wolfman
08-01-2003, 09:01 PM
This is a lost cause trying to sue people,especially kids, :x
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Legal Issues Not a Concern for File Swappers
Baddog
08-01-2003, 09:21 PM
Parents are responsible for there children's actions.:eek:
Dracas
08-02-2003, 01:41 AM
Thats why I keep saying they should let people under a certain age and tax bracket free access to music while people in a broader age and tax bracket should pay either service fees, or buy CD's.
Gimme a break, kids (like Me) didn't have $20 for a new cd, my parents didn't GIVE me an allowance, so I was SOL.
Maybe I should draft a bill and send it to a local rep
Gimme a break, kids (like Me) didn't have $20 for a new cd, my parents didn't GIVE me an allowance, so I was SOL.
Maybe I should draft a bill and send it to a local rep
EvilEdwin
08-02-2003, 05:53 AM
How can they actually prove if your've swapped music? Say you wipe your hard drive. Do the file sharing programs keep records? Does the industry monitor these programs? Seems to me if you don't have the evidence, you don't have a case.
Dracas
08-02-2003, 06:25 AM
Its easy.
You pay for an account through an ISP, through a Carrier, you have an IP address that is logged on a massive routing access table with your ISP.
RIAA has been demanding the names and addresses of people at a given IP address (considering its really easy to get an IP and Host mask off of KaZaa, Morpheus, etc..) from carriers like Cox.net, Roadrunner, Time Warner, etc..
They simply hand over your name, your account as well as port-usage information ,all of which is conveniently kept (sometimes, during a debug run of a server) in a logfile with your ISP.
As a matter of fact, if you knew how to 'pretend' well enough, you could get the home address, telephone numbers, and probably the police record of anyone on the internet.
So much for secure anonymity.
You pay for an account through an ISP, through a Carrier, you have an IP address that is logged on a massive routing access table with your ISP.
RIAA has been demanding the names and addresses of people at a given IP address (considering its really easy to get an IP and Host mask off of KaZaa, Morpheus, etc..) from carriers like Cox.net, Roadrunner, Time Warner, etc..
They simply hand over your name, your account as well as port-usage information ,all of which is conveniently kept (sometimes, during a debug run of a server) in a logfile with your ISP.
As a matter of fact, if you knew how to 'pretend' well enough, you could get the home address, telephone numbers, and probably the police record of anyone on the internet.
So much for secure anonymity.
EvilEdwin
08-02-2003, 08:27 AM
Another thing, apart from obviously making a statement, why is the music industry going after individuals rather then the developers of the file-sharing software? After all a precedent all ready exists with Napster. If they could shut down these developers then it would solve the problem. I know through Kazaa and such you can get more the just music, but I suspect music is what is downloaded the most.
Dracas
08-02-2003, 08:42 AM
Its more profitable for the RIAA right now to go after the mass of individual users.
Literally.
Its all a money game for them, they don't care about music, their overcompensating, while CD sales dwindle with rising prices.
I have no fricken clue whats going through their heads really
Literally.
Its all a money game for them, they don't care about music, their overcompensating, while CD sales dwindle with rising prices.
I have no fricken clue whats going through their heads really
Yoshi
08-04-2003, 06:59 AM
Kazaa is located outside the US, the RIAA has no jurestiction to go after Kazaa
CompGeek01
08-04-2003, 03:07 PM
Kazaa isn't centralized though....the company (or persons) who created Kazaa aren't really liable for what the users do, I don't think..maybe to a certain extent..
-B
-B
Avor
08-04-2003, 05:31 PM
Why not go after individuals? They've tried going after the software developers (Napster). When they were shut down, more just sprang up. Who says it's not going to happen again?
It seems to me they got fed up with it, and decided that going after individuals is going to slow down, or stop, file sharing.
Heck, if I were in no danger of getting prosecuted, why should I care if the developers are getting shut down? It doesn't hurt me at all.
The users are being somewhat threatened now - and most "rogues" on the net really don't have the balls to stay around and fight.
If you don't have money to pay for something, it still doesn't make stealing right :) Go get a job, or go house to house asking for odd jobs. I did that when I was 12, and it worked fine!
It seems to me they got fed up with it, and decided that going after individuals is going to slow down, or stop, file sharing.
Heck, if I were in no danger of getting prosecuted, why should I care if the developers are getting shut down? It doesn't hurt me at all.
The users are being somewhat threatened now - and most "rogues" on the net really don't have the balls to stay around and fight.
If you don't have money to pay for something, it still doesn't make stealing right :) Go get a job, or go house to house asking for odd jobs. I did that when I was 12, and it worked fine!
oboeman2002
08-05-2003, 03:45 AM
so ....since i use winmx..should i delete the whole program..so that i will not be caught?
Kandar
08-05-2003, 06:36 AM
Most people who download music would never dream of walking into a shop and stealing a CD off the shelf, yet that is effectively what they are do each time they download a copyrighted piece of material. The internet has made theft an easy, acceptable and faceless past time.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s when home tape recorders were becoming standard equipment in the home, there was a big panic about home recording and how it was killing music.
In those days you either paid for the genuine product or you had to make do with a poor quality reproduction taken from a poor quality analogue source.
Today the level of technology available to Mr average Joe is such that digital media can be digitally reproduced in the home without any degradation of sound quality.
MP3 compression coupled with the mass availability of DSL/ADSL internet connections has transformed the way people think. Almost overnight and before the music business knew what had hit them they found themselves running hard just to stay in the race.
Record companies have been able to overcharge for their products for so long because there was no alternative. But now they are in the middle of a backlash and people are now reluctant to pay for what they can get for free.
You can find and download the tune you want in less time than it takes to put your shoes on.
The cat is out of the bag now and there is no way it is going to go back in. The sooner the music industry realises this and stops wasting its time and money on developing copy protection that is cracked before it's even on the shelves and actually lowers the price of CDs, the better it will be for everyone.
People don't mind paying for a quality product but they don't like being ripped off any more than the music business does.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s when home tape recorders were becoming standard equipment in the home, there was a big panic about home recording and how it was killing music.
In those days you either paid for the genuine product or you had to make do with a poor quality reproduction taken from a poor quality analogue source.
Today the level of technology available to Mr average Joe is such that digital media can be digitally reproduced in the home without any degradation of sound quality.
MP3 compression coupled with the mass availability of DSL/ADSL internet connections has transformed the way people think. Almost overnight and before the music business knew what had hit them they found themselves running hard just to stay in the race.
Record companies have been able to overcharge for their products for so long because there was no alternative. But now they are in the middle of a backlash and people are now reluctant to pay for what they can get for free.
You can find and download the tune you want in less time than it takes to put your shoes on.
The cat is out of the bag now and there is no way it is going to go back in. The sooner the music industry realises this and stops wasting its time and money on developing copy protection that is cracked before it's even on the shelves and actually lowers the price of CDs, the better it will be for everyone.
People don't mind paying for a quality product but they don't like being ripped off any more than the music business does.
Dracas
08-05-2003, 06:49 AM
Whats funny is that this is like big business.
People were mad at monopolies because it killed the small businesses, so rather than impose liability on the small businesses, they launched an assault on Big Business to prevent them from squelching the little guys.
Now, people are mad at RIAA because its killing and suffocating small home bands, and now that these bands have a free outlet (online, and P2P) of expression, RIAA is losing control of its customers and coincidentally - future artists. But rather than imposing standards on RIAA and making a solution, the governments happy to let them pillage and plunder after years of (pretty much tyrannically hiked) CD sales.
Even established artists have taken advantage of P2P, and MP3.com as well, RIAA's trying desperately now to coat their pockets before the inevitable occurs, and 'too far' really does go too far and there'll be no place left for labels.
Welcome to the Underground. Where freedom of expression is worldwide and loud. Its kind of funny too, being a music artist will inevitably fall back on what it was to begin with, a few random minstrels plucking a lute to amuse a small crowd because they enjoyed the music and the admiration of a few fans, rather than fame and money to go out 'pimpin' with.
Live it up people, make the most of the new, because the old is on its way out no matter what ANYONE does. Even the government, because if they get involved, people will complain they're both violating international jurisdiction treatise, and also trying to massively censure entertainment (heck, they already do).
