Picktorrent: image line gross beat - Free Search and Download Torrents at search engine. Download Music, TV Shows, Movies, Anime, Software and more. Fl studio 12 free download - FL Studio, FL Studio Mobile, FL Studio Mobile, and many more programs.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Download Movies Torrents Pirate Bay
Beat Maker
- look at it in reverse. what if they did nothing about piracy? what if they tolerated it all over the world. would they still be in business? what happens to a neighborhood when they tolerate crack dealers? snitches get stitches and all that crap leads to things doing downhill. is that what you really want?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they did nothing about 'piracy,' they would probably all be a lot richer.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
Mike : 'It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.'
MIKE :
'Again, the whole thing is a worthwhile read, but highlights a key point that we keep trying to make over and over again. So many keep focusing in on the whole 'piracy!' aspect, and that's such a huge waste of time. Why focus on trying to stop something you don't like, when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like? Why focus on trying to punish people you don't like, when you have so many opportunities to happily engage with people you do like? '
----
MIKE :'Why focus on trying to stop something you don't
like,?'
ANS : MORAL PRINCIPLE... Mike . Pretty simple. Of you do not see that , well, then Mike , you really are lost on this issue of Copyrights.
----
MIKE : ' when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like?'
ANS: The positive situation that I do like want , and will work for , and fight for ,
, and yes, even die for:
is a world w/o Piracy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
clearly me , cleared my cookies in moz .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
You're willing to die for a world without entertainment piracy??? Really???
There has never been, and will never be, a world without what you call piracy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
Which means they're already, pretty much, dead.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
Life is about defending rights from those who wish to destroy them
I think Jefferson , Thomas Paine , and their gang of rebels against King George would agree .
---------
The Rev Martin Luther King once said,' if a man has not found anything worth dying for, he is not fit to live.'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
'a world without piracy'
Good luck with that, could you start in Somalia?
Oh and I'll hold Johnny Depp for you, so you can beat him up for portraying a pirate and making piracy cool.
Oh you mean copyright infringement? Well, given that you yourself infringed on the NYTimes copyright just a few days ago. I think you should check your own moral principles.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
'Oh and I'll hold Johnny Depp for you, so you can beat him up for portraying a pirate and making piracy cool.'
You are on!! but i would rather go after the producers of the movie. And i will bring my anti-pirate hero bugs Bunny with me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3274382137005127076#[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in Captain Hareblower
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in Captain Hareblower
Way to help infringe on Warner Brother's copyrights.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in Captain Hareblower & copyright infringment
Again as I stated elsewhere in other threads,
If it is up on YouTube , it is in happy-lawyer -land , and some lawyer somewhere is dealing with it ,
, and maybe BUGs is getting per-play royalties,, as he should
because ,as you may remember in the movie Bugs, Daffy , and the gang did with Michael Jordon ( Space Jam ) ,
in one scene Bugs asked Daffy if he was getting any royalties from the Loony Tune's toys and clothes that where all over the M. Jordon's kid's room.
Daffy replied , he is not , and said to Bug's 'we are getting screwed' , My favorite scene from the movie.
clip is somewhere here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ra0S6vHRnM
as far as article citations , from NYT , and etc, it is all fair and CITED use,, and being Mike , leaves them up w/o comment means it is OK,
quite frankly the 'joke' : is wearing very thin ---, like 10 X a thread now--- and really is just an good example of Pirate Logic : you cannot challenge my points with facts , so you look , for some silly nitpick , and say i am post in violation of copyright law-- WHEN in fact it is fair use , legal and fair -- or else Mike would remove it when i post an article from NYT or AP .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in Captain Hareblower & copyright infringment
You don't actually know how copyright works, right?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in Captain Hareblower & copyright infringment
why bother to ans.?
Get real .
go to my profile[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down.
The positive situation that I do like want , and will work for , and fight for ,
, and yes, even die for:
is a world w/o Piracy.
what are you wasting your time here for then?
get out there and die for your cause.
do it nao.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
get out there and die for your cause.
the object of War , is not to die for your country , but to make sure your enemy does , ( It think it was Gen.George Patton who said ,i ain't looking it up)
really it is a silly comment made above , but it is a good quote here , so i will use to respond to the Pirate comment.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'look at it in reverse. what if they did nothing about piracy? what if they tolerated it all over the world. would they still be in business? what happens to a neighborhood when they tolerate crack dealers? snitches get stitches and all that crap leads to things doing downhill. is that what you really want?'
I've heard that comparing apples to oranges is a waste of time ... but it looks as though what you've got there is fruit cocktail.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> comparing so-called piracy to drug dealing
Hahaha, oh wow.
If they did nothing about piracy, they'd get exactly the same results they do now. But they'd be blowing a hell of a lot less money and time on getting those results. Dig?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly, money, time, and resources they can more productively use to innovate and produce better products for better prices and invest in more useful endeavors that will make them money instead of make people hate them.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'... they'd get exactly the same results they do now. But they'd be blowing a hell of a lot less money and time on getting those results.'
How would that help the MPAA? As opposed to the studios that *fund* the MPAA.
It's busywork. It's 'Hey, look, we're doing something with your money. Something really productive. Trust us, this is why you need us.'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:comparing so-called piracy to drug dealing ?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
'What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.'
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:comparing so-called piracy to drug dealing ?
judging by the use of commas, you totally stole that from someone instead of writing it yourself. good job pirate.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:comparing so-called piracy to drug dealing ?
If true, it's not a pirate; it's a plagiarist.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a plagiarist.
if is fair -- and cited -- use.
for educational purpose[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's a plagiarist.
me[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright © 2010 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI)
Copyright © 2010 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI)
. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.
ARI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Contributions to ARI in the United States
are tax-exempt to the extent provided by law.
( I forgot to post this last nite. I correct my error.)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright © 2010 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI)
though I did give the link, which is proper legal citation .
I think.
But I prefer to post the full blurb.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'If they did nothing about piracy, they'd get exactly the same results they do now.'
Not entirely true... The Pirate Bay would be a lot less well-known by the mainstream, its founders would not be celebrities, the Swedish Pirate Party would probably not have been set up (I believe it was created due to the original heavy-handed attempts to impose US law onto Sweden) and nobody would have boycotted CDs and DVDs in response (as many have, even if it's a statistically small amount).
They're actually a lot *worse* off than if they'd done absolutely nothing.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A false dilemma, an absurd analogy, a slippery slope fallacy...
It's like TAM is just reading from a list of flawed arguments.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TAM doesnt need a list. He has this all memorized[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'He has this all memorized'
Nah, it's a list. Having something memorised suggests a brain and some capability of independent thought.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's all in his genes. Natural ability. Like how, from the day they're born, basset hounds instinctively know how to drown.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, call us back when Pirates start bringing guns and violence into neighbourhoods, m'kay?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's 'tolerated' in some countries that ACTA supporters refuse to identify openly... and they're still in business in those countries. Your question has therefore been answered.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know, right? Look at the movie MacGruber. This movie should have made over $200 million in its first weekend but thanks to a bunch of thankless pirates, it actually bankrupted Saturday Night Live.
Fucking pirates. More like fucking parasites.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe if they wrote a decent story they'd make some more money. Frankly I'd pay to guarantee I never saw MacGruber.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'thanks to a bunch of thankless pirates'
Yeah, that's the current spineless excuse. Not because SNL movies tend to be crap. Not because nobody who doesn't watch SNL would know who the character is, and the marketing failed to explain it. Not because of terrible reviews (44% on Rotten Tomatoes). It's got to be 'OMG teh ebil pirates!'.
Bad business decisions are bad business decisions, no matter how you cut it, even if you're one of those who actually liked the movie.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Funny you should mention MacGruber:
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/02/macgyver-vs-macgruber-.html
And here's some user-generated 'piracy' that's funnier than the original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPteSTvkbzI[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are right in the sense that it is hard (maybe impossible) to know how much worse (if at all) things would be for the big copyright owners if they had done nothing.
Don't expect a lot of people on this site to see your point.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, considering that there's no direct effect, as evidenced by Mike's post, that would only leave any 'chilling effects' that pursuing TPB has had... but there are no chilling effects... the rate of piracy hasn't even slowed. In fact, it's only fueled the movement of pirates in general by drawing more attention to the activity, but it's spurred enough debate about copyright and consumers' rights that The Pirate Party has managed to get people elected into office.
So, I would say it's immensely clear that leaving TPB alone would have done the MPAA more good than harm.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'considering that there's no direct effect'
How does Mike's post show that there is no direct effect? You're assuming the conclusion.
Maybe there would be a bazillion times as much file sharing and the entertainment industry would have 1 bazillionth the profit if not for their suits. I don't believe that, but simply showing absolute numbers doesn't show what would have, could have been.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Grant Gross, IDG News
May 19, 2010 4:30 pm
'Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
'Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works,' he said in a statement. 'The end result is the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports.'
'Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections,' Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican.'
both quotes from :
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Grant Gross, IDG News
May 19, 2010 4:30 pm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692/us_lawmakers_target_the_pirate_bay_other_sites.html[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
'Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works.'
There are still people making movies, writing books, creating music. So what exactly is your point?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
'return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works.'
Pretty clear I think. Mike is always talking about the bad state of the music biz. Piracy contributes to that.
Media entertainment , has to spend $$ fighting Pirates, when they could be using that $$$ in making new Bugs Bunny cartoons or etc , and whatever.
Pretty clear.
Quit your 'Pirate Logic' , to paraphrase Steely Dan[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Bugs Bunny What's Opera Doc?
the greatest cartoon ever !!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3274382137005127076#docid=-3050774950712665615[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Mike is always talking about the bad state of the music biz. Piracy contributes to that.
If any objective study had shown definitively that piracy has a negative effect on the 'music biz,' you might have a point. Unfortunately for you, none has.
Incidentally, the 'music biz' is making more money than ever. It's just CD sales that are down. The stories on Techdirt make that very clear.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Mike is always talking about the bad state of the 'recording' biz. Not the same thing.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
They DON'T have to spend $$ to fight pirates. That's the whole point. By fighting them, they are giving air time to the pirates and showing people where they can get the latest stuff for free. By fighting the pirates, the MPAA and the RIAA are actually achieving the opposite of what they are attempting to do.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment
In all due respect to the Virginia Republican, that is simply not true. Movie studios are free to sell their product, the same as they ever did, whether 'piracy' exists or not. Nobody is denying them anything.
You could make a case that 'piracy' hurts sales, but that's been debunked numerous times, something you'd know if your interest was in the truth rather than being the MPAA's lapdog.
Senator, I know you love being the recipient of the nearly $2 million per year that the MPAA spends on lobbying Congress. Obviously, no 'pirate' organization has that kind of money. But, perhaps, you should consider the public you're supposed to represent, and not write laws that destroy them for no good reason.
Just a thought.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
more very silly , Pirate Logic[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
The way you dismiss facts with 'very silly, Pirate Logic' (sic) makes me less inclined to listen to your arguments.
Now you are more than welcome to include this reply in your 'very silly, Pirate Logic' (sic) category, but that won't help you one bit.
So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality, or go the emotional route, or quote parts of one document or another out of context or go completely and wildly off topic.
Whereas Techdirt, and a lot of Techdirt visitors has offered you proof by ways of links to relevant articles, objective studies and other such goodness.
I'm sure that copyright has helped you as an artist in the past, and I'm not advocating a complete removal of copyright, but the terms need changing. Instead of life+70 years of the copyright holder (which isn't necessarily the creator anymore, and when exactly does a company die?), what about 15 years of copyrights for the creator. 15 Years should be plenty for artists to gain profits from their works. That's 15 years of control over their works.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,
'So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,'
ans: examples please ?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,
That's what a pirate would fucking say! Silly pirate with your silly pirate logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,
'Go mets!'? That's an example of you going wildly off topic, after you've been caught with your pants down, after someone explained to you that copyright isn't about total control.
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100527/0347199599#c855
The failed 'turn it into an emotion' argument: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100527/0347199599#c202.
The 'oh, but copyright is a moral right' argument.
No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
I wish I could pursue the copyrights over my works, and get paid for work I do now until 70 years after I've died. God, I'd be rich while sleeping.
A content creator shouldn't worry too much about copyrights, but rather spend his or her time creating content. Copyrights are good, if they help the market in a healthy way. Right now it's a hindrance to progress in creativity (can't remix the Beatles with Jay-Z unless you have written permission in threefold by God himself). (Grey album, DJ Dangermouse)
Oh no, you can't use that typeface, because we own copyright over it. (Harrods v. Hollands)
'No, you can't make a sequel over a book I wrote tens of years ago, even though I've often stated I have no intention of creating a sequel.' (see J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye).
The entitlement culture within the copyright holders is just astounding. And not just copyright holders, but patent holders as well. And any other artificially induced, government granted 'rights'.
Current behaviour of these pirates, is caused by these copyright holders getting into the game extremely late. (13 years after Napster we finally have a service that mimics almost the same feeling that Napster gave users in the beginning (Spotify), but still it's very limiting.
By imposing those limits, you actually invite pirates to get into that middle ground, and offer a superiour product for less money.
Sure, you as an artist may not like it if you don't get paid for works that other people have downloaded... but how about viewing it as a stepping stone for people to get into your works. Get on the boards where they share files and instead of tattling on them, converse with them, and give people incentives to actually go out and buy your wares. Give people are Reason to Buy, and Connect with your Fans. Use filesharing as word of mouth. 'You've sampled my first album, if you like it, why not buy the second album, here's a link for 10% off at Amazon [insert affiliatelink here].'
Don't treat potential buyers as common criminals. As firstly copyright is a civil matter, and secondly, buy suing someone into bankruptcy, you won't ever get them to buy your stuff again.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,
'I wish I could pursue the copyrights over my works, and get paid for work I do now until 70 years after I've died. God, I'd be rich while sleeping.
There seems to be this common misconception about royalty payments. yeah, a tiny fraction manage to get rich off of them. But for the other 99% of us, it is a very difficult existence (regardless of piracy). I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, take your normal pay for a day, and break it up into 30 payments. Now distribute those payments across an entire year... or ten. You might notice that you don't get rich very quickly. Particularly when you don't receive the health benefits or vacation pay or maternity/paternity leave any number of things that make life easier for most employees.
Now, if you want to pay 50 grand for a novel that takes a year to write as opposed to 5 dollars...
'The entitlement culture within the copyright holders is just astounding.
I'd say you have it backwards. No one is limited from creating wholly original works, just as the copyright holders did in the first place. In most cases, legal rights are acquirable (and I have done just that on multiple occasions). Does it take time? Yes. Does it take money? Yes. But only in rare occasions are the doors completely closed. So who is entitled here? The ones who say: 'Yeah, you can use my art... for a fee'. Or the ones who cry foul because they don't get to gain off the labors of another for free?
As I've stated elsewhere, I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a moral issue. But then, I don't believe anything is a 'godgiven right'. All moral guidelines are subject to the interpretations and needs of society. And the reality is that society is incredibly split on this topic. So... you can say it's not about morality for you. But you can't say that this issue is definitively not about morality as a whole.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
But for the other 99% of us, it is a very difficult existence (regardless of piracy)
'But for the other 99% of us, it is a very difficult existence (regardless of piracy)'
Exactly .
* Poor Musicians make zilch royalties.
* Middle class ones , who may have penned a few or more hits , they send the kids to school and pay their bills with Royalties $$$,
* The Beatles got a small country of their own,( GDP -wise),
and the last thing they need is more royalties,
but they take on principle.. It is their money all legal,
Paulie, Ringo & co, got to pay for offices , staff, and lawyers-- to control their art
BY enforcing copyright infringement,
when an where they choose..
(The Beatles also still CONTROL the music . the RECORDINGS.)
------
Copyrights protect those Middle class musicians , artist and writers , and poets ,
who just get by and a pay their bills and live ,
with the $$$ from legal royalties from their works.
The current copyright system is the only way the Middile class songwriter or other artist gets paid.
Where would they be w/o Copyright ?
Don't you Pirate guys see that point ???
Everybody else in Congress and the Courts , and vast majority of Law proff do . That is a FACT. Do you dispute this?
If you do not understand why you are a Pirate / criminal , and that if you fail to curb your illegals ,
, well then , fighting the law ,
and trials in courts ,
and maybe maybe Jails
will be your lifestyle.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So far, every time we debunk your 'facts' you drum up other 'facts' that aren't based in reality,
'All moral guidelines are subject to the interpretations and needs of society. And the reality is that society is incredibly split on this topic. So... you can say it's not about morality for you. But you can't say that this issue is definitively not about morality as a whole.'
Well written . well said .. thanks[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
'No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral god
given right.'
Ans: thank got you hard work going through my posts. Good to see some one who is awake.
You raise good stuff, that we may go back to,
But I want to deal with this point in personal principle:
Copyright is a law,
AND a moral and/or Natural right.
This point is the gulf between us.
If you do not extent copyright
and patent as outlined in
the USA Constitution ,
to a moral at least and /or a
Natural Right at best --
We never really can agree on Copyright.
to me that is the point of a debate --
to find that root issue,
that each side is coming from on.
Pirates see no moral wrong in their actions.
(Correct?)
Mankind, Society , and Nations ,
are ( very nearly) unanimous in LAW ,
that Piracy should be AND IS illegal.
There is deep philosophical debate between the views
of , John Locke, Jefferson & Madison Inc.
, Ayn Rand ,
Mike ,
and me ,
as to whether
'Copyright & Patent protections'
is an 'extension
of Natural Law,'
-----
Now if you do not even accept natural law, well fine.
But THEN WHY , oh why,
is Piracy illegal all over the world?
My Ans : Because Piracy , of all forms , are considered
IMMORAL by the majority of Humanity.
So I ask you now :
Why do you think Piracy IS illegal all over the world? the root reasons . their Purpose? Do you really see it as oppression?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it bloody well isn't. Copyright is a law, not a moral godgiven right.
Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral. That doesn't mean that I don't download stuff (mind you, downloading even from illegal source is, for the moment, legal in The Netherlands, where I live, which also doesn't follow the USA Constitution.)
Illegal is not the same as immoral though. A law does not state whether something is moral or not. Morals are set by society and not by a judge or a lawmaker.
Is it immoral to want to have access to our culture?
What I'm opposed to is the one sided view that people are taking with regards to copyright. Instead of having it enrich public domain, industry people want to lock it up forever minus a day (And these people seem to be the only ones that are heard by politicians, privacy and other concerns from the public be damned).
The reason we can still enjoy Beethoven and Bach is because their works are in the public domain. If there was some sort of copyright on them, rest assured we'll be hearing about lawsuits of the heirs suing orchestras for use of their great-grandfather's works.
I, like many commenters here on this blog, would love to see artists compensated for their works (and I often put MY money where MY mouth is), but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties.
Now who's fault is that? The pirate who is a potential fan/paying customer? The labels? The artists themselves? I'd venture the labels and the artists themselves. You can drive for a better contract. You can nowadays even cut the middle man out. Get yourself a website, use Youtube to promote any video clips that you may have, or just have your music set to promotional photos, use Amazon's affiliate links to your wares, even if people don't buy your album for whatever reason, if they use your link to access Amazon, any purchase they make during that session gets credited to you, and you get extra kickback. If you're an author look into podiobooks.com or services like that to sell your book as an audiobook first and then as a paper copy (I have about 5-6 books, bought in the past 2 years in my bookcase from authors that are relatively unknown (Philippa Ballantine, Tee Morris, Scott Sigler) that I have bought after listening to their stories first, that they gave away for free on that site. And I paid the full coverprice for them too.)
Instead of pursuing so-called pirates (whose negative effect on your bottom line is yet to be proven, and remains to be seen), by suing people or something like that, will NEVER EVER work. Instead of gaining goodwill, you are losing a battle.
Work with the tools that are available. If you're an singer or a movie maker use the Pirate Bay to distribute an album or a film and have links to Amazon, CDbaby, Itunes and sites like that, so that people can buy you stuff.
Make it easy for people to give you money. Don't lock stuff up behind DRM, trust your customers. By treating them like criminals, you are in essence making more enemies than friends.
There have been numerous examples right here on this blog about artists who have embraced filesharing and are now profiting from it.
Sure, there will always be people who will want stuff for free. They would never have bought your album anyway, and you can safely ignore them. Instead focus on adding value for your paying customers. Reward good behaviour and focus on that, rather than try to punish negative behaviour.
Just, for the love of everything that's dear to us, don't equate piracy with lost sales. That's never proven on a 1:1 scale. Like I recently said, I downloaded a film that I know will never appear on Dutch tv anyway (took 3 or 4 years for Dutch tv to even notice The Hogfather), and will take at least a year to end up in our shops as DVD boxset (and only then as a single dvd with only the movie and not with the extras). Bought the dvdset (2 dvd special edition) through Sky1's affiliate link right after I watched it. And I bought its prequel as well (again 2 dvd special edition).
1 download:2 purchases
I put my money where my mouth is.
