DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Is LimeWire Legal?
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 141, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/16/2006 05:39:45 AM · #101
Originally posted by CalamitysMaster00:
IF you are NOT paying for it, its illegal. Pirating....normally 500-2k per mp3 or pirated file. :)


If pirating software is your worst sin then you are a better man than most. I think our society has more to worry about than making sure Dr Dre gets all his dues.
If the police want to come and check me I have about $10,000 of pirated software, 15,000 pirated songs.
My name is Dylan Darroch, Calgary Alberta.
thankfully the Canadian authorities aren't as autoritarian as the Americans and our government defends the rights of internet providers not to give out personal information.
02/16/2006 07:00:02 AM · #102
Originally posted by The Dmachine:
I would never spend $1200 on photoshop, so I am proud to say I pirated it. Adobe did not lose any money by ME pirating it, seeing as I would have never bought it in the first place. Adobe lost NO money because of me, they didn't gain money, but they allso didn't lose any.

However, you now have $1200-worth of software and the creator of that software has got nothing out of it.

Now, if I had a photograph for sale for $100, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone just downloaded a copy and printed it themselves and stuck it on their wall. I wouldn't care if they said "oh I would never have paid $100 for it so you haven't lost anything" - they'd have something of mine that I didn't want them to have.

Leaving aside the fallacy of the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument (if you didn't have Photoshop, might you have bought Elements, or PSP?) - it's still taking something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of the owner.

Meh. Nothing I say is going to stop you stealing software, so I'll stop wasting bandwidth.
 02/16/2006 07:32:43 AM · #103
Originally posted by The Dmachine:
There is a BIG difference between stealing something and pirating software and music. Here it is:

I would never spend $1200 on photoshop, so I am proud to say I pirated it. Adobe did not lose any money by ME pirating it, seeing as I would have never bought it in the first place. Adobe lost NO money because of me, they didn't gain money, but they allso didn't lose any.
But if I went and stole a car the company or person would lose the cost of all the materials for the car. Its a very plain cause and effect relationship. Me pirating software does not have the same relationship.


Then use The GIMP. It's free.

~Terry
 02/16/2006 10:21:13 AM · #104
Originally posted by "ganders":
You've repeatedly expressed your desire to disregard copyright law, despite the fact that you yourself have shown copyright to be enshrined in the US Constitution. Therefore, your position is unConstitutional.


Actually, I've stated that copyright law is not being implemented according to the spirit or the letter of the law as prescribed in the Constitution. And that certain laws are in direct violation of the Constitution's pre-requisites for copyright law.

And where as I may disagree in part with certain elements and aspects of copyrights prescribed by U.S. law. I am willing to accept that which is a proper implementation according to said Constitutional law.

Of note, current laws are not meeting said groundwork.

Originally posted by "ganders":

The US Constitution is always held up as a sacred text of America, so to actively go against that text is, by definition, unAmerican.


Actually, I'm trying to get it enforced. Right now, they are enforcing only one side. And yes, I am not going to respect a one-sided law. When they re-alter the laws to address all required aspects then I will respect them, even if I am not personally in full agreement.

Originally posted by "CalamitysMaster00":

IF you are NOT paying for it, its illegal. Pirating....normally 500-2k per mp3 or pirated file.


My dear Calamity, frankly my dear...I don't give a damn. I do not care about what is illegal or what is not. I care about that which I believe to be moral or immoral. Many things that are immoral are allowed legally. And a fair number of things which are not immoral are made illegal.

So saying it's illegal is not the issue being discussed. So is taking a bath in Boston without a prescription or on Sunday's.

In fact, what I am fighting it the concept and mis-representation by such entities as RIAA. And their growing attempt to steal from the American people, both directly and indirectly (from the public domain).

Originally posted by "ganders":
First, I'm in an industry that can only exist with copyright. I a software developer, and I cannot make any money if everybody adopted theSaj's


Frankly, I find it a lame argument.

a) there is plenty of open source products some of a lesser quality and some of superior quality. But it shows that innovation and production continues regardless.

b) i've already stated an accepted copyright for commercial use for a short period of time. And frankly, yes, I do believe that any version of a program that is 5 yrs or older should go into domain. It's quite doubtful that such would bear forth the demise of the software industry. I see no reason why Grand Theft Auto II should be still copy-protected a150 yrs from now.

"If I've invested time and energy into creating something then I damn well deserve to have some control over it. "

c) For a short period of time...fine, then yes. But not indefinitely. Especially in a system where you're having built a mousetrap prevents another from doing so.

"Secondly, endemic copyright theft is pushing companies into doing more and more intrusive and flat-out annoying things to try and address it."

You mean, like stealing other people's code as SONY did? Look, the thing I find funny is most of the big name companies that raise the fuss over this crap are the largest violators. How many times has RIAA stolen music, stolen profits, stolen other people's code and software? how many times have Microsoft stolen software and hardware designs? and they get mere slaps on the wrist.

$1 million penalty is what percentage of Microsoft's income?
vs
$12,000 is what percentage of a downloader's income?

"But that doesn't mean that his desire to steal copyrighted material can't go unchallenged does it?"

Why should I give a damn about theft from copyright holder's when they are repeatedly stealing from both me and the general public? If theft is wrong - than it must be both ways.

"However, you now have $1200-worth of software and the creator of that software has got nothing out of it."

a) Said software is not worth $1,200 - sorry, it's not. For instance I bought several thousand dollars worth of software & hardware while a college student. I tried to have everything legal. However, I found that thru the range of things I could not maintain compatility of all my products. This one required I was on "x" update, which would than prevent said other product from working. I'd have to update to a newer version. Which prevented my printer from working. Then, in order to listen to "x" new version of audio, I'd need the new player. However, this would over-write and prevent me from using my older version which was a higher end version with more features. (Now a seperate product.)

Within 2 yrs time I found myself in a position where 80% of my investment was non-functional. And I was near the point of bankruptancy.

