Jump to content

Jail for MP3 Pirates?


Recommended Posts

Source: Australian ITTWO university students who ran a website offering almost 1,000 pirated songs for download should be jailed, a Sydney court has been told.The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) today told the Downing Centre Local Court that Charles Kok Hau Ng, 20, and Peter Tran, 19, should be jailed for their involvement in Australia's largest copyright infringement case.The Australian Federal Police (AFP) previously estimated the duo's pirated music operation, providing a hub for the large scale exchange of music files, cost the industry more than $60 million.
Jail Term ??? for COPYRIGHT infrigment? and who did the estimating of $60 million? ugh, this is getting insane. ITS JUST A SILLY DIGITALLY RECORDED SONG! not a Mafia racketering operation. dang. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Prelude76

    27

  • ibe98765

    22

  • Cluttermagnet

    17

No kidding. The record and movie studios infringe on each others copyrights all the time. One studio complains, the other hands over some cash. It happens everyday. And you never hear about it in the press. It is only a crime when powerless people do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SonicDragon

$60 mil does seem really for only a selection of 1,000 songs. While i personally am against file sharing, i don't think jail is the correct option. That doesn't help get the artists the money they lost. It's not like the students pose a threat to people and need to be confined in a cell. If they can't come up with the money (a reasonable amount, not $60 mil), then maybe community service should be an option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent solution, SonicDragon. It seems to me that only those that harm others should be put in prison. They (the INFAMOUS they) should come up with some other form of punishment for the nonviolent offenders. [/2¢]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jail Term ???  for COPYRIGHT infrigment?  and who did the estimating of $60 million?  ugh, this is getting insane.  ITS JUST A SILLY DIGITALLY RECORDED SONG!  not a Mafia racketering operation.  dang.  :thumbsup:
This has been said here before, but obviously bears repeating - It's theft, not only copyright infringement. From the perspective of the music's owners, they have lost potential income from the sale of the music because it was made available for free by these people. Is jail time the most effective deterrent? Well, it doesn't seem that anything else is working...
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious      taking and removing of personal property, with an intent      to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the      owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;      every part of the property stolen must be removed,      however slightly, from its former position; and it must      be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of      the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary Theft Punished by restitution, the proportions of which are noted in 2 Sam. 12:6. If the thief could not pay the fine, he was to be sold to a Hebrew master till he could pay (Ex. 22:1-4). A night-thief might be smitten till he died, and there would be no blood-guiltiness for him (22:2). A man-stealer was to be put to death (21:16). All theft is forbidden (Ex. 20:15; 21:16; Lev. 19:11; Deut. 5:19; 24:7; Ps. 50:18; Zech. 5:3; Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9; Eph. 4:28; 1 Pet. 4:15).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary Theft Punished by restitution, the proportions of which are noted in 2 Sam. 12:6. If the thief could not pay the fine, he was to be sold to a Hebrew master till he could pay (Ex. 22:1-4). A night-thief might be smitten till he died, and there would be no blood-guiltiness for him (22:2). A man-stealer was to be put to death (21:16). All theft is forbidden (Ex. 20:15; 21:16; Lev. 19:11; Deut. 5:19; 24:7; Ps. 50:18; Zech. 5:3; Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9; Eph. 4:28; 1 Pet. 4:15).
Hmmmm... Biblical punishments are quite outdated however. There is a passage in early Genesis somewhere (I don't remember where as it has been a while...) that has a prophet wandering along. He passes an orphanage. The children there make fun of him, specifically his baldness. He prays to God and God sends a bear to kill all the children. See what I'm saying? Just because it was acceptable back then doens't make it acceptable now. It's a kinder-gentler society.
Link to post
Share on other sites
nlinecomputers

Yes it is THEFT but with copyright issues it is difficult to determine how much is really stolen. How many people downloaded the song? Would the artist have gotten the sale if the freebie wasn't availible? Should that matter? 60 million seems like a lot money even at $2 a song value(way too high IMHO) that means that they had 30 million downloads!?! That's a lot of downloads for a warez site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi
The Right Term is Copyright Infringement
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."
This article is quite good and has links to two other very thought provoking articles as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, good links Bambi. It's always interesting reading legal briefs! There are so many ways a word, phrase or sentence can be twisted and interpreted. I guess that is why lawyers make the big bucks. And also why we have so many problems in our society today...My comments:1. O'Reilly's opinion is apparently justified by a 1985 Supreme Court decision that was made prior to the easy electronic transfer of information. I wonder if this is the most current interpretation of copyright law? I'm not a lawyer and don't have the expertise or knowledge to search this out. In any case, it seems like O'Reilly, like many, is merely trying to use this one statement made by Justice Harry Blackmun to twist literal copyright language in such a way as to raise doubt that taking copyrighted information is really "theft". I don't see the shades of gray here. 2. Don't forget that this case is from Australia. Copyright law and interpretation may very well be different there (as it may also be in Canada, Prelude :blink: )3. At the end of http://philip.greenspun.com/dldf/dismiss-order.html the following statement is made:

This is not, of course, to suggest that there is anything edifying aboutwhat LaMacchia is alleged to have done. If the indictment is to bebelieved, one might at best describe his actions as heedlesslyirresponsible. and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lackingin any fundamental sense of values. Criminal as well as civil penaltiesshould probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrightedsoftware even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer.One can envision ways that the copyright law could be modified to permitsuch prosecution. But, "'t is the legislature, not the Court which isto define a crime, and ordain its punishment.'" Dowling, supra at 214(quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820)).
The court believed that their should be penalties attached in this particular case, but due to their interpretation of the actual law, was forced to dismiss the case. Given the huge amount of "infringement" (which I still categorize as theft) vis-a-vis the music (and soon to be Hollywood) industries, it is likely that the Congress will modify copyright law to make such infringement a criminal act that could result in not only a fine, but jail time as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluttermagnet
The Right Term is Copyright Infringement
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."
This article is quite good and has links to two other very thought provoking articles as well.
We have a few of the self-righteous persuasion who occasionally post in these threads, piling on along with those obscene and disgusting bastions of a dying system such as MPAA and RIAA. They falsely pronounce their brothers and sisters to be thieves and scoundrels. This is acting out part of a game as old as humanity itself, called 'divide and conquer'. Many folks now roll those organizations' names off the tongue as if uttering profanity, and understandably so. Our brothers would have us dragged to the public square to be flogged mercilessly, or to have our hands severed. The persecutions and excesses of puritanism are coming alive once again in this nation today. I'm watching pensively to see how much longer before we see the resumption of witch trials and burning at the stake, in all their glory. :ph34r: :blink: Fortunately, there is some justice in the world, and sometimes fate arranges for a few of the more vocal and pompous critics to have a taste of their own medicine. As Ricardo Montelban's "Khan" character in the Star Trek movie wryly comments, "revenge is a dish best served cold". People often have very long memories indeed, when harshly and unfairly judged by others. Meanwhile, a people distracted and deeply divided can be shamelessly exploited. That is exactly what is happening in America today. And as President Lincoln so wisely pointed out, "a house divided cannot stand".I will therefore be conservative in criticizing the critics ( though I'm really more of a centrist liberal). ;) :lol: I have little desire to be drawn into the insanity that prevails today and substitutes for 'civil discourse'. Many decades of take- no- prisoner, scorched earth politics in this nation have led to what may in time be our complete downfall. We are terribly, terribly vulnerable because we have lost our all- important unity . That being said, I have always had a lifelong sense of outrage at the stunning hypocracy 'wired into' our system. We see the criminalization and subsequent victimization of innocents, thrown into prison to be degraded by hardened criminals whilst the real criminals live the high life on the outside and accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and power illegally and immorally.There comes eventually a time of 'anomie'. That is a word of French origin which refers to a condition of weakened respect for the norms in a society, and that is where we are today. After many, many years of abuse, the citizens are coming to disrespect parts of the law, which they are increasingly coming to see as being in and of themselves unlawful, unethical, unconstitutional, and exploitive. Let's be plain here- if a law is not fair and respectable, and if it does not respect the governed, in time it will come to be disrespected and passively, covertly circumvented. As I say, anomie.Fair use doctrine has just as much validity as the much- abused notion of 'copyright'. The two conflicting interests must be fairly reconciled- precisely what is not happening today! It is most unseemly for some to call their brothers and sisters "thieves' when clearly the issues at hand do not fit the legal concept of theft. To villify one's neighbor only creates enmity. Sure, go catch all the bank robbers and arsonists and lock them up. Fine. Society deserves that degree of protection, but when it becomes brother against brother, you have a sure recipe for tragedy.A friendly word of advice for all sides of this and other such arguments: avoid the temptation to blame and to label the behavior of others. Remember the wise old indian saying- "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have his shoes." :lol: More often than not, when a brother points the bony finger of blame and denounces another, three other fingers fold back, pointing towards the true source of the problem. :ermm:
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I wonder is - what if someone downloaded the song and listened to it and liked it and than went out to the store and bought the CD? They can't measure the damage done or the good done. I know before I started boycotting CDs, I have downloaded a song from a band and liked what I heard and went out and bought the CD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluttermagnet
What I wonder is - what if someone downloaded the song and listened to it and liked it and than went out to the store and bought the CD?  They can't measure the damage done or the good done.  I know before I started boycotting CDs,  I have downloaded a song from a band and liked what I  heard and went out and bought the CD.
A great point. Things like this get swept under the rug since they do not support the point that the 'criminalizers' seek to make in their lustful bid for power. Not only is LilBambi's link to "The Right Term is Copyright Infringement" above a great read, but another article linked from there goes even further to cast some light in a very dark area: Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online DistributionSpeaking from personal experience as a fan of the Firesign Theatre comedy group, a lot of us complained for years about the shameful lack of 'back catalog' material in distribution. Some of the big publishers were hoarding it like gold, or perhaps believed incorrectly that sales would not justify re-release. One particular bone of contention was that a lot of the older works had never been released in higher fidelity CD form, or if they were, it only lasted a brief time. It was amazing to see some of the bidding wars that took place on Ebay when scarce old CD copies of favorite works came up for bids. Heck, on one occasion, we saw an auction for a semi-scarce derivative work, on LP yet, get bid up to well over 200 dollars in a big bidding war. It was just insane! Now, here we are 3-5 years later with a bounty of both new and old materials in current release in CD form. And they are indeed selling.My point? I know a number of folks who were trading around crappy .mp3 versions of these beloved works via Napster (those were the days). And you know what? Almost to a person, you now see those same folks going out and buying new CDs of the same material, now that they are again available. What's more, the publishers, in a rare burst of sanity, chose some attractive price points around 10 bucks for most of these. That's more like it! As the "...Progressive Taxation" article above points out, things like Napster and Kazaa are responses to hoarding of back catalog and predatory, extortionate pricing of new releases, and a host of other evils. A lot of those guys are really incompetant as distributors and are alienating and driving away the very business they should be embracing. If they were able to adapt to reality and had any respect at all for their customers, they would be rolling in dough right now and everybody would be happy. Instead, they want to shake down teenyboppers and old grannies by abusing the legal system. My contempt for those jerks knows almost no bounds. Like I said, anomie. The real crooks are the grizzled old grinches of RIAA and MPAA. I don't shop at their store any more (with the sole exception of buying any new or re-released FST material, to support those talented artists). A pox on their collective houses. I don't think they are going to have a very good christmas. :blink:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Ummm, what's with this "brother/sister" stuff? Did we just time warp back to the righteous 1960's???? :blink: :ph34r:

There comes eventually a time of 'anomie'. That is a word of French origin which refers to a condition of weakened respect for the norms in a society, and that is where we are today. After many, many years of abuse, the citizens are coming to disrespect parts of the law, which they are increasingly coming to see as being in and of themselves unlawful, unethical, unconstitutional, and exploitive. Let's be plain here- if a law is not fair and respectable, and if it does not respect the governed, in time it will come to be disrespected and passively, covertly circumvented. As I say, anomie.
C'mon, you know the drill. If you don't like a law, then petition the politicians responsible to consider changing it. They might agree with you and then again, they might not. If they don't, you can try and get a lot of people to sign a petition in the hopes of influencing a change. If that doesn't work, you can try and vote them out during the next election cycle. Short of that, the only other choice you have is revolution. Otherwise, at least here in the USA, we don't [legally] have the option to simply ignore the laws we don't agree with. Similarly, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.
Fair use doctrine has just as much validity as the much- abused notion of 'copyright'. The two conflicting interests must be fairly reconciled- precisely what is not happening today! It is most unseemly for some to call their brothers and sisters "thieves' when clearly the issues at hand do not fit the legal concept of theft. To villify one's neighbor only creates enmity. Sure, go catch all the bank robbers and arsonists and lock them up. Fine. Society deserves that degree of protection, but when it becomes brother against brother, you have a sure recipe for tragedy.
Fair use doesn't have anything to do with taking thousands of songs and making them available to all takers (see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/fairu...se-explain.html for an explanation of fair use). If you take something that doesn't belong to you, then you are a thief, plain and simple, regardless of how many lawyers you can muster to debate the meaning of theft, which of course, is different in every country anyway.You should take a gander at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm where you can read about "NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT of 1997" which was passed by Congress.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be theft if you download the song first and than go out and buy the CD - you have now just bought it. What does it matter where the source of the downloaded song came from? I know many don't do this, but some do and that is not being recognized. CD sales didn't go backwards, they actually rose when Napster first came out. The RIAA and MPAA are the real crooks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluttermagnet

Thanks, ibe. Well, you are a bright person and I respect your opinions. More often than not, I agree with them. Not here, though. You always have a lot to contribute to the discussion. So let's just not take this in a personal direction. It strains credibility to believe that the average joe is going to get anything near what he or she wants by asking congress for redress. (snort chortle) C'mon, guy, are you actually serious? You know very well that congress almost invariably acts contrary to the interests of the 'consumer', always playing to the interests of the folks who really elected them, namely the monied interests like MPAA and RIAA. Pardon my cynicism. I just can't help being a realist here. I find it hard to see you taking the position of an idealist in an ugly row like this one. Do you really intend to help these self-righteous guys and gals as they rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? If you should ever have a change of heart, rest assured that your brother and sister consumers will welcome you back with open arms- and a big sigh of relief.

Wow! Ummm, what's with this "brother/sister" stuff? Did we just time warp back to the righteous 1960's????
Well, OK, it might be a tad bit unfair to resort to a brother/sister analogy to make my point, but it certainly puts you at a far greater risk of coming out looking like the bad guy if you choose to argue the converse. All's fair in love and war, right? I also wished to make the rather tenuous point that the obnoxious twits in those litigious organizations are also brothers and sisters, but they are in the grips of a fit of madness and are stabbing at themselves with knives in the bad dream they call their lives. Their call, their choice- they chose to take the low road, and they are not going to get away with painting their victims as scum so long as we keep shining a bright light on them. Two can play at that game, and they are running dangerously low on 'moral force' on their 'gas gage'. They really ought to pull over and rethink their strategy before this gets too much uglier for everyone.
Fair use doesn't have anything to do with taking thousands of songs and making them available to all takers (see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/fairu...se-explain.html for an explanation of fair use). 
I see no need personally to defend various excesses on either side of the issue, although I certainly see the excesses of the more 'motivated' file sharers as ultimately far less immoral than those of their hypocritical industry detractors. After all they are (1.) making a point, and (2.) having fun. The only other peoples' lives that they are ruining are those of the idiot control freaks at RIAA. I see it as being particularly funny that you should choose a Penn State website to quote from. What they are doing at Penn is unseemly, to say the least. You can be darn sure that If I were a young student at PSU today, I would be in complete and vocal rebellion, limited only by any threats by the university admin regarding possible expulsion (which will no doubt be rolled out at some point in the coming months). Penn admin types are in bed with RIAA. I think that qualifies as a 'pact with the devil'. It's not surprising. Every generation of college has its hobgoblins to rail against. In my time, it was universities that took defense-related work during the very unpopular Viet Nam war. Always something good to complain about. :blink:
Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, ENOUGH with the THEFT term. it is not theft. if it was, they'd be saying mp3 thieves, instead, their mp3 pirates. :blink: taking this STRAIGHT from ibe9876's definition of theft:

  Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the        owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;        every part of the property stolen must be removed,        however slightly, from its former position; and it must        be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of        the thief.
so if someone breaks into the artists house and steals his original music tablature, or his personally recorded demo tape, that is theft. making a DUPLICATE of something and then offering it to others, for free or for a fee, that is called COPYRIGHT INFRIGMENT. It's like someone goes and paints a duplicate of Mona Lisa. Sure, he might be in trouble if Leonardo copyrighted it (its not copyrighted, so go ahead and copy it all you want), but it is NOT the same as if you break into the Louvres in Paris and steal the original painting. So stop with these dang 'theft' comparisons as their just plain silly.Copyright. term comes from 2 words. Copy and Right. you give someone CopyRight permission to go and copy your work of art in exchange he gives you some of the money he'll make for selling it (i.e. Royalties). If you share an Eminem song, you did not go and steal a CD or break into Eminem's house like a thief, but you are in violation of Copyright, meaning you DONT have permission to make copies and you dont have the right to give it to others.Yes, copyright should be enforced in some ways, as it is illegal. Yes, i feel current copyright laws are to benefit the rich for the next 150 years, the exact OPPOSITE of what original copyright laws were meant to prevent. No, it is NOT the same as theft and NO we should not be jailing copyright breakers and cut off their hands like they did in biblical times.{trips off soap box}
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I wonder is - what if someone downloaded the song and listened to it and liked it and than went out to the store and bought the CD?  They can't measure the damage done or the good done.  I know before I started boycotting CDs,  I have downloaded a song from a band and liked what I  heard and went out and bought the CD.
havnblast, I tend to agree with you. I never got into MP3s but I do copy my CDs. I make three copies of each CD: one for each car and one for my office stereo. Am I a thief? I hope not. If a friend is visiting and hears songs on my stereo is this a violation? I guess they could argue that I should move the CD around so I would eventually damage it and buy a new copy. Wrong!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluttermagnet
ok, ENOUGH with the THEFT term.  it is not theft.  if it was, they'd be saying mp3 thieves, instead, their mp3 pirates.  :ph34r: taking this STRAIGHT from ibe9876's definition of theft:
  Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the        owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;        every part of the property stolen must be removed,        however slightly, from its former position; and it must        be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of        the thief.
{trips off soap box}
(Cluttermagnet helps Prelude back to his feet, dusts off his hat, and respectfully hands it back to him. Retrieves soapbox and sets it upright again)Dang, Prelude- that was good! Seriously. Thanks, guy. Yes, they're nasty old pirates. Even I can agree with that (I think). :blink: Well said.Confucious say: "Beginning of wisdom come from calling things by their right names" (well, GI, that what it say in fortune cookie!) :ermm: Hmmm, fair use or piracy? Fair use or piracy? FairHen heh heh- granny is a pirate, granny is a pirate!Gramaw, are you really going to have to go to jail?Can we come visit you there?Will you still serve tea and cookies? Daily internet summary, Music Copying Controversy:Fair Use vs. Piracy?Respectfully submitted,Gertrude SchwimmernoogleRecording Secretary,Americans For A Return To Sanity- CD Chapter No. 419(AFARTS-CD #419)
Link to post
Share on other sites
nlinecomputers

Vol,I don't think listening to your friends CDs is theft but if you copied and gave your friend the CD did you commit theft. Technically I think yes. But I also think that O'Reilly is correct when he states such "theft" is akin to shoplifting. A small loss but one a business will factor into. I.E. the cost of a CD is slightly higher to cover the costs from such theft. The problem with Music sharing over the interent is that your not sharing with one person but with hundreds even thousands.File swapers argue that file swapping has no real impact. I can't fully agree with that. Who is going to buy something when they can get it for free, especially when they think that the cost of the item is too high?Most people will pay for an item rather then steal it and most people will admit that they are stealling music when they swap files. Most people are more likely to steal an item if they feel that the item is overpriced. A "he" can afford to loose it mindset. I personally think that the website owners are stealling but I think that the value assigned to what was stolen is way to high.and the court needs to consider whether the valve stated by the music companies is true value of it worth or if the value is artifically high because they have a monopoly on the product. Somehow I don't think that a criminal case can take into account anti-trust laws. Maybe it's time to sue the RIAA as a monopoly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi

I have been boycotting the RIAA represented Big-5 Labels for a number of years now, but as an individual consumer, I have never considered litigation against such a powerful lobbying group.What consumer or even group of individual consumers, could afford any lawyer or firm that would be able to truly do battle with the RIAA's law firm with 140 lawyers and their assistants (don't know exact number of lawyers, just guessing that it is more than the 40 at the firm in the movie "The Firm" LOL!) looking for that loophole that would keep them rolling in the dough?I would think the better plan would be to get behind a horse that could potentially help, like the EFF and let their legal beagles handle it. They are much better at it than any individual's lawyer could be against such odds.Just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think many are confusing 'theoretical' loss with actual loss, therefore equate copyright infrigment to theft, when really, its perhaps better to refer to it as 'theoretical' theft. Many go by the assumption that since you have 1,000 mp3s, you ripped off 1,000 artists indirectly. well, whose to say that after you download an mp3 or a game or a program, that you were repulsed by the artist/programmers quality and deleted it. is it still theoretical theft? if anything, it saved you from being ripped off in the first place. and students downloading and running pirated 3D Studio Max or Maya? what student would go out and buy a $10,000 program anyways? and if it helps the student learn the program and enter the workforce at a higher level, is it wrong to have a better educated workforce? the world should be embracing this information sharing revolution, not persecuting it. and i believe most humans are inherently good, and have morals, and if they truly felt they were ripping off the hard working artists they admire, they'd stop. but if you feel that you're only hurting scum-sucking RIAA lawyers and execs, the guilt trip vanishes. they can clamp down on piracy two ways; lower CD prices, offer better deals, give more than 2% of proceeds to the artist we admire, etc..., etc...; or they can sue every grandma and teen, and throw some of them to jail to make an example out of them. well, they might as well just jump right to 'crucifying people along street posts' as the romans did, if they really want to send a message. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
nlinecomputers

