Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/11/2003 10:46:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 11:00:24 AM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 10:56:29 AM EDT
too bad, good for verizon though for fighting them
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:09:46 AM EDT
These people are "Terrorizing" the whole music industry. Call homeland security!! Ship 'em off to cuba!! Free Joe Schmoe!!![:D]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:17:34 AM EDT
Note to self, don't use kazaa on parents Verizon DSL, only do so on your cable modem.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:20:16 AM EDT
Holding verizon responsible is like holding VCR manufacturers responsible for folks copying VHS movies.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:26:00 AM EDT
The recording companies aren't hold Verizon personally responcible. The companies have limited information on the "criminals," and without the aid of Verizon, the recording companies are out of luck in finding anyone. I really am impressed that Verizon is fighting for their customers. When are the record companies going to learn that the days of MASSIVE profit margins are OVER? If they don't like what people are doing with "their" music, stop producing it. Otherwise shut the fuck up. - Matt
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:33:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dskeet: Note to self, don't use kazaa on parents Verizon DSL, only do so on your cable modem.
View Quote
until the record companies get names from your company
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:35:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 11:35:48 AM EDT by Dredd308]
I wonder if they can track thru AOL. Someone I know has AOL, thier DSL is run thru Verizon. Hmmmmmmmmm (edited for being stoopid)
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:49:20 AM EDT
I want to know why Verizon is tracking IP connectiviity in the first place. Seems to me, if they believed in no Big Brother, it would have been easier to not log their customer's activities. Or dump logs after conducting whatever investigations prompted the logging.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:11:49 PM EDT
It would need to be more than IP tracking, who is to say you are not doing FTP's with another person? Sounds like sniffing, invasion of privacy, to me....can ISP's sniff just to sniff? I know in the telecommunications business that traffic passing thru our network was illegal to sniff.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:15:27 PM EDT
Why is it ok to steal from the music industry? Why is it ok for ISPs to cover for illegal activities? [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]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:22:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: These people are "Terrorizing" the whole music industry. Call homeland security!! Ship 'em off to cuba!!
View Quote
Sorry, the recording industry beat you to the punch. Circumventing copy protection and trading pirated material is now terrorism. Related to this topic, the Cult of the Dead Cow, the guys who made the BackOrifice & BO2k "remote administration tools", were working on a neat project which would allow anonymous p2p sharing, IIRC. The project is called [url=www.peek-a-booty]peekabooty[/url] and currently allows access of restricted web pages across firewalls. Eventually, they're going to extend it to other protocols.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:27:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: Why is it ok to steal from the music industry?
View Quote
I would not go so far as to say it is "ok", but I feel no sympathy for the music industry. They pay the artists a very small percentage of album proceeds. They push albums with 1 or 2 good songs and fill the rest with crap, but they won't let you buy individual songs in MP3 format online. They try to copy protect albums so you cannot make personal copies as allowed under Fair Use law. Did I mention price fixing? Have you ever wondered why CDs are [b]STILL[/b] more expensive than cassettes, 20 years after CDs hit the market?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:28:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: Why is it ok to steal from the music industry? Why is it ok for ISPs to cover for illegal activities?
View Quote
Yes, it is theft, but it's "popular" theft and "everybody does it" so that means it's OK! [rolleyes] ~ s0ulzer0
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:32:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: I would not go so far as to say it is "ok", but I feel no sympathy for the music industry. They pay the artists a very small percentage of album proceeds. They push albums with 1 or 2 good songs and fill the rest with crap, but they won't let you buy individual songs in MP3 format online. They try to copy protect albums so you cannot make personal copies as allowed under Fair Use law. Did I mention price fixing? Have you ever wondered why CDs are [b]STILL[/b] more expensive than cassettes, 20 years after CDs hit the market?
View Quote
Ok, so now we have rationalized the theft. Because we don't like the way the industry does business, so this justifies theft of their property.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 12:37:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist: Have you ever wondered why CDs are STILL more expensive than cassettes, 20 years after CDs hit the market?
