| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2005 01:25:23 PM · #1 |
| A bunch of my friends use it, but it seems just like Napster was in the good 'ol days. How is this different? |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:33:42 PM · #2 |
It's not. Anyone who believes this is legal is just rationalizing. I don't like the behavior of some of the record companies (particularly Sony) any better than anyone else, but I still purchase all my music. I will, however, demand my fair use rights to be able to use it where I please, without limitations on where I may play it, or on what media I may maintain a *personal* copy. I will not, however share that copy with others who have no intent of purchasing the music.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:44:45 PM · #3 |
It depends what you download from it ...
If it's movies, softwares, music that are copyrighted .. ask yourself that simple question :
Did I pay to enjoy that media ? if not it must be illegal. I'm not saying that's a good thing though.
However, if your buddies use it to share music they recorded in their garage or home made movies, that's fine, no one will care. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:47:48 PM · #4 |
It is both legal and illegal.
If you are the owner/creator and thus copyright of a piece of work and then share it over Limewire with the explicit intent to get that spread your content, then it is legal. The same would be said if you were sharing someting that is meant to be shared because that is what the copyright owner wishes.
If you use it to share/obtain media that you are not the copyright owner of, then it is infringing upon another's copyright, which is to say it is breaking the law.
Most likely, your friends aren't following the letter of the law. It has been my experience that most users of those Peer to Peer networks aren't very good on the following the law bit. (Granted some are, but most aren't.) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:52:12 PM · #5 |
If you consider that Copyrights are supposed to be short-term according to the Constitution and for the sole reason of encouraging arts & innovation.
And then look at our current copyrights (75yrs with an expectation of perpetual right when the 75 yrs are up). Then copyrights are in fact, not legal in their current form.
Furthermore, if you look at RIAA, and how much thieving they do to both the artist and the consumers, plus how much manipulation to prevent alternative music and methods of delivery in order to stem competition. You find that they too are in violation of copyrights according to the Constitution.
(Note, it is the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the right to pass copyright laws. Without it, they have no jurisdiction.)
So essentially, what you have is a law that makes it illegal to breach an illegal law.
So really, why should anyone care?
So, 10 yrs ago I used to be extremely pro-copyright. In fact, I dropped nearly $4,000 to have all legal software on my computer only to find within 6-12 months I could not 90% of my software.
I own 2,000 CDs. I'll let anyone burn 'em. I just won't do it for you cause I do not have the time. But after releasing a CD in 2004 and discovering it cost me less than a $1.50 to produce in quantities of 1,000. I cannot see any reason why anyone needs to pay $20 for a CD when the artist won't even see a $1/CD.
Nope, nada....
I believe this is an issue that requires civil disobedience. Until our government restores the balance of "copyright vs public domain" and ensures fair use and access. Then nope...
For example, RIAA stole $100 worth of download music from me (ringer tones). These were legally purchased, in fact many were duplicates of songs I already owned. Furthermore, I was told if I upgraded my phone or it was lost or destroyed than I would be able to re-download the songs.
Well, a year or so later they changed their tune. And I lost about a $100 in songs. They also raised their price, so for me to be able to replace those songs I would have to dish out another $200. The government has instituted nothing to protect me, the little ordinary guy.
Why should I heed their multitude of protections for the big fish that are stealing left & right?
If you give me the answer that it is the "law". Well, some laws need to be fought. Slavery was legal! Abortion is legal! And our nation, of 13 rebellious states was founded on rebellion against law when it was unjust.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:55:45 PM · #6 |
Oh yeah...
Let me ask you this...when you bought a CD, did you receive a license? Microsoft includes a license when you buy Windows Software on CD.
Music industry? you buy CDs, download ringers, etc. but you never receive a license? why?
Because if they gave you a license then people would question why they had to re-buy the Beetles when they already bought it on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD....shouldn't they be able to download their songs for free since they already have a license.
Yeah...RIAA is trying to play both sides of the court. And they'll lose because there is an entire generation growing up who sees nothing wrong with downloading in the face of RIAA's abuses. "Don't tell me I'm stealing from the artist when you stole $19 out of $20 dollars."
