MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
| reply to yock
Re: Why was it there?
said by yock  : said by russr :Why did they put it there in the first place? P2P apps are a sure-fire money maker. As long as there is free music, movies, and software to be downloaded you'll see underhanded attempts to make money off of the greed of others. As long as there is music and movies, you'll see underhanded attempts to make money off the talent and work of others. Just ask the **AA. 
--
There be pirates here:Arrgh me hearties, heave to and board that shared music folder, pillage as much as thee can. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
1 edit | No one ever said that the recording industry is full of saints =)
The truth of the matter is that the recording industry is basically a collection of banks (the record companies) that make bad loans. While they have every right to collect big on the success of those loans (most of them are dismal failures) the industry collusion that is the RIAA is ensuring the stagnation of the music industry. The same holds true for the MPAA. Ever notice the lack of competition in the music industry? Why do you think prices are so out of whack?
All of this still doesn't justify obtaining those works illegally.
...and don't forget the software companies. While some of their business tactics might not sit well in our stomachs, at least they're competing with each other and not colluding into some magical `**AA` group to guarantee their profits without regard to consumers.
edited for a grammatical brain fart
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
| said by yock :All of this still doesn't justify illegally obtaining those works illegally. I admit, I obtain the works illegally.........
Then if it's a keeper so to speak, I'll go out and buy a copy, prefferably from a used cd/dvd dealer. If it's not worth buying, it's not worth keeping on hdd though.
Here's a scenario for people to consider though.......
A person is burgled, their music collection is stolen; the person gets their insurance payout and decides to go buy replacements for the music, most often than not you have a hard time finding older works by obscure bands..... The labels in their ultimate wisdom though have decided that the music you want to buy will no longer be available to buy, basically they have deleted the album from their catalogue, if you can't find a copy in a second hand music store, do you a)download illegally, or b)go without in future?
--
There be pirates here:Arrgh me hearties, heave to and board that shared music folder, pillage as much as thee can. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to yock
No one ever said that the recording industry is full of saints =) You'd think they could hire at least ONE person in the industry with trace amounts of a concience, ethics, or human compassion...at least for PR's sake. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to MarkH
said by MarkH : The labels in their ultimate wisdom though have decided that the music you want to buy will no longer be available to buy, basically they have deleted the album from their catalogue, if you can't find a copy in a second hand music store, do you a)download illegally, or b)go without in future? The advent of stores like Borders Books and Music have made this situation almost non-existent. I once special ordered a 15+ year old recording of a Trinidad & Tobago steel band competition. Another time I special ordered a recording out of Japan through a distributor in Singapore of a Tokyo orchestra's debut recording of a particular piece...talk about obscure!
These works can often be special ordered through distributors who specialize in obtaining works from the copyright holders themselves. What's more is you also now have a direct line to the content publisher to obtain more works from the hard-to-find artist, because these obscure records ALWAYS include catalogs and order forms.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
1 edit | Indeed, the situation is almost non existent, but when you do run up against the few pieces you want, and the dealers/suppliers can't find, what then?
[edited for spelling] |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to MarkH
said by MarkH : said by yock :All of this still doesn't justify illegally obtaining those works illegally. I admit, I obtain the works illegally......... You do? Funny, no court, in any country, any place in the world has deemed copying music for no profit illegal, anywhere. US copyright laws state that material harm to the copyright owner must be caused by distribution, yet profits continue to increase year over year.. The only people that actually say this is illegal, are the **AA's and the drones that mouth everything they're told.
Unless you can quote some court ruling to the contrary, please don't bother.
I don't use this stuff anyway, but it really sickens me how the term ILLEGAL has been attached to this act through intense propaganda.. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Well you make a good argument, but it's a farce.
The distributor of the copyrighted material is causing harm through lost profits from sales. The person who downloads this material is guilty of receiving stolen property.
Either way you look at it, it's illegal.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
| said by yock :The distributor of the copyrighted material is causing harm through lost profits from sales. The person who downloads this material is guilty of receiving stolen property. Well, it would be had it not been for the the supreme court ruling that downloading is not equivalent to larceny because you aren't depriving anyone of selling it. Whether or not its a lost sale is up for debate.
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| That sounds like a lot of splitting hairs. You still obtained the material without paying for it. Whether or not you "would have" purchased is immaterial since you "did" in fact obtain it.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
| I'm not really debating the morality, but the legality. The ruling stated that it was not considered larceny, because the merchant is not being deprived of a physical good. It is simply copying a set of 1's and 0's.
