and the rest is filler crap.
I'll listen to the radio before I have my intelligence insulted again.
Anyone work for the Music Industry...
Here's the plan:
I'm the CEO of Sony music. Come to my websight. I'll have EVERY TITLE of EVERY SONG in my companies library, available to you, for fast, quality download. Pick any song you want! Mic and match. Eminem..Barry manilow...Quiet Riot....download em all, and put them on a CD!! I'll let you do it. The catch? You have to pay 50 cents a song. Sure, your getting a 15 track CD for $7.50.
But I don't have to make a CD, package it, ship it, pay a retailer.
I'd rather have 1/2 of 15 bucks, than 0% of 17.95.
Why don't they just do it this way?
-
Hmmm... buying individual songs on customized CDs... I'd pay for that. Maybe let you listen to songs as low quality streaming audio. Record companies mix in other songs that are similar. Kind of like those "people who bought this product also bought..." things on amazon and newegg. That way, you get exposed to new music (and keep buying), while also getting to sample your favorite songs. Then you buy the mixed CD, maybe adding one or two of the unrequested songs in there. Record companies sell a CD, artists get some $, you get your music, you discover a new band and want to buy their music... cycle repeats.
-
I find it funny that the people that open up their PCs to file sharing peer-to-peer networks are the first to cry that their right to privacy has been violated. If you don't want people to see what you are doing, stop doing it over open networks.
-
Good idea, Muckmaw....now write to Sony, Arista, etc....and see if you can't land yourself a nice VP job with such clever thinking!
Who said common sense wasn't common ? :p
-
Good point, Mickey. And I'm sure the RIAA will be keen to follow strict guidelines when obtaining information about users on the Intardnet. No way they'd stray and request info of users that weren't doing anything wrong!
SOB
-
Udie's been smoking the bong again.
-
Originally posted by Udie
LOL
I always find this issue funny. People getting pissed off because they are caught in thier thievery.
Plain and simple it's a copyright violation to do what you mp3'rs do, which is against the law. PERIOD.
I hope they throw the book at this guy....
If the issue was so "plain and simple," it would be so obvious that even the artists would agree:
Janis Ian doesn't: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
Courtney Love doesn't: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
-
hows that pot working out for ya udie :)
love ya bro.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
-------------------------------------------------------
Infringement Details:
------------------------------
First Found: 27 Sep 2002 13:16:20 EDT (GMT -0400)
Last Found: 27 Sep 2002 13:16:20 EDT (GMT -0400)
Network: KaZaA
IP Address: ---------------
IP Port: ----
Protocol: FastTrack
Username: kazaaliteuser@KaZaA
What was located as infringing content:
------------------------------
Filename: PEARL_JAM_-_07-Thumbing_My_Way.mp3 (3,915kb)
I’ve always wondered about this mp3 stuff. How does the RIAA truly know that a file is an “illegal” mp3? Since filenames can be easily changed do they have a way of actually reading the file contents to determine if it is indeed an mp3? If they can’t then I don’t see how they can proof their case.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If the issue was so "plain and simple," it would be so obvious that even the artists would agree:
Janis Ian doesn't: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
Courtney Love doesn't: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
well the certainly have that right to NOT copyright thier material. Read the copy right info on a cd or tape or record sometime.
btw, I'm an artist too and I'd love to have my stuff out there bouncing around the web but my old base player doesn't so it's not....
-
I love the clear channel ad for pirated music.....
here's your debut CD
Here's your debut CD after 63 million people have downloaded off the internet....... for free......... any questions?
ummmmmm, yeah, I got one....... you're telling me that 63 million people are listening to my debut CD? dude, you can't pay for that kind of advertisement! my concerts are gonna be sold out! I'm gonna be rich!
Thanks napster!
-
Not that I'm "against" the illegal downloading of music but geez louise, whats with the attitude that a person has the "right" to break law? "Something" needs to be done about the recording industries rip-off of consumers but then again.. it's the consumer that ALLOWED this to happen. Illegaly downloading music is just that.. illegal (criminal.. ie: wrong).
It's only music for cryin out loud. Want to make a statement?... don't buy the crap. Who's going to risk jail time over a freekin SONG? Just wondering.
-
i got a cd burner in 1996, and i havnt paid for 1 cd since. screw the RIAA. coperate america has been ripping you and me and everyone else off for years. here is one industry that the internet is helping destroy. YAAAAAY. now if only we can find a way to pump electricity over the net so we can start destroying the power companys.
-
tumor, the record companies have been doing that since before there was an internet. So one is not the cause of the other.
-
Jail I'd think is too harsh a sentence for downloading music off the net I'd think a better punishment would bea fine for downloading music.
I do agree that this works best for the artistis since they get people listenig to their music, andpropagating faster than some crappy video on Corporate Music Televesion.
IMO that's the way I'd think they'd have to evolve and control internet delivery of songs and or from the Music Store having a direct link to the Sony or which ever other music company and downloading making the CD and selling it to them there.
Imagine instead of huge rows of CDs in a music store just serversconecting to various music websites and or in store Hardrives where you could make buy your own CDs from there.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Imagine instead of huge rows of CDs in a music store just serversconecting to various music websites and or in store Hardrives where you could make buy your own CDs from there.
Been there, done that. Pay a tenner and pick 12 songs. Come back an hour later and they're burnt to a CD. That was a few years back and I'm pretty sure it was a single labels artists but the whole idea was fantastic.
I can't even remember where I got it now. It might have been the Virgin shop on Oxford Street in London... maybe. I wonder if they still do it...?
Gatso
-
from yahoo.com:
"By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal court denied a request to shut down Internet song-swapping services Grokster and Morpheus on Friday, handing a stunning setback to the record labels and movie studios that have sought to curb unauthorized downloading of their works.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson said the two services should not be shut down because they cannot control what is traded over their systems. Like a videocassette recorder, the software in question could be used for legitimate purposes as well as illicit ones, he said.
"It is undisputed that there are substantial noninfringing uses for (the) Defendants' software," wrote Wilson, who serves in Los Angeles.
A recording-industry trade group involved in the case said it would appeal.
Wilson's decision marks the first significant legal setback for the entertainment industry in its battle against the wildly popular "peer-to-peer" services that allow users to download movies, music and other files for free.
Federal courts have ordered earlier peer-to-peer services such as Napster (news - web sites) to shut down, and courts have so far supported the industry's efforts to track down individual peer-to-peer users, as well.
But Wilson's ruling gives Grokster, Morpheus and other Napster successors some legal basis on which to operate. Just as the Supreme Court in 1984 said videocassette recorders should not be outlawed because they can be used for legitimate purposes, peer-to-peer services should not be shut down even though users are certainly trading copyrighted movies and music, he said.
Grokster President Wayne Rosso said he was surprised by the decision because it showed that the judge understood the technology. Peer-to-peer services could be used to enable the Pentagon (news - web sites) to better share information, among other uses, he said, and the recording industry should try to work with such services rather than driving them out of business.
"Grokster doesn't and hasn't ever condoned copyright infringement," Rosso said. "We hope this sends a clear signal to the rights owners in this case to come to the table and sit down with us."
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said it was disappointed with the decision.
"Businesses that intentionally facilitate massive piracy should not be able to evade responsibility for their actions," RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement.
Rosen highlighted two portions of the 34-page decision she found favorable: first, that individuals are accountable for copyright violations; and second, Wilson's statement that Grokster and Morpheus "may have intentionally structured their businesses to avoid secondary liability for copyright infringement, while benefiting financially from the illicit draw of their wares."
The Motion Picture Association of America, whose movie-studio members also filed suit, had no immediate comment.
The decision could also provide a shot in the arm to Kazaa, another popular peer-to-peer service involved in a separate legal battle with the entertainment industry. A Kazaa spokeswoman said the company's lawyers were still evaluating the decision.
A Morpheus investor, speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of a conference in Silicon Valley, said the decision would give his product a boost just as the company plans to roll out a new version.
"The timing of this couldn't be better," said Bill Kallman, a managing partner at Timberline Venture Partners, which has invested about $4 million in Morpheus since 1999.
"
-
So you are getting busted for stealing copyrighted material and you ain't happy?:confused:
-
Originally posted by rpm371
So you are getting busted for stealing copyrighted material and you ain't happy?:confused:
ahhhhhh ......
better not... i have stayed out of this topic everywhere except person - person 1 on 1 and with 2 hours to waste.
i'll say this though:
record lables told the public that CD's would be under $9 US in the first 3 years after they came out.
where the f*** has that promise gone?
where is the money for the actual ARTISTS that wrote and recorded the songs?
these fat lazy rich record execs know nothing but how to pad their pockets. F*** the ALL!
oh well my 2¢
Ps. i have over 1900 mp3's i have DL'd and going strong. (80% i have bought on LP or tape long ago so i ALLREADY onw the song.)
-
Ahh the beauty of MIRC, you want Madonna's new CD a week beofre it comes out look no further
bot queue total dl record current dl # size last seen description
m-dccx06 66.9kbs 0 7 27m 0.08h madonna-american_life_(cds1)-2003-rns
mm-dcc16 52.4kbs 0 1 69m 0.13h madonna-american-life-(explicit_retail)-2003-osc
Or better yet you want M$ XP Pro operating system but dont feel like forking over $200
wotever30 910, 18.1kbs 4 1 548m 2.31h microsoft.windows.xp.corporat e.edition.sp1.intergrated.pro pe r-rfm
Dont feel like paying $500 for M$ office well here ya go
[wn]-x-017 1120, 44.2kbs 39 1 395m 1.04h ms office xp pro +
crack [app]
Ahh yes the beauty of broadband and hackers.
-
One word:
R E M I X E S
-
Verizon Turns Over Names in Piracy Case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24485-2003Jun6.html)
-
Piracy is a phony issue that record labels are hyping to rip off artists. Piracy has always existed. That's why there's a mountain of blank cassettes in any big electronic store.
When someone decides to buy your music instead of copying it, they're doing it for a lot of reasons. Maybe they're ethical. Maybe they like the convenience of not having to hassle with the uncertainty of copying something -- Will it come out right? Is it done yet? Maybe it's their way of expressing good will to you.
But face it, if your music wasn't available for free in some form, no one would have a chance to hear it to decide to buy it in the first place. The old form of "free" music was radio (which is often taped by pirates) and MTV, but eventually the Internet is going to take over everything. There will still be TV and radio, but they'll be implemented digitally. Give it 10 years. When that happens, the idea of not giving away music for free will be exactly the same thing as never promoting music at all.
The real question should not be, "How can I keep my fans from hearing my music for free?" It should be, "How can I best make money from my fans?" Those are two different questions. Sure, you "lose" money to pirates. But you also lose money to a label that isn't doing anything for you.
It used to be that a label was needed to finance,manufacture, store, ship and market your music. That's how they earned their cut. The arrangement made sense. If the music business wasn't shrinking before our eyes, it would still make sense.
But in the digital era, it costs nothing to ship your music over the Internet to a fan. So the biggest reason for labels just went away.
As for financing, well, if advances were stacked up against finance deals in other industries, they'd look a lot like usury -- except that they aren't even loans: once they'repaid back, the label still owns the master. There is simply no worse conceivable form of financing. We can do better if we take charge of our own careers.
But what about marketing? Can labels still do that? Of course they can, for a few big acts. But once you are established, your own Web site connects with your fan base better than the label can.
Even if you are a huge artist, think whether in the course of your whole career, not just the next couple of years, you lose more money to pirates or to labels who will be taking most of your money for no reason at all?
When somebody in a dorm room buys thousands of dollars' worth of gear and stays up all night hacking MP3's just to get "free" music, that's what you call an opportunity, not a problem. You have found yourself a new generation of fanatics. The only problem is that computer companies are making the money right now instead of musicians.
Labels can't prevent piracy. No one can. I know computers as well as anyone on the planet, and I promise you, kids will break whatever copy protection scheme the labels come up with. And the industry knows it.
In fact, the easier it is to copy music, the less of a threat piracy will become. When piracy gets easier, professional pirates have less to offer. The only pirates left will be fans.
And there are lots of ways to make money from fans.
The reason the Recording Industry Association ofAmerica and the labels are pushing anti-piracy laws and technologies has nothing to do with preventing piracy. They're doing it so that they can control the new digital music channels.
To keep anyone else, like you, from sharing the power.
They're doing it to rip you off. Period.
You can make more money in the new era of "free" digital music. But only if you break free of label mind control.
- Jaron Lanier
This was/is a software engineer from nintendo. He created the "nintendo power glove" thingy. Big on virtual reality and such.
-
"Dinosaurs Will Die"
by NOFX
Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn
I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"
For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know
Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be
Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve
Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just f***ing glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good
If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
F*** collusion, kill the five
Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reason why
All dinosaurs will die
All dinosaurs will die
All dinosaurs will die
-
Surley a case for X-files :cool:
Scully !!!!
-
SAVE THE BUGGYWHIP FACTORIES!!!!!
-
RIAA Plans Lawsuits Against File Traders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30875-2003Jun25.html?nav=hptop_tb)
"The chief lobby group of the nation's major recording labels today said it would file hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files.
The lawsuits will target people who share "substantial" amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers, Sherman said."
-
All those starving lawyers must be salivating....
-
The music industry didn't evolved for ... what ... like 50 years? Still the same concept, a CD with all the songs of the artist.
You like 1 song, if it's not released as a single, you need to buy the full pakage.
Well ... it's time for them to adapt and review the concept. Dono what, maybe like "order your songs and videos and we burn it for you"... kinds of "a la carte" artists CDs.
-
The big labels recently settled out of court in a big pricing fixing case in the US (I believe inflating prices US$13 per CD).
80% of music revenue comes from 3% of 'artists'.
You have to buy the whole CD when you just want one song.
As long as the RIAA are thieves I have no sympathy for them.
-
Yup, was part of that settlement, waiting for my $13 check :P
-
What's the difference between these two lines of thinking:
1. CD prices are too high and the CDs usually only have 2 good songs on them and the rest are crap. I'm pirating the songs because record companies are a scam and they can bite me for all I care.
2. Ien have let Warbirds become stagnant. We offered to help them as well as offering to set up servers for them here in Russia. They refused our help so they can bite me for all I care.
In both cases, it denies a basic tenet of capitalism... and that is that the companies can do just whetever the hell they want. You don't HAVE to pay for their product. But just because you don't agree with the way the companies do business DOESN'T make theft of their product acceptable. You only have 2 choices: pay for their product or don't.
(I should add.... I pirate tunes all the time... I'm just not kidding myself about what it is I'm actually doing when I download songs off the net).
-
So I can't share music with someone else? BS! Am I supposed to stick my fingers in my ears and hum when some band does a cover tune?
Those neanderthal Music Companies are like a drowning man refusing the rope. Music is falling from the sky for free, and they want us to ignore it. Sure!
-
"So I can't share music with someone else?"
That's right.
"Am I supposed to stick my fingers in my ears and hum when some band does a cover tune?"
Bands doing cover songs isn't breaking any laws that I'm aware of.
"Those neanderthal Music Companies are like a drowning man refusing the rope. Music is falling from the sky for free, and they want us to ignore it."
Record companies can drown themselves right out of business. That's their right and they aren't asking you to save them. If you have a problem with the laws take it up with the lawmakers. Record companies can do business however piss poorly they want.
This is just common sense stuff aint it?
-
I still don't understand whats stopping people from recording songs off the radio.
Why aren't they pushing for a device that prevents tape decks for recording music from the airwaves?
Theres also other ways to get the music, many stores offer full refunds so long as you return the CD unscathed with all the material in the jewel case. Take it home, burn it, return it.
Even if they offer only store credit, I'm sure after about 7 CDs - they'll have something in that price range you'll wanna pick up.
Record companies promote boy bands, they can all burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Verizon Must Reveal Internet Song Swapper (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=575&u=/nm/20030121/wr_nm/tech_music_dc_3&printer=1)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Recording companies won a victory in their fight against online piracy on Tuesday when a U.S. court ordered Verizon Communications to turn over the name of a customer suspected of downloading more than 600 songs in one day over the Internet.
Land of freedom!
Wellcome to USA! You are never alone! The Suit will garantee that!
"Every move you make..." song by Police gets totally new meaning
"Every dowload you make..." song by Police featured by US record companys.
(Duck)
-
How can they prove the files in question indeed were pirated music and not just some dummy files?
I can already predict people transfering dummy mp3 files over the net to make goverment officials work pain in the arse trying to prove whether the files were pirated or legal - since the name and size simply doesnt tell anything about the contents.
Oh well.. i dont have any 'illegal' mp3's anyway :)
screw da pop and download scene music.. it's free and goes better while being on a computer than some hype pop screaming.
-
If WB was stagnant then why play it?
Just as if a song is crap I don't download it.
Obviously the game has some value therefore these people have decided to do what they did so they can play it for 'free'. IEN are not making WB users pay an overinflated price, nor buy other services they don't want with WBs.
If IEN were charging extravagant rates and conspired with HTC and CRS to set high subscribtion rates, and if IEN made you subscribe to ALL their games just to play WBs then the comparison would be valid.
Nash the logic in your statement fails miserably.
-
Vulcan,
From russians, you can hear as many ways to make right for piratism as there are words.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Vulcan,
From russians, you can hear as many ways to make right for piratism as there are words.
Fishu,
Absolutely nothing was lost in the translation of this one. You are 100% correct.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Nash
2. Ien have let Warbirds become stagnant. We offered to help them as well as offering to set up servers for them here in Russia. They refused our help so they can bite me for all I care.
After reading some threads about this.
Didn't they failled to protect their product ? more than being robbed ? (from a legal perspective)
-
Straffo,
AFAIK only the clients code was protected, but nothing between the client and server -> no crime had been commit by the law.
Which seemingly resulted in the change of EULA by IEN and other companies to include also decrypting of the client<->server discussion as against the EULA.
When I heard first times of these warbirds hosts by third parties, there was legal side discussion all over and I do remember noticing the above change in EULAs.
However from what I've heard, the russians who made their host, has also messed up with the clients code.
I heard they had added a new plane(s), which surely isnt possible without messing up with the clients code.
-
Yep Fishu that's how I understand it.
Server packet handling is/was not protected enought to be preserved == IEN fault IMO.
Modification of WB Front End is an obvious hack but not knowing WB EULA I don't know if it's legal or not.
A contrario it's clearly stated in AH term of services :
2. RESTRICTIONS
Alterations. You may not alter the SOFTWARE.
Authorized Hosts. For host-based multiplayer services, the SOFTWARE must be used only to connect to authorized hosts. You are not permitted to use the SOFTWARE to connect to hosts that have not been authorized by HiTech Creations.
Limitations of Reverse Engineering, Decompilation and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
Non HTC host and FE modifications are strickly forbidden and as it's part of the contract each player has with HTC I guess it apply even for the Chineses ...
-
pssst
Use the newsgroups.... use the irc networks. get rid of those p2p n00b programs.
-
id rather someone spend there time and money bringing the child pornographers that love kazaa and such so much to justice rather than people who dont want to fork over 20 bucks for a cd with 1 good song surrounded by crap
-
I'm in agreement with Udie on this (imagine that!)
How would you feel if it was your music and hard work being downloaded for free by others and you don't get a single penny?
Let's say you're an author of a book. Slaved months on it. Now all of a sudden free copies are appearing all over the internet but you don't see a red cent because all of the downloaders are doing it for free rather than actually paying for the book.
Stealing copyrighted material.
For those that offer up the arguement that they are against the "greedy record companies and their CEOs", have you sent a check to the recording artist the $.50/song that you're downloading for free? I take it that you like those songs. You say you'd be willing to pay for it.
But you haven't, have you?
Sorry, but you're stealing. Like it or not, that's taking away from the artist as well.
-
Can I burn a copy of a CD that I've purchased?
Can I tape a song from the radio?
Can I lend my CD to my neighbor?
Can my neighbor put the CD onto his computer?
Can I put my CD onto my computer?
Can I leave my CD on my front lawn with a sign that reads 'free'?
-
SaburuS as soon as the record companies engaged in price fixing they crossed the line. They are monopolizing the industry. And remember, 80% of sales come from 3% of artists. So the old 'its hurting the artists' argument is BS.
The Record companies are the ones hurting the artists by refusing to get with the times. Why can't PC users have something like Apples Itunes for example?
-
Saburos,
..and of course every pirated 'book' means loss of money for the writer... NOT.
How many people would actually buy even tenth of the pirated music they've downloaded?
1) are they really interested in every song as much as to buy it, 2) do they have the money
-
Well, the record companies know that they are going down and its not because of piracy (that has been around since the cassette tape recorders were put on the market), but because of the INTERNET making the record companies obsolete.
Aka, when the artists BYPASS the 'middle man' (aka, record companies) and use the internet to distribute, sell and promote their products.
Imagine that you had a really good band. Imagine that in your hometown there was this privately owned music studio as well as a cd-recording company and to boot a web design company.
Whats stopping your band, which has been making decent money locally, from going to the private studio and record a few dozen of your songs in there, then go to the cd-recording company and make a deal with them to have them make cd's for your band, and finally have the web design company set up a website where you sell them CD's ? And have UPS ship them?
Big Record Company effectively eliminated as being the only way to promote your music nation/worldwide.
All thanks to the internet.
And yes, I download music from kazaa all the time, haven't bought a CD in years.
Mainly due to the fact that of the 50 something bands that I like I only like one or two of their songs. Thats like 100 songs. To get them 100 songs i'd probably have to buy 200 cd's just to get the 1 song from each band in a CD album. Avg cost of each CD is $18. 18X200=$3600 .
And they wonder why people dont buy CD's no more? HAH!!!:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Why can't PC users have something like Apples Itunes for example?
That should be up and runnin' (Itunes for PC) around September.
-
Why do we have to wait til September? This could have been done years ago.
They are thieves to the extend of being done in court. They have attempted to monopolize and control the music industry. They promote some absolutel crap as music and try to cram it down our throats.
I have no sympathy for them.
And yes I do still buy some CDs (like Tadpole) where I know theres some decent content.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I'm in agreement with Udie on this (imagine that!)
How would you feel if it was your music and hard work being downloaded for free by others and you don't get a single penny?
Let's say you're an author of a book. Slaved months on it. Now all of a sudden free copies are appearing all over the internet but you don't see a red cent because all of the downloaders are doing it for free rather than actually paying for the book.
[/qoute]
first i wouldent care...if it was my music (hypotheticly speaking of course) im in it for the music not the money...arnt i???
second...if it was my book then yes i would care...care to find out what looser has enough time to convert a entire book to pdf format then put it on the internet...
the only reason why books arnt for free on the net is because it takes to much time and work to do that...if the music industry made it harder to steal music then less people would rip there cds...
me i have over 3 gigabytes of music on my computer...and not 1 song is written by a group or artist that currently exists...and if they do exist there well past there prime...im sure that "the beatles" dont give a **** that i have a song that can be heard on the radio at any time on my computer...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
me i have over 3 gigabytes of music on my computer...and not 1 song is written by a group or artist that currently exists...and if they do exist there well past there prime...im sure that "the beatles" dont give a **** that i have a song that can be heard on the radio at any time on my computer...
And the RIAA is trying to screw us over by encrypting music and putting security mechanisms on music. By encrypting music it becomes illegal to crack that security, and thus effectively extends the copyright 'forever' under the DMCA.
-
If i delete all my mp3 songs, would they still go after me and sue me (the RIAA) for 1 billion dollars?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
SaburuS as soon as the record companies engaged in price fixing they crossed the line. They are monopolizing the industry. And remember, 80% of sales come from 3% of artists. So the old 'its hurting the artists' argument is BS.
The Record companies are the ones hurting the artists by refusing to get with the times. Why can't PC users have something like Apples Itunes for example?
What is BS is the line of it doesn't hurt the artist if people end up downloading the music for free. How many people that end up downloading the songs that they actually like and end up keeping actually pay for it?
What I find funny are the people reasoning why they think pirated goods are okay to get. Nevermind that the author, musician, software engineer, etc see exactly ZERO funds from the piracy of their hard work. It all boils down to if you didn't pay for the music, software, etc but you use such copywrited products, you are stealing.
So, you don't like the corporations marketing the product? When's the last time you sent a check directly to the artist/author/software engineer for your pirated stuff?
-
Vorticon,
If you were a musician full time and spent 40 hrs a week making your music, you wouldn't mind if no one ever paid for your music?
Are you independently wealthy?
Don't miss the forest for the trees on my book example. Let's say you wrote an awesome book that took you ten years to write. EVERYONE is reading and raving about it. But because of the pirating going on, your sales are only 1% of what they should be. Instead of the millions of dollars, you're seeing only about $30,000.
You still think piracy is okay? Look up the word 'piracy.'
It's nothing but theft, pure and simple.
-
.....leads me to a question (if you all have the courage to answer honestly):
How many have and are using pirated software such as Adobe's Photoshop?
Any other pirated applications/games, etc?
Anyone here NOT have pirated music or software?
-
Djust use an proxy server to become anonymous....
I know i never will be caught :)
Regards.
-
SaburoS while downloading MP3s is wrong, so is what the record companies are doing.
So screw them.
I'm not pretending to be all righteous, I'm saying if they want to try and screw me over then I'm happy to return the favour. AND they started it.
So SaburoS whats your view on the record companies admitted price fixed and therefore, monopolisation and antitrust behaviours?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
SaburoS while downloading MP3s is wrong, so is what the record companies are doing.
So screw them.
So I take it you are reimbursing the artists of the music/songs you like, or are you just using this as an excuse to not pay ANYTHING for it, in a sence, stealing it?
I'm not pretending to be all righteous, I'm saying if they want to try and screw me over then I'm happy to return the favour. AND they started it.
You are trying to justify your stealing of copywrited material, nothing more, nothing less. The ones who really get screwed are the artists of the songs that you download for free but just won't pay for it. If you really want to screw the recording companies, then you'd download your music and send your royalty checks directly to the artists.
So, why don't you and others do just that(Those that actually don't pay for their music but download pirated music)? The artists will remain in business and continue to make the music you like.
So SaburoS whats your view on the record companies admitted price fixed and therefore, monopolisation and antitrust behaviours?
If I like the music, I'll continue to buy the cds as long as the price is reasonable. If the price is too high, I wont buy it (I'll wait until it goes on sale.). What I won't do is steal someone else's property. Two wrongs don't make a right (and all that).
Do I like most record company practises? Nope. But then again, they usually don't hold a gun to the heads of their recording artists to sign contracts either.
I am more concerned with the price fixing of gasoline and auto insurance here in California.
You won't catch me stealing gas from the local gas station nor will you find me cheating out my auto insurance policy with a fake claim either. That would be wrong. Period.
If it really bothers you that much, then bring change via the power of legislation through the vote of the people. My guess is that you really aren't THAT upset with the recording companies practices as long as you can get your free music.
So now that I've answered your question, how about you answer mine.
You have/use bootleg/unlicensed software also? If so, same reason as why you won't pay for the music?
-
Who cares.
They will never be able to stop MP3´s, they only loosing more money now...
I for one will continue to D/L
-
SaburoS is funny.. hes speaking like downloading pirated mp3 is like stealing a car.
Now lets see.. mr. A downloads mp3 and mr. B steals gas from a gas station.
- After Mr.A has downloaded the mp3, there'll be another mp3 to be downloaded by someone else, or by Mr.A himself, if he chooses to later download it again for some reason.
