smokarz
join:2006-07-24
West Hartford, CT | reply to LaZ3R
Re: Haha, pirate bay will never die
when one goes down, ten others will pop up to replace it. the torrent revolution will live on....power to the thiefs!!! |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| reply to smokarz
Re: Haha, pirate bay will never die
said by smokarz  :....power to the thiefs!!! I believe the word you were looking for is "thieves".
--
с новым годом |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Actually, the correct term is "infringers". A THEIF is someone who deprives the owner of the object. An "infringer" does not STEAL from anyone, a perfect copy does not 'magically deprive' the original copy, or stop it from working *(unless you are talking about DRM, in which case the megacorp IS STEALING from the customers)
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | No matter how you attempt to semantically justify it, theft/infringement is still illegal. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| But the terminology is VERY important. If it's not theft, you can't call it theft. When TPB starts giving out torrents that delete the original file, then you can call it theft, otherwise it's just infringement.
The problem you appear to have, is that you think people are TAKING something from someone when they download. If I download a movie, I'm not 'taking' anything from anyone. PERIOD. If I went to walmart and 'took' a CD, then I would be guilty of stealing.
Look at it this way. If we had star trek replicators, where you could make a perfect copy of anything, would you say that everyone who use a replicator to make a 'whopper meal', was STEALING from burger king? Of course not. So why is 'copying' a file suddenly elevated to the level of 'theft', when there is no 'loss of revenue' involved.
Sure, in YOUR mind, the 'creator' deserves to be compensated for their work. But if the cost of DUPLICATING that work is ZERO, then the VALUE of the duplication is the same as the cost. ZERO.
Wake up, technology allows us to do all sorts of things today we couldn't do 100 years ago. 100 years ago, you had to use candles to light your house at night. If I install electricity, am I 'stealing' from the candle maker? Apparently, in your mind, I AM. But I'm not, I'm using technology to light my house, thereby DEPRIVING the candle maker of money, so why aren't we all paying into a pool to support the candle makers?
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Wow! I didn't say it was theft. I said both theft and infringement (which you say this is) are illegal. Yes, infringement is illegal.
To answer your other repeated argument, I will say that content owners should be compensated for their works (in whatever manner they deem appropriate). You can attempt to make the argument that those who infringe wouldn't pay for the content regardless and therefore are not causing lost revenue, but the root of the matter is that these people obtain copyrighted works without licenses and/or monetary compensation, which may be required by the licensors. These are the copyright owners' works and they should be compensated appropriately. Otherwise, the concept of copyright becomes worthless.
And you're right, technology allows us to do wonderful things today that we couldn't do a decade ago, let alone a century ago. With technology comes new business practices and laws. You may very well see the definitions of infringement and theft merge/blur to account for advancements in technology. |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to smokarz
why'd my reply get deleted Mod? Im not one to be called a "Theif" merely because I use torrents. And what the hell do you know about the "stuff" I DL?
Ever heard of distro's? Of course you MAY be one of the uninformed likes to think all torrents are for stealing stuf...errr, software.
Hes a hack for calling us thieves. Mod him, tell em to speak for himself. bahh! |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Otherwise, the concept of copyright becomes worthless. You've got that right, copyright is a legal concept and doesn't equate with private property. There are no natural copyrights or copyrights endowed by the creator. The usefulness of such a concept should be determined by the people (not corporate benefactors) in a democracy. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | If I create something and copyright it, I don't won't the "people" to determine the usefulness of the copyright...I want the legal backing that goes with it. I'm free to maintain, transfer, or dissolve the copyright as I see fit. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to openbox9
But I agree with you. The CONCEPT of copyright HAS become worthless. Let's see what 'that god damn piece of paper' has to say about copyright..
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Let's see, the OBJECTIVE of a copyright is to PROMOTE PROGRESS. The TIME of a copyright is a LIMITED TIME, and the OWNER of copyright is the AUTHOR or INVENTOR.
What do we have today? Copyrights used to SUPRESS innovation. Copyrights that last HUNDREDS of years. Copyright OWNED by MEGACORPS, not people.
