Piracy is a Competitor → hummm

It is funny how people will justify anything, even theft.

My employer once justified theft of software. He felt it was silly to be charged thousands of dollars for applications that would not generate the same revenue in return.

I politely suggested that he purchase it, over time, as one day, he will be audited by some disgruntled employee's complaint to the BSA.

He is now in compliance.

It's stealing. Unless it's freeware.

Yes, and in this case, the downloader is the consumer, who made a choice of which vendor to "do business with" based on price, availability quality or all of the above. Fact is, that if the price was right, the product was easily attainable and the quality was as good or even better than what you find on a torrent or other p2p, I think many more people would go the safe route and pay for the product. If I could download a DVD (at full DVD quality,) burn it and be watching it a an hour or two I might just pay for it if the price was reasonable. Don't charge me 19.99 when I can buy it in the store for that amount.

Heh. It's a direct quote. He said it, and I thought it was right on the money. ty

Really, I've seen plenty of stories about people getting busted here... including dead grandma's, little kids, college kids (who probably should know better), and the list goes on...

The BBR article here says that there are already copies of most anything out there, which you also agree is a pretty much given... Therefore, the use of DRM doesn't exist to stop people from putting out stuff on the web, it exists so that nobody can copy it to anything, because, who would want to? who could do anything with it? Nobody. Not even the intended purchaser in some cases, which just creates headaches for everyone... have you read about the new Zune DRM??? Even more confusion.

Granted, it sort of works, but it's basically flawed. Sure, iTunes lets you make a real cd, or put it on an ipod, but that's it. Sure, Rhapsody lets you have "to go" (for $5 more a month?) but it's plagued with a ton of issues on different players, and then you have to renew your tracks, some of which might just mysteriously vanish from the service

And I have a hard time imagining that 90% of bit torrent traffic is purely illegal. What about the thousands and thousands of people sharing LEGAL tapings of concerts??? Surely this still accounts for a large chunk. In fact, if you've ever read up on it, that's why ol' Bram made the thing up in the 1st place, and it works great for sharing LEGAL tapings of concerts.
Also, just to consider, what if that tape you had from some obscure shop years and years ago, that's hiding in a box somewhere, had a great b-side of a band you loved, but there were no cd available? Somebody out there likely made it available. ...So what about the ton of folks seeking the obscure and causing zero harm to artists or labels???
Granted, that's a minority, especially with the explosion in popularity, but it's a thing to consider...

Anyway, agreed that the Russian site is crap, see my post below...

Agreed that people should pay the piper, but telling people to do it like their folks did is laughable. If anything, we're getting BETTER deals when we pay for it than they did (except for inflated cd prices). ...See EMUSIC... ...See Rhapsody...

Thank you

Exactly.

It's an argument in absurdity. And a valid one at that.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad ··· absurdum
What I think is left out that makes the line clear though is money. If you buy the record, studios don't care if you can recall a song in your head perfectly.

Copyright is such a messy topic. But unfortunately, whoever has their name on a work, says what can be done with that work.
If it weren't for the fact that copyright holders make up one of the wealthiest industries while doing the least real work in society, they would not have problems with piracy because fewer people would feel justified in stealing.

"I'm not buying Hollywood another fleet of BMW's" sums up my attitude..

Umm no, your corporation-infested surrealist way of thinking is laughable.

I'm an IP lawyer, but on BBR people don't want to hear from lawyers. Blind (willful?) ignorance seems to be easier to live with for some people . . .

then can you answer my question regarding my previous statement?
"Consider this:

You build your own DVR (or PVR). You record an episode of "LOST", you remove all of the commercials and give it to a friend.
In fact, you recorded the entire season and gave it to a friend commercial free.

So the only thing different here is that the video signal went through your cable box and not your cable modem.

is this legal?"

Doesn't "theft" in the Pirate sense, entail denying access to the original work by the owner?

If I were to download a copy of the original from some "site", the original is still there for the "owner" to access.
No theft has taken place. No one is denied access to the original work.

Now, this is what is called Copyright Infringement.
It is not theft in any way. Theft is taking the "item" and leaving nothing in it's place. The original is still there - it has been copied.

As to the article, when someone downloads a copy of a movie or music track, there are NO LIMITATIONS on what this person can do with the file.
They can burn it to disc and play it in virtually any device.
They can transfer it to any device as many times as needed.

There is no need for ??? player software to go online and retrieve a license for playback.
The file doesn't die 24 hours later.

As soon as the xxAAs wake the f*** up and scrap the whole DRM bullshit, and lower the prices for non-physical media, then purchasing a LEGAL copy will be more atractive to everyone.

If I get a file, and it (tries to) installs some BS player software on my machine just to play that file, and that POS software breaks something... where do you think I will go next time I want that type of file?

Back to the asshats that borked my machine?
Or, to BT/Newsgroups to get a *CLEAN*(no-breaky-machiney) file?

Think about it...

Mwhahaha, now you just showed your real colors - this is exactly what Hollywood wants: trun the wheel of time back. Back to those times when technology was restricted to an elite, when masses were nothing but 'receivers' of the mass-media, created by artists but selected, duplicated, distributed and sold exclusively by parasites aka big studios, in a totally bloodsucking, leech-like manner.

Those times ARE GONE, thanks for the technology. You either adapt or DIE.

I can't wait for the day when these useless, absolutely unnecessary parasites, the MIDDLEMEN will disappear. Ah that'll be a sunny day...

Taping a concert is called bootlegging, which is illegal and a violation of your ticket if you've ever read it.

Another utter BS - do you actually know anything?

It's subject to the local venue's rules.

I've been several concerts when you could not only bring your own camcorder and record it but the venue provided your place in a special 'booth' and audio hookup to get perfect quality, synced audio - all in return for the copy you gave them, royalty-free.

Don't forget, she's in the industry. I would expect anything less from her.

Well said

Wrong!
the xxAAs want you to PAY for a new copy for each player you have.
They also want you to use the original until it is so scratched/broken you have to go buy another copy.

Fair Use is being able to COPY the CD/DVD and use the "WORKING COPY" for normal use... while keeping the original pristine in a closet or somewhere.

This irks the xAAs!

Well, Screw Them!
I have the ability to copy ANYTHING! I store the originals and use the copies(hence the term - Working Copy).

Sorry friend(s), I will continue doing my media as I have from the start! Make the copy and use it until it's toast.
Then, I will toss it and merely copy the original and burn another.

I love my VAIO!
It copies Sony DVDs with Sony provided software! Ironic, huh?

YMMV.

thank you kamm.

I do not support illegal bootlegging of shows, nor would I download, or upload such a thing.

Yes, rachelsfx, it can be illegal, and some venues/bands state that no such thing is to occur. Sometimes it's out of their hands. The venue might disallow it, or have certain restrictions...
Sometimes it isn't.
Guess what, whatever the case, tapers seem to generally respect those limitations and follow the artist's/venue's wishes.

I've also purchased shows, straight from the artist's sites. It's awesome.

for instance::: »bootlegs.pearljam.com

They also do a MUCH better job recording becuase they can take ALL the tracks and then mix/master it. VERY worth the money for such a recording and memory of the show. I even generally pay extra for FLAC's... with no DRM.

hint: No DRM = no restriction on my FAIR USE of purchased recordings... I can play them in my home stereo, car, portable, etc. and I do not share my files! Why would I??? I just PAID for them, so I see no reason so give it away. This is called Honesty, which also involves a certain level of Trust (which works both ways!).

Therein lies the biggest problem with DRM, it inherently instills DIS-trust in the user.

If a LEGAL recording exists for another show, that wasn't made available via the band themselves, I might consider checking it out. Usually the quality sucks, but it's worth a listen just to hear how they did, what songs were played, or the sheer pleasure of hearing a favorite band play.

I was merely pointing out that it's ONE main reason why bit torrent was created in the 1st place by Mr. Cohen.

For reference, here's ONE site which lists bands who allow taping of their shows...
»www.answers.com/topic/li ··· ormances

It's enlightening.

Then you have the instances where copyright protects the work of the little guys. Like me for instance. I am a photographer and published writer. I have caught 3 publications using my work without my consent in the last 7 years. It is times like that when I am happy copyright exists.

The fact of the matter is that as owner of the writing/photography work, I am entitled to the right for distribution. If I choose to not distribute it, then that is my right. If another company uses my work without my consent, that is copyright infringement.

Aside from the RIAA and MPAA, there are small software makers getting ripped off as well as small bands who do not want their work distibuted over the internet for free. Who fights for them? What rights do they have for protecting their work?

There are some laws that need to be rewritten thats for sure, but there also needs to be some rights given to those who own the material and very strict punishments given to those who break it. Especially for profit.

It used to be they warned you "don't download software from unknown sites because you might pick up something nasty." Now... Well, now if you go to "reputable" sites, you will get something nasty.

Greaaaat...