- After Mr.B has ran away with stolen gas, the gas station will book direct losses, since the stolen gas cannot be stolen by someone else anymore - or sold by the gas station.
It's permanently lost. (unless someone catches the guy and returns the gas before its used of course)
Oh and.. Suburos.. it's really a 'copyright'.
-
Well said SuburoS!
-
Originally posted by Fishu
SaburoS is funny.. hes speaking like downloading pirated mp3 is like stealing a car.
Now lets see.. mr. A downloads mp3 and mr. B steals gas from a gas station.
- After Mr.A has downloaded the mp3, there'll be another mp3 to be downloaded by someone else, or by Mr.A himself, if he chooses to later download it again for some reason.
- After Mr.B has ran away with stolen gas, the gas station will book direct losses, since the stolen gas cannot be stolen by someone else anymore - or sold by the gas station.
It's permanently lost. (unless someone catches the guy and returns the gas before its used of course)
Oh and.. Suburos.. it's really a 'copyright'.
What's funny is your trying to justify theft of copyrighted (just for you Mr. Spelling Nazi - btw check your own post) materials because it just happens to be there.
If people normally used to buy the music they liked, but stopped because they got pirated copies that was easily available, then it is okay by you? You think the artists that created the music others enjoy wouldn't show losses that would otherwise be there if not for the ease of downloading pirated music? So no costs were involved in the making of that music? The musicians work for free?
Let's say that it was legal to download, use, and/or own copyrighted materials. Let's say no one actually purchased the music/programs, etc anymore. LOL, your sources will dry up.
I guess you volunteer at your job and work for free too?
Bottom line is that you want something for nothing.
It is stealing btw. So is using copyrighted software without paying for its license. Taking food from a grocery. Taking gas from a gas station.
Just different degrees of theft, but theft nontheless.
-
Well the main thing is that they never will be able to stop it... Thats technology for you...
They djust have to accept MP3´s and move along to bigger better things...
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
.....leads me to a question (if you all have the courage to answer honestly):
How many have and are using pirated software such as Adobe's Photoshop?
Any other pirated applications/games, etc?
Anyone here NOT have pirated music or software?
Pirated software on my computer....0
I did not know you could D/L software like you can music.
But now that I do.....:D
Pirating music has been going on since the Double Deck 8 track. The only thing the internet did was make it much more widespread and easier.
Is it still theft? Of course. Is what the Recoding industry been doing all these years gouging? Price Fixing? Yes.
I don't plan on downloading any more music, which the simple threat of suit was designed for. It's a scare tactic.
But they've alienated me as a consumer. I won't be buying CD's. And I did buy the CD's to groups I really liked after downloading the songs to listen.
So congrats to the RIAA. You've alienated another paying customer.
-
SaburoS,
You won't see me misspelling words like copyright, trademark... :D
With the sentences, I do have a perfectly good excuse.
What I know about my pirating friends, they do buy the good ones as long as they have the money for it.
Bad music = you wouldn't buy it anyway.
adequate, but expensive music = perhaps you already bought the good ones, no money for these anymore.
good music = you would buy it as long as you can afford.
So in my opinion the publishers are exagerating the losses caused by piratism, so they would get the goverments attention to suit their business.
Good thing I've never caught up with music so much.. it distracts me.. so I don't have a bunch of CD's and pirated MP3's laying around. (1 cd from around year 1992-1994 and a bunch of completely legal MP3's.. thats my history with the music in the past 10 years)
However, lets assume I would be an average music listener...
With the current prices, I couldn't really afford to buy a single CD per month.
So I would be downloading music in MP3's and buying a CD sometimes when it's affordable.
What exactly would the music publishers loose with the music I would have downloaded off the net?
I mean.. I couldn't have bought the songs in any case.
However the publishers would immediatly sum up a # percent of the pirated songs value to the losses by piratism.
the music CD's seems to mostly cost around 18-22€ over here, with a brief look at the prices.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
.....leads me to a question (if you all have the courage to answer honestly):
How many have and are using pirated software such as Adobe's Photoshop?
Any other pirated applications/games, etc?
Anyone here NOT have pirated music or software?
i dont have any true pirated games or applications on my computer...i have a few abandonware games from the 80's and thats about as illegal it gets (other than the music)
whats really funny is that they didnt care when everyone was buying copys of tapes that someone made...
theft is theft true...but im not the one stealing it its the rippers that are...im simply taking a freely available resource...and as long as im not taking any music from any currently existing (or even alive in some cases) artist im basicly doing abandonware music downloading...
quite a bit of my music i already have on a legally bvought cd...i just downloaded it in mp3 so i wouldent have to run a gauntlet once ive heard the 1 really good song...
i for one dont give a **** whaty happens to current artists anyway...if there really good people will still buy there cds...as far as im concerned the golden age of music died in 1980
-
If I've purchased an album/cd/song at sometime in my life, shouldn't I be able to have a mp3 of it at no addition charge? I mean, I've already paid for the music once, right?
The argument that d/l is taking food outa starving musicians mouths is retarded. Any song I've ever download has already made the band/record company millions.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
If I've purchased an album/cd/song at sometime in my life, shouldn't I be able to have a mp3 of it at no addition charge? I mean, I've already paid for the music once, right?
The argument that d/l is taking food outa starving musicians mouths is retarded. Any song I've ever download has already made the band/record company millions.
soooo true.
id say at LEAST 80% of my mp3's i own on cassette tape or album. just because the tape has worn out i should have to PAY for another copy?? (i have done that before mp3's and CD 's came out... pearl jam's 10 album i bought 3X on cassette LOL)
-
SaburoS I really don't have much sympathy for most of the artists either. The record companies represent them, and as such the artists are condoning their actions.
Unfortunately I don't have the power to bring legislation against record companies, or the massive legal finances to get them to sort their illegal activities out.
So I fight back the only way I can.
When I see a CD thats good value I buy it.
When I see a scam trying to force me to pay exorbitant prices for extra crap I don't value... well, you figure the rest out.
-
Another example:
Say there was a software key downloading/sharing service that allowed people to keep playing online games for free. Those people downloading the free "keys" could play any online game they wanted. They'd be able to allow others to share free keys as they became available. Keep in mind the people have no intention of actually paying for the games/service/subscription. They'll use excuses such as:
1) "Well, it really isn't the best game/sim out there so I refuse to support an inferior product. I only like 10 percent of the game/sim because the only good thing is its flight model. Its graphics and damage model isn't what it really should be. There isn't enough of a selection of weapons/vehicles, etc."
2) "$XX.XX is a ripoff to pay per month! I refuse to pay until they drop their subscription rates!"
3) "It's not like they're actually losing any money here. So what if I play for free? There are plenty of people supporting the game anyway. LOL how funny that someone would equate it as stealing! How retarded is that!"
I'm not talking about the free H2H or free 1-4 week trials, I am talking about the unauthorized use of a product, the benefitting of a product without ever paying for it. That my friends is theft. Cut it, slice it, dice it anyway you wish, it's still theft.
You want the benefit of having the music without paying for it. PERIOD.
Want to get back at the evil record companies and their corrupt policies? Then don't buy the music and to show your true convictions, don't download it for free either! Walk the talk.
For those of you that have paid for all of the songs you've downloaded and kept (either on your HD or disc) and you haven't allowed others to make free copies of that same music, my posts in this thread do not apply to you.
*****************
Some empty seats are available on the next flight so the airline should let you fly for free because:
They weren't going to sell those seats anyway? You don't feel the airline is that good anyway. You refuse to pad the pockets of some rich airline corporation because the pilots/flight attendants/mechanics hardly get a decent salary?
Some seats are available for the next movie but you should be able to see it for free because:
They weren't going to sell those seats anyway. You heard the movie wasn't worth the price of admission so you feel you shouldn't have to pay for the movie. But if they lowered the price of admission by 15% since you usually only like 15% of any movie you see, you should be able to go in for free (provided empty seats are available) because you don't want to help a corrupt industry. The price fixing of movies is such a crime.
******************
Someone offers you stolen property for free. You accept it and think it's okay because you actually didn't steal it. You would of paid for it as you really like it, but unfortunetly they bundle that product in the stores with 90% other stuff that you really don't want. The price is just too high for your budget. You don't like the corporations behind the product anyway. Oh BTW, since you got it for free, you am going to let it be avavailable to anyone that wants it also for free (strangers and friends alike).
******************
BTW, even though you may have paid previously (or will pay) for 80% of the songs you've downloaded (good for you on that part), but for the 20% of the songs you've downloaded (benefitted from/enjoyed) and kept (not good) is still considered theft.
Any further comments or questions, or do some of you finally GET it?
-
SaburoS,
Again a bit other kind of example than we're talking about..
If you dont pay monthly fee in a game, it means you're using the companys bandwidth to play the game - and the bandwidth again isn't exactly free for the company.
So there you're causing direct loss for the company.
Again, theres no good example on MP3's here, since when downloading mp3, you dont do any direct loss for the company, especially if you cant even buy the product.
Airline example is funny and hardly an example at all :>
Movies example is not as funny... (and hardly an example in this situation either)
Again we're talking about direct loss for the company... in both examples.
Now your examples are begining to totally loose the grip with the reality of this issue :D
-
Fishu,
Think outside the box. Re-read my posts. You'll see the results are the same.
