Is LimeWire Legal? - DPChallenge Forums

12/05/2005 02:00:47 PM · #51

If you had to pay the "Oil Changing Industry Association of America" everytime you went to Firestone to get an oil change, and even if you did the oil change yourself you still had to pay OCIAA. To not pay them might be considered stealing & illegal....but many would not find it immoral.

I don't give a damn if something is legal or not. There is plenty that is legal in our system that is immoral. And there is plenty that is not illegal that is not immoral.

And of course, morality is subject to differences of opinion. So in your moral paradigm I might be stealing. But that's you...not me.

And frankly, RIAA has stolen much from me. As well as having repeatedly ripped me off and even more so repeatedly ripped off the artists I am trying to support.

So why don't you go start !@#$%ing to RIAA about them stealing. They have stolen 10,000x more $$$ from artists than every downloader combined. They have repeatedly broken the law. Broken contracts. Used unscrupilous methods. And at most they've gotten a slap on the wrist.

SONY's rootkit used stolen, pirated code without permission. Also violated open source license agreements. Now, RIAA is always touting the wrongs of downloading. All while stealing other people's copyrighted technology, invading people's personal property, and committing acts of terrorism and computer hacking.

But instead of being hit with a $150,000 fine for each occurrence as they like to threaten 12 yr olds. They get what, a slap on the wrist? Neigh...simply get told. "Bad boy...don't do that!"

So unless the laws are going to be balanced and protect everyone's rights, why should anyone give a !@#$ about the law?

Let's look at some interesting things about copyrights:

Basically can be traced back to 1710 in Britain. This means they are only about 300 yrs old...

Pretty new to make a universal argument of morality.

Second, they are increasing being expanded in scope and control. For example, from the DMCA:

The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) created, for the first time in U.S. copyright law, a limited public performance right in sound recordings.

The current laws make exceptions for certain industries (broadcast radio for example) while at the same time adding exhorborant fees to web cast radio.

Secondly, RIAA managed to have the jurisdiction of collecting all "webcast" royalties to be paid thru itself. Without artist input. In fact, most of the webcasts broadcasted independent music not owned by the big RIAA companies. This was greatly hurting their sales. Independent artists saw tremendous growth in sales during the late 90s and even today thanks to the web, webcasts, Napster, etc. While RIAA's big labels saw their music stagnate, independent labels and artists saw a big boom. Then RIAA stepped in with the DMCA and several other laws and essentially killed "webcasting", Napster, and MP3.com.

Sure, Napster might have been questionable. But MP3.com's methods were not immoral or stealing. They simply were saving the time of people having to rip the recordings by pre-ripping. But were nailed on opinion of technicality.

Did you know that when RIAA bought MP3.com they stole tons of music? They decided to maintain the licensing to restaurants, etc. of the music portfolio but closed any communication with the artists. In otherwords, my friend's band for which we set up an MP3.com website had all the music stolen by RIAA.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/05/2005 02:12:11 PM · #52

Originally posted by theSaj:

But MP3.com's methods were not immoral or stealing. They simply were saving the time of people having to rip the recordings by pre-ripping. But were nailed on opinion of technicality.

Did you know that when RIAA bought MP3.com they stole tons of music? They decided to maintain the licensing to restaurants, etc. of the music portfolio but closed any communication with the artists. In otherwords, my friend's band for which we set up an MP3.com website had all the music stolen by RIAA.

I was under the impression that MP3.com's online music distribution service was purchased by cNet.com

If the music is indeed being sublicensed for continued play in a commercial setting I'd like to know, as I am producer of one "album" through their service, and such use was not allowed by the licensing agreement. I thought their original concept and operation were brilliant -- functioned similar to DPC Prints -- in that it solved the primary problem of independent artists everywhere: publicity and distribution.

12/05/2005 03:16:27 PM · #53

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

I was under the impression that MP3.com's online music distribution service was purchased by cNet.com

MP3.com was divided and the assets sold to varying parties:

Vivendi claimed the advanced publishing system MP3.com had created (this allowed artists to simply "upload" their masters and have it digitally transferred to the pressers for manufacturing of the CDs.

cNet only bought one segment, and that was basicallyt he domain name.

