Printable View
You mean when a rapist speeds over a red traffic light he gets less time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
These guys actually destroy jobs and ruin families, I don't see why they should get off easy.
Just because part of their "crusade" is semi-noble doesn't mean what they do is right.
I wasn't trying to - it just happened to be an unfortunate example.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8633...rickrolled.jpg
Oh dang, I just got... Batroll'd?
Oh come on, competition can destroy jobs but that doesn't mean we should ban it. That's massive hyperbole, most pop stars have more then enough money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I also think the music industry is exaggerating the risk posed by torrents. Personally, I think I buy more albums with torrenting then I would without. Most people don't have a problem with supporting the musicians its just when limited income and cooperate politics get in the way that we have a problem.
Hmm, American Corporate interests influencing the law in a foreign, soveriegn nation. Sweet, although not unheard of.
When you produce something you have the right to demand money in exchange for giving it to people, the people have the right to choose whether they want to buy it or not, but that does not mean they can just take it for free against your will. It's a matter of principle, those pop stars only have enough money because they are so popular and they are only popular because people buy their music and/or listen to it, they had a good idea and turned it into money. One man's robin hood is another man's pirate and itn the same way I could say oh come on, we westerners are really rich, those Somali pirates can really use the money and we get our oil anyway. The record companies just want to show their power by crushing software pirates in the same way most here want to show the somali pirates western power and "don't bow to anyone"-attitude by crushing them. In both cases it's theft and in both cases I think jail is appropriate. I fyou don't like DRM, don't buy DRM, using illegal means to circumvent it just means you're a weakling who cannot resist the candy and I mean you in general. Oh and you're being a criminal, oh wonder, oh wonder, I'm so shocked! :drama2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
But why is it illegal? Just because X is illegal does not automatically mean that X is bad.
Well put, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Also, on the argument that "we're losing a lot of money because noone buys our music"... Has anyone heard any of the new music these days? I mean... I think I'd rather have my testicles sawn off than spend money to hear "Pokerface", "Halo" or any of that crap. I would, however, consider paying money to have the artists beaten.
For example because someone invested money and time into making it and wants some money in return?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Is that principle so alien to you? Do you also ask why taking a deodorant from a supermarket is illegal? I mean they're massproduced in China and they stand around there anyway, so why would taking them without paying be illegal?
Well, yes, of course, I could pay you 12000 EUR for your old overpriced car or throw a rock at your head, take it and escape the police for 12000 minutes so guess what I'm gonna do?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Man, if the music is that bad, then why are people pirating it? And if they are not pirating the bad music then your argument about music being so bad is completely invalid anyway.
If you don't like it there is an easy solution, don't freakin buy it, how the hell does that excuse stealing it? There are bad cars and noone buys them but noone steals them either. :dizzy2:
When you get a massage, all you really get is someone's time and you pay for it in a massage salon, same for a brothel, just because you get nothing physical does not mean you can demand the service for free against the person's will, in the latter case it would be called rape.
Again, if it's not worth the money, stay away from it completely, if everybody agrees the company will go bankrupt, if you want it anyway then it can't be that bad and you should pay for it. It's quite simple.
I do stay away from 99% of the music made these days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I wonder what they're going to do when countries like Russia start hosting torrent sites en-mass? Its not like they really give a damn about INTERPOL, or angry American Consumer Companies. Its all about teh monies.
Thousands demonstrate against the Pirate Bay verdict. Sadly, no tea was on hand.
Many Swedes were outraged by the harsh sentence that was given and today the Swedish Pirate Party organized a demonstration to support the defendants. The demonstration took place in in Stockholm, and there were similar protests in other Swedish cities.
“Politicians have declared war on our entire generation,” Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge told the crowd, adding. “Our politicians are digital illiterates. We need politicians who can’t be hen-pecked by a foreign power.”
“The Pirate Bay is a completely legitimate service that transmits information between people. After this ruling, no one can feel secure when linking to a YouTube clip on its website,” Daniel Nyström from the Pirate Party said in his speech while the crowd yelled “Free TPB, free TPB!”
The verdict has brought many new members for the Pirate Party, and they hope to get a seat at the European Parliament later this year. Over the past day over 6000 members applied, raising the member count from less than 15,000 up to more than 20,000 making them one of the largest political parties in Sweden.
This is the cue for me to put the video of the anthem of the newly powerful party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
i disagree with the verdict, though i dont use TPB myself.
A very well-balanced column on the trial from PC World:
Of course, The Pirate Bay's case is nothing new. Eight years ago Napster was shut down after getting sued. It tried a few legal business models, but never managed to even get close to the popularity it had when it was operating illegally. The shutdown of Napster turned its creator, Shawn Fanning, and Napster into a into heroes and martyrs, inspiring others to develop new ways to pirate music.The Pirate Bay site itself is still up and running while the case is appealed.
What Hollywood needs to remember is that sites like The Pirate Bay are like weeds. When you try to kill one, they grow back even stronger. In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a change that could keep the site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its appeal.
The bad news for copyright-holders is there is obviously a market demand for this type of content distribution model. And while the entertainment industry seeks compensation via lawsuits, other similar services (which I do not endorse) such as Mininova, Demonoid and Torrentbox to name a few, will continue to thrive. That is, of course, until they get sued into oblivion as well. And then there are always new technologies on the horizon. Hollywood might want to start looking at a budding new peer-to-peer tool called OneSwarm that aims to let file-swappers preserve their privacy by cloaking their IP address.
Unless those who have developed an intellectual property can make a profit from it, they are hardly likely to continue doing so.
Property matters.
True dat, Seamus, and nobody in their right mind argues that everything should be free for the taking. That said, IP creators need to come to grips with what they're up against, and they need to find a constructive course. Sheesh, just imagine how much easier Napster would have been to deal with than today's torrents. Single, centralized server, known owners, massive popularity. The guys who founded Napster pretty much begged the music labels to make them an offer. Instead they got sued into oblivion, and the geeks and technology adapted.
Now the music labels couldn't make a deal if they tried. Bad bit of business, that.
There is no litigious solution to a technological problem. Not unless you have a single, unified world government with ubiquitous policing, and that ain't gonna happen until Barack Hussein Obama reveals that he is the Antichrist and the Final Days begin.
I've outlined some of the steps that IP creators ought to take elsewhere in this thread.
-edit-
A further thought: Your premise is false. Theater is a money-losing concern for all involved, but it keeps going. Nobody turns a profit on ballet or opera, but they keep going. People sing in the shower without being paid, and craft shockingly weird videos for YouTube, usually without recompense. The urge to create is a strong one. If worst comes to worst, and the music and film industries are unable to adapt, they may simply mutate into a smaller creature, much like theater and ballet. That's my worst-case scenario.
Um, that video says Adult Swim on the bottom...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Course, I've seen better (much, much better) things on youtube that were actually made for free.
Yea, the entertainment business needs to adopt. But file sharing (of copyrighted files) is still illegal.
Not sure I agree with this verdict, though.
CR
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Article
If anything it'll just entrench it further.
reminds me of my first year in law
Professor: There are only two types of lawyers, those who actually believe that the law is on their side, and those who like to pretend the law is on their side.
I was merely pointing out that torrenting could be a good marketing tool if used correctly. The danger to the music industry is exaggerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Does the morality of torrenting change if it's impossible to buy a certain album? If you can't buy it then what harm does it do?
Now that's a different can of worms, for example when people can buy it in one country but not in another I find that very discriminatory unless it's the laws of the country that prevent it from being sold there. It's not that I have a problem with acquiring something and compensating the producer for it and there is indeed something as too high prices but what I have a problem with is just getting it all for free just to save more money for booze, designer clothes etc. which is what a helluvalot of people do, maybe not here on the org but in the whole wide world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
I've had my share of problems with certain things as well, for example I'm not very fond of "owning" a movie for 20-30EUR on a DVD or Blu-Ray and then having to pay an additional 13EUR or more just to watch it on my iPhone in a far lower resolution. I should be able to convert and copy it from the medium I bought it on, after all I bought the right to watch it, not the right to watch it only on one medium. and if I only buy it on iTunes I can't watch it in HD because that's only for appleTV etc. blabla. it's not like I like these kind of ripoff marketing schemes but that does not mean I go and get all my movies for free, just that I watch a lot less movies than I would otherwise. For example I haven't seen Quantum of solace yet, might buy it on Blu-Ray but only for 20EUR or less, otherwise they can keep it. I do however not give them something else to blame by going to pirate bay and getting it illegally from there.
Yeah, the ability to convert media you purchased for your own use should be a given. I can't believe it's illegal in the U.S.A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
How they've managed to slip these things through the anti-monopoly laws is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Since this case is just the US government sticking it's nose in another country's business, let's use Congress' responsibility regarding patents and copyrights:
The Sonny Bono Copyright Act (the latest US law on copyright expiration) now has copyright extension to life of the author plus 70 years, or the lesser of 120 years from creation or 95 after publication for works of corporate authorship. I believe the EU has similar timeframes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution
There are two parts to Clause 8 regarding art, the need to promote the progress of art, and giving authors a limited time to reap the rewards of their work. The time is limited so authors cannot just rest on their laurels, hence promoting them to get off their lazy artist butts and keep progressing their work. One hit wonders get their chance in the spotlight, but they must continue to produce if they want to make a living at it, just like normal people. Extending copyright past the death of the artist promotes nothing, and is technically an overreach of Congressional power, hence unconstitutional. But the Supremes won't even hear a case on this, probably useless anyway due to corporate pressure by the RIAA/MPAA mafiaa. Copyright needs to get back to 14 years, regardless of personal or corporate ownership (corporations are just people too, right? ~:rolleyes:)
Not surprised about the results of the case, even if the ruling was completely bogus. It would be sweet if they try to take on Google, they offer the same services as TPB, and the lawyers financed by $1.21 Googolplex would chew up the RIAA and spit them out. Hopefully these guys get off on appeal. They aren't complete innocents here, they had full knowledge of what they were promoting, but the precedent should not be set this way.
It's a bs law that nobody enforces, I knew a couple of cops who were rather fond of copying every dvd they got from netflix after they watched them, and then they'd share the dvds with each other, and thats quite a lot more serious an offense than file sharing. So what are you going to do, fine and jail every cop that does it? fat chance the da is even going to look at something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm not quoting anyone on purpose, but what I want to say actually connects to a lot of posts that have been said.
While I agree with a lot of more "liberal" views on the issue, the best argument against file sharing connected with the music bussiness was on a alt-rock board. The guy said that he worked for the biz and that he buys every single rock album that he thinks is good. Why? Because every album he buys is a vote against bands like Nickleback and for good and small bands with creativity.
So he said that people who like Nickleback, GnR and such have less ideas about filesharing then people who listen to Tool and The mars volta (just examples). So more people download Tool albums, so the industry doesn't notice bands like them. So it is only logical that they support cash cows like Nickelback instead of supporting young creative bands, because it is exactly those bands that get mostly downloaded.
Now I am just playing the advocate off the devil and this is not my opinion. But I have to say that this was a good argument that let make me rethink quite a lot.
I always did buy the albums of my fav bands, btw.
I don't really give a damn about The Pirate Bay or what they "stand" for. When I buy good music, I know these artists put their time and effort into writing and performing these songs. This is their living. I never, and will never, pirate anything that someone put their time and effort into creating. It's a giant double standard, if a man is charged with assisting in the theft of a car, why is it a big deal when a man is charged for providing the ability to steal music? Why can't I steal a car? These car companies make enough money anyway.
How can you justify spending money on music when people are starving in africa?Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlXII
How is this relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro