 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to David
Re: Copyrights and the Individual said by David:So essentially, Napster (a corporation) could "fair use" thier networks and it would be legal? Not to pick at you, just want to understand. If that's the case the P2p people just got thier way out.. Legally. All they would have to do is prove they are a business or organization. Not quite. But for sure, if you've got $$$$$$, then you can buy your own flavor of "justice" and all the politicians you can fit into your pocket. Just ask the RIAA. The Napster boyz never had no millions that I ever heard of.
--
The Toll |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to Fatal Vector
Re: oh please! the logic kills me! Nope, I don't want to be paid when someone looks at my stuff. I only want to be paid when someone uses my work in a publication of some kind. As I said, you don't know me and you also don't know other freelance photographers and writers.
My material isn't something that people want to distribute using P2P so I am fortunate. I am talking about the friends I know who write software and acually write and perform music. These people don't want their material being distributed over P2P and you are right, they are powerless to stop it right now for the most part. Sure, the software company that I know can go after these people in civil suits, but that doesn't solve the problem.
You are right, current law enforcement groups can't do this. If you would have read my previous post, you would have seen that I said there should be a special law enforcement group that isn't tied to any company. This group would be for copyright infringement. As I said before, its just an idea, but something they have to do to stop the problem.
Your standpoint is, "Well, its there and no one can do anything about it so deal with it." Sorry to break it to you, but that solution doesn't work for those who find themselves on the wrong side of things. Its funny that you think that people want someone to guard their interests so they don't have to pay to do it themselves. Well, as someone who owns and creates intellectual property, I know you don't give a shit because you don't have to deal with it yourself.
The fact of the matter is that the people who create this intellectual property should have the right to dictate how it is distributed, who can use it, and what price it should be set at. Just because you don't have any intellectual property doesn't mean that all the laws should just not exist.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:"Actually, according to the law, if someone uses my work without my consent, it is against the law. It goes for publishing, distributing, or printing" That is a COMPLETE FALLACY. Period. If I PAID for your work, I can use it in ANY MANNER I SEE FIT. I can resell it if I want to, you have NO RIGHTS once I pay you money. If a newspaper pays you for a picture, they can use the picture as often as they want, whenever they want. You exchanged your copyright when you accepted money. The owner of the work is the person who PAID THE MONEY. The internet is for all intents and purposes, anonymous. The big ISP's do NOT WANT to enforce copyright laws. I know my town owned ISP won't give up my IP address without a court order. And that's the way it should be. If the **AssAsses want to try and sue my ass for downloading a movie, they are welcome to try. But it's going to cost them a fortune to do it. The courts have already ruled that the **AssAsses can't just demand the ISP turn over records. They need to get a court ordered warrant for EACH and EVERY so called 'infringment'. The software makers also have no right to control how the software is used, once I pay them. I have EVERY RIGHT to resell the software I purchased. I have EVERY RIGHT to resell the music I purchase. And if it's got DRM, then I have EVERY RIGHT to remove the DRM and sell my music I paid for. Lets look at my personal situation. I've purchased tons of Cd's in the past. And if I break the CD, I have no problem downloading the MP3 version of it. And I'm NOT BREAKING THE LAW. I PAID for the CD, I OWN the MUSIC. You seem to misunderstand what rights you have. You don't own your work if I pay you money for it. I own it, and I can do what I want with it. Uh, nice way to skirt what I said. Lets try again.
I said if someone uses my work without my consent, it is against the law. Uh, true.
You are right! If someone pays me for a picture, they can use it as often as you want. I never said that was false. Here is the kicker though...
Read my entire post and you will never see that I said that if a company pays to use my material, then I still own the rights. I never said paid moron. You brought that up on your own to go off on your rant.
You can get off your high horse now idiot.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Fatal Vector
said by Fatal Vector:Ah! I see it is time for the thread to deteriorate into the inevitable, lame assed, "downloading is stealing" argument again. Interesting to see who the industry trolls and supporters are. It's time for words like "Nazis" and "Hitler" to get injected into the thread 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | reply to izy
said by izy:I'm frustrated at high gas prices, I guess I'll just go steal it next time I need some. Not really.
I am dissatisfied with the RIAA/MPAA, so I use usenet, or buy used CDs/DVDs so they $0 of my money even when I get an original copy.
I am dissatisfied with gas prices, therefore I don't drive, own a car, or buy gas. It's a lot different from stealing. I'm getting the same thing done that I would want to get done with a car/gas, just more inconveinently, without going through oil companies. Same with music.. I'm dissatisfied with the whole music and movie industry, so I get what I want without going through them, just a little more inconveinently than it would be ideally if they had a fucking clue on modern digital distribution of their content.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
| reply to TechieZero
Well, if I could take a gallon of gas, put it in the copier, and use only the copied gas in my car, that would be fair use, right? |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by NonyMouse :
Well, if I could take a gallon of gas, put it in the copier, and use only the copied gas in my car, that would be fair use, right?
if there was a way to make endless copies of a gallon of gas, the inventor would be a billionare over night. or just end up dead from a Oil company hitsquad.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| holy SH!T thats funny |
|
 ZyncotlZed XPremium
join:2002-09-13
Wayne, MI | reply to thender2
said by thender2:I am dissatisfied with gas prices, therefore I don't drive, own a car, or buy gas. It's a lot different from stealing. I'm getting the same thing done that I would want to get done with a car/gas, just more inconveinently, without going through oil companies. Same with music.. I'm dissatisfied with the whole music and movie industry, so I get what I want without going through them, just a little more inconveinently than it would be ideally if they had a fucking clue on modern digital distribution of their content. You're examples are not equals. If you stated that you no longer acquire music period, but only listen to the radio then you're examples would correlate to each other.
You are still becoming the possesor of the digital media, but you aren't paying, and that is stealing.
--
I'd take the time to insult your intelligence, but you probably wouldn't get it. |
|
| said by Zyncotl:You are still becoming the possesor of the digital media, but you aren't paying, and that is stealing. Sorry to nit pick, but you can only posses the digital media if you have the disk. CD's are digital media. The music itself is a digital data file. Regardless of what you meant it is still not stealing. This has been proven in court back in the 80's. At worst it is copyright infringement, and even that is questionable.
Don't bother trying to correlate copyright infringement with theft because it just doesn't fly, neither in practical terms or in the eyes of the law. |
|
 izyPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
endless loop
kudos:1
1 edit | said by SRFireside:Sorry to nit pick, but you can only posses the digital media if you have the disk. Where have you been since 1991??? So basically you are saying that since I covered "your" tune on an album I distributed digitally it's isn't theft? Way to go brainiac...!!! |
|
| No, braniac. It is not theft. It is still copyright infringement. Copyright law was made so that the copyright holder gets compensated for when somebody makes money off your work. In your example if you covered a song of mine and didn't pay royalties on it you would be violating copyright law, which is a civil offense. Theft is actually depriving the owner of something tangible, and is a criminal offense. This was covered by the supreme court in the 80's (Dowling vs. US). |
|
|
|