TRUESonic became a seperate entity. This was the branch of MP3.com which offered commercial music streaming to restaurants, malls, etc. You had to check the button to allow such, but many artists did as it was a potential revenue stream. TRUESonic continued with it's portfolio. However, so much information has been lost that most recognize that it is unlikely that the majority of bands will actually ever see receipt of their revenue's while TRUESonic maintains the ability to benefit from them.

GarageBand.com I think did acquire some of the "MP3.com Archive" thru TRUESonic. But I am not sure if that went thru. Vivendi was pretty heart set on destroying the archive as good quality free music posed a serious threat to their sales of crappy mainstream formula driven music.

(Note "formula driven" should only be used in regards to race cars not music.)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/05/2005 03:22:25 PM · #54

Thanks for the update. Though I don't think they ever "pressed" a CD -- I'm pretty sure a hybrid CD (plays in standard CD player and has MP3 files) were burned one-off as customers ordered them, the same way EZ Prints makes one of our images (if anyone ever ordered them).

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/05/2005 03:45:21 PM · #55

Originally posted by theSaj:

Let's look at some interesting things about copyrights:

Basically can be traced back to 1710 in Britain. This means they are only about 300 yrs old...

Pretty new to make a universal argument of morality.

The morality issue is your casual approach to theft and breaking the law.

The correct approach to a law you disagree with is to take it up with your lawmakers - not to just disregard it.

If I decided that property was theft and took your car because I didn't believe it "belonged" to you, would you object? I suspect I know the answer...

Fine; if you want to break the law and steal from people that's fine (I guess...) - but what I object to is your determination to convince everyone else that it's fine and that it's outrageous somehow that people who create something should want to prevent you stealing it.

crank2o

12/05/2005 04:09:47 PM · #56

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Let's look at some interesting things about copyrights:

Basically can be traced back to 1710 in Britain. This means they are only about 300 yrs old...

Pretty new to make a universal argument of morality.

The morality issue is your casual approach to theft and breaking the law.

The correct approach to a law you disagree with is to take it up with your lawmakers - not to just disregard it.

If I decided that property was theft and took your car because I didn't believe it "belonged" to you, would you object? I suspect I know the answer...

Fine; if you want to break the law and steal from people that's fine (I guess...) - but what I object to is your determination to convince everyone else that it's fine and that it's outrageous somehow that people who create something should want to prevent you stealing it.

If I steal a car, I am stealing the raw materials and means of production that the auto-maker used in the production of EACH and EVERY single model of the car that was sold.

A song only needs to be written and recorded ONCE - afterwhich a producer essentially makes pure profit on its sale (especially if it's sold over iTunes or something of that nature which requires no CD production cost). A record label could theoretically "sell" it's product digitally to every single one of the millions of people that have a personal computer or mp3 player, with absolutely no costs to itself.

These are two different models of production, and hence theft, which the RIAA's public campaign has done a brilliant job of blurring.

As for the morality issue...
Rosa Parks also broke the law because she thought it was immoral...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/05/2005 04:18:58 PM · #57

Originally posted by "Ganders":

The morality issue is your casual approach to theft and breaking the law.

But I stated I don't give a damn about laws. So many of our laws are unjust, and patronizing and merely "bought" by those with power and wealth.

I, for example, totally ignore the ban on using a cellphone without a hands free kit that my state just implemented.

a) I have driven approx. 75,000 miles while talking on a cell phone over the past 6 yrs. I have not gotten into an accident.

b) hands free kits have been shown to pose no reduction of risk by every study that researched it, yet my government saw fit to ignore such studies.

c) cell phones were only the 11th leading cause of accidents, under eating, smoking, etc. Why not address the more serious causes.

d) most serious and fatal accidents in my area are caused by monstrous 18-wheelers that decide that doing 85mph+ in a 50mph zone is acceptable as they weave in and out of traffic talking on their CBs. Flipping themselves over all the time and killing people in their cars. And our government does little to stop it. Even calling 911 for an 18-wheeler weaving between three lanes for a 1/2 like he's drunk got no action.

So do I care about their law? nope....will I heed it? nope...it's called civil disobedience. Governments have passed many laws that were stupid. They're no longer there because people broke them.