View Quote
I didn't know you could still buy cassettes. I'm always amazed at the awful musical acts that get radio/tv play. If it weren't for the music industry, those bands would never make it. What's even worse are the lemmings that actually listen to it. [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]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:00:13 PM EDT
i would prob. get the death penalty for the amount of music, movies, games, and software i have downloaded [:o]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:01:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: Why is it ok to steal from the music industry? Why is it ok for ISPs to cover for illegal activities?
View Quote
I always knew you were a commie.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:21:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USPC40: Why is it ok to steal from the music industry? Why is it ok for ISPs to cover for illegal activities?
View Quote
it's only wrong if you get caught. the bible told me so.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:22:33 PM EDT
I am not condoning theft of music, but maybe if this stuff wasn't so expensive, maybe people would not filch it online. I saw that apple music ad on tv a few days ago, and I thought "who is gunna pay for that, when you can get it for free?". Record companies make huge profits. I'm not some sort of commie pinko, but Fvck 'em. So they can't get the camelhair in the Rolls Royce. My. $00.02
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:24:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0:
Originally Posted By fizassist: I would not go so far as to say it is "ok", but ....
View Quote
Ok, so now we have rationalized the theft. Because we don't like the way the industry does business, so this justifies theft of their property.
View Quote
Um, read much? I specifically said it I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "ok".
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:44:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PhatForrest: I am not condoning theft of music, but maybe if this stuff wasn't so expensive, maybe people would not filch it online. I saw that apple music ad on tv a few days ago, and I thought "who is gunna pay for that, when you can get it for free?". Record companies make huge profits. I'm not some sort of commie pinko, but Fvck 'em. So they can't get the camelhair in the Rolls Royce. My. $00.02
View Quote
So, by that logic, I can steal anything I want because it has a high profit margin or the owners or shareholders have more "stuff" than I do? Shit - The Porsche dealership closes in a few hours, wonder if I can make it over there in time to grab a few 996s. Don't get me wrong, I cannot stand how the music companies have stalled on delivery methods of their media and have gouged the "artists", but don't tell me it's OK to steal because you disagree with their business model. -934
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:47:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PhatForrest: II saw that apple music ad on tv a few days ago, and I thought "who is gunna pay for that, when you can get it for free?".
View Quote
I for one have used it. You have a guaranteed bit rate and quality that you cannot be guaranteed of by P2P. And for most of the albums they have, the majority of them are under $10. You can buy by the song, or by the CD. You don't have to drive anywhere, and can burn the music to CD as many times as you want.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:50:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magnus357: When are the record companies going to learn that the days of MASSIVE profit margins are OVER? If they don't like what people are doing with "their" music, stop producing it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
View Quote
[rolleyes] If you don't like it when someone steals YOUR property, DONT OWN IT. Or STFU. [:o)]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:57:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By racer934: Don't get me wrong, I cannot stand how the music companies have stalled on delivery methods of their media and have gouged the "artists", but don't tell me it's OK to steal because you disagree with their business model.
View Quote
I'm not going to say it's OK, but don't expect me to cry any tears for them, either....
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:59:29 PM EDT
Yeah, yeah, but seriously...how does this relate to the Boston Tea Party?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:01:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Originally Posted By PhatForrest: II saw that apple music ad on tv a few days ago, and I thought "who is gunna pay for that, when you can get it for free?".
View Quote
I for one have used it. You have a guaranteed bit rate and quality that you cannot be guaranteed of by P2P. And for most of the albums they have, the majority of them are under $10. You can buy by the song, or by the CD. You don't have to drive anywhere, and can burn the music to CD as many times as you want.
View Quote
$10 for anything I can get for free? I think not, I'll save for another M1A. Someone once offered me a brige in NYC. I passed on it, politely. If they are free, I don't give a crap about connection quality or bitrate. And what about all this new stuff where ya can't copy stuff off CDs? If I tried to get a song off of Dave Matthews Busted Stuff, I cannot do it for some reason. Maybe its just me.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:12:07 PM EDT
The theft argument is interesting, and almost compeling until you remember that this is intellectual property, not real property or personal property of a physical nature. There is not natural right to intellectual property. Yes, we do have laws that claim this stuff is defined as protected property, but intellectual property laws and defining what can be owned as I.P. have always been based on technology. As technology changes, so does the law. With digital files, it is probably time for the law to change to reflect the new technological reality. "Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own. In this case, people are merely copying something already placed into the public domain. Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No. Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no. Of course, selling the photograph might be theft, but it is the sale that changes things. I am unaware of anyone selling MP3 files. That would be theft. But buying a cd and making a digital copy for your own use is not "theft".
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:25:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PhatForrest: If they are free, I don't give a crap about connection quality or bitrate. And what about all this new stuff where ya can't copy stuff off CDs? If I tried to get a song off of Dave Matthews Busted Stuff, I cannot do it for some reason. Maybe its just me.
View Quote
Well, I for one care, and $.99 for a high quality song seems reasonable to me, and the RIAA gets their cut, as does the artist. As far as the DMB CD goes, it's just you. I burned all of my DMB cd's to my computer without any problems. Now, MP3 trading is another issue, and bands like DMB, Blues Traveler, and others have a policy that allows for taping and trading their shows, and I have a few DMB concerts that I've d/l'ed and it's legal. But this is the perfect solution for people who like a song or two from an artist, but don't want to spend 15-20 bucks just to get 2 songs.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:31:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DADX3: The theft argument is interesting, and almost compeling until you remember that this is intellectual property, not real property or personal property of a physical nature. There is not natural right to intellectual property. Yes, we do have laws that claim this stuff is defined as protected property, but intellectual property laws and defining what can be owned as I.P. have always been based on technology. As technology changes, so does the law. With digital files, it is probably time for the law to change to reflect the new technological reality.
View Quote
Then why do we have patents and copyrights for "intelectual property"? If it's not really able to be stolen.
"Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own.
View Quote
No, theft would imply you took something belonging to the owner without their permission. If you happened to take someone elses song and reproduce it in its entirety, that is also theft, just as much as it is theft to take a product that is being offered for sale and NOT paying for it.
In this case, people are merely copying something already placed into the public domain.
View Quote
They are copying stuff placed in the public domain by individuals who have no right to put it there. Until the owner decides to make this a free public item, it is not public domain
Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No.
View Quote
Of course not, the original photographer is the OWNER OF THE PHOTO. I can sit around and take pictures of whoever/whatever I want, and the film/prints are MY PROPERTY.
Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no.
View Quote
Right, you're comparing apples to oranges. Someone stealing intelectual property, compared to someone taking a photo of some light reflecting off objects.
Of course, selling the photograph might be theft, but it is the sale that changes things.
View Quote
If it's a photo someone else too, yes, but if you took it, you can sell it all day long.
I am unaware of anyone selling MP3 files. That would be theft. But buying a cd and making a digital copy for your own use is not "theft".
View Quote
Where do you jump into copying your own cds to MP3's for personal use out of this whole argument? This is over P2P sharing of files illegaly. You'll notice the RIAA doesn't even have a problem with you making an mp3 of music you bought. One thing you are right about, tho... is there needs to be new laws for the new technology. The previous ruling that somewhat applies was over the use of VCR's. The courts ruled that one has a right to record a copyrighted television broadcast for the purpose of "time shifting" (viewing at a later time), but NOT to build up a library or keep the copyrighted material you recorded. Back then, they didn't have a convenient way to replicate (losslessly) any form of media and make it available for mass distribution to the leechers. Now we do, and the RIAA is GOING to do something about it. People with the mentality that the only acceptable outcome is "EVERYTHING FREE" are only hurting the cause. There needs to be a compromise, somewhere between the two extremes of "everything free" and $20 for this CD that costs $.50 to make, and millions to produce/advertise/etc.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:38:53 PM EDT
There needs to be a compromise, somewhere between the two extremes of "everything free" and $20 for this CD that costs $.50 to make, and millions to produce/advertise/etc.
View Quote
If there was a happy medium like this that you speak of, I personally would not have a problem, and I think a lot of other people who get much of thier music would also think the same way. Another pile of drool just fell from my brain.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:46:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No.
View Quote
Of course not, the original photographer is the OWNER OF THE PHOTO. I can sit around and take pictures of whoever/whatever I want, and the film/prints are MY PROPERTY.
Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no.
View Quote
Right, you're comparing apples to oranges. Someone stealing intelectual property, compared to someone taking a photo of some light reflecting off objects.