Using/owning a product without the expressed permission of the true owners (in this case the copyrighted owners of the music) without paying for it is theft.
It's funny that you correct me on the spelling of COPYRIGHT yet you don't understand what a copyright means. Does Copyright infringement equal theft?
Let's cut to the chase and be specific here. You find a song that you happen to like (for the moment). You intend on getting that song for free so you can enjoy that song for the near (and possibly distant future). You make a bootleg copy from a friend's (or aquaintance's) copy (doesn't really matter whether they paid for it or not). You get that copy for free. You proceed to listen to that song and are now enjoying it. Benfitting from the musician's effort and work that went into that song but YOU didn't pay for it.
That is theft. What's really funny are the lame excuses trying to justify that theft. I didn't make up the copyright laws nor its definition. Too bad you don't understand it. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
SaburoS,
Again a bit other kind of example than we're talking about..
If you dont pay monthly fee in a game, it means you're using the companys bandwidth to play the game - and the bandwidth again isn't exactly free for the company.
So there you're causing direct loss for the company.
Again, theres no good example on MP3's here, since when downloading mp3, you dont do any direct loss for the company, especially if you cant even buy the product.
Airline example is funny and hardly an example at all :>
Movies example is not as funny... (and hardly an example in this situation either)
Again we're talking about direct loss for the company... in both examples.
Now your examples are begining to totally loose the grip with the reality of this issue :D
1) So the recording artist and record companies make music and produce it for free? No costs involved in getting that music out?
2) Movie situation the same. If the movie theater has extra seat available and no one is willing to buy them for the next showing, they should allow you to see it for free? After all, it won't cost them anything since those seats happen to be empty. After all, it won't cost the movie theater any actual losses since that seat was empty, right?
3) Airline example. You have one small carry-on luggage. Since the airline happens to have some empty seats on the next flight, they should let you go for free? After all, it won't cost the airline any real losses to let you take an empty seat, right?
Oh, I've got a total grip on the issues at hand. Unfortunetly it is you that doesn't.
Go ahead and see the definition of Copyright and Copyright infringment. Maybe, just maybe you'll finally get it. Maybe not.
-
Just to be clear Fishu, Vulcan etc., .... all excuses and rationales for it aside.... are you saying that downloading MP3's is not theft?
-
Nash,
Just laughing at these examples, which are each comparing it to something like stealing a car from someone - while the owner has just one car and if that gets lost, he gets severe losses in that - while if someone downloads mp3, theres no unique loss for the owner and not necessarily any kind of loss.
Most people would have definately no use for the computer without this kind of pirating and with the software, there would be even less knowledgeable people around.
Does anyone realise how much it would cost to have just a small amount of MP3's of sold music?
Who actually can afford to fill up his MP3 player with bought music and say he doesn't have to repeat it up to boredom for weeks till next batch?
CD prices are pretty high for most people to do that.
(if they can even afford MP3 player in first place)
Then we get to the software...
How many people for example can afford 3D modelling program just to learn its usage so they can actually do something worth a money?
plus all the associated programs needed to make the 3d models.
Most of the 3d artists I know, have began with pirated 3D modelling software and most of the other necessary software, until they got a job of it.
Wonder if that would be their work nowadays without this?
Can't find such reasons for music, unless its going to inspirate someone to become a music artist ;)
but that doesnt really concern me as I do hardly listen to music.
Anyway.. theres quite alot of things into piratism.
Yes it isn't legal... but neither is it like stealing a car.
I wonder how many times pirated MP3 has actually sold a CD.
At least I've bought a few games that I've downloaded first..
well, theres no real big wonder there.. most games just tends to be published in finland 2-8 weeks after been published in US.. so such impatient people like I, will download the game and play it until gets to buy it :>
Lots of games doesn't even have demos and those which are, are usually based on older version of the game and hardly gives good idea of the game all times (besides being heavily annoying if can't get the bloody game the next day!)
Honestly, I don't think curing music piratism would help anything whats being complained about, just make things worse im afraid.
It's too impossible for me to think of people buying all those mountains of CD's, which of they wanted just 1-4 songs tops OR listen to no music at all or keep replaying their handful of CD's over till the days end.. :eek:
SaburoS makes it sound like hes some wealthy guy who thinks everyone can buy music or their thieves.
sounds exactly like it.
-
Gosh I hope not nash. I have downloaded well over 12 Gygabytes in audio files. 99% of the music I have dowloaded is over 10 years old, whether that makes a difference or not.
-
Fishu, it is you, not I that has brought in the car theft argument.
Re-read my posts. You brought it up so you can argue against it.
I gave specific examples using the "It's okay because of....." of the pro-theft of copyrighted materials group. I gave other examples so you can see how silly your arguments fall apart.
Again, you just don't know copyright laws. You think it that it's no big deal. The perceived losses are big enough that recording companies want to resort to coding the music so it can't be easily copied and shared.
No, I am far from wealthy but I have purchased all my music that I have on disc. I have purchased all the software I use. I don't download pirated/use anything.
The funny part of most of you pro-pirating users is your very own arguments. You seem to concede that it is theft by the
"It is theft but....." reasoning/arguments.
It's okay to steal a loaf of bread from a large grocery store because the freshness date just expired?
It's not okay to steal some filet mignon steaks?
Where in the world do you draw the line of what is right or wrong?
It is theft and there isn't any "but" to it.
BTW, whats next? You going attribute Armed robbery of a bank to me too?
Quit being so daft.
-
wasnt me whos brought up cars.
Anyway.. have it like you want.
but you will not have your perfect world and I'd say you wouldn't like it that way either
Otherwise it'd be quite silent world indeed, if all the copyright issues would be looked after like murders.
-
The cats definitely out of the bag now... er, the genie is out of the bottle... er, one of those... as you can see by the sense of entitlement in Fishu's and other's arguments.
Coming up soon is an entire generation who weren't alive when, in order to own music - you bought it ("It's too impossible for me to think of people buying all those mountains of CD's...").
For years and years and years, if you liked a song or a band, you took your allowance (sometimes you had to save it for a few weeks) and you went down to the record store on Saturday and bought the new album. You brought it home, threw on the headphones and gawked at the artwork and liner notes... It used to be kind of a big deal actually...
I wonder how many kids will be able to answer the question "What's the first MP3 you downloaded?" just as most adult music lovers can remember the first record they bought. I highly doubt it. There's now just such a sense of disposability about the whole thing... and again, you can certainly see it in the arguments of the people who seem to think that music materializes out of thin air.
Just because some people think music isn't valuable enough to have to pay for, it doesn't make it so. Just because you don't value it, it doesn't mean it should be made free for people like you. If you don't think piracy is hurting the record companies, and in turn the artists who create the music, think again. If you are aware of it but don't care (for whatever reason), fine, but no argument you can make can justify it.
Go ahead and pirate tunes, just stop arguing about it as if you're right.
-
Right... wrong... doesn't really matter.
The RIAA business model is no longer viable. No amount of legislation or lawsuits will stem the tide.
Time to look at new ways to get music out and get the artists paid without all these middlemen looking for their piece of the action.
Some artists realize it already. They have a direct conduit to their fans.
It's high time the rest started using it.
-
Ayup.
It will be interesting to see how that develops. The records you hear on the radio cost a half million to record. In most cases the only reason you've heard of them is because it's costed another half million plus to promote.
This idea of new bands DIY'in it is great in theory. Gonna be interesting to see how they actually pull it off.
-
There is the hook that the RIAA holds... riches and fame.
The musicians that do it for the love of it don't need them. One example is Ani DiFranco... She seems to have done okay for herself despite her aversion to the standard music mill...
-
ya,,it is stealing and copyright infringment,,,but! i think some artist should be able to put there mp3 avalible for download,,,there are alot of bands that aint main stream anymore and i cant find some of there cds,,,,like some of machine heads early releases,,like burn out my eyes,,,killer cd,,but i couldnt find it for nothing around here,,not at sam goody,,or any of are malls,,,,,couldnt find it in any type of ordering form,,,,even asked a person at hastings to order it,,but they didnt have it on there ordering form,,but i did find it on winmx<~~hard to even find a slayer cd somtimes,,lol
its stealing no matter how ya put it,,,but music industry could make alot of money putting artist mp3s that dont sell anymore,,,but the dang record companies want us spending are money on the newest hits,,instead of what we wanna lisin too,,lol
-
Blame Disney... they were the ones that managed to get copyrights extended damn near forever.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Coming up soon is an entire generation who weren't alive when in order to own music - you bought it ("It's too impossible for me to think of people buying all those mountains of CD's...").
For years and years and years, if you liked a song or a band, you took your allowance (sometimes you had to save it for a few weeks) and you went down to the record store on Saturday and bought the new album. You brought it home, threw on the headphones and gawked at the artwork and liner notes... It used to be kind of a big deal actually...
Think of this.. "piratism" has been around as long as theres been music to play.
Long long ago it was played by orchestras who didnt obtain any kind of licenses to play the music - they just obtained the notes and played.
Not to talk about the smaller bands entertaining people.
People would been laughing at you if you would have mentioned RIAA.
then came all the music publisher gigants.. and followed by RIAA & clones.
casettes came as well.. people copied those merrily and music casettes didn't even cost as much compared to todays CD's. (even with the inflation kept in mind)
Since the 90's, the copyright laws have been enforced more and more with music.
Finlands very own TEOSTO (Finnish Composers' Copyright Society) has been pissing off alot of people lately. (our RIAA clone I suppose)
for couple good examples lately: now cab drivers cant play music with passengers present, if they havent paid sums of copyright fees to TEOSTO.
Also loud whine was caused by TEOSTO's decision to also force kindergardens to pay copyright fees for the played music for children.
etc. etc.
I bet I wouldn't see a damned cent from TEOSTO if there would be my music playing on radio stations, public places... etc. :rolleyes:
Just like someone complained about RIAA not paying what they should if they really work to protect the interest of music composers.
Music/Recording industry has been getting reaaallly greedy in the last decade or two.
So not much sympathy from me...
-
Originally posted by Fishu
wasnt me whos brought up cars.
Really?
This from your post (40th on second page of this thread):
SaburoS is funny.. hes speaking like downloading pirated mp3 is like stealing a car.
Then you attribute the car theft comparison to me and proceed to argue against YOUR own quote (5th post on this 3rd page):
Just laughing at these examples, which are each comparing it to something like stealing a car from someone - while the owner has just one car and if that gets lost, he gets severe losses in that
Your attributing your own car theft analogy to me proves that you haven't comprehended what I've been writing. If you want to quote any of my posts and argue the points over it, I'd be happy to explain further.
Otherwise it'd be quite silent world indeed, if all the copyright issues would be looked after like murders.
So are you going to attribute your own "murder" quote to me as well? :rolleyes:
-
Saburo, come on, yer comparing downloading mp3s to murder? Helluhvah stretch there.
-
screw the riaa. screw larrs. "shareing" mp3s isnt officially illegal right now so download as many as you please i say. everytime they shutdown one format for us to procure songs , some nerd programmer finds another way to "share" data. it will be like this untill they offer a way for people to download songs for a small fee. make it like 10-20 bucks a month and at least half the people "stealing" music will pay for the service.
the riaa are a buch of ****tards that need to get their act together. because right now all they are doing is alienateing themselves.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Saburo, come on, yer comparing downloading mp3s to murder? Helluhvah stretch there.
When it comes to justifying theft, I guess they'll go to extremes to justify it. After all it's not like they're out there murdering people or stealing cars. LOL.
-
Saburos,
You obviously didn't get the idea what I meant with the 'murders' sentence.
It SIMPLY and ONLY means the height of wanted status of a criminal.
Aka first priority to find music pirate, over the other crimes - to make my point it wouldn't help anythign even if it would be this way and all the piratism would be cut away.
Obviously some people have problems with understanding and only reads it as it suits their flaming post - the way it was never meant to.
No where was I COMPARING it to a murder, however some people here obviously did compare it to a murder just to suit their flaming policy.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Saburos,
You obviously didn't get the idea what I meant with the 'murders' sentence.
It SIMPLY and ONLY means the height of wanted status of a criminal.
Aka first priority to find music pirate, over the other crimes - to make my point it wouldn't help anythign even if it would be this way and all the piratism would be cut away.
Obviously some people have problems with understanding and only reads it as it suits their flaming post - the way it was never meant to.
No where was I COMPARING it to a murder, however some people here obviously did compare it to a murder just to suit their flaming policy.
I understood exactly what you meant by comparing severity of one to another.
However you've been missing my point entirely by bringing up the car stealing comparisons. Re-read my examples and quote them directly and you'll see in those cases the owners wouldn't of had direct losses in those cases (empty seats for next flight/performance) so those that sneak in for free (without permission) to fill those empty seats shouldn't be prosecuted for theft/tresspassing? I was using other than mp3s to get the point across of how silly some of the "justification" arguments/reasons have been.
I have been saying from my very first post that downloading COPYRIGHTED anything (without the permission of the copyright holders) and then benefitting from using/listening/enjoying those materials and then not ever paying for it IS THEFT.
I brought up specific examples dealing in other than MP3s to show you how silly the justifications were.
Nash has got it exactly right.
Go ahead and pirate tunes, just stop arguing about it as if you're right.
To which I'll add:
If you get busted (odds are it will only be a small fraction of downloaders) for your downloading, don't blame anyone but yourself.
BTW, who brought up the "murder" comparison? Would that be the same person as the "car stealing" comparison? Oh, I know, that would be you.
-
So SaburoS whats your response to the RIAA members who participate in price fixing, monopolisation, and anti-competitive behaviour?
I hope you and Nash and sending them emails lecturing them on theft too ;)
-
really serious theft indeed... hah
-
Yeah that stuff went on Vulcan... (just got settled in Oregon). And they are *far* from saints, no question about it. But does that mean that all bets are off and from here on out the record companies oughta give CDs away for free? Does this mean that Microsoft should make *their* software free for download? How about all the other companies who've been busted for something? They might as well all throw in the towel and go out of business?
It's clearly an issue for the courts, not a license for everyone to start stealing from them.
-
As I said before Nash I don't 'steal' the whole lot. I do have a vast CD collection at home, and I do buy CD's I think are of value.
However, screw them if they think I'm gonna lay out my money for some of the crap infested CD's they force down our throats. And its hardly like their 'clients' are on the street starving.
The RIAA also likes to 'pad' its figures, did you know music piracy figures on lost revenue include the CDs that go out the back door of the factories?
People have been copying music for ages, whether it be MP3s or audio casettes. Things haven't changed that much.
Many musicians have also come out on the side of the MP3/Napster argument, saying that a lot of music gets coverage that normally wouldn't.
Now Nash, as far as 'copyright' issues go, can you please explain the source of your avatar?
-
As an 'old purchaser' I don't download near as much as i used to record from borrowed LPs in the days of cassettes.
And yes, in my opinion it is breaking the law, and I treat it with all the seriousness of a 55mph speed limit.
-
Well maybe my argument isn't as much to do with you as much as with people who seem to think there's absolutely no wrong-doing involved with pirating MP3's, to the point where they feel *entitled* to getting music for free.
Like I said earlier - I too pirate MP3s.... a *lot* of them. My CD buying has gone from 60-80 a year to around 30. I just think it's silly to raise all these defenses where the pirating has become some personal jihad against the big bad record companies. Like this one:
"...screw them if they think I'm gonna lay out my money for some of the crap infested CD's they force down our throats."
I think that and arguments like it are silly... They force CDs down people's throats? I think it's about free toejam and the excuses people make to feel better about it all.
-
Until I can pay for what I WANT to buy , downloading will be a better choice.
paying for 18 songs in a CD because I only like 1 song. Then having to pay for the same songs in the next 4 or 5 albums from the same group just because they put another new song i like on said album.
Wouldn't it be great if record stores just had a CD-burner and a direct T1 connection to the record companies and you could just custom-make your own CD and then pay for it?
Problem is, them record companies have their foot too deep up their arses for that. The internet is here and there is *no* way they can stop file sharing short of bringing down the internet OR turning the government into a gestapo state.
-
Nash, you still haven't answered my question about your avatar?
And I do still buy CD's, its not just about 'free toejam'.
-
The majority of MP3s I have are either free from the artist's website, or I own the CDs for.
The few songs I have that are neither free from the artist's website, or on any of the CDs I own - could just as easily be recorded from the radio, and through a tapedeck that plugs into the soundcard, could be turned into mp3 format. Granted, at a lower kilobit (not byte) rate - but whatever, in many cases the difference is moot... the song can be gotten for free.
In the later case, that simply can not be called "theft" - otherwise I'm certain there would be a lawsuit against companies that make tape decks because they allow for a record from the radio function.
I'm not trying to justify my position, but it is necessary to show to many people the realities of the digital genre. It is what it is, and simply because someone downloads 6, 600, 6000, or 6000000 mp3 formatted songs - its simply bulltoejam that lawsuits can be processed on a basis of a person's digital downloads.
What we have here is an example of something very nazi-esque.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So SaburoS whats your response to the RIAA members who participate in price fixing, monopolisation, and anti-competitive behaviour?
I hope you and Nash and sending them emails lecturing them on theft too ;)
How many times are we going to have to go around in circles on this?
I've already answered that question.
Bottom line is this:
Benefitting from someone else's copyrighted materials without payment or permission is theft. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
DO YOU FINALLY GET THAT POINT??!!
Any reasons brought up so far trying to justify that theft, doesn't wash.
This is probably what will happen. If anyone gets arrested(probably detected by a hidden code in the music file) and convicted the following:
1) Downloading the files for free and not selling/sharing the files:
paying a fine of the full retail price(what the single cd price or album price if no single exists) of each song file on your system or in your cd/mp3 collection.
2) The above plus: If allowing others to share in the files of music stored in your computer: Above fine plus possibly an additional huge fine on their calculation of how many files were taken from your computer.
3) Add to the above: If you also actually started making money (making cds and selling them): Epect the above fines but add a huge $ amount. also jail time.
The judges in these cases will be making huge examples of the first group caught.
The real question you should be asking yourself is this:
Do you think the above will happen to you if caught?
Look up copyright laws and the infrigment of those laws.
Good luck.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
How many times are we going to have to go around in circles on this?
I've already answered that question.