In fact, in Boston, I believe it's still technically illegal to take a bath without a doctor's prescription and never on Sunday. Why is that no longer heeded?

Originally posted by "Ganders":

The correct approach to a law you disagree with is to take it up with your lawmakers - not to just disregard it.

Why? so they can send me form letters that totally fail to address the issue I contacted them about? come on....unless I've got a few thousand $$$ to throw to their next campaign I'm not going to get any attention. And when RIAA has millions to spend on politicians, lawyers and propaganda....naw...civil disobedience is about all we are left with (outside of violent recourses).

Originally posted by "Ganders":

If I decided that property was theft and took your car because I didn't believe it "belonged" to you, would you object? I suspect I know the answer...

In taking my car you would deprive me of physical property. Of which there is only one of and can only be utilized by one. Yes, that would be theft. And has been understood to be theft for thousands of years.

There is a big difference between that and IP rights. (Which as stated are only a 300 yr old concept and much of the early implementations were rampant abuses.) Now, if you had an auto-duplicator and could simply drop my auto into a duplicator and pop-out another. And if you provided all the materials and all the labor. Why sure....you can make a copy of my truck. I'd have no problems. So, if I put it in light of what is available technology wise for music and extended that to a material possession such as a vehicle. Then no, I don't see any reason why you should not be able too.

But you know, I bet Ford, Toyota, and GM would sue. Why? Because it would eliminate their market of production. Why, if everyone could simply duplicate a car who would need Ford to build it. Should it be illegal to do so? If we had the means to duplicate anything, food, medicine, water, etc. Should it be illegal simply because someone owns a "intellectual property right" ?

That would seem to me to be a rather opposite result to the original intention of copyrights (to further innovation).

The real issue is that industries are always afraid of facing the dinosaur. My hometown of New Haven, CT once was a capital for carriage building. In fact, they endeavored to have laws prevent the use of automobiles. Had they won on the basis of the 4-wheel right. The automobile would never have come to being - because of simply so-called "intellectual property rights".

The scope of IP is too dangerously broad to be continually extended. And yes, one day it will collapse. Or the result will be that we will find ourselves enslaved and will be akin to serfs in 19th century Russia.

Originally posted by "ganders":

Fine; if you want to break the law and steal from people that's fine (I guess...) - but what I object to is your determination to convince everyone else that it's fine and that it's outrageous somehow that people who create something should want to prevent you stealing it.

Funny, no one seems to complain that the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain and a multitude of others are repeatedly published without any payment of royalties and rights. Why is that my dear Ganders?

Should not the inventor of the wheel have claim? after all...

Should not Ford pay the inventor of the wheel, and the washer, and of the hose, and of the axle, and of glass, and of rubber, and of oil, why...should not ALL the inventors forever be paid their royal due?

I'm not trying to convince people to steal. I am against stealing. Steal requires the taking of a physical object. If you want to go into virtual stealing. Well, I have been repeatedly stolen from by RIAA. And no one is taking or pleading my case. (Let alone all the artists who have been robbed by RIAA.) So if you expect me to even give your concept of virtual theft the limelight of the day. You best construct a system that protects me from theft by them as well. If you're not going to do that...than don't blame me for infringing on their state granted monopoly when the state is exceeding it's authorized constitutional right of granting said monopoly.

- Saj

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/05/2005 04:36:18 PM · #58

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Ganders":
The morality issue is your casual approach to theft and breaking the law.

But I stated I don't give a damn about laws. So many of our laws are unjust, and patronizing and merely "bought" by those with power and wealth.

I, for example, totally ignore the ban on using a cellphone without a hands free kit that my state just implemented.

a) I have driven approx. 75,000 miles while talking on a cell phone over the past 6 yrs. I have not gotten into an accident.

b) hands free kits have been shown to pose no reduction of risk by every study that researched it, yet my government saw fit to ignore such studies.

c) cell phones were only the 11th leading cause of accidents, under eating, smoking, etc. Why not address the more serious causes.

d) most serious and fatal accidents in my area are caused by monstrous 18-wheelers that decide that doing 85mph+ in a 50mph zone is acceptable as they weave in and out of traffic talking on their CBs. Flipping themselves over all the time and killing people in their cars. And our government does little to stop it. Even calling 911 for an 18-wheeler weaving between three lanes for a 1/2 like he's drunk got no action.

