dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1849
share rss forum feed

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to Rekrul

Re: extortion

said by Rekrul:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

How do you "take" someone's copy of a digital file? Does the act of downloading it magically erase it from the other person's computer?

You're comparing depriving someone of an actual physical object with making an exact copy of something that can be infinitely duplicated.

If the content had value to the owners, they'd be selling it. They're not keeping it off the market out of some artistic desire. To them, these shows are the equivalent of that broken fan sitting in your attic or garage. The only difference is that where you'd probably throw it out, they're obsessive hoarders who will never part with anything no matter how useless it is to them.

Oh listen Your Honor... it's even better than I said. It wasn't a car! It was only a picture of a unique, handbuilt car! Listen, Your Honor! They used to sell this picture with a nice frame! Then they stopped selling it, and I could only buy it as a poster! WHY WON'T THEY SELL IT WITH A FRAME! Now, that totally justifies why it's OK for me to steal it. Listen... here's the capper... if they want another one with a frame, THEY CAN JUST PRINT ANOTHER PICTURE! It's not like I *actually* took something from him.

So.... not only should you let me go, you should praise me as a hero for liberating that framed car picture! Otherwise no one could enjoy it!


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

it can be done due to they are NOT suing you! So by not suing or pressing charges against you they do NOT have to establish guilt on anyone. Instead they are "educating" you on what your connection has been used for. But if the CUSTOMER was FOLLOWING the law to start off with; they would NOT get the notices.

And no where does this even imply its a law. Instead the companies agreed to this together and decide to enforce education onto the customer when their connections have been used in illegal activities.

And again; you don't have to defend your innocence. Just click on the message and go away. You don't have to do anything else!

Customer's are not paying ISPs to pass along hearsay from 3rd parties.
Customer's are not paying ISPs to educated them on anything.

If ISPs did not keep records of IP addresses customers would not get any notices either.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

already done with people already stealing things they refuse to pay for. If people did the honest thing and paid for shit they wouldn't get notices or tossed into court anyway. But this isn't about even going to court. It's a simple notice. No big deal. But yet you have people on here claiming their Rights are violated when in actually NONE were. You don't even have rights when you're using a private network to start off with.

You have rights. The customer owns the services, they are paying for it. The ISP would not exist without the customer.
The ISP only needs to do what the customer is paying for not what the MPAA or RIAA wants.

Every day there is another story how ISPs are limiting/destroying the internet. We need real net neutrality laws and fast.

Soon the only way to get a real internet connection will be to pay like $10 a month for a VPN service in a foreign country. It is a joke that customers will have to pay more to a separate company just to get what their ISP should already be providing.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to frdrizzt

said by frdrizzt:

You are allowed to make backup copies of things you legally own,

Bzzzzt. Wrong guess. They took that away years ago. You're not allowed to backup anything unless they specifically say you can.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

That's a pretty dumb analogy, and i have a feeling that you know this very well.
You're basically implying that if i copy a movie, the original i lost.

You're dumb.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Oh listen Your Honor... it's even better than I said. It wasn't a car! It was only a picture of a unique, handbuilt car! Listen, Your Honor! They used to sell this picture with a nice frame! Then they stopped selling it, and I could only buy it as a poster! WHY WON'T THEY SELL IT WITH A FRAME! Now, that totally justifies why it's OK for me to steal it. Listen... here's the capper... if they want another one with a frame, THEY CAN JUST PRINT ANOTHER PICTURE! It's not like I *actually* took something from him.

So.... not only should you let me go, you should praise me as a hero for liberating that framed car picture! Otherwise no one could enjoy it!

If your wife/girlfriend wants an expensive designer dress that costs more than the big-screen plasma TV you've had your eye on, would you be breaking the law if you hired someone to make an exact duplicate of that dress for a fraction of the cost? Note that I'm not talking about passing off the copy as the real thing, I'm talking about simply making a copy of the dress for someone you know to wear.

Please cite the exact laws that would be broken by this act.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to Kamus

said by Kamus:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

But, Your Honor, that guy WOULD NOT SELL ME HIS CAR! So I HAD to take it! I'm clearly NOT GUILTY under the doctrine of EVERYONE HAS TO SELL ME WHAT I WANT OR I GET TO TAKE IT!

That's a pretty dumb analogy, and i have a feeling that you know this very well.
You're basically implying that if i copy a movie, the original i lost.

You're dumb.

A) no need for name calling.
B) no I am not taking a position I don't actually believe.
C) I think you are mixing up two threads. The one I am responding to essentially said that it is justified to pirate a TV show if it hasn't been made available for legal purchase as a DVD in it's original form.
D). In point of fact it is NOT a defense to pirating to say "but I bought the DVD then lost or damaged it". There is no exception on the copyright law for that situation. The legal thing to do would be to buy a new copy.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to Rekrul

Re commissioning a copy of an expensive designer dress: no i believe that is perfectly OK as long as they don't put the designer brand on it. I say that because I don't think designer dress makers copyright their designs, only trademark their brands. (I could be wrong here.)

This analogous situation in music, say, would be a cover band putting out their version of a song. Since the song is copyrighted, they have to get permission from the copyright owner or they cannot do it. Unlike the designer dress example.

Bottom line is that you can't on your own copy something that's copyrighted unless (a) you have a license to do so, or negotiate one, or (b) it's covered under fair use.



JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas:

D). In point of fact it is NOT a defense to pirating to say "but I bought the DVD then lost or damaged it". There is no exception on the copyright law for that situation. The legal thing to do would be to buy a new copy.

What if it is no longer is available for sale???
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth!

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

said by JRW2:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

D). In point of fact it is NOT a defense to pirating to say "but I bought the DVD then lost or damaged it". There is no exception on the copyright law for that situation. The legal thing to do would be to buy a new copy.

What if it is no longer is available for sale???

Then the legal thing to do would be to buy or rent a used DVD. Or if you can't find one you're out of luck.

Practically speaking, if you rented or borrowed a DVD, made a personal copy, and returned it, no one is ever going to catch you. But that is not to say it's legal.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
reply to KrK

said by KrK:

said by frdrizzt:

You are allowed to make backup copies of things you legally own,

Bzzzzt. Wrong guess. They took that away years ago. You're not allowed to backup anything unless they specifically say you can.

That's what I used to think too, and a real IP attorney on this site pointed me to some new regs that allow you to make backups under fair use. A single backup per item, if I recall. This is for the USA.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Interesting. How do they get around the "It's a crime to circumnavigate a copy protection scheme" clause of the DMCA?

An example would be DVD. You're allowed to make a backup copy BUT not allowed to decode to actually make the copy.

So it's legal to HAVE a backup just illegal to actually MAKE a backup, if you get my drift.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Correct.

As a practical matter no one is going after you for making personal backups with DVDcrypt or other similar tools.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Nope, but they do go after the people who make said tools and shut them down, sue them, and charge them with enabling copyright infringement.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

said by KrK:

Nope, but they do go after the people who make said tools and shut them down, sue them, and charge them with enabling copyright infringement.

Correct. And, factually, they are doing exactly what they are charged with. This goes along with my reality check on what's happening here. The RIAA/MPAA/content owners are not, generally, going after individual violators one at a time. They go with mass letters (which haven't worked out all that well for them, publicity-wise), and they go after the enablers -- the Napsters, Limewires, Pirate Bays of the world, and those who build the pirating tools and disseminate them.

And frankly, they don't care about individual violators as long as they do it within their personal domain (e.g. ripping DVDs) and don't get on the Internet to do it.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Ah, but they do go after individuals all the time. That's what this is all about....


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

said by KrK:

Ah, but they do go after individuals all the time. That's what this is all about....

Yes but it's been mass letters to hundreds or thousands of people, not one-at-a-time, which was my point.