You can't tell me that the concept of copyright as envisioned by the founding fathers is ANYTHING like it looks today. Why in the hell should DISNEY still have copyright on something that's almost 100 years old? How is THAT possibly 'promoting progress'? 14 Years was enough for the founders, but the MEGACORPS have corrupted that concept to be a NON-STOP revenue stream for THEM, not the authors or inventors.
The solution is VERY SIMPLE. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and then enforce them. Easy enough to do, but congress is run and owned by those who have a vested interest to keep copyright for (in the words of the MPAA), 'infinity - 1 day'.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Then you aren't agreeing with me. Copyrights are not worthless, nor should they be allowed to become worthless. Time is still limited (granted the length shouldn't be allowed to increase any further...and I think 75 years is more than reasonable). Corporations are essentially individuals, so I'm not sure why they should be excluded from owning copyrights. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Copyrights longer than fifty years for various reasons mean that a lot of what should go into the public domain never will. Most copyrighted material stops earning anything long before fifty years but it still costs real money to properly store them after that. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Why won't they be able to enter the public domain? Does Disney know about the problem of earning money past fifty years? Have you noticed the digital environment that we're in now? "Stuff" is capable of lasting significantly longer than copyrighted work on a crappy old piece of paper. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| reply to karlmarx
Thats ridiculous, if copyright is not there there is no point to make anything. Why would I as a creator make something that will just be infringed upon??? I think that the media companies need to stop fighting the torrents and make money from them. Start selling licenses to bittorrents and have them be copyright police. STOP FIGHTING TORRENTS but join the team and make money. |
|
33591094
join:2002-11-19
Canada | reply to openbox9
Wrong |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
"The solution is VERY SIMPLE. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and then enforce them. Easy enough to do, but congress is run and owned by those who have a vested interest to keep copyright for (in the words of the MPAA), 'infinity - 1 day'."
Solution to what? Preventing copyright infringement? If copyrights lasted only 14 years people would no longer share copyrighted material over P2P? Enforcing P2P copyright infringment would become easy? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to 33591094
Correct |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :Look at it this way. If we had star trek replicators, where you could make a perfect copy of anything, would you say that everyone who use a replicator to make a 'whopper meal', was STEALING from burger king? Of course not. So why is 'copying' a file suddenly elevated to the level of 'theft', when there is no 'loss of revenue' involved. ... Wake up, technology allows us to do all sorts of things today we couldn't do 100 years ago. 100 years ago, you had to use candles to light your house at night. If I install electricity, am I 'stealing' from the candle maker? Apparently, in your mind, I AM. But I'm not, I'm using technology to light my house, thereby DEPRIVING the candle maker of money, so why aren't we all paying into a pool to support the candle makers? Can you replicate a replicator? 
(and if you had a replicator why would you replicate fast food instead of a real burger?)
Actually, these days, that's exactly what the candle makers would do. (Actually, that kind of tactic was used back in the dark/middle ages when new products/technology threatened an existing industry. RIAA - paving the way back to the dark ages!)
Remember, for the RIAA it was never about lost sales. It's always been about the fact that they had a stranglehold on music sales - if you want to be a successful musician, you HAVE to work for the RIAA. The Internet has changed that and artists are relizing that they don't have to give 90%+ of the proceeds from their work to the labels any longer - they can do it all themselves, and the RIAA is obsolete. (Never mind the fact that file sharing is free advertising for music and if anything, increases sales in the long run.)
Come to think of it, a replicator would be deemed illegal and immoral these days. After all, if you replicate food, you're putting farmers and the industries they supply out of business. That's not an acceptable price for ending world hunger. The whole Star Trek idea of "everybody gets what they need/want" will never happen without a major change to basic human nature. Those who are in positions of power simply wouldn't allow it as it would lessen their ability to control others. |
|
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Windstream
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :No matter how you attempt to semantically justify it, theft/infringement is still illegal. Yeah but Illegal Immigration is also Illegal. So does that mean that we should give Pirate Bay owners US Drivers Licenses and a path to citizenship?
I don't see much making any sense in the world these days.
It's like trying to just watch, much less play chess game in n + 1 dimensions.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with Tomato 1.13 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | |
|