So do I care about their law? nope....will I heed it? nope...it's called civil disobedience. Governments have passed many laws that were stupid. They're no longer there because people broke them.

In fact, in Boston, I believe it's still technically illegal to take a bath without a doctor's prescription and never on Sunday. Why is that no longer heeded?

Originally posted by "Ganders":

The correct approach to a law you disagree with is to take it up with your lawmakers - not to just disregard it.

Why? so they can send me form letters that totally fail to address the issue I contacted them about? come on....unless I've got a few thousand $$$ to throw to their next campaign I'm not going to get any attention. And when RIAA has millions to spend on politicians, lawyers and propaganda....naw...civil disobedience is about all we are left with (outside of violent recourses).

Originally posted by "Ganders":

If I decided that property was theft and took your car because I didn't believe it "belonged" to you, would you object? I suspect I know the answer...

In taking my car you would deprive me of physical property. Of which there is only one of and can only be utilized by one. Yes, that would be theft. And has been understood to be theft for thousands of years.

There is a big difference between that and IP rights. (Which as stated are only a 300 yr old concept and much of the early implementations were rampant abuses.) Now, if you had an auto-duplicator and could simply drop my auto into a duplicator and pop-out another. And if you provided all the materials and all the labor. Why sure....you can make a copy of my truck. I'd have no problems. So, if I put it in light of what is available technology wise for music and extended that to a material possession such as a vehicle. Then no, I don't see any reason why you should not be able too.

But you know, I bet Ford, Toyota, and GM would sue. Why? Because it would eliminate their market of production. Why, if everyone could simply duplicate a car who would need Ford to build it. Should it be illegal to do so? If we had the means to duplicate anything, food, medicine, water, etc. Should it be illegal simply because someone owns a "intellectual property right" ?

That would seem to me to be a rather opposite result to the original intention of copyrights (to further innovation).

The real issue is that industries are always afraid of facing the dinosaur. My hometown of New Haven, CT once was a capital for carriage building. In fact, they endeavored to have laws prevent the use of automobiles. Had they won on the basis of the 4-wheel right. The automobile would never have come to being - because of simply so-called "intellectual property rights".

The scope of IP is too dangerously broad to be continually extended. And yes, one day it will collapse. Or the result will be that we will find ourselves enslaved and will be akin to serfs in 19th century Russia.

Originally posted by "ganders":
Fine; if you want to break the law and steal from people that's fine (I guess...) - but what I object to is your determination to convince everyone else that it's fine and that it's outrageous somehow that people who create something should want to prevent you stealing it.

Funny, no one seems to complain that the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain and a multitude of others are repeatedly published without any payment of royalties and rights. Why is that my dear Ganders?

Should not the inventor of the wheel have claim? after all...

Should not Ford pay the inventor of the wheel, and the washer, and of the hose, and of the axle, and of glass, and of rubber, and of oil, why...should not ALL the inventors forever be paid their royal due?

I'm not trying to convince people to steal. I am against stealing. Steal requires the taking of a physical object. If you want to go into virtual stealing. Well, I have been repeatedly stolen from by RIAA. And no one is taking or pleading my case. (Let alone all the artists who have been robbed by RIAA.) So if you expect me to even give your concept of virtual theft the limelight of the day. You best construct a system that protects me from theft by them as well. If you're not going to do that...than don't blame me for infringing on their state granted monopoly when the state is exceeding it's authorized constitutional right of granting said monopoly.

- Saj

It's still theft, and still illegal no matter how much self-righteous proselytizing you do.

crank2o

12/05/2005 04:54:19 PM · #59

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

It's still theft, and still illegal no matter how much self-righteous proselytizing you do.

I don't think Saj disagrees with you about either of these terms in the way you are using them.
Yes, it is considered theft, and yes, it is not currently legal.

His argument is not about the act of downloading a song in itself, so much as the legal and cultural framework in which this act is viewed.
For instance, did you know that in the pre-civil war era there was a word called "drapetomania" - which was basically a term used to describe a MENTAL DISORDER from which a black slave *suffered* if he wanted to run away to freedom.