View Quote
I would think that if recording light bouncing off of an object is okay, then recording air bouncing off of a musical instrument is okay as well. So, as long as *I* am the one doing the recording, such as at a concert, then it's legal I guess, but not if someone else did the recording?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:50:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By DADX3: "Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own.
View Quote
No, theft would imply you took something belonging to the owner without their permission. If you happened to take someone elses song and reproduce it in its entirety, that is also theft, just as much as it is theft to take a product that is being offered for sale and NOT paying for it.
View Quote
Historically, that is not true. Prior to the rise of file sharing, theft of a song was indeed defined as either slapping your name on it OR using it in a public display without permission. File sharing is neither. It is personal use of the song. You are sharing the song with a few million online friends. It's no more theft than it was when you allowed a friend to borrow your cassette of an album and copy a couple songs off it.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:52:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Originally Posted By liberty86: These people are "Terrorizing" the whole music industry. Call homeland security!! Ship 'em off to cuba!!
View Quote
Sorry, the recording industry beat you to the punch. Circumventing copy protection and trading pirated material is now terrorism. .
View Quote
I was just being facetitous....[:D] You're not!!??? [shock]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:55:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheFNG:
Originally Posted By USPC40: Why is it ok to steal from the music industry? Why is it ok for ISPs to cover for illegal activities?
View Quote
I always knew you were a commie.
View Quote
[>:/] You don't know me at all. [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]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:19:31 PM EDT
How can anyone claim ownership to anything that is on free airwaves. They allow or get paid to play their music across the free airwaves( this includes the internet) I download but if I sell the stuff I download then I'm commiting a crime.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:22:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By DADX3: "Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own.
View Quote
No, theft would imply you took something belonging to the owner without their permission. If you happened to take someone elses song and reproduce it in its entirety, that is also theft, just as much as it is theft to take a product that is being offered for sale and NOT paying for it.
View Quote
Historically, that is not true. Prior to the rise of file sharing, theft of a song was indeed defined as either slapping your name on it OR using it in a public display without permission. File sharing is neither. It is personal use of the song. You are sharing the song with a few million online friends. It's no more theft than it was when you allowed a friend to borrow your cassette of an album and copy a couple songs off it.
View Quote
What about an on-line book, or story rik?? [:D] I never really knew this was a problem. I don't know where to go to get music, and they prolly wouldn't have my stuff anyhow...Interesting thread though, I've never given a lot of thought to intellectual property concepts... Being as how I ain't intellectual!! [;D]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:24:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnphin:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No.
View Quote
Of course not, the original photographer is the OWNER OF THE PHOTO. I can sit around and take pictures of whoever/whatever I want, and the film/prints are MY PROPERTY.
Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no.
View Quote
Right, you're comparing apples to oranges. Someone stealing intelectual property, compared to someone taking a photo of some light reflecting off objects.
View Quote
I would think that if recording light bouncing off of an object is okay, then recording air bouncing off of a musical instrument is okay as well. So, as long as *I* am the one doing the recording, such as at a concert, then it's legal I guess, but not if someone else did the recording?
View Quote
You'd think, wouldn't you? I don't know the reasoning, but my only guess would be that someone is still creating that music you're recording, and without their permission it's still their intellectual property. Lots of bands let you do this with their live concerts, tho. But there's no way you can tell me you somehow managed to record on your own the studio copy of what's on a CD. Considering they heavily edit that, and do vocals/instruments separate from each other. You'd have to put weeks of your time into getting a similar result, assuming you could get the raw audio recorded in the studio. Kinda silly to do that over $20, eh?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:39:40 PM EDT
If you buy a cd, it doesn't have any licenses like software, it's yours. Plain and simple. Now if you decide to share that, than what's the matter with that, it's yours. You bought and paid for it. How can anyone tell you what to do with it?? Just my .02
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:42:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 3:48:43 PM EDT by steenkybastage]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By DADX3: "Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own.
View Quote
No, theft would imply you took something belonging to the owner without their permission. If you happened to take someone elses song and reproduce it in its entirety, that is also theft, just as much as it is theft to take a product that is being offered for sale and NOT paying for it.
View Quote
Historically, that is not true. Prior to the rise of file sharing, theft of a song was indeed defined as either slapping your name on it OR using it in a public display without permission. File sharing is neither. It is personal use of the song. You are sharing the song with a few million online friends. It's no more theft than it was when you allowed a friend to borrow your cassette of an album and copy a couple songs off it.
View Quote
Unfortunately, not quite true. Yes, it was and still is illegal to "share a file with a (or a few million) friend(s)" as in giving them a copy of what you purchased. There was never anyone causing a big scene about it before because there was not a widespread technology that let them reproduce IDENTICAL replicates of the original. Before, if you got a copy of a master, you got some tape hiss, and a copy of a copy just sounded bad, and a copy of a copy of a copy was even worse, etc. Kinda hard to "share" that one tape with a million people without the multi-generation people thinking it's not worth the cost of a $1 tape to record the crappy sound on. Go do some research on the whole subject, you'll find there are laws that protect intellectual property, and that includes music, software, and tons of other stuff. People are just getting ticked now because it's getting to be a big enough of a problem that big companies like RIAA are taking notice and trying to put a stop to it. here's a quick link to get you started: [url]http://eon.law.harvard.edu/mp3/[/url]
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), which proclaimed the legality of home video copying for "time-shifting" purposes (taping a broadcast program to watch at a later time, then erasing the copy so as not to build a "library" of copyrighted works). THE NO ELECTRONIC THEFT ACT The NET, enacted in December 1997, attempted to crack down on computer-based piracy by instituting criminal penalties for copyright infringement by electronic means under 18 U.S.C. § 2319. A trader in illegal MP3s could get up to 6 years in prison (for a second offense -- up to 3 years for a first) and/or a hefty fine for distributing as little as $1000 worth of music. [red]The law also amended the Copyright Act's definition of "financial gain" (17 U.S.C. § 101) stringently to include "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."[/red] This places under the Act's ambit the MP3 "ratio sites" which require a user to upload a file before they may download one, as well as trading areas like this one, should the trading be in unauthorized copies.
View Quote
edited to fix quotes
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:46:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mpearcex: How can anyone claim ownership to anything that is on free airwaves. They allow or get paid to play their music across the free airwaves( this includes the internet) I download but if I sell the stuff I download then I'm commiting a crime.
View Quote
Dang, the internet is made up of free airwaves now? Technology, I tell you! I think they key to your question, if I understand it right, is the phrases "they get paid to play their music" and "if I sell the stuff". Yes, you're committing a crime if you sell someone else's property, but technically you're already committing a crime if you obtain the copyrighted material without permission anyhow... Just that you're not nearly as likely to get in trouble for "stealing" the music as you are to get in trouble for trying to turn a profit off the "stolen goods".
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:56:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:29:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0:
Originally Posted By fizassist: I would not go so far as to say it is "ok", but ....
View Quote
Ok, so now we have rationalized the theft. Because we don't like the way the industry does business, so this justifies theft of their property.
View Quote
Um, read much? I specifically said it I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "ok".
View Quote
Yeah, I know, but you said "[b][i]but...[/i][/b]" [:D] ~ s0ulzer0
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:34:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 4:35:25 PM EDT by BallisticTip]
Chicken wire you windows, they are coming after you. [peep]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:37:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DADX3: The theft argument is interesting, and almost compeling until you remember that this is intellectual property, not real property or personal property of a physical nature. There is not natural right to intellectual property. Yes, we do have laws that claim this stuff is defined as protected property, but intellectual property laws and defining what can be owned as I.P. have always been based on technology. As technology changes, so does the law. With digital files, it is probably time for the law to change to reflect the new technological reality. "Theft" of a song, when the word theft is used with all of the moral baggage, should mean taking the musical score, written by a singer/composer, placing your name on it, calling it your own and putting it out as your own. In this case, people are merely copying something already placed into the public domain. Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No. Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no. Of course, selling the photograph might be theft, but it is the sale that changes things. I am unaware of anyone selling MP3 files. That would be theft. But buying a cd and making a digital copy for your own use is not "theft".
View Quote
I can see your point. Change "theft" to Bootleging. One guy goes out, spends $16 on the new CD. He then rips the disk into CD Quality MP3s and puts them out on the internet. Everyone downloads it for free and nobody goes out to buy the disk. Why do that, I've got it for free. He hasn't the rights/permissions to do that. All the money from new CD sales is essentially stolen. ~ s0ulzer0
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:45:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By Johnphin:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No.
View Quote
Of course not, the original photographer is the OWNER OF THE PHOTO. I can sit around and take pictures of whoever/whatever I want, and the film/prints are MY PROPERTY.
Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no.
View Quote
Right, you're comparing apples to oranges. Someone stealing intelectual property, compared to someone taking a photo of some light reflecting off objects.
View Quote
I would think that if recording light bouncing off of an object is okay, then recording air bouncing off of a musical instrument is okay as well. So, as long as *I* am the one doing the recording, such as at a concert, then it's legal I guess, but not if someone else did the recording?
View Quote
You'd think, wouldn't you? I don't know the reasoning, but my only guess would be that someone is still creating that music you're recording, and without their permission it's still their intellectual property. Lots of bands let you do this with their live concerts, tho. But there's no way you can tell me you somehow managed to record on your own the studio copy of what's on a CD. Considering they heavily edit that, and do vocals/instruments separate from each other. You'd have to put weeks of your time into getting a similar result, assuming you could get the raw audio recorded in the studio. Kinda silly to do that over $20, eh?
View Quote
Interesting point, but still. What if I turned on my tape recorder during a concert? Isn't that the same as turning on my tape recorder during my friend playing the cd on his car stereo? What if he were playing it on his home stereo? Does the sound have to travel through air waves first? Can it just travel down a wire in the form of electrons when I plug my tape recorder into his cd player? What if I used a CD recorder? What if I used a computer? Isn't saying that it's illegal to record a performce just one small and indiscriminant step away from saying that it's illegal to take a picture of someone wearing a dress that they made?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 5:06:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage: Yes, it was and still is illegal to "share a file with a (or a few million) friend(s)" as in giving them a copy of what you purchased.
View Quote
That's debatable and has been ruled upon differently by different courts.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 5:06:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage: Where do you jump into copying your own cds to MP3's for personal use out of this whole argument? This is over P2P sharing of files illegaly. You'll notice the RIAA doesn't even have a problem with you making an mp3 of music you bought.
View Quote
RIAA has a BIG PROBLEM with you making an MP3 out of your own store bought CD. That is why they are trying to make the CD "unripable" with the new security systems that are being put on some CD's. They started last year on a limited release of CD's.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 6:38:37 PM EDT
there are legit uses for p2p.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 6:41:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 6:55:27 PM EDT by steenkybastage]
Originally Posted By Johnphin:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By Johnphin:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Is taking a photograph of someone theft? No.
View Quote
Of course not, the original photographer is the OWNER OF THE PHOTO. I can sit around and take pictures of whoever/whatever I want, and the film/prints are MY PROPERTY.
Is showing people photos you have taken theft? No. Is making a copy for a friend theft? No. Regardless of what you are photographing, the answer is no.
View Quote
Right, you're comparing apples to oranges. Someone stealing intelectual property, compared to someone taking a photo of some light reflecting off objects.
View Quote
I would think that if recording light bouncing off of an object is okay, then recording air bouncing off of a musical instrument is okay as well. So, as long as *I* am the one doing the recording, such as at a concert, then it's legal I guess, but not if someone else did the recording?
View Quote
You'd think, wouldn't you? I don't know the reasoning, but my only guess would be that someone is still creating that music you're recording, and without their permission it's still their intellectual property. Lots of bands let you do this with their live concerts, tho. But there's no way you can tell me you somehow managed to record on your own the studio copy of what's on a CD. Considering they heavily edit that, and do vocals/instruments separate from each other. You'd have to put weeks of your time into getting a similar result, assuming you could get the raw audio recorded in the studio. Kinda silly to do that over $20, eh?
View Quote
Interesting point, but still. What if I turned on my tape recorder during a concert? Isn't that the same as turning on my tape recorder during my friend playing the cd on his car stereo? What if he were playing it on his home stereo? Does the sound have to travel through air waves first? Can it just travel down a wire in the form of electrons when I plug my tape recorder into his cd player? What if I used a CD recorder? What if I used a computer? Isn't saying that it's illegal to record a performce just one small and indiscriminant step away from saying that it's illegal to take a picture of someone wearing a dress that they made?
