| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2006 03:38:03 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a few questions:
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. |
I cannot recall any suits for downloading music, only for making music available for upload, since this is also much easier to collect evidence for and to prove.
Originally posted by //www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm:
can confirm the legality of allofmp3.com You can legally buy/download mp3-songs from this site if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be during that moment Sorry for my english.
Yours faithfully, the assistant to the lawyer of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru.
Bahanets Roman Igorevich |
The important part of that quote is "if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be" in while downloading. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 03:42:11 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by m:
Yours faithfully, the assistant to the lawyer of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru.
Bahanets Roman Igorevich |
The important part of that quote is "if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be" in while downloading. [/quote]
So my question is, is downloading illegal? It isn't an obvious answer. Has anybody been convicted of such a crime? Has anybody even been sued? I think the answer in both cases is "no". I'm sure the RIAA considers it illegal, but they have yet to prove their case in a court of law. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 04:01:37 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Secondly, endemic copyright theft is pushing companies into doing more and more intrusive and flat-out annoying things to try and address it. Activation keys for software (which causes you hassle if you're foolish enough to change / upgrade your machine), online validation (which can screw you if you're offline), the idiocy of Sony's rootkit.
|
If people wouldn't put up with this it wouldn't last long. The problem is people put up with it, assume it's necessary, or possibly even buy the line "It's for your own good."
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by kellian:
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 "if I want it I don't see why I should have to pay for it" attitude. If I've invested time and energy into creating something then I damn well deserve to have some control over it.
|
|
There are several companies that make good money from free software (admittedly this is not public domain, for the most part).
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 04:22:48 AM · #129 |
Yes there are - and I think that's fantastic.
However, in general developers of the open source stuff you're talking about aren't doing it to make a living; in fact it's rarely the developers seeing any of that money themselves. The companies making money are (in general) selling supporting services.
Perhaps I should clarify a little. I have nothing against public domain. I don't have anything against open source - hell, I've been known to release one or two things under GPL myself.
The point is, it's MY choice, not theSaj or anyone elses, whether I want to charge money for my creative work or if I want everyone to freely copy it. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 05:45:40 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So my question is, is downloading illegal? It isn't an obvious answer. Has anybody been convicted of such a crime? Has anybody even been sued? I think the answer in both cases is "no". I'm sure the RIAA considers it illegal, but they have yet to prove their case in a court of law. |
The answer to your questions is "yes" in the UK and the US. Thousands have had proceedings commenced against them. Some of them have gone to trial. At least one conviction has been appealed and upheld.
For example:
//www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/gonzalez_appeal_rejected/
The only reason that primary uploaders are in the first wave is that they cause more economic damage. This is for the same reason that fences are treated more harshly than burglars: the best way to police the practice is to take away the enablers, not the perpetrators.
Downloading is every bit as unlawful as uploading: it is simply less economically damaging to download ten tracks once than to upload ten tracks that may be downloaded 10,000 times each.
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 17:50:55.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2006 02:03:39 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by ganders:
However, in general developers of the open source stuff you're talking about aren't doing it to make a living; in fact it's rarely the developers seeing any of that money themselves. The companies making money are (in general) selling supporting services. |
I don't mean to turn this into a drawn-out argument of semantics, but the companies I mentioned employ quite a number of people that get paid to write open-source and sometimes public domain code. Novell purchased Ximian which developed Evolution (similar to MS Outlook, I'm told) and the rest of the Gnome desktop environment. SuSE (also part of Novell), Red Hat, and IBM all employ people who get paid to hack the Linux kernel. These are all people making a living from hacking open source.
Admittedly not everybody who releases code open source makes their living that way, but it is definitely quite possible to do so. Likewise, most people don't make a living taking pictures, but it's certainly possible to do so. In both cases, there are hobbiests who take the occastional snapshot or write the occasional patch, and there are those that are getting paid to churn out GPLed code or photos.
Originally posted by ganders:
The point is, it's MY choice, not theSaj or anyone elses, whether I want to charge money for my creative work or if I want everyone to freely copy it. |
... and I won't argue with that. Copyright laws provide both you and those who use your work certain rights. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 05:14:31 AM · #132 |
Hi all,
Check out frostwire too.
Originally posted by Frostwire:
FrostWire, although very much like LimeWire, will never offer a paid version or a subscription service for the download or use of the FrostWire application. FrostWire is a not-for-profit project. We will never bundle our software with any type of adware, spyware, malware or collect any personal or private data. FrostWire will always remain free as in both price and freedom. |
I'm not sure about limewire but frostwire will warn you if what you want to download is copyright protected. |
|
|
|
01/11/2009 01:10:43 AM · #133 |
hey wat about if u can't afford a software n u download it from limewire for example "FL Studios" but u just want it for urself like for fun not to make profit ..is that illegal too???..n also music if u download it from there but u won't share it u just want it for urself to enjoy it is it illegal??
it's cus i didn't know all these n know i'm shokd cus i do dat n i don't want to get in trouble u know???.. i some day want to become a singer so i download softwares from limewire dat helps me with my vocals n i don't have the muney to buy it so i do dat ...am i doing wrong?? |
|
|
|
01/11/2009 01:24:24 AM · #134 |
| Hey amigo, 2005 called...they want their thread back. |
|
|
|
01/11/2009 02:28:20 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by amigo91:
...am i doing wrong?? |
If the copyright-holder of the software requires a license fee for its use, then yes -- that activity is typically referred to as "software piracy."
There is lots of free and low-cost software posted at Download.com -- I suggest you try there before resorting to breaking the law. |
|
|
|
02/03/2010 03:37:07 PM · #136 |
Let me clarify something. if you invent software, make music, or produce a picture, movie or any other content; and you market that content for the purpose to generate money for profit from individual sales of said products, responsibillity should fall on the creator of that product to impliment ways to phisically protect that product.
One should not be given the right to sell that product to say one individual and then in turn recoup profits from its resale, over and over again. This is not done with any other products that are deemed tangible items or ideas of copy or copyrights. So why shoud it be so for music or movies or software.
If I buy a car, I can sell that car if my "obligation" to purchase that car is clearly settled with the lease owner of whom I owed. They have no more legal right to it. If I breakdown that car and reproduce it with all raw materials, it can legally be sold also. The same goes for a house, or other large items of ownership.
But when it comes to more portable items tht are easily made transferable, owners of the original material cry fowl because they see the potential for future profits from resale over and over. If I produce an item, I should be able to profit from that item. If a purchaser of my item figures out how to utilize it for profits in turn for themselves, then it is either my responsibility to invent protection devices to hinder reproduction so that my product can not be reproduced by any means or be happy that i am recieving free advertiesment that my product is so good it warrants a market for not only that product, but anticipation for future products from me.
Case in point: Avatar the movie is now the highest grossing movie of All time. I don't hear the motion picture assotiation screaming Bootleggers hindered sales. Only when they produce a not so profitable movie, they blame the bootleggers.
Listen, i have worked with many famous recording artist and have witness even those artist using other artist tracks without any compensation to the original owners (first person witness). Record companys used this tactic of complaining to the artist that "I can't pay you as much as a previous artist because of bootlegging" in order to keep thier profits up and to hell with the artist. All producers of blank CD and DVD media should be liablee to pay "per blank media sold" fees to a central organization who in turn distribute those funds to the production (music/movie)industry based on a per downloaded bases. blank media cant be easily produced at home. So what is the problem? black CDs and DVDs as well as MP3 devices are way to cheap. Based on the technology they enable us to achieve. why are'nt blanks sold for $10.00 each and computers with the ability to carry CD or DVD burners by means of external or internal means cost more. i see now there are tiny laptops with no burners or usb connections added.
This is how the technology was suppose to evolve in the beginning and not at the later like now.
I could argue this forever, but you all know i'm right. Don't alienate the same people who made you rich. not when I see police officers and lawyers and judges as well as other artist bootlegging what they really want.
someone should file suit on the knucleheads that initiated all this false bantering and hipocritical posturing for profits of the lazy S.O.B.'s that want to not create more often than 20 years ago. you cant make ust one hit and get paid anymore. times and speed of technology has changed and now those who put this mess out here cant handle evolution. Well, shame on them cause i think change will still come. |
|
|
|
02/03/2010 03:51:05 PM · #137 |
| the art of D.J.ing is out. can i copyright the rhythm of a woodpecker if i record it and make a hit song. if i sell a 70 million copies and then someone else happens to record another woodpecker and creates a similar song, what happens then. rhythm cant be property. Period. everyone wants ownership of too much these days. most recently the NFL rushed to trademark the phrase "WHO DAT". Only, and only when the originators of the phrase, New Orleans Saints fans started making profit from it by means of mom and pop print shops when the saints went to the superbowl. shame on big money! perfct example of how the record industry muscled the artist and then the courts into this idiotic idea that sounds made by any means can be copyrighted. silence really is golden. Hey, maybee I can copyright silence,. Hmmm. |
|
|
|
02/03/2010 03:54:17 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by PixelPixDigital:
most recently the NFL rushed to trademark the phrase "WHO DAT". Only, and only when the originators of the phrase, New Orleans Saints fans started making profit from it by means of mom and pop print shops when the saints went to the superbowl. |
While I don't completely disagree with your sentiment, the NFL copyrighted the use of that phrase when used with the Saints logo - at least that's the way I saw it reported. |
|
|
|
02/03/2010 04:15:05 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by PixelPixDigital:
responsibillity should fall on the creator of that product to impliment ways to phisically protect that product. |
Which will incur extra R&D costs, which will be passed on to the consumer. Even the copy protection from the likes of Microsoft and Sony eventually gets cracked; they are constantly playing a game of catch-up on their protection technology. And how do the consumers react when a new protection method is introduced? (hint: Apple/DRM, Microsoft/Xbox Live)
These companies spend billions on developing their products. What gives some bootlegger the right to come along and decide he wants a free ride? So on this point, I disagree. Copyright law is there for a reason.
Originally posted by PixelPixDigital:
One should not be given the right to sell that product to say one individual and then in turn recoup profits from its resale, over and over again. This is not done with any other products that are deemed tangible items or ideas of copy or copyrights. So why shoud it be so for music or movies or software. |
20 years ago sales of 7" vinyl is what determined a single's chart position. These days the number of digital downloads determine its position. The only difference between the two is that one is on 'tangible' vinyl, and the other isn't.
I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that record companies just release mp3s on their websites for free? - Then how will the artists make money? (Same argument for software and other digital media, are you saying it should be all free?)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2010 07:56:17 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by PixelPixDigital:
can i copyright the rhythm of a woodpecker if i record it and make a hit song. |
Yes
Originally posted by PixelPixDigital:
if i sell a 70 million copies and then someone else happens to record another woodpecker and creates a similar song, what happens then. |
Nothing - they haven't copied your work. They have made their own recording of the woodpecker.
I am afraid that your posts are full of misunderstandings and false outrages. Gullible people who don't understand intellectual property rights will agree with you. Lucky for you there are plenty of people like that...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2010 08:03:51 PM · #141 |
|