Clearly, to see the desire to be free as a disorder requires a particular frame of mind. Saj is just trying to highlight that the current one that defines theft and is USED AND ADVANCED by people who profit the most from it, may not be the "best" or "most moral" one under all circumstances.

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

12/05/2005 04:54:53 PM · #60

So who here actually BOUGHT photoshop?

12/05/2005 05:00:13 PM · #61

"It's still theft, and still illegal no matter how much self-righteous proselytizing you do."

No, according to U.S. law it is not theft. It is merely an infringement on a state granted monopoly. In fact, courts have repeatedly ruled that it is not theft. And that it is distinct from theft.

Second, slavery was legal. Should it not have been opposed? Alcohol was illegal during prohibition. Should it not have been opposed? drinking from a white fountain was illegal for a black man in the 60's....should that not have been opposed?

illegal means very little except that one will potentially suffer penal consequences of their actions. I am aware of such and willing to face such hurdles should they arise. But illegal does not equate to immoral. In fact, often in U.S. history that which has been illegal has in fact been moral.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/05/2005 05:05:27 PM · #62

Originally posted by hsteg:

So who here actually BOUGHT photoshop?

Actually I did! But if I upgrade Windows next year and find that Photoshop CS2 no longer works and they want me to pay $600 to upgrade to CS3 with minimal additional features or support. Then I will endeavor to acquire a copy of CS3 and use it. And I won't have any qualms of morals on it either.

I purchased a copy already. And unless there are major core changes I do not feel justified in additional exhorberant costs.

Windows 98/98SE/Millenium all were versions of Windows 95. In fact, 90% of Windows 98 was in fact included in the last version update of Windows 95. So all the added $$$ was truly unjustified for what should have been patches made freely available. But somehow software has been granted a grant of non-responsibility. If you buy a new car and it is defective you can apply for a replacement under "lemon" laws. If you buy almost any other product you have a warranty period.

You buy software like Microsoft Windows and it can be super buggy full of vulnerabilities. And you have no recourse and no ability to even sue. Go figure....

Now, XP, was a "new" core, and really a new OS. So I was willing to buy a copy of XP.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/05/2005 06:44:41 PM · #63

Originally posted by theSaj:

Whatever your definition of theft is, if it makes you feel better, use it. If you take something without paying for it, it's STEALING. Again, you can say whatever you want to justify your wrongdoing, but it is still stealing and those who steal are thieves.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

12/05/2005 08:37:39 PM · #64

...

Message edited by author 2005-12-05 20:44:51.

LedZeppelin588

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

12/05/2005 10:31:20 PM · #65

Look - none of you are heroes by downloading a Polyphonic Spree song. Sorry, but it's not gonna happen. You're not being civil rights activists by not paying for music. You're not overcoming adversity by not paying for music.

Use a better explanation because I, for the most part agree with you. At first, I downloaded music as a preview and if I liked the music, I went and bought the CD. You can thank the original Napster for about as many CD purchases as you can blame it for piracy.

The reason I personally oppose the RIAA is the ruthless tactics used and the immense amount of profiteering they use, using the artist. For every 99 cent song you buy on iTunes, the artist gets a grand total of three cents. You're not supporting the artist by buying anything, and I'm not going to support the RIAA by throwing 15 bucks at them to come back and sue people.

I can't support an association that exploits the artist, no matter how privileged the artists themselves. Sorry.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/05/2005 10:47:26 PM · #66

Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:

For every 99 cent song you buy on iTunes, the artist gets a grand total of three cents.

And for every song stolen, the artist gets nothing.

Would you rather have 3 cents or nothing? If you want them to have money above and beyond the compensation they get for a download, just send them a check.

The artists are not blameless either, at some point, they signed a deal. Now if that deal sucked, they still agreed to it.

If you go and buy a car and the financing is at 18% and you agree, it's a crappy deal, but you still signed the agreement. Is the dealer an A-Hole because he offered you a deal? Or are you a dumbass for signing it? Maybe a car loan at 18% interest is a better option for you than walking.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/05/2005 10:55:15 PM · #67

Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:

For every 99 cent song you buy on iTunes, the artist gets a grand total of three cents.

Are you sure -- the current statutory royalty rate for a "mechanical copy" (e.g. track on a CD) is more like six cents for a song five minutes long or shorter.