True.  Porn and pirated software. [:D]

[img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=476[/img]
[url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

I see where they're coming from, but, that doesn't make me agree with them. I think that it is presumptuous of you to assume that because we don't agree with your position, we must not have our own creative ideas (intellectual property) nor understand how much time, effort, and money goes into making them work. I don't want someone taking my software and selling it as their own. Everyone here, that I know of, agrees that its wrong to do that with music. What we're talking about here is sharing software with friends. I don't have a problem with that. Although it may need to be updated, read the copyright statement on my web page if you don't believe me. [url]http://john.penguinweb.net/[/url]

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH.

How does RIAA forcing verizon to turn over the info on a user who is illegally distributing copyrighted material (obviously in pretty large quantities if they're bothering to try to find the guy), mean "sharing with a friend" to you?

First off, it STILL violates the copyright act to "give it to a friend". Granted, you might find it as small as an infraction as going 3mph over the speed limit, but it's still against the law.

Secondly, this is about pier to pier network sharing... this is not "giving it to a friend", this is helping the widespread illegal distribution of copyrighted material. RIAA is looking to make an example... and there's NO WAY they're going thru all this trouble to get info on a guy who shared one song "with a friend".

If [b]YOU[/b] don't have a problem with people taking your software and "giving it to a friend", and state that on your website (I didn't bother to read it... cause you're an exception, not the general rule), that's your perrogative. In fact, you can do what you wish... [b]If[/b] you're the copyright owner.

If you think the record label is OK with you "giving it to a friend", why don't you call them up and ask yourself? They are the ones with the right to tell you if you can or cant.

Would you have a problem with me copying your software (assuming this was your source of income...) and passing it out to anyone and everyone who wanted it? You'd lose plenty of income, which you may or may not be able to afford.

What kind of boats do they use for that?  You probably don't need a big ship, electrons are pretty little.  [:D]

Every version of Windows I've ever used came with the computer I bought.  Never had to pay $300 for a copy.

[img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=476[/img]
[url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

OEM win2k, $145 each, when purchased with hardware. Yeah, I've [s]got[/s] bought 4 copies, what about it?

I suppose you think since microsoft is a big company like the recording artists it's ok to steal that too, eh?

Thank you, I was wondering why all those seagulls were around. [;)]

Next week... pear to pear networking. then pee to pee networking... and I'm gonna stop now.

You seem to think that since I don't agree with the record companies' stance on this issue, that that means that I don't believe that giving software to a friend is illegal. I know it's illegal. As a rule, I generally don't do it. That doesn't mean that I agree with the rule.

Furthermore, giving my copyrighted works to others hardly makes me the exception. Ever heard of the GNU Public Liscence? There's others out there as well. It's still quite possible to make money while giving away software, and it's still quite possible for record companies to make money by giving away CDs. They chose not to, and that's their right, but it probably shouldn't be.

Lets look at this for what it is. You can buy a book. You can read it. You can let me borrow it. I can read it. [b]But we better not make a copy and both read it at the same time![/b] Apparantly, for some reason, that would be illegal... But it's not illegal for me to read it over your shoulder while you're reading it?

Thanks for admitting it, and admitting in general you dont do it.



Yes, there are plenty of open source and free programs. MOST buisinesses are NOT in the habit of spending money and time to give everything away. And since there IS a law against theft of copyrighted intelectual properties... but there's NO law that a company can't try to make a profit off their intelectual property... How should it "not be their right" to decide to NOT give away their property?



You can also ::GASP:: play your music when your friends are over listening too. Who cares?

No, you can't copy a book legally, no you can't copy music legally.

And most people read a book and are done with it. Do you listen to music once and then toss it? If so, you can give your CD's to your friend legally.

For that matter, you can go right down to the library and check out a book, without paying. Movies, too. But that doesn't mean you can legally copy them for your personal collection.

Rationalize it all you want. If there was no protection of intelectual property, creativity would be stifled. Contrary to what some of you think, lots of creative people make these things you enjoy such as music and software to make money. Not because they just want to do it.

If everyone expected everything for free, there would be very little music and software available. Or it would be laced with advertisements/spyware (I'm sure you can think of quite a few real life examples of this).

If you think a product isn't worth what the reseller is charging, then don't buy it. Sheesh... Is it THAT hard to only listen to your "special song" on the radio, or watch it on MTV? If enough people decide that it's not worth the price, the owner will be forced to either stop selling them or lower the prices.

If you can't live without your song/software, then it's obviously worth the cost of it. Or it's worth the (relatively small) risk of getting caught and forced to pay fines and/or spend time behind bars.

[b]Situation A:[/b] I buy a book. I make a copy of it. I give that copy to a friend. We both start reading. 2 days later, we're finished reading the book.

[b]Situation B:[/b] I buy a book. I start reading. 2 days later, I'm finished reading the book. I give the book to a friend. He starts reading. 2 days later, he's finished reading the book.

In both situations, two people read the book, and the writer got paid once. Why is one immoral, and the other upstanding and rightous, [i]other than the fact that an arbitrary law says so?[/i]

Symantics aside what we are witnessing is a shift in business resulting from technology and the human inability to change. This is the normal eb and flow of capitalism and it will make the recording industry stronger should they find a way to harness this new and powerfull engine. It seems that they have chosen the dig in their heels route, in the end they will loose. This is the nature of the game, another good example is American Airlines. They have taken the customer for granted for so long their ability to provide SERVICE has fallen by the wayside, this in turn has provided an opening for startup companies to gamble and try new approaches to customer service. That gamble paid off and the start-ups are winning.

On a different note it will be interesting to see if the record companies revert to the tactic of follow the money and sue the major PC makers. I can see the argument now "Gateway has advertised for years its CD/DVD copying machine, now ladies and gentlemen of the jury would you think the same if they marketed and sold counterfeit printing presses ?". Everyone here can appreceate the irony in this because it is the same tactis employed by gun control advocates. It will be used only because whatever punishment the FBI meters out it will still not amount to what the recording companies really want and that is cash.

Oh by the way it is wrong to download music but it is also wrong to own a rifle made after an arbitrary date with one of many scarry yet useless featuers (thanks to the stroke of a pen).

Be warry of those who seek to impose laws for with each one written a new class of criminal is born and the power of the law maker grows.


 

Situation C: You make a copy for a friend, who makes a copy for a friend, who makes a copy for a friend, who makes a copy for a friend...

At the end of the day (or 2 days, I guess, since it took you 2 to read the book), there is one copy of the authors original work, which you paid for. If you want to re-read that book later, you would have to go track down your friend you gave it to and get it back, if he hasn't given it to someone else. Or you have to go buy the book again.

Or we can just allow anyone and everyone to steal whatever and whenever they want, and destroy creative writing in general. You will have no more books, because the author doesn't want to waste years of his life to write a book that sells 200 copies, yet there are 100,000 copies floating around the nation.

This isn't much of an issue yet, because ebooks aren't that popular. But I'd be willing to bet that if/when they do get popular, there will already be rules in place to stop this, thanks to the MP3 craze.

You're still falling back to the "old days" analogy where things were a pain to do, cost money, and didn't turn out nearly as good as the original.

Now, exact replicas can be made and transferred in a mater of minutes and don't cost a dime. To anyone who can plug into a phoneline.

Whereas to re-create a book and give it to a friend would have not really been worth your time and money before, sending out a perfect replica to a few hundred thousand people without spending any of your time or money to do this is simple nowadays. Why do you THINK they are starting to get upset?

If you don't like how intelectual property is copyrighted and protected by law, then say something or do something to somehow try to change the law. Don't whine and moan about how it's unfair, or makes no sense.

Look at how much "intelectual property" is coming out of places that have no way to protect the owners rights.

I know you don't think that it's just Americans, being the superior people we are, that can be creative in general.

steenkybastage, you didn't answer my question.

Yes I did.



I further explained how dumb that analogy is later in the post, perhaps you'd care to read it.



Once again. If you don't like the fact that intelectual property is protected by law, then do something to change it. Or move to some 3rd world country where there IS no intelectual property, cause nobody cares to make it for free.

The simple fact of the matter is it's not about one person "giving a copy to a friend". That's been going on for a long time, and rarely was it worth cracking down on such a situation. It's about people sticking many copyrighted works up for thousands upon thousands of others to steal for free.

You can try and make analogies all you want about the "giving it to one friend", and altho that's still breaking the law, it's not close to the same situation. A publisher losing $5 over a book (that you happened to spend about $50 copying... dont ask me why you would do this), and a company losing millions is not similar.

Just be glad with music and books you CAN legally transfer/give them to someone else when you're done with it. With many products like some software that too would be illegal.

Okay, I didn't realize that that was how you were answering the question. Does that mean that it's only immoral if you want to read the book a second time?

You people apparently don't realize the scope of this new law. The big record labels can now subpoena your personal information from your ISP [b]without a court order, for ANY reason[/b]. They don't even have to justify it. Doesn't that alarm you?

Then again, most of you support the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, etc and the president who signed these into law, so I guess I'm stupid to think that you care about your personal rights any more.

It's only [i]illegal[/i] if you copy a work that is protected by the law. It's only immoral if you believe you shouldn't steal, yet don't get permission from the owner to do it, as morals are pretty much based on beliefs, not laws.

[b]I[/b] would consider it immoral to reproduce a copyrighted book/music/software against the wishes of the owner. Not just cause it's illegal, but because it's not yours to do that with.

[b]You[/b] obviously dont think it's immoral, just illegal. And so I think you need to go about trying to change the law to agree with what you see fit (provided enough of us americans think the same way).

You're basically trying to say stealing a $.05 piece of gum isn't a big deal, so why should robbing a bank for $100,000 be a big deal? (I'm not talking about physical theft, just the severity of the crime)

Both are against the law, the stick of gum nobody will probably make a fuss over, robbing the bank will potentially get you prison time. One should't be surprised if the RIAA comes knocking on the door if you've been up to a lot of illegal file/music sharing.

Please do tell about this "new law". Specifically a link to the law itself, or a credible source.

There was a court case which verizon was required to turn over info... but no law that I've read that is anything similar to what you say.

$300 for Windows, sheesh look up the price for Win2K Server.  And yes we buy licenses for our servers.


Nobody has mentioned the real problem with music these days and pirating - YOU CAN NO LONGER BUY A CD WITH MORE THAN 1 OR 2 GOOD SONGS ON IT!!! Yes, music basically sucks ass these days.  I remember the days where I would buy a Metallica album, and I would like maybe 4 songs right off the bat.  Then, as I listened to it I would probably eventually like just about all of them, and would continue to do so for quite some time.  Now, a CD will have ONE "good" song that you heard on the radio, with 10 "stupid" songs (probably the ones that were actually written by the band).  And, that one good song will grow old after a couple weeks of listening to it.  I download MP3s in singles here and there.  I can't imagine paying $15 (or whatever it is CDs costs these days) for ONE song.  

No, I'm not trying to say that at all. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make sence for it to be perfectly legal for me to read over your shoulder but yet it's completely illegal for me to make a copy of said book and read it sitting next to you as you read the original. What's the difference, and why is one legal and the other one not?

What's wrong is you are copying intelectual property and distributing it. If your friend decides to make a copy or three and give them to friend, and each of those 3 decides to make copies for 10 of their friends, and those 30 make 5 copies for their friends, and those 150 make copies for their x# of friends... It's just a very small time version of filesharing.

AFAIK, copyright owners COULD make it illegal for you to give/sell your book or CD after you're done with it. All they have to do is make it clear, as in an EULA for software.

So, the reason is because the author isn't saying don't sell this/give it away when you're done, they're saying don't steal/distribute it.

The stick of gum compared to robbing a bank is exactly your argument. You admit they're illegal, but don't think the "small time" stuff like sharing a CD with a friend (giving them a copy) is wrong... or should I say, you think it's ok, obviously you should think it's wrong if you admit it's illegal. (or was that somebody else earlier?)

Since you're trying to play off a book, lets look at a spanish-english dictionary. You want to be able to translate spanish words so you can understand them, so does your friend. You [i]could[/i] read thru the entire dictionary in 2 days, and give it to your friend.

But since you don't have a photographic memory, a week later you need to translate something into english. Your friend kept the book cause he needs to translate spanish on a regular basis... so either you decide to illegaly copy the book so that both of you can make use of it when you want, or you (or your friend) buy another copy to use.

[b]THIS[/b] is a much better analogy for you. Music isn't usually something you listen to once and give away (unless it sucks). If you want to enjoy/use the property you bought on a regular basis, you have to either steal a copy or pay for it.

No, that is not my argument. You have misunderstood me. The foundation of my argument is NOT that the value dictates whether or not it is wrong. The foundation of my argument is that gum is real property, and books/music/etc. are intellectual property. As such, not real property at all. Furthermore, my argument states that the only way to inforce against intellectual property effectively is just to draw an arbitrary line and decide that one thing is illegal, but another thing isn't, even when there is no discernable difference in the outcome.

By the letter of the law, even your "legal" example of ginvig your book away, technically is only the right of the copyright owner.

If intelectual property isn't in fact property (thus not able to be stolen), then why do we have patents and copyrights in the first place?

Why can't I design something based off someone else's idea that they have patented? Why is plajurism (sp?) wrong? Why cant you put your name on your friends term paper?

Seriously, tho... there are plenty of un/under developed countries you could move to that have no protection of intelectual property. You'll notice that aside from stealing other people's works, they have not much if any creative works of their own. You could always move somewhere that thinks like you do. Altho I think you'd be ticked at the lack of stuff to steal.

If we dropped intelectual rights as of this very moment, your life would soon turn into one giant series of advertisements. Because that's the only way any entertainment would be able to be funded (by the entertainers, that is). Imagine Broadcast TV only 100x more advertisements. Or a magazine with 2 full pages of information, and 30 pages of advertisements.

Anyone and everyone could take and do what they wanted with everyone else's ideas... so everyone would wise up and not share their ideas with anyone else. That would put a pretty good sized stall in progress/technology (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing).

The "intelectual property" is protected for very good reasons. Just like other (seemingly) meaningless things are.

Take microsoft for example, I know tons of you claim to hate microsoft... altho you'd have no personal computers (shy of slow and outdated apples), no internet, and not be able to have this internet discussion about intelectual property if they weren't able to keep their intelectual property to themselves.

Mr Gates can't legally sell a piece of software without the first copy getting given to everyone else in the world...? I don't think so... time to find something else to do.

No microsoft, that means no competition for apple... and no third party manufacturers (intel, AMD, cyrix, VIA, etc..) to produce and compete with each other for better technology. And with no competition comes stagnation. Just like Intels thru the roof pricing before a serious competitor (AMD) came along and forced the price and speed wars.

This country would still be waaaaay behind where we're at if not for the protection of intelectual proerty. Hmm, maybe we'd be part of russia right about now.

Ummm, try the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996? You mean you're in this topic trying to make yourself look like you know what you're talking about and you don't even know what the DMCA is? It's certainly not a "new law", but the attempts at enforcement certainly are more recent.

In this particular case the RIAA argued that the DMCA grants them the "powers" to subpoena personal info from ISPs without a court order, which the district AND appeals court just agreed to. So our courts just allowed a special interest group of the record labels (RIAA) unlimited powers of obtaining personal ISP info of anybody they want or the ISP will be held liable. In fact the RIAA is sending warnings to people who have FTP sites but don't even have any MP3s or music on them. What do you have to say about that? Or didn't you know about that either?

No internet without Microsoft? [LOL]

Yes, no internet as you know it. Not because microsoft directly caused the internet to bloom, but because of all the steps that THEY started.

Apple was (and somewhat still is) content to make their computers affordable to the "elite" and not really intent on making much progress, speedwise or cost wise.

Microsoft sparked the home user market by allowing for affordable computers to be made by third party manufacturers (using their software), and thus, thru many other indirect steps, kicked off the entire consumer computer use phenomenon. There was no progress toward faster/better computers until there became a large enough user base to justify spending millions of dolloars to research these technologies.

Face it, things would have gone the way of UNIX  and apple if it wasn't for the "intelectual property" of mr bill gates.

What surprises me is that there are still people out there that think that that would be a [i]bad[/i] thing. And what's wrong with UNIX?

As far as I can tell, AOL started the whole internet thing as most of us know it. That it to say, they made it accessible to people with only half of their brains doing any useful work. MAYBE AOL wouldn't have come out with their "service" if Microsoft Windows didn't exist, but, OTOH, they probably would have come out with it on whatever platform happened to be popular. It just happened to be Windows. As a company, Microsoft seems to be the [i]last[/i] company to embrace the internet, and had to redesign their operating system to implement it in any great capacity.

I was under the impression you actually meant a new law, like you said... This is hardly a new law. And it was 98, if I remember right, not 96 (could be wrong here).

Kinda like complaining about how this "new ban" is so restrictive for AR owners.

Please give me a credible source stating how they can get any personal information for any reason. I have read thru that on more than one occasion previously, and never got that impression. (And, no, I dont claim to know this forward and backward, I could be wrong)

Like I said, microsoft didn't directly cause this. They started the ball rolling. Apple STILL is back in the days microsoft was 5 years ago, and that's with having to be somewhat competitive to stay alive.

In fact, the whole reason apple wasn't ever making much progress is cause of the lack of competition (no third party manufacturers).

If MS didn't spark this, we'd be using 133mhz apples and dialing into a BBS.

Do you disagree that without competition, things pretty much stagnate?

Do you disagree that with no way to actually keep any of these patents, copyrights, or other "intelectual properties" NO computer company would have made any progress?

Even apple would have shut down without protection of their intelectual property. The only thing that would have made any difference (company wise) would have been hardware manufacturers, until they realized anyone who can reverse engineer their product could make it, too... why spend all the money to research and develop all this when 3 months from now someone will steal it for free?

In my book...

If I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it. That includes making copies and giving it away. Don't like it, don't agree with it, too bad.

Good argument... but don't try using that one on a judge.

Okay, again, Microsoft did not start anything rolling, least of all the internet as we know it.

Secondly, I think the fact that Microsoft has 90% of the desktop market proves that they can come out with new stuff without competition.

Thirdly, open source software has made great progress without limiting "intellectual property," so, yes, I do "disagree that with no way to actually keep any of these patents, copyrights, or other "intelectual properties" NO computer company would have made any progress"

Hmm....all you are talking about Bill Gates' intellectual property. What do you say to the fact that he signed a contract to sell IBM what would eventually be DOS before he even bought the rights to the software he adapted for that use?

Do you REALLY think everyone would have pitched in for free and made all the developments to date to get to this point without microsoft? (or are you just being stubborn?) You must not know much about the history of computing, and what steps have been taken and what has been required to get here.



Heh, 90%, huh? if there's no competition, why don't they have 100%?

Microsoft has no competition? Sorry, but microsoft THRIVES off competition... New technology (caused by competition), new software, new companies... they are the drive for MS.

Why would anyone need anything after win95 if technology never changed? How about no new software?

One of the most obvious examples that even you must have noticed is Intel. For years, their prices were sky high, and they didn't make much progress... a few dozen mhz here, and few there... prices thru the roof.

Along comes AMD, gets competitive... actually puts out a faster processor for less money, and woah... whatyda know, Intel can improve faster than their turtle pace, and ::GASP:: lower their prices.

That spurred better programs (cause they can take advantage of the faster cpu's, and other faster/better technology), which in turn lead to the need for more speed, which lead to new technology, which lead to needing new OSes, etc...



Then why are we paying for MS products (or some of you stealing them), instead of having these great open source free wonderful programs? You cant tell me ::gasp:: they can't compete with microsoft.

After all, these open source companies should BLOW THE SOCKS OFF companies who charge for their products. Why aren't they dominating if you think that a computer company could survive on its own without any intelectual property of its own? After all, we'd rather get free stuff than pay... even if they were HALF as good as microsoft. Why as you claim (you're a bit off, too) does microsoft have 90% of the market?

=========================================


Well, we've wandered far and abroad. You obviously think what you want to think, and won't be budged. I'm glad you're so optomistic about how well things would be in this fantasy world of yours with no protection of intelectual property...

I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, and stop responding to your analogies and side trails. Altho I'll be back if someone brings up the DMCA actually stating RIAA can get any info any time it wants for no reason... That I'd like to see.

Yes, that is what I believe. What has Microsoft come up with that wasn't already around? I said that they didn't start the ball rolling on anything, and I stand by that. Disk based operating system? Nope, UNIX already had it. Networking support? Nope, Novell and UNIX already had it. GUI? Nope, they got that from Xerox. Mouse? Nope, Apple did that first.


Intel competing with AMD has nothing to do with Microsoft having competition. If Microsoft has so much competition, they why did they loose their anti-trust suit?



Some of us [i]are[/i] using open source software.



Simple. Because computers come with Windows, so people feel locked in and continue to pay for "upgrades" and software that works with Windows. It's easier to pay in order to keep what you have than to learn how to use a new system for free. How many people *buy* windows when they build a PC from scratch? I would bet, not many.



Sounds good.