Nope....the value just isn't there. In truth, I do try to buy each generation.

For example: I owned Windows 95c, which was one of the last version to be released before Windows98. I refused to ever pay for '98 because it was merely a large bug fix which should have been made available free. It was the same core, and most of the claimed features (USB, etc) I already had in my version of 95. In fact, the main features for me was "increased stability" (which is not a feature it's a failing on the defective version I was sold) and a little better ease of sorting the menus. Same thing with 98SE. Come on, so little is different you can't even change the name? Even Millenium was the same product with a few more bug fixes. No real value. That's like selling a car with defective tires and then demanding that if you want the tires replaced you have to buy a new car. Who in their right !@#$% mind is going to accept that?

Now, when Windows 2000 came along I bought a copy, as that was a new version of the NT line. I even bought a copy of XP. And Vista I will likely buy as it is appears as though it will be a significant version. But !@#$% any programmer who thinks I am going to pay them for patching their buggy-arse packaged software.

02/16/2006 10:22:14 AM · #105
RIAA does it again!

I really want you guys to explain and justify this !@#$% bull!@#$...so now, I can't even rip music from my own CD's according to RIAA:

These guys are pure evil, they now, want to make it illegal for you to rip your own CD's and load them into your iPod. There argument is there are now plenty of sites you can download your music. And if you want back-ups well, you can buy from a download service that allows multiple back-ups or CDs are readily available at affordable prices.

//www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php

02/16/2006 10:24:03 AM · #106
One last question...

If, the law is changed and copyrights removed or reduced back to short time limits so that sharing older music, software, etc. is no longer legal.

What are you guys going to say? You wouldn't be able to say it's "illegal". It won't be stealing. It won't be a crime. In such a situation...what are your arguments?
 02/16/2006 10:36:57 AM · #107
Still blowing all that wind to justify stealing.....

Sad.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "ganders":
You've repeatedly expressed your desire to disregard copyright law, despite the fact that you yourself have shown copyright to be enshrined in the US Constitution. Therefore, your position is unConstitutional.


Actually, I've stated that copyright law is not being implemented according to the spirit or the letter of the law as prescribed in the Constitution. And that certain laws are in direct violation of the Constitution's pre-requisites for copyright law.

And where as I may disagree in part with certain elements and aspects of copyrights prescribed by U.S. law. I am willing to accept that which is a proper implementation according to said Constitutional law.

Of note, current laws are not meeting said groundwork.

Originally posted by "ganders":

The US Constitution is always held up as a sacred text of America, so to actively go against that text is, by definition, unAmerican.


Actually, I'm trying to get it enforced. Right now, they are enforcing only one side. And yes, I am not going to respect a one-sided law. When they re-alter the laws to address all required aspects then I will respect them, even if I am not personally in full agreement.

Originally posted by "CalamitysMaster00":

IF you are NOT paying for it, its illegal. Pirating....normally 500-2k per mp3 or pirated file.


My dear Calamity, frankly my dear...I don't give a damn. I do not care about what is illegal or what is not. I care about that which I believe to be moral or immoral. Many things that are immoral are allowed legally. And a fair number of things which are not immoral are made illegal.

So saying it's illegal is not the issue being discussed. So is taking a bath in Boston without a prescription or on Sunday's.

In fact, what I am fighting it the concept and mis-representation by such entities as RIAA. And their growing attempt to steal from the American people, both directly and indirectly (from the public domain).

Originally posted by "ganders":
First, I'm in an industry that can only exist with copyright. I a software developer, and I cannot make any money if everybody adopted theSaj's


Frankly, I find it a lame argument.

a) there is plenty of open source products some of a lesser quality and some of superior quality. But it shows that innovation and production continues regardless.

b) i've already stated an accepted copyright for commercial use for a short period of time. And frankly, yes, I do believe that any version of a program that is 5 yrs or older should go into domain. It's quite doubtful that such would bear forth the demise of the software industry. I see no reason why Grand Theft Auto II should be still copy-protected a150 yrs from now.

"If I've invested time and energy into creating something then I damn well deserve to have some control over it. "

c) For a short period of time...fine, then yes. But not indefinitely. Especially in a system where you're having built a mousetrap prevents another from doing so.

"Secondly, endemic copyright theft is pushing companies into doing more and more intrusive and flat-out annoying things to try and address it."

You mean, like stealing other people's code as SONY did? Look, the thing I find funny is most of the big name companies that raise the fuss over this crap are the largest violators. How many times has RIAA stolen music, stolen profits, stolen other people's code and software? how many times have Microsoft stolen software and hardware designs? and they get mere slaps on the wrist.

$1 million penalty is what percentage of Microsoft's income?
vs
$12,000 is what percentage of a downloader's income?

"But that doesn't mean that his desire to steal copyrighted material can't go unchallenged does it?"

Why should I give a damn about theft from copyright holder's when they are repeatedly stealing from both me and the general public? If theft is wrong - than it must be both ways.

"However, you now have $1200-worth of software and the creator of that software has got nothing out of it."

a) Said software is not worth $1,200 - sorry, it's not. For instance I bought several thousand dollars worth of software & hardware while a college student. I tried to have everything legal. However, I found that thru the range of things I could not maintain compatility of all my products. This one required I was on "x" update, which would than prevent said other product from working. I'd have to update to a newer version. Which prevented my printer from working. Then, in order to listen to "x" new version of audio, I'd need the new player. However, this would over-write and prevent me from using my older version which was a higher end version with more features. (Now a seperate product.)

Within 2 yrs time I found myself in a position where 80% of my investment was non-functional. And I was near the point of bankruptancy.

Nope....the value just isn't there. In truth, I do try to buy each generation.

For example: I owned Windows 95c, which was one of the last version to be released before Windows98. I refused to ever pay for '98 because it was merely a large bug fix which should have been made available free. It was the same core, and most of the claimed features (USB, etc) I already had in my version of 95. In fact, the main features for me was "increased stability" (which is not a feature it's a failing on the defective version I was sold) and a little better ease of sorting the menus. Same thing with 98SE. Come on, so little is different you can't even change the name? Even Millenium was the same product with a few more bug fixes. No real value. That's like selling a car with defective tires and then demanding that if you want the tires replaced you have to buy a new car. Who in their right !@#$% mind is going to accept that?

Now, when Windows 2000 came along I bought a copy, as that was a new version of the NT line. I even bought a copy of XP. And Vista I will likely buy as it is appears as though it will be a significant version. But !@#$% any programmer who thinks I am going to pay them for patching their buggy-arse packaged software.

02/16/2006 11:05:08 AM · #108
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Still blowing all that wind to justify stealing.....


No, just sad that many are too ill-informed to know their rights are being stolen.

Sad, that I am repeatedly being robbed by RIAA and have no recourse.

Sad, that I can't get any response from my legislators on this issue because RIAA has paid them boatloads of cash so they refuse to address my complaints.

Sad, that you accuse me of stealing but will not even raise a voice in defence of me being robbed.

Sad, that you really are so lacking in understanding my motives that you think this is about stealing when it is a cause I see so much vital. You think it is about stealing and yet it is a cause I am willing to die fighting for because I believe it's about slavery and freedom.

02/16/2006 12:04:36 PM · #109
The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is people think the artist or creator is the one that is suffering;

pardon my cynical nature but here is my take on the whole “pirating issue”

Look in to what each individual musician/artist earns as “profit” off a CD. Not U2 and the megastars who can write their own contracts, but the mid range artist. Its not much; an artist makes more off touring.

The corporations buy the radio stations, and play corporate music, to a force fed, semi enthused public full of CD club members and 14 year old clones. They sell you a CD with one hit on it, and the rest is drivel. You paid $17 for shit that is so simlar to the other shit put out by the next company that its scary. For instance, every record label has an “avril lavigne” type, a boy band type, a stupid have rock and half rap group, a poser rock band a la nickelback, and the list goes on. And then you have the terrible retread groups like the Velvet revolver slash and the heroin addict band- thats the best the music industry can find? Finally you get fed up with the whole industry hype, and buy an Mp3 player, with improved quality meant to play MP3's and so the record company can’t even use the quality argument. So even the passive fan is provoked to download and then, if they like the music, perhaps buy the CD. Perhaps the casual listener finds something they like better and buy new artist material. OR go see a live show.
Because of “Pirating,” a dj in Hawaii found a shaggy song (“wasn’t me”) on Napster, and played it; Shaggy got his major label deal back.

To sum up; Downloading or Pirating hurts the big corporation, and the corporate shill(Metallica) more than anyone. It promotes live original music, promotes people making quality albums, promotes better radio (usually college or satelite) and broadens the listeners horizons.

Hell, with the increased quality of home recording and mastering, The future may just be downloading directly from the bands website to your mp3 player. That would be fine with me.

And for the major label that wants to stop people from making their own mix cd̢۪s or mp3 mixes... you deserve what you get.
 02/16/2006 12:28:33 PM · #110
theSaj,

It appears to me that all of your voluminous posts boil down to just three succinct points:

1. Copyright should not be extended from its current period of protection, and ideally the period of protection should be reduced in scope.

2. The RIAA abuses its near-monopolistic position and their practices should be restrained.

3. DRM does not operate effectively and needs either to be refined or abolished.

I don't think that most people would seriously object to these propositions, though they may not care enough to actively support such a stance.

The rest of what you say appears to be your own interpretation of the morality of the position based upon anecdotal examples, rather than a coherent or consistent principled approach.

Unless you can codify your moral objection (beyond the three points that I have identified, and preferably succinctly) it will be very difficult to have a serious debate.

Otherwise, I only have one comment.

Originally posted by theSaj:
b) so you're telling me if I just write and sign a statement swearing I had acquired said music legally but have no evidence to prove such, that THAT is enough to protect me legally? funny, I just have serious doubts such would hold up in court.


Sworn evidence is at the crux of the US (and UK) legal systems. You swear a statement and present your evidence (the bills, letters from your service provider itemising general charges), and the person suing you presents their statement and evidence (records showing you visiting DownloadIllegalTunezHere.com). The court looks at the evidence and makes a judgment based on the probabilities.

Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:53:55.
 02/16/2006 12:53:06 PM · #111
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is people think the artist or creator is the one that is suffering;


Fundamentally, if the artist were suffering, they have other distribution avenues available to them. If they want you to download the music without payment, they will ask you to do so.

For example, The Arctic Monkeys released their music free to download for a significant period, built a following, and have had a string of number 1 singles and album sales (and now Brit Awards) after they released their first CD in stores and on iTunes. Th important bit being that they did choose to release a CD and iTune tracks: they did not decide to stick with the free downloads policy.

There is free music to be downloaded: if you don't like the big label stuff, then download the free tunes.

Originally posted by blindjustice:
Finally you get fed up with the whole industry hype, and buy an Mp3 player, with improved quality meant to play MP3's and so the record company can̢۪t even use the quality argument.

... The future may just be downloading directly from the bands website to your mp3 player. That would be fine with me.

And for the major label that wants to stop people from making their own mix cd̢۪s or mp3 mixes... you deserve what you get.


MP3 is generally lower quality than CD or vinyl

direct downloads are already here (iTunes and a thousand others)

The major labels do not care about your mix tapes, they care about you downloading someone else's work without paying them for it.


02/16/2006 01:45:55 PM · #112
Originally posted by faidoi:

That's why Apples' iTunes is such a good plan. Buy only the music you want.


And I do use iTunes. But if I can't find it there or I've already paid for the song in CD or cassette form several times, I just download it without paying. Sue me. ;)
 02/16/2006 02:07:00 PM · #113
Originally posted by kellian:
And I do use iTunes. But if I can't find it there or I've already paid for the song in CD or cassette form several times, I just download it without paying. Sue me. ;)


Yeah, that's about how I feel, as well as most of the "net-savvy" people I know. I hate hate hate that I can't make copies of something that I bought. I'm one of those who still has pristine cassette tapes from the 80s because I immediately made copies to listen to, in order to preserve the original. So when I buy a CD, if I can't figure out how to copy it, I will often go and find the songs elsewhere in order to make a copy. I'll be the first to admit that it's wrong in a way, but considering copy protection isn't (or at least wasn't the last time I checked) even legal...

Yeah, I am probably rationalizing it, but I want my CDs to stay in great condition. I don't share the music I get, so I don't feel it's horrible.
 02/16/2006 02:16:38 PM · #114
I'm a bit confused, Cyndane - probably getting old - but why buy CDs that you don't play? My mother used to keep items like a dinner service for best and used it once or twice in 20 years. Seems to me that if you bought something because you loved it, why not use it and enjoy it?

Sorry I know this is off subject but I am intrigued!

P
:)
 02/16/2006 02:31:55 PM · #115
Originally posted by Cyndane:
Originally posted by kellian:
And I do use iTunes. But if I can't find it there or I've already paid for the song in CD or cassette form several times, I just download it without paying. Sue me. ;)


Yeah, that's about how I feel, as well as most of the "net-savvy" people I know. I hate hate hate that I can't make copies of something that I bought. I'm one of those who still has pristine cassette tapes from the 80s because I immediately made copies to listen to, in order to preserve the original. So when I buy a CD, if I can't figure out how to copy it, I will often go and find the songs elsewhere in order to make a copy. I'll be the first to admit that it's wrong in a way, but considering copy protection isn't (or at least wasn't the last time I checked) even legal...

Yeah, I am probably rationalizing it, but I want my CDs to stay in great condition. I don't share the music I get, so I don't feel it's horrible.


Genuine back ups for personal use cause no loss to the creator of the music. The creator has suffered no loss, if all you have done is backed up your collection. Pretty much the same position if you download songs that you already have in your collection.

The proviso is that if you have a tape, or a bad record, and download a digitally remastered, high quality CD recording, then you have done more than backup your collection (you have pinched the work of the person who did the digital remastering etc, without paying for it).

However, if you download music that you already own (especially if you have a CD already), there is not much that anyone can do to you. There may be a technical breach, but no practical remedy. As kellian says: Sue me!

Copyright holders tend to oppose these technologies, not because they want to stop you making backups, but because they know that most people will also distribute the odd unlawful copy, or worse, lots of unlawful copies.

theSaj is arguing that you ought to be able to download music that you do not already own for free a very short time after it is released (I am not sure how short).

blindjustice appears to be arguing that you are doing the creator a favour by taking his music without paying for it.
 02/16/2006 02:49:16 PM · #116
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I'm a bit confused, Cyndane - probably getting old - but why buy CDs that you don't play? My mother used to keep items like a dinner service for best and used it once or twice in 20 years. Seems to me that if you bought something because you loved it, why not use it and enjoy it?

Sorry I know this is off subject but I am intrigued!

P
:)


Mostly because I want to keep the originals in good condition, so that I'll always have them. I'll buy a CD and make a copy if I can, and when that gets used and scratched and skips a lot, I can grab the original and make another copy. That way I will always have a pristine copy of CDs that I really enjoy, and I don't have to replace them every few months... I'm really hard on a CD, never leave them in cases (and if I do remember to re-case it, it's usually the wrong case)... you should see my car... stacks of CDs without cases that I just shuffle through when I want to find a certain one. :)

I'm not a fan of having "good china", on a side note. I figure that if using my really good dishes makes me happy, and makes my family feel special, why not use it often? I like to break that stuff out a few times a month, and it's really cool to see how much it's appreciated. When there's a set that gets pulled out once or twice a year, everyone is just nervous about damaging it and no one can really just enjoy it...
 02/16/2006 03:20:55 PM · #117
Originally posted by theSaj:
One last question...

If, the law is changed and copyrights removed or reduced back to short time limits so that sharing older music, software, etc. is no longer legal.

What are you guys going to say? You wouldn't be able to say it's "illegal". It won't be stealing. It won't be a crime. In such a situation...what are your arguments?

In such a situation, it wouldn't be stealing. So why would I have any arguments about it?

I have no objection to you or anyone else copying public domain stuff, or anything over which you have copying rights. The only stuff I object to is your desire to copy protected material directly against the wishes of the copyright holder.
 02/16/2006 05:55:40 PM · #118
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is people think the artist or creator is the one that is suffering;


Fundamentally, if the artist were suffering, they have other distribution avenues available to them. If they want you to download the music without payment, they will ask you to do so.

For example, The Arctic Monkeys released their music free to download for a significant period, built a following, and have had a string of number 1 singles and album sales (and now Brit Awards) after they released their first CD in stores and on iTunes. Th important bit being that they did choose to release a CD and iTune tracks: they did not decide to stick with the free downloads policy.

There is free music to be downloaded: if you don't like the big label stuff, then download the free tunes.

Originally posted by blindjustice:
Finally you get fed up with the whole industry hype, and buy an Mp3 player, with improved quality meant to play MP3's and so the record company can̢۪t even use the quality argument.

... The future may just be downloading directly from the bands website to your mp3 player. That would be fine with me.

And for the major label that wants to stop people from making their own mix cd̢۪s or mp3 mixes... you deserve what you get.


MP3 is generally lower quality than CD or vinyl

direct downloads are already here (iTunes and a thousand others)

The major labels do not care about your mix tapes, they care about you downloading someone else's work without paying them for it.


Much like small business tax evasion, the whole thing is rather non-policable to a large extent, so it becomes an issue of morals and not a discreetly legal issue. \

If you read the previous posts, there is much talk about restriction of copying of your own personal cd property in many ways. Big Business wants to make your mix tape obsolete, at least the one you playat a party or share with a friend.

"MP3 is generally lower quality than CD or vinyl"

I agree, but on your headphone on the train or in your car very few people save serious audiophiles can tell on the new equipment made to play mp3's.

You say don't be anecdotal, and then you throw stories around about the ass monkies or some shit; listen, this is not about the law or constitution. This is about Rock n' Roll. Anti-corporate, anti-man. If you make rock n' roll corporate, it can't exist that way. Rock n' Roll is America. Don't buy into the corporate position. You can't get away from "Since youv'e been gone" by Kelly Clarkson on the radio in heavy rotation, but you can't download the stupid song? Bullshit.

The reason America is great is Rock n' roll. We fight our wars to rock n' roll. Without Rock n' roll you have Iran. I bet you they have well enforced copyright laws there!

Message edited by author 2006-02-16 17:57:12.
 02/16/2006 10:07:51 PM · #119

3. DRM does not operate effectively and needs either to be refined or abolished.

Hmm...don't recall mentioning DRM's effectiveness. I did point out the aspect that it seems extremely hypocritical to steal a software programmer's code in order to make your DRM software to protect your intellectual property. Makes it really loud & clear - it's all about the $$$.

And yes, I do believe that DRM should not infringe legal owner's fair use.

"The rest of what you say appears to be your own interpretation of the morality of the position based upon anecdotal examples, rather than a coherent or consistent principled approach."

Good ad hominem, attack me and my words with mere labelling. Sorry, that's not the case. They're quite valid and not mere opinion.

"Unless you can codify your moral objection (beyond the three points that I have identified, and preferably succinctly) it will be very difficult to have a serious debate."

You're just full of debate fallacies tonight aren't you. Great reference to false dilemma.

I've codified my moral objections quite a bit. You've mentioned three, I've mentioned 1/2 a dozen. No, I'm not going to re-iterate them. But if you want another...

Simple moral objection. The mere fact that an individual has come up with an idea, does not preclude that individual to be the only one to come up or use such idea morally. Were this to be the case, and if it were morality, mankind would still be throwing sticks and stones.

In fact, there is potential for two independent individuals to devise the same or similar mechanism or idea. A man in Europe may indeed be the first European but the same invention may be pre-dated by an Indian man.

It is you, that must prove to me that said argument is indeed a right. That he who conceives and idea first should be the only one with right to such idea. Furthermore, you must do so in a workable manner, that shows said progress of humanity, arts, and ideas is able to progress throughout history as such. And explain to me how said rules, in they were implemented retroactively throughout history.

If said argument of this right is unable to stand throughout, then it cannot be a morality.

"You swear a statement and present your evidence (the bills, letters from your service provider itemising general charges), and the person suing you presents their statement and evidence (records showing you visiting DownloadIllegalTunezHere.com)."

a) my bills merely show general charges, so they pose very little evidence, frankly none, of ownership.

b) they have no evidence of me being at downloadingillegaltunezhere.com

Merely the fact that I have undocumented tunes on my machine.

Second, I have gigs worth of MP3's I ripped from my own CDs that I legally purchased. Now, RIAA wants to tell me those are illegal. Please advise?

LegalBeagle, you keep mentioning "Artist's Choose" but you have failed to comment at all regarding the choice of artists being stolen by RIAA regarding the collection of royalties for online radio broadcasts?

"Genuine back ups for personal use cause no loss to the creator of the music. The creator has suffered no loss, if all you have done is backed up your collection. Pretty much the same position if you download songs that you already have in your collection."

LegalBeagle, you are so so misinformed. Downloading music you already own copies of, according to RIAA, is ILLEGAL!

And RIAA now is mentioning making the act of ripping your CDs and loading them onto your iPod illegal as well. Or trying to.

In fact, MP3.com tried to use such concept by providing an off-site back-up you could listen to anywhere and were sued, bankrupted and bought by RIAA. WHo then went on to steal thousands of artists creative works.

"Copyright holders tend to oppose these technologies, not because they want to stop you making backups, but because they know that most people will also distribute the odd unlawful copy, or worse, lots of unlawful copies. "

No, because they're greedy. Which is the same reason why you can't bring your scratched Britney album into the store and exchange it for just the $5 it really cost to make and deliver it.

"theSaj is arguing that you ought to be able to download music that you do not already own for free a very short time after it is released (I am not sure how short)."

Which, I might add, is EXACTLY what the Constitution of the United States of America dictates by Constitutional law.

Originally posted by "ganders":
I have no objection to you or anyone else copying public domain stuff,


The !@#$% point is the current laws and future planned changes are going to eliminate the public domain. It will cease growing.

And frankly, if artists do that, then no, I have no qualms about not protecting their art one bit.

"The only stuff I object to is your desire to copy protected material directly against the wishes of the copyright holder."

So you have no problem with using public domain material. No problem with the fact that no more material is going to enter public domain. Now that's quite the interesting twist. You're angry at me for taking, when I see it very much the other way around.
 02/16/2006 11:11:41 PM · #120
Here's a few questions:

Has anybody noticed, for example, that's Warner's profits have gone up due in large part to their online music store? It would be interesting if you could decipher the 10-Q to deduce the profit margin on this section of their business. I bet it's huge.

Has there even been an actual test case of the illegality downloading music? Sure RIAA says it's illegal, but RIAA isn't the law. Sure they sue people, but I'm under the assumption that everybody has settled out of court. That doesn't mean it's illegal either. Has there actually been someone convicted of priacy via downloading? Other countries, Canada for example, have found such actions legal.

All these arguments became moot to me once I was introduce to AllofMP3. To me it's the best of all worlds. Cheap. I stick it to the RIAA. Musicians get paid. Legally gray, but certainly not black.

