Skip to comments.
Judge: File-swapping tools are legal !!!!
CNET ^
| 4/25/2004
| John Borland
Posted on 04/25/2003 11:59:07 AM PDT by ArcLight
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-264 next last
To: GalaxieFiveHundred
"We're gonna party like it 1999!"
241
posted on
04/26/2003 9:32:31 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: ArcLight
I have an idea: why don't the record companies introduce a new audio format in which all music is stored on smart digital cards which communicate with a proprietary player through a bidirectional authenticated encrypted bitstream. To avoid people recording the analog signal, the system would use proprietary speakers (to avoid being a total pain, it would have aux inputs so people could use those speakers for other audio sources). Big record companies could then remove all their CD's from the market and just sell music on these chips.
Meanwhile independent record labels would be free to continue to use the old obsolete non-piracy-protected technologies like CD's and MP3's.
Seems to me that would be the perfect solution. Big record companies die, they can no longer afford to bribe congresscritters to pass unconstitutional garbage, and the rest of the country lives in freedom.
242
posted on
04/26/2003 9:33:11 AM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: kevao
"Even if I do the bootlegging in my bedroom? What about my constitutional right to privacy?"
Using Liberal pretzel logic, you're protected only if you do something perverted with the CDRW drive.
243
posted on
04/26/2003 9:35:10 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: William McKinley
Here is an analogy for everyone:
Someone sues gun and stocking makers because a gun and stocking was used in a bank heist, and forbids them from selling their wares.
This judge is properly protecting 3rd parties from being forbidden from doing something legal that might be used by others for illegal purposes.
"The answer to me is, if it is a problem, then the laws should be changed."
Good observation.
244
posted on
04/26/2003 9:38:49 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: drlevy88
Some software phones home on registration to authenticate itself. Perhaps in the future, music will be software like this. And fig leaves of laws will forbid recording it from the speaker output. Right, but not all of it. The "phone home" behavior is generally worse with "free" software than with paid-for software, though there are some exceptions.
I think a lot has to do with the question of respect someone alluded to before. People don't like to see those they respect stiffed by cheapskates, but they rejoice when they see those they view as crooks get their comeuppance.
245
posted on
04/26/2003 9:44:02 AM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: supercat
this is so true - the recording 'industry' is a goliath build around artistic creativity.
What the information technologies of today have done is DEMOLISH THE BARRIERS between the artist and the audience.
A single artist can take his wares, put them on up for sale directly, without any intermediary. in current biz models, artists get about 15% of the sales. why is it that way?
246
posted on
04/26/2003 9:49:14 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: eno_
Surely that is just thumbing one's nose at both an assinine contract and an asinine law. And surely one can do that without it leading to widespread lawlessness. Exactly. If one has something -- food, clothes, money -- and it is taken without his consent or due process, it is theft. It always was wrong and always will be wrong regardless of what the law says.
On the other hand, if one has something and one wants to give to someone else it is only "theft" if the law defines it as such. Once the law is changed nobody can call it "theft."
And if the law is unenforceble or fails to make sense to the average person, it is not going to be obeyed anyway.
To: The Old Hoosier
I agree, me neither. But I think I'm definitely in the minority on this thread arguing that an "open" music industry is a bad thing. It's not a good thing if you believe in private property, contractual integrity, or the creation of new music. Why do you suppose record companies spend huge sums of money to have radio stations play their music? Bear in mind that many common audio systems are quite capable of recording music off the radio.
248
posted on
04/26/2003 9:56:15 AM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: supercat
Be sure to distinguish "free" - as in beer - from Free, as in speech.
249
posted on
04/26/2003 10:16:46 AM PDT
by
eno_
To: supercat
Bear in mind that many common audio systems are quite capable of recording music off the radio. Yeah, but it sounds like crap, and the deejays make a point of talking as the song begins and ends so that you can't use it.
To: mtngrl@vrwc
WOOHOO!!!
251
posted on
04/26/2003 10:37:53 AM PDT
by
lawgirl
(If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.)
To: Tribune; Shethink13
A better analogy would be selling the corn with a restriction prohibiting the customer from sharing it with dinner guests, which he ignores.Not true. You can't just take someone's corn and magically turn it into a lifetime supply. This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves, stealing music they would otherwise have to buy. And I'm not talking about people who only download unprotected music, or even the ones who use MP3s to decide what to buy.
