Posted on 12/25/2005 3:39:47 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
I'm not sure you really said anything that needs to be addressed.
You want to tap dance around copywright law the same way clinton wanted to tap dance around the definition of what sex is. The same way Dan Rather might say fake but accurate.
If you're downloading mp3's, most of the time, most people downloading mp3's know it's against the law (or at least I think they know it). They know it's a product produced by a company for sale and they're taking it for free against the wishes of the company that produced it. It is just like those taking dvd players from walmart in New Orleans. All we're talking about is a justfication in one's own mind to steal.
Fair Use Act
Remember those cassette tapes everyone use to make and give to their friends? That would be considered illegal? yet it was upheld as fair use by the courts in the 70s.
As for stealing, the comparison with bank robbery is broken. In your examples, even the online theft, something was taken from one person and now is in the possession of another. Copying a file does not damage the original or relieve the owner of the use of their product. What it does do is deprive the distributor of the sale price for the file.
As for the musicans losing out, I would agree... but the musicans typically get only 5-10% of the retail price of the product. They usually make the majority of their monies from the concert proceeds.
In the end, the main reason p2p music sharing popped up was because the price for the product was too high, and the market found another way. Production costs for most albums are around $0.25, take it to a dollar for artists and studio costs. Everything else is gravy.
And don't cry to me about businesses being allowed to make money... I write software, and 'you people' complained that software costs were too high, thereby supporting the b.s. to import foriegn software developers to undercut American developers ('the market found a way'). Even though the software was only $25-40 per copy (and free in many cases.. no? have you paid anything to browse the web?)
> the guy who goes into a bank and robs it in the traditional way... you know... gun, note, and a bag..... Is he stealing?
Yes. I choose to view it that way not only because the law views it that way, but because my feeling is that what we now know as 'stealing' requires more physical intent than sitting at one's keyboard. You, of course, typically and in knee-jerk fashion, chose to contrue that as a defense of illegal file-sharing.
>The guy who hacks into the bank's system from his home computer and transfers the money to a swiss bank account.... is he stealing?
Now you're comparing the theft of legal tender with the theft of copyrighted work.
Big difference.
My feeling is that in time we will use these words slightly differently. If time proves me wrong, I will have no problem admitting it. The term 'stealing' might well be more applicable to financial instruments that cannot be copied & freely distributed, illegally, to anyone with a computer & a modem. My hope, regardless of whether such an activity continues to be defined by that term, is that whatever shall come along to address the issues the DMCA is laden with, will actually be an improvement.
>A point might could have been argued at one point that technology had outpaced the law and the person transfering the money wasn't really stealing it.
If you're trying to put words in my mouth, good luck. If you are equating MP3s with money, then you'll need it.
> I'm not sure you really said anything that needs to be addressed.
Of course you're not sure! It's not as though we should do anything but blindly accept the RIAA line about economic damage! It's not as though any of that will weigh into what goes on in a courtroom! Where, up to now, I know of no case where illegal file-sharing has actually been proven illegal. Is there a case I've missed? Do tell.
>You want to tap dance around copywright law the same way clinton wanted to tap dance around the definition of what sex is. The same way Dan Rather might say fake but accurate.
I do, huh? I'm not sure I can find a nicer way to say this, than to strongly suggest that you are delusional. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't tap dance around copyright law. I do, however, object to the devaluation of copyrights due to the tactics of the RIAA. Who represent companies with what I would suggest is hardly a spotless record when it comes to complying with contract law.
Is contract law no less important than copyright law? Is it not possible to be firmly on the side of copyright holders while pointing out that their mouthpieces present like hypocrites?
I don't think that people and entities that can be shown to be hypocritical as easily as the RIAA & the record labels are necessarily the best folks to be speaking to the illegalities in file-sharing. Of course, all of those campaigns featuring all of the recording artists urging computer users to not illegally file-share...see any of those lately?
I haven't.
I wonder why?
If you had the guts to post on this forum & let it be known that this is mostly not about recording artists, but record labels, I'd sure have a lot more respect for yr argument. The fact is, if I'm smart enough to have a company that signs an artist to a contract where I own the copyrights to the work they created, then I wouldn't have any compunction about letting the whole world know that it's far more about me being hurt by illegal downloading, than any artist. But that's not what we hear, is it?
The fact is, the point that 'they're all millionaires anyway' being addressed by 'so what? They can make as much money as they can make!' is all fine and well. The problem is that the millionaires are, for the most part, record industry executives, not recording artists. That's not even the part I object to. What I object to is the idea that the damage to the artists is or should be the overriding factor here. If that's the case, then let's address the issues that actually do have some bearing on those artists. In spite of yr contention that I haven't said anything worth replying to, I'd put unpaid royalties & label-option recoupable advances at the top of the list.
I don't see why a copyright holder can't fight against illegal file-sharing without falsely claiming that it's all about someone else.
Who's tap dancing?
> If you're downloading mp3's, most of the time, most people downloading mp3's know it's against the law
Really? I download plenty of MP3s. But ITunes says it's legal. They're not?
Are you going to invoke Clinton again because you were too lazy to remember to include 'illegal' in that proposition?
>They know it's a product produced by a company for sale and they're taking it for free against the wishes of the company that produced it.
No argument there. But I have little doubt that this defendant had no such knowledge of this downloading. I guess we'll see if she's found, in a court of law, of having committed any crimes. I wouldn't bet on it. Where will the settlement centers be then?
Utter foolishness.
>It is just like those taking dvd players from walmart in New Orleans.
So taking those DVD players was...copyright infringement?
Explain that, please.
>All we're talking about is a justfication in one's own mind to steal.
Yr problem is that you are too interested in justifying the use of the term 'stealing' than you are in seeing to it that we are left with a result that addresses all the issues here. Which go beyond what you seem willing to recognize. Hopefully we will soon see legislation that will make strides towards this. Sadly, I don't think there's much chance that you're going to see anything but the black-and-white of the 'stealing' argument.
I am forever grateful that people with yr attitude are not responsible for safeguarding the rights of all holders of intellectual property. It's only the record labels that are shooting themselves in the foot with this nonsense.
Thanks for the tips. I'm actually pretty happy with T-Mobile other than this smallish snafu. Obviously, your or anyone's mileage may vary and I've heard some acrid complaints about them reading this topic. Just as one random data point, I used to live right near LAX airport and in my apt I had little or no reception. 2500 feet away, no problemo. But ALL mobile carriers acted the same way, probably something to do with airport communication or radar, etc.
Their contention in this instance is that the svce was ordered from the handset itself which was in my poss. at all times (or locked up in a safe) It would be different, they explained, if I had let's say a "no roaming chg" plan and I was charged roaming chgs on October 13th for three tel calls. Or if I had "no long distance chgs" but was so charged on some calls. You get the picture. The idea that I ordered "unlimited" messaging but NEVER used it, not even once....this generated no dissonance on their part. Total damage: About $30. There's only so much effort I'm willing to put out for $30. so I'll probably forget about it.
----If the computer is in her home and being used without supervision , then she is just as much at fault. If her kids and their friends were doing something illegal, it is time she started supervising their computer time. To act as if she was oblivious to anything that was going on shows she is not even responsible enough to even teach her kids about piracy in the music industry. Unless you have been living under a rock, (Napster started it) everyone who owns a pc has heard of this and she and her kids/guests knew better.
I don't think it's fair to suggest she's as much at fault, not at all. I will not absolve her of any & all responsibility. But I will say I think a LOT of computer owners have absolutely no idea of their responsibilities. It's not like you need to take a test to qualify for a license to legally operate one as in the case of a motor vehicle.
And the Napster thing isn't as relevant as you might think. So, someone's heard of Napster. Or they haven't So what? What this has to do with illegality is beyond me. Especially since it's probably one thing to have heard of Napster, and quite another to have heard of Kazaa.
If the child wanted to conceal the existence of Kazaa from the non-pc-literate parent, it's not exactly difficult.
We are entering a time when people are beginning to understand their responsibilities as pc owners. That is a good thing. Criminalizing a woman who did not possess this understanding is not the way to protect the value of intellectual property, in my view. Of course, if you want to suggest that she's lying, then her trial will be helpful.
That the recording industry is going to be largely responsible for pushing people towards understanding these responsibilities is a good thing. Since it comes only through their exclamations that there's a relation between the money lost & the financial fortunes of recording artists, and in conjunction with their hiring of companies like First 4 Internet to try to safeguard their intellectual property...this is a poor way to go about this.
Some people are more interested in getting a couple of grand out of unsuspecting pc owners for what their children have done than they are in getting across to those children what copyrights are & why they're valuable & why it's illegal to use a computer to procure them illegally.
I think finding a way to restore the value of copyrights is more important than inviting the scorn of people who know better by talking about how the artists are being hurt. Yeah, sure, fine. So how much of what's being collected is being paid to them again?
As usual, the journalists get it wrong.
This was not a case of her DOWNLOADING. It was a case of her SHARING.
"Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004."
The RIAA is NOT going after downloaders. If you simply turn off the share function in Kazaa, Ares etc. you simply will NOT get sued. It won't happen unless they start suing the downloaders themselves who share nothing. The only people they are going after are the sharers, those who share hundreds of files.
I somehow doubt a friend of her kids downloaded hundreds of files. I think her kids downloaded it all.
In any event, I wish her luck. Go get the RIAA.
You got that right.
I try to download stuff legally, but sometimes I admit I use Kazaa. I want to hear if I like the song and use it for that purpose a lot. Of course, once I have the song, there isn't any reason to buy it legally at that point so I usually just keep it. I swiped about 5 free download cards from the movie theater. They are for itunes, but I just use IJukebox to convert the files from mp4 to mp3. Apple will not limit my use of their files. I will use itunes files in whatever ways I want.
The problem is, not everyone has access to usenet.
I am at college. We don't have the typical access to them that you would at home.
Also, even if you do have access to them, my understanding is you only have access to what your ISP is connected to. I tried getting on losts of newsgroups in the past, but they could not be found by my ISP's server.
Same here. The thing is, I dislike them so much I would lie to pretend to be impartial to get on the panel. Then, once on......jury nullification time.
It is not this easy thanks to the SCOTUS' Grokster ruling.
Grokster effectively DESTROYED Betamax.
Just what rights you have are really in doubt frankly, if you have any at all but to play the CD you bought.
I am not an art fan either, but yikes. You must have dated a psycho artist or something. :)
The founders wanted to protect useful arts, something that enhances society.
Look at the list of things they specifically list. While music is listed, I somehow doubt they had in mind popular music of today. They meant classical music compositions etc.
Not Britney Spears.
They have the right to protect their property. They do not have the right to act as the gestapo.
I am a student. I don't pay for my music (except in rare cases when I really support an artist and know they are not affiliated with the RIAA). If the RIAA would simply act like a normal industry representative group and stop trying to take over the world, I would have no problem paying for all my music again as I did just 4-5 years ago. I paid for it all, but once I started getting pissed at the RIAA, I said forget it and have not looked back.
On one side you have someone whose posts agree more with "Home Taping Is Killing Music" than I would've imagined possible on this board. It is true that prior to 1992's AHRA, making a cassette copy of a record album that you'd purchased was copyright infringement.
Which made it illegal.
Which made it...stealing.
The difference is, there's a difference between 'stealing' when it's one person making a personal copy for themselves...and freely distributing it on the web for millions to download free of charge.
But then some people are apparently incapable of drawing distinctions. Just like there are some industries that would argue that the Betamax would kill the movie industry, and home taping would kill music...and it wasn't until 8 years after the Betamax decision that it finally became legal to make a copy for personal use of a record album, or a CD.
But some people liked the idea that making a cassette copy was illegal. Just as there are some people who think the best way to highlight the illegality in file-sharing is by pointing to how it's going to economically damage the artists.
I wonder if they, prior to 1992, ever made any cassette copies of record albums so they could listen to an album in their car. Or in their Walkman.
That, of course, would make them thieves.
Hmmm.
No, I guess they purchased cassette copies. It was the law! If you wanted to listen to an album in yr car, you had to pay twice!
On the other side...I won't put forth any minimally true claptrap about how illegal file-sharing is something that shouldn't be done because of the direct correlation with hurting the artists...but I will say that you should probably take a look at post 155. Whose author chose to direct their way of thinking towards me.
I didn't know that there was someone on this thread to whom those sorts of statements should actually be directed, but now that you have admitted this, perhaps you'd be so kind as to respond to that poster on the basis of those comments.
And perhaps that poster would acknowledge that there are more than a few people out there who rationalize & justify their illegal downloading on the basis of how the copyright holders have chosen to make certain works unavailable. Like, you know, "out of print?" Well, as we should all know, a copyright holder can make their work as available or unavailable as they choose. That is their right, even if it's only going to contribute to the number of those illegally file-sharing because they can't purchase the music they want due to its unavailability.
But then that gets back to the idea of devaluing those copyrights, which contributes towards the number of those people illegally file-sharing, because it's easier for them to make the leap to being able to justify it in their minds because...oh, never mind.
Look up the definition of stealing sometime and explain how it is stealing to download a copied file that is not the same as the copyrighted material in format or quality.
Unless you are physically taking a CD, you can't honestly say it is stealing.
Guess that’s why I run my spyware program daily, keep my anti-virus up to date, run disk cleanup and defrag every 2 or 3 days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.