Message edited by author 2006-02-16 23:12:36.
 02/17/2006 05:35:22 AM · #121
Originally posted by theSaj:
The !@#$% point is the current laws and future planned changes are going to eliminate the public domain. It will cease growing.

Err... so there are current and/or future laws to prevent anything being put into the public domain? For someone who likes to complain about other people's debating styles, that's a bit of a Straw Man there yourself.

Originally posted by theStrawSaj:
So you have no problem with using public domain material. No problem with the fact that no more material is going to enter public domain. Now that's quite the interesting twist. You're angry at me for taking, when I see it very much the other way around.

Err... where did I say that no more material should enter public domain? I don't have an issue if Sony suddenly went insane and placed everything they hold copyright on into the public domain tomorrow. I think it would be commercial suicide but it's entirely up to the copyright holder.

I don't think copyright holders should be forced to place everything into the public domain within 5 years because I think that would be a huge disincentive to bother producing anything - it would go against the spirit of the very thing that copyright law (as enshrined in your Constitution) was created to protect.

I'm not sure what you mean by "very much the other way around" - you're angry at me for saying you shouldn't be taking..?
 02/17/2006 08:53:57 AM · #122
Originally posted by theSaj:
3. DRM does not operate effectively and needs either to be refined or abolished.

Hmm...don't recall mentioning DRM's effectiveness.


Okay - you are only making two points, not the three that I credited you with.

Originally posted by theSaj:
I did point out the aspect that it seems extremely hypocritical to steal a software programmer's code in order to make your DRM software to protect your intellectual property. Makes it really loud & clear - it's all about the $$$.


No-one is arguing that it is not hypocritical. However, you appear to be arguing for Sony's right to disregard copyright in certain circumstances.

[ edit ]This may be a point to bear in mind: if you decrease the legal protection for intellectual property, people will take corresponding action to attempt to increase the physical barriers to protect their work. In your world (so far as I can understand it), you may find that DRM is everywhere and far more invasive than currently found. Other consequences might be that films are not released onto DVD, for example, because the film companies' only protection for revenues (which it would only get from cinemas) would be the technical obstacle in copying celluloid. Information might become less free, rather than more free as you suggest.[ /edit ]

Originally posted by theSaj:


And yes, I do believe that DRM should not infringe legal owner's fair use.
so you are now making the third point...

Originally posted by theSaj:
Good ad hominem, attack me and my words with mere labelling. Sorry, that's not the case. They're quite valid and not mere opinion.


I am not attacking what you say as being untrue, just that you appear to choose a series of examples (eg Windows) and then say what you think you should or shouldn't pay for. You don't ever come up with a coherent principle

For example you should pay for 95, but not 98 or 98SE, nor ME, but yes for 2000 or XP and probably for Vista - these are all your opinion based upon how you feel Windows has been developed and what constitutes a new product rather than an update. I cannot argue with you, as this is your opinion!

It would have been more interesting, and a point capable of debate, if you had set out a principle by which any person could reach the same conclusion and then say "this principle should be enshrined in law", and then we could look at it and it would be an interesting discussion to decide whether or not it would work as intended. However, I think that there is no principle, and therefore no debate: it is simply a fact that you think some versions of Windows are not worth paying for, and the only debate is whether Windows 98 is better than 95 (which is nothing to do with copyright).

Originally posted by theSaj:
I've codified my moral objections quite a bit. You've mentioned three, I've mentioned 1/2 a dozen. No, I'm not going to re-iterate them. But if you want another...

Won't or Can't? I cannot see them - if they are succinct codifications, then it would surely not be hard to copy and paste

Originally posted by theSaj:

Simple moral objection. The mere fact that an individual has come up with an idea, does not preclude that individual to be the only one to come up or use such idea morally. Were this to be the case, and if it were morality, mankind would still be throwing sticks and stones.

In fact, there is potential for two independent individuals to devise the same or similar mechanism or idea. A man in Europe may indeed be the first European but the same invention may be pre-dated by an Indian man.
Okay - you are labouring under a fundamental misconception of the nature of copyright. Copyright prevents the copying of creative works, not people coming up with the same idea separately. If you are going to argue about this, you need to understand what it is you are arguing about.

Originally posted by theSaj:
a) my bills merely show general charges, so they pose very little evidence, frankly none, of ownership.

b) they have no evidence of me being at downloadingillegaltunezhere.com


If they have no evidence that you have stolen the music, how are they going to bring a case? If you were sued for your ringtone collection, then you could simply request the itemised breakdown from your cell phone service provider. If you have tunes on your machine for which you have managed to eliminate all data as to how they got there, and you cannot or will not explain how they got there, and someone sues you over them, then there may be circumstantial evidence of copyright infringement. But all you have to do to force the other side into finding some evidence as to your illegal activities is make a sworn statement explaining how they got there. Not such a hard thing to do, I would suggest!

Originally posted by theSaj:

Second, I have gigs worth of MP3's I ripped from my own CDs that I legally purchased. Now, RIAA wants to tell me those are illegal. Please advise?
Don't destroy all the evidence that you have and wipe your mind of the circumstances in which you acquired the CDs. If they pursue you, ask them to demonstrate that you have caused them a loss by failing to buy the music in the first place or by making your copies available to others. If they cannot do so, any judgment against you will be for USD zero. If not, I will fly over and launch your appeal myself free of charge...

Originally posted by theSaj:
LegalBeagle, you keep mentioning "Artist's Choose" but you have failed to comment at all regarding the choice of artists being stolen by RIAA regarding the collection of royalties for online radio broadcasts?
I am not sure what point you are making here: it appears to be that the RIAA collects royalties from radio stations for artists' distributors in accordance with agreements between the RIAA and the record producers and the agreements between artists and their distributors. Please spell out for me the arrangements if otherwise. I cannot see any theft or absence of agreement in these arrangements.

Originally posted by theSaj:
"Genuine back ups for personal use cause no loss to the creator of the music. The creator has suffered no loss, if all you have done is backed up your collection. Pretty much the same position if you download songs that you already have in your collection."

LegalBeagle, you are so so misinformed. Downloading music you already own copies of, according to RIAA, is ILLEGAL!


No - I am not. You have misread (or are misrepresenting) my post. I said that you will cause no loss, and there is no practical remedy against you if you choose to do so. It may be unlawful, and it may even be illegal, but there is no practical remedy.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Copyright holders tend to oppose these technologies, not because they want to stop you making backups, but because they know that most people will also distribute the odd unlawful copy, or worse, lots of unlawful copies. "

No, because they're greedy. Which is the same reason why you can't bring your scratched Britney album into the store and exchange it for just the $5 it really cost to make and deliver it.


You are not disagreeing with me here - you are just adding your interpretation of their motives for being concerned that people will take advantage of electronic copying. My interpretation might be different: a company has a duty to its shareholders to maximise profit, and by seeking to minimise unauthorised distribution of their intellectual property, the companies are complying with their duties. Whether this is "greed", I am not sure, but that seems to me to be an argument about how companies are created, operated and regulated. Nothing to do with copyright.

Originally posted by theSaj:
[No problem with the fact that no more material is going to enter public domain.
the "fact", or a risk in your opinion?

Message edited by author 2006-02-17 10:50:46.
 02/17/2006 12:19:22 PM · #123
Originally posted by "ganders":
Err... so there are current and/or future laws to prevent anything being put into the public domain? For someone who likes to complain about other people's debating styles, that's a bit of a Straw Man there yourself. "


Yes, there are...and it's not a staw man. It's directly relevant to said discussion.

"Err... where did I say that no more material should enter public domain?"

You said use of public domain material was fine. I pointed out that there is going to be no more material added to the public domain if the desired revisions are had.

"I don't think copyright holders should be forced to place everything into the public domain within 5 years because I think that would be a huge disincentive to bother producing anything - it would go against the spirit of the very thing that copyright law (as enshrined in your Constitution) was created to protect. "

Funny, as per Constitution and the original laws - it was 7 yrs. Got that, 7 yrs. And that was before mass distribution. There was an option to extend another 7 yrs to 14 yrs. Doesn't seem like it goes agains tthe spirit of my Constitution whatsoever.]

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


"No-one is arguing that it is not hypocritical. However, you appear to be arguing for Sony's right to disregard copyright in certain circumstances."


[At a bare minimum the law needs to be applicable to all. Of course, our court system makes it so the small guy has no means to pursue compensation.]

"just that you appear to choose a series of examples (eg Windows) and then say what you think you should or shouldn't pay for. You don't ever come up with a coherent principle"

My point is addressing what constitutes a valid difference or new product. And merely changing the name should not constitute a different product.

"these are all your opinion based upon how you feel Windows has been developed and what constitutes a new product rather than an update. I cannot argue with you, as this is your opinion!"

Yes, those are personal opinions. But were to express the abuse of copyright holders that is rampant in a system that has next to zero protections for the consumer.

"it is simply a fact that you think some versions of Windows are not worth paying for, and the only debate is whether Windows 98 is better than 95 (which is nothing to do with copyright). "

More so, is that Windows 95/98/SE/Millenium are all the same product. Just patches to fix flaws. And a few very minor add-ons. The point being, that a consumer should not have to pay for repairs of defective products. Second point, consumers have no recourse with defective packaged software. In fact, I've bought several products, hundreds of dollars worth actually, that do not run or work properly. I can't return them to the store. Nor can I get a response from the manufacturing company. So I'm screwed out of my $$$ with little recourse. And expending $4,000 on a lawyer for $29 is not feasible for the common public.

So yes, if I find myself with no recourse against abuse by said copyright holders, I am not going to be encourage to protect their rights either.

"you are labouring under a fundamental misconception of the nature of copyright. Copyright prevents the copying of creative works, not people coming up with the same idea separately. "

We go over this 10 times in every thread, I address both copyrights and patents. And yes, they are somewhat different, but they are very similar. Both are IP rights. And both get blurred. Copyrighting software written in common code language. Or the fact that Microsoft has copyright on pythagorean theorum. Go figure....

"Don't destroy all the evidence that you have and wipe your mind of the circumstances in which you acquired the CDs. If they pursue you, ask them to demonstrate that you have caused them a loss by failing to buy the music in the first place or by making your copies available to others. If they cannot do so, any judgment against you will be for USD zero. If not, I will fly over and launch your appeal myself free of charge..."

I'll make a note of that last part. ;-)

"I am not sure what point you are making here: it appears to be that the RIAA collects royalties from radio stations for artists' distributors in accordance with agreements between the RIAA and the record producers and the agreements between artists and their distributors. Please spell out for me the arrangements if otherwise."

For most traditional royalty collections this is the case. However, RIAA had a new royalty added to their reportoire a few years back with the DMCA. Essentially, because streaming audio is cached, they said it's a recording and not a broadcast. Therefore they should be able to demand rights. Their lawyers and much lobbying and underhanded $$$ dealings won out. So they were able to force online radio stations to pay "recording royalties" on top of the "broadcast performance royalties" (which were the only ones radio stations traditionally had to pay).

However, they then went a step forward and bought off more politicians to get approval to create a sub-corporate entity to collect ALL royalties for online broadcasts for music by ALL bands regardless if they have any arrangement with RIAA or not, with the promise to distribute such. Essentially, any radio station that plays music by "Bridgeshadows" (my friend's band, of which I produced and financed the album), must pay RIAA fees for playing our music. However, we will never see a dime from RIAA. (Too small). So essentially if a radio station plays a 1,000 songs. And 100 of those are independents. RIAA collects fees for a 1,000 performances. But those 100 independents who get very low airplay will never see their monies. Rather, it all goes to RIAA. Our decision to "choose" as artists were taken away and given to RIAA. With crap like that, no, I'm not going to give a darn about RIAA's cries of theft.

"I said that you will cause no loss, and there is no practical remedy against you if you choose to do so. It may be unlawful, and it may even be illegal, but there is no practical remedy. "

That used to be the case, cause there really was no economic loss. But over recent years RIAA has had the law altered. In fact, what used to be a mere civil violation is now a criminal felony. Simply downloading an MP3 of a song you already have on CD can legally get you convicted of a felony charge.

As for the technology, no RIAA has directly expressed that they really believe making back-ups is wrong. And that if your CD is scratched you should simply buy a very affordably priced new copy of the CD. Forcing consumers to buy a "second" license. The problem is RIAA never gives you a license for the music you buy. It's like selling you a house but never giving you the title or deed. You've got no proof of ownership.

"the "fact", or a risk in your opinion?"

The fact, that unlimited copyright will stop the progression of works into public domain.

Message edited by author 2006-02-17 12:19:42.
 02/17/2006 01:06:27 PM · #124
Originally posted by theStrawSaj:
Yes, there are...and it's not a staw man. It's directly relevant to said discussion.

So tell me what current or proposed laws prevent anything being put into the public domain(*). There ARE no such laws, and it's franky daft to pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by theStrawSaj:
"Err... where did I say that no more material should enter public domain?"

You said use of public domain material was fine. I pointed out that there is going to be no more material added to the public domain if the desired revisions are had.

The two facts are unrelated. I said using PD stuff was fine (because that's what "public domain" means). You throw up this false claim that somehow all public domain material will vanish at some point in the future - not only have I never said that, I've never said I agree with it. Quite the reverse.

(*) to clarify: there's nothing to stop any copyright holder from placing anything they own into the public domain, so the suggestion that there will be no public domain material is nonsense

Message edited by author 2006-02-17 13:12:30.
 02/17/2006 01:16:21 PM · #125
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "ganders":
Err... so there are current and/or future laws to prevent anything being put into the public domain?

Yes, there are...
...

The fact, that unlimited copyright will stop the progression of works into public domain.

You are being a bit slippery here and not answering the point put to you: the point is, that there is no law in place (nor any existing proposal) to make copyright an indefnite right. You are making statements suggesting that there are such proposals, when in fact there is only the risk that such proposals might be made.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Funny, as per Constitution and the original laws - it was 7 yrs. Got that, 7 yrs. And that was before mass distribution. There was an option to extend another 7 yrs to 14 yrs. Doesn't seem like it goes agains tthe spirit of my Constitution whatsoever.


The Copyright Act of 1790 created rights that existed for 14 years, capable of extension by a further 14 years. If you are going to use a denigratory style of delivery, have the good grace to check your facts first.

Originally posted by "theSaj":
[At a bare minimum the law needs to be applicable to all. Of course, our court system makes it so the small guy has no means to pursue compensation.]
This is a different argument, but it cuts both ways: the system makes it impractical to sue people for less than a breach causing many thousands of pounds worth of loss. Ie, the big corporation can suffer a billion tiny cuts and have no form of redress (and if you want to moralise the issue, that may result in business failure and thousands of jobs lost).

Originally posted by theSaj:
And merely changing the name should not constitute a different product.
If that was all that happened, why did you bother with the upgrades?

Originally posted by theSaj:
a consumer should not have to pay for repairs of defective products.
buy something else. And if you cannot, start criticising the poor implementation of competition law, which fails you in this regard.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Second point, consumers have no recourse with defective packaged software. In fact, I've bought several products, hundreds of dollars worth actually, that do not run or work properly. I can't return them to the store. Nor can I get a response from the manufacturing company. So I'm screwed out of my $$$ with little recourse. And expending $4,000 on a lawyer for $29 is not feasible for the common public.


The problem is not the law, but the cost of redress. Try your small claims court: you don't need a lawyer (but you do need to make your argument concisely and coherently). It is likely that the cost of defending a half decent claim will lead to quick settlement in any case.

Originally posted by theSaj:
I address both copyrights and patents. And yes, they are somewhat different, but they are very similar. Both are IP rights. And both get blurred. Copyrighting software written in common code language. Or the fact that Microsoft has copyright on pythagorean theorum. Go figure....


You never distinguish between the two, when there are many differences. There is no blurring of the rights, except in your arguments. You also confuse design rights and sometimes trademarks into the discussion, but you cause confusion because you make statements that might apply to one type of right but apply the statement to all. Patents do not have the long life of copy rights, and design rights are even shorter. Trademarks are perpetual subject to renewal. All different, and balanced differently in terms of the nature of the right and the balance between the consumer and creator. So confusing the different rights within the same argument makes for a very misleading case. If you feel the need to criticise patents, there is a very different argument with very different criteria, and you should clearly delineate your argument.

Originally posted by theSaj:
Our decision to "choose" as artists were taken away and given to RIAA. With crap like that, no, I'm not going to give a darn about RIAA's cries of theft.
sounds like a bum deal - I don't know enough about what everyone involved might have signed up to before getting into this mess, and acknowledge that commercial pressure can be huge to "just sign". But it is very likely that there was a choice of some kind, though maybe not a commercially viable one.

Originally posted by theSaj:
what used to be a mere civil violation is now a criminal felony. Simply downloading an MP3 of a song you already have on CD can legally get you convicted of a felony charge.
Breach of copyright has had criminal consequences in the UK for years. Criminal trials require criminality beyond reasonable doubt, making it quite a difficult thing to be convicted of. If there is no economic loss and no malice in the copying action, there will be no penalty as a consequence of the breach: again, there is no practical form of redress. In practice, no-one will pursue you if there is no practical remedy.

Message edited by author 2006-02-17 14:38:27.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 05:21:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 05:21:33 PM EDT.