Anywho, welcome to Sysopt Kandar, if you click the "Forums" link at left, you'll find a whole host of threads and topics about everything from stuff like this to how to fix your computer, enjoy and happy posting :t
People were mad at monopolies because it killed the small businesses, so rather than impose liability on the small businesses, they launched an assault on Big Business to prevent them from squelching the little guys.
Now, people are mad at RIAA because its killing and suffocating small home bands, and now that these bands have a free outlet (online, and P2P) of expression, RIAA is losing control of its customers and coincidentally - future artists. But rather than imposing standards on RIAA and making a solution, the governments happy to let them pillage and plunder after years of (pretty much tyrannically hiked) CD sales.
Even established artists have taken advantage of P2P, and MP3.com as well, RIAA's trying desperately now to coat their pockets before the inevitable occurs, and 'too far' really does go too far and there'll be no place left for labels.
Welcome to the Underground. Where freedom of expression is worldwide and loud. Its kind of funny too, being a music artist will inevitably fall back on what it was to begin with, a few random minstrels plucking a lute to amuse a small crowd because they enjoyed the music and the admiration of a few fans, rather than fame and money to go out 'pimpin' with.
Live it up people, make the most of the new, because the old is on its way out no matter what ANYONE does. Even the government, because if they get involved, people will complain they're both violating international jurisdiction treatise, and also trying to massively censure entertainment (heck, they already do).
Anywho, welcome to Sysopt Kandar, if you click the "Forums" link at left, you'll find a whole host of threads and topics about everything from stuff like this to how to fix your computer, enjoy and happy posting :t
Seitou
08-06-2003, 05:05 PM
The part i dont understand is this, the RIAA can get the logfiles off all the isps they want, and that may prove you have been using some p2p software, But that doesnt prove anything other than the fact that you use it. P2p software can be used perfectly legally, There are lots of budding artists out there that just want to be heard, and if i use some p2p software to download their music it seems the RIAA thinks it can take me to court over that too. They cant prove i used my p2p software to do anything illegal from what they get off the ISPs.
As for the person who asked why they are going after the individual user instead of the developers, the very same reason applies, P2p software can be used perfectly legally. You are the one stealing the music... The developer should not be held responsible for what you do. If i make you a baseball bat, and you use it to break someones legs, is it my fault?? (maybe not the best example, but it'll do :)
As for the person who asked why they are going after the individual user instead of the developers, the very same reason applies, P2p software can be used perfectly legally. You are the one stealing the music... The developer should not be held responsible for what you do. If i make you a baseball bat, and you use it to break someones legs, is it my fault?? (maybe not the best example, but it'll do :)
Kandar
08-06-2003, 05:13 PM
Dead right.
If you get knocked down by a car, you don't go trying to prosecute Ford for making it do you?!
If you get knocked down by a car, you don't go trying to prosecute Ford for making it do you?!
Seitou
08-06-2003, 05:18 PM
lol Kandar, Your example is way better than mine. Why didnt i think of that. :confused:
.... a car.... I must remember that one...
.... a car.... I must remember that one...
Baddog
08-06-2003, 05:38 PM
Yes, but people that are geting shot with guns are trying to sue gunmakers.
Seitou
08-06-2003, 05:43 PM
That is very true, and i dont believe the people make the guns are at fault with that either. And maybe that makes me sound like an ******* but they didnt shoot the person. Its not their fault.
The only thing i can think of to help that situation is to regulate the guns better. if you cant get a gun you cant shoot someone. But then again there are legitimate reasons for having guns too. So its a difficult issue.
The only thing i can think of to help that situation is to regulate the guns better. if you cant get a gun you cant shoot someone. But then again there are legitimate reasons for having guns too. So its a difficult issue.
sanity
08-06-2003, 06:26 PM
Criminals can always get guns... regulation only keeps law-abiding citizens from getting guns.
Keep the government out of as much as possible. Guns, cars, and computers.
Be consistent in your desire for freedom.
The debate over digital copyright, fair use, file sharing, is all analogous to other areas where the government infringes on your rights. Computer people often only care about the technical ramifications, and don't care about other freedoms... such as the freedom to eat at McDonald's without signing a waiver.
Which are you? A rational human, or a hypocritical hippie?
Keep the government out of as much as possible. Guns, cars, and computers.
Be consistent in your desire for freedom.
The debate over digital copyright, fair use, file sharing, is all analogous to other areas where the government infringes on your rights. Computer people often only care about the technical ramifications, and don't care about other freedoms... such as the freedom to eat at McDonald's without signing a waiver.
Which are you? A rational human, or a hypocritical hippie?
Seitou
08-06-2003, 06:46 PM
Total freedom, as in no law, no control, is anarchy, Which is a great idea, in principle. you have the freedom to do what you want. so you're happy, Untill someone kills you because thats what they want.
Is that what you want ? How much freedom is too much?
People here want the freedom to share their music, but i doubt they would like everyone to have to freedom to murder who they wanted. Its a line that each person makes up for themselves, and it usually doesnt go exactly along the lines of the goverment. But you cant please everyone.
Dont get me wrong here, I would love to have the freedom to do everything i wanted. but the problem is there are millions of people who wouldnt want me to do everything i want to do, and probably rightly so because it may just end up hurting them, even if thats not what i intended.
Is that what you want ? How much freedom is too much?
People here want the freedom to share their music, but i doubt they would like everyone to have to freedom to murder who they wanted. Its a line that each person makes up for themselves, and it usually doesnt go exactly along the lines of the goverment. But you cant please everyone.
Dont get me wrong here, I would love to have the freedom to do everything i wanted. but the problem is there are millions of people who wouldnt want me to do everything i want to do, and probably rightly so because it may just end up hurting them, even if thats not what i intended.
Dracas
08-06-2003, 07:08 PM
Or sueing mcDonalds because they made food you ate and you're getting fat because of it.
Oh wait, they do that
Or Sueing Mick-D's because you spilt hot coffee, something that is applicably hot, in your lap due to your own negligence.
Oh wait, they do that too
Or Sueing some people you were trying to rob because they 'assaulted' you after you broke into their house.
Ah ****, they do that one too.
Welcome to the world of Hypocracy! The United States of Hilarity! Where individual responsibility doesn't exist and you can sue alcohol distributors because you choose to drink alcohol and just managed to crack your head open passing out from it!
*gasp!* Those naughty Alcohol people is trying to kill us! Sue! Sue!
Take some f*cking Responsibility I say.
Stupid people anyhow :rolleyes: :D
Oh wait, they do that
Or Sueing Mick-D's because you spilt hot coffee, something that is applicably hot, in your lap due to your own negligence.
Oh wait, they do that too
Or Sueing some people you were trying to rob because they 'assaulted' you after you broke into their house.
Ah ****, they do that one too.
Welcome to the world of Hypocracy! The United States of Hilarity! Where individual responsibility doesn't exist and you can sue alcohol distributors because you choose to drink alcohol and just managed to crack your head open passing out from it!
*gasp!* Those naughty Alcohol people is trying to kill us! Sue! Sue!
Take some f*cking Responsibility I say.
Stupid people anyhow :rolleyes: :D
Seitou
08-06-2003, 07:25 PM
My pesonal favourite had to be the guy who got himself stuck in the garage after robbing the house, and had to survive on dog food and pepsi for 2 weeks.
I think he got a few hundred thousand for his hardship. :)
I think he got a few hundred thousand for his hardship. :)
Dracas
08-06-2003, 07:38 PM
Seriously?
You know, I recently actually drew up a "reasonable rights and responsibility" accord, I think I'll send it to my dad and see if he can toss his weight around some about getting it into motion, he knows more about this stuff then I do.
It simply calls for people to exercise reasonable responsibility when approaching 'common knowledge' or 'excessively abusing judiciary and legal rights' say like, suspending your right to - oh, say sue someone after they kicked your @ss for breaking into their house.
Thats BS.
I might post this all on the community eventually lol, working out bugs and loopholes that could be taken advantage of
You know, I recently actually drew up a "reasonable rights and responsibility" accord, I think I'll send it to my dad and see if he can toss his weight around some about getting it into motion, he knows more about this stuff then I do.
It simply calls for people to exercise reasonable responsibility when approaching 'common knowledge' or 'excessively abusing judiciary and legal rights' say like, suspending your right to - oh, say sue someone after they kicked your @ss for breaking into their house.
Thats BS.