Make it easy for people to buy your stuff, and they will gladly give you their hard-earned money.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties. Now who's fault is that?
You have mis-read this fundamental point.
Art is a tough biz.
Most Artist , are poor. Most musicians are poor.
gigs in bars don't pay well.
You got to write or perform a hit song to make $$.
you got 4 million (or so ) guitar players .. they cannot all be famous.
that is what i mean by , artists rarely get rich by royalties.
'Now who's fault is that? ' no ones fault. Just a fact of life.
not everyone is Derek Jeter. not everyone is a Beatle.
Copyright laws protect this middle class songwriters and musicians.
the folks who are talented enough to be pro, but just not lucky enough to really strike it big.
COPY RIGHT PROTECT their livelihood most of all.
Is it really that hard to understand all this ?
It is basic common sense.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but as you yourself just said, artists rarely get rich by royalties. Now who's fault is that?
I am not advocating a complete removal of copyright.
But I really think that current copyright laws, and especially the term of the copyright has become insane. It's no longer about promoting the creation of creative works.
Firstly, it's not good for the artist, as the law talks about copyright holder instead of content creator, meaning, you can resell your copyright to a third party.
Secondly, the term life+70 years is just ridiculous. 15-20 years from the moment the work is created, the content creator (or his/her heirs) will have monopoly over the work, and gets to say what gets done with it (with provisions to protect fair use).
This is basically the same copyright you have today, it just doesn't last as long. Making sure that you as a content creator will get incentivized to create new works. (I have to work every day 8 hours a day to earn my pay check, so artists shouldn't be surprised to work for their money as well. And no-one is entitled to fame and fortune just because they decided to become artists.)
Look piracy as it stands now, yes it's illegal, but you can't prove that it hurts your bottom line.
Maybe they didn't buy your album, but they went to your concert or bought loooooooooooooooots of t-shirts. Or raved about you to their friends who went out and bought your albums.
That too is basic common sense.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Look piracy as it stands now, yes it's illegal, but you can't prove that it hurts your bottom line.
'Look piracy as it stands now, yes it's illegal, but you can't prove that it hurts your bottom line. '
ANS: Prove. No,
BUT $$$$$ is not the point.
It is asserting control over --unfair or poor faith-ed , or w/o permission -- use !!
This a principle well embedded in ART and Culture.
Artist Control.
An Artist controls any use -- beside legally defined fair use --
of their ART.
I fight pirates on that principle mainly.
But , clearly if there is $$ to be recovered , i want that too.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral.
Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law,+++ not so sure about immoral. ++++
Well get sure !!!
Because the laws are universally accepted , by all gov'ts and legislative bodies.
Just as Murder and Theft is illegal everywhere there is law and not anarchy,
So too Piracy is illegal everywhere , AND always will be.
Disscusion after that;;; to say copyright infringment is just , or cool.. or taking what should be free anyway , OR just plain 'ok by me , who really cares about this sh$t ' , OR 'it is fine for kids to do at home'----
all those arguments , that would fail any 'serious academic test' , from kindergarten thru a post-PhD seminar ----
is Pirate Logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral.
Or Stifles your Biz model --
Mike !!
that too is Pirate Logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I agree that piracy is illegal by law, not so sure about immoral.
Universally accepted??? Except that almost every country in the world have different opinions on copyright (there are countries that don't even have a copyright law)
For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter.
And as you clearly don't listen or don't want to listen or just intend to trolling here, so this will be my last post to you.
Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.
I challenge you to back that statement up.
Ayn Rand , Thomas Jefferson , James Madison, John Locke , and more , ALL disagree you that: 'Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.'
I will wait for your response.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.
Ayn Rand? Ha![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
OMFG
Anon Cow is right! Why, file sharing is not only like dealing crack, it's even worse than that! It's gay marriage and child porn, too! Disgusting!
It's a damn good thing that the big media conglomerates didn't just do something intelligent, like develop new business models and methods of distribution that didn't punish people who are actually willing to pay for things that sate their wants and needs.
No sir, innovation is akin to snorting the Devil's dandruff, it is.
...meanwhile, at the Big Movies Inc., board meeting...
'Hang those fucking pirates from the yardarm! Walk the plank, and prepare to meet Davey in his eternally damned locker! Let's keelhaul ev'ry one o' them!' yells the CEO.
'No, wait, let's just make products that people want to pay for and not piss them off in the process!' counters the savvy junior executive.
Laughter fills the room, and WHOOOSH - THUD! the junior exec's head rolls across the boardroom table. The CEO sheaths his sword, and sneers 'Any more o' you landlubbers want to cross blades with ME?'
Silence.
'That's what I thought.'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coward
I totally see your point! It is true a kid sitting in his moms basement downloading a torrent of oh lets say Batman. Is just like a crack house next to your house, with gun play and sirens and the cops busting down your door at 5am because they got the wrong house.
I see it to be true, your so right!
All this torrent downloading has turned Hollywoodland into a deserted wasteland of broken companies and no movie ticket sales at all.
Oh the humanity![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
um, yes. r-really? we can have that?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it is not 'Doing nothing' but rather taking the millions of dollars used to sue Torrents sites, and reinvest it into A better Business Model.
The Best thing about Torrent sites is that it makes your file(movie/song/book) more portable, it put's it into a file that you can take and use on more than just your dvd player, your computer, your ipod. Yes some people 'steal movies'. That is not right, there is no if,and,or buts about it. But what about those that just want the digital format and we don't want to have to pay the third or fourth time for the same freaking movie we have owned in 3 different formats.
It is Legal to have a software backup of anything you have purchased a hard copy of.
They are just now getting that we don't want to pay for the same movie 10 times.
Example, you Watched Top Gun in the Theatres, when it came out. You liked it so much you took a date, and saw it a second time in the Theatres, then you Bought it on VHS, then that goes the way of the Dinosaur so you bought it on DVD thinking, Hey it can't get much better than This Now it is out on Blu Ray and you are thinking F@#$ now I have to buy another $300 piece of equipement to watch a movie in 'Hi-def' because it is my favorite movie, and I want the best experience possible, so you buy it again on Blu Ray, and now you want it on your Ipod, so you buy it in Digital Format. Crap, $8 per movie ticket (24) + $15 for the VHS when it came out + $20 for the DVD because you wanted a format that wouldn't deteriorate over time + $30 for the Blu Ray because you wanted that Movie theatre HiDef Feeling again + $10 for the Digital format because you wanted it on your Computer/Ipod/Phone , you have spent $99, just on one movie.
They are just now starting to get that fact that in today's economy this might be a little too much, and you know what, as soon as it is out of movie Theatre's we have to wait another 6 months to a year to get the damn thing on DVD or whatever other forsaken format they want to throw at me.
They are just now, just this years starting to understand that. Have you noticed that Alice in Wonderland and Avatar was put out for Release, right after it was done with Theatre Business. They capitalized on the Demand right away. And to top it off they are doing it Right, They are Releasing an 'All you can eat version' 1 package/1price/3 Formats- Bluray/DVD/Digital total price less than $30.
Holy Sh!t someone finally got the picture.
If they had figured this out 4 years ago or even sooner 6-7 years ago, They would not be facing the monster that pirating has become. They are just pissed that we were fed up of paying $50-$100 just to experience one damn movie.
I want an experience every time I watch a movie,
I want to be able to view it any way I want, DVD in the Bedroom, Blu Ray in the Living room, Digital on the computer/ipod/phone, and I would like to do it without breaking my bank, so I can actually own a movie Collection. And then be able to have money left over to spend on other business' that need my money to keep this Economy Afloat.
That is what is meant by If the MPAA did something different than Attack. It was not as useful to solving the problem as it would be to actually just solving the problem, before society was pushed to finding a solution that the MPAA did not like.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what happens to a neighborhood when they tolerate crack dealers? snitches get stitches and all that crap leads to things doing downhill. is that what you really want?
Seems to me like we have been tolerating the monopolist copyright advocates, from the stationers company down to the MPAA/RIAA for far too long - and yes you are right - things have gone downhill as a result.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: look at it in reverse. what if they did nothing about piracy?
well put .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: look at it in reverse. what if they did nothing about piracy?
No, it isn't.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bad analogy. If drugs where licensded and regulated properly, then first off, crack most likely wouldn't exist today, secondaly, if it had been created then we wouldn't have a load of crack dealers in neighboor hoods caushing trouble, getting people hooked etc, just a couple of licensed vendors who would only sell to you if you had the correct license.
If logic, common sense and thought are put into something, the 'problems' wouldn't exist to begin with.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'If drugs where licensed and regulated properly, then first off, crack most likely wouldn't exist today,'
very true , in my humble opinion.
-----------
'If logic, common sense and thought are put into something, the 'problems' wouldn't exist to begin with.'
please explain re: Piracy[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- you're late mate. Yesterday was pirate independence day. Limping in to the barn with a story now is beneath you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the real cost
The real cost to the RIAA/MPAA is that they could have invested money into developing alternative sources of revenue that worked with what people want -- easy access to cheap/free media.
Had those industries changed their business strategy years ago instead of investing heavily into lawyers they wouldn't be in this mess right now.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- They're breaking the law... But since they can't be stopped no one should do anything.
Is that the argument being advanced here?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
how about if so many people are breaking a law, the problem is with the law, and not with the people?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And remember, laws are more important than people![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are people on both sides of this law.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And some of those people are more connected to those who make the laws. How convenient![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And copyright law can protect individual artists from having their work exploited by those you mention.
Yes. Very convenient.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, so much so, that copyright now lasts for generations. Awesome. So much progress.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately that's not the purpose of copyright law at all.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but no. Copyright absolutely serves this purpose.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why it lasts so long! And it will only get longer! How amazing is that for our shared artistic culture. Thank goodness.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Individual artists usually have to sign over their copyrights, in order to even work with 'those you mention.'
That's assuming you're not a 'work for hire' artist (like everyone who works on a film), in which case you hold no copyrights whatsoever.
So, no. Copyrights do not 'protect individual artists from having their work exploited.' Because that's not what copyright is for.
Maybe it should be, but it's not.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Individual artists usually have to sign over their copyrights, in order to even work with 'those you mention.'
Since when does someone need to sign over rights to have someone else infringe on their rights? I'm speaking from experience here, as an artist who had their work appropriated by a corporate entity without permission. And I'm not alone, I know of several people just in my field with similar experiences. Fact is, it happens all the time. And without copyright, there would be no recourse.
So, no. Copyrights do not 'protect individual artists from having their work exploited.' Because that's not what copyright is for.
Maybe it should be, but it's not.
No. This is exactly what copyright can do and it is exactly the sort of thing copyright is for. Copyright serves as legal protection against those who would exploit your artistic endeavors - this applies to both pirates and corporate exploiters. There's this popular notion on the internet that copyright is just a corporations method for attacking innocent downloaders. But that's just an oversimplified myth that ignores the value of copyright.
You might as well be trying to argue that water is not wet.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But one of those sides gets all the news and the perception that comes with that news. I'm an artist too and I hate copyright and would like to see it abolished.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when does someone need to sign over rights to have someone else infringe on their rights?
Apologies, I'm a musician, so I'm coming from a musicians' perspective. You have to do that to be signed to a major label, and if you're not on one, then good luck trying not to be exploited.
But you're right, other industries work differently. I know that book publishers (for instance) usually do licensing deals instead of having you sign over your exclusive rights. And if you are self-published, then you would still hold your copyright.
Copyright serves as legal protection against those who would exploit your artistic endeavors
That's what it can do, but that's not why it exists. It exists to grow the public domain. Its method is by granting a temporary monopoly on commercial exploitation. Sure, it will act as legal protection - for the copyright holders, which are not always the artists themselves.
If you still hold the copyright to your material, good for you. I would certainly advocate going after commercial infringement. I would not advocate going after non-commercial peer-to-peer infringement.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, you have rapidly become one of my favorite people to discuss and debate with here. I mean that sincerely.
I don't personally go after those that infringe. In fact, back in 2005 I made a point of finding the person primarily responsible for uploading alot my work and contacted him with a request (and he was very surprised that I was able to identify him). I wanted him to include an ad with the pirated work that would direct people to a donation page. I worked hard to legitimize a major pirate outlet (by trying to give it a status of free distributor) of my personal branch of the arts. Myself and the guy who ran the site made a good amount of headway, before other parties unfortunately shut him down.
In short, I agree with the article we're all responding to. In general principal anyway. Not as a universal rule. I do believe in copyright and I do believe that circumventing the will of the copyright holder is 100% wrong. But you can't just bang your head against a wall hoping it will go away.
That said, I won't lie. It pisses me off to no end to see my work appropriated. Particularly when it is posted on sites like TPB. TPB makes alot of money through advertising. Their ads generate revenue because of traffic and that traffic is generated by work like mine. That is not right. It should be stopped. These people are not heroes. They are exploiters of the worst kind. Worse that the RIAA or the MPAA. Yes, the people who use TPB are not synonymous with TPB itself. But they do lend it support, both passively through use and directly through words.
Meanwhile, the same people will bitch about the pennies on the dollar a musician might make, as if that justifies taking something for nothing. It turns out pennies are alot more than nothing.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their ads generate revenue because of traffic and that traffic is generated by work like mine.
This is a half-truth, too. TPB doesn't generate ad revenue because of work like yours, it generates ad revenue because it is a one stop shop for entertainment.
For example: Looking at it the same say you do, Google is a giant today because of web pages like mine, thus, Google owes me money? No, Google is a giant because they are my go to way to find just about anything I want to find on the internet.
That is not right.
TPB is so big solely because of economics-- and 'not right' has no bearing in economics anymore than, say, physics. There was a demand, and torrent sites filled it because the rights holders did not see it, or ignored it, or refused to address it. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. I understand that it sucks when your livelihood is based on the old way, but no one cried for the men who sold ice when the the freezer was brought to every home, did they? Would you cry for all the men and women whose livelihood depend on war if tomorrow we had peace? Progress doen't care who it hurts any more than gravity does. Stop complaining and adapt, compete or find a new job. (I don't mean to sound overly harsh.)
It turns out pennies are alot more than nothing.
But, are a handful of pennies worth more than thousands of eyes/ears? Do you take into account the people who download and then delete because they didn't like your art? What about the people who don't like your art, but share with those who do? The first step to adapting to this new environment is to realize that piracy has positives, and they *may* outweigh the negatives.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'This is a half-truth, too.'
Semantics. The site generates ad revenue because it is a one stop shop for entertainment. And the entertainment is art produced by people like me.
If Google was say... circumventing your subscription for a locked member-only website than you *might* have an analogy worth discussing. But that's not what Google does. Google points to everything and anything freely available on the web. TPB is a place to find torrents specifically with an emphasis on pirated material implied directly in their name. The two are not synonymous.
'It has nothing to do with right or wrong.'
If you think circumventing the price for another persons labor while still enjoying fruits of said labor is not wrong, than there's little for us to discuss. And if you read the my full post, you will see that I have had no problem adapting. That doesn't make what TPB does acceptable. If you want to make your work available for free, you can do so. If I want to charge, I should be able to do so. Even if it means running myself out of buisness. My work. My time. My art. My right to see my efforts distributed how and when I choose. No one should be allowed to take that away from me.
Taking that choice form me is wrong no matter who or what you are. You can feel free to disagree. But you will never convince me that you (or anyone else) should have a say over my efforts that trump my own opinions. Individual rights are important in this equation. And the rights must begin with the originator of the material in question.
'But, are a handful of pennies worth more than thousands of eyes/ears?'
Yes. I can't feed my family with eyes and ears. And my personal experience and that of many of my peers has shown that exposure does not necessarily equate to profit, regardless of how popular or well managed a given bit of media is.
Furthermore, I don't need TPB or anyone else to gain me eyes and ears. I can utilize the internet myself under my terms as I see fit with my work. If TPB wanted to work with me to distribute my work (as some torrent sites have proven willing to do) we wouldn't be having this discussion.
'The first step to adapting to this new environment is to realize that piracy has positives, and they *may* outweigh the negatives.'
Please read the entirety of my post that you are responding to. Also: My personal income isn't really the question here. I'm self sufficient in my field. Though mainly because I do not rely on money from individual consumers for my income. I'm not taking issue with TPB out of some perceived personal loss. What they do stands as offensive to me as any other form of exploitation. As noted previously, I have worked with other torrent sites in a positive way. Those sites weren't using other people work to line their own pockets. That's the key difference.
TPB making a of profit off of others without any form of compensation is not acceptable. It would be unacceptable to me if Time-Warner appropriated my work and used it to line their own pockets and it is unacceptable when a torrent site does it. I don't see why people are so willing to give a commercial pirate site a free pass where they would be ready to hang a corporate entity for doing the same thing.
Well... actually I do know why. It's because one of the two offers stuff people want without charge.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, you have rapidly become one of my favorite people to discuss and debate with here. I mean that sincerely.
Thanks! I like me too. :)
And you're certainly a better debater than, well, some other folks here.
I don't personally go after those that infringe.
I think that's commendable. Whatever our differences, I think at least that you've got the right idea.
I do believe in copyright and I do believe that circumventing the will of the copyright holder is 100% wrong.
The issue is that 'the will of the copyright holder' is not precisely what copyright protects. You can't circumvent fair use, for instance, no matter what your 'will.' Copyright only protects your exclusive right to publish for profit. But I'm sure you know this already.
TPB makes alot of money through advertising. Their ads generate revenue because of traffic and that traffic is generated by work like mine.
I'm pretty sure TPB does not make 'alot' of money. The stories of their huge incomes ('Pirate bay makes a million per month!') only mean that it their ad revenues generate 'a million per month.' They don't take into account the fact that 50% of that ad revenue goes to 'banner brokers,' and they don't count operational expenses, which are probably fairly high. Banner ads have never generated much more than operating expenses, for any website, and I don't see how TPB could be any different.
You should also consider that everything there is user-generated. They don't host any files, they don't seed any torrents, and AFAIK they don't keep logs of torrents. Sure, there's a lot of piracy going on, and they don't really care, but they don't actually do the pirating themselves.
These people are not heroes. They are exploiters of the worst kind. Worse that the RIAA or the MPAA.
Speaking as a musician (not necessarily a good one), I can say without a doubt that TPB's existence exploits musicians far, far less than the labels that the RIAA represents. Speaking as a public citizen, I can say that TPB is far less harmful to a free society than either the RIAA or the MPAA.
The main difference is that TPB doesn't take away my rights. The others do. That they do it in the name of me and my friends, is angering in the extreme. Given a choice between The Pirate Bay and the RIAA, I'll take The Pirate Bay any time.
You may get angry that your income is (in theory) lessened because of the actions of file sharing. I, on the other hand, get angry because the victims of piracy lawsuits will have all of their income taken away, for doing nothing worse than making a mix tape or sneaking into a theater. And it still won't make you, or anyone other content creator, any richer.
...But hey, that's just me.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That last post was me, Karl. For some reason, the browser signed me out.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
@Invisible Karl:
Oh yeah... Fair Use is totally fine by me. I also think that it's easy to forget in these circumstances that creative violations (derivative works as opposed to unlawful copying) are incredibly difficult to prove. I'm also in favor of copyright reform. In that the endless extensions are absurd. More particularly, I do not believe that alterations to copyright terms should ever be applied retroactively. So far we have only seen this when copyright is extended (which I oppose). But if we do see a point and time where terms are shortened, it should only apply to works going forward.
In other words, if I spend 5 years of my life on a project that I expect to be protected under specific clauses, those clauses should not be changed after the fact. Not in either direction.
I'm not specifically angry that my income is lessened. I'm more angry when I see someone else profit from my labors without right. And yeah, I know the numbers reported of 'millions' for the Pirate Bay were false. But more accurate estimates of tens of thousands a month have been reported. Yes, some (maybe even alot) of that rolls back into operational costs. But that's true of any buisness. Point remains, TPB is a commercial enterprise and they are exploiting copyright holders for gain.
You also touched on part of my reasoning behind why I feel downloading (as opposed to uploading) should not be considered copyright infringement. Infringement carries much higher penalties and frankly, doesn't really seem to apply to downloaders. And no... I'm not attaching any moral value to the term 'theft'. I just think we need to distinguish between those who disseminate the work of others (particularly for profit) and those who simply circumvent cost for personal use.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In general, I agree with everything you've said... except for this:
Point remains, TPB is a commercial enterprise and they are exploiting copyright holders for gain.
They are not exploiting specific copyrightright holders. They are providing a space (though it is 'lawless') for users to do what they like. This is very different than, for instance, saying 'join up now, and you'll be able to download all the Harry Potter movies.'
Their appeal is not in being able to infringe on content, it's that it's 'free' (as in 'freedom'). It has little to do with exploiting creators, and everything to do with users doing what they want.
This is why they've stayed in business. If they were just some commercial enterprise, they would've folded a long time ago, for lack of money. But they are not. Whether you agree or disagree with them, they are in it because they believe what they are doing is good for humanity. You may not believe that, but you have as much chance at changing their minds as I do about changing Technopolitical's.
And I'm not sure I disagree. Piracy could disappear tomorrow, and the Pirate Bay would still be around, and make a profit. If most people didn't think infringement was OK, they wouldn't seed infringing torrents. That's the real issue here.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, the best I can do here is suggest that neither of us can know with 100% accuracy the motives of TPB. My opinion is that they are using their 'cause' as a shield to make money. Including who knows how much in donations because they generate because they purport to be part of said cause. I think it's just a matter of greed and nothing else. But that is opinion that I would never claim as fact.
As for users doing what they want versus exploitation: I see little difference between the two, though I do not consider it a form of intentional exploitation. I get that people want to do what they want and feel constricted when told they can't or shouldn't. But that sort of freedom is only acceptable if it does not infringe on the rights of others. As a default, I feel that the choice on how to distribute must be in the hands of the people who spend their time and money creating the art in the first place. Piracy circumvents this. I accept where we are in our culture. But that doesn't mean where we are is right.
There have been many times in history where people have done what they thought was right. *Sometimes*, hindsight informs us that the certainly of the past is uncertainty in the present.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blurg. This is exhausting. Can we go back to debating about Breyer? That was comparatively easy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Blurg. This is exhausting.
Fighting for truth and justice and morals
against Pirates
Is never Easy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'I just think we need to distinguish between those who disseminate the work of others (particularly for profit) and those who simply circumvent cost for personal use.'
Memyself:
'You also touched on part of my reasoning behind why I feel downloading (???as opposed to uploading)??? should not be considered copyright infringement
. Infringement carries much higher penalties and frankly, doesn't really seem to apply to downloaders. ' ???
'And no... I'm not attaching any moral value to the term 'theft'.
( why not ?)
I just think we need to distinguish between those who disseminate the work of others (particularly for profit) and those who simply circumvent cost for personal use.'
--- ------------- ---------
ME:
You write : 'And no... I'm not attaching any moral value to the term 'theft'.
May i ask why not ?
I know I agree with a lot of what you have written here in this thread , So I may i ask why you feel these ways ?
I am curious? And I think if we differ , we can have an honest respectful exchange.
Are your judgments personal ?
legal ?
practical ?
moral ?,
or Natural right-ed?
Like I said , i myself , put some of my songs up for folks to record ( my space ) ,
or even download for free or a very little cost at Amie Street.
But that is my CONTROL choice.
Do you think you would see things, then you express above here in this post, differently is your ART was music?
thanks for taking the time.
I know these threads , can be a bit exhausting
if you try to answer everybody's point[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
and those who simply circumvent cost for personal use.'
and those who simply +++circumvent cost+++ for personal use.'
I define that as stealing , so does USA law.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies, I'm a musician, so I'm coming from a musicians' perspective. You have to do that to be signed to a major label, and if you're not on one, then good luck trying not to be exploited.
'Apologies, I'm a musician, so I'm coming from a musicians' perspective. You have to do that to be signed to a major label, and if you're not on one, then good luck trying not to be exploited.'
I offer Apologies too , on behalf of all working intelligent middle class musicians and songwriters who live and pay their bills , and live life fairly , through the $$ from their CopyRight Royalties,
I offer Apologies for Karl , claiming to be an Artist.
Just because you can plug you axe into your amp , and maybe make a bar chord , or maybe play the riff from 'Smoke on the Water' ,,
does not mean your a musician !!!!!
I can teach a monkey to plug in his amp.
REAL Musicians , whether , Jazz , classical , folk , or Tibetan Throat Singing ( look it up )
Are hard working , somewhat obsessed with their ART,
and as Mingus says ( paraphrase) ,
'The ART is my children.'
----
No Pirate will every mess with my children Karl.
Please do not pretend or claim to be a musician.
You are just a Pirate Monkey with an amp.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:You might as well be trying to argue that water is not wet.
Right On !!
slay those Pirates!!
good posting there Memyself !
Thanks for coming in !![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not everyone falls into the categories of deals you mention. In fact, such arrangements are becoming less monolithic with all the online distribution models.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone falls into the categories of deals you mention. In fact, such arrangements are becoming less monolithic with all the online distribution models.
I know I am going to regret this : but please explain.
But only if you CONNOT accept CopyRight Law is a moral right , universally accepted as such , by all law , gov't , congressman , and Judges.
If you do not cede that ,
any response will simply be Pirate Logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
Then you must either be a Fascist or a Communist because Democracy is 'for the people by the people'. 'Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' you know. Copying technology should not ONLY be for the benefit of Artists, Publishers and Recording Companies. Before the advent of copying/recording technology, there were no Recording/Publishing Companies, and artists had to endlessly perform to make a living, and there was even a Scribe occupation.
Then there were all those unemployed Scribes with no Social Security, and Reproduction Companies thought they owned the technology. Now that Copying technology has become ubiquitous, NO RECORDING/PUBLISHING COMPANIES required any more, and artists will have to perform as a business model. Sorry still no jobs for the Scribes.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
For the record, America is a Republic with democratic overtones. A simple majority cannot even elect a President.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
I disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
Then you must either be a Fascist or a Communist
No actually I think that the communists have some idea of majority popular will - they just didn't use it in practice.
Also the Fascists believed that the majority supported them - otherwise why all the mass rallies?
He is actually supporting the form of government known as oligarchy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
He is actually supporting the form of government known as oligarchy.
Not even close. I support copyright because copyright protects the copyright holder. Many copyright holders are independent artists who would see their labors taken advantage of by those with wealth and power if there were no laws in place to offer protection. I support the right for a buisness or individual to hold property, both real or intangible, and use said property for the advancement of their buisness.
No one should be allowed to dictate what becomes of the labors of another. Not a corporation. Not the government and not a pro-piracy website.
Nothing in my world view matches the definition of an oligarchy.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
Since you seem confused:
Fascism (dictatorship, despotism, imperialism or, to a certain degree, monarchy): A single person or persons hold complete control. They technically own the entire country. Every one of their decisions is absolute.
Communism: All property is shared. Everyone gets a share of the country's industrial/economic output. A small group of people oversee the country's operation, as if the country was some HUGE corporation. You usually appoint ministers to oversee specific points (like in a large corporation you would have a C.E.O, a C.T.O., etc...). This system is usually perverted to a point where it becomes a Dictatorship (like in all of the countries it was implemented). This is more due to Human greed than to the system itself (well, actually, I believe the system is just too easy to be abused).
Republic: You have a ruling body that rules over the country. The members of said ruling body are usually representatives elected in various points of the country. It is usually presided by a president (or consul) and his ministers. Republic is usually very tightly tied to democracy, since most decisions must be made by a majority and the member of the ruling body are elected by a democratic system.
Democracy: Not exactly a form of government. Democracy is more of a tool of government. Democracy is a system where the people vote for their leaders and their decisions. It is usually associated to (and confused with) a Republic. In a perfect democracy, EVERY decision the country makes would have to be voted by everyone. That, of course, is impractical, that's why it is usually associated to Republics. But do not be fooled. You could, if you tried very hard, have a Democratic Dictatorship, where the people would vote for a new ruler every few years and new laws or decisions must be voted (kinda like a Republic with only one element in the ruling body).[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
i do too. i think we should still have prohibition, slavery, segregation and women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
society may make progress, but the law should always remain woefully behind the times![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many of those issues were decided by majority will? In fact, in the case of slavery it was decidedly not a matter of majority will. Hence that whole 'Civil War' thing that transpired when the government pushed federal law over state law.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, in the case of slavery it was decidedly not a matter of majority will. Hence that whole 'Civil War' thing that transpired when the government pushed federal law over state law.
it's all good cleetus. the south's gonna rise again, once this whole 'piracy' thing is contained.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I'm the one supporting government action outside of a mandate. Which makes you the South in this equation.
Your inability to understand this fact clearly wins you the true Cleetus crown.
I await your slack-jawed response.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I await your slack-jawed response.
you're the one putting your agenda on a sarcastic comment, cleetus.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whatever you say, Cleetus.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
glad we agree.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ironic, that segregation was made illegal *not* by majority vote, but by court ruling. The will of the majority would have maintained segregation a lot longer.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
have no fear, ACTA will give you the opportunity to get your oppression on once again.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reversing course, I see. Guess you like majority will when you agree with it, and don't when you don't.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't that the american way?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree with the notion that all laws should be based on majority will.
That is a very interesting point.
It s also the core debate of Political Theory. PhDs, explore this topic and have explored this topic since people began to write. , and they will continue to explore it.
We will not solve it here.
But please remember ,
The U.S. Constitution's main principle is to PROTECT the Minority from Majority Tyranny.
We all learned that in 6th grade social studies.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quite a dangerous principle, that.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quite a dangerous principle, that.
How so?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Case in point: If so many investment banks were dealing in investments without informing their clients of conflicts of interest, then there must be something wrong with the laws requiring such notification, right?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Case in point: If so many investment banks were dealing in investments without informing their clients of conflicts of interest, then there must be something wrong with the laws requiring such notification, right?
Yes right actually. Nothing wrong with the aims of the law - but clearly the details of implementation are lacking - otherwise such mass disobedience would not be possible. In the banking case you mention I would guess that the law could be framed better to increase compliance. However in other cases it may not be possible to fix the law technically and then one has to be more radical.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to make sure we're in agreement, I take your comment to mean that just because a lot of people break the law, doesn't necessarily mean the law is bad, but may suggest enforcement mechanisms should be improved.
I see that as conflicting with the prior poster's implication that if so many people are infringing copyright, there must be nothing wrong with copyright infringement, but with copyright laws instead.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many banks are out there?
How many clients are there?
Which number is greater? Exactly.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point may be clear to you, but it's not to me.
Please explain.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok:
Here's the amount of points that I made that are clear to me.
Here's the amount of points that I made that are clear to you.
Which number is greater? Exactly.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, pretty much. Unless you think it was horribly wrong to repeal Prohibition. Or that the cops really need to crack down on all those people going 2mph over the speed limit.
Obviously the law is stupid. But pragmatically, it makes no sense for orgs like the MPAA to invest so much money in pissing people off whether its legal or not.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As you give example with the repeal of Prohibition... if the law is not working it should be addressed legally. Until then, it's illegal.
In this instance, there is obvious controversy on the validity of these laws. If not, there would be universal support and little contention found on these threads.
Even if the majority will is that the law is wrong, does not automatically mean the law not worth defending.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As you give example with the repeal of Prohibition... if the law is not working it should be addressed legally. Until then, it's illegal.
You do realize that the *reason* why Prohibition was eventually repealed was because of the massive law breaking around Prohibition, right?
To ignore that point is to ignore reality.
Even if the majority will is that the law is wrong, does not automatically mean the law not worth defending.
No one argued that this should be *majority* rule. But they are arguing that if so many people are willfully breaking the law repeatedly, it certainly suggests there's a problem there. You can then make the case that the majority of the people are wrong, but you need to support that case with a fair bit of evidence.
You haven't.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To ignore that point is to ignore reality.
I ignored nothing. But you're ignoring *context*. I was asked if it was wrong to repeal prohibition. Not if it was wrong to circumvent prohibition. Context matters.
No one argued that this should be *majority* rule.
Well that's obviously untrue. One poster literally stated that 'if so many people are breaking a law, the problem is with the law'.
But they are arguing that if so many people are willfully breaking the law repeatedly, it certainly suggests there's a problem there.
Hence my comments about the will of the majority and how said majority does not *automatically* mean the law is not worth defending. Do you see that bit about *automatically*? It's important.
You can then make the case that the majority of the people are wrong, but you need to support that case with a fair bit of evidence.
You haven't.
I have yet to see you offer compelling evidence that the law should be changed. You want to change the status quo? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the law should be changed.
You haven't.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I ignored nothing. But you're ignoring *context*. I was asked if it was wrong to repeal prohibition. Not if it was wrong to circumvent prohibition. Context matters.
So do you think it was wrong to circumvent Prohibition?
Well that's obviously untrue. One poster literally stated that 'if so many people are breaking a law, the problem is with the law'.
There are two separate issues that you're confusing. One case is if the majority wants the law changed... and the other is if the majority are already breaking the law.
I can agree that the first situation does not mean that the law should be changed.
But I have a hard time believing it in the second case. In a case where the law is so widely ignored... it seems like pretty good evidence that the law absolutely needs to change. And it's not because people *want* it to change, but because it's clear that the laws do not even come close to reflecting societal norms.
I have yet to see you offer compelling evidence that the law should be changed. You want to change the status quo? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the law should be changed.
Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways. There is further proof that copyright is neither the right, nor optimal, method for incentivizing creation.
And yet, you expect us to take on faith that because the law is already there, it should just stay?
Let's take a step back, and support copyright law with *some* factual basis for why it exists.
We'll wait.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't need to wait. I've already provided *some* justification for the existence for copyright law in this very thread. As an independent artist who has seen a portion of their work hijacked by corporations seeking to exploit said efforts without consent, existing copyright law irrefutably defended me and my work. If we abolish copyright law outright independent artists will lose an important degree of protection.
Additionally, I strongly believe an artist has a right to disseminate their work as they see fit. Subsequently, I have released much of my work for free. At one point, I even managed to track down one of the largest illegal distributors of said work and convince them to attach advertising for me and my website to the unauthorized downloads, and gave them a legal status to continue distribution.
But that was my choice. No one should have the right to take that choice away from me. Not a corporation and not the public.
'Then you haven't been paying much attention.'
It's always the same. If you disagree, you must not understand or have not been paying attention. I've heard your 'evidence' countless times. I don't agree that it is compelling evidence. Just because you DO doesn't mean it IS. We're talking about something that is fundamentally about opinions, and you're calling for 'fact'. Sorry. No. It doesn't work that way.
But I'll wait too. I'll wait for you to provide compelling *factual* evidence of why I must release control over the methods of distribution to the general public just because they will do as they want regardless of my concerns over my labors. By that broken logic, I should allow corporate exploitation of my creator owned efforts just because they also have the means to exploit me.
But they don't. They can't. Because I am protected by copyright law. And that is a good thing and neither you or corporate America should be allowed to take that away. neither you or corporate America should be allowed to determine what I must do with MY property.
But go ahead. Give me some evidence to the contrary. Give me evidence that proves *factually* that you should get to decide how my art is distributed.
I'll be waiting.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one here is suggesting to abolish copyright.
Mike and many others here in the comment threads are talking about a CHANGE in copyright.
Please not to be confusing the two.
Only those who are opposing Mike's view, like yourselves, are talking about abolishing.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No one here is suggesting to abolish copyright.
Actually 'abolish copyright' , is a infamous poster phrase here.
I see it all the time.
Mike holds that way too, he just won't say in exact words,
because his secret would be out , and he would loose , what little , very little respect , he has , on this issue.
( like i say , mike , sometimes you do ok ( electronic voting), but on piracy , you are so far outside of mainstream , you are in the arid desert.)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. And Mike has been quite clear that his version of 'change' involves piracy not being an illegal act. That means that artists would not have legal control over the distribution of their art. Which is exactly the point I was responding to above. Furthermore, he clearly just asked me to justify the continued existence of copyright law with some basis of factual benefit.
So no... I'm not confusing anything.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Mike has been quite clear that his version of 'change' involves piracy not being an illegal act.
Since you're so keen on how important words are, maybe you should be honest and say that most people are saying that non-commercial infringement should not be illegal. That means that a company can't just 'hijack' your 'art' and use it to make money, but I can share your 'art' with my friends.
So, yes, you are confused.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Pirate Bay is NOT non-commercial. Advertising revenue draws in an estimated $84,442.80 per month.
You say 'most people are saying that non-commercial infringement should not be illegal' while somehow specifying that commercial infringement should be illegal? Show me the quotes where 'most people' say this. I'm not saying that you're wrong in that some people believe this, but it has certainly not been clarified in that manner in any post I have responded to.
In fact, I can offer you quotes from multiple people in this thread who claim that copyright does not protect individual artists from corporate exploitation and that this is not a purpose or design of copyright.
So yeah... lets go ahead and be honest here. And by that, lets see some honesty from you. Because you're last post is purely disingenuous.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can offer you quotes from multiple people in this thread who claim that copyright does not protect individual artists from corporate exploitation and that this is not a purpose or design of copyright.
I'm right here, you know.
Obviously, copyright does not protect individual artists from corporate exploitation. Every musician on a major label is a victim of corporate exploitation by their labels Likewise, no artist has any right to their art if that art was produced as a 'work for hire.' Both situations are perfectly within the bounds of the law.
I don't know about 'design,' but it's true that 'protecting artists' is not the purpose of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to grow the public domain. It may protect artists from exploitation - but only so long as it serves that purpose.
You say 'most people are saying that non-commercial infringement should not be illegal' while somehow specifying that commercial infringement should be illegal?
I don't know about 'most people,' but I'm certainly saying that. So is congress - by specifying different penalties for commercial vs. non-commercial infringement. Remember, non-commercial infringement wasn't criminalized until 1997.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, copyright does not protect individual artists from corporate exploitation.
Again Pirate Logic statement .
It does. If the Artist does not have a good lawyer it is their fault. Not the Law's Fault.
Not the system's fault.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviously, copyright does not protect individual artists from corporate exploitation.
The system has been rigged since the beginning which wasn't that long ago. Art has been around for much, much, much longer.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So no... I'm not confusing anything.
Right you are , you got a good grasp.
we are not alone.
We are out numbered in commentators here @techdirt,
but in the courts and congress we are in sync with the mainstream
the Pirate defenders are the extremists,[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy in the new age
Look, Honestly, you aren't going to get everything in this world that you want. The public will disseminate information in the most efficient manner possible.
I am a writer myself. I accept that people will like my book and read it for free on a torrent site, limewire or whatever else is available to them. I am aware of cultural issues that act as natural barriers in other countries as well as pricing conflicts that may make my pirated version a better alternative.
It's similar to giving people a carrot and a lot less stick. You seem to be focused on fighting these people when, if your story about the downloader is to be believed, you can work with them and make more money.
The copyright is meant to protect you and your publishers for a limited time. It has since become very, VERY lucrative to hold a copyright for obscene amounts of time to little or no benefit to the public for no reason at all. If you believe that you're going to get every last dime out of people, I'll kindly ask you to review an economics course. It's just like the old saying about fooling people. You can't fool them all the time with prices that aren't suitable for them. For some it's free, for some, it may be $300. Regardless, I doubt highly that the dissemination of your information is going to bankrupt you because a few thousand people downloaded your work somewhere they weren't authorized to.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy in the new age
On many points we're in agreement. I don't personally have a problem with people distributing my work under certain conditions. I'm not fond of it, but I recognize it and use it as a tool. And I've already stated elsewhere (though this is a convoluted enough thread that I don't expect you to have seen it) that my concerns aren't really about my making money, but instead about other people making money off of my work without permission.
The site and the uploader I worked with were not participating for personal gain. There was no form of monetization transpiring. This is not true (from my perspective) with TPB.
I'm not sure why you think that stating or defending my beliefs is synonymous with fighting. No... I don't think that piracy is automatically morally correct and I do believe that distribution rights and general control of art belongs in the hands of those who invested their time, energy and resources in it's creation. But I'm also not going to initiate any lawsuits either.
The thing here, there are no 'good guys'. I could agree that those who initiate lawsuits are doings so at their own detriment. But those they are suing for unlawful distribution aren't exactly innocent.
There is an idea with file sharing that, because people can, they should be allowed to do so. I disagree.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
where is the evidence ? it is in dispute.
Moral principle is the best , and really only real reason to fight Pirates.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
You have no grasp of basic economics.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
Copyright infringement is not a moral issue.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
From your perspective.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
How is it moral?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
How is circumventing the price for another persons labor while still enjoying fruits of said labor not a moral issue?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
Art is free.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Art is free !?!? Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
that is Pirate Logic !!
Art is never free !
artists are crafts-people , like any other
honest worker.
Art is life.
the pinnacle of human emotional
achievement ,
art move society in ways $$ can't.
the answer is blowing in the wind.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Art is free !?!? Re: MIKE :' Then you haven't been paying much attention. There is tremendous amounts of proof that monopolies limit markets in bad ways.
Check out all this FREE ART!
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To ignore that point is to ignore reality.
I ignored nothing. But you're ignoring *context*. I was asked if it was wrong to repeal prohibition. Not if it was wrong to circumvent prohibition. Context matters.
No one argued that this should be *majority* rule.
Well that's obviously untrue. One poster literally stated that 'if so many people are breaking a law, the problem is with the law'.
But they are arguing that if so many people are willfully breaking the law repeatedly, it certainly suggests there's a problem there.
Hence my comments about the will of the majority and how said majority does not *automatically* mean the law is not worth defending. Do you see that bit about *automatically*? It's important.
You can then make the case that the majority of the people are wrong, but you need to support that case with a fair bit of evidence.
You haven't.
