this is mainly for people in the USA...
the RIAA has started filing lawsuits against people who use file sharing networks, like KazAA. if you haven't heard they are suing people to make examples of them. i have heard of parents getting summons for the actions of their kids, as well as grandparents. most of these people have only a couple hundred songs on their computer and are not major distributors of illegal music. the RIAA is seeking money in damages.
this is insanity! if you believe in the right to use a file sharing network you should stand up and be heard. at the present time there are 55 million people who are possible targets for legal action. that is more than voted for Bush in the last election.
please write letters to your representatives and ISPs. please encourage them to stop this witchhunt or take legal action against the RIAA for violating your right to privacy. do not let them rob innocent people who just happen to have some MP3's on their computer. just having a copy of a song is not the same as stealing a CD- unless you are making and selling copies. please help stop this nonsense now!
Full Version: Write your Representative!
Are Kazaa users the only ones being targeted? What about BearShare or WinMX users?
umm, just get your music from USENET. Or disable uploads on your client (but i guess that is what they want)
no, they are targeting anyone with copyrighted music who distributes it.
Wait I am confused on a few things. I was told that Kazaa was legal (read this on their webpage) because the advertizers pay your portion. Also does this include the ones that you have to pay for? My friend and I wrote our rep when the crap blew up about Napster - he said - it's not something for us to worry about (us being the officals)
KaZAA is not legal. if KaZAA was a legal entity (here) it would have already been shut down but the RIAA can't find anyone to sue in the USA to do that. KaZAA found a way to dodge what happened to Napster. however, now the RIAA is going after the users of KaZAA instead of KaZAA itself. that's why you should write your representative.
ok now i am really mad! I made a CD for church using that!
so gfar i think they have only targeted kazaa and morpheus users
So what, am I gonna get sued for every mix cd I've ever burned? That's ridiculous.
Okay a few points on this:
1. KaZaa sucks anyway.
2. Its only illegal if you get caught or there is enough evidence to support that you have broken the law.
3. Im not 100% on this but if you own a original CD lets say "Now 55" then there should be no reason why you cannot download the songs from KaZaa then burn them to disk for a copy for lets say your car. As long as you dont sell that copy on to other people.
4. The feds are too slow to stop these kinda things going on.
5. Do the FBI or whoever it is trying to stop this have juerestiction to search British Pc's?
1. KaZaa sucks anyway.
2. Its only illegal if you get caught or there is enough evidence to support that you have broken the law.
3. Im not 100% on this but if you own a original CD lets say "Now 55" then there should be no reason why you cannot download the songs from KaZaa then burn them to disk for a copy for lets say your car. As long as you dont sell that copy on to other people.
4. The feds are too slow to stop these kinda things going on.
5. Do the FBI or whoever it is trying to stop this have juerestiction to search British Pc's?
they can pry the evidence out my cold dead hard drive.....seriously though it does effect the music industry, but the idea of *sueing* at least 4 million users of kazaa and morpheus the legal fees woul be so staggering they would probably put them selves out of buisness especially when half of the cases will fail, sooner or later someone will find a legal loophole and tell the rest...
Hey does this bill have a name or anything - I mean is there anything in specific I should mention when I write?
Oh I got this website from somewhere??? FOrget where http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/
| QUOTE (Bizarro @ Aug 2 2003, 05:32 AM) |
| KaZAA is not legal. if KaZAA was a legal entity (here) it would have already been shut down but the RIAA can't find anyone to sue in the USA to do that. KaZAA found a way to dodge what happened to Napster. however, now the RIAA is going after the users of KaZAA instead of KaZAA itself. that's why you should write your representative. |
The difference between Kazaa and Napster is that Kazaa has no server that holds lists of songs like Napster had. With Napster, you logged on and quickly uploaded a list of the mp3s that you had and that info was added to a large database for others to search. Kazaa has no such list, it simply poles each computer that is hooked up to the service and gives you results based on that. In that sense, there is no Kazaa.
Kazaa itself is not illegal, what you do with Kazaa becomes illegal. Should you download something that you are not entitled to have or should you distribute (share) something which is not yours to give away, those are illegal acts. However, if you are among the very few that own or are granted a licene to everything you download and do no distribute, you are fine.
What it comes down to is, if you are downloading something which you are not entitled to, you are a thief. If you are assisting others by offering files for them to steal, you are also guilty since you are aiding and abbetting a crime. Download all you want but do so knowing that you are in no way in the right on this issue, no matter what you believe about intellectual property rights.
| QUOTE |
| Its only illegal if you get caught or there is enough evidence to support that you have broken the law. |
Getting caught does not make actions legal or illegal, it simply means that you will be held accountable for your actions.
| QUOTE |
| Im not 100% on this but if you own a original CD lets say "Now 55" then there should be no reason why you cannot download the songs from KaZaa then burn them to disk for a copy for lets say your car. As long as you dont sell that copy on to other people. |
That depends on where you are and what it is. Check your local laws. The penalties are certinaly much worse when you start trying to profit from the venture though, and that is the case pretty much around the world.
| QUOTE |
| Do the FBI or whoever it is trying to stop this have juerestiction to search British Pc's? |
Firstly, they are not really searching since you are volunteering the information. For all intent and purpose, you may as well get on the phone and tell them about all of your MP3s. Could the FBI tell anyone what they found? Well, they can tell whomever they want if the information was made public in the first place.
| QUOTE |
| they can pry the evidence out my cold dead hard drive.....seriously though it does effect the music industry, but the idea of *sueing* at least 4 million users of kazaa and morpheus the legal fees woul be so staggering they would probably put them selves out of buisness especially when half of the cases will fail, sooner or later someone will find a legal loophole and tell the rest... |
I think they are relying on the fear that they can instill in people by threatening a lawsuit. Perhaps they couldn't pay enough lawyers to handle 4 million people, but what if they can pay for 3.5 million? Do you want to be in the lucky 500,000 or the unlucky 3.5 million?
There are no guarntees that the cases will fail. There is no guarntee that there will be a legal loophole. Do you want to put it all on the line for something that might not come to be?
umm, Spacemoose, i was simply refuting what Sabrina said. she said it was legal (in use) and i meant it was illegal (in use).
| QUOTE |
| What it comes down to is, if you are downloading something which you are not entitled to, you are a thief. If you are assisting others by offering files for them to steal, you are also guilty since you are aiding and abbetting a crime. Download all you want but do so knowing that you are in no way in the right on this issue, no matter what you believe about intellectual property rights. |
let me ask you a question Mr. Bigshot:
where does the right of a person to their culture begin? humanity has a distinct reliance on culture. for millenia that culture has been free. suddenly, in our modern times, someone decided to make a profit off of culture.
an artist performs a song. i hear that song. i sing that song in my head. someone else hears that same song and sings it in their head. millions of us do the same thing and all sing it in our heads. who owns the song? the performer, or the people who sing it? one cannot exist without the other. the performer gets paid by a middleman who reaps profit from his talent. that middleman charges outlandish prices to sell a song to people who would like to listen to it on their stereo. sure, it costs money to produce the song and distribute it, but they go well beyond that cost and charge more strictly to fatten their own wallets. the performers get wealthy, but the middlemen get more wealthy. would the song exist without these middlemen? YES. so its ok for these middlemen to rob us, the people who would like access to our culture, yet we are wrong to take from them? PFFFFF.
what are we actually taking from them? a copy of a file that produces sound on your computer. we aren't taking their actual music, just a copy of that music. am i making any profit from my MP3 collection(ie. selling it)? am i claiming to be the performer of that sound produced by the MP3? i haven't stolen anything. the middlemen CLAIM i am stealing their profit, but profit is not something that is a definite thing. profits fluctuate in uncertain economies. right now, their profits are down(much like any other business in this economy), yet they claim its because of file sharing. they claim the right to sue me because i have a copy of a song on my computer. how do they know i would have purchased that song otherwise? i wouldn't have, but the free access to it might convince me to actually buy it. they are the criminals here, suing people who haven't committed any crime. its like someone else mentioned in another topic on this issue, what will come next? will we not be allowed to own tape players because we could record a song on the radio? no VCRs because we might tape a TV show? will ABC suddenly claim a loss of profits because people stop buying their tapes of programs and just tape the shows themselves? will we ban cameras because they might capture an image of someone's intellectual property?
information wants to be free. the reason MP3's are so popular is because for the first time in history there is a giant online music library available for free. people wouldn't buy most of those songs, but if they can have free access to them they will download them. culture is contagious. people get a taste and they want more and more of it. as connection speeds increase, look for movies to go the same path. people will collect movies like they collect music now and then then look for the big production companies to whine about it and start suing. eventually, these profiteers will lose out though. people will realize that having access to all of the history of our culture in our own homes is a very valuable thing. people don't want to go to the library to read a book anymore, they want everything in their own home. that is not a crime, its inevitability. you cannot prevent progress, you simply have to adapt and create a better product. the RIAA is not doing that. they are dying and attempting to survive not by adapting and creating a better product but by hindering progress. that never works. people will not stand for these witchhunt lawsuits. just wait and see.
yes bizzaro
| QUOTE (Bizarro @ Aug 5 2003, 04:31 AM) |
| umm, Spacemoose, i was simply refuting what Sabrina said. she said it was legal (in use) and i meant it was illegal (in use). |
If you go around telling people that using Kazaa is illegal, you are not necessairly correct. Kazaa can be used quite legally providing only public domain materials were exchanged. It is only through the actions of exchanging private material that Kazaa use becomes illegal. What kazaa tells you is true, it is a legal piece of software.
Now, regarding culture... yes, music was never "owned" prior to maybe 500 years ago (+ or - some, I am not expert on medevil law), maybe only as recent as 100 years ago. That does not change the fact that there are laws preventing the activities associated with file sharing. Just because something happened in the past is no reason that it should continue.
Now, can you hum it in your head - yes, there are no controls over that. Things change however if you start performing it, because it is not yours to give away. There is little difference in the act of giving away someones song than there is in giving away someone's house. You have no business doing that either way. The RIAA owns the rights to give away those songs, in this case they prefer to trade for money.
| QUOTE |
| sure, it costs money to produce the song and distribute it, but they go well beyond that cost and charge more strictly to fatten their own wallets |
And why shouldn't they? How are you any better by saving money while not buying music than they are? You are approaching the same problem in different ways, you both want more money. It is called capitalism, if you don't like it, I recommend you buy a bicycle since the streets of China are easier to navigate on two wheels.
| QUOTE |
| would the song exist without these middlemen? YES. so its ok for these middlemen to rob us, the people who would like access to our culture, yet we are wrong to take from them? |
Sure, it would exist, but you wouldn't have heard it.
| QUOTE |
| its like someone else mentioned in another topic on this issue, what will come next? will we not be allowed to own tape players because we could record a song on the radio? no VCRs because we might tape a TV show? |
You ARE NOT allowed to tape songs off the radio and you ARE NOT allowed to tape TV shows. The only reason this is tolerated is because by the time it makes it to you, all the money has been made.
As for the banning of these products, it is a completly seperate issue. No one is advocating the cessation of the sale of computers or boarding up the internet, so why would anyone infer that tape decks, VCRs and cameras will get the heave-ho? There are legitimate uses for all of these products, and that is why they are sold to you.
| QUOTE |
| you simply have to adapt and create a better product. |
With all of the inevatabilities that you proclaim, why would anyone bother to create a better business model if someone will only rip you off in the end? If I was the RIAA I would continue with my legal actions, especially since the law is on my side.
alright, Spacemoose. i see you are totally immune to my argument. you are such a solid capitalist that you cannot see where it fails. it fails in regards to culture and intellectual property. there is no freaking way that someone can own an idea. capitalism tells you they can, but that is just a farce.
maybe you choose to let people tell you they own the right to your mind? good for you.
i never said i downloaded music to 'save money'. its not about money to me. its about freedom of information. i support musicians that i like. i buy their merchandise and even their cds. a lot of bands i like i first learned about by listening to 'illegal' MP3s. thus, they make more money from me because of file sharing.
maybe you choose to let people tell you they own the right to your mind? good for you.
i never said i downloaded music to 'save money'. its not about money to me. its about freedom of information. i support musicians that i like. i buy their merchandise and even their cds. a lot of bands i like i first learned about by listening to 'illegal' MP3s. thus, they make more money from me because of file sharing.
| QUOTE |
You ARE NOT allowed to tape songs off the radio and you ARE NOT allowed to tape TV shows. The only reason this is tolerated is because by the time it makes it to you, all the money has been made. As for the banning of these products, it is a completly seperate issue. No one is advocating the cessation of the sale of computers or boarding up the internet, so why would anyone infer that tape decks, VCRs and cameras will get the heave-ho? There are legitimate uses for all of these products, and that is why they are sold to you. |
ya, and you aren't allowed to speed in your car, have a kid mow lawn for 10 bucks without paying taxes on it, throw trash from a 2 story building into a dumpster below, run a red light, tear that tag off your pillowcase, or quote from a book without giving credit! who cares what item you utilize to break the law? some laws will ALWAYS be broken. file sharing will ALWAYS exist. it always has in some form and that is the only reason i brought up the other devices. of course all these devices have legitimate uses but that is not why people bought them. they bought them to break the law. they were designed to break the law. the reason is because some laws are made to be broken! who wants to live under the tyranny of a police state where even your thoughts are in danger of violating a law? apparently, you do. good for you! people downloading MP3's are not doing something worthy of a lawsuit. that is my point. do you think its justifiable to sue parents of a kid who downloaded an MP3? yes or no? answer that one question for me please. can the RIAA prove that kid is causing them to lose profit? how?
im interested in your response.
YEAH! Thats what I wanted to say lol! Seriously though - they are asking us to be fair and not "rip them off" what the hell do they think they are doing to us? Giving us a nice discount on their product? They are the ones sitting up in the big cushy offices smoking Cuban cigars! They can kiss my ass cause even if they would bring suit agianst me and win I aint gonna pay it I aint goin to jail (got tons of woods here) and I will download music til I am blue in the face!
It does not matter what you think about intellectual property rights, your ideals aren't reality. You need to operate within the capitalist system, no matter how much you like or dislike it. You will not change it, no matter how many letters you write nor how long you wait. Accept it.
You ask an intersting quetion however:
You ask an intersting quetion however:
| QUOTE |
| maybe you choose to let people tell you they own the right to your mind? |
Let's be clear, no one owns the rights to anyone's mind. What can be owned is the right to the products of those minds, PROVIDING A CHOICE IS MADE TO SHARE THEM. Music artists have chosen to share their products, as have authors, painters, all sorts of people. In doing so they recieve compensation and for very good reason. They put in time and effort into that creation, if they remained uncompensated, they would need to get jobs and you would then have nothing since their time and effort would have been elsewhere.
Let's be clear on something else, laws are not made to be BROKEN, laws are made to be FOLLOWED. Perhaps you could not spot this obvious fact, so consider yourself informed. Elsewise, if your statement were true, laws prohibting murder only encourages the slaughter of humans rather than the prevention of such activities.
Of all the examples that you give, there is no compelling reason to ever do any of them. There is normally no good reason to violate traffic laws but when there is, exceptions can be made. There is no good reason to improperly dispose of watse, nor are there good reasons to cheat on your taxes. Partaking in these activities is civil disobediance through and through. There is no issue of Big Brother here, nor tyranny or anything you might throw out to raise a red flag. You chose to break a law therefore you accept that you could be punished.
| QUOTE |
| do you think its justifiable to sue parents of a kid who downloaded an MP3? yes or no? |
Providing there is some sort of Parental Responsibility Act, certianly. Children may not be able to be held accountable for a variety of reasons, particuiarly economic ones. It also comes down to the socialization of your children, if you teach them not to steal, you shouldn't be faced with the problem of them stealing.