I might post this all on the community eventually lol, working out bugs and loopholes that could be taken advantage of
Seitou
08-06-2003, 07:53 PM
Its something thats seriously needed. But as with all things, there will be loop holes. people wont be held resposible with their actions.
one of the main problems is that asking people to excercise responsibility in making a decision leaves it way to open to interpretation. and again we are back to the free will thing. People are corruptable.
I wonder how much it would take a judge to decide that it was an acceptable claim? im sure $20000 bonus would make him think twice.
one of the main problems is that asking people to excercise responsibility in making a decision leaves it way to open to interpretation. and again we are back to the free will thing. People are corruptable.
I wonder how much it would take a judge to decide that it was an acceptable claim? im sure $20000 bonus would make him think twice.
sanity
08-06-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Seitou
Total freedom, as in no law, no control, is anarchy, Which is a great idea, in principle. you have the freedom to do what you want. so you're happy, Untill someone kills you because thats what they want.
Is that what you want ? How much freedom is too much?
There are plenty of freedoms being infringed-upon which do not harm others. As I said, government should be absent "as much as possible." That does not mean anarchy.
Originally posted by Seitou
Dont get me wrong here, I would love to have the freedom to do everything i wanted. but the problem is there are millions of people who wouldnt want me to do everything i want to do, and probably rightly so because it may just end up hurting them, even if thats not what i intended.
You are purposefully blending two distinct ideas. Less government is not equal to zero government.
So: I do not want the government to allow stealing, but I also do not want the government to disallow "fair use," "file sharing," and I sure as hell don't want government regulations on hardware and software that prevent the consumer from doing _legal_ activities. As everyone knows (but sometimes forget) the issue is always the "happy medium." In the case of DMCA, RIAA, etc., any "solution" that includes shutting down legitimate services such as file sharing is lop-sided and unsatisfactory--NOT a happy medium. Attacking the invididual consumers is the _best_ thing you can ask for. It uses existing laws (no new laws), and it allows the legitimate file sharing service to continue. Unless you want DMCA and other fun things analogous to spyware and V-chip madated by the government.
I see nothing wrong with attacking the individual consumers, if they broke a copyright law and went _beyond_ fair use.
Total freedom, as in no law, no control, is anarchy, Which is a great idea, in principle. you have the freedom to do what you want. so you're happy, Untill someone kills you because thats what they want.
Is that what you want ? How much freedom is too much?
There are plenty of freedoms being infringed-upon which do not harm others. As I said, government should be absent "as much as possible." That does not mean anarchy.
Originally posted by Seitou
Dont get me wrong here, I would love to have the freedom to do everything i wanted. but the problem is there are millions of people who wouldnt want me to do everything i want to do, and probably rightly so because it may just end up hurting them, even if thats not what i intended.
You are purposefully blending two distinct ideas. Less government is not equal to zero government.
So: I do not want the government to allow stealing, but I also do not want the government to disallow "fair use," "file sharing," and I sure as hell don't want government regulations on hardware and software that prevent the consumer from doing _legal_ activities. As everyone knows (but sometimes forget) the issue is always the "happy medium." In the case of DMCA, RIAA, etc., any "solution" that includes shutting down legitimate services such as file sharing is lop-sided and unsatisfactory--NOT a happy medium. Attacking the invididual consumers is the _best_ thing you can ask for. It uses existing laws (no new laws), and it allows the legitimate file sharing service to continue. Unless you want DMCA and other fun things analogous to spyware and V-chip madated by the government.
I see nothing wrong with attacking the individual consumers, if they broke a copyright law and went _beyond_ fair use.
Seitou
08-06-2003, 08:22 PM
Ok, Maybe i exagerated a bit saying you are calling for anarchy, but my point still stand about where we draw the line, you say they should be absent as much as possible from computers, guns and cars, and i would love that too, but take for example the goverment relaxes on speeding laws for cars, This generally lead to more road deaths. The idea of the government is to try and get the happy medium. it may not work that way, i know for sure the government over here (ireland) is corrupt as hell, but the point is to try and find the happy medium.
as for your second point. I completely agree with you. I dont want the government to impose regulations on hardware or software that prevent us doing legal file sharing. that would definitly be infringing on our freedom. and that would just be an example of the corrupt government bending to the will of the big companies.
I really believe in the happy medium too, but since im only human, i will probably never be happy, until its my happy medium. :)
as for your second point. I completely agree with you. I dont want the government to impose regulations on hardware or software that prevent us doing legal file sharing. that would definitly be infringing on our freedom. and that would just be an example of the corrupt government bending to the will of the big companies.
I really believe in the happy medium too, but since im only human, i will probably never be happy, until its my happy medium. :)
Dracas
08-06-2003, 08:29 PM
Well, believe it or not, the right to impose change on the government was the single and most important right as stated in the preamble to the constitution, as a matter of fact, it was put in the preamble so that it would be seen first and foremost among the rights of the citizens of these united states.
Its also the first thing the 'neogovernment' deemed 'anarchy' and made illegal, but it wasn't condoning anarchy, simply direct involvement of the people in the system so it wouldn't become corrupt, back then however, they didn't seem to think the country would grow to the population it did today, and 'certain unalienable rights' were simply made obsolete on a whim.
Its corrupt, exactly what our founding fathers were trying to prevent, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to our government.
Its outta hand, and now that people here in CA are finally exercising their rights (Re: Grey Davis Recall) these people go to court and try to overthrow the voice of the people by either a court appeal or an executive order.
I'm sorry, but did they happen to forget that the government only exists because the people agree to have them take care of this stuff, or is it its own little operating system now (independent of public appeal?)
When the h*ll'd that happen?
Its also the first thing the 'neogovernment' deemed 'anarchy' and made illegal, but it wasn't condoning anarchy, simply direct involvement of the people in the system so it wouldn't become corrupt, back then however, they didn't seem to think the country would grow to the population it did today, and 'certain unalienable rights' were simply made obsolete on a whim.
Its corrupt, exactly what our founding fathers were trying to prevent, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to our government.
Its outta hand, and now that people here in CA are finally exercising their rights (Re: Grey Davis Recall) these people go to court and try to overthrow the voice of the people by either a court appeal or an executive order.
I'm sorry, but did they happen to forget that the government only exists because the people agree to have them take care of this stuff, or is it its own little operating system now (independent of public appeal?)
When the h*ll'd that happen?
dkabk
08-06-2003, 09:42 PM
The RIAA needs to realize where the money comes from. Stop overcharging for CD's and such.Find alternatives ,and try to survive in the free market,with out raping the public. IF WE ALL GO AWAY WHAT WILL YOU DO!!!:) :) :)
mr_hops
08-07-2003, 12:37 AM
to answer the question "how do they know what i had on my machine" here is the process RIAA is using.
1.the have people log on as users
2. they do a search for a copyrighted artist
3. if found they (in the case of winmx) browse the users computer for shared files. they download some. during the download they get the ip.
4. they KNOW what you had on your machine because most p2p software lets
people who download from you see all the files in your SHARED directory.
5. they also get the "user name" on winmx or kazaa
1.the have people log on as users
2. they do a search for a copyrighted artist
3. if found they (in the case of winmx) browse the users computer for shared files. they download some. during the download they get the ip.
4. they KNOW what you had on your machine because most p2p software lets
people who download from you see all the files in your SHARED directory.
5. they also get the "user name" on winmx or kazaa
ramuno
08-07-2003, 01:08 AM
Kandar is correct, it is much like when VCRs were coming into usage. The studios were worried that no one would go to the movies or watch commercials anymore. When they realized that technology was changing viewing habits, they ended up getting congress to put a fee on every blank tape sold. They got that and at the same time the tape rental industry was born. That was not something they anticipated.
Now the recording industry (same studios as before) are frightened again. They should get a small fee for every blank CD purchased and let the market evolve.
Many people end up buying the CD that they sampled from file sharing. Even with album prices so high, there has been an increase in sales through all of this. If they get the price point right, most won't bother to find, download and then burn their music, they will just buy it.
It's just like people buying DVD movies rather than taping them off HBO.
Now the recording industry (same studios as before) are frightened again. They should get a small fee for every blank CD purchased and let the market evolve.
Many people end up buying the CD that they sampled from file sharing. Even with album prices so high, there has been an increase in sales through all of this. If they get the price point right, most won't bother to find, download and then burn their music, they will just buy it.
It's just like people buying DVD movies rather than taping them off HBO.
Kandar
08-07-2003, 04:45 AM
Actually there is a levy charge built into the price of Blank CD's already to offset any loss incurred by piracy.
The music industry is just being greedy; they are already propped up by a stealth tax. They want their cake and eat it too.
If you own the copyright and you use professional studio equipment you can take advantage of the untaxed blank CD's that won’t work in standard CD writers.
However the equipment is rather expensive and the last time I checked it only burns in real time.
The music industry is just being greedy; they are already propped up by a stealth tax. They want their cake and eat it too.
If you own the copyright and you use professional studio equipment you can take advantage of the untaxed blank CD's that won’t work in standard CD writers.
However the equipment is rather expensive and the last time I checked it only burns in real time.
Baddog
08-07-2003, 07:50 AM
A woman goes into a lawyer's office and says, "I heard people have sued the tobacco companies for giving them lung cancer and people have sued McDonalds for making them fat."
The lawyer says, "Yes that's true".
The woman says, "Well I'm interested in suing too".
The lawyer says, "O.K. - McDonalds or the tobacco companies?"
The woman says "Neither, I'm suing Budweiser for all the ugly people I've slept with."
The lawyer says, "Yes that's true".
The woman says, "Well I'm interested in suing too".
The lawyer says, "O.K. - McDonalds or the tobacco companies?"
The woman says "Neither, I'm suing Budweiser for all the ugly people I've slept with."
Kandar
08-07-2003, 08:31 AM
Bud has such a low alcohol percentage in the U.S.
How would anyone get drunk on the stuff? ;)
You'd have to have a whole brewery to yourself.
How would anyone get drunk on the stuff? ;)
You'd have to have a whole brewery to yourself.
Baddog
08-07-2003, 10:33 AM
We buy by the keg. LOL:D
kdoggmdf
08-07-2003, 02:16 PM
All that this whole thing with sueing and all is about is money. Thats all it ever comes down too. Greedy bastards whom want money. The RIAA isnt sueing becuase they want to HELP artists. They are sueing becuase they want MORE money and their BILLIONS they get each year has dropped by one or two from 13 or so! BIG deal! All this is is greed. The main reason the money is dropping anyways is because CDs are way overpriced and people usually dont want EVERY SONG on a cd. They just want a few. PLus, CDs are now being copy-protected and working in less and less hardware because of it. All that the RIAA wants is more and more money. Sueing file-sharers is bullsh*t and they know it and so does everyone else. What they NEED to do is get their act together and lower the price of a CD to 5-10 dollars and OFFER SONG DOWNLOADS FOR LIKE .25C ONLINE! They would be richer than ever if they did.
Kandar
08-07-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Baddog
We buy by the keg. LOL:D
Yes, but do drink by the keg:)
We buy by the keg. LOL:D
Yes, but do drink by the keg:)
oboeman2002
08-07-2003, 09:40 PM
so should i delet winmx to not get caught?
kdoggmdf
08-07-2003, 09:50 PM
No, you dont need to delete WinMX. Just dont share any files. They arent going after downloaders right now. Uploaders is what they want. Screw them, I say. I say dont use WinMX or Kazaa or any of that ****. Get something they wont find you in. Like mIRC or Direct Connect. (Mirc - www.mirc.com, Direct Connect - www.neo-modus.com) Thats what I use and I know that they arent searching those right now. Even if they begin to on those, use ShareReactor. (www.sharereactor.com) Thats almost failsafe.
Dracas
08-07-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Kandar
Yes, but do drink by the keg:)
Sure, with the help of my handy-dandy college-frat certified Beer-Bong :D
Yes, but do drink by the keg:)
Sure, with the help of my handy-dandy college-frat certified Beer-Bong :D
oboeman2002
08-08-2003, 05:06 PM
so which one should i dl kdogmdf? which is the best?
kdoggmdf
08-10-2003, 10:16 AM
Well, I reccomend the most being mIRC but it takes a while to get used to it because of the commands. All mIRC is is a chat client that runs on IRC chats but it can amass any file you could want. If you want to take the time to learn how to use it (prob. 2-3hrs), then that is best but if not that then download Direct Connect. Its best for movies. Shareaza is best for music.
fizur2002
08-11-2003, 03:48 PM
The people they should be going after should not be the people who download and mass share the songs or files, but those people who download them, but a CD and sell it at a cheaper price, that is where the music industry is losing money, its lose people who burn CDs with downloaded music and selling them for a cheap price, that is what i consider piracy those are the people that should be sued, not those who just get them to listen to because normal CDs are too **** expensive to afford on a normal budget, especially children who get a meager allowance and have now way to purchase it, let alone go and get it from the store.
Mm9004
08-11-2003, 10:18 PM
Accually, It's not far-fetched at all:
A woman that got shot with a gun by a criminal compleetly forgot about the guy and succesfully sued a bullet-manufactioring company and recived a sizeable cash remedy.
I could name other cases too and I'm sure the car thing has happened, but you get the idea.
Stuff like that happens all the time, but there are so many P2P users out there that it's safe to say that unless it's a full-time thing for you, you're not going to court.
But really, that's the only thing that separates you from the law, numbers.
I don't accually use P2P myself, I used to, but not anymore.
I'm convenced that if tomarrow, the government came up with a way to get rid of that stuff forever, then the average music CD would cost $5-$10. So much for the "I can't afford it" excuse. Because theft is the reason they can't afford it.
A woman that got shot with a gun by a criminal compleetly forgot about the guy and succesfully sued a bullet-manufactioring company and recived a sizeable cash remedy.
I could name other cases too and I'm sure the car thing has happened, but you get the idea.
Stuff like that happens all the time, but there are so many P2P users out there that it's safe to say that unless it's a full-time thing for you, you're not going to court.
But really, that's the only thing that separates you from the law, numbers.
I don't accually use P2P myself, I used to, but not anymore.
I'm convenced that if tomarrow, the government came up with a way to get rid of that stuff forever, then the average music CD would cost $5-$10. So much for the "I can't afford it" excuse. Because theft is the reason they can't afford it.
kdoggmdf
08-11-2003, 10:39 PM
I think that the only way to fix the RIAAs probelm is for them to stop trying to kill off P2P because I know a lot of people who use it to promote their band(s). I think that they should first lower the insanse CD prices from $15-$30 to 5 -10max and maybe less. Also, the should create their own pay to download service for music for people who dont want to buy a CD and listen to one song on it. If they did that, im convinced that their "money" loss woulod be remidied quickly and their profits would boots tremendously.
CaptHandsome
08-13-2003, 08:23 AM
It all comes down to a lack of control on the RIAA's part, not all but a lot. With Napster it was wham bam thank you Maam, but they had to have known there were other filesharing methods/programs. But now that there are SOOOO many and everyone and their kid brothers are using them its just really irking them that theres not a whole lot they can do. The individual prosecution is a way to intimidate most of the uninformed public, and it has worked much better than I had ever thought it would. A year ago I could go on Kazaa and dl anything i wanted from over 70 million. However just a few days ago, in the middle of the afternoon, there were barely 4 million on, and its much harder to dl stuff. A lot of people have been disableing file uploading and if you take a step back and think about that you might see the effectiveness of the RIAA's efforts. Im not saying that they were expecting it to happen how it has, but nevertheless some people are scared, some are greedy, and some just dont care. But thats reason enough to click the little box and not have to worry about uploading.
The RIAA's lack of control over this situation and their desperate attempts to regain some order (and to regain some capital) has proven effective. I do think that they have the right to be pissed off, but this is The USA, and buisness is like gambling. If you lose money to a casino, you dont go and sue the freaking whole vegas strip and you dont sue the other gamblers either. You either know when to quit and walk away with whatever dignity you can muster, or you can empty your bank account and go home a loser.
Also, its not just the RIAA anymore, but its porno companies, movie studios (univeral, mca, etc), and even record label that are obtaining the subpeonas (spelled right?) that force ISP's to release your info that is connected to your IP. Some ISP's like SBC are actually fighting the subpeonas but I dont think that can hold up for too long. I dont think that the music industry is in any danger at all. CD sales are still considerably high because people like to have REAL CD's from their favorite band/artist. No one can deny the fact that CD's are still being sold at an incredibly fast rate. So there, I know there were other things I wanted to say, but I cant remember em. Heh. Cheers
The RIAA's lack of control over this situation and their desperate attempts to regain some order (and to regain some capital) has proven effective. I do think that they have the right to be pissed off, but this is The USA, and buisness is like gambling. If you lose money to a casino, you dont go and sue the freaking whole vegas strip and you dont sue the other gamblers either. You either know when to quit and walk away with whatever dignity you can muster, or you can empty your bank account and go home a loser.
Also, its not just the RIAA anymore, but its porno companies, movie studios (univeral, mca, etc), and even record label that are obtaining the subpeonas (spelled right?) that force ISP's to release your info that is connected to your IP. Some ISP's like SBC are actually fighting the subpeonas but I dont think that can hold up for too long. I dont think that the music industry is in any danger at all. CD sales are still considerably high because people like to have REAL CD's from their favorite band/artist. No one can deny the fact that CD's are still being sold at an incredibly fast rate. So there, I know there were other things I wanted to say, but I cant remember em. Heh. Cheers
ParrotBoy
08-13-2003, 12:28 PM
Also, with the rise of de-centralised networks (e.g. Freenet), it won't matter that the company can be shut down, as there is no need for a central server, the users of the system can carry on using it regardless of the demise of the company. So chasing companies is a loser already.
Plus, going after users scares people more, and a company like the RIAA can afford to spend the money to win every case, do there will be less ammunition for the opposition to quote.
**** scary...
If you are interested:
Why Copyright laws hurt culture (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48625,00.html)
Plus, going after users scares people more, and a company like the RIAA can afford to spend the money to win every case, do there will be less ammunition for the opposition to quote.
**** scary...
If you are interested:
Why Copyright laws hurt culture (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48625,00.html)
docusk
08-15-2003, 11:12 AM
I asked last wek if anyone knew if the RIAA 's actions in obtaining govt. help in the UK would be possible. No-one knew so I've written to the Information Commission today to ask. I can't believe we would allow a commercial orga#nisation to penetrate the very heart of our computers for a few measly pounds of royalties for all the fat cats earning millions, literally,
Not the politics of envy but a freedom loviong individual sick & tired of all and sundry sticking their beaks into my private affairs!
'Ere, 'oo kicked me bloody soap box away.....???
Doc: :mad:
Not the politics of envy but a freedom loviong individual sick & tired of all and sundry sticking their beaks into my private affairs!
'Ere, 'oo kicked me bloody soap box away.....???
Doc: :mad:
ParrotBoy
08-15-2003, 11:23 AM
Sorry to break this to you, but making even ONE copy of a copyrighed work in the UK is illegal.
In the US you can try to justify yourself with the "personal use bubble" idea - you own the music so you want to be able to use it in various places.
In england, copying a CD onto cassette to listen to it in the car is a fineable offence.
So the UK is already nastier on this than the US, officialy if not in practice, and so they have no leg to stand on to say no to the RIAA
In the US you can try to justify yourself with the "personal use bubble" idea - you own the music so you want to be able to use it in various places.
In england, copying a CD onto cassette to listen to it in the car is a fineable offence.
So the UK is already nastier on this than the US, officialy if not in practice, and so they have no leg to stand on to say no to the RIAA
docusk
08-15-2003, 03:03 PM
Yes yes yes, I know all that but my point still stands. Is what RIAA is doing in USA i.e. prying into someone's computer in order to bring a civil suit against someone, LEGAL here in the UK.
We also have a Freedom of Information Act but we also have the Data Protection Act.
That may well be a 2 edged sword but even MI 5 have to get a warrant to pry into our phones and computers.
How can the US governement curtail the freedoms of "The most powerful nation in the World" for commercial ends.
My issue isn't about copying the odd track from the radio to a CD to play in the car.
Would FAST get such co-operation from the local "Bill"
Bloody hope not.
Doc. :(
We also have a Freedom of Information Act but we also have the Data Protection Act.
That may well be a 2 edged sword but even MI 5 have to get a warrant to pry into our phones and computers.
How can the US governement curtail the freedoms of "The most powerful nation in the World" for commercial ends.
My issue isn't about copying the odd track from the radio to a CD to play in the car.
Would FAST get such co-operation from the local "Bill"
Bloody hope not.
Doc. :(
kdoggmdf
08-15-2003, 03:08 PM
I believe that the RIAA should not be allowed to do ANYTHING with the UK because they arent even associated with that country. I also cant believe how our "government" allows this monopolized and money-greedy company to infiringe our rights of privacy and try and sue us and everyone else for unhuman amounts of money that the majority of the United States doesnt make in a lifetime. I just dont understand it. and I cant believe it either. With them doing this in our country, it makes us seem a little more weak and stupid than "the strongest country in the world".
--The RIAA can burn for all I care. I buy their CDs and want to do what I wish with them becuase they are MINE and then they try and sue the people the MADE THEM RICH IN THE FIRST PLACE. They need to go blow a cow and die--
--The RIAA can burn for all I care. I buy their CDs and want to do what I wish with them becuase they are MINE and then they try and sue the people the MADE THEM RICH IN THE FIRST PLACE. They need to go blow a cow and die--
Dracas
08-15-2003, 09:35 PM
http://www.dontbuycds.org/
I think Artists deserve pay for their work, but I won't pay RIAA squat for turning fans into enemies.
Bums. :rolleyes:
I think Artists deserve pay for their work, but I won't pay RIAA squat for turning fans into enemies.
Bums. :rolleyes:
dosmastr
08-18-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Avor
Why not go after individuals? They've tried going after the software developers (Napster). When they were shut down, more just sprang up. Who says it's not going to happen again?
It seems to me they got fed up with it, and decided that going after individuals is going to slow down, or stop, file sharing.
Heck, if I were in no danger of getting prosecuted, why should I care if the developers are getting shut down? It doesn't hurt me at all.
The users are being somewhat threatened now - and most "rogues" on the net really don't have the balls to stay around and fight.
If you don't have money to pay for something, it still doesn't make stealing right :) Go get a job, or go house to house asking for odd jobs. I did that when I was 12, and it worked fine!
darn straight
seriously, do any of you guys care that napster is gone? nah, we all just switched to kazaa.... but if you hear that YOU personally might get sucker punched with a law suit-- wouldn't that make you think twice? i know many people at work who say they still download from file sharing, but no longer upload--- since that is what the RIAA targets, the distributers not the recipiants... and eventually the amount of seeders will fall below critical mass and the network would colapse..... in theory....
i got a job and paid for it too man, don't pay 20 or even 15 dollars for a CD, you are all right, thats just dumb and expensive.... but if you look around, amazon.com or ebay, or even smaller artists websites, they have CD's for much more reasonible prices. just because they made stealing easy doesn't mean its any less of a crime.
Why not go after individuals? They've tried going after the software developers (Napster). When they were shut down, more just sprang up. Who says it's not going to happen again?
It seems to me they got fed up with it, and decided that going after individuals is going to slow down, or stop, file sharing.
Heck, if I were in no danger of getting prosecuted, why should I care if the developers are getting shut down? It doesn't hurt me at all.
The users are being somewhat threatened now - and most "rogues" on the net really don't have the balls to stay around and fight.
If you don't have money to pay for something, it still doesn't make stealing right :) Go get a job, or go house to house asking for odd jobs. I did that when I was 12, and it worked fine!
darn straight
seriously, do any of you guys care that napster is gone? nah, we all just switched to kazaa.... but if you hear that YOU personally might get sucker punched with a law suit-- wouldn't that make you think twice? i know many people at work who say they still download from file sharing, but no longer upload--- since that is what the RIAA targets, the distributers not the recipiants... and eventually the amount of seeders will fall below critical mass and the network would colapse..... in theory....
i got a job and paid for it too man, don't pay 20 or even 15 dollars for a CD, you are all right, thats just dumb and expensive.... but if you look around, amazon.com or ebay, or even smaller artists websites, they have CD's for much more reasonible prices. just because they made stealing easy doesn't mean its any less of a crime.
kdoggmdf
08-19-2003, 07:13 PM
If it is illegal, it isnt us, the consumers, fault. Its theirs; the RIAA. They overprice their CDs everywhere, including Amazon and all those other places. I have NEVER gotten a CD under $8.99 before. That is crazy. And I dont even use CDs for Godsake. I just copy the files onto my computer when I get one and then never use the damned CD again. Its a waste of money for me. Thats why I stopped using CDs like 2 years ago. Sure, I sitll buy SOME CDs, but the majority of music now comes from online. And i dont use that **** Kazaa. Thats just stupid. I use IRC networks, Direct Connect, even AOL Instant Messenger to trade music. I still compensate artists because I still buy CDs but not nearly as often as I used to. I think that the RIAA needs to stop trying to sue us for getting around their overpriced b/s CDs and create something where we can get the songs we want for under a dollar and not have to worry about getting into trouble and paying inexcusably insane amounts of money for it.
Necide
08-20-2003, 05:12 AM
I disagree with the earlier comment about downloading music being the same as walking into a record store and stealing CDs off the shelf.
When you download music, you aren't pilfering physical goods which cost money to manufacture and require the paid efforts of many people - factory workers, printing press operators, truck drivers, etc.
I'm not saying it isn't stealing, and I'm not saying it IS stealing. I'm only saying it's not the same thing.
When you download music, you aren't pilfering physical goods which cost money to manufacture and require the paid efforts of many people - factory workers, printing press operators, truck drivers, etc.
I'm not saying it isn't stealing, and I'm not saying it IS stealing. I'm only saying it's not the same thing.
Kandar
08-20-2003, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Necide
When you download music, you aren't pilfering physical goods which cost money to manufacture and require the paid efforts of many people - factory workers, printing press operators, truck drivers, etc.
I'm not saying it isn't stealing, and I'm not saying it IS stealing. I'm only saying it's not the same thing.
How exactly is it not the same thing?
A man spends money developing, marketing and promoting a product in the belief that it will sell, only for you to acquire his work without handing over any cash. That’s one less sale of an official shelf copy.
You have taken something for which you have not paid for and that is theft however you dress it up.
When you download music, you aren't pilfering physical goods which cost money to manufacture and require the paid efforts of many people - factory workers, printing press operators, truck drivers, etc.
I'm not saying it isn't stealing, and I'm not saying it IS stealing. I'm only saying it's not the same thing.
How exactly is it not the same thing?
A man spends money developing, marketing and promoting a product in the belief that it will sell, only for you to acquire his work without handing over any cash. That’s one less sale of an official shelf copy.
You have taken something for which you have not paid for and that is theft however you dress it up.
kdoggmdf
08-20-2003, 12:33 PM
Maybe it is theft, but cant you see that what the RIAA doing is still NOT RIGHT? Plus, we have a right to download music with the price of a CD now and **** and they keep going up. The RIAA needs to change the prices of CDs before they do ANYTHING else with file-sharing or anything for thta matter. I dont care how much they try and sue. Im not going to get caught and I will not buy another music CD until the prices are lowered.
docusk
08-20-2003, 01:56 PM
My original point from last week was that I wanted an opinion from some kind legal Eagle of a Brit as to whether actions like the RIAA's would be legal here in view of our Informatio act and the data Protection Act. It seems that in the USA the authorities positively help some cheapskate commercial mafia.
Doc :r
Doc :r
homerjay
08-20-2003, 11:42 PM
i live in ireland. i can't believe that if the RIAA asked my isp for my information that they would get it. how is that possible?
also, if the police raid a house without a warrent, any evidence found is made void, it can't be used in court - so how can the RIAA prove that they downloaded music off me just by quoting my IP address?
also, if the police raid a house without a warrent, any evidence found is made void, it can't be used in court - so how can the RIAA prove that they downloaded music off me just by quoting my IP address?
AcidBurn196
08-21-2003, 02:04 AM
Wow..
All i have been hearing is about how they are gonna track you thru kazaa and nail you.. Is that seriousley possible? With Kazaa, their network is based on many users can have the same screen name, and isnt that hard to track that person then? if i am wrong just let me know, but that is what i have heard, cause if that is true, then im still gonna download off kazaa. But if for some odd reason they try and bring down Kazaa, then ill just use one of the many other progs out there, cause i havent bought a cd in years, and i dont intend on buying one soon. So if they lower the price's of cd's then heck yea, they will get more people to buy them, but at the rate their goin at... no way.
:rolleyes:
All i have been hearing is about how they are gonna track you thru kazaa and nail you.. Is that seriousley possible? With Kazaa, their network is based on many users can have the same screen name, and isnt that hard to track that person then? if i am wrong just let me know, but that is what i have heard, cause if that is true, then im still gonna download off kazaa. But if for some odd reason they try and bring down Kazaa, then ill just use one of the many other progs out there, cause i havent bought a cd in years, and i dont intend on buying one soon. So if they lower the price's of cd's then heck yea, they will get more people to buy them, but at the rate their goin at... no way.
:rolleyes:
Dracas
08-21-2003, 02:24 AM
It's preeeeeeeeeeetty easy to grab an IP address for a username on Kazaa, since its a Peer to peer network, an IP has to be assessed by the software to know where to send the file download
Every transfer and contact you make with another file sharer on KaZaA, DC++, etc.. requires an IP address
Bam. Even I can trace an IP address back to an end user and address from my computer, so don't go thinkin' yer invincible or anonymous, it doesn't work that way over TCP/IP
Every transfer and contact you make with another file sharer on KaZaA, DC++, etc.. requires an IP address
Bam. Even I can trace an IP address back to an end user and address from my computer, so don't go thinkin' yer invincible or anonymous, it doesn't work that way over TCP/IP
AcidBurn196
08-21-2003, 04:51 PM
oh alright, i didnt even know that, thanks.
I just heard that more than one person can use a screen name, so i thought that it would be hard for them to find it. But i guess i was wrong. lol.. thanks.
I just heard that more than one person can use a screen name, so i thought that it would be hard for them to find it. But i guess i was wrong. lol.. thanks.
Necide
08-23-2003, 03:26 AM
Stealing CDs isn't the same thing as downloading music. Again, I didn't say it wasn't theft (and I didn't say it was) but I CERTAINLY DID say that it isn't the same thing, how can you possibly deny that?
Allow me to help you out of that black and white mindset. Here's some MORE things that aren't the same:
Snorkeling, operating a submarine.
Digging in your yard, drilling for oil.
Shooting someone, Hiroshima.
But you're still underwater! But you're still putting a hole in the ground! But it's still murder!
You can spout logic like this all day, but it's besides the point. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And it doesn't change the laws of cause and effect. Action, appropriate reaction. Now I'll ask a simple question which brings us back to the start: Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate?
:cool:
-Necide
Allow me to help you out of that black and white mindset. Here's some MORE things that aren't the same:
Snorkeling, operating a submarine.
Digging in your yard, drilling for oil.
Shooting someone, Hiroshima.
But you're still underwater! But you're still putting a hole in the ground! But it's still murder!
You can spout logic like this all day, but it's besides the point. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And it doesn't change the laws of cause and effect. Action, appropriate reaction. Now I'll ask a simple question which brings us back to the start: Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate?
:cool:
-Necide
docusk
08-23-2003, 07:12 AM
No I don't think it is but nonetheless, they are doing what they are doing and with the connivance of an ultra right wing government bending over forwards to please the rich and
***k the not so rich.
Mind you our "New Labour" government isn't that far behind the George Dubya gang.
BTW, Have you noticed he can't say nuclear?
He says nucular every time. So much for the Texas boards of education.
Doc. :eek:
***k the not so rich.
Mind you our "New Labour" government isn't that far behind the George Dubya gang.
BTW, Have you noticed he can't say nuclear?
He says nucular every time. So much for the Texas boards of education.
Doc. :eek:
Dracas
08-23-2003, 03:24 PM
At least its not as bad as the Ohio or Georgia Board of Education.
People still look at me funny when I slip and say "Up'air" and "Down'air" or "O'er thar" :p
Yup. Yup is a stupid word to. Don't forget Yup.
:D
People still look at me funny when I slip and say "Up'air" and "Down'air" or "O'er thar" :p
Yup. Yup is a stupid word to. Don't forget Yup.
:D
Necide
08-23-2003, 05:14 PM
Someone once told me "yup" is the F bomb in Russian. They must think southerners are the rudest people...
Kandar
08-27-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Necide
Stealing CDs isn't the same thing as downloading music. Again, I didn't say it wasn't theft (and I didn't say it was) but I CERTAINLY DID say that it isn't the same thing, how can you possibly deny that?
Allow me to help you out of that black and white mindset. Here's some MORE things that aren't the same:
Snorkeling, operating a submarine.
Digging in your yard, drilling for oil.
Shooting someone, Hiroshima.
But you're still underwater! But you're still putting a hole in the ground! But it's still murder!
You can spout logic like this all day, but it's besides the point. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And it doesn't change the laws of cause and effect. Action, appropriate reaction. Now I'll ask a simple question which brings us back to the start: Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate?
:cool:
-Necide
When you buy music, you are buying a copyrighted piece of material on a CD, tape, vinyl, Mini Disk, whatever flavour media you choose. Your choice of media is irrelevant.
The copyrighted material is the important bit. That’s what your money is paying for.
If you decide not to pay for the media and just download the copyrighted material instead, you are effectively obtaining goods without paying for them.
That my friend is theft. Look it up in a dictionary if you need greater clarification.
There is no grey area; it is simply black and white.
Incidentally, I agree totally that the price of music/games/software is astronomical.
I download tunes too.
However, I am not pretending to be an outstanding pillar of the community and trying to justify my actions as being OK.
Theft is theft however you dress it up. Lets be clear about what we are doing and not Bull***t about it.
I’d love a Rolex watch, just because Rolex charge the earth for them doesn’t mean its ok for me to go and steal one.
Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate? NO it isn't.
Use steganography and PGP encripted disks to store your MP3s and you have no evidence of any downloads at all. Your views on that one please.
Stealing CDs isn't the same thing as downloading music. Again, I didn't say it wasn't theft (and I didn't say it was) but I CERTAINLY DID say that it isn't the same thing, how can you possibly deny that?
Allow me to help you out of that black and white mindset. Here's some MORE things that aren't the same:
Snorkeling, operating a submarine.
Digging in your yard, drilling for oil.
Shooting someone, Hiroshima.
But you're still underwater! But you're still putting a hole in the ground! But it's still murder!
You can spout logic like this all day, but it's besides the point. Doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And it doesn't change the laws of cause and effect. Action, appropriate reaction. Now I'll ask a simple question which brings us back to the start: Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate?
:cool:
-Necide
When you buy music, you are buying a copyrighted piece of material on a CD, tape, vinyl, Mini Disk, whatever flavour media you choose. Your choice of media is irrelevant.
The copyrighted material is the important bit. That’s what your money is paying for.
If you decide not to pay for the media and just download the copyrighted material instead, you are effectively obtaining goods without paying for them.
That my friend is theft. Look it up in a dictionary if you need greater clarification.
There is no grey area; it is simply black and white.
Incidentally, I agree totally that the price of music/games/software is astronomical.
I download tunes too.
However, I am not pretending to be an outstanding pillar of the community and trying to justify my actions as being OK.
Theft is theft however you dress it up. Lets be clear about what we are doing and not Bull***t about it.
I’d love a Rolex watch, just because Rolex charge the earth for them doesn’t mean its ok for me to go and steal one.
Is the RIAA's reaction appropriate? NO it isn't.
Use steganography and PGP encripted disks to store your MP3s and you have no evidence of any downloads at all. Your views on that one please.
sanity
08-27-2003, 06:09 PM
ya well... it became apparent quite a long time ago that most of these people are just class warriors... which is why I haven't endeavored to post anything further on this subject. I'm done trying educate sensationalists.
Music is overpriced, so let the free market decide. And if you want to fight it by stealing it, don't cry when companies do the _right_ thing by going after individuals _instead_ of trying to pass things like the DMCA. Going under current law is much better than passing new, intrusive, abusive laws. But no, certain people still want to make a fuss, _even_ when the right thing is being done.
It's not right to go after thieves? Oh, great business model! Easy for you to say. You're an armchair quarterback. You don't want to pay for the music, but you want the music to be produced.
If the prices are too high, don't buy it. The market will respond.
And people who complain and whine have no solution. Lower the prices? If people stop buying the music, the prices will go down.
If people continue to pay for the music at current prices, THERE IS NO REASON TO CHARGE LESS. YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
What do you suggest? An intrusive government law to lower the prices? Yeah, that's just like you idiots: you don't actually care about government intrusion *if* it benefits you _in_the_short_term_. You don't care about what's right and wrong, you just want to whine about everything, because you're a worthless child.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
--sanity (going insane as usual)
Music is overpriced, so let the free market decide. And if you want to fight it by stealing it, don't cry when companies do the _right_ thing by going after individuals _instead_ of trying to pass things like the DMCA. Going under current law is much better than passing new, intrusive, abusive laws. But no, certain people still want to make a fuss, _even_ when the right thing is being done.
It's not right to go after thieves? Oh, great business model! Easy for you to say. You're an armchair quarterback. You don't want to pay for the music, but you want the music to be produced.
If the prices are too high, don't buy it. The market will respond.
And people who complain and whine have no solution. Lower the prices? If people stop buying the music, the prices will go down.
If people continue to pay for the music at current prices, THERE IS NO REASON TO CHARGE LESS. YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
What do you suggest? An intrusive government law to lower the prices? Yeah, that's just like you idiots: you don't actually care about government intrusion *if* it benefits you _in_the_short_term_. You don't care about what's right and wrong, you just want to whine about everything, because you're a worthless child.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO ACQUIRE POPULAR MUSIC.
--sanity (going insane as usual)
Kandar
08-28-2003, 08:36 AM
To my mind it is simple.
I have a massive vinyl and CD collection. I’m talking HUGE.
Regardless of what the law says, I operate on this basic principle.
Once I purchase a CD it belongs to me. I don’t own the rights to the music but I do own this particular copy of the tune. It’s mine to do with as I see fit.
I supported the artist by purchasing their work and I’m not ripping anyone off if I choose to record these tunes in mp3 format.
It is a convenient way to access all my collection from one point for my personal listening pleasure and a nice backup medium should anything happen to the original version.
Currently I have MP3ed most of my CD library but the vinyl takes a little more time and effort as you cant just rip it as you would a CD.
It is much easier to get an MP3 from someone else who’s done it already.
CD costs are far higher than they need to be but even if they weren’t, there will always be those who won’t pay for legitimate versions whatever the price.
It doesn’t matter how many people they prosecute or how many file sharing networks they shutdown. You will never stop people from copying and swapping copyrighted material.
Given the choice, most people would rather pay for the genuine article than a copy.
If the purchase price of a CD is brought within reach of the average customer then the problem will go away all by itself and the music industry would sell more products.
I have a massive vinyl and CD collection. I’m talking HUGE.
Regardless of what the law says, I operate on this basic principle.
Once I purchase a CD it belongs to me. I don’t own the rights to the music but I do own this particular copy of the tune. It’s mine to do with as I see fit.
I supported the artist by purchasing their work and I’m not ripping anyone off if I choose to record these tunes in mp3 format.
It is a convenient way to access all my collection from one point for my personal listening pleasure and a nice backup medium should anything happen to the original version.
Currently I have MP3ed most of my CD library but the vinyl takes a little more time and effort as you cant just rip it as you would a CD.
It is much easier to get an MP3 from someone else who’s done it already.
CD costs are far higher than they need to be but even if they weren’t, there will always be those who won’t pay for legitimate versions whatever the price.
It doesn’t matter how many people they prosecute or how many file sharing networks they shutdown. You will never stop people from copying and swapping copyrighted material.
Given the choice, most people would rather pay for the genuine article than a copy.
If the purchase price of a CD is brought within reach of the average customer then the problem will go away all by itself and the music industry would sell more products.
ParrotBoy
08-28-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by sanity
If the prices are too high, don't buy it. The market will respond.
That is nonsence. The myth of the "free market" died twenty years ago. The major labels have already been caught working together to keep the cost of CDs high - i.e. Price Fixing
By price-fixing they are not operating within the "free market", so why should we?
Also, how much do you think you are supporting the band by buying the CD? Not much. Go to the shows if you want to support them. Buying a CD just lines a fat-cat's already bulging back pocket.
I buy CDs, when I can afford, but I prefer to go to live gigs, and will not increase my purchasing until the labels start paying their artists more.
It is hypocritical to accuse someone of ripping off a musician, and then support a company that does the same on a much larger scale.
If the prices are too high, don't buy it. The market will respond.
That is nonsence. The myth of the "free market" died twenty years ago. The major labels have already been caught working together to keep the cost of CDs high - i.e. Price Fixing
By price-fixing they are not operating within the "free market", so why should we?