I have yet to see you offer compelling evidence that the law should be changed. You want to change the status quo? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the law should be changed.
You haven't.
(repeat post as I forgot to sign my handle previously)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'You haven't'
Ignoring various prior posts and studies posted on Techdirt, of course. Don't forget to ignore the links to the right on the front page under 'Popular Posts'.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pointing to the subjectivity of opinion. I have read (and commented) on many posts here. I simply don't consider the posts as compelling 'evidence' for changing the existing laws.
No matter how you try to spin it, *opinion* does not equate to 'evidence'.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Find me one piece of evidence that shows that the existing laws are necessary. Go ahead.
That's right, there isn't any. The best you can find is the crap that the industry spins out, which has been debunked time and time again for being sensationalized assumptions.
Throw out all the industry paid reports. Throw out all the poor studies and biased pieces written by the Piracy side.
Then you have professional studies that say filesharing hasn't hurt anything, industries are growing steadily, and lawsuits and tougher laws haven't changed anything.
There is literally NO evidence to suggest that existing, and upcoming, laws do anything that they're supposed to do.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Find me one piece of evidence that shows that the existing laws are necessary. Go ahead.
...
There is literally NO evidence to suggest that existing, and upcoming, laws do anything that they're supposed to do.'
So what? What's your point? If you think the laws are inappropriate, what are you doing about it to get them changed? Until they're changed, every file-sharer remains a valid target for legal action from the RIAA/MPAA, and rightly so.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'So what? What's your point? If you think the laws are inappropriate, what are you doing about it to get them changed? Until they're changed, every file-sharer remains a valid target for legal action from the RIAA/MPAA, and rightly so.'
I gonna pirate every last piece of media I can find, that is what I'm going to do to change things.
Catch me if you can and good luck on that you will need it.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That sounds a lot like 'nothing' to me.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly I don't need to change anything, I just need to keep doing what I have been doing and nothing changes, law or no law.
This is the whole point, is not me that needs changing.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'I gonna pirate every last piece of media I can find'
OH DEAR GOD NO!!!!
Shit. SHIT. He's... he's going to download... EVERYTHING!
Fucking everything!!!
Call the RIAA! Call the MPAA! Fuck! Somebody do something before he does the same thing a whole bunch of people are already doing and only succeeds in justifying opinions that people pirate because they want stuff for free rather than a belief that the legal system is flawed!
:/
You audacious rebel you. How bold and visionary you must appear inside you own imagination.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I gonna pirate every last piece of media I can find, that is what I'm going to do to change things. Catch me if you can and good luck on that you will need it.
you are not the point.
where your source the Pirated material from is the point
to the tune of 'kill the Rabbit '
...............'Kill the Pirates , Kill the Pirates '[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? What's your point? If you think the laws are inappropriate, what are you doing about it to get them changed? Until they're changed, every file-sharer remains a valid target for legal action from the RIAA/MPAA, and rightly so.
So you believe it's just to enforce unjust laws just because they're the laws? Interesting...[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me like the perfect example of Lawful Stupid[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So you believe it's just to enforce unjust laws just because they're the laws?
Anti- Piracy laws are JUST , right , Moral, and a darn good Idea !!!!!!!![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you believe it's just to enforce unjust laws just because they're the laws?
And completely unaffective. Exhibit A: Reality.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you believe it's just to enforce unjust laws just because they're the laws?
And completely unaffective. Exhibit A: Reality.
i'm not sure reality works as evidence, after all, reality is known to have a pretty strong pro-piracy bias.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And completely unaffective. Exhibit A: Reality.
'And completely unaffective. Exhibit A: Reality.'
ans : no it is very EFFECTive.
you just do not like the AFFECT.
copyright Laws work well,
Many middle class musicians , writer , poets , and painters,
eat and live because copyright is in the Law of the USA and the World.
you just scoff at the reality, so you can get something for nothing.
Pirate.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And completely unaffective. Exhibit A: Reality.
Actually I'm an artist. Keep up with the disparging comments though. Really does your side, the anti-reality side, a lot of good.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'So you believe it's just to enforce unjust laws just because they're the laws? Interesting...'
It is only your opinion that the laws are unjust. My opinion is that the laws are just so I have no problem with them being enforced. I do have a problem with a few of the over-the-top judgments awarded in a few example cases, but that's a separate issue that can and should be resolved independently.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't need to. You're the one who wants change. YOU prove that change is necessary.
Go ahead. I'll be waiting.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is you who wants me to not pirate not the other way around, is you complaining of loss when you can prove none.
I don't care, I will be doing what I always did and that is, ripping my DVD/CD, making copies, lending them to my friends, sisters cousins and my dog, will you stop me how?
More laws?
LoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL
Crap send me to prison I can't help myself because I don't even feel ashamed at doing those things, I have no guilt and if I have to do it again I will.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Crap send me to prison I can't help myself because I don't even feel ashamed at doing those things, I have no guilt and if I have to do it again I will.
Exactly. Laws are made to go after criminals who cannot understand why they are criminals.
Quit your Pirate Logic !!![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you are confusing things here.
People don't care they just copy and will continue to copy the ones wanting change are you guy's, frankly I think you guy's should try harder WTF! it takes 1 decade to pass one law at that pace it will take millennia to enact all your necessary laws and I won't be around to laugh.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:People don't care they just copy and will continue to copy
'++People don't care ++they just copy and will continue to copy'
the law cares . the majority of People care too. your are in a bad crowd , if the only people you know are Pirates.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I ignored nothing. But you're ignoring *context*. I was asked if it was wrong to repeal prohibition. Not if it was wrong to circumvent prohibition. Context matters.
You are ignoring the fact that morality and legality have nothing to do with each other, and the former is completely relative and arbitrary anyway. Do you think our current IP laws exist for any reason other than because special interests have their hands deep in politicians' pockets? Or do you have a serious problem with people like Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Jews in Nazi Germany, and anybody else that technically broke the law?
Well that's obviously untrue. One poster literally stated that 'if so many people are breaking a law, the problem is with the law'.
...
Hence my comments about the will of the majority and how said majority does not *automatically* mean the law is not worth defending. Do you see that bit about *automatically*? It's important.
He did not mean that the problem is with the law because the majority are against it per se, but that the circumstances infer it; I'm sure you knew this and ignored it, however.
I have yet to see you offer compelling evidence that the law should be changed. You want to change the status quo? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the law should be changed.
Special interests are attempting to encroach upon the freedom of the general public - I would say it is upon them to prove a need for it.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'You are ignoring the fact that morality and legality have nothing to do with each other, and the former is completely relative and arbitrary anyway. Do you think our current IP laws exist for any reason other than because special interests have their hands deep in politicians' pockets? Or do you have a serious problem with people like Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Jews in Nazi Germany, and anybody else that technically broke the law?'
I think our current IP law is flawed. But flawed does not equal broken. As an independent artist, I have seen copyright law protect my work from unauthorized corporate exploitation. I certainly saw no 'special interest' groups pf 'politicians pockets' in play when the existing laws defended me.
So yeah... I absolutely disagree with you.
As for morality and legality... as you say... morality is subjective. I think piracy is absolutely immoral. Some people disagree. So we have laws to help determine a resolution of this conflict.
So no... they don't 'have nothing to do with each other'.
'I'm sure you knew this and ignored it, however.'
I was actually agreeing with him that a problem may exist and that reform is needed. He failed to understand this in the first place and I offered clarification. So your point here is... well... pointless.
I would say it is upon them to prove a need for it.
You can say that all you like. But the way it usually works is that those who crave change must justify change.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
As for morality and legality... as you say... morality is subjective. I think piracy is absolutely immoral. Some people disagree. So we have laws to help determine a resolution of this conflict.
'As for morality and legality... as you say... morality is subjective. I think piracy is absolutely immoral. +++Some people disagree.+++ So we have laws to help determine a resolution of this conflict. '
Only Pirates disagree !!!!!! Grant them no quarter !!!! Full steam ahead !!![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think our current IP law is flawed. But flawed does not equal broken. As an independent artist, I have seen copyright law protect my work from unauthorized corporate exploitation. I certainly saw no 'special interest' groups pf 'politicians pockets' in play when the existing laws defended me.
So yeah... I absolutely disagree with you.
Well, it's great that because you happen to be in the music business you get an extreme amount of control over your product after selling it. The same can't be said for chair-makers or software engineers or the vast majority of us.
Just because the law benefits you doesn't make it a good law. British rule in India was good for the British, if not so much for the Indians; Jim Crow laws were nice for white people, if not so much for blacks; Aryans had a really nice time in the Third Reich, even if many others were dying in concentration camps. How nice that because it benefits you that the rest of us should accept the law's merits.
As for morality and legality... as you say... morality is subjective. I think piracy is absolutely immoral. Some people disagree. So we have laws to help determine a resolution of this conflict.
So no... they don't 'have nothing to do with each other'.
Umm...no, they quite obviously have nothing to do with each other, and nothing you just said makes any claim to that fact whatsoever. There is never going to be a universally agreed upon moral code, but laws merely dictate the government's attitude toward certain actions, not their morality. I could write all day on what a dumb stance this is.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said I'm at artist. I never said I was a musician. And frankly, it doesn't matter if copyright law protects me and doesn't protect people who aren't actually creating art. That's like complaining that traffic laws don't benefit the person who lives in a remote cabin in the woods in a region with no roads, but likes to watch highway chase scenes on TV. This is nothing like your explicitly false and foolish analogies to oppression. It's not your art. End of story. If you DO create something, then you can allow or disallow the protection of copyright as you see fit. The only oppression is when outside parties attempt to dictate how an artists art must be handled.
Here's a short little quiz:
X Appropriates an artists work and distributes it without permission. Is this acceptable if X is:
A)An individual?
B)A corporation?
C)No. Never. It's not your fucking art.
The answer is C. There is no difference between art being hijacked by corporate entities or internet douchebags. Why? Because the end result is the same. The artists rights to determine how their efforts are distributed and disseminated are being interfered with. You complain that your rights to do things with my work are being interfered with is somehow synonymous with Nazism? With Jim Crow laws?
Get a fucking grip. Seriously. If that's the sort of insane distortion you need to resort to you have NO case. None.
As for your false claims that morality and legality have nothing to do with each other. I repeat: Morality is subjective. You have already conceded this. Two parties disagree on what is and is not acceptable behavior in society. So said people turn to the law to resolution. Either you can grasp this very simple fact or you cannot.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm an artist and copyright doesn't protect me. It hurts me.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How specifically?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artifacts from my childhood are off-limits for me, artistically speaking, without having to hunt down all the holders of the copyright, seeking permission.
And because copyright laws are so convoluted, I don't know how much copying of my childhood artifacts I can safely use without facing a potential lawsuit from Warner Bros., etc.
I cannot engage in collage, which has been around for centuries, because some multi-national corporation might get their knickers in a twist because I'm using imagery from their content, for a profit.
Some artists are prevented from making art because the raw material for new culture is old culture and some of that old culture refuses to enter the public domain, or have legal restrictions placed upon it.
Why would I want to use artifacts from my childhood to create art? Beats me! I guess I'm doing it wrong!
How is copyright helping in the creation of art here?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1: For the most part, collage is considered a derivative work. If you add enough new elements or create something new using disparate elements, your work will be considered a new work and not subject to copyright reprisal.
2: In regards to hunting down the copyright owners, that's not usually difficult in this day and age.
3: It's rare that artists are actually prohibited substantially from utilizing elements of old work altogether. There are clauses built into copyright to protect a degree of appropriation and you can acquire legal rights if you're really interested.
4: You can create something new rather than something derivative. That's one of the stated purposes of copyright. To encourage artistic growth.
5: Even if you use existing material in your art, the entity who owns said artwork must prove damages. If you're not seeking to profit from your endeavors you have less to worry about. That said, there are forms of damages recognized by a court of law that are not economically based.
6: How is copyright helping the creation of art? Well, like I said, there are allowances made for new works that utilize older works. Frankly, if you're not bringing something new to the table enough to qualify, you're likely not creating anything new anyway.
Regardless, I never stated copyright was perfect. Just because you can find a very specific scenario that prevents you from doing exactly what you want doesn't mean your ability to create art is being universally stifled or that all aspects of copyright are broken.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, because some froms of art are more protected than other, equally valid, forms of art. Copyright laws do nothing to balance this.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright laws do nothing to balance this.
'Right, because some froms of art are more protected than other, equally valid, forms of art. Copyright laws do nothing to balance this.'
ME: Very interesting point.
Really.
Please do explain more.
Now i do know that sculptures have different protections than songs.
It is posted somewhere in this thread by me.
If you can not find it ,Google around , 'copyrights and sculptures' & you will.
An Original Sculpture cannot be 'changed' by law,
the museum cannot put arms on the Venus De Milo.
www.venusdemilo.com/
Yet, I can parody the Rolling stones on my ukulele-- (Honky Tonk Jews--).
and it is Totally fair use.
http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin .
------------
It this what you meant by:
'...some froms of art are more protected than other, equally valid, forms of art. Copyright laws do nothing to balance this.'
????[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
X Appropriates an artists work and distributes it without permission. Is this acceptable if X is:
That's a false dichotomy.
The question should be:
This is acceptable if X is:
1. Doing it for commercial purposes;
2. Doing it for non-commercial purposes.
Number 2 works fine for me - no matter if it is a private individual or a multinational corporation.
The reason? Number 2. doesn't affect my ability to distribute and sell my art. Number 1. almost always does.
In other words: #1 takes away my rights, #2 does not.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. Like I have said several times already, my labors, my right to distribute as I see fit. Now, I will agree (again) that distribution for zero profit is comparatively a minor issue, and not one I personally take issue with. But that doesn't mean it isn't still someone taking control of my work and doing things with it without right. The law in regards to re-distribution and legal rights are fairly clear on this.
That said, I will admit that I was a little on the defensive side in the post your are responding to and that I stated my opinions a bit inflexibly. But in my defense, the guy had just compared my beliefs to Nazism. So you know... civility was kind of out the window at that point.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't mean to jump into the middle of a great debate between Karl and Memyself, but did want to respond to one point from Memyself:
I disagree. Like I have said several times already, my labors, my right to distribute as I see fit
Unfortunately, that's not actually true once you've done your initial distribution -- and that's where the problem comes in. The fact that it's your labors is meaningless, as copyright is not designed to be based on labor, but on creativity. And once you've distributed your work, others have First Sale rights to redistribute. So the claim that your labor means you have total distribution rights is incorrect.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately, that's not actually true once you've done your initial distribution -- and that's where the problem comes in. The fact that it's your labors is meaningless, as copyright is not designed to be
ANS:
Too bad it is against the laws.
Legal, Civil. Moral , and maybe Natural.
It infringes ARTIST control.
MY ART. My Universe.
I control it.
Who gets it.
How they get it.
Under any conditions I may apply at will.
How they use it .
When they can use it.
Where they can use it
I decide also:
Who pays for it.
How they pay for it.
and when I choose to give it free to a charity.
The Laws, Global to local may not fully be there 100% with what I write above.
But they should be.
Even according to , Locke, Jefferson , Madison , and even Ayn Rand , by most any reasonable interpretation of their written words.
Which are well studied by many in depth at Universities.
And also in elementary school at their level.
Copyright protection is a 'core value' of any civilized society, according to Locke and Friends inc.
Those core values are present day law -- for the most now.
I am an Artist and Musician , and I have little problem with the 'current principles of copyright law' for global to local.
As far as you Pirate Logic guys , and you Mike ,
see you in Court.
See you in Congress.
Then our grand kids will learn the history again
later in elementarily school.
And us Artist , Musicians, Poets , Painters , Writers , Sculptors,
We will Win[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately, that's not actually true once you've done your initial distribution -- and that's where the problem comes in. The fact that it's your labors is meaningless, as copyright is not designed to be
the VERY vast majority of 'elected officials' , in the world's Democracies,
Are 'united against copyright infringement'.
Do you dispute that fact?
---------------
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets are too -
- for the most , at least 90% ,
( and in my opinion it is exactly at : 98.314159292 % ).
So you can certainly say , that as a 'political force' in the 'body politic' , from local to global ,
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets
also are 'united against copyright infringement'.
-----------------
See you in Court,
see you in Congress.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Doing it for non-commercial purposes. Number 2 works fine for me - no matter if it is a private individual or a multinational corporation.
'2. Doing it for non-commercial purposes.
Number 2 works fine for me - no matter if it is a private individual or a multinational corporation.'
ANS:
Too bad it is against the laws.
Legal, Civil. Moral , and maybe Natural.
It infringes ARTIST control.
MY ART. My Universe.
I control it.
Who gets it.
How they get it.
Under any conditions I may apply at will.
How they use it .
When they can use it.
Where they can use it
I decide also:
Who pays for it.
How they pay for it.
and when I choose to give it free to a charity.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Well, it's great that because you happen to be in the music business you get an extreme amount of control over your product after selling it. The same can't be said for chair-makers or software engineers or the vast majority of us.'
Again: Bullshit analogies. Art isn't a chair and so the same protection clauses do not need to apply. Artists don't make salaries the way that software engineers do. Single use purchase serves to bring the cost of art down to an affordable level for the general public. I'm not saying it's the only method to monetize artwork, but to sit there and ignore the benefits and reason for the existing structure while complaining that other areas of buisness that are not comparable in any relevant way, shape, or form don't get the same advantage is blatantly stupid.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about that conceptual piece where the artist had a chair, a photograph of a chair and the defintion of chair in an art gallery? Is that not art?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'Art isn't a chair and so the same protection clauses do not need to apply. Artists don't make salaries the way that software engineers do'
right on ![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because the law benefits you doesn't make it a good law.
'Just because the law benefits you doesn't make it a good law.'
It is more than law . It is a moral right too. that way anti-piracy in universal in the law civilized nations.
If you do not see the moral side, that is why we have law.
To protect the majority who see copyright as an essentional to the functioning of soiciety .
---
Example :
Caucus Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse said,
'International piracy of American intellectual property weakens a segment of our economy that long has supported innovation and great American jobs.'
more by Sheldon Whitehouse - May 20, 2010 - Inquirer (3 occurrences)
http://news.google.com/news/quote?pz=1&cf=q&ned=us&hl=en&qsid=GpElr6 Z8FzeO9M
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_3_0_a&usg=AFQjCNFoQY9LPmZ6-L GMuKOADGVe0ludkg&cid=0&ei=4DgHTJi_Es3xlAfDzN3VAw&rt=MORE_COVERAGE&vm=STANDARD&ur l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theinquirer.net%2Finquirer%2Fnews%2F1649668%2Fus-congress-lists-worst-p2p-offende rs
search and read more :
http://news.google.com/news/more?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=BH3&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US3 61&resnum=0&q=%22orrin+hatch%22+and+%22pirate+bay%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=d9UOf89N5 8mVLrMlAA36erja98i1M&ei=bzgHTPHWA4S0lQfjoeHcDw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&a mp;cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQqgIoADAA
The world is united against PIRACY.
WHY ?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just because the law benefits you doesn't make it a good law.
Dead Wrong.
The world is NOT united against copyright infringement. The world wants to take a stance that is far short of the heavy handed ACTA that is being shoveled down our throats. The world wants more exceptions and more debate, not for US law to come to tell them what to do.
Technopolitical, are you reading any of the things posted on the website? It boggles the mind how you have a closed mind to anyone that disagrees with you. It seems that you want to call everyone a pirate when filesharing is nothing more than technology. It transfers files and bits. Nothing more.
Hollywood wants to control technology, which is understandable but the most efficient way for people to do things nowadays is through the internet. I can collaborate and make songs, and transfer it through limewire or a torrent if I want to, without touching copyright. I can save it on a few storage websites if I want to.
But for crying out loud, Hollywood nor the music industry are NOT competing with free. They sue their customers, strong arm them to litigation, and make laws for compliance that are NOT conducive to progressing the arts or sciences.
Furthermore, the recording industry is actually improving, not because file sharing is keeping it down, but because of the diversity in acts that weren't there a few decades ago. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_record_business_blues - Proof here
Oh, and the GAO report was flawed. Link here - http://copyrightandtechnology.com/2010/04/14/gao-report-throws-doubts-on-piracy-studies/
Your logic is severely flawed. It's similar to Steven Tepp's during the ACTA debates. If I need to pull out why I am against the ACTA, I'll begin to pull examples. There's also reasons why I hate the DMCA. It gives TOO MUCH power to a copyright holder in the forms of business and not enough to consumers. With just a notice I can take down a video on Youtube and inconvenience more people for nothing. A copyright bot can sniff out my video and tell the NFL, 'oh hey, this is ours' when I recorded it off the TV with a DVD recorder. Technically, the Betamax standard should still hold up. That's becoming less and less of the case as it stands today.
Just as there are bad laws on the records, we should be finding a way to balance things to progress our society, not use law as a crutch to hold back our innovation.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The world is NOT united against copyright infringement.