Further to this, the parents (we are told) know what is best for the child. By punishing the parents for the actions of the child, it should ensure that the parents will in turn adequately punish the child. Children have no concept of what carrying a criminal record might mean to their future, but they clearly understand being grounded for a lengthy period and being barred from things they enjoy.
| QUOTE |
| can the RIAA prove that kid is causing them to lose profit? how? |
Simple. Jenna Barrios, age 13, wants the following nine songs:
1. Sarai - Ladies
2. Simple Plan - Addicted
3. Thalia/Fat Joe - I Want You
4. Theory of a Deadman - Point to Prove
5. Christina Aguilera & Lil Kim - Can't Hold Us Down
6. Junior Senior - Move Your Feet
7. Michelle Branch - Are U Happy Now
8. Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love
9. Beyonce & Jay Z - Crazy In Love
Since Jenna Barrios, age 13, isn't willing to pay for these songs right now (for whatever reason, the reason does not matter at all) or is perhaps unable to, she downloads them.
Suddenly, Sarai, Simple Plan, Thalia/Fat Joe, Theory of a Deadman, Christina Aguilera & Lil Kim, Junior Senior, Michelle Branch, Black Eyed Peas and Beyonce & Jay Z sell one less CD each. Let's just say that each CD costs 15 dollars, with 5 going to the artist, 5 to the label, and 5 to point of sale. These are simple figures but they will illustrate a clear point.
Each artist is out 5 dollars, the label is out $45. There is a clear loss of profit here because of Jenna Barrios, age 13, and it quickly adds up when there are some 3 million users at any given time on Kazaa swapping files. This puts the labels at a point where they know that there is a large demand for some song yet they are unable to tap this market because the song is being given away for free.
Now, you may be quick to criticize this by saying that the CDs may have never been bought by Jenna Barrios, age 13 in the first place. While this is a strong possibility, it does not matter. She, at one time, obtained a copy of a song without a proper licence and would have to pay retroactively.
The bulk of representatives, Members of Congress, Members of Parliament, Senators, et al. don't need to worry about changind the laws concerning copyrights since they are constitutional. Will there be ones that do take it up? Sure, but they won't fully understand what they are arguing nor what is at stake.
* There is a notable exception, tags can be legally removed providing that the person removing them is "the consumer".
Okay I am gonna make this short, sweet, and to the point for those of us that don't need a damned lecture! First, if you subscribe to a downloadable music service it is legal. That is - pay for it. Okay - so paying for it makes it legal - got that. KAZAAA IS FREAKIN LEGAL THEN! Here let me give you a quote straight from their Q&A page
| QUOTE |
Do I have to pay to use Kazaa Media Desktop? No you don't not have to pay. Sharman Networks' costs are covered through advertizers. If you are charged anything for KMD or something similar you can be sure it is a counterfeit product. |
This being said the lawsuit has no grounds whatsoever. Furthermore the system is flawed - we will not conform, we will not stand by and be run over! If everyone did that as you suggest Space Moose I don't think that America would be here. I think segregation would still be in effect and women would not be able to vote! So you and your system go away.
Oh and something else - if Kazaa is payed for then you own the song! If you are subscribing to a service to download music then you are buying the song and you can record it.
anirbas, i think the "payed for" part refers to the program kazaa. the program is payed for by advertisers so you dont need to pay. unless you use kazaa lite which has no adverts. so if you have to pay to use kazaa, it is you being ripped off. as for the music. it is stored on individual computers/servers. kazaa is just a means of finding and geting these files. i dont think anywhere it says that if you use kazaa then copywrited material is legal when downloaded. an example:
i have bought a cd and have copied the music to my hard drive (as far as i know this is legal as long as you have the origonal cd.). someone uses kazza (payed for by advertisers) to get my legally owned music because i own it. files are downloaded via kazaa, but the person who has downloaded it doesnt own an origional copy. therefore is illegal.
kazza end user agreement:
You agree not to use the Software to:
i have bought a cd and have copied the music to my hard drive (as far as i know this is legal as long as you have the origonal cd.). someone uses kazza (payed for by advertisers) to get my legally owned music because i own it. files are downloaded via kazaa, but the person who has downloaded it doesnt own an origional copy. therefore is illegal.
kazza end user agreement:
You agree not to use the Software to:
| QUOTE |
| 2.6 Transmit, access or communicate any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party; |
so already you are breking your agreement with sharman networks.
| QUOTE |
| 4 Things You Need To Know When Using The Kazaa Media Desktop 4.1 You are responsible for paying all applicable taxes and other costs you may incur in connection with your use of the Software including but not limited to all hardware and software costs and providing all equipment and software necessary to connect to our web site and to use the Software via the Internet and any royalties or other charges relating to the use of data owned by third parties. |
they dont protect you from anything.
| QUOTE |
| The Kazaa Media Desktop program is a "peer-to-peer" program; this means that it communicates with other peers (other Kazaa Media Desktops or compatible programs). Other users may download files that you have stored in the My Shared Folder and other folders you have selected to be shared. Don't share files which are confidential, such as financial information, or which you do not have the right to distribute. |
again it states you must not share anything you dont have the right to.
And finally.........heres more (not the end yet)
| QUOTE |
| 5 Things You Need To Do When Using The Kazaa Media Desktop 5.1 It is your responsibility to ensure that you obtain all consents, authorisations and clearances in any data owned or controlled by third parties that you transmit, access or communicate to others using the Kazaa Media Desktop. 5.2 Sharman will not be liable in any way: 5.2.1 for any errors or omissions in any data, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of any data transmitted via the Software; 5.2.2 if you are exposed to data that is offensive, indecent or objectionable; or 5.2.3 for any allegations or findings of infringement of copyright or other proprietary rights as a result of your use of the Software. |
Now ts the end ( pay special attention to the last paragraph)
| QUOTE |
| 6 Copyright Infringement 6.1 Sharman respects copyright and other laws. Sharman requires all Kazaa Media Desktop users to comply with copyright and other laws. Sharman does not by the supply of the Software authorise you to infringe the copyright or other rights of third parties. 6.2 As a condition to use the Software, you agree that you must not use the Software to infringe the intellectual property or other rights of others, in any way. The unauthorised reproduction, distribution, modification, public display, communication to the public or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of copyright. 6.3 Users are entirely responsible for their conduct and for ensuring that it complies with all applicable copyright and data- protection laws. In the event a user fails to comply with laws regarding copyrights or other intellectual property rights and data-protection and privacy, such a user may be exposed to civil and criminal liability, including possible fines and jail time. |
and my longest essay is complete
oh and, the only way i can see that fikles are paid for by kazaa, is if it is on their servers and they pay the music idustry. this would mean that kazaa would not be free as the adverts would not be able to raise enough revenue to pay for these costs.
with having no illegal and copyrighted files on kazaa servers they can claim that they are not doing anything illegal. instead they ask for users to share off their hard drives. this is the same for the majority of peer to peer software and their developers.
with having no illegal and copyrighted files on kazaa servers they can claim that they are not doing anything illegal. instead they ask for users to share off their hard drives. this is the same for the majority of peer to peer software and their developers.
im sorry, Spacemoose. i cannot agree with you at all. no one should have the right to sue someone based on profits that 'may' have been lost. we might start being sued for all kinds of things if that precedent is set. you have no idea if that little girl downloaded that music because she didn't want to pay for it. she also didn't download ANY PROPERTY of anyone. she downloaded a copy of that property. there is no loss of physical production costs because those cds still exist and can be sold. she is not selling her MP3s and is not making any money from them. this is not stealing anything!
let me give you an example: let's say i like looking at the Mona Lisa. its a beautiful little painting. i take a picture of it and it reproduces the exact quality of viewing the actual painting. did i steal the Mona Lisa from the frame? doesn't the Mona Lisa still exist? sure, i may not go to the museum to look at it as often because i have a good copy but i did not steal the Mona Lisa! the museum cannot sue me because i have a copy of the Mona Lisa and don't come to the museum as often. will this discourage artists? no. artists will still be inspired because fame and culture are very powerful forces. fame alone can produce wealth for a successful artist. is fame lost when someone copies your painting? no. its increased and spread to even more people than would have come to the museum to begin with. this is the same exact issue with downloading MP3's. artists will just have to adjust to selling less CDs by doing more concerts or selling merchandise instead, but their appeal is not being reduced at all. their potential for wealth is INCREASED through file sharing. what we are talking about here is a revolution in freedom of information, not stealing. we cannot hold onto the old ways because they hinder our freedom as individuals. when someone threatens to sue you because you make a copy of music, something is terribly wrong. that is abuse of the law. we cannot live in a society that breathes down our necks and threatens our children for doing things totally natural to them. they grew up with the freedom to access all this culture and they see its benefits, whereas you are blind to them. capitalism is based on freedom of thoughts and ideas flowing freely and the system correcting itself by occasionally destroying obsolete methods of business. if anything, you are not a capitalist because you are unable to comprehend this. you are more like a communist because you believe that laws can regulate the flow of information. laws cannot stop progress and file sharing will continue. business will just have to adapt to meet the changing norms of the people. we cannot start some Napster Gulag where we send families and children who violate your laws, Spacemoose. im sorry, but maybe you accept abuse of law but i refuse to accept it. you endorse punishments for people based on purely intellectual concepts and that is a slippery slope, my friend. when you allow someone the right to punish someone else based on pure conjecture than we all become potential criminals. that's a world i don't want to live in.
let me give you an example: let's say i like looking at the Mona Lisa. its a beautiful little painting. i take a picture of it and it reproduces the exact quality of viewing the actual painting. did i steal the Mona Lisa from the frame? doesn't the Mona Lisa still exist? sure, i may not go to the museum to look at it as often because i have a good copy but i did not steal the Mona Lisa! the museum cannot sue me because i have a copy of the Mona Lisa and don't come to the museum as often. will this discourage artists? no. artists will still be inspired because fame and culture are very powerful forces. fame alone can produce wealth for a successful artist. is fame lost when someone copies your painting? no. its increased and spread to even more people than would have come to the museum to begin with. this is the same exact issue with downloading MP3's. artists will just have to adjust to selling less CDs by doing more concerts or selling merchandise instead, but their appeal is not being reduced at all. their potential for wealth is INCREASED through file sharing. what we are talking about here is a revolution in freedom of information, not stealing. we cannot hold onto the old ways because they hinder our freedom as individuals. when someone threatens to sue you because you make a copy of music, something is terribly wrong. that is abuse of the law. we cannot live in a society that breathes down our necks and threatens our children for doing things totally natural to them. they grew up with the freedom to access all this culture and they see its benefits, whereas you are blind to them. capitalism is based on freedom of thoughts and ideas flowing freely and the system correcting itself by occasionally destroying obsolete methods of business. if anything, you are not a capitalist because you are unable to comprehend this. you are more like a communist because you believe that laws can regulate the flow of information. laws cannot stop progress and file sharing will continue. business will just have to adapt to meet the changing norms of the people. we cannot start some Napster Gulag where we send families and children who violate your laws, Spacemoose. im sorry, but maybe you accept abuse of law but i refuse to accept it. you endorse punishments for people based on purely intellectual concepts and that is a slippery slope, my friend. when you allow someone the right to punish someone else based on pure conjecture than we all become potential criminals. that's a world i don't want to live in.
This is turning into a conspiracy, maybe someone somewhere will conect this to the NWO LOL
Ah well - I do see your point sklara (nice avatar btw) so let's say I subscribed to an actual service that lets you download music and pay for it - is that legal to burn or not - because here is my train of thought i can go and buy a cd with songs i don't want on it or i can make my own and pay for each song on it - thats all i do is mix my own cd's i really don't think i should be charged an arm and a leg to do so - and i think as long as i am not selling it to other people which is the way i have interpreted the copyright law as long as i can remember knowing there was one it shoul dbe legal
| QUOTE (Bizarro @ Aug 6 2003, 01:54 PM) |
| im sorry, Spacemoose. i cannot agree with you at all. no one should have the right to sue someone based on profits that 'may' have been lost. |
Oh goodness, here we go again...
The suit is not for profits that "may" have been lost, the suit is for profits that "were" lost. Let's go through this again in short. When a song is downloaded, there was clear intent to obtain that song. Legally, the regular method to obtain a song is to purchase it. Thus, when you download a song, you have essentially agreed to purchase it but have yet to pay. With file sharing, it goes one step farther since that file ends up shared time and time again, all of them willful acts of obtaing a song. The law is clear that you have no right to have this song if you have not paid for it. The law is also quite clear that you have no right to give away that song if it is not yours.
You yourself had someone attempt to steal your car quite recently. So, if songs should be free for the taking, why is your car not? Everything from song to automobiles is a part of our culture. If songs should be free because they are cultural, then surely you must agree that your car should be free for the taking as well.
If culture belongs to everyone, why did you even bother to call it your car in the first place? Is it because you think that such mundane objects are not really cultural? If so, you are quite worng as they are of greater cultural importance than any song.
Furthermore, your car is nothing more than a copy of something that someone else already has - and you paid for it yet. Why would you have bothered doing that?
Surely you must be able to see how your "Culture is Free" argumet is worthless. That which applies to the intangible must equally apply to the tangible, although we may call them different names. As such, "Culture is Free" creates a society without ownership of anything, a society well beyond even the proposals of communism. Even with its much lower reaching goals, communism has failed and so therefore will your "Culture is Free" society.
You won't give it up I'm sure, but as long as everyone else can be satisfied that you are unwilling to accept that you might possibly be completly in the wrong we can all get on with our lives.
| QUOTE |
| let me give you an example: let's say i like looking at the Mona Lisa. its a beautiful little painting. i take a picture of it and it reproduces the exact quality of viewing the actual painting. did i steal the Mona Lisa from the frame? doesn't the Mona Lisa still exist? sure, i may not go to the museum to look at it as often because i have a good copy but i did not steal the Mona Lisa! |
Oh good, another broken example that completly misses the point.
First off, the Mona Lisa is likley uncopyrighted at this point, so let's substitute in Painting X, a modern masterpiece by Artist Unknown. It is only imporant that it is under copyright right now.
So, you take a picture of Painting X. While it seems that there is no harm done with your simple photo, because you have been permitted to take this photo, so should everyone else. Now if everyone has a copy of Painting X what reason would there ever be to go and see it? No money would be made and Artist Unknown is left with the original of Painting X which now would have been more vaueable to him had he never painted it.
But we can adapt your example so I can show you how that doesn't work either. Let's say you take a picture of Mickey Mouse and hang it in your living room. Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse and they employ people to take pictures of Mickey Mouse, retouch pictures of Mickey Mouse, distribute pictures of Mickey Mouse, sell pictures of Mickey Mouse and a host of other things. Again, if you were permitted to take a picture, so would everyone else be permitted to. In the end, Walt Disney plus all of those employees are out of pocket because you took something that wasn't yours to begin with.
Might interest increase in such a scenario? Perhaps, perhaps not. If it does however, a realatively small portion will seek out to pay for something that they are accustomed to getting for free.
Now, don't go confusing the above with people taking pictures at Walt Disney World or some other such event. Walt Disney certianly wants you to take pictures, so they are permitted. Walt Disney does not have to do this, it was a choice made for a variety of reasons. You will also notice that Walt Disney will post areas or items that you can not take pictures of. Walt Disney has a right to preserve these things, typically the reasons that people would go to Walt Disney World in the first place.
| QUOTE |
| if anything, you are not a capitalist because you are unable to comprehend this. you are more like a communist because you believe that laws can regulate the flow of information |
Okay, so before I am clearly a capitalist but now I am surely not so I must be a comminsit. Stop hopping up and down on your Left Wing Nutcase Soap Box for a while and think before you start talking. Go read a book or something, learn what you are talking about before you start shooting your mouth off. Capitalists clearly believe that information can be regulated, they wrote the copyright laws. Is this some sort of sick plot to live up to the moniker or something? Get your head screwed on right.
| QUOTE |
| laws cannot stop progress and file sharing will continue. |
Since when is this progress? How warped does one need to be to think that taking money out of the pocktes of fellow humans is progress? How much shorter, nasty and brutish do you want our lives to be?
| QUOTE |
| maybe you accept abuse of law but i refuse to accept it. you endorse punishments for people based on purely intellectual concepts and that is a slippery slope |
All laws are intellectual concepts. You advocate here nothing more than a society without laws, where murder, robbery and rape could be commonplace since rules against them are nothing mroe than intellectual concepts. Surely you know well of this Slippery Slope having slid down it so quickly.
| QUOTE |
| when you allow someone the right to punish someone else based on pure conjecture than we all become potential criminals |
Certianly this is so. I don't think you understand at all what is going on with this lawsuit. The facts are cold and hard, people have been distributng music without authorization to do so. This is easily traceable and they give the information out freely. No underhanded tactics have been used, these are by in large clean cases.
There is no conjecture here, the accused have done all but submit a letter confessing to thier unlawful acts.
No matter how long you prattle on that Until it Sleeps belongs equally to you as it does to Lars Ulrich, you will continue to be wrong. Give it up. You have made your point known and no one really cares to see us row over this again and again. Having said that, should you continue to pour out drivel such as this, I will continue to refute it. I would hope that it is clear by now that this will continue to no end, but should you see fit to go at it again, be my guest.
stop arguning, meet up and have an old fasioned duel......use any weapons from axes to hammers and swords and daggers. mmmmm lets see, you get a swing at the oponet if you can say a valid argument....let the duel comence
In Australia it is actually illegal to make a copy (Back-up or otherwise) of any cd, dvd, video, whatever that you own.
Just thought you guy's might like to know that.
Just thought you guy's might like to know that.
TO it's the same here too, although I know many people do it...... 
Spacemoose, i have no problem with arguing a point with you but apparently youve reached the point where you cannot continue this as a civil discussion. despite that, i will answer your points:
its funny that you bring up Disney because did you know they can sue you for drawing Mickey Mouse? you are allowed to draw anything in the world except for something that is a corporation's intellectual property. its like you said, they employ people to draw Mickey. if i drew Mickey they could sue me for millions and id be helpless because i don't have laws built to protect me from congregates of people working under the auspices of a corporation.... im just a citizen. the laws of this nation are totally in favor of the corporations. they have all kinds of protections from the people, in the form of laws made through powerful lobbying. where is the protection for the people from the corporations? hmm? do you like Andy Warhol's art? if someone tried to do that type of art today, they would be sued for copyright violation.
that whole car argument of your's... a car is a physical object. did i say going into a record store and stealing a cd was acceptable? no. a digital copy is not stealing any of their physical property, its a copy that exists on its own.
i am not wrong about culture being free. youre wrong because you believe only things with value are worthy of human pursuit. culture is a problem for a capitalist society because things of no instrumental value are rare. music has an intrinsic value that is difficult to deny. our society has tried to adapt it into a product but music is not a product by its nature. it is something that we value in a totally different way than we value physical things. its a huge stretch to jump from saying you own a physical production of a song (ie. a CD) to saying you own the song. songs cannot be owned. they can be written by someone, but that is the extent of their ownership. songs are modified and changed through the human experience. look at songs we consider classics: the Star Spangled Banner. maybe you don't consider it a classic but its a classic here. the Star Spangled Banner is sung over the music to another song (god save the queen?, i dont know it). did anyone sue Francis Key for copyright violation? that kind of thing was common in his day and it should be common in ours. music is something that is modified and changed and made better. when you say you own an idea (music) that is wrong. ideas change and you cannot own another person's mind. you cannot limit their right to think as they choose.
the artist X thing. im an artist. ive had my images taken by others and modified slightly. that is art. artists are inspired by each other and take ideas from each other. whole movements start when a group of artists take up the same idea and work it from their own perspective. i have my images copyrighted only because it would be wrong for someone to take them from my website and claim they created them. i created them. i don't care if people take my images to share with each other digitally. i am a digital artist- that kind of thing is implied in what i do. i am the only one who has the right to print them and sell them. i get more attention when people reproduce my images and transfer them. they may just end up in the hands of someone who is interested in buying a print from me or allowing me to display in their gallery. the goal of art is not to make money(although its nice) but to get your work in front of an audience. when you find that audience, you are a successful artist.
the communist thing. yes, i see you as being more communist for believing that laws can protect a corporation's intellectual property rights. i think capitalism is a bizarro communist system. capitalism protects corporations with communistic laws. communists tell you what to think, what is acceptable thought and what is not. i can walk outside and scream "i hate Bush" without going to jail but i couldn't walk out and paint Mickey Mouse on the side of my barn. hmm. now, why is China such a bad place again? in China you go to jail for criticizing the system, and here you go to jail for messing with the real government... the corporations.
money in pockets = less brutish and nasty lives? boy, you must worship at the big dollar sign idol. i could argue that money makes brutish and nasty lives but its pointless.
you seem totally unable to grasp that profit is never guaranteed. what if a machine existed that could replicate objects? it could replicate food, toys, gadgets and other small objects. would this be a good thing? i think it would be great. imagine all the good it could do, save all that time and effort to produce those things... but it would also put people out of business. could food growers sue the inventor of this object? or the owners of the replicators who used them to make food or gadgets? would using it to make a copy of a digital camera invented by Sony be stealing or would the value of replication outweigh the rights of Sony? this is the situation we are in with MP3s and music. we have that technology available now and it can give us all the power to replicate with perfect precision music that is available. its not going to stop. people will use this power, just as they would replicate other things if the technology existed. sure, profits will die but the good outweighs the bad. access to all that music is a good thing and something most people want. its the companies trying to stop it who are holding our progress back. if a machine that could replicate food existed today, someone would try to destroy it! it would be horrible for the profits of all those food growers. what is wrong with this sort of thinking, Spacemoose? it holds humanity back at the expense of playing some money making game. humanity deserves to come first. profits are never worth more than a person. they never should be worth more than a person. music has been liberated from being expensive to produce and distribute. these music companies have to adapt to the change and accept it, just as food growers should do if we could ever replicate food. its called progress.
its funny that you bring up Disney because did you know they can sue you for drawing Mickey Mouse? you are allowed to draw anything in the world except for something that is a corporation's intellectual property. its like you said, they employ people to draw Mickey. if i drew Mickey they could sue me for millions and id be helpless because i don't have laws built to protect me from congregates of people working under the auspices of a corporation.... im just a citizen. the laws of this nation are totally in favor of the corporations. they have all kinds of protections from the people, in the form of laws made through powerful lobbying. where is the protection for the people from the corporations? hmm? do you like Andy Warhol's art? if someone tried to do that type of art today, they would be sued for copyright violation.
that whole car argument of your's... a car is a physical object. did i say going into a record store and stealing a cd was acceptable? no. a digital copy is not stealing any of their physical property, its a copy that exists on its own.
i am not wrong about culture being free. youre wrong because you believe only things with value are worthy of human pursuit. culture is a problem for a capitalist society because things of no instrumental value are rare. music has an intrinsic value that is difficult to deny. our society has tried to adapt it into a product but music is not a product by its nature. it is something that we value in a totally different way than we value physical things. its a huge stretch to jump from saying you own a physical production of a song (ie. a CD) to saying you own the song. songs cannot be owned. they can be written by someone, but that is the extent of their ownership. songs are modified and changed through the human experience. look at songs we consider classics: the Star Spangled Banner. maybe you don't consider it a classic but its a classic here. the Star Spangled Banner is sung over the music to another song (god save the queen?, i dont know it). did anyone sue Francis Key for copyright violation? that kind of thing was common in his day and it should be common in ours. music is something that is modified and changed and made better. when you say you own an idea (music) that is wrong. ideas change and you cannot own another person's mind. you cannot limit their right to think as they choose.
the artist X thing. im an artist. ive had my images taken by others and modified slightly. that is art. artists are inspired by each other and take ideas from each other. whole movements start when a group of artists take up the same idea and work it from their own perspective. i have my images copyrighted only because it would be wrong for someone to take them from my website and claim they created them. i created them. i don't care if people take my images to share with each other digitally. i am a digital artist- that kind of thing is implied in what i do. i am the only one who has the right to print them and sell them. i get more attention when people reproduce my images and transfer them. they may just end up in the hands of someone who is interested in buying a print from me or allowing me to display in their gallery. the goal of art is not to make money(although its nice) but to get your work in front of an audience. when you find that audience, you are a successful artist.
the communist thing. yes, i see you as being more communist for believing that laws can protect a corporation's intellectual property rights. i think capitalism is a bizarro communist system. capitalism protects corporations with communistic laws. communists tell you what to think, what is acceptable thought and what is not. i can walk outside and scream "i hate Bush" without going to jail but i couldn't walk out and paint Mickey Mouse on the side of my barn. hmm. now, why is China such a bad place again? in China you go to jail for criticizing the system, and here you go to jail for messing with the real government... the corporations.
money in pockets = less brutish and nasty lives? boy, you must worship at the big dollar sign idol. i could argue that money makes brutish and nasty lives but its pointless.
you seem totally unable to grasp that profit is never guaranteed. what if a machine existed that could replicate objects? it could replicate food, toys, gadgets and other small objects. would this be a good thing? i think it would be great. imagine all the good it could do, save all that time and effort to produce those things... but it would also put people out of business. could food growers sue the inventor of this object? or the owners of the replicators who used them to make food or gadgets? would using it to make a copy of a digital camera invented by Sony be stealing or would the value of replication outweigh the rights of Sony? this is the situation we are in with MP3s and music. we have that technology available now and it can give us all the power to replicate with perfect precision music that is available. its not going to stop. people will use this power, just as they would replicate other things if the technology existed. sure, profits will die but the good outweighs the bad. access to all that music is a good thing and something most people want. its the companies trying to stop it who are holding our progress back. if a machine that could replicate food existed today, someone would try to destroy it! it would be horrible for the profits of all those food growers. what is wrong with this sort of thinking, Spacemoose? it holds humanity back at the expense of playing some money making game. humanity deserves to come first. profits are never worth more than a person. they never should be worth more than a person. music has been liberated from being expensive to produce and distribute. these music companies have to adapt to the change and accept it, just as food growers should do if we could ever replicate food. its called progress.
can you get sued by disney if you buy one of their programs whaich sks you to draw over their previous dawing
im not livivg in australia then!
and anirbas, im not sure if its legal that way, you may want to ask them
and anirbas, im not sure if its legal that way, you may want to ask them
got the first letter back from my representative. seems he was a co-sponser of a bill to crack down on copyright infringement. he wasn't very pleased with my position. funny, i didn't vote for him 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.