-tom

Shit! Buying the actual DVD or CD may trash your machine!
Screw the downloads!
I'll take my chances with the downloads sooner than running a DVD or CD that tries to root my laptop!

Buying (or borrowing, or applying the five-finger discount) the DVD or CD won't trash your machine, but putting the media in certainly might.

-tom

ROFL!
Just what I want to see, one(or more) of my security apps popping up a warning window when I try to play a disc, be it a CD or DVD!

Yeah, that sounds cool, huh?

WRONG. This is a typical comment made by someone who doesn't understand how protocols like eDonkey/BitTorent work. Once you download a chunk of file, it is automatically shared with other users on the network, even if the whole file hasn't finished downloading yet. So while you have your eDonkey/BitTorrent client running, you are also distributing what you are downloading to other users. And if it is a copyrighted work that you are sharing and RIAA/MPAA nails you, they will sue you for unauthorized distribution above anything else. As far as they are concerned, they are the only ones who have the rights to distribute their music/movies, and if anyone else is caught doing it without their permission, they need to be punished.

FYI, you are pretty safe from getting if you stick to download-only kinds of services such as newsgroups.

Better that they did pop something up than that they let the nasties go about their merry way. No?

-tom

This isn’t as simple a question as it would seem on the face of it. But, I think it’s an extension of the Sony timeshifting case. Even though commercials are being removed from the show in your example, I don’t think it alters the analysis.

So, purely in terms of the copyright statute, only the studio/creator/broadcaster or whoever owns the copyright has permission to make copies of the show or enable others to make copies of the show. That being said, we know from the Supreme Court’s Sony decision that timeshifting is legal based on the defense of fair use. It’s from that point that we have to consider your question. Keep in mind that fair use can be very subjective based on the particular facts of the case and arguments can be made for both sides.

First, consider the codified fair use exception in 17 USC 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USC § §106 and 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.



Typically courts consider the fourth factor as being most important.

Analyzing the first factor in light of your hypothetical, we can see that the work is not of a commercial nature. You aren’t selling it and you’re not having it sold or distributed for gain. Likely there would be a finding of fair use, even though you are giving it to a friend.

The second factor asks whether it’s a kind of work that should receive the benefits of copyright protection. In this case, the answer is clearly yes. Lost is a non-fiction creative work. Likely there would not be a finding of fair use.

As for the third factor, you are timeshifting an entire season at once and then placing all the episodes together on one or more disks. This would seem to go against a finding of fair use.

Finally, and probably most importantly, is your copy affecting the potential market for the work. Things to consider include whether your copy is as good as the originals. In this case yes--and even more so--because there are no commercials in the copy you made. The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio of their likely future DVD pack of the season of Lost. On the other hand, you aren’t widely distributing the materials and you aren’t posting it online. Still, an argument can be made that you are causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold. I think you likely wouldn’t be able to get a finding of fair use.

Based on all the above, I would say that technically your example likely isn’t protected under the defense of fair use. So, legally it probably violates present copyright laws. Realistically, I don’t think the copyright owner would ever bring suit. It’s just not worth the time, effort and money.

I'm sure the video police are going to come after you if you and your friends watch Star Wars some sunday afternoon. Getting just a little but dumb now, aren't we?

Personal copies have been legal since VCR's and before with Cassettes. The industry has tried this with every new recording format and have been consistently stopped by the supreme court.

The bottom line fact is that the industry cannot possibly win, no matter what they do. The ability to copy is far too widespread. Call it what you will: piracy, theft, copyright infringement. Most people dont give a damn. they will make a copy because it is convenient and to tear up instead of the original. It's called fair use and they aren't goint to worry about it.

And, some will grab all they can and spread the wealth around. Pardon me if I feel no compassion for the industry and their endless greed.

COngrat that you finally understood how p2p works - but what are you preaching here, I dunno... it has nothing to do with my comment.

PS: Geez, if you're an age-old usenet user - I've used usenet before internet kicked in - like me then few things can be more sarcastic and/or funny when some young enthusiastic 'expert' fella thinks he can explain p2p or file sharing or usenet for you...

LOL!
"Buy our LEGAL discs, it's safer!" Rootkit, machine crippling DRM, God knows what else... but it's legal.

Download the file... *maybe* a virus or trojan, but I have anti-virus and anti-trojan scanners/protection.

Decisions decisions...

Except that DMCA wasn't stopped by any US court and it went to effect, giving legal backing for the industry parasites to be able to effectively make it impossible to create personal copies (DVD), first time in history.Good post.

DITTO!