ME :
But the VERY vast majority of 'elected officials' , in the world's Democracies,
Are 'united against copyright infringement'.
Do you dispute that fact?
---------------
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets are too -
- for the most , at least 90% ,
( and in my opinion it is exactly at : 98.314159292 % ).
So you can certainly say , that as a 'political force' in the 'body politic' , from local to global ,
Artist and Writers and Inventors and Musicians and Poets
also are 'united against copyright infringement'.
-----------------
See you in Court,
see you in Congress.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe that the large majority of voters - or the general population - has a problem with the current laws. I don't think most people object to paying a buck for a good song or a couple of bucks to rent a movie.
I recognize that most of the people who participate in this blog may have a different opinion, but I don't think they're a large percentage of the voting public.
If and when this situation changes, I expect that the laws will be amended accordingly. In the meantime, I expect to see more legal actions taken against infringers, not less. If the MP/RIAA find a more effective business model than legal action (I hope), they too may end up being a catalyst for change.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
word[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe that the large majority of voters - or the general population - has a problem with the current laws. I don't think most people object to paying a buck for a good song or a couple of bucks to rent a movie.
Wrong market. Let's look at the majority of people who come up against those laws. Let's look at the majority of people who consume music today. What percentage of them get their music for free?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Still ducking the Moral Principle issue , you are Mike .
Techdirt & co,, should give up their quest to weaken or abolish copyright.
Anti-Pirates are defending an establish right -- COPYRIGHTS.
Life is about defending rights from those who wish to destroy them
I think Jefferson , Thomas Paine , and their gang of rebels against King George would agree .
---------
The Rev Martin Luther King once said,' if a man has not found anything worth dying for, he is not fit to live.'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike :'Wrong market. Let's look at the majority of people who come up against those laws. Let's look at the majority of people who consume music today. What percentage of them get their music for free?'
Why don't you do some real research for once , and find the FACTS to support your feeble & immoral pro-piracy platform.
You Pirates here would never let me escape with an unsubstantiated comment like that , Mike[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't matter, laws apply equally to everyone. Don't confuse 'markets' with 'voters', because voters ultimately determine what laws we live under. It was that way with prohibition and it is that way with filesharing. In the case of prohibition, a vocal minority managed to push through a law that the majority had a problem with, so the law was ultimately changed. In the case of filesharing, I think a vocal minority is advocating free content while violating copyright laws, but I think the larger majority would disagree so the laws are unlikely to be changed significantly.
To answer your question more directly, I think the majority of people who consume music and movies today pay for it. I don't think the community of torrent users is as large a percentage of the consumer market as you seem to think.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'To answer your question more directly, I think the majority of people who consume music and movies today pay for it. I don't think the community of torrent users is as large a percentage of the consumer market as you seem to think.'
I have been teaching and showingas many usersas possible. When installing Uverse in the StLouis area I showed every customer who had interest, almost all did. I think the notion of a small percentage is wishful thinking.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is that the wrong market?
Should we, by analogy, only be concerned with what criminals think of the criminal law? Should we only be concerned about what oil companies think of drilling regulations? That's absurd.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I recognize that most of the people who participate in this blog may have a different opinion, but I don't think they're a large percentage of the voting public.
they are a small percentage of the voting public, very small.
too small to count even in terms of Millions of good-willed voters in the USA .
All 1000 , or even 10,000 ( or so , it is a rough estimate) of the pro- pirates , post here at techdirt.
Probably because no one will talk to them in person.
nor , could they ever win a fair , public , and moderated debate.
Die , Pirate Logic , die.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I recognize that most of the people who participate in this blog may have a different opinion, but I don't think they're a large percentage of the voting public.
they are a small percentage of the voting public, very small.
Yeah. They are only the percentage of people WHO OWN A COMPUTER.
Trust me, 99.9% of computer users are 'pirates.' You're one of them, so you should know.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I recognize that most of the people who participate in this blog may have a different opinion, but I don't think they're a large percentage of the voting public.
Just pointless Pirate Logic, again Karl .
Why write it ?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I recognize that most of the people who participate in this blog may have a different opinion, but I don't think they're a large percentage of the voting public.
Says the pirate![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'In the meantime, I expect to see more legal actions taken against infringers, not less.'
'In the meantime, I expect to see more legal actions taken against infringers, not less.'
ANS : And is will just get better , and better ,
until the evil Pirates are all slain,
by law and force,
on land ,
on the sea,
or online.
(There might be some good Pirates,
Darth Vader types
who will repent before
legal death.
G-D bless 'em)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Proabition banned 'Victimless Crime ', drinking boooze. (people do crime with or w/o booze)
Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
'Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works,' he said in a statement. 'The end result is the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports.'
both quotes from :
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Grant Gross, IDG News
May 19, 2010 4:30 pm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeesh, no matter how many time you step on the cockRoach's, they always come back.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if the majority will is that the law is wrong, does not automatically mean the law not worth defending.
EXACTLY !!
And I repeat ,
The U.S. Constitution's main principle is to PROTECT the Minority from Majority Tyranny.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're breaking the law... But since they can't be stopped no one should do anything.
Is that the argument being advanced here?
No. I'm not quite sure how you could read this post and think that.
The argument being advanced here (I thought clearly, but I apologize if that was not the case) is that this quixotic fight against The Pirate Bay did nothing to stop or slow down The Pirate Bay and actually got a lot more people using it.
Thus, if your actions have the opposite of the intended result, perhaps you ought to try a different strategy. No one said that they shouldn't do anything because they can't completely stomp out piracy. In fact, we're arguing that they should do something: which is come up with a better grasp on their own business model. Fighting against a site that won't be shut down hasn't helped matters at all.
Or are you seriously arguing that this fight had positive net results?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Or are you seriously arguing that this fight had positive net results?'
God no. I may be coming at this from a different ideological perspective from you, but I'm not blind![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Or are you seriously arguing that this fight had positive net results?
Yes !!
Moral Principle is ALWAYS a fight with 'positive net results'.
Piracy is immoral. On land , on seas , or on-line in the World Wide Web .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or are you seriously arguing that this fight had positive net results?
So, this fight has caused people to stop downloading infringing material? Seriously? I think you should get a reality check.
This fight they are fighting right now, is not gaining them anything. If anything, they are getting themselves painted as cheezy Bond villains. The goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero. What do you do when people hate you? Sue them more?
The recording industry is the most hated industry in the world right now. All because of this fight. Is that a positive net result? Or a negative one?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
not , by me , not by most civil minded, moral people who are disgusted by Piracy.
Quit your Pirate Logic.
join Pirates Anonymous ..[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
Who are these 'moral people'. And what do morals have to do with laws anyway?
I, for one, don't like piracy, but I also don't like Big Media (MPAA and the RIAA).
But if there is no other way for me to access that content, then I have no other choice but to download it. Case in point, lots of TV-series in the US won't ever get aired in NL (or years after they've been aired in the US). Nor will the DVDs be playable on my hardware, as they are Region 1 encoded, and I have a region 2 dvd-player (sadly it's not capable of being region-free). So what other choice do I have? I want to pay for it, but I can't, as I am not offered that opportunity.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
'But if there is no other way for me to access that content, then I have no other choice but to download it.'
Why? What will happen to you if you don't download it? Why do you have 'no choice'?
Mind you, I don't really have a problem with piracy in this sort of instance, but you state your position as if this media was an actual need, rather than simply a desire. I mean, I can't afford to buy lots of things. What right does that give me to just take them?
It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
ANS : yes we are !1
Piracy takes food of the table of , the artist , the record company staff , and all people involved in production of the music or art.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
You're preaching to the choir. But that's not really the context under discussion here. People frequently justify piracy out of a perceived 'need'. There is no need here. Only a desire.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
Culture is funny that way.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
Piracy takes food of the table of , the artist , the record company staff , and all people involved in production of the music or art.
Unless that music or art isn't available in the first place, thus there is no 'food' to put on the 'table.'
Example: I'm a fan of the Matt Smith Doctor Who episodes. They are currently unavailable in the U.S. in any way. I download them. Who am I robbing? There was no way I could buy them at all, so no income could even possibly be lost.
Yet I am a pirate. How is this at all 'moral?'
Another example. A huge amount of my music comes from a blog called 'No Longer Forgotten.' This blog posts, exclusively, music that is very rare, and out of print; in fact most of the labels have disappeared into the ether. These works are called 'orphaned works.' But they are technically still under copyright, so sharing them is illegal.
How is this blog 'immoral?' How could it even possibly take 'food off the table' of anyone - since it's not even possible to buy them, in any medium?
If you think these situations are OK, or even that these webmasters shouldn't be sued, then you are 'against copyright.' You are the one advocating piracy.
You see now why people like me are so pissed off?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
Okay... first off. New Doctor Who = Awesome.
Secondly, I have to disagree. The new episodes air one week after they do in England. But when they weren't on the air for months a couple of seasons ago...? Yeah I downloaded them too.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here.
I'm in the Boston area in the U.S. Were I sticking to legal formats, I would not be able to watch even the first episode of the new season, due to the draconian overseas restrictions from the BBC. Of course, I can watch the new episodes online a couple of days after they air in the U.K., because U.K. fans upload them, which is what I do. I am a pirate, even though there is now way I could have paid money to anyone to watch those same episodes.
...Speaking theoretically, of course. I can't wait to see the Weeping Angels episodes.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless that music or art isn't available in the first place, thus there is no 'food' to put on the 'table.'
'Unless that music or art isn't available in the first place, thus there is no 'food' to put on the 'table.'
EXACTLY KARL .
Very exactly .
What would Ayn Rand say?
Artist , we will got on strike.
TRY and live without us, you Pirates.
you really do not deserve my Art.
And I do not want to give it to you .
My right.
I can still make my Art.
And get full spiritual satisfaction
from it
and not share it
with a soul
I ain't making that much money anyway.
Enjoy your world without our Art.
------------------
ATTENTION ---All Artist execute plan 66 !!!
We are going to our secret Island.
-------
AND ALWAYS
Remember what Mingus also said ( paraphrase):
Being a Musician /Artist is like living on an island.
there is among people there ,
no Race ,
no creed,
nor
being a man nor
a women does not matter.
Everyone is just an Artist.
---------------
----------
-[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not as if we're talking about food or water here. - A challenge, name two artists who have starved because of piracy
Challenge in subject box.
This should be interesting.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- A challenge, name two artists who have starved because of piracy
Through out Art history ,
the phrase :
Starving Artist.
A top ten , worldwide , human thought
idiom, metaphor , and fact.
To death no,
we are too loved by too many,
we will always be sustained.
(Pirates will be killed though.)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
If I don't want my tv viewing experience spoiled by the internet, I NEED to watch it as soon as it comes out, otherwise A) I can't discuss tv shows with my friends online, or on forums online. and B) people will have ruined it for me by saying the plot points or even the endings.
How do you feel when your friends spoil a movie for you, because they have seen it and you haven't?
If want to talk about tv shows online, on sites like tv.com I have no other choice than to download and watch them. Because they are delayed heavily before appearing on Dutch TV, it sometimes takes years and even then they air it out of order, if they appear at all.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
'How do you feel when your friends spoil a movie for you, because they have seen it and you haven't?'
It doesn't happen. My friends know enough not to spoil movies for me and I find it very easy to avoid spoilers online.
There is no 'need' here. Simply desire. I'm sorry, but if you're really concerned about spoilers, just avoid websites or conversations where they are discussed. It's an easy enough process.
That said, I do have sympathy with the international airdates aspects. I believe that if the broadcasters of the media in question can't be bothered to proved the content for you in any reasonable fashion to watch legally, they're failing you as a customer.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he goodwill towards the companies that run the MPAA and the RIAA has dropped below zero.
if you want to discuss a film or a tv-series online, like I really like to do, then I'm screwed. Can't use twitter then, can't use tv.com. Heck, I can't even use IMDB in those situations.
Yes, it's not a need, it's a desire, but there is no other way for me. And I still watch it on tv if it ever arrives, and don't zap away during commercials. And if it's good I'll buy the dvd boxset.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE : In fact, we're arguing that they should do something: which is come up with a better grasp on their own business model
'In fact, we're arguing that they should do something: which is come up with a better grasp on their own business model'
they are trying hard , AND fighting Pirates , and killing them off ,, is a big part of that better biz model.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIKE : In fact, we're arguing that they should do something: which is come up with a better grasp on their own business model
You are stupid.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE : In fact, we're arguing that they should do something: which is come up with a better grasp on their own business model
explain in your Pirate Logic:
Why?
please.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
that this quixotic fight against The Pirate Bay
it is a moral fight, mike , on principles ,
Principles that freed slaves, granted suffrage to women ,
and fight for justice all over the world.
you world view on copyright and royality is extemist , bizzare , and immoral.
the Law protects Artist from infringers and circumventers.
If you do not like it.
Use democracy to change it.
But Mike you know you can't.
You mike are the one chasing windmills
in your 'quixotic fight' to weaken Copy Right and Patent Law
and
FOR allowing and /or ignoring
Piracy and circumvention.
The Job of Artists is to chase windmills.
The Job of government is to protect them from you Mike.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're breaking the law... But since they can't be stopped no one should do anything.
Is that the argument being advanced here?
it's not that simple.
1) TPB is breaking a weak and stupid interpretation of what the MPAA and the IFPI think the law should be. every move against TPB is in response to pressure from these industry groups rather than actual law enforcement.
2) the money spent on this frivolity isn't just money wasted. it's money invested in the popularization and politicization of file sharing, not to mention the ill will of consumers. hollywood isn't just trying and failing, it is paying real money to make its enemy stronger.
3) file sharing represents a failure of the market. TPB and other torrent trackers clearly illustrate that content can be distributed and promoted for next to nothing, and that consumers are willing to donate time and bandwidth to the process. media conglomerates could embrace a similar model and reap some rewards from vastly reduced costs, or they can continue to tilt at windmills, either way file sharing is here to stay.
4) media conglomerates as we know them are doomed to fail, with or without protection from the world's governments. in the mean time, they are pushing for laws and international treaties that threaten our basic civil rights. the companies pushing for protection won't be around for ever, but the laws that they are pushing could be. when hollywood finally bleeds out from cutting its own throat, where will our rights to privacy and protection from unlawful search and seizure be?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Breaking the law... Laws created by people... Laws that can - and will - be changed by people. This is why I was disappointed that the RIAA stopped its massive lawsuit activities, and why I'm happy that ACS:Law and the US copyright Group have stepped in. The bad karma these groups raise for the copyright industry will ultimately advance information freedom and kill the asinine parts of copyright law.
Don't think you can do anything about stupid laws? Huh. I wonder who wants you to have that opinion.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're breaking the law... But since they can't be stopped no one should do anything. Is that the argument being advanced here?
by mike , yes !![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws change to reflect the best outcomes for society
Laws have always changed in response to technology. Airplanes changed property ownership laws. Cars changed eminent domain. Gun changed the balance of power it takes years to make a combat archer, weeks to train a rifleman. Insurance used to be a scam before statistics technology improved.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA RIAA alphabet soup
The author is right on. I didn't even know how to use bit torrent or find torrent sites until I began reading about the Pirate Bay saga 2 years ago. One of the first things I did with my new laptop last year was become educated with the torrent world. Of course I would never download anything, other than a few patches or freeware. I would never run a peer blocker app to keep the anti pirates from sniffing my IP. But enough of that. I do agree that copyright was the best way to ensure artists/publishers etc. to protect their lazy domain. Was the best way! that was prior to the Internet of course. Now to put it quite simply ' Either you share on the web , or you get out of it ' Can't have it both ways moneybag producers and distributors. I predict the MPAA and the RIAA will all be scratching their collective Arseheads in a few years, wonderin why no one will play nice with them anymore.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Was the best way! that was prior to the Internet of course. Now to put it quite simply ' Either you share on the web , or you get out of it '
why ?
please explain , your logic, you do raise an interesting point.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was the best way! that was prior to the Internet of course. Now to put it quite simply ' Either you share on the web , or you get out of it '
IT'S A TRAP![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was the best way! that was prior to the Internet of course. Now to put it quite simply ' Either you share on the web , or you get out of it '
by Karl
IT'S A TRAP!
----
thank you Karl.
that is a high compliment.
Seriously.
think about it .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- About as much as the RIAA's has been over 10 years..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality.
Pirates are effing the industry more quickly than rabbits maybe its because they multiple quicker than hamsters.
What does it mean when everybody dislike an entire industry?
Nobody respects them they lost control when they lost respect.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- America is not a democracy, people don't elect their president directly.
In practice elected representatives elect the U.S. president, and in a way the presidential elections are just for show.
Now why any government would go to the trouble to spend millions of dollars to make a show?
Without a majority there is no governance, because there is no strength to defend any position. In the end it just old brute force that counts.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the end it just old brute force that counts.
if you mean the law is 'brute force' . you are right.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- When push comes to shove a majority is all that counts, that majority means physical strength to subdue the other side.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
When push comes to shove a majority is all that counts, that majority means physical strength to subdue the other side.
'When push comes to shove a majority is all that counts, that majority means physical strength to subdue the other side.'
Very Wrong , and well discussed in throughout
Political Theoretical History.
.Philoshophers & PhDs,
have explored this topic of 'Majority vs. Minority Rights' since people began to write.
, and they will continue to explore it.
We will not solve it here.
But please remember ,
The U.S. Constitution's main principle is to
PROTECT the Minority from Majority Tyranny.
We all learned that in 6th grade social studies.
-----
Now it is all perspective who is the oppressed,
and who is the oppressor.
But are you saying that ARtists -- I meanthe the Beatles & Shakspere are the opressors ?
Are you nuts ?
You Pirates?
The U.S. Constitution's main principle is to
PROTECT the Minority from Majority Tyranny.
Tyranny and Pirates go hand in hand through out factual history and even in the history of literature and art.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
ANS: some customers you can do without.
We don't serve Pirates here !!! Go to some outlaw bar, this is a family biz.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
If you don't serve the pirates, then don't complain if they pirate.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
more silly Pirate Logic[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
Saying 'pirate logic' doesn't help make your case. Accusing people who disagree with you of being 'pirates' doesn't help an argument either. Either point to the evidence that contradicts the studies that have shown the 'pirate logic' to be correct, or take your spamming elsewhere, please.
I prefer to use actual logic. Namely that it's possible to question the 'evidence' that 'pirates' are causing direct losses and question the reactions of the media corporations without actually condoning 'piracy'.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Namely that it's possible to question the 'evidence' that 'pirates' are causing direct losses
'Namely that it's possible to question the 'evidence' that 'pirates' are causing direct losses'
ans: it is not about $$ , fighting piracy is about moral principle.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Namely that it's possible to question the 'evidence' that 'pirates' are causing direct losses
It's only moral if you use that silly pirate logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant, and as a result you go to my neighbour next door who is more than willing to accept you, do I have a leg to stand on if I sued you for not using my business?
No, not legally and not morally.
You said 'we don't serve pirates here.' And I will say that's exactly the problem. There is a HUGE market out there for good quality content that's certified to be the real deal, but no-one (except for the outlaws) are catering to it. With P2P networks, you always stand a chance of getting virusses and malware etc.
Instead of focussing on making everyone an outlaw, the media studios could offer a similar service like the 'pirates' do, for a bit of money, but offer a certification, that the stuff you are getting through their service is guaranteed the best quality, without DRM that you can play anywhere.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant........................
Ask Rosa Parks and Gandi on that pint of : 'If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant...'
(I eat at home usually.
I am a poor musician.
can't eat out much )
---------------
But , A pirate criminal , I can refuse to serve. ( It is not racism.)
esp , if I think , he will steal sugar packets and silverware, and then not tip.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I refuse to seat you in my restaurant........................
See, this is what I mean with not listening... You don't even TRY.
Why bring Rosa Parks or Ghandi... I was saying you, that if I refuse you service, I should not be moaning about it, if you decide to take your business elsewhere.
If you decide not to offer me a good quality product for a reasonable price, then don't come crying to mommy State if the mean pirates are picking on you.
And another thing, and get this through your thick f-ing skull. Piracy is not stealing.
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.
Oh why do I even bother, you won't listen, you'll just spin and spin and twist my words like a good little troll.
We've seen you infringing on other people's copyright on this board (by posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use), equating copyright infringement with stealing (ergo, by your 'silly pirate logic' you yourself are a thief, when are you going to give yourself over to the police?), equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here), equating everyone here who disagrees with you a silly pirate with silly pirate logic (despite the fact that we gave you substantiated facts to trump your silly logic), claiming that we want copyright to be abolished (hint: no we do not, we want copyright CHANGE). And trying to make it into an emotional argument by claiming it's a moral right.
Well done. I really see the error of my ways... now if you'll excuse me, I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live). Good day.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
'I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.'
ME : The Law says different. It is infringement. I control copies of my music. You buy copies of Music.
The Beatles still got the acid studio tapes. to Abbey Road.
I have had to pay for , Abbey Road many times. first the vinyl that wor out (2x),
the tape got eatten in the deck (3X),
the CD (1X) , remastered CD (1X) ,
and soon the 'nano-mini-analog disc.'
I paid -- and will pay --each time. And the Beatles still got their original copy.
I fail to see your logic.
if you downloaded it w/o paying LEGALLY , you have stole $$, IF you would have bought it otherwise-- if was not illegally available online.
If you would not have bought it anyway,why download it illegally ? clearly you want it . But not if it cost $$ ?
------------------------------
YOU :posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use.
Me : Take it up with Mike. I thing he would agree with me , it is fair use.
If you claim it is NOT fair use, does not that fracture your arguments on copyright ?
-------------------------------------
You : equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here.
Me: both are Moral issues . both are legal issues.
Both involve circumvention of lawful civil rights.
I did not raise the 'customer' analogy , some else did, and asked for an answer.
---------------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
'I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.'
ME : The Law says different. It is infringement. I control copies of my music. You buy copies of Music.
Indeed INFRINGEMENT! not STEALING!
Look up the definitions. And notice the difference.YOU :posting an entire NYT article in the comments section here, and no that's not fair use.
Me : Take it up with Mike. I thing he would agree with me , it is fair use.
If you claim it is NOT fair use, does not that fracture your arguments on copyright?
Taking an entire article and posting it somewhere else is like downloading a song. It's infringement. And I never said otherwise.If you would not have bought it anyway,why download it illegally ? clearly you want it . But not if it cost $$ ?
Or, I just want to know if the disc is worth the 25 bucks it costs in the shops. If it does, I'll go out and buy it. Why not offer me a chance to sample the wares before I plop down 25 smackers? Because as soon as I have opened the case, I can't get my money back anymore. Stores will only refund unopened cases. Good luck sampling it then.
If it's not good, I'll delete it, right there and then.You : equating copyright with racism (by adding Rosa Parks into the mix right here.
Me: both are Moral issues . both are legal issues.
Both involve circumvention of lawful civil rights.
I did not raise the 'customer' analogy , some else did, and asked for an answer.
So copyright infringement is the same as racism? Odd world you live in.
btw, what customer analogy?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
ME :
no citions , and you post conflicting points .
You :
Indeed INFRINGEMENT! not STEALING!
Look up the definitions. And notice the difference.
ME : Article here says , $$$ due for INFRINGEMENT.
So 'infringement' damages-- just as stealing does in USA law
your move .
----------------------
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lu cky-Lawsuit
Judgment in 'Get Lucky' Lawsuit
June 04, 2010
Lucky Brand Jeans, the Los Angeles–based denim brand, and its parent company, Liz Claiborne, have been ordered to pay a Miami clothing firm $300,000 following the conclusion of a 5-year-old trademark lawsuit.
The final judgment, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Smith in New York on May 28, follows a trial in April where a jury found that Lucky Brand had violated the “Get Lucky” trademark used on a line of teen apparel made by Marcel Fashion Group.
Liz Claiborne launched the lawsuit in 2005, claiming trademark infringement by Marcel and its licensee, Ally Apparel. Liz Claiborne sought a preliminary injunction against Marcel to stop using or licensing the “Get Lucky” trademark.
The lawsuit followed a 2003 contract signed by the two parties in which Liz Claiborne agreed not to use the trademark phrase “Get Lucky” on any of its Lucky Brand products or promotional materials. Marcel registered the trademark in 1986. Lucky Brand was founded in Los Angeles in 1990 and was acquired by Liz Claiborne in 1999.
Liz Claiborne filed its lawsuit because, the company said, Marcel was using clover branding similar to Lucky Brand’s clover branding.
In August 2005, the court denied Liz Claiborne’s preliminary-injunction request. Marcel then filed counterclaims of trademark infringement against Liz Claiborne, resulting in the $300,000 award, which includes punitive damages. In the final judgment, Liz Claiborne waived all rights to appeal.
“This is a complete victory for the little guy,” said Ezra Mizrachi, president of Marcel Fashion Group, in a statement. “Lucky Brand and Liz Claiborne tried to put the “Get Lucky” apparel line out of business with this lawsuit, but instead the jury decided that they are the ones who committed trademark infringement.”—Deborah Belgum
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-Lawsuit[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
if you downloaded it w/o paying LEGALLY , you have stole $$, IF you would have bought it otherwise-- if was not illegally available online.
Actually, you do know that independent studies have pointed out that these so-called pirates statistically pay more for entertainment than non-pirates, right? In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
And you want to kill them?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
YOU :'Actually, you do know that independent studies have pointed out that these so-called pirates statistically pay more for entertainment than non-pirates, right? In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
And you want to kill them? '
ME :: BACK IT UP WITH cited facts and case law !!!
Words alone do not cut it .
I back up my opinion with citation here in this thread , that is why I post articles , or give links.
I take , NOTHING on face values of someones word!
You do not from me ! I will not from you !
---------------------------------------
YOU :
In essence, these so-called pirates are your biggest revenue source.
ME :
HOW is the $$ collected from the pirates , and given to the ARTISTs. HOW ?!?!?!?!
Legal down load is OK ,
Itunes and etc,
but and ILLEGAL download
, by fact of its nature ,
pays no royalties--
that is why it is a PIRATE !!
Your answers do not ad up at all.
BACK it up , citation , court cases , and facts !!!!!
Or quit posting !!!
( because after 300 + comments , the page loads slow ),
--------------------------
-------------------------
SO no more comments w/o facts -- me too.
Let us FORMALIZE , or little debate[s] here.
I hold you to the same fire now , you hold me too.
Clean your keyboard , and get READY to RUMBLE !!!!!!!
FACT w/ citation only to back up points !!!
(( I hope Mike has the server space -- maybe he should set up a paywall ? (sic)
I mean i am storing my thesis on copyright @ techdirt for free!?!?!
Right ?!?!
Who owns my words here ?!?!?
Mike , Me , public domain !?!?
Again FACTS w/ citation of court cases.))
endofp=o=s=t[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Proprietary Rights Notice for DNA Research Online
http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.dtl
Proprietary Rights Notice for DNA Research Online
Copyright © 2010 Kazusa DNA Research Institute.
1. The person using DNA Research Online may view, reproduce or store copies of articles comprising the journal provided that the articles are used only for their personal, non-commercial use. Uses beyond that allowed by the 'Fair Use' limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law require permission of the publisher.
2. For permissions to copy beyond that permitted by the U.S. Copyright Law and for reprints, contact the Copyright Clearance Center. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service appears in each abstract and full text article.
3. Any uses and or copies of this Journal in whole or in part must include the customary bibliographic citation, including author attribution, date, article title, DNA Research Online, and the URL http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/ and MUST include a copy of the copyright notice.
4. Personal accounts and/or passwords may not be shared.
Institutional Subscribers
Please read the Institutional Site Licence Agreement.
Individual/Personal Subscribers
Please read the Individual User Agreement.
http://dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.dtl[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
OK, for your sake... yet another comment with links on the fact that filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
Here is a BBC report on a study done in 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm
Here is a link to that report: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DemosMusicsurvey.ppt
Here is another 2009 study that finds the same: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=138587
Here is a report from Michael Geist on a study done in 2006: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1265/159/
And one on another study done in 2007: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/
These are but a few examples.
We've been debating and talking about this since the beginning of this blog, and yet, here you are, claiming the same kind of nonsense that was spouted in the comments section all those years ago. We are getting nowhere.
But you'll just spin our words, and claim we are against copyright. WHICH WE AREN'T, but you'll just ignore that.
Or claim that I haven't given you any case law, and thus proven you right or some nonsense like that.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I copy a product, do you still have it? Yes? then it's not stealing.....................
thanks for the links , i will read ALL carefully , and then come back in de-bunk your mythological mis-reads there in.
It might take till late tomorrow night, or longer , I like to be deliberate and well read -- for such a worthy opponent -- Really !
-----
Anybody know the record for posts in a thread here ?
Or the longest time of a thread stayed hot and active ?
I like setting records!! :)
-------------------------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
'filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than
non-filesharers.'
Even if true : WHO CARES !!
$$$ must be paid to the rights holder directly !!!
, for every use or acquisition, or any type of file share !!!
--- or it is a steal by all legal definition ( in the USA) !!!!
( see definition posts for the word 'steal' in all forms)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: filesharers do spend MORE money on entertainment than non-filesharers.
See? This is why discussing things with you is absolutely USELESS. As you are unable to even acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Consider this the end of this discussion between you and I.
One thing I'll give you. Copyright law is in a different lawbook than theft. And copyright infringement is considered a civil offense, and theft is a criminal offense.
Chew on that!
BYE[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
ME :according to your own words, it is not completely legal ( w/o any law covering it ), but it is regulated , and it it not a 'blank check' -- like say free speech.
YOU : 'For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from illegal sources. Uploading is the offense, a civil matter, not a criminal matter, mind you. Like in the US copyright infringement is not a criminal matter by law, but a civil matter.'
ME: you are getting sloppy in your words, facts , and opinions. If you do better , we all learn better.
How the weather where you are ?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
You :'For instance, we, the Dutch, are allowed to download from ++illegal ++sources.'
ME: so you admit 'illegal' or 'Pirate'. Are you a split
personality? I cannot debate both of you !!
If it is illegal to upload, are you not getting stolen property , in theory , but not in dutch Law.
-------------------
As written about here by mike at least once :
In U.S. law , some things you CAN NOT SELL ,
But can 'give away' for free -- no money.
( Sex, 'tripper mushrooms', car rides.)
I have no idea how bartering fits in. I mean we all barter things everyday.
'Give me a ride to the store , and i will do the dishes for you.' (Think of your own example for sex bartering.)
--------------------------------------------------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
Uploading is an offense, that directly affects copyright holders... I claim to have copyright of a file that I don't have copyright over.
As a downloader, I can't rightfully distinguish whether a source is legal or not. And don't come saying 'but stuff on TPB is illegal by definition' as that's just false, as there are artists out there that use filesharing tools to distribute their own wares. How can *I* tell whether the uploader has permission to upload the works?
By law, in NL, the act of downloading of films and music, regardless of the source, is not illegal.
By law, in NL, the act of uploading content that does not belong to you, is illegal, unless you have permission to distribute the works.
I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
'Uploading is an offense, that directly affects copyright holders... I claim to have copyright of a file that I don't have copyright over.'
ME: I agree . ok we are halfway home
YOU : As a downloader, ---- (me : or really a 'free-loader')---- I can't rightfully distinguish whether a source is legal or not.
ME : Bingo !! In USA law 'receiving stolen goods' is a serious felony crime.
It does not matter if you did not know it was a 'stolen good'
Maybe Dutch law is different , on receiving stolen goods , in that you must know it is stolen.
But i doubt it. the burden on the legal system , and the diamond trade would be serious.
-----
Anybody know the record for posts in a thread here ?
Or the longest time of a thread stayed hot and active ?
I like setting records!! :)
-------------------------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.
i will accept , your translation into English.
you are good faith-ed.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I could give you links to our lawbooks, but as they are in Dutch, I doubt you have any use for it.
BTW,
please do try the dutch too !!
I can try the Google translations apps,
see how well they do against your English translation.
it be fun .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have some stuff to download. (which is still legal where I live).......................
And for the gazillionth-and-one time. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Never has been, never will be. As THEFT is in a completely different lawbook than copyright ever will reside.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And for the gazillionth-and-one time. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Never has been, never will be. As THEFT is in a completely different lawbook than copyright ever will reside.
again , cite legal definitions , used by lawyers , judges , and legislators -- or else you words are jibberish.
Taking something for nothing, when the rights holder is AGAISNST it is stealing.
If a hungry person 'steals' food , so he will not starve to death , it can be argued he did not morally steal. but legally he DID steal,
In some very poor countries this is a real world case issue.
--------------
Main Entry:1steal
Pronunciation: ˈstēl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole ˈstōl; sto·len ˈstō-lən; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal
-----------
a base transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b : to take away by force or unjust means
c : to take surreptitiously or without permission
d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : smuggle
b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring
b: of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard
— steal·able ˈstē-lə-bəl adjective
— steal·er noun
— steal a march on : to gain an advantage on unobserved
— steal one's thunder : to grab attention from another especially by anticipating an idea, plan, or presentation; also
: to claim credit for another's idea
synonyms : steal, pilfer, filch , purloin, mean to take from another without right or without detection.
steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things .
pilfer implies stealing repeatedly in small amounts .
filch adds a suggestion of snatching quickly and surreptitiously
.
******purloin stresses removing or carrying off for one's own use or purposes . ******
>>>>ME : Like this citation is 'stolen or purloined' by me , but the law says it is fair use,
so I am granted harbor , by law.
Pirates , are granted no harbor by law.
-------------------------------end
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/st eal[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making your customers angry will only result in losses.
We don't serve Pirates here !!!
Translation: 'We don't serve Customers here !!!'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- The content mafiaa whines about people breaking the law whilst they themselves go about breaking the same and other laws.
Sweeet![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
whats the sound form the six million dollar man
chi chi chi chi
slow mo like chi chi chi
haha[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- 'I'm pointing to the subjectivity of opinion. I have read (and commented) on many posts here. I simply don't consider the posts as compelling 'evidence' for changing the existing laws.
No matter how you try to spin it, *opinion* does not equate to 'evidence'.'
I agree no matter how you try to spin it, *YOUR opinion* does not equate to evidence so it is irrelevant.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- I think everyone everywhere should pirate everything they can get their hands on, and they all should post pics on flickr, that would be awesome. Lets see how much of the population the state is willing to turn into criminals.
30% of the U.S. population will go to jail sometime in their lifetimes that is scary and the reason is political incompetence to have sane laws.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
30% of the U.S. population will go to jail sometime in their lifetimes that is scary and the reason is political incompetence to have sane laws.
Legalize Pot. Legalize the ladies of the evening.
Kill the Pirates. on land , on sea, or online.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
File Sharing does NOT = lost sales
If file sharing was stopped today would sales increase? I don't think so! Most of the people downloading media would probably not purchase said media if they couldn't download it. The majority of people who would buy the stuff do and anything they download they wouldn't have purchased anyway. This isn't of course true for 100 percent of file sharers but those are the people that will never be stopped. I think the real solution is for the industry to supply the content in a way that the consumers want and at a price that they are willing to pay.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File Sharing does NOT = lost sales
'Most of the people downloading media would probably not purchase said media if they couldn't download it.'
ANS: no facts there , just a weak point. Pirate Logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File Sharing does NOT = lost sales
ANS: no facts there
Here ya go:
http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-1130.html[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'Most of the people downloading media would probably not purchase said media if they couldn't download it.'
'Most of the people downloading media would probably not purchase said media if they couldn't download it.'
AGAIN EXACTLY !!!!
You want my Art.
Pay for it only,
a check is ok.
unless you have
a
pirate
finacial
history.
then cash
or gold
only.
no checks
from pirates.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- Who cares about the industry let them die along with all those artists that support them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares about the industry let them die along with all those artists that support them.
thank you for adding that deep context to the discussion.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- I think it is not 'Doing nothing' but rather taking the millions of dollars used to sue Torrents sites, and reinvest it into A better Business Model.
The Best thing about Torrent sites is that it makes your file(movie/song/book) more portable, it put's it into a file that you can take and use on more than just your dvd player, your computer, your ipod. Yes some people 'steal movies'. That is not right, there is no if,and,or buts about it. But what about those that just want the digital format and we don't want to have to pay the third or fourth time for the same freaking movie we have owned in 3 different formats.
It is Legal to have a software backup of anything you have purchased a hard copy of.
They are just now getting that we don't want to pay for the same movie 10 times.
Example, you Watched Top Gun in the Theatres, when it came out. You liked it so much you took a date, and saw it a second time in the Theatres, then you Bought it on VHS, then that goes the way of the Dinosaur so you bought it on DVD thinking, Hey it can't get much better than This Now it is out on Blu Ray and you are thinking F@#$ now I have to buy another $300 piece of equipement to watch a movie in 'Hi-def' because it is my favorite movie, and I want the best experience possible, so you buy it again on Blu Ray, and now you want it on your Ipod, so you buy it in Digital Format. Crap, $8 per movie ticket (24) + $15 for the VHS when it came out + $20 for the DVD because you wanted a format that wouldn't deteriorate over time + $30 for the Blu Ray because you wanted that Movie theatre HiDef Feeling again + $10 for the Digital format because you wanted it on your Computer/Ipod/Phone , you have spent $99, just on one movie.
They are just now starting to get that fact that in today's economy this might be a little too much, and you know what, as soon as it is out of movie Theatre's we have to wait another 6 months to a year to get the damn thing on DVD or whatever other forsaken format they want to throw at me.
They are just now, just this years starting to understand that. Have you noticed that Alice in Wonderland and Avatar was put out for Release, right after it was done with Theatre Business. They capitalized on the Demand right away. And to top it off they are doing it Right, They are Releasing an 'All you can eat version' 1 package/1price/3 Formats- Bluray/DVD/Digital total price less than $30.
Holy Sh!t someone finally got the picture.
If they had figured this out 4 years ago or even sooner 6-7 years ago, They would not be facing the monster that pirating has become. They are just pissed that we were fed up of paying $50-$100 just to experience one damn movie.
I want an experience every time I watch a movie,
I want to be able to view it any way I want, DVD in the Bedroom, Blu Ray in the Living room, Digital on the computer/ipod/phone, and I would like to do it without breaking my bank, so I can actually own a movie Collection. And then be able to have money left over to spend on other business' that need my money to keep this Economy Afloat.
That is what is meant by If the MPAA did something different than Attack. It was not as useful to solving the problem as it would be to actually just solving the problem, before society was pushed to finding a solution that the MPAA did not like.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
More silly Pirate Logic
poor writing too.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More silly Pirate Logic
Says the person who uses a lot of , and abuses the = signs in his comments.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More silly Pirate Logic
A poor writing comment coming for you?!?
Anti-pirate logic! Try again.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They are just now getting that we don't want to pay for the same movie 10 times.
ME : The Law says different. I control copies of my music and all forms of transmision and physical medium.
You buy ONLY copies of Music.
The Beatles still got the acid studio tapes to Abbey Road.
And no copy will ever exactly match its sound. ( though the newly re-mastered Beatles CDs are as close as you can with digitization get.)
I have had to pay for , Abbey Road many times.
First the vinyl that wore out (2x),
The tape got eaten in the deck (3X),
The crappy sound CDs (1X) ,
Now thank G-D , we got to buy the remastered
Beatles CDs (1X) ,
(((( Now too , I can I noticed , record the new CD tracks off You tube , which , you got to ask Paul and Ringo if they care, I ain't speaking for them there.
Mike is a big shot ,
maybe he can score an interview with Ringo
-- at least -- ( sorry Richie ].)))
------------
-----------------
I paid -- and will pay --each time the Fab four put their
perfect music onto a new medium.
I do not care. a lot of people work for the Beatles directly and support their families from my $$
And spending $$ , helps our economy recover from the Bush-s.
.AND , big And ,
the Beatles still got their original copy of Abbey road on ACID STUDIO TAPE.
WORTH PAYING FOR NOW.
Even after all the money
I have spent on the Fab Four,
through out most all my life,
My first billion -
- (soon Mom, ok , stop rubbing it in) ..
With ny 1st Billion $$ ,
I am buying the Acid Tape of Abbey Road,
I bet Buffet or Murdoch will try to out bid me too.
AND soon, in 10-15 years we will buy
the 'nano-mini-analog disc'
of Abbey Road.
Paul & Yoko,
you got more $$
than some countries
(rightly so too!)
Please do invest into the quick
development of
nano-'mini-analog players'
'MAMuPs'
=[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sorry, I realized I posted twice
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Better ways to make a buck
Here's the problems:
The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with. Let's remember that Congress did give them $1 for every CD sold. This is still on the law books. Every CD that is a blank, has some profit go to these people! And yet both continue to strongarm people into believing filesharing is bad for whatever reason. Continuously, they work to keep consumers broken and afraid of the day that they are redundant. Quite frankly, I believe they are. No doubt we've seen what amounts to their strawman arguments about piracy. Believing the PirateBay is the result of all of their problems, and is a scapegoat to the fact that these guys are:
Invading our privacy
Colluding to control the American view
Using the government to enforce bad laws
Folks, we've lost a lot of rights in the past 20 years. The technology is upon us and yet we still have to deal with this view that's limiting us. When are we going to force our Congress, our president, and our judges to recognize that these laws are NOT conducive to the ongoing success of the US and other countries?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with
'The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with'
Ans : Still more Pirate Logic, no facts , just baseless premise[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with
Such poor writing. Did the pirates hurt you at some point?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with
When he was nine years old, he was raped by Johnny Depp wielding a scimitar.
Please don't talk about it. That would be uncouth.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
When he was nine years old, ..... Please don't talk about it. That would be uncouth.
EXACTLY .
These last few comments in this sub-thread , it where you pro-pirates show your ilk and mettle .
I is beyond even Pirate Logic , and moves into surreal bad taste.
You pro-pirates are completely handcuffed , by the moral augments for fight piracy-- if you even understand them -- which i do think is passes right through your shallow minds.
You Pirates and your 'cronies want-a-be'- Pirates;
Pirates cannot accept the fact , that not one member of the USA Congress OR ANY sitting federal Judge is even close to be for weaker copyright enforcement.
But yet every Day , Mike wakes up to start his Quixotic Quest
to destroy copy.
MIKE : ( paraphrase mix) This law is bad , it stops Circumvention !! This law favors copyright holders !!! This law hurts my biz , and my friends biz. My economic needs to do biz , trump you moral right to copyright enforcement.
ME:
WRONG MIKE ! Your economic need is nothing against my Right to hold and defend copyrights, That is the whole point of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. that is why the Law goes against Pirates , and the laws are getting stronger everyday
But you will never get it , Mike , and all you Pirate-Logic-posters.
you were too busy giggling stoned in high school social studies when normal people learned these principles.
and if you really do get it , and still preach you pro-piracy rhetoric , well , your are truly evil and dangerous to moral society
There is nothing cool about being a Pirate.
Gandi was cool. Dr. King was cool, Bobby Kennedy was the coolest. They are the roles models of normal moral people,
Not some actor in a Pirate uniform.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When he was nine years old, ..... Please don't talk about it. That would be uncouth.
MIKE : ( paraphrase mix) This law is bad , it stops Circumvention !! This law favors copyright holders !!! This law hurts my biz , and my friends biz. My economic needs to do biz , trump you moral right to copyright enforcement.
And here, is where you anti-freedom types show your ilk and mettle.
Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things. If you'd actually listened to anything people said, you'd know this. But you don't listen - you just argue. And get proved wrong, again and again. Because you can't deal with knowing you're wrong, you fling insults, create straw men, and retreat into this fantasy world where you're Ghandi fighting the British.
And as a result, you now have a stance on 'piracy' that is more extreme than even the RIAA's. Folks like us who want weaker copyright might be fighting an uphill battle, but not one member of the Congress OR ANY sitting federal Judge is even close to agreeing with you.
Nothing wrong with that, of course. But the only way to get what you want is to abolish copyright law and institute 'moral rights' instead. Feel free to do this - heck, I'd probably even cheer you on. But until you do this, your arguments have all the weight of a feather.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things.
KARL :Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things.
ME (repeating):
MIKE /paraphase:
This law is bad , it stops Circumvention !! This law favors copyright holders !!! This law hurts my biz , and my friends biz. My economic needs to do biz , trump you moral right to copyright enforcement.
-------------------------------
Is this the same Karl , who has been here for 3 weeks?
Go back and read Mikes posts, and replies to me directly -- what few of them they are-- here the last few weeks
Mike is always saying his biz need trumps my copy RIGHTs.
He Is always saying , fighting Piracy , is silly , stupid , , or today 'Quixotic' .
--------
Mike is wrong , by every standard of moral and academic reason.
And either::
Mike knows it -- meaning he is a subversive liar.
Or Mike just does not get it .
Which is why we have laws and courts of justice.
To protect Artist's from Pirate Mike.
there is no in between[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things.
Karl again, I can't seem to stay logged in on this computer.
Go back and read Mikes posts
I have read his posts, and here is what I think he's been saying.
This law is bad , it stops Circumvention !!
No. The law is bad because it attacks open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights, while it does absolutely nothing to stop circumvention.
This law favors copyright holders !!!
At the expense of the public - who are supposed to be the ones ultimately benefitting from copyright law.
Mike is always saying his biz need trumps my copy RIGHTs.
No. He is saying the copyright holders' business needs trump their desire to persecute file sharers.
He Is always saying , fighting Piracy , is silly , stupid , , or today 'Quixotic' .
If you want to make money, then it is silly, stupid, and Quixotic. If you want to do it for 'ethical' reasons, then it's just Quixotic.
Yet, I can parody the Rolling stones on my ukulele-- (Honky Tonk Jews--).
and it is Totally fair use.
But you can't cover a song under fair use. That would be 'piracy.'
Also, as far as satire goes, you might want to read up on what Negativeland had to go through, even though their U2 album was covered by fair use. Being sued for infringement will bankrupt you, even if you're innocent.
Ayn Rand , Thomas Jefferson , James Madison, John Locke , and more , ALL disagree you that: 'Copyright is NOT a moral right, no matter how you'd like it to be.'
Moral rights didn't exist until well after the French Revolution, so nobody you mentioned (other than Ayn Rand) could even know about them. (Incidentally, why would Rand's opinion matter?)
...You do know that when talking about copyright, 'moral rights' refers specifically to 'droit d'auteur?' That is, the foundation of European copyright and libel laws? We are NOT talking about whether copyright is ethical.
And copyright in the U.S. and U.K. has absolutely nothing to do with 'droit d'auteur.'
You should know this. You linked to a Google search about this very subject... right after you told me to 'do some research.'
I have not said one thing here in this thread this is not considered either: 'Common knowledge' [or] 'Common sense.'
If 'common knowledge' contradicts the facts, then the facts win. Sorry. As for 'common sense,' I think Einstein said it best: 'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.'
You're essentially saying you're right because you think you're right. It doesn't work that way. If you ever presented any evidence that supported your views, like the rest of us have, then maybe some of us would take you seriously.
It is asserting control over --unfair or poor faith-ed , or w/o permission -- use !! This a principle well embedded in ART and Culture. Artist Control.
...Which is what moral rights ('droit d'auteur') are for. It is not what copyright is for.
Copyright is there to grow the public domain. It does this by temporarily giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.
Full stop. That's all copyright was ever meant to be. If the current laws are overstepping that, then the laws are wrong, and should be changed.
Please do not pretend or claim to be a musician. You are just a Pirate Monkey with an amp.
So: not content to lose a debate with me, now you resort to childish name-calling, insulting the art I've devoted decades of my life (and half my income) to doing. Thanks for being an asshat. I've been trying to take the high road, and not point out that you're a talentless amateur with delusions of grandeur who's only interested in plugging his pathetic MySpace page, but I guess I just failed. Sorry about that.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
But you can't cover a song under fair use. That would be 'piracy.'
Wrong, my stones cover is parody. i checked with my lawyer before i posted. it is fair use.
i was rally disappointed too,
As I REALLY REALLY wanted mick and Kieth to sue me ,
REALLY. as i stated before , old musicians trick, old as the delta blues , rip off the master , and get him too notice you.
Kieth stole it all from Chuck Berry anyway. Chuck won't sue me either.
Kieth , you slipped though again, but i am after you, my friend.
Next i am doing 'dead flowers' strait , and i hope you sue !!!
We will do coffee, ( with extras), and settle out of court.
i need help with open tuning.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You're essentially saying you're right because you think you're right.
Short ans , yes !!
Long ans , it is late , but i will get back to the rest of your good points latter, maybe a few days. but i am not ducking you , (like the rolling stones do to me.-- one day Kieth , you and me , ukuleles @ 50 paces! )[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No. The law is bad because it attacks open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights, while it does absolutely nothing to stop circumvention
No. The law is bad because it+++ attacks open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights,+++
while it
+++does absolutely nothing to stop circumvention+++
-----
Ans:
If if 'does absolutely nothing to stop circumvention'
THEN IT CAN'T BE
attacking 'open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights' well at all.
And to me the attack on 'open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights',
is ALL from the Pirates.
My Art is my PRIVATE PROPERTY to regulate as
I see fit . so says the law.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
At the expense of the public - who are supposed to be the ones ultimately benefitting from copyright law.
At the expense of the public - who are supposed to be the ones ultimately benefitting from copyright law.
Ans ; WRONG.
We have disused this 10 X.
everyone from Ayn Rand to John Locke to Justice O'Connor,
has been quoted to dispel your big lie
The Copy right clause promotes Arts by PROTECTING
ARTISTS rights.
It is to protect ARTists from the PUBLIC TYRANNY
of Pirates.
I like when you post Karl.
you just feed my case with your
blatant mis-conceptions.
that are de-bunked the first day of any Civil Liberties college class.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No. He is saying the copyright holders' business needs trump their desire to persecute file sharers.
'No. He is saying the copyright holders' business needs trump their desire to persecute file sharers.'
If you mean i would rather not spend the $$ going afer Pirates , you are Right.
It is not about $$$
It is about Moral Principle.
It is about ARTIST CONTROL.
Period.
I ain't about $$ really ever, from the Artist prospective.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to make money, then it is silly, stupid, and Quixotic. If you want to do it for 'ethical' reasons, then it's just Quixotic.
'If you want to make money, then it is silly, stupid, and Quixotic. If you want to do it for 'ethical' reasons, then it's just Quixotic.'
Does any one out there know what the heck that means?
I don't in relation to our discussion----
Which is ABOUT ARTIST CONTROL
of ART for ARTS sake.
Artist don not care about Money.
That is why 99.9999% , are un-heard of and mostly poor,
But we still make Art anyway,
BECAUSE WE have to ,
or else we do not feel alive.
There is nothing Quixotic about it at all.
---------------------------
Your words here are nice lyrics though.
got a tune for it?
can I steal them ?
I got some chord patterns looking for good lyrics.
[ which is how this all started 3 -( 4 ?!?) weeks ago][ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things.Moral rights didn't exist until well after the French Revolution,
'Moral rights didn't exist until well after the French Revolution,'
KarL , this point made by you here me laugh -- fist foray there. If would make any Professor laugh back at you.
Two thoughts:
1] Moral Rights are by Nature above time.
that is why Natural Rights and
Moral Right are almost always
inter changeable phrases.
Even if you mean Moral rights were first written about after the Big French Party of 1789 ,
You are factually wrong.
Writings on Moral Rights are as old as writing itself.
I think his name was 'Play-doe'
( sorry about the spelling , I am dyslexic you know)
AND ,
All agree -- all being Locke & T.J. & Rand ,
that Copyright is at least Moral.
some say Natural.
Again well cited and well discussed already.
No need to go back.
2] With regard Moral Rights being by Nature above time
Take a philosophy course and say the'Moral rights didn't exist until well after the French Revolution.
the class will then discuss if you are fit to take the course.
And one would problaby ask whether you are fit to live.
I would not , but there is always one in every class .[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick has never said any of those things. Nobody on this site has said any of those things.If 'common knowledge' contradicts the facts, then the facts win. Sorry. As for 'common sense,' I think Einstein said it best: 'Common sense is the collec
If 'common knowledge' contradicts the facts, then the facts win.'
Ans: Common Knowledge is a euphemism for establish d fact you fool. Common Knowledge also envelopes accepted Moral reason.
exp: Murder is always wrong
( war and self defense is 'killing' and/or 'Manslaughter' , it is NOT not Murder. go look it up)
-----------------------
Sorry. As for 'common sense,'
I think Einstein said it best: 'Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.'
Albert was making a 'joke' about about the folly of youth.
How the surety of youth looks like folly,
with the retrospect of old age.
(How shallow can you be man ?)
Uncle Albert's definition of 'Common Sense ' is not the one embedded in all legal systems. Ask ANY judge. I have.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is there to grow the public domain. It does this by temporarily giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.
'Copyright is there to grow the public domain.'
WRONG.
Copyright Protects Artist
. As well as ART for ARTS sake.
I can choose to keep my ART un-published.
Copyright says no one can steal it and publish it
----------------
' It does this by ++temporarily++ giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.'
Wow !!!
you got a point right !!!
WOW !!
( there must flying pigs in Frozen Hell).
Except that word 'temporarily'.
( sorry to take away your perfect game -- er, phrase)
You know well the phrase Jefferson chose was
'Limited time',
In Legal and Literary terms a different concept.
'Temporarily' is 'brief' , 'fleeting' , and for 'transitory objects' .
Limited Time , can legally be 100 years , 1000 years, or the lifetime of the Artist. Congress decides that.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is there to grow the public domain. It does this by temporarily giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.
Okay, last time.
my stones cover is parody.
But your Beatles cover is not. It is infringing. You are, by your own definition, a pirate. Don't be ashamed; most people are pirates. Musicians are the biggest pirates of them all, and I don't mind in the least.
If if 'does absolutely nothing to stop circumvention' THEN IT CAN'T BE attacking 'open culture, civil liberties, and privacy rights' well at all.
Right, because copyright does anything to support open culture, or civil liberties, or privacy rights. And no other rights (free expression, due process, cruel and unusual punishment) matter at all. Totalitarianism is fine, as long as protects the 'right' to ideas. Uh huh.
everyone from Ayn Rand to John Locke to Justice O'Connor, has been quoted to dispel your big lie
Ayn Rand and John Locke didn't write the laws; in fact, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected Locke's 'labor theory.' O'Connor, the only lawmaker of the bunch, agrees with me. All of what has been quoted supports my assertions. You just can't accept that, so you twist their words to fit your radical viewpoint, even when they say in clear and unmistakable terms that you're wrong.
If you mean i would rather not spend the $$ going afer Pirates , you are Right.
All I mean is that you don't understand what Masnick is saying. You claimed his need to make money trumped your 'rights.' His need to make money was never part of the argument. He doesn't make a dime from infringing on your copyrights, nor anyone else's.
Does any one out there know what the heck that means?
Here you go. Does the phrase 'tilting at windmills' ring a bell?
Natural Rights and Moral Right are almost always inter changeable phrases.
Almost always, and this is not one of those cases. If you're talking about copyrights, 'moral rights' has a very specific, legally defined meaning: 'droit d'auteur.' Do some research on what that is, and why the U.S. doesn't have it. Go ahead and follow that Google search you posted, except this time, actually read what it links to.
On the other hand, Jefferson used 'natural right' quite a bit. In the text I quoted, he made it absolutely, explicitly, unmistakably clear that copyright was not a natural right. He also called intellectual property an 'embarrassment,' so I doubt he though it was moral, either.
If we are talking about ethics, then I believe it's not ethical to purposely prevent people from enjoying your art. Even less ethical when you lose nothing by people enjoying it - which is the case with peer-to-peer file sharing. You may disagree. It's impossible to prove what is 'moral' and what isn't, so that debate will never get settled.
On the other hand, you're a moral hypocrite and I'm not, so there's that.
' It does this by ++temporarily++ giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.'
Wow !!!you got a point right !!! WOW !!
So you agree that, other than the right to profits, you have no rights at all under copyright? Wow! You got a point right! WOW!
But I'm really getting tired of this. Obviously you don't comprehend what you read, don't want to debate or learn anything, and are just here to attack people. If you actually do want more information, I've written a lengthy piece called Why Musicians and Labels Should Embrace Filesharing. It has plenty of links to laws and case studies, so if you do want evidence, read that. If you don't, then don't bother. Either way, I'm done arguing with you.
Good luck with getting your rock star heroes to sue you. I wish you all the success in the world, with that at least.
...okay, no I don't. I can't be that petty. So here's some advice: pay the statutory licensing fees, like you're legally supposed to do, and you can cover that song to your heart's content. You don't even need the artists' permission or anything. For what you're doing, the fees aren't that big (like, $80 per song). That's a lot better than a hundred-thousand dollar settlement and the destruction of all copies of that song.
Plus, without doing that, no commercial pressing plant will agree to press your CD, for fear of maybe being sued themselves. (This has happened to some friends of mine, even though it wasn't covers, it was samples, which are actually covered by fair use.)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright is there to grow the public domain. It does this by temporarily giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.
-----------
I have always said and admitted the my Beatles cover at my space was a blatant & technical & illegal 'violation of copyright law.'
It was VERY intentional.
Please Paul , Sue. me.
Musician culture.
As I have posted about 2Ox before before.
As Mike posted in the AP Barack Obama Photo and Art Post
'Mannie Garcia, even talked about how cool it was, and didn't seem upset by the issue at all, saying he hoped he might get a 'signed litho' from Fairey. '
Artist culture , the original artist of the photo
had no thought all to sure the infringer .
Artist culture.
--------------------------------
While Locke and co.
company do not write laws,
the laws are based on their writings.
Again political theory is my academic discipline
I am good at it and respected.
Even todsy as you mention Karl,
Lock and co, are discussed by SCOTUS often.
The meaning of JUST THE COMMA placement in the 2nd amendment on guns was at the forefront the the latest. SCOTUS decicion in guns rights.
The writings of Madison , Jefferson and the gang -- call the Federalist Papers -- are still at the core of our democratic functions and institutions.
These writings , as well as pure philosophers like Locke and Rand -- as they were not politicians like T.J. & co -- also play a major role in the debates on public law and policies,
Ladies and Gentleman Mr. Robert Dahl,
Robert Alan Dahl (born 17 December 1915), is the Sterling Professor emeritus of political science at Yale University, where he earned his Ph.D. in political science in 1940.[1]
He is past president of the American Political Science Association and one of the most distinguished political scientists writing today.
Dahl has often been described as 'the Dean' of American political scientists.
He earned this title by his prolific writing output and the fact that scores of prominent political scientists studied under him.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl
Dahl's major work :
'Democracy and Its Critics'
'In the book, Dahl 'examines the most basic assumptions of democratic theory, tests them against the questions raised by its critics, and recasts the theory of democracy into a new and coherent whole.
He concludes by discussing the directions in which democracy must move if advanced democratic states are to exist in the future.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Its_Critics
One of Dahl's main students was a dude name Bill Clinton.
Search: _ 'Robert Dahl' 'Bill Clinton ' 'welfare reform' ___
About 1,760 results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=HQ6&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___ US361&&sa=X&ei=nAoLTJTmBIOdlgf31aGjDg&ved=0CBsQBSgA&q=%22Robert+Dahl%22+%22bill+ clinton+%22+%22welfare+reform%22&spell=1
THE POINT:
Philosophers do mater in REAL WORLD POLITICAL ACTION.
T,J. and co were philosophers and politicians.
Law in the USA will always be based on
1] the 'Federalist Papers' ( and other relevant writings of the time),
2} AND the U.S. Constitution.
3] and their interpretation and implementation by
Congress and SCOTUS.
Copyright will live and get stronger.
I am done here[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright is there to grow the public domain. It does this by temporarily giving authors the exclusive right to the profits made from publishing, as an incentive to produce more works.
I have always said and admitted the my Beatles cover at my space was a blatant & technical & illegal 'violation of copyright law.' It was VERY intentional. Please Paul , Sue. me.
Ah, there might be hope for you yet.
So, you admit that you are a pirate. (Legally, your piracy is much worse than file sharing, since you are doing it willfully and with the expectation of commercial gain.)
That's a good first step to understanding copyright: realizing that when you attack pirates, you are attacking people just like you.
Now, let's do a thought experiment. Paul actually hears your cover, thinks it's brilliant, and gives it a thumbs up. Sony, on the other hand, does not like it, and wants to sue you.
According to copyright laws, Sony is in the right. Legally, Paul cannot grant you the right to cover that song. Just as he could not prevent Nike from using a Beatles song in an advertisement. That's because Sony is the rights holder, not Paul.
End result: you get sued, you lose lots of money, and a court rules that all copies of your cover song be destroyed. The music that you worked hard to produce, is now illegal. Both you and everyone else has been deprived of that music. It has been stolen.
You may think that what you're doing is part of 'musician culture.' You are right. But as you know, you are also breaking the law.
The reason for this is that copyright law does not support musician culture. It is steadfastly against it. It demands that if anyone wants to partake of that culture, they must pay large sums of money (to publishers), or they will be punished.
Realizing this is the second step to understanding copyright.
Like it or not, fans sharing music with other fans is also part of musician culture. More importantly, it is a fundamental part of any cultural heritage. The free exchange of the products of the intellect is something Jefferson called a natural right.
Copyright law takes away that natural right. Unlike infringement, it actually deprives people (including artists) of the right to art. It is theft from the culture.
Realizing this is the third step to understanding copyright.
Now, this theft may be a necessary evil. If that theft grows the amount of works available to the culture, then according to the Constitution, the benefits to the culture outweigh the costs. But if it does not, then it has no benefit, and can only be harmful to culture - including musician culture.
This is the fourth step to understanding copyright: it harms natural rights, and should tolerated only if it produces a greater good to society.
So, the question is: Is copyright's cultural theft outweighed by the cultural benefit of growing the public domain? If not, the laws should be changed.
Hopefully you understand now. You probably should have looked all this up before debating here.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for viewing the world in Black and White
Now I find this laughable. You have no facts to augment your argument and you find fault with everyone else but yourself and your own argument. It's time to look in the mirror and see what it reflects. I could see if you had an argument. Sadly, as I'm coming to know this site, your argument falls apart in two posts or less. Thanks for playing, but my rhetoric (definition - using language to communicate effectively) is stronger than yours. You've not shown anything about your own views that hasn't been contested and are merely a spokesperson for stronger laws without seeing the downside.
*shakes head* Oh well. Back to my 'rhetoric' and using my free time to make a new book and stop complaining about things that won't change.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks for viewing the world in Black and White
Pirate Logic
Some things in law are Black and White with no Gray.
Murder , Theft and Piracy among them.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thanks for viewing the world in Black and White
Try to be less retarded.
Murder: Are all the men and women in Iraq going to be tried for murder when they get back to the states? If I kill you in self defense, will I go to jail?
Theft: If a cop has a search warrant and takes my property against my will, can I have him arrested for theft?
'Piracy': Fair Use.
Nothing is black and white.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thanks for viewing the world in Black and White
'Try to be less retarded.'
ANS :Lame comment . i am very educated, and can provide full reference to my academic credentials
Murder: Are all the men and women in Iraq going to be tried for murder when they get back to the states? If I kill you in self defense, will I go to jail?
ANS ;; I said MURDER. Killing in war , or killing is self-defense , is not MURDER. take a law class.
Theft: If a cop has a search warrant and takes my property against my will, can I have him arrested for theft?
ANS: again the situation , may or not be theft. there are unfortunately many cases where the police get bust for just such thing. (Happens in NYC where i live too often.)
------------------
'Piracy': Fair Use.'
ANS : Piracy is never FAIR USE.
Fair use is Fair.
Ask any judge who rules on copyright. Ask any congressman. Ask your Pol-sci or Civil Liberties professor.
-----------------------------------------
who is retarded now
some things are black and white.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, as I'm coming to know this site, your argument falls apart in two posts or less.
JAY : 'Sadly, as I'm coming to know this site, your argument falls apart in two posts or less.'
Ans : The VERY sad part here is that you fail to understand my points, which are taught and discussed in every Social Studies class from 3rd grade to post -PhD.
I have not said one thing here in this thread this is not considered either :
a] 'Common knowledge' by any copyright judge, law proff, congress-person , or even a good honest lawyer.
b] 'Common sense.' ---- which is not just the title of Thomas Paine's famous work ( hoped you learned that in 6th grade) -- ,
But 'common sense' is a recognized legal principle invoked by Judges in 'Courts of Law' everyday.
If you dispute that fact, please find any comment I have made on the Topic of , Copyright , Moral Rights , and Natural Rights, that is neither 'common sense' or 'common knowledge' and point it out to me back here.
-----
I am working online at at home today , so I will reply quick , most likely.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Buggs Bunny and Daffy Duck on copy right: from the Movie 'Space Jam'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az2AKk-0f0M&NR=1
Enjoy !![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA and RIAA are the strong arms of the music and movie industry. They can't be bargained nor reasoned with
I really like you. You seem to have forgotten all of the things that the MPAA and RIAA are doing. Here's a few things to read:
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html - RIAA sues Napster
http://blogs.computerworld.com/riaa_sues_joel_tenenbaum_for_4_5m_in_p2p_trial - RIAA sues Joel Tenenbaum...
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15208/joel_tenenbaum_vs_riaa_675_000_p2p_piracy_verdi ct_oked - For 675,000 over 30, That's T-H-I-R-T-Y, songs!
Oh wait, I got more.
MPAA's turn
http://www.betanews.com/article/MPAA-Sues-Grandfather-for-600000/1130957894 - Grandmother sued for $600,000 dollars
---------------------------------------------
Granted, they've since stopped the suing business where they strongarmed people into settling, which is EXACTLY what the Copyright Group is now doing. But to say that my belief is baseless? Highly unlikely. I've watched as the DMCA was passed and caused this conflict through Clinton's signing. I've watched as the ACTA is trying to put its nasty tendrils into the US. And quite frankly, if you need me to back up something, I'll be more than happy to and show why I believe the way I do. Regardless, the MPAA and RIAA are still the bad guys that are lobbying for stronger laws to cut off 'pirates' with an internet connection, or should I link that on from their success with Pirate Bay or Verizon and their holey right to privacy with customers?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw Em!
I can barely get through the month and pay my bills, If i could not pirate em' I would not even watch them at all.
You think in my state struggling, I am gonna care about a filthy rich industries loss of profits
And screw paying $20 at cinema even if i was rich.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw Em! : I can barely get through the month and pay my bills, If i could not pirate em' I would not even watch them at all.
'I can barely get through the month and pay my bills, If i could not pirate em' I would not even watch them at all.'
ans : So your are saying poverty excuses crime ? I bet you shoplift too !![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
success?
Actually, the comparison to drugs in the first comment is valid. Some governments have been fighting a zero-tolerance war on drugs for decades, and the drug trade there is bigger and more violent than ever.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
We don't care ask to people who cares.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
When will they learn?
When will people (and large corporations) learn that the Internet can be like an impossible game of whack-a-mole. If you squash one (suprnova) many more will pop up (TPB, mininova, etc). The very best thing to do in most cases is completely ignore it. The less you draw attention to these things the better.
Of course, ignoring this may not be the best course of action. In some cases you must take action. But trying to go against the Internet is like trying to divert the Amazon. You can't just stop pirating, you must change your business model to go with the flow. If people want portable downloadable high quality music, movies, and TV shows with minimal effort and minimal cost then give it to them in a way that works for you.
Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
'Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?'
The onus is on the criminal ( Pirates ) to reform themselves.
The onus is not on society to surrender or bend to Pirates[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
Congratulations. This seems to be your first comment without the retarded usage of extra commas.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
'Congratulations. This seems to be your first comment without the retarded usage of extra commas.'
as I mentioned a dozen times already , i am dyslexic , and the commas ,, help me to proof read better.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
That explains why your so mixed up on copyright and morality.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
if your are claiming my dyslexia , is the root reason for my morals on copyright ,
when that is the worst Pirate Logic yet.
Shows you ilk and mettle .
Pirates are schmucks.
And should be prosecuted when they break the law.
One little Pirate Geek with a keyboard ,
the gov't can't really stop you from using Pirate Bay,
or your other little daily infringements.
That is part of the 'pirate cool' , we are breaking the law !!
I know , that was the cool factor of smoking pot. it was against the law to smoke pot .
BUT One day soon pot will be legal. ( see Cailf. in November elections), how can a plant be illegal ? More and more people are now seeking that drug laws do not work. treatment for addicts, and permission for users , is the better way.
BUT , SUPER big 'BUT' ,,
,,Piracy will NEVER BE LEGAL.
Never ever. It is too ingrained in Moral , Natural , and LEGAL LAW , that Piracy is WRONG.
Live with it Mike and you pro-pirate posters !!!![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: : When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
My right to make copies trumps your right to prevent me from making copies. Copying: It's in our DNA![ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying: It's in our DNA!
If I clone you, is your DNA yours still ?
Can you copyright your DNA ?
I am asking .
It has been in the news lately a bit ,
Search , and get back to me.
----------------
So a guitar player walks into a bar
with a little Monkey on his head.
the bar owner says:
hey, where did you get that ?!?!
And the monkey says,
Greenwich Village NYC!
there are loads of them !
-----------------
a pirate geek
goes to the same bar ,
with a little monkey on his head
the bar owner asks him:
well, where did you get that?
and the monkey says :
The apple store , they all over the place !!!
And get this,
this geek says he is not copyrighted !
He is now my property to do as I wish.
I can clone him a million times ,
and make slaves for me.
AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD !!!!
=[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
No. You cannot copyright your DNA because you cannot copyright facts.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
'No. You cannot copyright your DNA because you cannot copyright facts.'
are u sure ?
or is this off the top of your head? and a good guess?
suppose it is new DNA? ,
your a bio-tech working in some big biz corp, and the corp owns the rights to your work ?
hold by your answer?
--------------------------------------
really , i do not know off the top of my head, and is too busy to fully check it out.
Let me know , what YOU find out.
thanks.
----------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
me clearly , just got home from a wedding of a friend, and forgot to log in after reboot-- sorry.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
You can't copyright DNA, you can't copyright facts (even though there are institutions that try it). And yes I'm 100% sure.
btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna, much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying: It's in our DNA!
YOU : You can't copyright DNA,
ME : Ok ( for now, but see below )
YOU :you can't copyright facts (even though there are institutions that try it).
ME : OK , but is not DNA a 'unique fact' ? Does that change it ? facts tend to be , date , place, time . Are your fingerprints FACTS? Answer with citation only !!
YOU :And yes I'm 100% sure.
ANS : back it up . We are in FORMAL debate mode. ( now saying you are wrong , but I will not cede points w/o proof.)
YOU :btw, if you clone me, my dna is still my dna,
ME : If you cannot copyright it , HOW IS IT YOURS ? Where is the legal protection ?
How Would it be argued in court?
Answers with citations please !!
AS Your ans. are NOT specific enough , and contradict themselves.
YOU : much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.
ME : your clone , has the same DNA you do !!! That is cloning ! I am not a bio-tech person , but If I understand right , that was cloning is -- EXACT COPY of DNA.
If you cannot copyright your DNA , how can you say ' much as my clone's dna is his dna. As I still have access to my dna.'
In a cout of AMERICAN LAW , where is your case , what protects your DNA , if you cannot copyright it ? eithin in name or practise ?
Cited ans only , ANYONE ?
MORE INFO :
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dna_copyright.html
DNA Copyright
The Osgood File (CBS Radio Network): 10/4/01
High school students copyright their own DNA.
As researchers unlock the secrets of the human genome, an important debate has arisen concerning ownership of the information gathered from genetic research. The very questions that ignite these issues are the very same ones that Steven Miller, a biology teacher at Fremont High School in Oakland, California, is asking his students through an unusual exercise: Miller is getting each of his students to 'copyright' their own DNA. All that's required are a camera, an envelope, a stamp and a little saliva.
In 1991, The California Supreme Court decided that a newly discovered cancer cell, known as 'Mo,' and any profits stemming from innovations relating to the cell were the sole property of the researchers who found and patented it. The man, whose body the cells were originally taken from, had no legal claim to ownership or copyright of the cells and could not demand compensation or other redress. The case, known as the John Moore decision, illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas society faces in the age of biotechnology.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dna_copyright.html
---------------------------------------- -
ME : It is clear you did no research , and answered off the top of your Pirate Logic Brain :
search w/link below to start, and get back to me with CITED information to back your feeble opinion.
Give me facts , and reason based on facts, not your suppositions !!!!!
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+DNA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client= firefox-a&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361
----------------------------------------------[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
be nice to the retards. they think they're people too.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
be nice to the retards. they think they're people too.
poor taste comment.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: be nice to the retards. they think they're people too.
silly pirate logic.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
Er, yeah, good luck on that.
It warms me to see how it's failed heavily so far.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
The onus is on the criminal (colored people, distillers, women) to reform themselves..
The onus is not on society to surrender or bend to criminals...
Oh crap....damn those pesky time warps, and here I was thinking we were still in the back in the beginning of the century, you know when segregation, the repeal of prohibition, and the women's rights movement would have all been considered terrorist activities (I mean they were all promoted and sponsored by criminals who didn't like the law at the time, right?)....
Now where did I leave that tinfoil[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will they learn? Instead of trying to fine and jail pirates they should turn us into paying customers (or advertising targets).?
The onus is on the criminal (colored people, distillers, women) to reform themselves..
You are more right than you will ever know.
I am not being sarcastic. 'Piracy' is fundamentally about poor people accessing the same content as rich people. Everyone would like to pretend it's not true, but it is.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'Piracy' is fundamentally about poor people accessing the same content as rich people.
'Piracy' is fundamentally about poor people accessing the same content as rich people. '
So is bank robbery, you idiot.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Piracy' is fundamentally about poor people accessing the same content as rich people.
Bank robbery? You mean with the threat of violence? How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
Oh right, none. You fucking idiot.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
'How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?'
Me : FREEZE ! you are under arrest.
yes the little singular geek with keyboard ,
is not a real threat ,
and is usually is not prosecuted
( lets skip that discussion for now please.)
But Piracy on the mega-scale is criminal , and if there must be $$ to be made, it will be in that racket.
WHY else would the mega-pirates ---,
---whether of trademarked fake goods, those bootlegged CDs sold on streets, Lyric Sites that do not pay royalties, or any other major Pirate Website ---
WHY else would the mega-pirates spend all their time and energy on their work , if they were not working to make money -- often outside the law and taxes.
I do not like giving $$$ to criminals exploding my ART.
Where is my lawyer? We are going to court.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
Non-commercial copyright infringement is not a violent act, unlike robbing a fucking bank which is usually under the threat of violence.
Copyright infringement is not counterfeiting.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright infringement is not counterfeiting.
READ here and get back to me :
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-Lawsuit[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How many copyright infringers resort to violence when they download content?
YOU :'Non-commercial copyright infringement'
ME : there is no such thing as 'Non-commercial copyright infringement'
Infringement means , some commercial use , some one made $$$,
that I can sue for. ( see link at very end of post )
If there is no $$$ , it is usually -- but not always -- fair use. ( again cited facts only !!! no more face value comments ! Let us really learn together , not just bicker w/o end.)
----------------------
----------------
(It is 5 am in NYC ? why am i here ? need more coffee, and a ciggee. Anybody know how the NY mets did last nite ? I am too busy here to check. [ i think it was an off day , but too busy to check] And what is the deal with Ump and the 'perfect game' , can umpires & referees copyright their unique gestures? Search 'Groucho Marx ' before you answer !)
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/manufacturing/060410-Judgment-in-Get-Lucky-La wsuit
end of post[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The onus is on the criminal (colored people, distillers, women) to reform themselves..
Very Faulty Pirate Logic.
Esp if you hold by Natural Law.
If you do not hold by Natural Law , is is faulty Pirate Logic , by Moral Law.
If you do not gold by Moral Law, you are a hazard to society.
( except for the distillers of booze, where there are 'serious civil liberties issues' according to all 'law philosophy-s')[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The onus is on the criminal (colored people, distillers, women) to reform themselves..
Copying is in our DNA.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigation as a revenue stream can't be sustained by the courts
I've seen a lot of arguments based on morality or why a law should be repealed because so many break it. But there is one argument no one has touched unless I missed it, and it applies to the patent system as well.
If a law is in place that makes it lucrative to use litigation as a revenue stream, the law needs to change to make that not the case.
Practicality is going to put a screeching halt to all this. If ALL the content creators file mass lawsuits, and the a patient 'nuclear war' begins, our court system will not sustain such a situation for long. It was not designed for that.
The makers of the 'Hurt Locker' just filed 5000 lawsuits as a revenue source. Content creators are merely shifting costs from them to the court system. Apple just started on the patient end of things.
Either the laws will change to make such litigation unnecessary, or the filing costs will escalate to the point that it won't be cost effective to exercise your rights in court.
At that point, every other argument will be irrelevant.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
- I'm in the SF Bay Area. They're on cable here. I'm surprised they're not playing in your area.
But again I must disagree. You can't find them days after they air. You can find them in just a matter of hours ;)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this directed at me, about Doctor Who?
If so: The only 'legitimate' place to watch them in my area is on the Syfy channel. They have only just started running the Matt Smith episodes - at least as far as I know (I had to cut the TV umbilical cord weeks ago).
They're available to UK viewers, but not to anyone outside of that region. Since I'm in the US, if I want to watch the Weeping Angels episodes, I have to pirate them.
In any case, there's no way I could buy them - neither through cable companies, nor through DVD sales.
Why, exactly, should I be punished by hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lawsuit? Why should I be punished with jail time?
...Speaking metaphorically.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah it was directed at you. Don't know why it didn't show up properly.
Like I said earlier, they run the Matt Smith episodes a week after they air in England. They're well past the Weeping Angels episodes.
Metaphorically or not, I don't know why you're asking me about what level of punishment you should receive. I already stated that I do not believe a downloader should face those kind of penalties. That last post of mine was just a wink and a nod to how quickly the episodes are available online. The Weeping Angels have been available for weeks.
Do I think what you're doing by downloading them is right? Well no. I don't. I don't think it's right when I do it either.
That said, one thing I make a point of doing with international episodes like this that aren't available easily in my area is rent them through Netflix after they do become available so that my viewing of them gets 'counted'.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like I said earlier, they run the Matt Smith episodes a week after they air in England
I thought that Syfy was the only channel showing those episodes, and according to their ads, they started showing them in April - three months after first being aired. If I'm wrong, point me to a place where I can legally watch them online, and I will be more than happy to do so.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, yes, I will definitely watch them on Netflix once they become available there. I've already watched all the Tennant episodes that way. In fact, because of this, I actually caved and watched some of the old episodes again (like the 1970's-era Dalek 'movie,' which was terrible).
Point me to a legal way to watch the episodes online, and I will gladly do it. If there is one, I haven't found it yet. It's entirely possible that I'm just out of the loop, so please enlighten me if I'm mistaken.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Some success, at least regarding TPB
The Pirate Bay no longer runs a tracker, and every torrent on their site specifies the tracker as tracker.thepiratebay.org, which has bogus DNS entires. So all of their torrents, even recent ones, are unusable as is. You have to manually replace the tracker in each torrent file before loading it into a Bittorrent client.
This makes it much easier to use other bittorrent sites, and TPB has mostly become irrelevant. I only use TPB when I have trouble finding something somewhere else, and it only works about half the time, the other half, I replace the tracker with the usual suspects, and there are no other users of that torrent on those trackers.
As long as there are other bittorrent websites, TPB will be more trouble than it is worth.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright © 2010 Ayn Rand
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.'
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
Copyright © 2010 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI)
. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.
ARI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Contributions to ARI in the United States
are tax-exempt to the extent provided by law.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright �© 2010 Ayn Rand
Seriously, Ayn Rand?[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not like giving $$$ to criminals exploding my ART
should read :
I do not like giving $$$ to criminals 'exploiting' my ART.
------------
but you know
it works either way :)[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
'Their fans remain perhaps the last reliable — and dependably solvent — demographic in a music industry that has been hammered into fragments by the Internet. '
June 1, 2010
'Touchstones in Concert, Reweaving Harmonies'
NY Times
By ANTHONY DeCURTIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/arts/music/06taylor.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
E AST PALO ALTO, Calif.
PERCHED on the arm of a couch in a hotel room here, James Taylor recalled the first time he heard Carole King sing “You’ve Got a Friend.”
They are performing more than two dozen of their individual hits, while providing harmony vocals and instrumental support for each other (Mr. Taylor on guitar, Ms. King on piano). The core of their band — the guitarist Danny Kortchmar, the bassist Leland Sklar and Russ Kunkel on drums — further rounds out the reunion. All of these musicians played with Ms. King and Mr. Taylor at the moment of their ascent four decades ago. Mr. Kortchmar introduced Mr. Taylor to Ms. King in 1969; the two men first played together in their teens.
Those deep connections have made the tour’s shows something like a Thanksgiving dinner in an Ann Beattie novel. “Tapestry” and Mr. Taylor’s albums “Sweet Baby James” (1970) and “Mudslide Slim and the Blue Horizon” (1971) are definitive boomer touchstones, and because they capture the collaborative apex of the singers’ interwoven careers, they account for many of the songs in the show.
point >>>>> +++++Their fans remain perhaps the last reliable — and dependably solvent — demographic in a music industry that has been hammered into fragments by the Internet. Since the tour arrived in the United States, they have been turning out in force, leaving sold-out arenas and million-dollar-plus grosses in their wake. +++++ >>>>>>“Softer rock doesn’t tend to do well in arenas,” said Gary Bongiovanni of Pollstar, a magazine that tracks the concert industry.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
End result: you get sued, you lose lots of money,
You can only sue for lost royalties.
there is no $$$
----------------------
'Like it or not, fans sharing music with other fans is also part of musician culture.'
ME : Unless your a Grateful Dead Head, where the dead allowed taping and trading of live show tapes,
' fans sharing music' -- illegally and out side or copyright law--- 'with other fans is also part of musician culture' , but it is wrong and artists want it topped when we loose control of the situation.
So does Congress, So say the Courts.
----------------------
'Now, this theft may be a necessary evil. If that theft grows the amount of works available to the culture, then according to the Constitution, the benefits to the culture outweigh the costs.'
ME : Karl that is the dumbest think you have written yet , and goes against all law and reason. Please take a civil liberties class and make that point on your final paper as your class thesis .
You will fail the class.
---------------------
'This is the fourth step to understanding copyright: it harms natural rights, and should tolerated only if it produces a greater good to society.
So, the question is: Is copyright's cultural theft outweighed by the cultural benefit of growing the public domain? If not, the laws should be changed.
Hopefully you understand now. You probably should have looked all this up before debating here.'
ME ::
Karl Pirate Logic at the worst. This thread is dead . Karl, see you in the next one --- if them
--------------------------
'Pretzel logic of relativism. Freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law are beneficial to all societies.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/11/pretzellogicofrelativism
'[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End result: you get sued, you lose lots of money,
You should get sued for copying/pasting other's statements. You are violating their IP.[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross Beat Download Torrent Piratesbay Free
Add Your Comment
Close