Fran, I agree. I'm a member of EFF.org. I don't allways agree with every idea they have but SOMEONE needs to lookout for the interests of the consumer. I don't think the consumer angle could work. Independent artists would have to sue claiming that the RIAA monopoly blocks the ability for there work to spread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LilBambi
Fran, I agree.  I'm a member of EFF.org.  I don't allways agree with every idea they have but SOMEONE needs to lookout for the interests of the consumer. I don't think the consumer angle could work.  Independent artists would have to sue claiming that the RIAA monopoly blocks the ability for there work to spread.
Nathan,I don't always agree with everything the EFF does either, but since the digital age started, they seem to be the only ones who seem to give a hoot about standing up to protect our rights as individuals and consumers.Yes, I agree, consumers individually won't work and the Indys have tried and it has fallen on deaf ears every time. The RIAA goes on singing their tune, and the government listens to the money.Very sad state of affairs. :thumbsup:
Link to post
Share on other sites
nlinecomputers
i think many are confusing 'theoretical' loss with actual loss, therefore equate copyright infrigment to theft, when really, its perhaps better to refer to it as 'theoretical' theft. Many go by the assumption that since you have 1,000 mp3s, you ripped off 1,000 artists indirectly. well, whose to say that after you download an mp3 or a game or a program, that you were repulsed by the artist/programmers quality and deleted it. is it still theoretical theft? if anything, it saved you from being ripped off in the first place.
I agree that theoretical loss doesn't equal actual loss. But I don't think that theroetical loss equals NO loss either. Ok so you download files, decide you don't like them and delete them. Are you telling me that EVERY song you've downloaded and kept you tried to pay for? And are willing to audit youself and pay for it now? Even if the proceeds go 100% to the artist.
and students downloading and running pirated 3D Studio Max or Maya? what student would go out and buy a $10,000 program anyways?
Well first of all drop a zero. Second of all they aren't in the business of educating you for free. They sell their products to those companies that can use them and make money doing it. I live in Cotton farming country. Farmers here have some equipment they only use one month a year and they literally pay $500,000 dollars for it. But considering that he can get $2-$5 million dollars a year for a crop and this machine will last 8 to 10 years the cost is not all that much. It is all about scale. Now I don't expect that John Deere should donate such a unit to a student, just so he can learn it. But they do sell and even donate such things to colleges that teach farming and do farm research. Or here is a thought, you can get a JOB where they train you to run the thing or teach you to run the program.If the need is out there the market will provide the means to provide it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, it's not a copyright issue...it's an attribution issue...but Cluttermagnet, you're "Revenge is a dish best served cold" quote was coined by Pierre Ambroise Francois Choderios de LaClos (1741-1803). He originally said it in French in his 1782 book Les Liasons Dangereuses: "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid". Just thought you'd like to know. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you telling me that EVERY song you've downloaded and kept you tried to pay for?  And are willing to audit youself and pay for it now?  Even if the proceeds go 100% to the artist.
nline, I plead the Fifth. :D yet it's still not technically theft. I think the media/government/RIAA/whoever labels this as piracy and theft because it 'sounds' worse then if they labelled it "copyright infrigments". but its backfiring on them in the same sense, as most kids would love to be called Pirates. arrrr. :thumbsup: sorta of romantacizes the whole fiasco.
Cluttermagnet, you're "Revenge is a dish best served cold" quote was coined by Pierre Ambroise Francois Choderios de LaClos (1741-1803). He originally said it in French in his 1782 book Les Liasons Dangereuses: "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid". Just thought you'd like to know.
Jeber, vous ete un francais conesseur, n'est ce pas? :lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmers here have some equipment they only use one month a year and they literally pay $500,000 dollars for it. But considering that he can get $2-$5 million dollars a year for a crop and this machine will last 8 to 10 years the cost is not all that much. It is all about scale. Now I don't expect that John Deere should donate such a unit to a student, just so he can learn it. But they do sell and even donate such things to colleges that teach farming and do farm research. Or here is a thought, you can get a JOB where they train you to run the thing or teach you to run the program.
A couple of flaws here. First, 98% of music downloaders are not exchanging money in any form or making any kind of profits. Software and music can be duplicated at no financial loss to the original manufacturer. Other than the loss of potential sales..... maybe. If John Deere had pirates they would be taking soemthing physical that cost John Deere money to make. There is a difference. Just like I think there is a difference between going into Best Buy and stealing a CD and downloading one from a P2P. When downloading, you did not take something that cost a company money to make. Again, the only thing lost is a potential sale....maybe. I keep saying maybe because we have no way of knowing what percent of people turn around and buy the product after downloading it. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying downloading is right. I just think out right theft and downloading are two seperate issues and should be handled in seperate ways. People downloading music and software, if that is their only infraction of the law, they most certainly do not belong in prison or jail or be in debt for millions of dollars. As I have said many times, in the sad world we live in today a misdemeanor against a corporation is treated far worse than a violent felony against an individual by the powers that be. People no longer matter in this world, all that matters is the corporation and the top 2% that run them. The rest of the world be ******.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ragnar Paulson
As I have said many times, in the sad world we live in today a misdemeanor against a corporation is treated far worse than a violent felony against an individual by the powers that be. People no longer matter in this world, all that matters is the corporation and the top 2% that run them. The rest of the world be ******.
today? Can you point at a time, from attilla the hun, through genghis khan, the roman empire, the british monarchy, until today when more than the 2% of the people that ran the world matterred ....(often much less than 2%)Perhaps when the 98% stop using self serving rationalizations to do anything they darn well please, the 2% will stop feeling the need to use iron fisted draconian measures to control them. :lol: Ragnar :lol: (advocate)
Link to post
Share on other sites
nlinecomputers
A couple of flaws here. First, 98% of music downloaders are not exchanging money in any form or making any kind of profits. Software and music can be duplicated at no financial loss to the original manufacturer. Other than the loss of potential sales..... maybe. If John Deere had pirates they would be taking soemthing physical that cost John Deere money to make. There is a difference. Just like I think there is a difference between going into Best Buy and stealing a CD and downloading one from a P2P. When downloading, you did not take something that cost a company money to make. Again, the only thing lost is a potential sale....maybe. I keep saying maybe because we have no way of knowing what percent of people turn around and buy the product after downloading it.
Now that is not true either. You're ignoring the fact that producing software, music, books, or films have costs assocated with their production. Programers have to paid, songwriters, producers, custumes, cameras, props, editing, debugging, testing, support, etc...etc. You can loose money if your sales don't produce more money then what you spend to produce the item. Replication of the product for end users has NEVER been a major expense. Downloading music or software or whatever is an exact cost theft. You can only get the product one other way and that is by purchasing it. The fact that you do the job of replicating the software doesn't take away from the fact that they could have sold you the product and now you will not buy it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...