View Quote
Yeah, as I pointed out in one of the earlier posts here, that type of situation (recording using your tape recorder from speakers of friends stereo) where nobody made a big fuss about it, because you then took a big hit in quality, and by the time your other friend wanted to do the same thing from your stereo, it was even worse sounding. There's no way to "share it with a million people" like someone stated earlier, without it sounding like complete crap. Now, with the losless quality, you can make a 500th generation copy and still have a perfect replica of the original. That's when they started taking notice and trying to shut down the sharing. Legally, you can't do any of the sound recording stated in your last post (without the copyright owners permission). Will you get caught/in trouble? Probably not. Doesn't make it right. I have no idea what rules they'll come up with for taking photos. But as far as I know, no object in and of itself is considered intellectual property. Unless a sign on a building (museum for instance or some such similar situation) says no photos... it's perfectly legal to snap a picture of what you want. Now if you went to an art gallery and started taking photos of the artists photos/drawings/paintings... then that would probably be against the law (dunno, never read up on it). But until that becomes a widespread occurance, I doubt you'll see any major fuss about it. A clothing design wouldn't fall under "intellectual property", it is physical property that can really only be enjoyed by wearing the piece of clothing. So the manufacturer makes their money by selling physical pieces of clothing. A musician and their record label make music. This is not a physical piece of property, even tho it is often recorded onto a physical piece of property. What is actually copyrighted and used/enjoyed by the buyers is the music itself, that is intellectual property. See the difference? From the link posted in one of my last posts:
As a threshold matter, the rights of artists, publishers, and record companies (the copyright holders) are constitutionally protected in the U.S. under the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 (the Act), 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. The Act provides protection for "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, currently known or later developed, from which the work can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or indirectly, with the aid of a machine or device. (17 U.S.C. § 102(a))
View Quote
Obviously they planned for future technologies in the this Copyright Act. You'll also notice these are the rights of copyright holders. They alone have these rights for their work:
The exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder are found in 17 U.S.C. § 106 (pertinent rights in [s]boldface[/s] blue) Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: 1) to [blue]reproduce[/blue] the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to [blue]prepare derivative works[/blue] based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to [blue]distribute copies or phonorecords[/blue] [red]of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending[/red]; 4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to [blue]perform the copyrighted work publicly[/blue]; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to [blue]display the copyrighted work publicly[/blue]; and 6) in the case of sound recordings, to [blue]perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission[/blue].
View Quote
further down the article
[red]The term 'phonorecords' includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed." Phonorecords, therefore, are physical objects, such as tapes, CDs, and albums. The law is interpreted to include digital manifestations of phonorecords, such as a CD compressed into MP3 format and distributed on the Web.[/red]
View Quote
I try to know about this, because I work in a field where this is pretty relevant (broadcast TV). It would tick me off to no end if someone took one of the projects I that spent hours or days or weeks building (in order to sell for profit; I could care less about the advertising projects I build, as I want tons of people to see them) and stole it and started passing it out to the rest of my potential clients. If many people had a creative idea themself (intelectual property) and understood how much time, effort and money goes into making these things work, you'd probably agree with me and at least see where the record companies/software developers are coming from. edited to fix quote/colors
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 6:45:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage: Where do you jump into copying your own cds to MP3's for personal use out of this whole argument? This is over P2P sharing of files illegaly. You'll notice the RIAA doesn't even have a problem with you making an mp3 of music you bought.
View Quote
RIAA has a BIG PROBLEM with you making an MP3 out of your own store bought CD. That is why they are trying to make the CD "unripable" with the new security systems that are being put on some CD's. They started last year on a limited release of CD's.
View Quote
They are shelling out big bucks trying to develop methods to stop the criminals. If MP3 file sharing stopped overnight, they would not have any objection to legitimate use of MP3's. If you think they're spending all that money, just because they dont want anyone to use anything but a CD, you're way off base. Now the CD manufacturers, however... [;)]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top