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by fundamentalz :I'm not really debating the morality, but the legality. The ruling stated that it was not considered larceny, because the merchant is not being deprived of a physical good. It is simply copying a set of 1's and 0's. Interesting. Where could I find the ruling?
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to MarkH
You're right. If my rare collectable car is stolen and I can't find one to buy, I should just go out and steal one.
Funny, I download music, games, and videos. I'm not dumb. I know it's not right. I don't even try to justify it. It's just the internet make obtaining what we want much more easily and with the sense of being anonymous. |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
1 edit | reply to yock
said by »www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175:
A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.
Ok, so i cant find the part of the ruling that states that Dowling was , but multiple sources (including another supreme court ruling) mentions the case involved copyright infringement. The case was Dowling v. United States
--
I subscribe to the theory of intellectual osmosis. Unfortunately, I must now cease our conversation and move away from you before my intelligence begins to drop. Good day. |
|
MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
| reply to Winerin
said by Winerin :You're right. If my rare collectable car is stolen and I can't find one to buy, I should just go out and steal one. Funny, I download music, games, and videos. I'm not dumb. I know it's not right. I don't even try to justify it. It's just the internet make obtaining what we want much more easily and with the sense of being anonymous. Are you deliberately acting dumb, or do you not see a difference between a rare/valuable physical object and a collection of 0's and 1's that need no physical form, other than an easily replicated piece of plastic?
--
There be pirates here:Arrgh me hearties, heave to and board that shared music folder, pillage as much as thee can. |
|
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA | Your anger at trying to justify stealing is sad. |
|
MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
| I'm not trying to justify stealing, I'm explaining the circumstances that I feel breach of copyright is justified. A huge difference between taking something physical that has material worth as opposed to obtaining a collection of 0's and 1's with no actual physical presence other than the storage medium I transfer those said 0's and 1's to. If I wanted to be truly technical, I could also claim that since I pay a levy on the blank media I buy that is passed to a conglomerate of copyright owners, I haven't even breached the copyright per se, due to the fact that I have paid a fee to use the media in the fashion it was intended to be used.
The fact that you seem to enjoy trolling is the only thing that strikes me as sad in this situation.
--
There be pirates here:Arrgh me hearties, heave to and board that shared music folder, pillage as much as thee can. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by MarkH :I'm not trying to justify stealing, I'm explaining the circumstances that I feel breach of copyright is justified. A huge difference between taking something physical that has material worth as opposed to obtaining a collection of 0's and 1's with no actual physical presence other than the storage medium I transfer those said 0's and 1's to. How in the hell is it any different? What difference does it make whether you steal a CD from the store, or burn the content onto your own CD? The fact remains that you're paying for what is on the CD, and less the CD itself. This justification bullshit-argument is EXACTLY why the industry is cracking down so hard. People have this notion that they're justified in IP theft because they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. You have ZERO rights to obtain someone Else's hard work without paying for it, unless they specifically provide that work to you for free. The court's lack of understanding of digital media is no excuse for the moral and ethical travesty you're committing by not compensating your favorite artists for their hard work.
That makes me sick.
--
Statistical correlation need not imply causation.
Technical Nirvana |
|
MarkH
reserved for later use
Premium
join:2002-12-19
| said by yock : said by MarkH :I'm not trying to justify stealing, I'm explaining the circumstances that I feel breach of copyright is justified. A huge difference between taking something physical that has material worth as opposed to obtaining a collection of 0's and 1's with no actual physical presence other than the storage medium I transfer those said 0's and 1's to. How in the hell is it any different? What difference does it make whether you steal a CD from the store, or burn the content onto your own CD? The fact remains that you're paying for what is on the CD, and less the CD itself. This justification bullshit-argument is EXACTLY why the industry is cracking down so hard. People have this notion that they're justified in IP theft because they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. You have ZERO rights to obtain someone Else's hard work without paying for it, unless they specifically provide that work to you for free. The court's lack of understanding of digital media is no excuse for the moral and ethical travesty you're committing by not compensating your favorite artists for their hard work. That makes me sick. So while you're busy being sick, can you please work out for me how else I should go about obtaining a copy of a piece of work thas x number of suppliers have said they can't get for me anymore?
And just to work it out for you, if I stole a cd from a store, I'd be depriving somebody of a physical object that cost money to manufacture etc., and commiting the act of theft.
Also, can you say how I'm depriving the artist of their income if I can't buy the product anyhow?
So before you call it bullshit, maybe you should get a grip and figure out the facts.
--
There be pirates here:Arrgh me hearties, heave to and board that shared music folder, pillage as much as thee can. |
|