Also, how much do you think you are supporting the band by buying the CD? Not much. Go to the shows if you want to support them. Buying a CD just lines a fat-cat's already bulging back pocket.
I buy CDs, when I can afford, but I prefer to go to live gigs, and will not increase my purchasing until the labels start paying their artists more.
It is hypocritical to accuse someone of ripping off a musician, and then support a company that does the same on a much larger scale.
Kandar
08-28-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by ParrotBoy
It is hypocritical to accuse someone of ripping off a musician, and then support a company that does the same on a much larger scale.
I wholeheartedly agree.
It is hypocritical to accuse someone of ripping off a musician, and then support a company that does the same on a much larger scale.
I wholeheartedly agree.
kdoggmdf
08-28-2003, 11:14 AM
I also agree 100%.
Necide
09-02-2003, 03:38 PM
I have no further rebuttal... you guys nailed it with the last few posts!
Cheers :D
Cheers :D
sanity
09-02-2003, 08:24 PM
Musicians are not slaves. They sign contracts. The wisdom of that commitment is debatable, but the rule of law isn't.
It doesn't matter what logic rains upon you in buckets, you're going to see things from the unprincipled, whiny perspective of the modern-day consumer.
Just keep wielding your torches, and keep screaming and firing up that mob mentality, not thinking but just feeling, having a big fun party, using no sense at all.
It doesn't matter what logic rains upon you in buckets, you're going to see things from the unprincipled, whiny perspective of the modern-day consumer.
Just keep wielding your torches, and keep screaming and firing up that mob mentality, not thinking but just feeling, having a big fun party, using no sense at all.
docusk
09-03-2003, 04:28 AM
Being the one who started this whole thread - which has now gone a long way from the original question - I think it may well be time we hit the whole thing on the head. It just gets argumentative and really has no outcome.
Problem is, being just a newbie as 'twere, I don't know how to shut it down.
Doc
Problem is, being just a newbie as 'twere, I don't know how to shut it down.
Doc
fizur2002
09-05-2003, 04:25 PM
Found this on Fox News, thought it was pretty interesting, guess the RIAA doesnt want to **** too many people off.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96509,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96509,00.html
Necide
09-09-2003, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by sanity
Musicians are not slaves. They sign contracts. The wisdom of that commitment is debatable, but the rule of law isn't.
It doesn't matter what logic rains upon you in buckets, you're going to see things from the unprincipled, whiny perspective of the modern-day consumer.
Just keep wielding your torches, and keep screaming and firing up that mob mentality, not thinking but just feeling, having a big fun party, using no sense at all.
Are those buckets of logic? Or buckets of fear? A fear that a system you have invested yourself in is failing others, and may be headed to fail you? Perhaps then, they are buckets of denial. Logic, as with law, is sometimes just a guise. A well-attuned heart easily reveals either for their true nature.
Law also protects against "unwise" people being tricked into signing contracts. Or at least it's supposed to. Not everyone is a lawyer [surprise!]. The common person no longer understands the language of law. It's gotten to the point where if something doesn't specifically say what a party CAN'T do, it means they CAN. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was hot? But I digress... The words of an imperfect man pounded into paper with ink and stamps lacks the ability to judge based upon morality or circumstance. That is why law is nothing without interpretation, and sometimes change. Law is not the problem. The interpreters are the problem. There is an interpreter between every lawmaker before the letters hit the page and an interpreter between every printed page before it is read back to those qualified[?] to rule.
Defense of a lifestyle built on [and I'm being fair in my following adjective] questionable ethics [currently targeting, but not limited to, unscrupulous lawyers] is a contribution to that lifestyle. But justify it however you like, as long as you can sleep at night.
I'd like to quote a fact, now: The world's richest 360 people have the same amount of money as the poorest 2.4 billion people.
With the exception of the Britneys and the "50 Cent's", which end of that spectrum do you think musicians are closer to? Now what about the CEO of, say, Sony Music?
Next time you're sipping cappuccino in your local Barnes-&-Nobles-embedded Starbucks, I strongly recommend you find a copy of Albert Einstein's "The World As I See It" (the abridged version, which is sans the mathematical formulas and incomprehensible bits on his Theory of Relativity). You can tell me I'm wrong, and I'm willing to accept that possibility, but you can't tell me Albert Einstein is wrong. ;)
And since you mentioned it*, I also recommend you pick up the recent (September 2003) issue of National Geographic and read the article, "21st-Century *Slaves" on page 2.
To all those who would blindly defend (with great propensity) a situation or party which detracts from a world where kindness and generosity are greater measures of success than money and power, I say this: Reintroduce yourself to the global reality, grow a sense of community and reevaluate your contribution to the world. Then decide again if the defense of ALL law, which can be (and often is) heavily influenced and/or dictated by corporate models, and which may not protect you as well as you think it does (or even protect OTHERS as well as you think it does, for all you quasi-philanthropists out there), is really something you want to take a hand in.
THAT response shouldn't be necessary but is the net underneath the more OBVIOUS response that FILESHARING IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A CRIME (for reasons stated already) and the RIAA is attacking FILESHARERS, not [just] criminals.
~fin~
Musicians are not slaves. They sign contracts. The wisdom of that commitment is debatable, but the rule of law isn't.
It doesn't matter what logic rains upon you in buckets, you're going to see things from the unprincipled, whiny perspective of the modern-day consumer.
Just keep wielding your torches, and keep screaming and firing up that mob mentality, not thinking but just feeling, having a big fun party, using no sense at all.
Are those buckets of logic? Or buckets of fear? A fear that a system you have invested yourself in is failing others, and may be headed to fail you? Perhaps then, they are buckets of denial. Logic, as with law, is sometimes just a guise. A well-attuned heart easily reveals either for their true nature.
Law also protects against "unwise" people being tricked into signing contracts. Or at least it's supposed to. Not everyone is a lawyer [surprise!]. The common person no longer understands the language of law. It's gotten to the point where if something doesn't specifically say what a party CAN'T do, it means they CAN. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was hot? But I digress... The words of an imperfect man pounded into paper with ink and stamps lacks the ability to judge based upon morality or circumstance. That is why law is nothing without interpretation, and sometimes change. Law is not the problem. The interpreters are the problem. There is an interpreter between every lawmaker before the letters hit the page and an interpreter between every printed page before it is read back to those qualified[?] to rule.
Defense of a lifestyle built on [and I'm being fair in my following adjective] questionable ethics [currently targeting, but not limited to, unscrupulous lawyers] is a contribution to that lifestyle. But justify it however you like, as long as you can sleep at night.
I'd like to quote a fact, now: The world's richest 360 people have the same amount of money as the poorest 2.4 billion people.
With the exception of the Britneys and the "50 Cent's", which end of that spectrum do you think musicians are closer to? Now what about the CEO of, say, Sony Music?
Next time you're sipping cappuccino in your local Barnes-&-Nobles-embedded Starbucks, I strongly recommend you find a copy of Albert Einstein's "The World As I See It" (the abridged version, which is sans the mathematical formulas and incomprehensible bits on his Theory of Relativity). You can tell me I'm wrong, and I'm willing to accept that possibility, but you can't tell me Albert Einstein is wrong. ;)
And since you mentioned it*, I also recommend you pick up the recent (September 2003) issue of National Geographic and read the article, "21st-Century *Slaves" on page 2.
To all those who would blindly defend (with great propensity) a situation or party which detracts from a world where kindness and generosity are greater measures of success than money and power, I say this: Reintroduce yourself to the global reality, grow a sense of community and reevaluate your contribution to the world. Then decide again if the defense of ALL law, which can be (and often is) heavily influenced and/or dictated by corporate models, and which may not protect you as well as you think it does (or even protect OTHERS as well as you think it does, for all you quasi-philanthropists out there), is really something you want to take a hand in.
THAT response shouldn't be necessary but is the net underneath the more OBVIOUS response that FILESHARING IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A CRIME (for reasons stated already) and the RIAA is attacking FILESHARERS, not [just] criminals.
~fin~
docusk
09-09-2003, 05:02 AM
Necide.
"A Daniel come to judgement!" 'M o V by WS.'
I'm of a mind with you friend.
Doc :)
"A Daniel come to judgement!" 'M o V by WS.'
I'm of a mind with you friend.
Doc :)
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.