Bottom line is this:
Benefitting from someone else's copyrighted materials without payment or permission is theft. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
DO YOU FINALLY GET THAT POINT??!!
Come on, it is hardly that black and white. Is taping a song off the radio illegal? How about a movie from HBO? What exactly is "benefitting"? The only difference between a TIVO recording stuff off the air and a computer recording stuff off the internet is method of transmission.
-
if the musical "artist" of today had talent - I don't think they'd be half as paraniod about their sales, with or without mp3's...
"copyrighted materials " - copyrighted noise in most cases :)
-
With all these arguments, we can conclude that Saburos also thinks it as reasonable for music artists to hijack internet domains which connects to their artist name distantly.
Anyway.. why dont we just see how happy people would be if we apply $500 fee for every illegally owned song and the law well enforced.
Would there really be any winners?
-
Hey SubaroS, how but this then.
Go down to your local music shop, and try buying CDs from either Pacifier, Tadpole, or Stella*
Lets see how well you do.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Hey SubaroS, how but this then.
Go down to your local music shop, and try buying CDs from either Pacifier, Tadpole, or Stella*
Lets see how well you do.
I don't know those groups but if I liked their songs, I might try buying them from:
Pacifier (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000084TU5/102-9807285-1321701?v=glance)
Tadpole (http://www.smokecds.com/cd/29469)
Don't know Stella either. Too many different links with "Stella" in the title.
How long are we going to play the "It's okay because......" game?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Come on, it is hardly that black and white. Is taping a song off the radio illegal? How about a movie from HBO? What exactly is "benefitting"? The only difference between a TIVO recording stuff off the air and a computer recording stuff off the internet is method of transmission.
Don't ask my definition of "benefitting."
I think the important issue is how a judge will define "benefitting."
BTW, how many Tivo owners can tap into your Tivo set to get TV shows that you recorded?
How many people can tap into your tape recorder to get songs for free?
While we're at it, how about movies off your VCR?
Saving a song file can imply to a judge that one was benefitting from it. If that person had not paid for that song AND did not have the permission of the owners of that song, that would be theft.
Allowing others access to your computer to download that very copyrighted file (whether you paid for it or not) is infringing on the copyright holder. The exception of course is if the owner of that copyright gives you permission to allow others to make copies of that file.
Buying that music file gives you permission to have that particular song, it does not transfer the copyrights of that song to you.
Copyright infrigement is not legal. Doesn't mean that everyone who infringes on copyrighted materials will be prosecuted (My bet is it will only be a handful of prosecutions, but those will be punished with excessively high fines and jail time to be made examples of), but the law as it stands today, it is wrong.
Who actually owns the song that you downloaded for free?
The copyright owner(s). If they decide to get off their collective arses to start prosecuting, look out.
-
As long as they play the "its ok to rip off consumers" game :)
SubaruS you seem to ignore the fact theres a huge base of 'artists' out there encouraging the MP3 swapping. One reason is its replaced the old tape swapping meets that used to go and help promote up and coming artists.
Now of course the argument will be well ok swap those that says its ok. But then theres the example of Metallica, who used to the tape swapping culture to get coverage, then when they got to the top they immediately turned on that culture. So there'll always be this blurry line of where being legit stops.
Tell you what, I reckon I've got about $3000 worth of CRAP CD's (you know, one or two good songs and the rest is rubbish). When I feel I've clocked over $3000 worth of MP3s I'll buy some more CD's (and of course if they're crap too then I'll get some more MP3's).
In the meantime, you go sort out the record companies. Isn't a pity they only got stung for $13 per CD they overcharged, instead of say this $500 per mp3 song type figure, heck its a pity the record executives didn't get 'jailtime' too aye. Oh well, I guess the system is fair :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
SubaruS you seem to ignore the fact theres a huge base of 'artists' out there encouraging the MP3 swapping. One reason is its replaced the old tape swapping meets that used to go and help promote up and coming artists.
Sorry, I never said that. Please quote a post of mine that implies that.
Those copyright holders that give their expressed permission for the MP3 file swapping cannot claim copyright infrigement for the swapping (as long as no one is turning around selling bootleg copies of their music).
I thought I have been very clear in my examples and statements but I guess I am wrong.
Tell you what, why don't you quote the statements of mine that you disagree with so I can perhaps make myself more clear for you.
-
Bill Would Put Internet Song Swappers in Jail (http://au.news.yahoo.com/030717/11/kvue.html)
said the bill had won the backing of many Democrats but Republicans had yet to endorse it.
-
Good idea! Our prisons aren't full enough now, and we don't have nearly enough non-violent criminals in them!
SOB
-
Millions of teens are out there downloading Orrin Hatch songs and the poor guy is not even getting a penny from them! :mad:
-
As long as i live i will never buy another record in the stores.
Amen.
-
Tahgut:
Can I burn a copy of a CD that I've purchased?
Yes, as long as you do not distribute it. Copies for personal use are OK AFAIK.
Can I tape a song from the radio?
Yes. They have broadcast that into your home, you are free to record it. You cannot distribute it.
Can I lend my CD to my neighbor?
Yes. But he cannot copy it, or any portion of it.
Can my neighbor put the CD onto his computer?
No. He didn't buy it, so he can't copy it.
Can I put my CD onto my computer?
Personal use copy only. As long as you don't distribute it.
Can I leave my CD on my front lawn with a sign that reads 'free'?
Yes. Assuming when you get rid of it, you also destroy any copies you made.
And thats the way I understand things to be. Anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.
I don't DL MP3's. If my kid does, and I find out - he loses his radio, and the speakers on his PC. Same with copied albums/CDs from his friends.
If you take away the incentive and ability to control your own music by undermining copyright protections, you eliminate most of the incentive to work your bellybutton off to produce that music.
BB <-- only buys CD's when on sale. Have not paid more than 10 bucks per disk in ages, but have not DL'd anything, either.
-
PS - ROCK ON saburoS, and nash (you naughty boy, you).
BB
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
That is theft.
You are a cop...yes?
The you bloody well know that downloading an mp3 from the net to your computer is NOT theft. Period. Nor is it stealing. By definition. Accept this legal tidbit and move on.
It *might* be some other type of crime, but it is not theft, and it is not stealing.
-
Wow, im starting to like Hortlund!!!
-
Originally posted by SOB
Good idea! Our prisons aren't full enough now, and we don't have nearly enough non-violent criminals in them!
SOB
Yup, I bet M$ is watching this with glee and drooling over a monopoly being propped up by legislation (so much for 'market forces').
Oh well life goes on (strokes his newly acquired DVD burner) :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are a cop...yes?
The you bloody well know that downloading an mp3 from the net to your computer is NOT theft. Period. Nor is it stealing. By definition. Accept this legal tidbit and move on.
It *might* be some other type of crime, but it is not theft, and it is not stealing.
So downloading and benefitting from someone else's copyrighted materials without their permission is not theft?
BTW, are you saying that we have a right to devalue other's copyrighted materials to free without their permission is okay?
Copyright Theft (http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/press/20030213.html)
Your rights as a copyright holder (http://www.copyrightinfringementgroup.com/yourrights.htm)
So if I get a bootleg copy of Photoshop (downloaded file, or cd copy) while have never paid for the program (license), and without the permission of Adobe, and I use that product, benefit from it, is that not a form stealing? Not a form of theft?
What is it then?
What exactly is copyright infringment?
Does our definition really matter, or do you just like splitting hairs?
Bottom line: If caught and convicted under present copyright laws, one will have to pay.
LOL, for those that wish to, keep downloading to your heart's content. Just don't whine and cry if you get caught.
Oh BTW Hortlund, I'm not a cop. If I were it would not be my job to determine if someone was violating copyright laws. That job goes to the judge residing over that case.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SaburoS
That is theft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are a cop...yes?
The you bloody well know that downloading an mp3 from the net to your computer is NOT theft. Period. Nor is it stealing. By definition. Accept this legal tidbit and move on.
It *might* be some other type of crime, but it is not theft, and it is not stealing.
Hortlund, you care to actually read my posts?
You actually care to post my example before the "That is theft."?
I was very specific (or so I thought) in my examples of what constituted _______ <--- (fill in the blank w/theft, stealing, copyright infringement, etc.).
You may have studied law, but obviously not copyright laws.
-
Hey maybe violating copyright laws by downloading music is kinda like being a guy who drinks too much - "it aint a problem (or wrong) until you admit it" :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You may have studied law, but obviously not copyright laws.
Uh, I dont know what kind of mental picture you have of lawschool, nor do I know what nations lawschool you are thinking of right now, but in the lawschool I went to, we were taught about all aspects of the law (yes, including copyright laws) during the first three years, and then we'd spend the last 1,5 year individually specializing in some area we'd found interesting.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So downloading and benefitting from someone else's copyrighted materials without their permission is not theft?
[/b]
Correct.
BTW, are you saying that we have a right to devalue other's copyrighted materials to free without their permission is okay?
[/b]
No.
¨So if I get a bootleg copy of Photoshop (downloaded file, or cd copy) while have never paid for the program (license), and without the permission of Adobe, and I use that product, benefit from it, is that not a form stealing? Not a form of theft?
[/b]
No and no, it is neither theft nor stealing.
What is it then?
What exactly is copyright infringment?
[/b]
It is (probably) a violation of copyright laws. Copyright infringement is something one company does to another company (assuming that I have translated it correctly) when they *sell* stuff that is copyright-protected by the first company.
Does our definition really matter, or do you just like splitting hairs?
Bottom line: If caught and convicted under present copyright laws, one will have to pay.
[/b]
Well, I tend to object to the "dumbification" of the legal system, where complicated laws and rules are dumbed down in an effort to explain some situation. It is wrong, it leads to the wrong conclusions, and more importantly, it will give some people a completely faulty picture of what the law is and how it works.
For example, theft and stealing is the same thing. Theft is just one method to steal something. There are several ways to steal stuff, you can pick someones pocked, you can break into their house and steal their stuff, or you can sneak around on the beach and take stuff from ppl who are in the water or whatever. Pickpocketing, burglary, theft...all these are forms of stealing.
Then you have other methods of stealing, like you can pull a gun out and threaten someone instead of picking their pocket. That is no longer stealing however, that is robbery. And although any robbery must contain an element of stealing for it to be considered as a robbery, the crime of stealing is consumed by the greater crime of robbery.
blah blah blah, you get the point.
Problem is that if you are convicted of stealing, the law will give a list of possible punishments. Here in Sweden, the punishment for stealing something "normal" prison 14 days to 2 years, depending on what you stole and how, how many times you've done it before etc.
For copyright violation the penalty is a fine.
So in other words, the law tends to see more lightly on copyright violations than on stealing.
LOL, for those that wish to, keep downloading to your heart's content. Just don't whine and cry if you get caught.
[/b]
Have you heard anyone whine like that here?
Oh BTW Hortlund, I'm not a cop. If I were it would not be my job to determine if someone was violating copyright laws. That job goes to the judge residing over that case.
Well, the cops in Sweden at least, are given some very very detailed instructions on what the law is and what is considered a crime or not.
-
So Hortlund,
Is this a form of theft or stealing? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90108)
If not, why was he fined and jailed?
It is (probably) a violation of copyright laws. Copyright infringement is something one company does to another company (assuming that I have translated it correctly) when they *sell* stuff that is copyright-protected by the first company.
Here is a link to a more thorough explaination of US Copyright laws including infringement:
US Copyright Laws (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/)
So if I get a bootleg copy of Photoshop (downloaded file, or cd copy) while have never paid for the program (license), and without the permission of Adobe, and I use that product, benefit from it, is that not a form stealing? Not a form of theft?
No and no, it is neither theft nor stealing.
My bet is that the people at Adobe would disagree with you.
Is piracy a form of theft or robbery?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Is piracy a form of theft or robbery?
So if I have a friend out in California, and he wants to download a song from me cause he plays guitar and wants to listen to the song to learn the chords........that's piracy?
No, it is not.
-
Another one for you Hortlund:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/piracy.html (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/piracy.html)
-
Are you thick Saburo?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So if I have a friend out in California, and he wants to download a song from me cause he plays guitar and wants to listen to the song to learn the chords........that's piracy?
No, it is not.
Do you own the copyright of that song? Then no, it is not an infringement nor is it a form of piracy if you give him your permission.
If you don't own the copyright then that copyright infringement (per present US Copyright laws) can be interpreted as a form of piracy (or theft, etc.).
I'll put it to you this way. Let's say your friend wants a copy of a particular song that belongs to someone else. Let's also say he doesn't have access to get that song other than to purchase it from a commercial source. Therefore it can be argued by the copyright owner of that song that the copyright owner suffered a real financial loss in that particular case. You may not like it but that is how it has been, is presently being, and will be argued legally under the present US Copyright Laws. Because you happen to think otherwise does not make it otherwise so.
I did not make up the copyright laws. I just understand them.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Are you thick Saburo?
Almost as much as you :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So Hortlund,
Is this a form of theft or stealing? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90108)
If not, why was he fined and jailed?
[/b]
Do you realize that there are other crimes than "theft or stealing"?
Steven Frazier, 28, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a scheme to manufacture and sell devices to decode satellite TV signals and allow people to get premium service for free.
Does that sound like stealing to you?
My bet is that the people at Adobe would disagree with you.
Is piracy a form of theft or robbery?
Well, gee there is a surprise...
Software piracy is not a form of theft or robbery, it is a form of copyright violation.
-
lol, I understand them enough to know what I mentioned is not not piracy.
-
Hortlund,
You're missing the forest for the trees.
So I take it that the word "piracy" has no connection to any form of theft or robbery if you happen to put it directly after the word "software" :rolleyes:
What in the word do you think copyright laws exist in the first place? Maybe, just maybe to protect from a form of theft?
To maybe, just maybe to protect from financial losses?
Copyright Infringement is not the same as:
1) Armed robbery
2) Mugging someone.
3) Breaking and entering
4) Etc (add you own example)
I never said it was.
I did however say and still do imply it as being a form of theft. Under US Copyright Laws.
As they are being argued in US Courts.
Who's being the THICK one?
Are you this anal retentive in real life or are you just making an exception here?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Hortlund,
You're missing the forest for the trees.
So I take it that the word "piracy" has no connection to any form of theft or robbery if you happen to put it directly after the word "software"
Are you this anal retentive in real life or are you just making an exception here?
I think Hortlands point is that the word (begin Doctor Evil quotes) piracy (end Doctor Evil quotes) doesn't actually appear after the word (begin Doctor Evil quotes) software (end Doctor Evil quotes)
in any countries copyright law.
As for anal retentive, I'd put $5 on the table that your turds look like nylon fishing line :)
Now heres a conundrum for your Saburo. If I (begin Doctor Evil quotes) download (end Doctor Evil quotes) software designed to (begin Doctor Evil quotes) copy (end Doctor Evil quotes) software and DVDs does one cancel out there other and make it right? For example if its illegal to sell software that circumvents the DVD protection such as Xcopy Express does that make downloading it legal ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I think Hortlands point is that the word (begin Doctor Evil quotes) piracy (end Doctor Evil quotes) doesn't actually appear after the word (begin Doctor Evil quotes) software (end Doctor Evil quotes)
in any countries copyright law.
Did I make up the words "software piracy"?
What exactly do you think Software piracy means?
Bottomline is this: Why is a copyright neccessary for "intellectual" property? Laws to protect copyright ownership?
Now heres a conundrum for your Saburo. If I (begin Doctor Evil quotes) download (end Doctor Evil quotes) software designed to (begin Doctor Evil quotes) copy (end Doctor Evil quotes) software and DVDs does one cancel out there other and make it right? For example if its illegal to sell software that circumvents the DVD protection such as Xcopy Express does that make downloading it legal ;)
No conundrum at all. I actually understand copyrights and their application. My answer has already been given. Look at my previous posts.
BTW it is not illegal to use a software that allows one to make a copy of a copyrighted product. For example, if you actually bought a music DVD and wanted to make and keep a backup copy in case something happens to the original you bought, that is okay and legal.
How long are we going to go around in circles on this issue?
Out of respect for you and others, I have been trying to answer and help you understand the real issue at hand. I have been basically repeating myself. If you don't get it by now, nothing I type here will convince you otherwise.
If you truly want to know the "big picture," try consulting your local councellors that actually specialize in copyright laws.
Try avoiding those "specialists" in Sweden though, apparantly they have a different interpretaion ;) (Just kidding Hortlund! :D )
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Did I make up the words "software piracy"?
What exactly do you think Software piracy means?
Bottomline is this: Why is a copyright neccessary for "intellectual" property? Laws to protect copyright ownership?
No conundrum at all. I actually understand copyrights and their application. My answer has already been given. Look at my previous posts.
BTW it is not illegal to use a software that allows one to make a copy of a copyrighted product. For example, if you actually bought a music DVD and wanted to make and keep a backup copy in case something happens to the original you bought, that is okay and legal.
Ummm I repeat, the words software piracy do not appear in any laws I know of... so I was referring to this statement:
So I take it that the word "piracy" has no connection to any form of theft or robbery if you happen to put it directly after the word "software"
BTW, it is not necessarily LEGAL to use "a software" that allows one to make a copy of a copyrighted product. Well, in the USA at least (and several other countries are about to follow suit).
I thought you said you knew about these laws and the (begin Doctor Evil quotes) Big Picture (end Doctor Evil quotes)? If you're confused lookup the software I referenced on google and the word DMCA.
The only councilling needed here requires tying you down and involves excessive use of boobies!
:)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ummm I repeat, the words software piracy do not appear in any laws I know of... so I was referring to this statement:
So I take it that the word "piracy" has no connection to any form of theft or robbery if you happen to put it directly after the word "software"
BTW, it is not necessarily LEGAL to use "a software" that allows one to make a copy of a copyrighted product. Well, in the USA at least (and several other countries are about to follow suit).
I thought you said you knew about these laws and the (begin Doctor Evil quotes) Big Picture (end Doctor Evil quotes)? If you're confused lookup the software I referenced on google and the word DMCA.
Ouch with your (Doctor Evil quotes)! :D I should have paid more attn. ;)
The only councilling needed here requires tying you down and involves excessive use of boobies!
:) [/QUOTE]
Well if your wet tshirt pics are the sample of the one administering the "'excessive use of boobies" then tie me down! :D
-
is it still safe to use Kaaza lite even if im not sharing files?
-
Ike, Yes.