And in 20-40 yrs you will see a shift on copyrights once again. Or you will see "Shadowrun" come into play. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:37:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
...Because if they gave you a license then people would question why they had to re-buy the Beetles when they already bought it on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD....shouldn't they be able to download their songs for free since they already have a license. |
Not defendng the RIAA here, I do agree that they are screwing both the consumer and the artists... BUT... when you buy software, you don't expect to get "free upgrades forever" so why should you expect to do so with music?? If you own a legal copy of a Beatles cassette tape, that does *not* entitle you to download the CD free of charge.
That said, you DO have the right to make personal copies of the cassette (or CD) that you have purchased legally for your personal use.
For my part, I will respect the copyright of artist and not distribute (or download) copies of music, and in turn I will expect my rights of fair use to not be trampled on. The place to debate fair use is in the courts (which is where Sony is likely headed due to their latest debacle, BTW) not by rationalizing theft.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:44:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, if you look at RIAA, and how much thieving they do to both the artist and the consumers, plus how much manipulation to prevent alternative music and methods of delivery in order to stem competition. You find that they too are in violation of copyrights according to the Constitution. |
....so two wrongs make a right?
LIMEWIRE here I come....wooooohooooo! |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:46:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, if you look at RIAA, and how much thieving they do to both the artist and the consumers, plus how much manipulation to prevent alternative music and methods of delivery in order to stem competition. You find that they too are in violation of copyrights according to the Constitution. |
....so two wrongs make a right?
LIMEWIRE here I come....wooooohooooo! |
For what it's worth...the artists do sign a shitty deal...but it's a deal. The history of the industry is another story altogether... |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:03:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
If you consider that Copyrights are supposed to be short-term according to the Constitution and for the sole reason of encouraging arts & innovation.
And then look at our current copyrights (75yrs with an expectation of perpetual right when the 75 yrs are up). Then copyrights are in fact, not legal in their current form.
Furthermore, if you look at RIAA, and how much thieving they do to both the artist and the consumers, plus how much manipulation to prevent alternative music and methods of delivery in order to stem competition. You find that they too are in violation of copyrights according to the Constitution.
(Note, it is the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the right to pass copyright laws. Without it, they have no jurisdiction.)
So essentially, what you have is a law that makes it illegal to breach an illegal law.
So really, why should anyone care?
So, 10 yrs ago I used to be extremely pro-copyright. In fact, I dropped nearly $4,000 to have all legal software on my computer only to find within 6-12 months I could not 90% of my software.
I own 2,000 CDs. I'll let anyone burn 'em. I just won't do it for you cause I do not have the time. But after releasing a CD in 2004 and discovering it cost me less than a $1.50 to produce in quantities of 1,000. I cannot see any reason why anyone needs to pay $20 for a CD when the artist won't even see a $1/CD.
Nope, nada....
I believe this is an issue that requires civil disobedience. Until our government restores the balance of "copyright vs public domain" and ensures fair use and access. Then nope...
For example, RIAA stole $100 worth of download music from me (ringer tones). These were legally purchased, in fact many were duplicates of songs I already owned. Furthermore, I was told if I upgraded my phone or it was lost or destroyed than I would be able to re-download the songs.
Well, a year or so later they changed their tune. And I lost about a $100 in songs. They also raised their price, so for me to be able to replace those songs I would have to dish out another $200. The government has instituted nothing to protect me, the little ordinary guy.
Why should I heed their multitude of protections for the big fish that are stealing left & right?
If you give me the answer that it is the "law". Well, some laws need to be fought. Slavery was legal! Abortion is legal! And our nation, of 13 rebellious states was founded on rebellion against law when it was unjust. |
Saj,
Would you be okay with someone spreading around your photos that you shot and were trying to sell? What if someone, like you, thought you charged too much? Is it okay for them to decide to distribute it freely to anyone who wants them, as long as they come by and copy them? What about with your web site designs? Can I take some and distribute them? Would it be okay for me to steal them and distribute them to your potential clients because I feel they cost too much?
Stealing is stealing. Two wrongs never make a right.
Message edited by author 2005-11-21 15:11:02. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 12:07:41 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 12:51:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by "kirbic":
BUT... when you buy software, you don't expect to get "free upgrades forever" so why should you expect to do so with music?? |
[[[
a) actually, I do expect a reasonable period of upgrades. And these new 6 month cycles are exactly why I quit paying for most of my software.
b) as for music, well, they're the same recordings. Sure, they re-master them so-they-say, but the truth of the matter. Whether you buy the Beatles from iTunes, or CD or vinyl, they are all from the original masters. "Unless you're telling me that John Lennon sang for the latest download?"
Originally posted by "kirbic":
That said, you DO have the right to make personal copies of the cassette (or CD) that you have purchased legally for your personal use. |
Actually, I am a DJ, and I have legally bought a couple thousand CDs. Before the DMCA was passed I could rip my CDs and save them as MP3's and put them on a hard drive so that I could have my whole set list available for request. However, after the DMCA was passed I lost that right. Now, it is an illegal act and potential "felony".
So I lost much value and fair use.
Originally posted by "kirbic":
For my part, I will respect the copyright of artist and not distribute (or download) copies of music, and in turn I will expect my rights of fair use to not be trampled on. |
IMHO, I have found on so many numerous occasions my rights of fair use trampled on that I see no justification to respect my end of the deal with the recording industry.
Originally posted by "pawdrix":
....so two wrongs make a right?
|
Two negatives when multiplied equal a "positive" ;)
Originally posted by "eslaydog":
Saj,
Would you be okay with someone spreading around your photos that you shot and were trying to sell? What if someone, like you, thought you charged too much? Is it okay for them to decide to distribute it freely to anyone who wants them, as long as they come by and copy them? What about with your web site designs? Can I take some and distribute them? Would it be okay for me to steal them and distribute them to your potential clients because I feel they cost too much?
|
I've stated in other forums that I believe that any intellectual property should be available for non-commercial use so long as authorship is attributed.
So to answer your question. If you bought one of my prints online, then made copies to give away (at your expense). And gave those away free. As long as you attributed authorship - I really have no problem.
I believe copyrights should only apply to the profit of such and for a limited time period. (10-20 yrs for copyrights and 5 yrs for patents)
Originally posted by "eslaydog":
Stealing is stealing. Two wrongs never make a right. |
One cannot steal "intangibles". In fact, no one has stolen music. The only deed done was the breach of a state granted monopoly (that's all copyright is). It is a trade infringement and not stealing.
In order to steal something must be tangible.
The concepts of "intellectual property" are quite new in society. And are growing more evident that they do indeed not work in their current form & fashion.
See, the issue with intangibles is "everyone can have them". If today's copyrights & patent laws existed since the beginning of time nothing would exist. We wouldn't have cars, CDs. nada....books from Shakespeare to the Bible not exist. In fact, so much music would be infringement. Every thought, idea, concept, word, etc. would be owned.
In recent years intellectual property has been expanded in both duration and scope. "Business models" can now be patented. The end result is that everything will be owned by only one owner. For example: "online auctions" are owned by a patent holder who is suing ebay. (auctions have been around for years, the moving of an auction into a new medium is not justification for a patent).
No, thoughts and ideas had, until recently, been free. So if you believe such are meant to be free. And you stand on that side of the issue. The only theft is by the so-called intellectual propety holders who are stealing from mankind.
If we did away with "intellectual property" laws we probably would not have the "energy" crisis we have today. These laws are holding back innovation. As Toyota develops their technology, FORD develops theirs. And both have patents. The end result is neither is able to be quite efficient enough for market. Were they combined they would be, but they can't due to patents. How many patent hoarders out there are using patents to prevent better, more efficient designs from being used. Yup...we gripe about energy, and how our use of fossil fuels is going to destroy the world. If anyone really believes that, then they should support the elimination of patents. The end result is technology will progress much faster than it currently is. (I remember just reading an article about how 75% of innovations can never see the light of day due to "patent" restrictions....wish I kept the link to that one.)
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 01:07:39 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "pawdrix":
....so two wrongs make a right?
|
Two negatives when multiplied equal a "positive" ;)
|
I don't think you are multiplying here, just adding, in which case you just go more negative.
You can pontificate here all you want about how you justify stealing music, sofware, ringtones or whatever else you can steal online, but it's still stealing.
Message edited by author 2005-11-22 13:10:13.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 01:36:15 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "pawdrix":
....so two wrongs make a right?
|
Two negatives when multiplied equal a "positive" ;)
|
I don't think you are multiplying here, just adding, in which case you just go more negative.
You can pontificate here all you want about how you justify stealing music, sofware, ringtones or whatever else you can steal online, but it's still stealing. |
Well said. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 01:37:15 PM · #15 |
YES, limewire is completely legal to install and use. However, it brings the oportunity to do illegal things. Limewire itself is not illegal.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 02:12:27 PM · #16 |
"You can pontificate here all you want about how you justify stealing music, sofware, ringtones or whatever else you can steal online, but it's still stealing."
It is to you, it is not to me. As for software, I endeavor to use free software when available & comparable in most cases (but not all). I have Photoshop CS2 for example. However, if they release CS3 tomorrow. I would not pay for it.
I had no ethical problem using Windows 98/98SE when I owned Windows 95. Such were not new programs. They were in fact mainly bug fixes for deficiencies in 95. The only significant differences between my copy of Windows 95c and Windows 98 was the stability and the ability to more easily re-arrange my start-menu. Windows 98 vs. SE.
As for music, I have little regard personally. However, a) I am a collector. So I tend to buy CDs for the "collection addiction". b) I dj, and as that is a commercial venture and not personal I also endeavor to buy my music. Though I try to buy any regular priced CDs directly from the artists so that they actually get paid.
But laws != morality. And just cause a law is passed that allows another man to enslave me, does not mean I am going to respect it. And yes, I view IP laws as doing just that.
And in 40-80 yrs we are going to encounter a terrifying concept. Already they are starting to finally understand brainwaves (see all the new prosthetics that can be controlled with mere thought) and many scientists believe it's only a matter of time before they can start accessing the brain and it's memories more directly.
What happens then. When you are able to recall a perfect copy of a song from your brain. Who do you pay then? Wait you heard it on the radio....now you can recall it any time. Did you just pirate it? Or will they install DRM on your brain itself?
Sounds like science fiction? perhaps...but we are headed there and faster than most people realize. And the trend in IP laws that has grown in the last 50-100 yrs (in direct opposition to it's original intention as specified by the Constitution) will lead us to a significant problem. As it already has... in the last 10 yrs the People have lost nearly the entire future of "public domain".
So yeah, when I've had the entire future of public domain stolen....I have no moral qualm with breaking my end of our "deal". |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 02:58:33 PM · #17 |
Its a shame that people like you theSaj, feel so entitled to have whatever you want for free. I guarntee that with copyright protection and IP protection, 90% of all the things, gadgets, computers, software, cameras that you own would not be available to you as you enjoy them today.
It is NOT up to you to determine what should be free unless you own the right. And that is a protection of our way of life, not a infringement on your personal liberties. (side note: the ACLU has gone this way and sadly even contradicted their own name and purpose.)
In fact without such IP protection, we would not have the free market economy that we enjoy her in the USA. The proection of ideas is part of what spurs innovation. Would you be incentivized to write the next verison of Photoshop if there was no way to get any payment for your work, or if all you could do is sit back and watch other people get rich from it? I seriously doubt it. In fact what you suggest is a form of socialism which has been proven not to work by our good friends from the former Soviet Union.
Everytime you steal software, or music, or anything like that from anywhere, in the case of this thread, Limewire, understand that you are undermining your own freedoms and liberty.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2005 05:31:26 PM · #18 |
Actually the success of CD is due to sony and phillips's decision to make the technology available free of rights to anyone who wanted to build CD players or CD's. In fact, it pays so much to have intellectual property that we since had some format war. DAT vs MiniDisc is a good exemple. DVD-Audio vs SACD (wich is actual) is another exemple and we still have an upcoming war between Blue-ray DVD vs HD-DVD. All of these war motivated by money. no format developpper want to back-up or to exchange with other developper because they want the whole industry to adopt their standard and pay them for it. In the meantime, people (us) are waiting for better performance from what they buy and they have to wait until the war is over (DVD-Audio vs SACD is on for at least 3 years now) and they do this because people learned their lesson with the first ever format war: BETA vs VHS. this is the side effect of IP. How many years before every one can get their High-Definition DVD player at home?
Message edited by author 2005-11-25 17:43:35. |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 05:46:29 PM · #19 |
Limewire is legal.
It's even legal to DL SONGS, however, it is Illegal to share songs.
As for anything other than songs...I don't have a clue. |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 06:31:56 PM · #20 |
I have Limewire, and am in a conundrum of sorts being in an industry that is targeted with piracy.
I normally use Limewire to search for image files, and the occasional tune for my ipod.
I hate pirates because of the potential to hurt my job. On the other hand, I don't share any music with anyone. Am I a hypocrate?
Anyway, be careful with Limewire. I have noticed it brings alotof spyware, addware, malware, and popups to the table, and on your machine.
I am of need of drink.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2005 06:33:56 PM · #21 |
Just for clarification purposes please...
If I download songs on my PC that I do not burn or copy or share with others, but just listen to on my PC while I work, is that legal?
If I burn them on a cd that only I listen to in my car, but don't share it with others or copy it or anything like that, is that legal?
I'm sure I've broken eleventy laws and just want to be prepared if the copyright police show up at my door.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2005 07:43:02 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Just for clarification purposes please...
If I download songs on my PC that I do not burn or copy or share with others, but just listen to on my PC while I work, is that legal?
If I burn them on a cd that only I listen to in my car, but don't share it with others or copy it or anything like that, is that legal?
I'm sure I've broken eleventy laws and just want to be prepared if the copyright police show up at my door. |
That's exactly my question too...thanks for putting it that way!!! :-) |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 08:01:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Just for clarification purposes please...
If I download songs on my PC that I do not burn or copy or share with others, but just listen to on my PC while I work, is that legal?
If I burn them on a cd that only I listen to in my car, but don't share it with others or copy it or anything like that, is that legal?
I'm sure I've broken eleventy laws and just want to be prepared if the copyright police show up at my door. |
It depends on the source of the download. If you buy it from a distributor (iTunes, BMG, AOL, etc.) or a site which offers free downloads authorized by the artist (e.g. the old MP3.com) you should be able to listen to the tracks on any of your equipment/media.
If the site you downloaded it from is not authorized to distribute the track then you are at least aiding and abetting in the commission of the copyright violation and are a recipient of stolen property.
There are many sites where bands/labels offer free downloads as promotional items. Before MP3.com folded (it's now owned in a slightly different form by cNet.com) I represented an artist there -- the guideline was you had to offer at least one free track as a sample for each downloadable "album" posted -- the system actually worked much like DPC Prints, with the artist setting the price and splitting the profits with the site, which produced the CDs on demand.
I downloaded several hundred tracks legally that way; many artists would put up as many as 8-10 free tracks. Why not support sites which help independent artists promote themselves, and avoid the whole legal question? BUT -- just because the tracks are free doesn't mean you can make copies and sell them ... the artists still retain the copyright -- literally meaning controlling the making of copies.
Message edited by author 2005-11-25 20:05:15. |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 08:05:18 PM · #24 |
Is crowbar legal?
P.s. I get all my music from allofmp3.ru. It's legal, it has been tried in (russian) court. I pay for the material to the russian equalent of RIAA.
Message edited by author 2005-11-25 20:07:33.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2005 10:29:44 PM · #25 |
For what it's worth, there are far more important things to worry about in this world than how legal/illegal it is to download the occasional song without permission or purchase, for personal use only.
The people that put these songs up for sharing have made *their* decision, and until they are stopped fully, I'll take advantage of it for my usage. A lot of people on both sides make excellent points.. but in the long run, it's really only about money.. and Pete destroy me for saying so.. but screw money... as I said.. I have far more important things to worry about.
Also.. sorry, but if I may make a comparison to the "would you want people stealing your photos?" argument:
The way I see it, downloading a song for your own enjoyment only (and most people that I know that download music do *only* that), would be like downloading and using a photograph as a desktop image, or a personal print to hang on your wall for a time. I honestly can't imagine any but the most anal photographer having a problem with that sort of activity.. it's basically harmless. Most people I know, when asked, would say "That's a photo by 'so and so' photographer I found on the net".. same with mp3s.. they are attributed, nobody is claiming ownership, and it's not like they are trying to be re-sold.
So.. for me, the arguement just holds no weight whatsover. If you're using it to counter a person burning discs and selling them on the street.. yah, you have a huge and valid point. Otherwise.. I just can't take it seriously.
The only *real* difference is that the photographs are usually supplied by the photographer themselves (but not always.. ), and many many more musicians are discovering that supplying their music in the same way is more beneficial to them in the long run.. so that's changing as well.
Message edited by author 2005-11-25 22:40:20. |
|