People come up with all kinds of arguments to justify stealing music because it soothes their consciences. If it weren't for these personal moral issues, I would be very surprised to see conservatives on a conservative forum arguing against the right to private property--even in the name of capitalism, for crying out loud.
To: The Old Hoosier
Yeah, but it sounds like crap, and the deejays make a point of talking as the song begins and ends so that you can't use it. That certainly used to be the case. Many stations no longer do that, though.
253
posted on
04/26/2003 11:54:43 AM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: The Old Hoosier
And I'm not talking about people who only download unprotected music, or even the ones who use MP3s to decide what to buy. Consider the following two groups of people:
- Those who use downloading as a means of finding new music, and who have no aversion to spending money on the music they actually enjoy listening to.
- Those who use downloading as a means of avoiding paying for music, and who would buy music if they couldn't download it.
Both groups of people are significant. There are other groups of people (those who download and don't buy, but wouldn't buy anyway) but most of them are either irrelevant or will evolve into one of the first two (e.g. once they have money to actually spend).
I think it would be fair to say that among the first group of people above, the availability of downloadable music will increase the amount of music they purchase; among the latter group, it will decrease it.
Although there are certainly some exceptions, the general impression I get is that the people who buy music despite (or because of) the availability of downloads are apt to be the ones who would be inclined to spend more money on music than those who, because of downloads, don't buy music.
I have sometimes heard it lamented that much of the use of Stephen Collins Foster didn't net him a dime. One of the great American songwriters, but he never got rich. On the other hand, I would posit that if people had to pay royalties any time they sang his music, it would never have gotten anyhwere near the popularity it achieved. And the fact that he never got rich from his music nor had any realistic expectation of doing so hardly deterred SCF from writing it.
254
posted on
04/26/2003 12:09:31 PM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: The Old Hoosier
People come up with all kinds of arguments to justify stealing music because it soothes their consciences. If it weren't for these personal moral issues, I would be very surprised to see conservatives on a conservative forum arguing against the right to private property--even in the name of capitalism, for crying out loud. First of all, many of us here do actually believe in buying music which is worth owning. Whether or not it's legal to download a few tracks from an album before deciding "hey this is cool" and buying it or "hey this is junk" and deleting it, I don't think any reasonable moral objection can be made to that particular practice. And of course neither moral nor legal objections can be made to the practice of downloading music from legal advertiser-supported sites.
As for the condemnation or lack thereof of those who download music with the intention of using it on an ongoing basis without ever paying for it, I think a large part of that goes back to the concept that predates or modern legal system--that public support comes with respect. If a man who routinely bullied everyone in town got robbed, he'd find far less sympathy and support than a man who respected and was respected by the townspeople.
Finally, many here are opposed to the record companies because we refuse to do anything to assist in their efforts to rob or restrict the freedom of the American people. Garbage like the DMCA gives the record companies far more ability to rape the American people than its absense gives file-sharers. And the royalty on blank music CD's, which hits those who use audio recording equipment to record their own music while ignoring those who use computers to burn downloaded CD's--that's just plain robbery.
255
posted on
04/26/2003 12:18:09 PM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: The Old Hoosier
You can't just take someone's corn and magically turn it into a lifetime supply. You can't do the same with a song either. After a few hundred or so listens you want something new.
This is intellectual THEFT, pure and simple, just like software piracy, and its practitioners are thieves,
That's according to the law. If you change the law they are no longer thieves. And I'm not saying there shouldn't be protections against someone else taking credit for another's work or marketing it without compensation.
But traditionally, if you buy something it belongs to you which means it is your's to give away.
To: Skooz
Consider it a chronology of the stock market.
257
posted on
04/26/2003 8:50:54 PM PDT
by
Tauzero
To: The Old Hoosier
"Well, that means you can kiss the recording industry--and rock music--goodbye permanently."
Wrong! (IMHO)
I think that there will be MORE and BETTER music as a result the rulings like these.
Go out and find a good local band, and support them. Or pull out your MP3 collection and listen to the music of long dead artists.
To: P.O.E.
no, verizon is fight to force anyone who wants the information to get an order from a federal judge. The RIAA wants the present system where a mere allegation qualifies a CLERK to issue a search warrant.
To: The Old Hoosier
How about the new genetically engineered corn? I can redily hand out the corn as free seeds? Thus I don't need the original source except once. But that is farming.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-264 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson